Diesel Place banner

AmsOil Diesel Additive

5K views 25 replies 10 participants last post by  c12719 
#1 ·
I know GM only suports use of the Stanadyne additives but what is everyone's take on the new AmsOil additive? My biggest problem is finding the Stanadyne and I want something I can find easily without issues.

I'm running AmsOil Synthetic oil so it would be easy to order at the same time.
 
#3 ·
#5 ·
That is because they are getting rid of the old formula before the updated one is out.
 
#6 · (Edited)
I'm an Amsoil independent dealer, and my monthly magazine came in the other day.
It has an article about the newly reformulated diesel additives and states that the reformulation was in response to the new ULSD fuel having lower lubricity, etc.
I've been using the Diesel Fuel Concentrate for at least 2 years. Before that I used the Diesel Fuel Modifier (both Amsoil). The DFM was stated to be the additive for light duty diesels such as ours, and that's why I used it.
Inquiries to Amsoil over the dealer info n etwork revealed the DFM had no lubricity increasing properties, and that I could use the DFC, just trouble to measure correctly, as it came in an opaque bottle, no graduations.
Under the reformulation DFM has been eliminated, and the DFC comes in a graduated, translucent bottle, and is for all diesels. Mixes 1 oz per 5 gallons fuel.
There is another additive, Cold Flow Improver, for use in cold climates. Seems to me that unless you are unfortunate enough to live in extreme cold areas, the winter blend sold should be enough to handle that?
Coming in October is a new Cetane improver.
All these additives are formulated to meet the requirements of the new ULSD fuel.
Ive still got enough of the old additive for 400 gallons of fuel at the old mix ratio of 1.6 oz per 10 gallons, guess I'll just use a bit more when I encounter the ULSD (haven't seen it yet here).
Dave
 
#7 ·
I saw the new AmsOil magazine as well that is why I am asking.

I know without GM's blessing we are all guessing but I just wonder if AmsOil's solution is similar to the Stanadyne or at least "safe" for the Duramax since it's a picky little machine.

I don't want to hurt it but a little additive in an easy to measure bottle would be nice.
 
#8 ·
Hmmmm, Amsoil states that the new ULSD will need additives to prevent equipment malfunction. Then they go on to say that the particulate filters plug easily (Lets get one installed already) and they can prevent this with their additive. Then comes the statement that their fuel additive can control TBN levels. Thanks but no thanks...........
 
#9 ·
Wow control of TBN? Must be some stuff. Does it do windows too?

Make sure it is a de-emulsifier or don't use it.
 
#10 ·
About TBN, Amsoil says that the new requirements for CJ-4 oils only allow enough sulfated ash to reach a max tbn of 8, making tbn retention of tbn level even more important.
They state that the new additive contains elements to neutralize acids during combustion, and promote cleaner burning through cleaner injectors.
As for emulsification or demusification, the Amsoil additives have always been neutral in this aspect, according to answers to my inquiries on the dealer network.
 
#11 · (Edited)
Horsehaulin;1303653; said:
That is because they are getting rid of the old formula before the updated one is out.
Camping World's price on Stanadyne has been close to the same for years. Same with Blueridge and others that carry it as well as some of the vendors on the forum.

Amsoil may be the best thing since peanut butter but a few things bring me pause. They don't publish their formula as does Stanadyne, it hasn't been tested at a reputable indpendent lab as has Stanadyne and quite a few others. And has not been given the green light by GM, Ford, Deere, Volvo, VW and many others as has Stanadyne. I do note that it uses a demulsifier which is good and it just may be a great product. As for myself I just don't feel like experimenting with a $11,000 engine or taking the chance of voiding the warranty. Bio 5% is hard to beat and has been ok'd by GM.
BTW, who said Stanadyne is changing their formula?
 
#12 ·
ULSD will not have any lubricity problems. It will meet all the manufacturers lubricity standards. It has to.

DEWFPO
 
#13 · (Edited)
DEWFPO;1307058; said:
ULSD will not have any lubricity problems. It will meet all the manufacturers lubricity standards. It has to.

DEWFPO
Exactamundo. The marketing hype going on with additives and the ULSD by additive dealers seems to have brought unwarranted (IMO) concern and in some cases, all the way to sleepless nights worrying with others. A little research from industry sources and staying away from the hype ads of the additive producers can be quite enlightening. Not to be too scarcastic but I find it odd that so many on the forum are so far ahead of the teams of degreed engineers and chemists at GM, Bosch, Chevron and the rest (a long list).

