Search Results

A technology demonstration program was conducted by the U.S. Army to verify the feasibility of using aviation turbine fuel JP-8 in all military diesel fuel-consuming ground vehicles and equipment (V/E). Over 2,800 pieces of military equipment participated in a two and one-half year program accumulating over 2,621,000 total miles (4,219,810 km) using JP-8 in combat/tracked, tactical/wheeled, and transportation motor pool vehicles. Over 71,000 hours of operation were accumulated in diesel/turbine engine-driven generator sets using JP-8 fuel. Comparisons of various performance areas with baseline diesel fuel (DF-2) operation were made.

A technology demonstration program using modified administrative-type vehicles was conducted by the Army to determine the feasibility of using methanol as an alternative fuel. Over 1,026,000 miles (1,651,190 km) were accumulated using 64 sedan and pickup vehicles. Approximately 750,000 of these miles (1,207,010 km) were accumulated using M85 methanol fuel. Using M85 increases the fuel cost by a factor of approximately 3.0. No catastrophic engine failure occurred with the use of the M85 fuel. Even though wear rates, indicated from used oil samples analyses, obtained when using M85 fuel appear to be 2 to 4 times those obtained using unleaded gasoline, actual wear, from inspections and measurements, does not appear to be as severe. M85 refueling stations were set up at four fleet test sites, and no significant operational or safety problem was encountered during the program.

A high-output Army two-cycle diesel engine was subjected to proving-ground related laboratory-dynamometer endurance test cycles using four different qualified MIL-L-2104C SAE grade 30 lubricants. Three diesel fuels differing mainly in sulfur level and end point temperature were an important part of the test matrix. Two lubricants (low- and mid-ash level) produced acceptable performance and a third (of high-ash level) was considered borderline acceptable--all during operation with reference No. 2 diesel fuel (0.42% wt sulfur). A fourth oil (low-ash level) was judged to be incompatible due to its proneness to severe piston and liner scuffing. The engine was judged incompatible with a high sulfur/high end-point [1.2%S/396°C (744°F) EP] fuel intended to meet MIL-F-16884F (Marine Diesel Fuel) using two different MIL-L-2104C lubricants. This engine was also judged to be incompatible with a special blend of NATO F-54 diesel fuel (0.64% sulfur) during operation with the same two lubricants.