Nick has asked that I bring the discussion to a new thread. This way the original thread and report can be permanantly archived in the Sticky's. So, carry on! Same discussion under a new title! SPICER

To anyone who would like to forward this data to other sites, etc. Please send the above PDF version, not the one in the original post by me. This one has all of the recent updates and changes. Thank You! Arlen Spicer.

well as the first response to this thread, one like everyone else good job Arlen(btw i need those 2 trees down if you have some time send me a $$).

Also, I'm really bummed out, if not PO'd that my FPPF 'Lubricity plus Fuel Power' fared so poorly. I bought 5 gallons of this stuff on sale and it's worse that using no addivtive at all.

I'd like to convince myself that your sample was a bad batch

I understood it was OK to ad 2-cycle oil at the rate of 32 oz. per 26 gal. tank. The test showed it was added at 16 oz. My question is: Does this double the lubricity performance? If so, the 2-cycle lubricity numbers would be much higher in the ranking. I have been using at this ratio for several months and had no problems.

Hi Spicer, great work on the study. New member here and I think this is going to really open up the debate on lubricity, etc.

I read the entire lubricity posts (kinda seeing double right now:) but I'm not sure I saw the answer to this and if you can ask the lab guys I'd appreciate it.

1. How do the additives already put in the ULSD react with the aftermarket or homebrew additives in your study? Are there any thoughts about this from the petrochemical specialists on this board? Would we see the same reduction in wear from bio diesel or the opti lube product if the ULSD had not been virgin? In other words, would the bio knock down the scar reading the same huge amount or would the existing additve package allow the bio diesel to lubricate even at a lower wear scar reading?

2. Can the additives that are suppose to be added to the ULSD make a over the counter or homebrew additive work better than what we saw with the virgin ULSD?

3. On the opposite end, can the ULSD additives react adversly with the over the counter or homebrew additives we ad in?

Hope this all makes sense.

Again, thanks for the effort in this study...it really was eye opening.

Cheers,
5150 H1

Been using Primrose 405 for over 120,000 miles over two different vehicles, both Bosch HPCR.

NO FUEL SYSTEM ISSUES

I love the stuff.

George of http://www.avlube.com/addiga.html is very very knowledgeable and was one of the first to step up and teach everyone about diesel fuel and how to keep it 100%

I understood it was OK to ad 2-cycle oil at the rate of 32 oz. per 26 gal. tank. The test showed it was added at 16 oz. My question is: Does this double the lubricity performance? If so, the 2-cycle lubricity numbers would be much higher in the ranking. I have been using at this ratio for several months and had no problems.
The way I understand it, it is impossible to know. Sometimes a double dose shows a slight improvement over a single dose, sometimes a big improvement. It all depends on the so called lubricty saturation point of the particular additive in a particular fuel. And without lab work, it is a guess. SPICER

Hi Spicer, great work on the study. New member here and I think this is going to really open up the debate on lubricity, etc.

I read the entire lubricity posts (kinda seeing double right now:) but I'm not sure I saw the answer to this and if you can ask the lab guys I'd appreciate it.

1. How do the additives already put in the ULSD react with the aftermarket or homebrew additives in your study? Are there any thoughts about this from the petrochemical specialists on this board? Would we see the same reduction in wear from bio diesel or the opti lube product if the ULSD had not been virgin? In other words, would the bio knock down the scar reading the same huge amount or would the existing additve package allow the bio diesel to lubricate even at a lower wear scar reading?

2. Can the additives that are suppose to be added to the ULSD make a over the counter or homebrew additive work better than what we saw with the virgin ULSD?

3. On the opposite end, can the ULSD additives react adversly with the over the counter or homebrew additives we ad in?

Hope this all makes sense.

Again, thanks for the effort in this study...it really was eye opening.

Cheers,
5150 H1

The way I understand it, bio prettty much always works. There are some definite instances of additives not working well together, but I have no details on this. Again, probably a hit or miss propostion. On the other hand, they can work synergistically. I would like to see more info and data on this, but it is beyond the scope of my work and over my head. SPICER

I have used the Stanadyne Performance and Power Service Diesel Kleen for years in my 6.5 TD and now in my LBZ. I'm wondering if there products that were designed for use with "old" diesel fuel formula and not not the new Ultra Low Sulfur had different goals ? Now that most all (on road) Diesel is Ultra Low Sulfur (primary purpose of the sulfur was lubrication) we will probably see Stanadyne and the other Diesel additive company's start to change their focus. For years I was concerned with preventing algae, dissipating water, preventing gelling in winters(in VT) and hell if you can add some cetane at the same time to increase power that was all that mattered, I never thought (or worried about) about lubrication was it an issue before Ultra Low Sulfur fuel? And to date (at least till 2006) GM does not recommend any diesel additives {obviously most of us think we know better } Unfortunately I live in New England where no one carrys Bio Diesel, so it looks like I have to rethink my Diesel additive needs. As a completely neutral party to any previous gripes about testing , It would be a more "scientific" if a random sample of Opti Lube XPD that was purchased by a "John Doe" and tested again. It would be nice to be able to purchase one additive to cure all of our Diesel fuel concerns instead of mixing up our own cocktails and witches brew ;-)
And Thanks to all who took the time, effort, $ etc to make make the study happen. {anyone care to scientifically study chips and programmers for fuel economy and power ;-) next}

Hey SPICER,

I recently noticed that Stanadyne must have changed their additives to be compatible with ULSD.

When I received my recent purchase, I noticed that now they have a bright yellow notice with black letters that states Formulated for
ULTRA LOW SULFURSo I was wondering if the Stanadyne bottles you received for the test were the old formula or the new formula.

You can check out their new labels HERE (http://www.stanadyne.com/new/ppt/showfile.asp?id=3384).

The Standyne has been formulated for the ULSD. Look at the bottle, it says fromulated for low sulphur diesel. Their site claims that it does the job. I hope so as I still have a case.

The Standyne has been formulated for the ULSD. Look at the bottle, it says fromulated for low sulphur diesel. Their site claims that it does the job. I hope so as I still have a case.
That's what I am refering to.

The bottles I have from a previous purchase do NOT say Formulated for ULTRA LOW SULFUR on the label. The new ones DO say it.

I just wanted to verify that the additives used for the test came from bottles with that statement on the label.

That's what I am refering to.

The bottles I have from a previous purchase do NOT say Formulated for ULTRA LOW SULFUR on the label. The new ones DO say it.

I just wanted to verify that the additives used for the test came from bottles with that statement on the label.

I will have to look at the bottles. Can't remember off the top of my head. I will get back to you on this. SPICER

I can't say for certain, but I seem to recall that the Stanadyne rebadging was to certify that it didn't add any sulfur compounds (and endanger ULSD specified emissions equipment), not really a remix to change the lubricity additives.

I can't say for certain, but I seem to recall that the Stanadyne rebadging was to certify that it didn't add any sulfur compounds (and endanger ULSD specified emissions equipment), not really a remix to change the lubricity additives.
Could very well be.

Perhaps they should be contacted to find out for sure if there is any difference.

I can't say for certain, but I seem to recall that the Stanadyne rebadging was to certify that it didn't add any sulfur compounds (and endanger ULSD specified emissions equipment), not really a remix to change the lubricity additives.

What determines the ability to badge as "ULSD compliant" is the sulfer content in the additive. It MUST be 15ppm or less just as the fuel must be. An additive labeled "formulated for ULSD" may or may not be formulated with more lubricating compounds. It would make sense that it has more lubricating ability, but the label simply may be making reference to the sulfer content. SPICER

What determines the ability to badge as "ULSD compliant" is the sulfer content in the additive. It MUST be 15ppm or less just as the fuel must be. An additive labeled "formulated for ULSD" may or may not be formulated with more lubricating compounds. It would make sense that it has more lubricating ability, but the label simply may be making reference to the sulfer content. SPICER
This is true, but do we know for sure if they actually changed their formula? If the Stanadyne additives that were used for the test did not say so on the label, how do we know if the formula used is what's available for sale now?

If the labels DID say that they were formulated for ULSD, then we would know for sure that the latest formula was used and my question would be answered.

I'm not at all trying to cast doubt on the test results. I am merely asking for some clarification. :)

When I was reasearching additives a year ago I chose Stanadyne. My first order did not have the "ULSD" label on it. It is federal law that mandates this label. I remember reading that the formula was still the same just a new label to comply with the law. Back then we did not know as much as we do now. It seemed Stanadyne took the approach that they were not changing their precious additive. Personally, I still use two of their additives. I have 26k miles on my truck and it has burned a lot of jet fuel.

Any info on temperature affects of lubricity of fuels, additives, and at what temperature is fluid during the wear scar test?

I've read a bit recently on diesel fuel temp and read specifically 135F temp should be highest sent to the IP and diese fuel looses appreciable lubricity after 150F. FWIW I read typically vegetable oil lubricity is good up til 300F IIRC.

how hot is our fuel on a summer day when it makes it to the engine? My Titan tank is wrapped around my fuel cooler. If the additive bonds with the fuel then are we thinking there is a temp when it becomes un-bonded?

Just discussing and trying learn. I am a 6.5 and no fuel cooler different animal. My IP and fuel filter/manager lives in the valley of the engine though and fuel temps interest me. Internal IP measures fuel temps in the 160F range? during operation. I am only guessing at this point additive performance may differ at higher temp range somewhat. If regular fuel thins and looses lubricity at 150F and vegetable is good up to 300F stands to reason different additives will change too. May be generally linear shift may not be.

I just checked my standyne bottles I purchased about a month ago and they say "Formulated for Ultra Low Sulfur." BTW I notice a big difference in my 6.5when I use the standyne vs not in the tank.

After reading the study and thinking about it for a few hours I think there should have been one more (2 really) fluid added to the test. WVO and SVO. Since the bio did the best would SVO and WVO mixed in in the same percentage as the bio would perform the same. I would think if they don't perform exactly as the bio that they would probably be a close 2nd or 3rd. and compared to the price of the addative that were tested, The WVO is free and the SVO is a lot cheaper than the addatives when compared to cost per oz. What are the thoughts of others?

Any info on temperature affects of lubricity of fuels, additives, and at what temperature is fluid during the wear scar test?

I've read a bit recently on diesel fuel temp and read specifically 135F temp should be highest sent to the IP and diese fuel looses appreciable lubricity after 150F. FWIW I read typically vegetable oil lubricity is good up til 300F IIRC.

I do not remember the temp the test is run at, but the fluid is held to a constant temp. HFRR can be effected by temp. I will check the Stanadyne bottles, but I remember them saying ULSD compliant. I will not get a chance to look for a few days. As stated, ULSD compliant means it has 15ppm sulfer or less (in the additive). Whether or not these formulations have added lubricity to compensate for the ULSD is another question entirely. SPICER

Spicer, I can't remember reading it or not, but was there any type of statistical analysis applied to the results to delineate which differences were significant and which were not (for example the additives that actually did slightly worse than just the fuel alone)?

I don't think you can do any real statistical analysis with one data point. Spicer explains the test is 20 points +/- variation. The pdf file write up goes into more detail than first post maybe, or if you are like me took a few readings and thinking about it. So really anything within 0-40 points of diesel fuel control is really "no change". Thats 20 points error for fuel and 20 points error for additive is all you can say with certainty. 40 point spread is worst case and probably not likely. I've tried comparing numbers with 20 pts +/- bands for each additive but nothing really shattering shows up. Same as looking at raw numbers. Same conclusion was loosely top 3 or 4 are stand out improvers, big group are comparable, a few no real change, and bottom 3 seem bad (for this test).

OK, guess I missed the 40 point spread number when I was reading. This is what I was wondering. Thanks.

The study found that SoyPower biodiesel in a 2-percent concentration was the most effective among all the products tested. So I wonder how a 100-percent concentration of SoyPower biodiesel would do vs. the various mixes of ULSD with the additives? This is relevant because many of us in the Phoenix metro area use SoyPower's B100 all year 'round.

Soybug, you are lucky you can get B100. Phoenix, AZ has never goes to deep freeze so you can use it year long. The reason why they don't use B100 in a lot of places is that it freezes faster than the regular diesel so B2 is about what they can use without changing the freezing point of Diesel fuel. I am sure there are also a lot of other factor such as availability.

Well There is a lot to consider when you looking at additives. Like BTU's, pour point, cetane levels, HFRR values, etc...

Like myself I not going to bother using BIO diesel. First off there is no local BIO fuel to me. Its about 180-200 miles one way for BIO fuel. Second off the winter temps up here can get down to -20*F to -30*F. So BIO doesn't have a good record for pour point yet. Also BIO fuel have less energy compared to dino diesel.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r123/mopar1973man/2%20cycle%20oil/btusvalues.jpg

As you can see run BIO your going to get less power compared to #2 diesel so you MPG will fall slighlty.

As for myself I'm running 128:1 ratio and I've saved approximately $600 since I started using 2 cycle oil and figured out my optimal ratio. Here is my cost per mile graph...

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r123/mopar1973man/2%20cycle%20oil/costpermile.jpg

As for HP/TQ in using 2 cycle oil... I did awesome on the roller at 105:1 ratio...

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r123/mopar1973man/2%20cycle%20oil/dynojet640.jpg

1. Stock - 228/462
2. Edge Comp 5x5 - 381/826
3. Edge Comp 5x5 - 379/831

I'm going to stay with the 2 cycle oil for now... :D

Arlen,
Thank you for the time and commitment to get the job done.

Did a search on Opti-Lube. It came up with a long list of sites that were discussing this study. Diesel and Biodiesel forums. This is far reaching. I joined a couple to answer a few questions and I saw steakman did the same thing on another forum. One thing they had in common. Readers are bypassing the details and going straight to the results. Human nature. I could tell the nay sayers did not read the entire report. Just wanted you to know a LOT of people are reading this study.:cool2:

Arlen,
Thank you for the time and commitment to get the job done.

Did a search on Opti-Lube. It came up with a long list of sites that were discussing this study. Diesel and Biodiesel forums. This is far reaching. I joined a couple to answer a few questions and I saw steakman did the same thing on another forum. One thing they had in common. Readers are bypassing the details and going straight to the results. Human nature. I could tell the nay sayers did not read the entire report. Just wanted you to know a LOT of people are reading this study.:cool2:
It wouldn't be worth doing if it wasn't to make a difference to a lot of people. With the air filter study I was out to prove a point (marketing hype and performance are not always the same thing). With this one it was more of a consumer reference that was the goal along with some real data to ease our worries about the "dry" ULSD fuels. SPICER

The only thing I would of changed was the dose of the 2 cycle oil... I'm running 128:1 doseage... Also that what most are using on the Dodge Forum's...

For comparison sake, what values would straight lube oils generate from such a test? That is, not mixed with diesel.

For comparison sake, what values would straight lube oils generate from such a test? That is, not mixed with diesel.
I have no idea, and I am not sure that the HFRR is even used for lube oils. There is probably a completely different test used for lube oils. SPICER

I have now seen this study posted on several bus conversion websites, but I have a problem with the message people are getting from it.

It seems that the casual reader is assuming the 636 HFRR number for ULSD is what they will be getting at the pump, when in fact the study clearly states this is for an untreated sample of ULSD. A common comsumer buying ULSD would not be able to get ULSD with a HFRR of 636. However, I have not been able to find what the HFRR is for commercially available ULSD. Any info on that?

I have now seen this study posted on several bus conversion websites, but I have a problem with the message people are getting from it.

It seems that the casual reader is assuming the 636 HFRR number for ULSD is what they will be getting at the pump, when in fact the study clearly states this is for an untreated sample of ULSD. A common comsumer buying ULSD would not be able to get ULSD with a HFRR of 636. However, I have not been able to find what the HFRR is for commercially available ULSD. Any info on that?

