Fuel Additive Not 2007 Approved

Keith Browning · July 3, 2006

I am de-carbonizing another 6.0 and I charged out a fresh bottle of Ford's Cetane Booster& Performance Improver and discovered the following sticker on the bottle:

Quote:

This diesel fuel additive does not comply with federal ultra-low sulfur content requirements for use in model year 2007 and newer diesel motor vehicles or model year 2011 and newer non-road equipment engines.

I guess this stuff has a lot of sulfur in it?

snw blue by you · July 3, 2006

Keith,

This sounds like more confusing B.S

I call your attention to SSM 19217

In essense it says our '07 has a carry over '06

engine and fuel system design so LSD and it's additives will not cause any issues.

However the '08 6.4L will be a different story.

LARRY BRUDZYNSKI · July 3, 2006

Keith, are these new stickers? I just got some in from our FAD with a date code on the box 09/29/05. Is there new stock we should be getting from them? Or is this the same formula?

Keith Browning · July 3, 2006

I honestly don't know why but assume the stuff has sulfur in it. I don't think its all that confusing either. If a truck requires ULSD then the additive should not be used.

As for the bottle and the sticker its the same bottle and label with an extra sticker with the warning. We received new stock a week ago.

snw blue by you · July 4, 2006

I honestly don't know why but assume the stuff has sulfur in it. I don't think its all that confusing either. If a truck requires ULSD then the additive should not be used.

As for the bottle and the sticker its the same bottle and label with an extra sticker with the warning. We received new stock a week ago.

But what Ford is telling us (the consumer) is that the '07 does not require ULSD exclusively, and that the use of LSD and it's additives is ok.

I printed out the message,and gave it to the writers so they can show the customers with '07s

Might sound funny,but due to the labeling on the pumps,we have had customers call or come in and ask about what they can and cannot run.

In simplest terms, the '07 does not require ULSD, however the '08 will.

Keith Browning · July 4, 2006

Ummm, I am aware that the 2007 Super Duty is a carry over with a 2006 engine. That is a different topic altogether. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif I just want to know what's the deal with the product itself. Perhaps in the future we will see a Cetane and Lubricity improver?

Jim Warman · July 4, 2006

There is always the opportunity for this product to fall into the hands of someone that doesn't drive a Ford diesel.

With that in mind. let's pick the wording of the label apart and see what makes it tick...

The label could just as well have read "Not suitable for use in engines requiring ULSD fuel". But this would have certainly called attention to Ford marketing 06 technology as 07 trucks - and I am unsure that other marques are having these some concerns. By stating quite flatly that the product isn't to be used in 07 motors, there will possibly be a large number of people that will never realize Fords sleight of hand regarding "model years".

Used to be that the new model year started in September.... even when the Mustang was first introduced in mid-year, it was touted as 64.5 (and was easily identified by it's use of the 5 bolt bellhousing for the V8s and the generator (rather than alternator) in all instances.

Now, we have 03 trucks and we have 04 trucks that aren't and 04 trucks that are and alzheimers appears to be a condition that Ma Ford is nurturing.

"Does my truck have a GEM or not?"... I don't know, let me look at your CJB....

As for "new breed" additives.... I think Elmer Fudd said it best - "Be afwaid, be vewy, vewy afwaid...".

Torqued_Up · July 12, 2006

The label could just as well have read "Not suitable for use in engines requiring ULSD fuel".

I think thats all it needed to state. Leave the model years out of it and there really should be no question.

WGLR13MWZ · September 16, 2006

The manufacturers for the Ford addatives are currently working on changing the formula to make it compliant for Jan 1, 2007. It is compliant with the ULSD but not with the ULSD engine in reguards to emmisions. The EPA mandadtes that as long as we are selling the current formula a sticker must be on the product to insure the customer is in the know. As we all know, the way it is worded the customer is in a state of confusion. Ford shipped enough of these stickers to be placed on your dealers current inventory and all product coming form the PDC or WD should already have the sticker on it. In fact if you sell a bottle with out it on there and the EPA catches the dealer, there is a seriously hefty fine (34k I think).

As far as the thinking that there is sulfur in it, I don't have the answer. But the PM17A is built with certain attributes in mind such as cetane booster, a lubricity agent, and an injector cleaner.

Jim Warman · September 16, 2006

With everyone scrambling to cover their asses from any possible litigation, we may soon see 3 ounces of product in a one gallon container simply because they needed that much room for the warning label....

And it's not just the customer that is in a state of confusion..... If someone asks me about a product, I like to be able to snap the answer back off in no time flat...

It's getting to be that there is just way to much info (that may or may not seem trivial)that is buried in the bowels of some obscure tome that no one has a copy of. Even doing a search om Motorcraft.com turns up no hits on pm17... (but if you enter a 2007 F350 with 6.0, the fuel system heading will offer a "choke parts" option).

With the internet, computers and all the wonderful gadgets we take for granted, is there not some way that Ford could put this information into a database that is at our finger tips? I don't like it when I am left looking like a drooling idiot in front of a customer because of some of these oversights...