Out of a bit more than a year of asking other diesel owners while filling up, I have only ran into one that uses additives! And if anyone hasn't been through Havasu you're missing the greatest spectical of diesels (from both CA and AZ) in the world. Anyone not owning a diesel in this town is quickly ran outa town. Additives usage? Just about unheard of.
 
#14 ·
c12719;1307414; said:
Exactamundo. The marketing hype going on with additives and the ULSD by additive dealers seems to have brought unwarranted (IMO) concern and in some cases, all the way to sleepless nights worrying with others. A little research from industry sources and staying away from the hype ads of the additive producers can be quite enlightening. Not to be too scarcastic but I find it odd that so many on the forum are so far ahead of the teams of degreed engineers and chemists at GM, Bosch, Chevron and the rest (a long list).

Out of a bit more than a year of asking other diesel owners while filling up, I have only ran into one that uses additives! And if anyone hasn't been through Havasu you're missing the greatest spectical of diesels (from both CA and AZ) in the world. Anyone not owning a diesel in this town is quickly ran outa town. Additives usage? Just about unheard of.
I'll 2nd that exactamundo. ;)

While I don't feel additives are a bad thing someone would have to be crazy to think refining/engineering groups aren't covering quality issues. It's those misleading adds like the Amsoil one linked here that causes me to write myself off as their customer. It pisses me off the way they put out misinformation in order to seek corporate gain..... I really liked the way they said the particulate filters plug easily and their additive will prevent this from happening. It would seem they would at least wait untill particulate filters are in use before making such a bold statement. Even if one didn't plug how would they know that their additive was the reason. :blahblah:
 
#16 · (Edited)
dirty old man;1307998; said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that what most of us have been calling a catalytic converter on the newer trucks is tecnically referred to as a particulate filter. Seems as if I read that somewhere.
Dave
I believe it's a catalytic converter (at lease on my 05). I think the new 07's will be equipped with both a CAT and a soot trap. There are several guys on here that know the exhaust system like the palm of their right hand and I'm sure we'll get a conformation soon. I'm very curious about the 07 and if anyone has any hard data please jump in.
 
#17 ·
According to the shop that rebuilds the IP's for our older Ford 7.3's. Stanadyne is reformulating and should already have the new stuff out. The older additive was great for adding lubricity to 500ppm, but not strong enough for the new ULSD. That is the short of what I read from his companies HQ.
 
#18 ·
Horsehaulin;1308312; said:
According to the shop that rebuilds the IP's for our older Ford 7.3's. Stanadyne is reformulating and should already have the new stuff out. The older additive was great for adding lubricity to 500ppm, but not strong enough for the new ULSD. That is the short of what I read from his companies HQ.
Why would they need to reformulate to increase lubricity when the ULSD will be coming through with the same or better lubricity that before? I do know they have their new label out already but that's marketing - the old "New and Improved". This info is from a Ford shop? This myth of ULSD just keeps going. It will meet the same ASTM spec for lubricity as before. Stanadyne may say they've reformulated but that means they could change a chemicals fraction by one drop in a tanker and be able to say that - just marketing. BTW, Stanadyne doesn't make the additive they sell.
 
#19 ·
c12719, I know that ULSD will have a lubricity additive already added to it, and no this is not a Ford only shop. These guys work on everything from kubota tractors to Big Cats. They also do turbo's amungst other parts. That was what the letter put out by his supplier. I had it wrong in the first post, I called and he corrected me. You are right about adding one drop of something to 1000 gallons being a reformulation. Goes to show you that you cant trust anyone these days.

Who knows, maybe this letter was nothing more than a sales gimic, to try and get new customers worried about the new fuel and dont know about the lubricity levels in the ULSD.
 
#20 ·
Horsehaulin;1308375; said:
c12719, I know that ULSD will have a lubricity additive already added to it, and no this is not a Ford only shop. These guys work on everything from kubota tractors to Big Cats. They also do turbo's amungst other parts. That was what the letter put out by his supplier. I had it wrong in the first post, I called and he corrected me. You are right about adding one drop of something to 1000 gallons being a reformulation. Goes to show you that you cant trust anyone these days.

Who knows, maybe this letter was nothing more than a sales gimic, to try and get new customers worried about the new fuel and dont know about the lubricity levels in the ULSD.
Thanks for looking into it further. As you were doing that I shot off a long letter to the additive dept at Standyne and asked that a chemist reply. As they publish their formula one of the things I asked was what was changed on a chemical level and what percentages were used. Also, of course, asked what the rational was that would motovate them to make a change other than marketing if the new fuel will still have to meet the same ASTM spec for lubricity as before.

