So yesterday I took a look at the car because I'd found more oil on the hood.
Theres definately no oil cooler, I looked all around anywhere there was
nothing even like an oil cooler. I also couldn't find any engine oil leak, the
oil filter housing is dry and relatively clean. The engine oil is right where
it should be.
The oil appears to be ATF from the PS pump. The cap was loose and I'd lost
maybe 1/2" of ATF. The seal on the cap is old and hard and dried out. Is this a
replaceable item? Is there supposed to be a rubber of some kind on the top of
the cap? There isn't on my car...
-Curt
'85 190D "Dory" 242kmi
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 06 14:13:03 2006
Received: from server344.com ([216.35.197.52])
by server8.arterytc8.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
(Exim 4.52) id 1FyUbH-0003cd-48
for mercedes@okiebenz.com; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:13:03 +0000
Received: (qmail 30325 invoked by uid 504); 6 Jul 2006 14:12:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.10?) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by ns1.server344.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2006 14:12:56 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:12:53 -0400
From: John Ervine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mercedes Discussion List <mercedes@okiebenz.com>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT 500 PPM low sulphur ..
X-BeenThere: mercedes@okiebenz.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.7.cp2
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mercedes Discussion List <mercedes@okiebenz.com>
List-Id: Mercedes Discussion List <mercedes_okiebenz.com.okiebenz.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>,
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Archive: </pipermail/mercedes_okiebenz.com>
List-Post: <mailto:mercedes@okiebenz.com>
List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Subscribe: <http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com>,
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:13:03 -0000
Luther Gulseth wrote:
>
> Damn I can be pretty vague when it's late and I'm tired....
> I believe it is completely off base. ULSD in it's native state will have
> less lubricity (due to the stripping of the sulfur) and require that the
> company selling or distributing add lubrication to the fuel. The fuel may
> have better lubricity due to better addatives like BioD. Does this help?
Yeah, I understand that the lower sulphur would result in a basic fuel with
less
lubricity. But again, my point was:
"It was my understanding that the lubricity of ULSD is actually better than
standard LSD due to a new set of fuel additives."
From Chevron:
"Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to lubricate and protect the
various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from wear.The processing
required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also removes naturally-occurring lubricity
agents in diesel fuel. To manage this change the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) adopted the lubricity specification defined in ASTM D975
for all diesel fuels and this standard went into effect January 1, 2005."
http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/diesel/ulsd.shtml#A10
So that tells me that the additives are *required* in order to meet the ASTM
specifications. So why again will truckers need to add an additive package to
their fuel when it is already being done at the distribution terminals? That's
what I'm trying to understand.
--
John L. Ervine
1981 240D 4-spd 270+kmi
1980 300TD 180+kmi
1980 300SD 277+kmi
1977 280S 4-spd 81+kmi
1976 350SE 4-spd 163+kmi
1972 220 278+kmi
