• Welcome to The Truck Stop! We see you haven't REGISTERED yet.

    Your truck knowledge is missing!
    • Registration is FREE , all we need is your birthday and email. (We don't share ANY data with ANYONE)
    • We have tons of knowledge here for your diesel truck!
    • Post your own topics and reply to existing threads to help others out!
    • NO ADS! The site is fully functional and ad free!
    CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

    Problems registering? Click here to contact us!

    Already registered, but need a PASSWORD RESET? CLICK HERE TO RESET YOUR PASSWORD!

JP-8 in a Duramax

merlin5577

merlin5577

Diesel > Gasoline
Messages
322
Reaction score
1
Location
Taunton, MA
Anyone running (or have run) JP-8 in their Duramax? If so? Experiences? Thoughts? Pros and cons?

Thanks! :cheers2:
 
Based on this, I say no go in a Dmax:




UNCLAS: Dist A. Approved for public release
JP-8 is the United States Army’s fuel of choice for use on the battlefield. It was so designated by the
Department of Defense in its “Single Fuel Forward” policy in 1988.
JP-8 properties
JP-8 properties are defined in MIL-DTL-83133. Copies of this standard are available at the Defense
Energy Support Center (DESC) web site, www.desc.dla.mil.
JP-8 is a low lubricity fuel in comparison to commercial DF-2. The aromatic content of JP-8 is lower than
DF-2 which is an indirect indicator of lubricity differences between these two fuels.
Another difference from diesel fuel is its viscosity as shown in the figure below (SAE 2009-01-1099). This
lower viscosity can be a challenge to fuel systems when trying to develop high injection pressures or
when attempting to minimize the engine full load power degradation experienced when operating on
JP-8.
The JP-8 spec allows for up to 3000ppm sulfur (versus 15ppm for on-road diesel fuel). Data from the
DESC shows that sulfur levels in JP-8 actually purchased by the military has ranged from near zero all the
way up to the 3000ppm limit. The average for 2007 on the east coast of the United States was
2110ppm. High-sulfur fuel is a known poison to most automotive catalysts, leads to increased
particulate output in the engine exhaust, and also leads to sulfuric acid formation in the intake manifold,
especially in systems with EGR coolers.
UNCLAS: Dist A. Approved for public release
JP-8 experience
JP-8 has caused numerous challenges across the fleet of vehicles with reciprocating engines. This has been a matter of continuing investigation by TARDEC. An SAE paper (2009-01-1099) concluded that “In general, unit injection systems have demonstrated significant tolerance to low lubricity JP-8 in various combat and tactical vehicle applications based on both field and laboratory evaluation experience.” There is very little common rail fuel system experience with JP-8 to date. TARDEC has several programs underway to evaluate both the durability of current commercial common rail systems, and to investigate ways to harden commercial common rail systems for use with JP-8.
 
Wrecker said:
Based on this, I say no go in a Dmax:




UNCLAS: Dist A. Approved for public release
JP-8 is the United States Army’s fuel of choice for use on the battlefield. It was so designated by the
Department of Defense in its “Single Fuel Forward” policy in 1988.
JP-8 properties
JP-8 properties are defined in MIL-DTL-83133. Copies of this standard are available at the Defense
Energy Support Center (DESC) web site, www.desc.dla.mil.
JP-8 is a low lubricity fuel in comparison to commercial DF-2. The aromatic content of JP-8 is lower than
DF-2 which is an indirect indicator of lubricity differences between these two fuels.
Another difference from diesel fuel is its viscosity as shown in the figure below (SAE 2009-01-1099). This
lower viscosity can be a challenge to fuel systems when trying to develop high injection pressures or
when attempting to minimize the engine full load power degradation experienced when operating on
JP-8.
The JP-8 spec allows for up to 3000ppm sulfur (versus 15ppm for on-road diesel fuel). Data from the
DESC shows that sulfur levels in JP-8 actually purchased by the military has ranged from near zero all the
way up to the 3000ppm limit. The average for 2007 on the east coast of the United States was
2110ppm. High-sulfur fuel is a known poison to most automotive catalysts, leads to increased
particulate output in the engine exhaust, and also leads to sulfuric acid formation in the intake manifold,
especially in systems with EGR coolers.
UNCLAS: Dist A. Approved for public release
JP-8 experience
JP-8 has caused numerous challenges across the fleet of vehicles with reciprocating engines. This has been a matter of continuing investigation by TARDEC. An SAE paper (2009-01-1099) concluded that “In general, unit injection systems have demonstrated significant tolerance to low lubricity JP-8 in various combat and tactical vehicle applications based on both field and laboratory evaluation experience.” There is very little common rail fuel system experience with JP-8 to date. TARDEC has several programs underway to evaluate both the durability of current commercial common rail systems, and to investigate ways to harden commercial common rail systems for use with JP-8.
Click to expand...

Holy crap wrecker! :thumbsup: Thanks! :cheers2:



Still, if anyone has any experience running JP-8, i'd love to hear about your experiences. Thanks!
 
I know some members will say that in Irag and Aghanistan alot of Diesel are using JP8. Since JP8 is low on cetane therefore that would cause severe power loss. Not to mentioned the amount of sulfur that is present..upwards to 3000 ppm and no: sulfur doesn't provide lubricity....it is a molecule attached to sulfur that does. CR Diesel's would suffer tremendously using this fuel as older design diesel could if some additives were used....(short term use; combat use...)
 
Hi Bob I did not recall you were on this site also, it can be run in 6.2/6.5 I have done it but low psi fuel injection in ours, and when i ran it I ran with a additive and some 30wt oil or 2 cycle, because of low lubricity also would not do more than 50% with regular Nr2, it is tempting to run some "waste" JP that is what I was doing when running the jet test cell in Jax.

But in a 20K+ psi fuel system I'm with the rest of the crowd I would not do it, ULSD is bad enough;

JP blends or Jet A a little too lean on the lubrication factor, actually the jury is not out that ULSD is not a detriment to fuel controls used in marine gas turbines USN is shifting to DFCs because of high fail rate and rebuild costs of the hydro mechanical fuel controls that does not seem to be improving with ULSD
 
Last edited:
Just a thought, but maybe a mixture of 50% B99 and 50% JP-8 ???? That would take care of the lubricity end of things. And it could ONLY be utilized in 2006 and older trucks as to the sulfur content.
 
I have ran 50/50 mix in duramax it had too fast of a burn rate and had problems with limp mode having said that 30 jp8 and 70 ulsd gave me no problems but I always run a 8 oz bottle of 2 cycle engine oil with every tank since I don't trust ulsd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top