Page 2 of the downloable PDF file states:
The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a commercially available diesel fuel should produce a wear scar of no greater than 520 microns.This is the level that oil companies have agreed to supply. However, since the additives are added when the fuel is loaded on the trucks prior to delivery to the retail outlets, there is the possibility that not all batches of fuel will be at that level.

The Engine Manufacturers Association had requested a standard of a wear scar no greater than 460 microns, which was typical of the LSD fuel previously available, but the oil companies claimed that they could not ensure that level on a consistent basis, so 520 micron becames the compromise number.

As stated in the report, the unadditized ULSD fuel is NOT available to the general public. It was obtained by the independent research firm specifically for this test in order to determine how much improvement could be obtained from each of the additives tested at the manufacturer's recommended mix ratio. These would be "worse case scenarios" for each tested additive.

The chart at the end of the report also summarizes this information.

Thanks Ray for explaining this. Nicely done!

I am passing on some info regarding a test subject that is needless to say not happy with the results. FPPF was very unhappy with the results of their "Lubricity Plus Fuel Power". It tested very poorly while their "RV, BUS SUV formula did very well. They contend that both additives use the same lubricity agent and the Lubricity Plus Fuel Power actually has a higher concentration. The results simply make no sense in their opinion.

In consultation with the laboratory representative, we have offered to re-test this one additive. We will not acquire a new bottle of additive. I still have enough of the original bottle. I will re-package the product in a sample bottle and re-send it for mixing and analysis. Because the results seemed so off, the lab was willing to re-run because we want to rule out any possibility of an improperly mixed (wrong ratio) sample. These are mixed by humans and there is a chance it was poorly mixed. There is also a possibility that I did not send a clean sample (very unlikely, but always a possibility). In order to ensure we did it right, it will be re-run.

I only agreed to do this if we used the exact same bottle of additive that I acquired from a retailer. I and the lab are not willing to acquire a new bottle of additive and re-test. If the results are different, we will know that I or the lab made a mistake. If it tests the same, we will know that there is a problem with the formula or that we acquired a bad batch, both the responsibility of FPPF. If we tested a NEW bottle of additive, we would not be able to pinpoint the problem.

I believe FPPF to be a good company who believes in their product. I am sure that ALL companies were confident in the results they would see. Otherwise they would not have willingly participated. It is interesting that a number of additives failed to improve the fuel. There are a number of possible reasons for this, all of which are beyond the scope of our test. One very real possibility is the fact that some additives work poorly on certain fuels. An inexact science based in chemistry. The chemistry is fairly well understood, but VERY complicated. In the real world of adding lubricating additives to fuels at the terminals, they simply evaluate every batch of fuel by testing for HFRR, adding an "educated guess" amount of additive, retesting, and adjusting until it is right. Truly a trial and error approach. It is known that some fuels just don't play nice with some additives.

As for now I and the lab stand behind our method and results. If the results of this follow up test are dramatically different, I would have to admit that someone made a mistake and I will post the new results in place of the old results. Fortunately I still have 1/2 bottle of the original test sample. I will keep all posted. SPICER

However, since the additives are added when the fuel is loaded on the trucks prior to delivery to the retail outlets, there is the possibility that not all batches of fuel will be at that level.

However, you could also have a supplier that consistetly exceeds the recommended 520 number, and they could claim to be a better grade to get more business. Seems to me they would not try to cut it so close as to exceed the 520 number.

I understand the technical nature of the report and I do appreciate the reasoning behind it, and I also appreciate the effort and the results, but I have already seen first hand the 636 number scaring people into thinking biodiesel is the only way to go. In reality, the ULSD we can buy will be better than 636, and already have an additive, which might not work well with any of these additives, and in fact might make some useless, and thus a waste of time and money.

Bascially I am not wanting to panic over this information. Adding biodiesel on a regular basis would be very inconvenient for me, and other options could be expensive, so it would be nice to have the info on the available fuels and use the product(s) to get the numbers we think we need.

However, you could also have a supplier that consistetly exceeds the recommended 520 number, and they could claim to be a better grade to get more business. Seems to me they would not try to cut it so close as to exceed the 520 number.

I understand the technical nature of the report and I do appreciate the reasoning behind it, and I also appreciate the effort and the results, but I have already seen first hand the 636 number scaring people into thinking biodiesel is the only way to go. In reality, the ULSD we can buy will be better than 636, and already have an additive, which might not work well with any of these additives, and in fact might make some useless, and thus a waste of time and money.

Bascially I am not wanting to panic over this information. Adding biodiesel on a regular basis would be very inconvenient for me, and other options could be expensive, so it would be nice to have the info on the available fuels and use the product(s) to get the numbers we think we need.All I can say is that people should read the complete report to better understand the reasoning behind this test as well as how to interpret the results. Everything is spelled out in the first four pages.

No need to run around yelling that the sky is falling at this time. :rolleyes:

No where in the report does it say that the fuel available to the general public has a 636 wear scar. The fuel used for this test is NOT available for public consumption.

I can't easily get biodiesel in my area and I still don't trust its quality, so I will continue using the Stanadyne Performance and Lubricity Formulas, with some minor adjustment to my mix ratio.

all i can say is that people should read the complete report to better understand the reasoning behind this test as well as how to interpret the results. Everything is spelled out in the first four pages. No need to run around yelling that the sky is falling at this time. :rolleyes: no where in the report does it say that the fuel available to the general public has a 636 wear scar. the fuel used for this test is not available for public consumption. i can't easily get biodiesel in my area and i still don't trust its quality, so i will continue using the stanadyne performance and lubricity formulas, with some minor adjustment to my mix ratio. x2

Thanks Ray for explaining this. Nicely done!

I am passing on some info regarding a test subject that is needless to say not happy with the results. FPPF was very unhappy with the results of their "Lubricity Plus Fuel Power". It tested very poorly while their "RV, BUS SUV formula did very well. They contend that both additives use the same lubricity agent and the Lubricity Plus Fuel Power actually has a higher concentration. The results simply make no sense in their opinion.

In consultation with the laboratory representative, we have offered to re-test this one additive. We will not acquire a new bottle of additive. I still have enough of the original bottle. I will re-package the product in a sample bottle and re-send it for mixing and analysis. Because the results seemed so off, the lab was willing to re-run because we want to rule out any possibility of an improperly mixed (wrong ratio) sample. These are mixed by humans and there is a chance it was poorly mixed. There is also a possibility that I did not send a clean sample (very unlikely, but always a possibility). In order to ensure we did it right, it will be re-run.

I only agreed to do this if we used the exact same bottle of additive that I acquired from a retailer. I and the lab are not willing to acquire a new bottle of additive and re-test. If the results are different, we will know that I or the lab made a mistake. If it tests the same, we will know that there is a problem with the formula or that we acquired a bad batch, both the responsibility of FPPF. If we tested a NEW bottle of additive, we would not be able to pinpoint the problem.

I believe FPPF to be a good company who believes in their product. I am sure that ALL companies were confident in the results they would see. Otherwise they would not have willingly participated. It is interesting that a number of additives failed to improve the fuel. There are a number of possible reasons for this, all of which are beyond the scope of our test. One very real possibility is the fact that some additives work poorly on certain fuels. An inexact science based in chemistry. The chemistry is fairly well understood, but VERY complicated. In the real world of adding lubricating additives to fuels at the terminals, they simply evaluate every batch of fuel by testing for HFRR, adding an "educated guess" amount of additive, retesting, and adjusting until it is right. Truly a trial and error approach. It is known that some fuels just don't play nice with some additives.

As for now I and the lab stand behind our method and results. If the results of this follow up test are dramatically different, I would have to admit that someone made a mistake and I will post the new results in place of the old results. Fortunately I still have 1/2 bottle of the original test sample. I will keep all posted. SPICER


i'm glad to read this Arlen, as you saw when you pulled a sample of the motor oil from my crankcase that i've got a few gallons of this product that I bought last year. I was pretty upset with the results, but I'm hoping that it was human error. If anything I've got a large supply of 'older' additive and many unopened bottles I could toss your way if need be(especially since right now I'm almost afraid to use it)

I would like to thank Spicer for all his work. I feel my money was well spent. Would like to let you know that I have run my first tank mixing B100. Can definitely tell a difference in engine noise. Even my wife noticed. Don't particular like carrying 2 qts of B100 around to mix with each fill up but since I can buy it locally guess that's what I do for a while. Anyone else mixing B100.

Wish I could! Closest B store is 100 miles. Not much savings going that distance and shipping eats you up.

jb

I would like to thank Spicer for all his work. I feel my money was well spent. Would like to let you know that I have run my first tank mixing B100. Can definitely tell a difference in engine noise. Even my wife noticed. Don't particular like carrying 2 qts of B100 around to mix with each fill up but since I can buy it locally guess that's what I do for a while. Anyone else mixing B100.

Yes, I am a new B100 user also. Can't argue with the lubricity facts! I have to travel 50 miles to get it, so I bought a 7-gallon container (Walmart) and fill-it up. At 1/2 gallon per tank, I'm good for a few thousand miles.

Yes, I am a new B100 user also. Can't argue with the lubricity facts! I have to travel 50 miles to get it, so I bought a 7-gallon container (Walmart) and fill-it up. At 1/2 gallon per tank, I'm good for a few thousand miles.

Any idea how long the B100 will last in a sealed 7 gallon gas container..??

I got this off of the www.biodiesel.org website.
Myth: Biodiesel does not have sufficient shelf life.
Fact: Most fuel today is used up long before six months, and many petroleum
companies do not recommend storing petroleum diesel for more than six months. The
current industry recommendation is that biodiesel be used within six months, or
reanalyzed after six months to ensure the fuel meets ASTM specifications (D-6751). A
longer shelf life is possible depending on the fuel composition and the use of storageenhancing
additives. So I guess you could ask the biodiesel dealer how long they have had it for and subtract that from 6 months.

I got this off of the www.biodiesel.org (http://www.biodiesel.org) website.
Myth: Biodiesel does not have sufficient shelf life.
Fact: Most fuel today is used up long before six months, and many petroleum
companies do not recommend storing petroleum diesel for more than six months. The
current industry recommendation is that biodiesel be used within six months, or
reanalyzed after six months to ensure the fuel meets ASTM specifications (D-6751). A
longer shelf life is possible depending on the fuel composition and the use of storageenhancing
additives. So I guess you could ask the biodiesel dealer how long they have had it for and subtract that from 6 months.

Good info! I think im gonna have to go with a smaller sealed product instead of bio due to my limited driving right now and also of course the "fresh factor". I think my time to try out opti lube is now.

Anyone want some Lucas UCL? I got a gallon and a half of it. I am gonna ship it for free to the la puente landfill! :) Thanks again Spicer!

Why would you throw it out? Just dump it in your tank and burn it. The product did not make the fuel any worse than not having it there (statistically insignificant result), so just add another good additive with it and use it up.

Anyone want some Lucas UCL? I got a gallon and a half of it. I am gonna ship it for free to the la puente landfill! :) Thanks again Spicer!:badidea:

No sense in dumping more toxic crap into the ground.

Just because it didn't improve lubricity doesn't mean that other additives in it are useless.

I would just burn it in the fuel and perhaps add Stanadyne Lubricity Formula to get the lubricity you want.

Why would you throw it out? Just dump it in your tank and burn it. The product did not make the fuel any worse than not having it there (statistically insignificant result), so just add another good additive with it and use it up.

I should have clarified my reasons for not using Lucas ucl was this: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/images/lucas/lucas.htm

and this (what "lownox" said") : "Main ingredient is poly iso butelyne, ( PIB ) mixed with mineral oil & bright stock.. it's the very definition of cheap crap. PIB is a thickening agent, with very low shear stability, so it will end up in your oil pan and stay there after the engine runs awhile.
Bright stock is also a thickening agent, can lead to sludge formation when it breaks down, and the increased viscosity just makes the engine work harder.
The claim of improved power and fuel economy is actually directly opposed to the fact that Lucas Oil Stabilizer acts as an oil
thickener in real life conditions."

Maybe if Lucas could only put more money into their product instead of their marketing campaign-:t

This stuff is not worth going in our lawnmovers let alone my 45K truck. (Im workin on sig)

I can not thank Arlen enough for his hard work on yet another project with non biased results all in the name of helping diesels owners out!:ro):ro)

Arlen, as a financial contributor to the study I would like to say that I feel like my money was very well spent.

I had no dog in the race whatsoever, and can objectively say that your final report exudes professionalism and objectivity and is something to be thoroughly proud of. Congrats! ;) -Bret

Arlen, as a financial contributor to the study I would like to say that I feel like my money was very well spent.

I had no dog in the race whatsoever, and can objectively say that your final report exudes professionalism and objectivity and is something to be thoroughly proud of. Congrats! ;) -Bret

Thank You. And I did have a dog in the race, so to speak. I have been using Primrose for a long time now, it is still in my Sig. So much for that! And thank You for your donation to the study. It seems to be getting a lot of exposure. SPICER

So... I've read every post regarding the lubricity study... again, thanks, SPICER. Anyway, I went looking for B100 to use as a fuel additive. Haven't been able to find it in central KY... but I did find B20 - interestingly enough it is Primrose Premium Diesel, just about 6 miles from home. It's a tad bit more expensive ($2.89) than #2 just a couple miles away ($2.66 @ Wally World), but considering the benefits of biodiesel as an additive, I figure it should be worth it.

Based on what I've seen in the study, B5 is basically "pre-additive'ed" fuel... the best of the best (if anything, it's overkill if you're just going for lubricity - B5 should be 5.2 gal bio per 26 gal tank). So... if you have access to B5, B10, or B20, why would you add anything else to the fuel? Even in the winter, since they're selling this at the pumps, surely it's sufficiently winterized to prevent gelling or any other problems. What else would be missing?

my local fuel supplier here in NW Ohio has a 5% bio blend at all of their pumps. looks like that should be sufficient to provide proper lubricity as long as i'm close to home.

i filled up at a different supplier yesterday and a Cummins guy was filling up at the pump next to me. he said he has been running a quart of non-detergent motor oil per tank fill. also he said he uses a quart of ATF sometimes.

any opinions of non detergent motor oil vs. ATF?

i plan on keeping a quart or two of motor oil in the truck for when i'm filling up places that don't offer bio.

B5 should be 5.2 gal bio per 26 gal tank).

Bad math........5.2 per 26 is B20

I've been using Power Service since mile 1. I don't have some of the best options easily available to me so I was considering Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000. It tested better than the PS. Their website shows a regular, #137 and two winter blends 137A & B that improves low temp pour points. I looked at the MSDS sheets on their website but am not enough of a chemist to know whether any of the ingredients are alchohols. I believe it is an emulsifier, but so is the PS I've been using. The product is easily available to me. Any help?

Randy the Hack.... You still have to protect against water in fuel. IMHO the whole point of additives is you know 100% its in there. I just don't trust many if any pumps I go to be premium fuel regardless of price, label, marketing, etc etc. Having gotten water in fuel once from a big "truck stop" you just don't know the station tank level is or bulk tank maintenance of station and distributor or filter and pump cleanliness schedule etc etc. If you think your fuel supplier is good I would still add additives if only for "Maintenance" every 5 tanks or so or what ever you feel comfortable with.

GM specifically states in all their literature about diesel fuel, NOT to use water emulsifiers in their diesel engines.