Thanks for your input! I like your approach. I've got to be one of the biggest skeptics in the country after leaving science and then spending the last 8 years in marketing in NYC. Eight was all I could take. I'm now in recovery which consists of 4x out on wilderness roads in the desert. The Sidewinders are much more amicable than my past co-workers.
 
#21 ·
If I remember correctly the Lubricity standard that ULSD did not compare favorably to what Bosch was recommending in a presentation to CARB back in 2004.

Bosch had a graph showing wear/lifetime versus lubricity. The number agreed to for the new fuel was at best adequate but not one that would promote long life.

Now I do not know if today...2006 versus what was proposed in 2004 for ULSD is the same...hopefully they improved it.

They main thing here is what is the current lubricity standards and how does it compare to what Bosch is predicting for lifetime for our fuel systems...
 
#22 ·
RonJT;1308441; said:
If I remember correctly the Lubricity standard that ULSD did not compare favorably to what Bosch was recommending in a presentation to CARB back in 2004.

Bosch had a graph showing wear/lifetime versus lubricity. The number agreed to for the new fuel was at best adequate but not one that would promote long life.

Now I do not know if today...2006 versus what was proposed in 2004 for ULSD is the same...hopefully they improved it.

They main thing here is what is the current lubricity standards and how does it compare to what Bosch is predicting for lifetime for our fuel systems...
Ron,
I read the same refered to article. Dismaying wasn't it? I was told by two chem engineers at Chevron that the new additive pack will boost the lubricity higher in large part do to the *****ing by Bosch. I can't very well ask these guys to sign statements as they have the suits above them so it's hearsay. My feelings are that there is way too much hype and concern going on but, do I use an additive? Stanadyne Lubricity Formula. I've kind of grown to like the smell of it after many spills on my shirts. I also noticed that it dries pretty quickly in this 6% relative humidity and you can rub the dry residue between the thump and forefinger and it's quite slick.
 
#23 ·
C12719,

So are you saying that Chevron used Bosch as the driver for the spec for their fuel??

BTW: I have a Seat O Meter report...the Chevron diesel around here(still hard to find even thou...I live about 9 miles from the refinery)...seems to run the best. Mileage is good along with smoothness and balance rates on the injectors.

The shell diesel seems to be the worst.
 
#24 ·
RonJT;1308564; said:
C12719,

So are you saying that Chevron used Bosch as the driver for the spec for their fuel??

BTW: I have a Seat O Meter report...the Chevron diesel around here(still hard to find even thou...I live about 9 miles from the refinery)...seems to run the best. Mileage is good along with smoothness and balance rates on the injectors.

The shell diesel seems to be the worst.
No, not saying that. I am not privy to any "hard talk" or decision conversations. It was mentioned that there had been correspondece (consutation) between the two which was one of several matters discussed. The concern regarding lubricity and the inconsistancy thereof was brought up by Bosch. As I stated, this was from two Chevron chemists I was speaking with at the same time and is therefore third party hearsay. The discussion was on the subject of chemistry and they infered nothing regarding marketing or made any conjecture regarding marketing, value nor anything else that might reflect on any company. I would infer that if Bosch "mentioned" or "discussed" a "hint" of concern regarding lubricity, it would be taken as a strong message regarless of what diplomatic terms it was couched in.

Until I see an up to date statement by Bosch I'll just keep sniffing the Stanadyne and get some sleep.
 
#25 ·
While I do believe ULSD will meet lubricity requirements I still like to add a little lubricity additive for the warm fuzzy feeling of having added protection. My biggest complaint has nothing to do with the use of additives. It's the inaccurate information and scare tactics being used by additive manufacturers to market their products.....Now a days you can't believe 1/2 of what you hear.....
 
#26 ·
a bear;1308637; said:
While I do believe ULSD will meet lubricity requirements I still like to add a little lubricity additive for the warm fuzzy feeling of having added protection. My biggest complaint has nothing to do with the use of additives. It's the inaccurate information and scare tactics being used by additive manufacturers to market their products.....Now a days you can't believe 1/2 of what you hear.....
Exactly. What amazes me is how many people on the forum buy into their crap. Isn't science and deductive and inductive reasoning taught in the schools anymore? Sorry if I've offended anyone but as a con once told me, "Someone's got to shear the sheep". Not a job I'd want.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top