Water emulsifiers will dissolve the water in the fuel and allow the water to get past the fuel-filter/water-separator. if the vehicle sits for some time without being run, once the water is past the filter, the water can and DOES come out of suspension and condenses inside the injection system, allowing bacterial growth and corrosion to develop with a big potential for damage. I have seen injection pumps that were damaged by water that settled out and was allowed to sit for a while; it really doesn't take long. Believe me, it isn't pretty. :(

The clearances inside these injection pumps are in the order of 50 millionths of an inch (0.000050'') Those clearances are so tight that if you were to disassemble a pump and hold the pump rotor in your hand, the heat from your hand can cause the metal to expand to the point that it will not fit back inside the pump head. Very tight squeeze there! :)

What you want is an additive that contains DEMULSIFIERS. Water demulsifiers will cause the water to coagulate into larger droplets and allow the water separator to do its job and remove it before it enters the injection system.

RayMich: So are you staying with the Stanadyne Performance Formula because it is a demulsifier even though it doesn't have the best Lubricity, or moving to something else?

Bad math........5.2 per 26 is B20

Aah... you're right. I was looking at B20 (which I filled up today). B5 should still be around 1.3 gal... which is approaching 3 times the recommended blend for full lubricity benefit. It was late... and I was falling asleep at the keyboard.:o:

RayMich: So are you staying with the Stanadyne Performance Formula because it is a demulsifier even though it doesn't have the best Lubricity, or moving to something else?
Yes, I am staying with the Stanadyne Performance Formula. I have now started adding the Lubricity Formula also.

I was mixing the PF at a 480:1 ratio (4 oz for every 15 gallons of fuel). Now I've started mixing Performance Formula @ 960:1 (2 oz / 15 gallons) + Lubricity Formula also @ 960:1 (2 oz / 15 gallons of fuel). This way I get the other benefits from Performance Formula + the added lubricity from the Lubricity Formula. In the winter, I can always increase the Performance Formula to 3 or 4 oz per 15 gallons if I determine that I need more cold weather protection.

Here is how I decided on my ratios:

From the Lubricity Study, Performance Formula gave a 33 micron improvement @ 480:1 and the Lubricity Formula gave 157 micron improvement @ 1000:1.

So if I change my ratios to 960:1 for Performance Formula and add Lubricity Formula also @ 960:1 here is what I calculate:

PF = (2 oz / 15 gallons) => 33 x 480/960 ==> ~ 17 micron @ 960:1
LF = (2 oz / 15 gallons) => 157 x1000/960 => ~ 163 micron @ 960:1

Total possible Improvement = 17 + 163 => ~ 180 micron

So if I were unlucky enough to start out with totally untreated ULSD @ 636 micron, which is highly unlikely, I should end up with 636 - 180 or somewhere around 456 micron.

I realize that I may not get these same exact numbers, but since commercially available fuels should already contain some lubricity additives by the time I get it, I should still end up below the 460 micron level that the Diesel Injection Equipment Manufacturers recommend.

As far as my actual cost is concerned, when I look at what I actually pay for these additives, my added cost per gallon of fuel ends up exactly the same as before (~ 9 ˘ / gallon of diesel fuel).

Hope this helps.:)

The whole issue of water in fuel is very important, as RayMich says. I also use Stanadyne Performance and Lubricity formulas together because they are demulsifiers, and I can get a discounted price on them from my brother. I think it is important that whatever additive that you do decide to use is not an emulsifier.

Schaeffers dt2000 does NOT contain alcohol.
The product tested in this study has the weakest lubricity package of all our 137 formulas.
The diesel treat 2000 line-up is both an emulsifier and demulsifier.

Schaeffers dt2000 does NOT contain alcohol.
The product tested in this study has the weakest lubricity package of all our 137 formulas.
The diesel treat 2000 line-up is both an emulsifier and demulsifier.

Not at all knocking Schaeffers products since I use many but how many of the 137 formulas are available to the public? Also to have a beneficial effect at handling water a product would have to emulsify or demulsify. Seems adding both would be the same as doing nothing at all.

Bout six.
The same chemistry that disperses the water to be carried through the fuel system, also prevents the formation of fuel-water emulsions and allows moisture to settle out.

Schaeffers dt2000 does NOT contain alcohol.
The product tested in this study has the weakest lubricity package of all our 137 formulas.
The diesel treat 2000 line-up is both an emulsifier and demulsifier.
:wtf1:

There is no way a product can be both an emulsifier and a demulsifier at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. An emulsifier causes the water to dissolve in the fuel allowing it to pass through the water separator in the fuel filter and through the injection system. A demulsifier causes the water to coagulate into larger droplets and fall out of suspension allowing the water separator to scrub the water out of the fuel before it enters the injection system.

GM's literature about diesel fuel additives is very explicit. It basically says NO ALCOHOL and NO EMULSIFIERS. The fact that alcohol IS an emulsifier is one of the main reasons why they do not want it in the fuel. But alcohol has other negative properties as well.

The 137 line-up of premium diesel treatments that Schaeffers manufactures meets the NCWM requirements to be called a premium. The non-alcoholic dispersant that is in the formulation disperses water by suspending H2O into tiny droplets. These are then held into suspension as they are carried thru the system. This same formulation prevents fuel water emulsions and allows moisture to settle out.

Y’all can call it what you want. I ain’t no chemist , but this much I’m sure of.


This formula has been run thru MILLIONS of miles and hours in every imaginable diesel powered engine. It has been proven many times over that injector and pump failures are greatly reduced, while extending life, when using these products. Generally fuel economy is improved as well. Schaeffers is the largest independent manufacturer of diesel fuel additives not because of marketing dollars, but because of product quality and professional service.

Here is a link for the 137nd.
http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/137ND.pdf

Salesrep,
If it prevents water emulsification then how does the water settle out of the fuel? You cant do two things at once. GM states not to use an emulsifier. Looks to me like that is what schaeffer is doing. Maybe you could explain how your product that you are pushing works a little better. If I understand correctly your product sends the water through my fuel system.

bo799.
I apologize to the members if it has come across that I am “pushing” Schaeffers for personal gain. I am not.
Eric merchant is a supporting vendor that carries Schaeffers.
http://www.gmdieseltech.com/store2/cart.php?target=category&action=view&category_id=250 (http://www.gmdieseltech.com/store2/cart.php?target=category&action=view&category_id=250)

I believe in Schaeffers and am merely attempting to educate on Schaeffers products.
The way I understand it the 137 line disperses water thru tiny manageable droplets thru the system and into the combustion chamber. When left in a static state moisture will settle out to be removed. As stated by other members, there are other attributes to fuel adds in addition to water removal and lubricity.
GM……..? I am sure they have their reasoning, that said 137 has been run in Duramaxes for years with nothing but positive results.

I think the issue of water emulsification is not so much that it will be pushed through the system into the combustion chamber, but that if you have a fuel-water emulsion that is allowed to sit for awhile in the pump and in the injectors, the water will then start to form rust in the system. Not everyone runs their vehicle every day, ensuring that this does not happen. What about the vehicle that sits for a week or 2 with water emulsified in the fuel? I would personally not want the water there at all. In addition, you state that the same chemistry that emulsifies the water also allows it to settle out if the fuel is in a static state. Refer to my above example. The last thing that I want is the water settling out in my pump or injectors. Not knocking Schaeffers specifically; I would feel the same about any product that emulsifies the water.

Thats just it. I do not think that water is left in the pump or injectors. Additionally r & o inhibitors come into play.
On a side bar, after reading a GM bulletin or two, I wonder if their concern was over alcohol being used in additives?

General Motors Bulletin specifically states both NO ALCOHOL and only WATER DEMULSIFIERS should be used in General Motors diesel engines.
______________________

General Motors Corporation

Bulletin No.: 03-06-04-017B

Date: September 07, 2005

INFORMATION

Subject:
Information on Diesel Fuel Additives

Models:
· 2006 and Prior Light duty and Medium duty Trucks
· 2006 and Prior Isuzu Commercial Medium Duty Models
· 2006 and Prior HUMMER H2

with 6.5L, 6.6L Duramax®, 7.2L or 7.8L Diesel Engine (VINs D, F, P, S, Y, 1, 2, 3 – RPOs L65, L49, L56, L57, LB7, LLY, LBZ, LC8, LG4)

Supersede:
This bulletin is being revised to add model years, enhance the content and add GM diesel fuel conditioner. – Please, discard Corporate Bulletin Number 03-06-04-017A (Section 06 – Engine/Propulsion System).

Important:
The use of diesel duel additives is not required or recommended for the 6.5L or the 6.6L Duramax® Diesel engine under normal conditions. The filtering system is designed to block water and contaminants without the use of additives. However, some customers may desire to use fuel additives to improve the characteristics of available diesel fuels.

Water Emulsifiers and Demulsifiers
If the customer desires to use a fuel additive, care must be taken in its selection. There are two common methods that fuel additives use to cope with water in the fuel. One method is through demulsification of water in the fuel. This method causes water particles to combine together to form larger particles, which drop out of suspension. This allows the fuel-filter/water-separator to separate the water from the fuel as it is designed to. The other method of coping with water in the fuel is through emulsification. This method, often using alcohol as the emulsifier, keeps water particles suspended in the fuel. Emulsification of water in the fuel can allow water to get past the fuel-filter/water-separator, in most cases causing damage to the fuel system. Only alcohol free water demulsifiers should be used in General Motors diesel engines. GM Diesel Fuel Conditioner®, P/N 88861009 (in Canada 88861038) or both *Racor Power Shot® and *Stanadyne® diesel fuel additives are alcohol free and utilize water demulsifiers to cope with water in the fuel. Other brands may be available in different areas; be sure that they clearly state that they are alcohol free demulsifiers before use.

* We believe these sources and their products to be reliable. General Motors does not endorse, indicate any preference for or assume any responsibility for the products from these firms or for any such items which may be available from other sources.

Common Diesel Fuel Concerns

Fuel Waxing/Icing
Fuel distributors blend #1 and #2 diesel fuels for seasonal requirements in a particular region. No other blending of fuels is recommended. However, a customer may desire to use a winter fuel additive to prevent fuel waxing or icing during extreme cold snaps. If a winter fuel additive is to be used, it should not contain alcohol or other water emulsifiers that may compromise the water removal effectiveness of the fuel filtering system.

Bacteria and Fungi Growth
Bacteria and fungi growth can occur in diesel fuel when there is water present, especially during warmer weather. The best prevention against bacteria and fungi growth is to use clean fuel that is free of water. There are diesel fuel biocides available that are designed to kill bacterial growth in the fuel system. However, the dead bacteria can still cause blockages throughout the fuel system. If bacterial growth is found in the fuel system, the proper method of removal is to flush the fuel system using the service Manual procedures, replace the fuel filter element and refill the tank with clean diesel fuel. If a customer desires to use a biocide after flushing the fuel system, it should not contain alcohol or other water emulsifiers.

Low Cetane Number
The cetane number is one indicator of a diesel fuel's ability to ignite. There are may indicators of overall fuel quality such as cleanliness, specific gravity, volatility, viscosity, detergency, corrosion inhibiting abilities, and lubricity. Increasing the cetane number alone is not a fix for poor quality fuel. Additionally, increasing the cetane number beyond the engine's requirements will not increase performance. However, the cetane number of diesel fuel is not always consistent and some customers may desire to use a cetane improver to ensure full performance of their engine. If such an additive is to be used, it must not contain alcohol or other water emulsifiers.

Poor Lubricity
The 6.5L diesel and the 6.6L Duramax® Diesel engines are designed to operate on today's low sulfur fuel without the use of additives. A fuel additive designed to increase lubricity is not a fix for poor quality or contaminated fuel, but some customers may desire to use a lubricity additive to aid in the longevity of their fuel system components. If such an additive is to be used, it must not contain alcohol or other water emulsifiers.

Fuel Source Issue
If a vehicle is properly maintained but has fuel contamination issues, consider obtaining fuel from a different source. Purchasing fuel from a high volume fuel retailer increases the chance that the fuel is fresh and of good quality.

GM Diesel Fuel Conditioner®
Part Number . . . . . . . . . . . .Description
88861009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conditioner, Diesel Fuel 325 ml (11 oz)
(in Canada 88861038)
_____________________________

NOTE: Emphasis added by me.

I don't know how much more specific this document needs to be about NOT using water emulsifiers. :rolleyes:

There it is in black and white. Gm "it should not contain alcohol or other water emulsifiers"
The question I have is why is GM so against emulsifiers? In every mention of water emulsifiers it is paired with " must not contain alcohol". So is it alcohol? emulsifiers? or alcoholic water emulsifiers? that they fear? you know where I'm headed..........

The question I have is why is GM so against emulsifiers? In every mention of water emulsifiers it is paired with " must not contain alcohol". So is it alcohol? emulsifiers? or alcoholic water emulsifiers? that they fear? you know where I'm headed..........


Let me help you out.


The other method of coping with water in the fuel is through emulsification. This method, keeps water particles suspended in the fuel. Emulsification of water in the fuel can allow water to get past the fuel-filter/water-separator, in most cases causing damage to the fuel system.

I don't know how much more specific this document needs to be about NOT using water emulsifiers. :rolleyes:





I think the issue of water emulsification is not so much that it will be pushed through the system into the combustion chamber, but that if you have a fuel-water emulsion that is allowed to sit for awhile in the pump and in the injectors, the water will then start to form rust in the system. Not everyone runs their vehicle every day, ensuring that this does not happen. What about the vehicle that sits for a week or 2 with water emulsified in the fuel? I would personally not want the water there at all. In addition, you state that the same chemistry that emulsifies the water also allows it to settle out if the fuel is in a static state. Refer to my above example. The last thing that I want is the water settling out in my pump or injectors.

GM specifically states in all their literature about diesel fuel, NOT to use water emulsifiers in their diesel engines.

Water emulsifiers will dissolve the water in the fuel and allow the water to get past the fuel-filter/water-separator. if the vehicle sits for some time without being run, once the water is past the filter, the water can and DOES come out of suspension and condenses inside the injection system, allowing bacterial growth and corrosion to develop with a big potential for damage. I have seen injection pumps that were damaged by water that settled out and was allowed to sit for a while; it really doesn't take long. Believe me, it isn't pretty. :(

There it is in black and white. Gm "it should not contain alcohol or other water emulsifiers"The question I have is why is GM so against emulsifiers? In every mention of water emulsifiers it is paired with " must not contain alcohol". So is it alcohol? emulsifiers? or alcoholic water emulsifiers? that they fear? you know where I'm headed..........
As the above posted GM document states, they says NO ALCOHOL and NO WATER EMULSIFIERS, for the reasons stated above. :rolleyes:

Yes, I see where you are headed. You want to say that it's OK with GM to use water emulsifiers and I can understand you wanting to promote your product, but IT IS NOT OK. I don't know what else to tell you. Every diesel fuel injection systems manufacturer that I have dealt with states the same thing, NO WATER EMULSIFIERS. Anything that allows water to get past the water separator creates a risk for damage to the injection system.

Sorry! :)

We sell alot of biodiesel to consumers who only use bio as an additive. And many who use it as fuel! If hour looking for places to purchase biodiesel got to www.nbb.org. The national biodiesel board has alot of good info at there website. And alot of test results, additive info, cold flow properties etc. Just 5 years ago there was only like 500,000 gallons of biodiesel consumed in the USA. Now its up in the multi millions of gallons. Theres even links for truckers so they can find bio stations while driving down the highway!
Soon were gonna sell bio in 32 fl oz containers for easy traveling.

I've been using Power Service since mile 1. I don't have some of the best options easily available to me so I was considering Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000. It tested better than the PS. Their website shows a regular, #137 and two winter blends 137A & B that improves low temp pour points. I looked at the MSDS sheets on their website but am not enough of a chemist to know whether any of the ingredients are alchohols. I believe it is an emulsifier, but so is the PS I've been using. The product is easily available to me. Any help?

Power Service is a demulsifier. I got this from Power Service when I inquired.

Effects of Power Service Diesel Additives
On Water in Diesel Fuels
All diesel fuels contain water that is dissolved in and carried by the fuel. Low Sulfur diesel fuel (S500) will contain 50 to 125 parts per million (ppm) water and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel (S15) will contain 30-75 ppm water. Biodiesel (B100) can contain as much as 1500 ppm water and still remain clear while biodiesel blends containing up to twenty percent biodiesel (B20) will contain as much as 300 ppm water.
Warm fuel will carry more water than cold fuel. When the ambient temperature cools below 32°F., water dissolved within the fuel and subsequently collected on the face of fuel-filters will begin to freeze. As the accumulations of water on the fuel-filter medium increase and freeze, the flow of fuel to the fuel injection pump will decrease until the engine can no longer maintain the required RPM. Engine speed (RPM) will decrease until only idle RPM can be maintained and eventually, the engine will cease operation. This phenomenon is often misdiagnosed as fuel gelling; however, fuel-filter icing is the precursor to gelling of diesel fuel. Because fuel-filter icing prevents the normal flow of warm fuel from the fuel injectors to the fuel tank, the fuel within the tank will continue to cool and eventually gel.

POWER SERVICE ADDITIVE
WATER EFFECTING COMPONENTS
EFFECTS ON WATER IN DIESEL FUEL
Diesel Fuel Supplement +Cetane Boost
Solubilizer; Demulsifier
Solubilizes small amounts of water in the fuel system; prevents water from precipitating from the fuel. Demulsifiers prevent detergents from “emulsifying” water into the fuel during turbulent conditions.
Diesel Kleen +Cetane Boost
Demulsifier
Demulsifiers prevent detergents from “emulsifying” water into the fuel during turbulent conditions.
Diesel 9· 1· 1
Solubilizer
Recommended for winter emergencies caused by fuel-filter icing and/or fuel gelling. It will disperse free water and combine it with the fuel - the fuel remains clear. Prevents water from precipitating from the fuel. A fuel solubilizer will not suspend water in the fuel as water droplets.
Clear-Diesel Fuel & Tank Cleaner
solubilizer
Recommended for cleaning contaminated fuel tanks and equipment. Disperses free water and combines it with the fuel so the fuel is clear. It will also keep water from precipitating from the fuel. A fuel solubilizer will not suspend water in the fuel as water droplets.

Definitions of Water Effecting Chemistries
Solubilizer: Disperses water into the fuel. Water droplets will not be suspended in the fuel and the fuel will be clear. This is the preferred method for removing free water from a fuel system and preventing solubilized water from precipitating from the fuel.
Demulsifier: Causesexcess water to coalesce and precipitate from the fuel. The water will fall to the bottom of fuel tanks and can result in corrosion, rust, reduced lubricity, and during winter months, frozen fuel lines.
Emulsifier: Pulls water into the fuel as small droplets and often causes the fuel to be cloudy. Not preferred by manufacturers of fuel injection equipment because of the potential for damage to pumps and fuel injectors.

Hmmm, I don't think it is a demulsifier. They talk about it specifically preventing water from precipitating from the fuel (demulsification). But on the other hand, they talk about demulsifiers preventing the water from emulsifying in the fuel, rather the water is solubilized in the fuel. From the Webster's dictionary:

Main Entry: sol·u·ble
Pronunciation: 'säl-y&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : susceptible of being dissolved in or as if in a fluid
2 : capable of being emulsified <a soluble oil>

emulsion (ĭ-mŭl'shən) Pronunciation Key
A suspension of tiny droplets of one liquid in a second liquid. By making an emulsion, one can mix two liquids that ordinarily do not mix well, such as oil and water.

de·mul·si·fy /diˈmʌlsəˌfaɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dee-muhl-suh-fahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -fied, -fy·ing. Physical Chemistry. to break down (an emulsion) into separate substances incapable of re-forming the emulsion that was broken down.

On the one hand, they say that the water is solubilised (very close definition to emulsified), and on the other hand, they say that there are demulsifiers present. I don't quite understand how it can do both.

And since the biodiesel astm standard there has been no documented issues with any diesel engines! And thats why the increase in gallons sold per year will continue to grow exponentially.

Definitions of Water Effecting Chemistries
Solubilizer: Disperses water into the fuel. Water droplets will not be suspended in the fuel and the fuel will be clear. This is the preferred method for removing free water from a fuel system and preventing solubilized water from precipitating from the fuel. This is an "invented" word - This is nothing but double talk. It is NOT removing the water from the fuel; it is keeping the water IN the fuel. Anything that causes water to disperse in the fuel, whether it's clear or not, is allowing the water to get PAST THE WATER SEPARATOR. This is the same thing as Emulsifier.
Demulsifier: Causes excess water to coalesce and precipitate from the fuel. The water will fall to the bottom of fuel tanks and can result in corrosion, rust, reduced lubricity, and during winter months, frozen fuel lines. I would rather have my engine stop because the fuel line froze than to have it stop because the injection pump seized due to corrosion. At least, if the fuel line froze, I can warm it up and then get the water out. But if the pump corrodes, by the time the engine quits you are already FCensored d.
Emulsifier: Pulls water into the fuel as small droplets and often causes the fuel to be cloudy. Not preferred by manufacturers of fuel injection equipment because of the potential for damage to pumps and fuel injectors.


You can define it any way you want, but I do NOT want any water to get past the water separator in the fuel filter. You can call it Emulsied or solubilized; it is still the same thing. It allows the water to get past the water separator. Water can and WILL settle out of the fuel if allowed to sit for any length of time. How long? I don't know, but I will NOT take a chance with my injection system if I can at all help it.

I want the water to get trapped by the water separator BEFORE it enters the injection system.

And since the biodiesel astm standard there has been no documented issues with any diesel engines! And thats why the increase in gallons sold per year will continue to grow exponentially.
Biodiesel is excellent for adding lubricity to the fuel. But unfortunately biodiesel that meets the ASTM standards is still not very widely available. At least not around here.

Pure biodiesel by itself does nothing to prevent waxing in the winter time during the colder temperature we experience up north and it does not remove water from the fuel. Other additives are still required.

I would rather use biodiesel in my truck as opposed to anything that emulsifies or "solubilizes" the water.

Only thing I think was missing from the study was a test sample of the fuel as we buy it from the pump.
I'm sure lubricity varies considerably from pump to pump and brand to brand, but I know the major players are seriously addressing lubricity issues.
I would liked to have seen a major player's fuel tested to see where lubricity is from the pump. Could be, we can add considerably less than the recomended amount of the better additives and get the job done just fine. That is the approach I'm taking with mine. Trouble is, without a test sample we don't know where we are really starting.
Ted

I am just so EXCITED that everyone is talking about Biodiesel. 4 years ago heck even two years ago no one here even talked about biodiesel. Except me and one or two others. Nowadays biodiesel is talked about all the time. And to see it talked about as an additive is even more exciting. When we started making biodiesel 8 years ago it was simply for cheap fuel and to reuse a product that otherwise would have gone to a landfill.

Only thing I think was missing from the study was a test sample of the fuel as we buy it from the pump.
I'm sure lubricity varies considerably from pump to pump and brand to brand, but I know the major players are seriously addressing lubricity issues.
I would liked to have seen a major player's fuel tested to see where lubricity is from the pump. Could be, we can add considerably less than the recomended amount of the better additives and get the job done just fine. That is the approach I'm taking with mine. Trouble is, without a test sample we don't know where we are really starting.
Ted

Not that simple, Ted. There is no dedicated supplier distribution and consistency. Bulk fuel is produced by several refineries and piped in batches. The batches are purchased as supplied, regardless of which company's refinery made it by multiple companies. Then it is distributed to their distribution yards where it is additized just before delivery while the delivery truck is being filled. A sample from Exxon at Joe's Exxon station today is NOT going to be representative of all the fuel that Joe sells over a period of time. The same with any company at any station. You can't pull a BP sample and say "all BP fuel has low lubricity" because only THAT sample had low lubricity. That is exactly why non-additized baseline fuel was used for the test to assure a common basis for measuring the performance of the additives.

Power Service is a demulsifier. I got this from Power Service when I inquired.


Diesel Fuel Supplement +Cetane Boost
Solubilizer; Demulsifier
Solubilizes small amounts of water in the fuel system; prevents water from precipitating from the fuel. Demulsifiers prevent detergents from “emulsifying” water into the fuel during turbulent conditions.
Diesel Kleen +Cetane Boost
Demulsifier
Demulsifiers prevent detergents from “emulsifying” water into the fuel during turbulent conditions.
Diesel 9· 1· 1
Solubilizer
Recommended for winter emergencies caused by fuel-filter icing and/or fuel gelling. It will disperse free water and combine it with the fuel - the fuel remains clear. Prevents water from precipitating from the fuel. A fuel solubilizer will not suspend water in the fuel as water droplets.
Clear-Diesel Fuel & Tank Cleaner
solubilizer
Recommended for cleaning contaminated fuel tanks and equipment. Disperses free water and combines it with the fuel so the fuel is clear. It will also keep water from precipitating from the fuel. A fuel solubilizer will not suspend water in the fuel as water droplets.




Sheesh... that sounds like Power Service should be stricken from the list of acceptable fuel additives... or am I misreading this??? Sounds like the last thing we want to have happen...:eek:

Not that simple, Ted. There is no dedicated supplier distribution and consistency. Bulk fuel is produced by several refineries and piped in batches. The batches are purchased as supplied, regardless of which company's refinery made it by multiple companies. Then it is distributed to their distribution yards where it is additized just before delivery while the delivery truck is being filled. A sample from Exxon at Joe's Exxon station today is NOT going to be representative of all the fuel that Joe sells over a period of time. The same with any company at any station. You can't pull a BP sample and say "all BP fuel has low lubricity" because only THAT sample had low lubricity. That is exactly why non-additized baseline fuel was used for the test to assure a common basis for measuring the performance of the additives.
:exactly:
Lubricity right now is a very inexact science. We have seen a worse case scenario when the fuel gets no additives (636 micron). But we can also figure that the majority of distributors want to supply good fuel and will do their best to add the proper amount of additives so that it will, at the very least, provide the minimum protection of 520 micron.

Since variations can exist, we will have to make some assumptions about the fuel we buy.

Some may assumes that most vendors will be supplying fuel that is better than the minimum agreed level of 520 micron, and then figure on adding enough lubricity to bring it to the 460 level recommended by the engine manufacturers.

Others might assume a worse case scenario in case they were to get a batch that was really bad and figure on a starting point of 636 and then add enough to bring it to the 460 micron level, knowing full well that most of the time they will end up much better than the level recommended by the engine manufacturers.

There will always be some who will trust that every tankful they buy is going to be good enough for their truck and add nothing.

Like Tom explains above, each batch delivered to a distribution center "could" be different from the next and the operator will have to add enough lubricity to ensure statistical compliance with the agreed standard. Is it always going to be right on the money? At this time, I really don't think so.

Short of running a test on every single tankful we get, which we can't do, all we can do is take these test results as starting points, and decide from there how much "insurance" we want to provide for our trucks.

This study make me wonder if using teh Standyne perf formula is really worth my time and money

I do kind of wonder about Power Service and its wide availiability and usage. Many people will say been using it for years 100K + miles and no problems.

I think it depends on the amount of water in fuel and how long you're going to be holding onto it.
Small amount of water in fuel and PS in a daily driver that the tank gets burned up in short order 3-4 days and fresh fuel added and good regiment of PS additive seems to work to keep the system "dry". And the other solvents of the pkg are suppose to help offset lubcricity and corrosion. But probably masks a water build up and is defeating the filter and water in fuel sensor of the fuel manager. I think the sensor will work much better with demulsifier (drops water out I hope dang I always mix em up in my mind) and that may be ??? is why GM & Stanadyne are so staunch on it as the only acceptable method.

Guessing a WIF indicator pretty much limits there warantee claims because they can easily say its bad fuel that messed up the IP. And or gives them an easy extra charge to drop the tank and clean it out.

But don't get me wrong I am not saying ignore a WIF light. I have read lots of posts that water in fuel is really bad and should not be ran. That it causes lack of lubricity and excessive wear. Thing about oil and vinegar vs just oil for viscosity. But interestingly enough I have also read a high quality water seperator filter before LP will catch a lot of water that you would not otherwise have known about from the factory sensor or filter. So I guess you could argue that yep if the factory WIF light comes on its bad enough to cause problems and should be addressed pronto.

If you look at Power Service Website they offer bulk tank maintenance and fuel polishing kits etc.
Probably others similar and some distributors may be using some type of emulsifier's and passing it on whether you know it or not. Makes me wonder sometimes what happens behind the curtains.

There are also alot of people that never add to their fuel and never have any trouble. I know many of these people. We might all just be bored and looking for something to do. I am sure we get enough good diesel to more than make up for the bad fuel we might get. Good diesel will make bad diesel, good diesel from a lubrication stand point. Water is a different story. I am positive this is why we need additives and filters. I will do all I can to stop water in my filter. I am even thinking of adding another filter that is a water seperator with a bowl.

:exactly:
Lubricity right now is a very inexact science. We have seen a worse case scenario when the fuel gets no additives (636 micron). But we can also figure that the majority of distributors want to supply good fuel and will do their best to add the proper amount of additives so that it will, at the very least, provide the minimum protection of 520 micron.

Since variations can exist, we will have to make some assumptions about the fuel we buy.

Some may assumes that most vendors will be supplying fuel that is better than the minimum agreed level of 520 micron, and then figure on adding enough lubricity to bring it to the 460 level recommended by the engine manufacturers.

Others might assume a worse case scenario in case they were to get a batch that was really bad and figure on a starting point of 636 and then add enough to bring it to the 460 micron level, knowing full well that most of the time they will end up much better than the level recommended by the engine manufacturers.

There will always be some who will trust that every tankful they buy is going to be good enough for their truck and add nothing.

Like Tom explains above, each batch delivered to a distribution center "could" be different from the next and the operator will have to add enough lubricity to ensure statistical compliance with the agreed standard. Is it always going to be right on the money? At this time, I really don't think so.

Short of running a test on every single tankful we get, which we can't do, all we can do is take these test results as starting points, and decide from there how much "insurance" we want to provide for our trucks.
Also remember that a little bit of good fuel added to a batch of bad fuel (lubricity speaking) makes a good fuel. The moral of the story, don't wait until you are on empty to fill up. If you are on empty and fill up with a bad batch, you are in trouble. If you fill up with about 1/4 tank left and you get bad fuel, you will probably never know it. The 1/4 tank of good fuel will make the whole tank good. Just another lesson I learned from all the experts. SPICER

Has anyone tried to get comments on these tests from Standyne? Or any of the other vendors?

Has anyone tried to get comments on these tests from Standyne? Or any of the other vendors?
I did. No response so far.

I have had communications nearly daily with Primrose as they have been working feverishly with their suppliers, other labs, etc. to try and get to the bottom of why the Primrose 2003 result occurred. At this point Primrose has no explanation from anyone as to why the results occurred with this fuel yet many other fuels tested in exactly the same manner by Southwest returned excellent lubricity results... That is the confounding aspect for Primrose and their component suppliers and work continues to come up with answers for the 2003 results...

Its good to see that they are taking the results seriously and trying to get to the bottom of it.

I have had communications nearly daily with Primrose as they have been working feverishly with their suppliers, other labs, etc. to try and get to the bottom of why the Primrose 2003 result occurred. At this point Primrose has no explanation from anyone as to why the results occurred with this fuel yet many other fuels tested in exactly the same manner by Southwest returned excellent lubricity results... That is the confounding aspect for Primrose and their component suppliers and work continues to come up with answers for the 2003 results...

I also find it curious that FPPF had similarly poor results. Their RV, BUS, SUV formula tested well, but both FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power and Primrose 2003 did poorly in this test. It still makes me wonder about the fact that both are emulsifiers. I have used Primrose 405 from day 1. I sure was surprised to see the results. I know these emulsifiers claim to be alcohol free, and alcohol is a known problem maker in the HFRR test, but it would seem to me that the emulsifiers in these additives may be alcohol-like enough to behave poorly in the HFRR. SPICER

#13 I will have to look at the bottles. Can't remember off the top of my head. I will get back to you on this. SPICER
SPICER did you ever answer #13?
Slow

#13 I will have to look at the bottles. Can't remember off the top of my head. I will get back to you on this. SPICER
SPICER did you ever answer #13?
Slow

Thanks for reminding me. I just looked at my stash of bottles and yes, both Stanadyne bottles say "Formulated for Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel". This could mean 2 things, maybe both. First it definitely means that the formula has less than 15 ppm sulfer, required if using in a 2007 or newer engine. It COULD also mean that it is designed with more lubricity for ULSD. Maybe both. Thanks for reminding me. My brain is on overload. 2 things in = 4 things out! SPICER

Thanks for reminding me. I just looked at my stash of bottles and yes, both Stanadyne bottles say "Formulated for Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel". This could mean 2 things, maybe both. First it definitely means that the formula has less than 15 ppm sulfer, required if using in a 2007 or newer engine. It COULD also mean that it is designed with more lubricity for ULSD. Maybe both. Thanks for reminding me. My brain is on overload. 2 things in = 4 things out! SPICER
Thanks Spicer. :)

I think one thing we learned is "Oil don't clean" In other words, if it is an "Injector cleaner", it isn't going to lube as good.

I'm still looking for someone to try a quart of gear oil. Old friend of mine STILL swears by sulfurated gear oil. I'm still gonna stick to the Wally World 2 stroke. The old girl seems to like it.

I think one thing we learned is "Oil don't clean" In other words, if it is an "Injector cleaner", it isn't going to lube as good.

I'm still looking for someone to try a quart of gear oil. Old friend of mine STILL swears by sulfurated gear oil. I'm still gonna stick to the Wally World 2 stroke. The old girl seems to like it.

My motor also seems to run smoother with the wallyworld 2 stroke stuff.
My injector balance rates have improved. Go figure........

Got to eat some crow, stir up Raymich again, and perhaps set the record straight on the schaeffers line-up.

Schaeffers
"products contain a non-alcohol jet fuel deicer/water dispersant. This non-alcohol jet fuel deicer/water dispersant eliminates the problems associated with entrained and/or dissolved water present in the fuel by dispersing the water into tiny droplets. These tiny droplets are suspended in the fuel so they can be carried with the fuel in controlled amounts through the fuel filters, fuel lines, and into the combustion chamber to be burned with the fuel. By having any remaining water dispersed and suspended in the fuel, this eliminates the formation of ice crystals that can block fuel lines and plug fuel filters and prevents the formation of stable fuel-water emulsions."
Schaeffers Chief chemist.


"You are confusing emulsification with dispersion and the surrounding of the water. They are two totally different chemical interactions. The non-alchol jet deicier prevents the formation of emulsions."
Schaeffers cheif chemist in response to my questions with regards to this subject.

Hugh Fundell - 21245 2200 North - - - Princeton - new555-00N

Got to eat some crow, stir up Raymich again, and perhaps set the record straight on the schaeffers line-up.

Schaeffers
"products contain a non-alcohol jet fuel deicer/water dispersant. This non-alcohol jet fuel deicer/water dispersant eliminates the problems associated with entrained and/or dissolved water present in the fuel by dispersing the water into tiny droplets. These tiny droplets are suspended in the fuel so they can be carried with the fuel in controlled amounts through the fuel filters, fuel lines, and into the combustion chamber to be burned with the fuel. By having any remaining water dispersed and suspended in the fuel, this eliminates the formation of ice crystals that can block fuel lines and plug fuel filters and prevents the formation of stable fuel-water emulsions."
Schaeffers Chief chemist.

"You are confusing emulsification with dispersion and the surrounding of the water. They are two totally different chemical interactions. The non-alcohol jet deicer prevents the formation of emulsions."
Schaeffers chief chemist in response to my questions with regards to this subject.
And how do you make sure that these "tiny droplets" that are "carried with the fuel in controlled amounts through the fuel filters and fuel lines", do NOT condense out of the fuel and puddle inside the injection system creating an environment for bacterial growth and corrosion, when the truck sits overnight or for prolonged periods of time without being run? - I for one do not want to take that risk.

GM specifically states that the water should NOT be allowed to get past the water separator in the fuel filter. This is also the position taken by Stanadyne, Bosch, Delphi and any other injection system manufacturer I have come in contact with.

And how do you make sure that these "tiny droplets" that are "carried with the fuel in controlled amounts through the fuel filters and fuel lines", do NOT condense out of the fuel and puddle inside the injection system creating an environment for bacterial growth and corrosion, when the truck sits overnight or for prolonged periods of time without being run? - I for one do not want to take that risk.

GM specifically states that the water should NOT be allowed to get past the water separator in the fuel filter. This is also the position taken by Stanadyne, Bosch, Delphi and any other injection system manufacturer I have come in contact with.

Well, by your same logic - you are adding a chemical that specifically and intentionally causes water to coalesce and come out of the fuel. How can you be so certain that it ONLY coalesces and collects in the fuel filter? Are you certain that your "water separater" is 100% efficient while being heated and shaken on a running engine? Wouldn't you think that the chemical process occurs wherever there is fuel and the chemical and water (diesel is hygroscopic and CONTAINS WATER). I feel that your "devotion" to demulsifiers is putting you at greater risk of just the scenarios you attribute to emulsifiers/dispersants.

I run alot of Jet A in my truck. 30k miles and one injector at 1.9, all others are less. If Jet has a emulsifier and I add a demulsifier to it what happens? Confuses the water droplets is what I think. GM approves Jet fuel use in military vehicles and I understand there are no mods to military GM vehicles. I add both my Stanadynes to the tank and i dump a half gallon of wally world 2 stroke oil in the tank every now and then. I put 26k miles on the truck last year. It doesnt sit still very much. Maybe that is why i have no trouble.

I run alot of Jet A in my truck. 30k miles and one injector at 1.9, all others are less. If Jet has a emulsifier and I add a demulsifier to it what happens? Confuses the water droplets is what I think. GM approves Jet fuel use in military vehicles and I understand there are no mods to military GM vehicles. I add both my Stanadynes to the tank and i dump a half gallon of wally world 2 stroke oil in the tank every now and then. I put 26k miles on the truck last year. It doesnt sit still very much. Maybe that is why i have no trouble.

The military engines probably arent common rail...

Well, by your same logic - you are adding a chemical that specifically and intentionally causes water to coalesce and come out of the fuel. How can you be so certain that it ONLY coalesces and collects in the fuel filter? Are you certain that your "water separater" is 100% efficient while being heated and shaken on a running engine? Wouldn't you think that the chemical process occurs wherever there is fuel and the chemical and water (diesel is hygroscopic and CONTAINS WATER). I feel that your "devotion" to demulsifiers is putting you at greater risk of just the scenarios you attribute to emulsifiers/dispersants.
Theoretically, your logic would be correct and if there is a lot of water in the fuel, the possibility is greater. However, the fuel sits in the tank a lot longer and in greater volumes than it sits in the injection system. This gives the demulsifiers more time to create the larger water droplets and coalesce into larger drops that should be more easily removed by the water separator. So the likelihood of this demulsified water getting past the water separator is greatly reduced.

Obviously, the efficiency of the water separator plays a big part in this process. Larger droplets are easier to remove than the smaller ones.

I have seen what a little bit of moisture can do to the inside of an injection pump, so from my experience, I would rather do everything in my power to get the water out before it has a chance to get to the injection system.

I'm not condemning or trying to coerce, but I'm going to continue to use emulsifier/dispersants in my fuel as I have from day one with over 152,000 miles on my original injectors. Your choice is your choice, but just like you, I know how little water can produce devastating effects in the IP and injectors and I will never put any product in my fuel that could encourage water to be released in the IP or the HPCR. Your caution against emulsifiers is a solid condemnation against demulsifiers in my opinion. You have emulsifier treated fuel trapped in the IP and HPCR that then sits for a period of time and cools and depressurizes which allows the demulsifier an excellent opportunity to "do its thing" and produce free water droplets in the very areas that you are trying to protect. No thank you.

The chemical process to achieve emulsification is to disperse and encapsulate water droplets with an isolating film which prevents the water from coalescing and precipitating when static. Even if emulsified water would have enough retention time to precipitate a little the anti coalescing film would provide a protective interface between the water droplets and metal.
Since we have no way to drain our tank demulsification would depend on 100% water blocking efficiency of the fuel filter. If not free water would be allowed to settle anywhere in the injection system without protection. Demulsifiers NEVER remove all water where you intend for it to do so even with extended retention time. We inject several hundred gallons of this stuff a month and even the best demulsifiers at their saturation point are no where near 100% efficient. Especially in a hygroscopic medium.

I am not condemning anyone for whatever they decide to use to treat their fuel. I am simply sharing my experience after years of involvement in the development, testing and validation of diesel injection systems for car and truck applications. During that time, I saw numerous injection pump & injector failures, many atributed to water induced corrosion and microbial growth.

As I have stated earlier, none of the injection system manufacturers I have worked with, has promoted the use of water emulsifiers. In fact, just the opposite has been true.

Injection systems manufacturers have learned a lot over the years about making their products more resistant to failures caused by water contamination. The current pumps and injectors are much more toleratant to water contamination than they were a few years ago, but they still are not totally immune to such failures. As time goes on they will continue to get better and the fuels along with the distribution infrastructure will continue to improve.

I am glad that many members here have experienced long trouble-free service with their vehicles and hope they continue to get such good service. Obviously, there are different experiences and opinions on this subject and everyone is entitled to express theirs. If it works for you, that's great!

All I can say is that my experience and research tell me not to use a water emulsifier in my diesel fuel if I can at all help it. If you have experienced differently, that is great. I do wish everyone the best with whatever additive they choose for their fuel.

Cheers :)

[quote=RayMich;1994042;]General Motors Bulletin specifically states both NO ALCOHOL and only WATER DEMULSIFIERS should be used in General Motors diesel engines.
______________________

General Motors Corporation

Bulletin No.: 03-06-04-017B

Date: September 07, 2005

Is there a newer bulletin that is not over 2 years old, I am sure there engines have changed and maybe there feelings on additives!

I just did a google search on the opti stuff and found that they link back to the diesel place as the best performer in an "independant additive study"

http://www.centurionlubes.com/XPD.htm

Well

General Motors Bulletin specifically states both NO ALCOHOL and only WATER DEMULSIFIERS should be used in General Motors diesel engines.
______________________

General Motors Corporation

Bulletin No.: 03-06-04-017B

Date: September 07, 2005
______________________

Is there a newer bulletin that is not over 2 years old, I am sure there engines have changed and maybe there feelings on additives!
I have not seen anything more recent.

None of the GM engineers I have talked to have said anything about changing their mind on this.

Anyone been running Opti-Lube XPD? Figure, since Spicer's test results, someone ought to be running it by now.

For those that are, notice any difference? running quieter? mileage improvement?

I am currently using Stanadyne Performance, and have not noticed a difference in performance, mileage, anything since using it. Based on the results of Spicer's test, don't know if I am going to continue after I use what I have.

Interested in the XPD, based on the lubricity results, but interested in feedback from anyone who has used it so far... jk

Anyone been running Opti-Lube XPD? Figure, since Spicer's test results, someone ought to be running it by now.

For those that are, notice any difference? running quieter? mileage improvement?

I am currently using Stanadyne Performance, and have not noticed a difference in performance, mileage, anything since using it. Based on the results of Spicer's test, don't know if I am going to continue after I use what I have.

Interested in the XPD, based on the lubricity results, but interested in feedback from anyone who has used it so far... jk


I've run the Opt-lube XPD for about the last 2000 miles. Before that I used Stanadyne Performance Formula. To be honest, I haven't noticed any difference at all going from one to the other. My driving has been mostly Interstate towing my trailer.

I really didn't expect a big difference in mileage or power. I think that's more marketing hype than anything else.

I've run the Opt-lube XPD for about the last 2000 miles. Before that I used Stanadyne Performance Formula. To be honest, I haven't noticed any difference at all going from one to the other. My driving has been mostly Interstate towing my trailer.

I really didn't expect a big difference in mileage or power. I think that's more marketing hype than anything else.

Thanks!

Excellent job spicer. Thanks. Later! Frank

The place gives me a headache...........

I'm a new diesel owner (first one) and between the tire debat,t-bars crank vs. lift etc, etc.........and now this :D. Do you HAVE to add something to your fuel tank everytime you fill up??? Can someone please give me a readers digest version of this thread in one sentance or less? THANK you :p:

Well Crazy, ULSD may/may not have enough lube in it, adding lube may/may not help, good additives can't hurt seems to be the concensus, alcohol is probably bad, I like Howes with a splash of 2 stroke in it, with an ocasional glug-glug of clean Rotella, (seems to get rid of my code 35 for a while). One sentence won't work, so after all the studies and research, take some asprin and add whatever you feel good with to your fuel. ;-)
I liked the study but feel it lacks a little by not testing fuel from the pump with oil company additives in it. Hard to say what interaction the studied additives will have on additives already in the pump fuel.
Ted

I can't wait with the cold weather coming to find out about gelling and what additives are going to work well for that. I know that the Power Service works well but after reading this I am not sure if I want to use that any longer. I may have to try the Opti Lube.

i am up here in upstate NY and stanadyne worked out just fine for me in the winter, but now i am perfered customer of amsoil i am gonna start using that. I am sure any three of those work just fine.


I can't wait with the cold weather coming to find out about gelling and what additives are going to work well for that. I know that the Power Service works well but after reading this I am not sure if I want to use that any longer. I may have to try the Opti Lube.

Can someone please give me a readers digest version of this thread in one sentance or less? THANK you
Use a reputable additive with every fill-up and you will greatly reduce the chances of future injector and fuel pump problems, while increases your chances of your machine running at its best.

Can someone please give me a readers digest version of this thread in one sentance or less? THANK you
Use a reputable additive with every fill-up and you will greatly reduce the chances of future injector and fuel pump problems, while increases your chances of your machine running at its best.

Friggen perfect........:D Now.......let's talk tires:D

so, stanadyne perf formula is crap?

so, stanadyne perf formula is crap?
NO

so, stanadyne perf formula is crap?
no, just isn't as lubed in untreated fuel as some of the others. the rest of the additive is and does perform exceptionally well. used it since i bought my truck, and continue to. i just add a lube to it now. just in case

i cant get the pdf to load up on my computer , is there a word version of it?

I ordered a gallon today. I will post back with results
when available.

John

Thanks Ray for explaining this. Nicely done!

I am passing on some info regarding a test subject that is needless to say not happy with the results. FPPF was very unhappy with the results of their "Lubricity Plus Fuel Power". It tested very poorly while their "RV, BUS SUV formula did very well. They contend that both additives use the same lubricity agent and the Lubricity Plus Fuel Power actually has a higher concentration. The results simply make no sense in their opinion.

In consultation with the laboratory representative, we have offered to re-test this one additive. We will not acquire a new bottle of additive. I still have enough of the original bottle. I will re-package the product in a sample bottle and re-send it for mixing and analysis. Because the results seemed so off, the lab was willing to re-run because we want to rule out any possibility of an improperly mixed (wrong ratio) sample. These are mixed by humans and there is a chance it was poorly mixed. There is also a possibility that I did not send a clean sample (very unlikely, but always a possibility). In order to ensure we did it right, it will be re-run.

I only agreed to do this if we used the exact same bottle of additive that I acquired from a retailer. I and the lab are not willing to acquire a new bottle of additive and re-test. If the results are different, we will know that I or the lab made a mistake. If it tests the same, we will know that there is a problem with the formula or that we acquired a bad batch, both the responsibility of FPPF. If we tested a NEW bottle of additive, we would not be able to pinpoint the problem.

I believe FPPF to be a good company who believes in their product. I am sure that ALL companies were confident in the results they would see. Otherwise they would not have willingly participated. It is interesting that a number of additives failed to improve the fuel. There are a number of possible reasons for this, all of which are beyond the scope of our test. One very real possibility is the fact that some additives work poorly on certain fuels. An inexact science based in chemistry. The chemistry is fairly well understood, but VERY complicated. In the real world of adding lubricating additives to fuels at the terminals, they simply evaluate every batch of fuel by testing for HFRR, adding an "educated guess" amount of additive, retesting, and adjusting until it is right. Truly a trial and error approach. It is known that some fuels just don't play nice with some additives.

As for now I and the lab stand behind our method and results. If the results of this follow up test are dramatically different, I would have to admit that someone made a mistake and I will post the new results in place of the old results. Fortunately I still have 1/2 bottle of the original test sample. I will keep all posted. SPICER


What ever became of this follow-up test??

Well I bought the Power Service mostly becuse it was at Wallymart . I will look for the better additive when I hit the road perhaps they are at a Petro station or truck stop along the way .

What ever became of this follow-up test?????

???

Posted by Spicer: see my post on page 13:

FPPF was very unhappy with the results of their "Lubricity Plus Fuel Power". It tested very poorly while their "RV, BUS SUV formula did very well. They contend that both additives use the same lubricity agent and the Lubricity Plus Fuel Power actually has a higher concentration. The results simply make no sense in their opinion.

In consultation with the laboratory representative, we have offered to re-test this one additive. We will not acquire a new bottle of additive. I still have enough of the original bottle. I will re-package the product in a sample bottle and re-send it for mixing and analysis. Because the results seemed so off, the lab was willing to re-run because we want to rule out any possibility of an improperly mixed (wrong ratio) sample. These are mixed by humans and there is a chance it was poorly mixed. There is also a possibility that I did not send a clean sample (very unlikely, but always a possibility). In order to ensure we did it right, it will be re-run.

See Spicer's first post on this on page 3 dated 9/5/07

See Spicer's first post on this on page 3 dated 9/5/07


We saw it. Just wondering why it's taking so long to retest the sample. ???

We saw it. Just wondering why it's taking so long to retest the sample. ???

Sorry about that. The sample was re-run a long time ago, and I got the results a long time ago. I have been busier than any man has business being. I just forgot to post it. The results of the FPPF re-test of the Lubricity plus fuel power gave the same results as the first run. I re-bottled a new sample (From the same original product bottle) and sent it in. It got essentially the same numbers. Can't remember the exact result, but essentially the same. There are a few results that have made manufacturers scratch their heads and have made a few pretty upset, as well as a few very happy. Not everyone can finish at the top. Thanks for reminding me. Later! SPICER

Thank You Spicer:)

Sorry about that. The sample was re-run a long time ago, and I got the results a long time ago. I have been busier than any man has business being. I just forgot to post it. The results of the FPPF re-test of the Lubricity plus fuel power gave the same results as the first run. I re-bottled a new sample (From the same original product bottle) and sent it in. It got essentially the same numbers. Can't remember the exact result, but essentially the same. There are a few results that have made manufacturers scratch their heads and have made a few pretty upset, as well as a few very happy. Not everyone can finish at the top. Thanks for reminding me. Later! SPICER

I had a feeling that that's what happened. Thanks for all of your hard work, as well as the update!

Do you know the product code for the Amsoil diesel fuel concentrate that was tested? Thanks

I've been using Primrose Power-Master 405 since I bought the truck in 2002 as well as a supplemental 2 micron fuel filter. I used that product as we don't have to deal with cold weather.... see http://avlube.com/prpo405.html

I still had my injectors go out at 75,000 miles :mad:
My current mileage is 82,000

Maybe I'll use virgin olive oil from now on :rolleyes:

George Morrison...... :help:

I'd be curious to know how this stuff tests.
http://www.ca40g.com/home.php

I'd be curious to know how this stuff tests.
http://www.ca40g.com/home.php

Yikes..... I'd be cautious. The website states "remember to shake it up very well before adding to fuel" :eek:

ok so i bought about 6 quarts of opti lube xpd. it is getting cold around here now and i was wondering should i add it every tank or every couple tanks?

Thanks

-Evan

I'd be curious to know how this stuff tests.
http://www.ca40g.com/home.php

:wtf:could you possibly be shaking up? I would hate to think that this is something that would settle out in the bottom of the bottle. I will say this is not going in my truck

No endorsement or other here. I don't know anything about the stuff but having to shake doesn't bother me.

I shake up most everything except beer and softdrinks. Lots of stuff settles out liquids. Your truck will slosh it around enough once its in the tank. But if its sit on the shelf for an appreciable time I can see some concertrated additives settle out.

Has anyone here tried Redline 85 Plus? I didn't see it in the test results

I've been running OptiLub every tank (@ 1oz/4gal) since I bought my gallon. For the winter (20F and below) I'm adding the Amsoil Cold Flow Improver too. They have a new formulation which looks good.

What are you guys in the warm weather states running?

Stanadyne Performace and Lubricity Formulas for me. Every fourth tank or so I put a gallon of 2 stroke oil in.

Stanadyne Performace and Lubricity Formulas for me. Every fourth tank or so I put a gallon of 2 stroke oil in.

Wouldn't be more prudent to add a quart of 2 stroke oil to each tank so the benefit would be continuous vs "all or nothing" ?

Wouldn't be more prudent to add a quart of 2 stroke oil to each tank so the benefit would be continuous vs "all or nothing" ?

yes but I get free jet fuel with no notice. I am always over lubricated this way. I never run the tank dry and the Stanadyne is treated everytime with no exception. The 2 stoke is a bonus (or a waiste).

...The 2 stoke is a bonus (or a waiste).
well according to the results its not a waste.... i use it and ive encorporated bio diesel in my fuel fills as well... gotta keep that pump lubed...:)

There is a point where the fuel will not be able to absorb any more lube. Thus it would be a waiste to add extra. A double dose does not mean double lubricity. If I did not get so much jet fuel I would not add the 2 stroke like I do. On the other hand I feel better knowing there is an excess. I even filled my fuel filters with two stroke when I changed them.

[quote=Mopar1973Man;1979353]
As you can see run BIO your going to get less power compared to #2 diesel so you MPG will fall slighlty.

I'm coming in very late on this thread - but must comment on the above statement. The energy content numbers may not be the only determinant of power and mpg.

My local biodiesel dealer also runs a heavy equipment maintenance business and operates a small fleet of trucks. A significant number of his customers are on the other side of the continental divide via I-70, with over a mile of elevation gain in the 45 miles or so from here (Golden, CO) to the top. He runs biodiesel (b20? can't remember) in his fleet and claims that he is saving money in travel time alone - his trucks make the trip faster on bio blend than on straight diesel. That suggests more, not less, actual developed horsepower in his particular engines.
/BazFrazz

It is a fact that bio has less btu's than straight #2.

It is a fact that bio has less btu's than straight #2.

Most diesel fuel sold is winter blend 1 & 2. Only for a short summer period here in Notheast PA, NJ and NY I've found straight #2. If, your comparing to straight #2, then yes it bio has less BTU, but compared to a blend, bio is more powerful.

Most diesel fuel sold is winter blend 1 & 2. Only for a short summer period here in Notheast PA, NJ and NY I've found straight #2. If, your comparing to straight #2, then yes it bio has less BTU, but compared to a blend, bio is more powerful.

Apples to oranges?

If you're comparing bio to a petroleum diesel winter blend, remember that biodiesel also requires a different blend in winter, lowering its energy content. A "winter" B20 is likely to be mostly #1 diesel, and may contain various flow enhancers which are relatively low BTU compared to #2 diesel.

So winter bio probably has less BTU/gallon than winter petro diesel.

I just started running the XPD in my truck and have not really noticed a difference but I am not the most attentive of the bunch. My mileage is about the same maybe better but I have started driving more highway than before. I have about about 800 miles on the XPD

From the study:

"In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the following steps were taken: Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the biodiesel sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered “experimental” at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market. It was sent directly from Opti-Lube company."

Are there any plans to re-test the XPD with an off the shelf production bottle? Until this is done I don't see how the XPD results are relevant, since only the "experimental" version was tested.

If someone has already asked this question I apologize, I may have missed it while reading most of the thread.

Spicer thanks for investing so much time in this study :thumb:

From the study:

"In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the following steps were taken: Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the biodiesel sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered “experimental” at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market. It was sent directly from Opti-Lube company."

Are there any plans to re-test the XPD with an off the shelf production bottle? Until this is done I don't see how the XPD results are relevant, since only the "experimental" version was tested.

If someone has already asked this question I apologize, I may have missed it while reading most of the thread.

Spicer thanks for investing so much time in this study :thumb:


Gents & Ladies,

If I may answer, the production Opti-Lube XPD is identical to the evaluation (or 'experimental') formula.
If further testing is sought, we'll gladly pay half the cost for a re-test.
An order can be placed and shipped without our knowledge that it's going out for testing.

BTW, we are now a supporting vendor on Diesel Place.

Thanks,

--Jim
Opti-Lube Advanced Lubricants

Hello Everyone....
I was turned onto this discussion over at DTR and had to join. After reading both threads on here I have a question. I live in the interior of Alaska roughly 150 miles from Fairbanks. In the winter we run straight #1 and I have always added Howe's Diesel Treat, (was disappointed in the choice of Howe's supplied for the test) but back to my question. Since we have limited suppliers, two refineries and they get the same Alaskan crude. I assume the HFFR test are done periodically. How do I get the results, I have asked a couple dealers and they have no idea what I am talking about, you would think it would be available. If I owned a station, after reading this I would try to get the suppliers last test results post them for all to see, and if the results were low, at least the customers would be aware.

High frequency recipricating rigs cost around 70-80k. i think that you will have to climb up the ladder to the refinery level to get the results or have your supplier do it. I agree he should want to know the results.

Gents & Ladies,

If I may answer, the production Opti-Lube XPD is identical to the evaluation (or 'experimental') formula.
If further testing is sought, we'll gladly pay half the cost for a re-test.
An order can be placed and shipped without our knowledge that it's going out for testing.

BTW, we are now a supporting vendor on Diesel Place.

Thanks,

--Jim
Opti-Lube Advanced Lubricants



I recently purchased XPD and the oil fortifier to test over the winter here in Calgary. I haven't started the XPD yet but have added the oil fortifier during my last oil change which was maybe 400kms ago and i must say Rotella 5w40 Synth with this fortifier really seems to be agreeing with my engine, way less smoke during cold starts and the engine just sounds so much better running in general.

I can't wait to start using the XPD just have to use up the last of my Power Service which should be two more fills.

High frequency recipricating rigs cost around 70-80k. i think that you will have to climb up the ladder to the refinery level to get the results or have your supplier do it. I agree he should want to know the results.
Refiners don't lubricity treat ULSD, it's too hard to get it through the pipelines at <15 ppm. It's treated with an additive package at the distribution stations as it's trucked up for delivery, so there probably isn't any point in most distribution chains where an HFRR test would be performed. The best you may find is a "baseline" done somewhere on the particular additive package, but good luck on that. That's one reason I treat my own fuel, because there are no guarantees on the quality and quantity of additization in the distribution chain.

I doubt you will ever find any fuel distributor who would disclose that information even if they had it, which I believe they don't. Giving out such information would open them up to possible law suits and huge liability. Since they are not legally required to provide that information, oil companies closely guard it and won't give it out.

The best you can do is, as Idle_Chatter suggested, treat your own as an insurance policy.

just wanted to throw this into the thread...

http://www.stanadyne.com/new/ppt/showfile.asp?id=4207

this is an updated chart, they had a differant one at one time on there site.

I am currently running the power service silver bottle. I have used BG 244 several times as well.

I do several diesel fuel service's at work, again using BG products, it is a big WOW service after your done.

Just want to know what is really "the best"

BG has its own labs, I have talked with my BG rep, gave him a copy of Spicers Study results, he is supposed to send it to the lab, and add their "244" product in the mix....

should be interesting.

I have been using the stanadyne performance in my 03 and now my 07.5 with absolutely no problems.

Until we find out whether there is enough lubricity in the new fuel I will continue to play it safe and add.

Ponch

thinking about trying either the 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel or the Opti-Lube XPD in my new 07.5LMM...anyone out there running either of these in their 07.5's??? thanks everyone...

I fill up with b20 when I'm near the only station in town that sells it. Otherwise, I add Stanadyne, or PowerService, or 2stroke, whatever I can get. Thinking about ordering some Opti-Lube XPD to try.

Regarding the emulsifier/demulsifier debate, don't you think we should know the water trapping efficiency of the GM spec fuel filter? If it traps 100% of the water, a demulsifier makes sense. Otherwise. . .? I know what the "GM engineers" state, but these are the same guys that stuck us with the LB7 injectors(via Bosch), put the fuel filter in that less than convenient spot, left out a lift pump, horizontal oil filter, etc.

I fill up with b20 when I'm near the only station in town that sells it. Otherwise, I add Stanadyne, or PowerService, or 2stroke, whatever I can get. Thinking about ordering some Opti-Lube XPD to try.

Regarding the emulsifier/demulsifier debate, don't you think we should know the water trapping efficiency of the GM spec fuel filter? If it traps 100% of the water, a demulsifier makes sense. Otherwise. . .? I know what the "GM engineers" state, but these are the same guys that stuck us with the LB7 injectors(via Bosch), put the fuel filter in that less than convenient spot, left out a lift pump, horizontal oil filter, etc.

I'm thinking about getting the Opti-Lube XPD also...are you going to run this all the time if you purchase it???

I have always used an additive if I can't get bio, so I guess so.

Regarding the emulsifier/demulsifier debate, don't you think we should know the water trapping efficiency of the GM spec fuel filter? If it traps 100% of the water, a demulsifier makes sense. Otherwise. . .? I know what the "GM engineers" state, but these are the same guys that stuck us with the LB7 injectors(via Bosch), put the fuel filter in that less than convenient spot, left out a lift pump, horizontal oil filter, etc.

How many times have you, or others, actually drained any water out of the fuel filter? I don't think the fuel that most of us buy is THAT good.
IMO, if our tanks had a drain, the demulsifier would then make sense.

My point exactly. Never had the WIF message.

+1 for no water

I put two gallons of water in my truck out of a barrel once because of my own stupidity. Water in fuel message came on and it died. Opened the drain and a little bit of water came out. Truck would not start. Opened drain and pumped primer a while and drops f water came out. Closed it and the truck cranked, ran for a minute and got the WIF message and it died. Repeated the process for an hour and a half. Ended up going through 5 filters until it cleared up. Next time I am dropping the tank when I get the WIF message. Here is my point: water gets past the factory filter. The engine would skip and make a god awful noise when the water went in the engine. Alot of white smoke too. It would only make it through under hard acceleration. my injectors are all good still. The only thing that saved them IMO is the excessive amounts of Stanadyne Performance and Lubricity Formula I added. A heck of a lesson to learn

Just noticed this sign today at the station were I fill-up sometimes. I guess they use Power Service in all their "winterized" fuel. Anyone seen anything like this at their retailer? I don't know what kind of PS it is, maybe just their anti-gel...

I haven't noticed that anywhere I've filled up...but I'm definitely thinking about the Opti-Lube XPD route...who else on here runs this all the time??? opinions of it???

How many times have you, or others, actually drained any water out of the fuel filter?

I have. Only about a thimble full and only rarely.

Anything wrong with a few ounces of 2 stroke oil at a fill up? It is made to mix and burn clean.

Anything wrong with a few ounces of 2 stroke oil at a fill up? It is made to mix and burn clean.
nope thats what most people I know run

This study is very interesting, thanks! I don't like Biodiesel and used to avoid it whenever possible. But since it seems to be great for lubrication, I'll not avoid so much anymore.

A question that didn't come up yet: How about using SVO as an additive for lubrication? Biodiesel is made of VO, so adding some SVO might work just as well. It's easily available and cheaper than 2-stroke oil.

This study is very interesting, thanks! I don't like Biodiesel and used to avoid it whenever possible. But since it seems to be great for lubrication, I'll not avoid so much anymore.

A question that didn't come up yet: How about using SVO as an additive for lubrication? Biodiesel is made of VO, so adding some SVO might work just as well. It's easily available and cheaper than 2-stroke oil.

I really don't know the answer. Sorry! Would be interesting to know. SPICER

New member and new Deisel owner. Reading all the post on additives was very informative, but. Could someone please advise me which one, if any should I use? My truck has 160.000 miles. runs as smooth as a top, previous owner had all the injectors replaced under warrenty.

It's a matter of opinion, Boothguy. I have always lked BIOdiesel and felt vindicated by the study. However, you can only use it in small amounts during cold weather. A lot of guys here use Power Service because it's easy to get (Walmart). Some of the Supporting Vendors sell Stanadyne here and a lot of guys like that also. Welcome aboard!!

Ok, I'm trying it now: I put a good 1/2 gallon of SVO into the tank and filled it up with 23 gallons of Diesel today (40 gallon tank). The truck seems to like it so far ... Maybe it's just me, but it seems to run more quiet. I think it's better than 2-stroke.

Now I'll have to find out if using (a blend of) Biodiesel is cheaper ...

This study is very interesting, thanks! I don't like Biodiesel and used to avoid it whenever possible. But since it seems to be great for lubrication, I'll not avoid so much anymore.

A question that didn't come up yet: How about using SVO as an additive for lubrication? Biodiesel is made of VO, so adding some SVO might work just as well. It's easily available and cheaper than 2-stroke oil.


What is SVO??
JimT

What is SVO??
JimT

Straight (Simple?) Vegetable Oil. WVO = Waste Vegetable OIL

I have been reading all of the info on this lubricity study. If I am correct, the study was ONLY about the lubricating properties, and nothing else. I guess it just seems to be a big risk to continue using something that has been proven to be no good just because you might still have "9 bottles" or so left. So you throw away $20. Isn't that better than taking a big risk on a $10k-$12k engine just to use up some left over stuff? I personally have been using Power Service for the last 5 years in all of my diesel trucks, but after reading simple facts, my other two gallons will go back to Wal-Mart and be replaced with 2-cycle oil for the time being.
BTW, a huge thanks to you guys for doing this study and producing hard results. I know we all really want to know the truth about what to use in our trucks and this really helped.I would still be using Power Service if not for this study and who knows how much less damage I will stop by switching to something better.....anyway, that's my rant for the day.:rant: :beerchug:

Ok, I'm trying it now: I put a good 1/2 gallon of SVO into the tank and filled it up with 23 gallons of Diesel today (40 gallon tank). The truck seems to like it so far ... Maybe it's just me, but it seems to run more quiet. I think it's better than 2-stroke.

Now I'll have to find out if using (a blend of) Biodiesel is cheaper ...

Bio is hard to get here. One station 20 miles out of my way. Tried SVO a few times last summer in a stock tank. Worked just fine. Started with the quart and went down to a pint. Could not tell any difference between the quart/pint. Ran smooth and quiet. Cheaper than 2-stroke which I tried for awile. Think I'll just continue mixing my cocktail of SVO + Stanadyne for each fillup.

I have been reading all of the info on this lubricity study. If I am correct, the study was ONLY about the lubricating properties, and nothing else....
You are correct. The study was only about lubricity.

Many diesel fuel additives provide more than just lubricity to the fuel.

I've been using Stanadyne's Performance Formula since the first day I bought my truck with 10 miles on the odometer. (Stanadyne Additives have been approved by GM and most of not all injection system manufacturers.) I recently started adding a small amount of their Lubricity Formula as well.

I know that many people use 2-cycle oil, but I have never used it on my truck. 2-cycle oil is formulated for gasoline, not diesel fuel and my contacts at GM and several injector system manufactures tell me NOT to use it because it can leave gummy deposits, and on trucks built after January 2007 with the new emission systems, it can damage the DPF. So as far as that is concerned, I say "Caveat emptor" - "Let the buyer beware".

..my contacts at GM and several injector system manufactures tell me ....

RayMich,

Any chance of running the issue of biodiesel for lubricosity being a plus or minus past your contacts?

Thanks

RayMich,

Any chance of running the issue of biodiesel for lubricity being a plus or minus past your contacts?

Thanks

Biodiesel will help lubricity, this has been known for a long time and this test validates those claims.

What I've been told by GM engineers and injector system manufacturers is that biodiesel up to 5% (B-5) should be OK, as long as it meets ASTM requirements for biodiesel. Keep in mind that the cloud point for biodiesel is higher that for #2, so they recommend cloud point depressants and wax dispersants to prevent gelling in cold weather.

B-5 (Max) is what you will find in the owner's manual.

This chart should help.
http://www.stanadyne.com/new/ppt/showfile.asp?id=719

This lubricity study is quite interesting but doesn't seem to factor in some key points . Pressure for one as there is plenty of it in any diesel engine(injector tip) . And heat which can change the characteristics of any fluid (oil ,additive, etc).
I can see the added lubricity of Bio but keep in mind that vegetable oil does not naturally mix with diesel .Bio diesel makers add solvents to blend and ratio the two,( B5 B10 B20 etc) The solvent can cause build ups of various organizms that normally live in diesel fuel and cannot survive the solvent .So filters plug faster than normal with Bio.

I can see the added lubricity of Bio but keep in mind that vegetable oil does not naturally mix with diesel .Bio diesel makers add solvents to blend and ratio the two,( B5 B10 B20 etc)


Vegetable oil and biodiesel are NOT the same. I haven't seen anyone saying yet that VO and Diesel don't mix, but I've seen people saying that they do mix. It's easy to try that out for yourself.


The solvent can cause build ups of various organizms that normally live in diesel fuel and cannot survive the solvent .So filters plug faster than normal with Bio.

Afaik your Diesel is spoiled when you have the bacteria in it that feed from Diesel. If you have them, you want to get rid of them, so if there is some additive in Biodiesel that kills them, that's a good thing.

I can see the added lubricity of Bio but keep in mind that vegetable oil does not naturally mix with diesel .Bio diesel makers add solvents to blend and ratio the two,( B5 B10 B20 etc) The solvent can cause build ups of various organizms that normally live in diesel fuel and cannot survive the solvent .So filters plug faster than normal with Bio.

I have to disagree

You are correct. The study was only about lubricity.

Many diesel fuel additives provide more than just lubricity to the fuel.

I've been using Stanadyne's Performance Formula since the first day I bought my truck with 10 miles on the odometer. (Stanadyne Additives have been approved by GM and most of not all injection system manufacturers.) I recently started adding a small amount of their Lubricity Formula as well.

I know that many people use 2-cycle oil, but I have never used it on my truck. 2-cycle oil is formulated for gasoline, not diesel fuel and my contacts at GM and several injector system manufactures tell me NOT to use it because it can leave gummy deposits, and on trucks built after January 2007 with the new emission systems, it can damage the DPF. So as far as that is concerned, I say "Caveat emptor" - "Let the buyer beware".

Good info here....I will say that I used my first bottle of 2-cycle oil today and after 200 miles of driving, I will go back to the Power Service for now until I try OPD or Stanadyne. I definitely noticed a difference in HP and performance. With only 100 micron difference B/T PS and 2-cycle oil, it can't be that big of a deal. PS is still 100+ microns under the Manufacturer's Specs of what is acceptable, according to the study.....:)

I have used stanadyne since 1998 in three diesels and I will never use anything else. That's over 150,000 miles worth with NO PROBLEMS!

Ponch

I have used stanadyne since 1998 in three diesels and I will never use anything else. That's over 150,000 miles worth with NO PROBLEMS!

Ponch

Yikes...... 150,000 divided by 3 = 50,000 miles

No wonder you don't any problems :rolleyes:

Well, who did have problems due to insufficient lubrication properties of fuel?

OLEE vegetable oil DOES NOTmix with diesel without blending solvents This comes directly from the chemist who works for my companies Biodiesel supplier of B20 .We run 85 cummins equiped trucks who are now needing filter changes in 60%the normal interval.
We also run 28 Cummins K19 generators in ZPMC container gantries which due to a larger tank 2000ltr has more bacteria and now we change filters at 50% the normal interval or they stall (plugged)

This fuel is not contaminated ,these bacteria where present in the tanks from when we ran pure diesel. They are present in ANY diesel storage tank.
Bio diesel is great just change your filters early and run cetane boost.




DUALLY CLUB 481

As a matter of fact I would not put anything but B5 or GM recognized Additives (Stanadyne ETC) with ULSD through a high pressure injector. Check your owners manual.
My LBZ runs smoother with cetane boost.

M2CW

OLEE vegetable oil DOES NOTmix with diesel without blending solvents


Ok, I'll try it out.


Biodiesel supplier of B20 .We run 85 cummins equiped trucks who are now needing filter changes in 60%the normal interval.
We also run 28 Cummins K19 generators in ZPMC container gantries which due to a larger tank 2000ltr has more bacteria and now we change filters at 50% the normal interval or they stall (plugged)
You mean the filters need to be changed more frequently because you are running B20 through them instead of Diesel?


This fuel is not contaminated ,these bacteria where present in the tanks from when we ran pure diesel. They are present in ANY diesel storage tank.
Having these bacteria in the tank/fuel means that the tank/fuel is contaminated. Additives are available to get rid of the biological contamination --- maybe the tanks of your company need to be cleaned.

If biodiesel contains these additives and the problem with plugged filters results from dead biological contaminants, the problem would be temporary.


Bio diesel is great just change your filters early and run cetane boost.
Biodiesel isn't exactly great (other than for lubrication). It can dissolve rubber parts (like gaskets) in the fuel system, contains less energy than Diesel and seems to be troublesome at low ambient temperatures.

If I even need to use an additive to increase the cetane number and have to change the fuel filters more often, it is a serious disadvantage.


After reading the study, I'd use biodiesel as an additive to improve lubrication, but that's all what I would want it for. The problem with Diesel here is that you never know what you get; you don't even know if it's winterized. Imho, that is an untenable situation. It also leaves it totally up to you what you add to your fuel --- for lubrication or other properties.

Sorry about that it was supposed to of read 250,000. :rolleyes:

A question about 2-stroke oil. Is there any performance difference between synthetic and castor based when used as an additive?

OLEE vegetable oil DOES NOTmix with diesel without blending solvents

Then my eyes are deceiving me.

It will separate.

I use Opti-Lube as well as this product...The motor just seems to really love it... I can gradually tell after each tank... The motor is running smoother and quieter... I did change the fuel filter within 5k miles after using the SoyPower... Was fairly dirty... {Cleaning my fuel System Well}.
Changed again at 10K miles... Nice and Clean. As well as Opti-Lube, i feel this is the best additive for my diesel.

http://www.soyclean.biz/shopping/productsdetail.asp?cat=DFA

I use Opti-Lube as well as this product...The motor just seems to really love it... I can gradually tell after each tank... The motor is running smoother and quieter... I did change the fuel filter within 5k miles after using the SoyPower... Was fairly dirty... {Cleaning my fuel System Well}.
Changed again at 10K miles... Nice and Clean. As well as Opti-Lube, i feel this is the best additive for my diesel.

http://www.soyclean.biz/shopping/productsdetail.asp?cat=DFA

:eek: thats some expensive stuff. Be cheaper to buy a gallon of bio. If you can get it.

rdean: I kinda agree. But here in Oklahoma: We are so far way behind the times. If I want any type of bio, even at the pump. I have to go out of state. Around here, u say bio-diesel and people have no dang clue what u just said. I feel a good half of the state is ignorant to the product itself.

I hope this isn't in the wrong spot but I have a question about all these fuel addatives. I was talking with a friend of mine who is a cummins tech and I was telling him about OptiLubeXPD (which I use) and two cycle oil as an addative. He was told by cummins that fuel addatives can add too much lubricity for such tight tollerences of modern day injectors and high pressure fuel rails. What are some opinions about this topic?

rdean: I kinda agree. But here in Oklahoma: We are so far way behind the times. If I want any type of bio, even at the pump. I have to go out of state. Around here, u say bio-diesel and people have no dang clue what u just said. I feel a good half of the state is ignorant to the product itself.

ENJOY BEING "BEHIND THE TIMES" WHILE YOU CAN. BEING "PROGRESSIVE" ISN'T AS GREAT AS IT SOUNDS. IT USUALLY EQUIVOCATES TO MORE "SOCIALIST" IDEAS....THIS IS WHAT LIFE IN SO CAL HAS TAUGHT ME.:( IT SEEMS THAT "PROGRESSIVE" EQUALS "SOCIALIST. LAST I HEARD, USSR WAS OUT OF DATE!

yeah I know. We are behind the times here to. The county says it is to dangerous to make your own bio. I have to travel 15-20 miles to get B20. Wish they would sell me the B99 so I can do my own blending.

I hope this isn't in the wrong spot but I have a question about all these fuel addatives. I was talking with a friend of mine who is a cummins tech and I was telling him about OptiLubeXPD (which I use) and two cycle oil as an addative. He was told by cummins that fuel addatives can add too much lubricity for such tight tollerences of modern day injectors and high pressure fuel rails. What are some opinions about this topic?

Good question........ Anyone?

How much is Too Much ?

You can add all the lube to fuel you want but it will only absorb so much of it. If you double the dose then you do not get double the lubricity. I do not see how you can have to much, it is just not possible. If you add more than what the bottle states then you are waisting the additive.

You can add all the lube to fuel you want but it will only absorb so much of it. If you double the dose then you do not get double the lubricity. I do not see how you can have to much, it is just not possible. If you add more than what the bottle states then you are waisting the additive.


Bravo ! ! !

You can add all the lube to fuel you want but it will only absorb so much of it. If you double the dose then you do not get double the lubricity. I do not see how you can have to much, it is just not possible. If you add more than what the bottle states then you are waisting the additive.

Absorb? Hmm ... How does an additive work to increase the lubricity? Does it change the fuel itself in some way, or does it blend with it and provides lubrication itself?

Considering the neglectable percentage of the additive in the fuel, why does it work at all?

I'm saying 'neglectable' because the amount you are supposed to use seems to be very small. I used Power Service for a while, and the instructions said the bottle would last for 250 gallons. But there were no instructions about how much additive to use per gallon or per 10 gallons, so I added 'some'. The bottle lasted maybe 4 fillups, and even at that percentage, I'd still call it pretty much neglectable. A quarter bottle (there was some odd amount in one bottle, less than a gallon) is not much. Even 1/4 gallon of additive on 30 gallons of fuel is only 0.83%. --- I'm _not_ saying it doesn't do anything, I'm only saying the amount of additive in the fuel is neglectably small.

Don't forget, Lee, BIO @ 2% more than doubled the lubricity of the fuel.

the way I understand it: the molecules of the additive bond with the molecules in the fuel. Look at the 50:1 ratio you run in your weedwacker that little bottle in a gallon of gas is going to protect the engine? Yes it does and it is a small amount. You mix diesel additive the same way. Do the math on how many oz in the Power Service bottle to treating the 250 gallons. There is you ratio of oz to gallons. The fuel we buy is supposed to already be treated too. We add to it because we don't trust the man that it is really treated. There are also more benefits than just lubricity in additives.

Posted by Olee:
Absorb? Hmm ... How does an additive work to increase the lubricity? Does it change the fuel itself in some way, or does it blend with it and provides lubrication itself?

Considering the neglectable percentage of the additive in the fuel, why does it work at all?

Additives are under one of 2 categories: Surface Active and Viscosity Improving. Most are surface active. This kind of additive bonds to the metal surfaces in the fuel system (pumps, injectors) and creates a protective barrier at friction/wear points. It does not take a lot of this kind of chemical to do the trick. This is why you only need to add a small amount. The Viscosity Improving additives are oils such as 2-cycle (although I am sure products like 2-cycle also have surface active components). Biodiesel is definitely a viscosity improving product. It's components create a thicker buffer between components than regular diesel. Bio needs to be used in much higher doses to work, between 0.5% and 2% is a good ratio for bio to get a good result. SPICER

What about BG products and why weren't they tested? They have many different addatives to choose from. My same friend at cummins says that BG and Stanadyne addatives are the only ones recognized by cummins.

What about BG products and why weren't they tested? They have many different addatives to choose from. My same friend at cummins says that BG and Stanadyne addatives are the only ones recognized by cummins.

We held an "open enrollment" for additives over a period of about 3 or 4 months. Since nobody mentioned it, suggested it, and because I have never heard of it, we didn't test it. SPICER

Additives are under one of 2 categories: Surface Active and Viscosity Improving. Most are surface active. This kind of additive bonds to the metal surfaces in the fuel system (pumps, injectors) and creates a protective barrier at friction/wear points. It does not take a lot of this kind of chemical to do the trick. This is why you only need to add a small amount. The Viscosity Improving additives are oils such as 2-cycle (although I am sure products like 2-cycle also have surface active components). Biodiesel is definitely a viscosity improving product. It's components create a thicker buffer between components than regular diesel. Bio needs to be used in much higher doses to work, between 0.5% and 2% is a good ratio for bio to get a good result. SPICER


Thanks for the explanation! Seeing it like that, isn't it best to have both surfacing and lubricating additives?

How comes that it takes only a very small amount of something to coat metal parts of the fuel system with a barrier that even protects parts from wear caused by friction? Metal parts are the tank, the fuel lines, lift pump, filters (filter housing), IP, injector lines and injectors. That's quite a lot of metal to coat. Of course not all of these parts are subjected to wear from friction, but the additive doesn't know that. I imagine that such a barrier is constantly worn off and needs to be replaced ...


And then, it could be interesting to test additives towards their coating capabilities. Maybe there are additives that don't need to provide as much lubrication as others because they create better barriers. --- This has already been done in the study, at least sort of, so the study doesn't test for lubricity alone. Hmm ... Have there been assumptions about the similarity of "wear" in a fuel system and "wear" as determined by the study?

Do the math on how many oz in the Power Service bottle to treating the 250 gallons. There is you ratio of oz to gallons.


The problem is that I don't know how much an ounce is. Now I'm at the pump and have just filled 23.841 gallons into the 40 gallon tank, and the bottle PS contains 2.83 liters (or something like that) and is supposed to be good for 250 gallons. So how much do I add? I only know that an ounce is "not much". So for 30 gallons, I have to add "some" ...

You see the problem? :)


We add to it because we don't trust the man that it is really treated. There are also more benefits than just lubricity in additives.

Yeah, that's why I tried adding some vegetable oil --- but it's expensive. As to the other benefits, I'm not so sure if they are benefits in my case. Would a higher cetane number give me any advantage? The engine doesn't care as long as it is within specifications; injection timing remains the same. It may burn differently, setting off the timing, but by how much?

But then, using an additive that coats metal parts like Spicer describes may be an advantage. Rust protection would also be an advantage. But which additive would be the best for that?

I bought the large bottle of Sta-Bil (needed it anyway) to use for measuring ounces of additive. Sta-Bil is supposed to keep gasoline fresh in storage. You can find is almost anywhere that sells lawn mower or fuel additives. The bottle has a "tank" and a graduated cylinder that you squeeze the product into and it is measured in oz. I keep it in the tool box and just add what I need at the pump.

If the PS bottle has 2.86L in it then that is 95.69oz. So 95.69oz treats 250 gallons. Divide 95.69 by 250 and you get what you need to treat to one gallon of fuel.
95.69/250=.38 It takes .38oz per gallon. .38x30=11.4 So you need to add 11.4 oz to 30 gallons of fuel.

If that is the correct amounts then that seems like alot of PS. The Stanadyne I use takes one 1.25 oz per 5 gallons. That is only 6.25oz in 30 gallons.

A higher Cetane number is supposed to increase mileage. Some see it and some don't. Cetane is the resistance to detonation. The closer the fuel lights off to top dead center the better economy you will get. I don't think rust is really a factor unless the truck sits a long time. Yes the additive will coat anything metal. Personally, I use the additive for water emulsification and lubricity. I dont really care about the rest of the stuff. The lubricity test was so expensive it would take thousands of dollars to test each additive for each benifit that is on the label. I would love to do it though, just it is not that easy.

The Stanadyne I use takes one 1.25 oz per 5 gallons. That is only 6.25oz in 30 gallons.


I'm not sure which Stanadyne formula you're using, but the bottles I have say:

Performance Formula: 4 oz for 15 gallons or 8 oz for 30 gallons. (480:1)

Lubricity Formula: 2 oz for 15 gallons or 4 oz for 30 gallons. (~ 960 - 1000:1)

The Stanadyne 16 oz bottles (1 Pint) have once markings down the side which make it easy to determine how much you've put in. For Performance Formula it would be 1/2 pint for 30 gallons and 1/4 pint for Lubricity Formula.

I'm not sure which Stanadyne formula you're using, but the bottles I have say:

Performance Formula: 4 oz for 15 gallons or 8 oz for 30 gallons. (480:1)

Lubricity Formula: 2 oz for 15 gallons or 4 oz for 30 gallons. (~ 960 - 1000:1)

The Stanadyne 16 oz bottles (1 Pint) have once markings down the side which make it easy to determine how much you've put in. For Performance Formula it would be 1/2 pint for 30 gallons and 1/4 pint for Lubricity Formula.

I went and got my bottles out of the garage and not trusting my memory.
Here is what I have:
Performace Formula is a 64oz bottle that treats 250 gallons. 0.25oz per gallon, 1.28oz per 5 gallons, and 7.68oz per 30 gallons. I see where my math went screwey there on my last post.
Lubricity Formula: My bottle is the same. 4oz to 30 gallons.

The problem is that I don't know how much an ounce is.

To make it easy, Lee, there are 128 ounces ina gallon.

Ok, then it goes like this:

( (2.83 * 128 / 3.8) / 250) * 23.841

I can probably calculate that in my head, but I don't want to block the pump for an hour or so that it takes me to figure it out :) After that, I still won't know how much an ounce is ...

More seriously, it's usually 23 to 28 gallons on a fillup when the gauge is at about 1/4 full. So if the bottle lasts for 250 gallons, adding about 1/10 of a bottle is good. Like I said, just add "some"; it doesn't take complicated calculations.

well as the first response to this thread, one like everyone else good job Arlen(btw i need those 2 trees down if you have some time send me a $$).

Also, I'm really bummed out, if not PO'd that my FPPF 'Lubricity plus Fuel Power' fared so poorly. I bought 5 gallons of this stuff on sale and it's worse that using no addivtive at all.

I'd like to convince myself that your sample was a bad batch

Likely as not if you increase the concentration of the stuff it will improve its performance. Thats what I'm doing with the lucas and ps additives i have left.

Cetane number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetane_number#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetane_number#searchInput)
Cetane number or CN is a measurement of the combustion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion) quality of diesel fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel) during compression ignition. It is a significant expression of diesel fuel quality among a number of other measurements that determine overall diesel fuel quality. Cetane number of a fuel is defined as the percentage by volume of normal cetane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetane) in a mixture of normal cetane and alpha-methyl naphthalene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naphthalene) which has the same ignition characteristics (ignition delay) as the test fuel when combustion is carried out in a standard engine under specified operating conditions.
Cetane number is actually a measure of a fuel's ignition delay; the time period between the start of injection and start of combustion (ignition) of the fuel. In a particular diesel engine, higher cetane fuels will have shorter ignition delay periods than lower cetane fuels. Cetane numbers are only used for the relatively light distillate diesel oils. For heavy (residual) fuel oil two other scales are used CCAI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculated_Carbon_Aromaticity_Index) and CII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculated_Ignition_Index).
Generally, diesel engines run well with a CN from 40 to 55. Fuels with higher cetane number which have shorter ignition delays provide more time for the fuel combustion process to be completed. Hence, higher speed diesels operate more effectively with higher cetane number fuels. There is no performance or emission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_standard) advantage when the CN is raised past approximately 55; after this point, the fuel's performance hits a plateau. In North America, diesel at the pump can be found in two CN ranges: 40-46 for regular diesel, and 45-50 for premium. Premium diesel may have additives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_additive) to improve CN and lubricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubricity), detergents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detergent) to clean the fuel injectors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_injector) and minimize carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon) deposits, water dispersants, and other additives depending on geographical and seasonal needs.
In Europe, diesel cetane numbers were set at a minimum of 49 in 1994 and 51 in 2000.
Dimethyl ether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether) may prove advantageous as a future diesel fuel as it has a high cetane rating (55) and can be produced as a biofuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel).
Alkyl nitrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkyl_nitrate) (principally 2-ethyl hexyl nitrate [1] (http://www.dorfketal.com/additivesphlox.htm)) and di-tert-butyl peroxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di-tert-butyl_peroxide) are used as additives to raise the cetane number.:rolleyes:

After reading both of these stickies I have one (probably newbie) question.

Are all these additives and the majority of this discussion equally applicaple to 2008 duramax (with the dpf filters)? there is alot of discussion about increased or decreased emissions. Just wondering if anyone has any feedback on how they impact the new emission diesels

as a new diesel owner you guys have my head spinning. Lol now i feel unsure of how to properly fuel my truck! (seriously good info though!)

I know that all Stanadyne fuel additives sold after Jan 1, 2007 ARE compatible with ULSD and DPF.

Any manufacturer selling diesel fuel additives MUST comply with EPA regulations and one of them is that they must label the container to indicated if it is compatible.

If it is compatible with ULSD, it should be compatible with the DPF.

I understood it was OK to ad 2-cycle oil at the rate of 32 oz. per 26 gal. tank. The test showed it was added at 16 oz. My question is: Does this double the lubricity performance? If so, the 2-cycle lubricity numbers would be much higher in the ranking. I have been using at this ratio for several months and had no problems.
Steve,

You wrote that you have been using the 2-cycle oil for a few months in your 2006 LBZ without any issues. How many months is a few months? Can you confirm that you are not aware of any ill effects to your catalytic converter? Specifically plugging and/or overheating of the catalytic converter? Are you aware of any feedback (good or bad) from anyone else using the 2-cycle oil in a 2006 LBZ with the catalytic converter?

I also have a 2006 LBZ in my Silverado 4x4 and am now just starting my 2nd tank of fuel that includes the SuperTech oil at a 200 to 1 ratio. My motor was relatively quiet prior to adding the SuperTech oil to the fuel, but it is noticeably more quiet now. Colder temp's here in Wisconsin, winter blend fuel, and little highway driving thus far have not allowed me to evaluate if there was a change to my fuel ecomony to date.

I'm simply looking for a little reassurance from prior users regarding the use of the 2-cycle oil doesn't have a negative effect on the operation of the catalytic converter in the 2006 applications.

It has been suggested to me that 2-cycle oil intended for air cooled engines might be better suited as a fuel additive when compared to the water cooled 2-cycle oil because the air cooled oil may generate less ash. Any opinions on this point???

Thanks.

Steve,

You wrote that you have been using the 2-cycle oil for a few months in your 2006 LBZ without any issues. How many months is a few months? Can you confirm that you are not aware of any ill effects to your catalytic converter? Specifically plugging and/or overheating of the catalytic converter? Are you aware of any feedback (good or bad) from anyone else using the 2-cycle oil in a 2006 LBZ with the catalytic converter?

I also have a 2006 LBZ in my Silverado 4x4 and am now just starting my 2nd tank of fuel that includes the SuperTech oil at a 200 to 1 ratio. My motor was relatively quiet prior to adding the SuperTech oil to the fuel, but it is noticeably more quiet now. Colder temp's here in Wisconsin, winter blend fuel, and little highway driving thus far have not allowed me to evaluate if there was a change to my fuel ecomony to date.

I'm simply looking for a little reassurance from prior users regarding the use of the 2-cycle oil doesn't have a negative effect on the operation of the catalytic converter in the 2006 applications.

It has been suggested to me that 2-cycle oil intended for air cooled engines might be better suited as a fuel additive when compared to the water cooled 2-cycle oil because the air cooled oil may generate less ash. Any opinions on this point???

Thanks.

Been using 2-cycle oil as an additive for 4 months (about 5k miles). I have the stock exhaust and have not yet lost the kitty, though planning to do so. My truck has been running better than ever and no problems. My performance guy said that it is used in such small amounts, that even if it was bad for the cat, it wouldn't be enough to touch it. Hope that helps.

You're definitely on track with using something to add lubricity. These new "drier" ULSD fuels need an additive to help with engine wear and the injectors. That said, I wouldn't suggest using any type of oil with fuel. Oil has a different flash point, and will lead to additional sediment that could lead to injector failure and/or catostrophic failure. Your best bet is to use an excellent fuel additive with a great lubricity package.

Two quick items:

1. Power Service treatment. Large container (96 oz.) treats 300 gal.

Two ways to calculate.

GM fuel tanks hold approximately 26 gal. For easy math....use 25 gal.
300/25= 12. So there are 12 treatments per 96 oz. container
96 oz./12= 8 oz....per 25 gal.

96 oz./300 gal. = 0.32 oz/gal.
0.32 X any gallon usage = Volume required. Ie., 10 gal x 0.32= 3.2 oz.
20 gal X .32= 6.4 oz.
25 gal X 0.32= 8 oz.

Been using PS (till the great Lubricity test).
Simply measure & mark on the narrow side with a permanent marker indication 12 treatments. Installed a flip top spout, and squeeze till I reach a mark.
Don't care if I'm over using say on a 22 gallon fill. I'm treating my fuel, it's easy, and not messy-stinky.

2. Lubrication types via fluid carriers. Science is called Tribology.
Read the easy to comprehend and correctly stated article with simple and Figures in the first issue of maxxTorque....'Lube Notes' by Dan Watson
It will explain how some fundimental types of lubrication occur. Per Dan his follow up article(s) will explain the why & where they're specific usages for targeted tasks.

Almost 20 years ago a Tech Manual was written on lubrication that broke many peoples mental box on how lubes work. Still have my manual.

I purchased the Opti-Lube Summer blend and after using it for 1300 miles my truck was diagnosed with a faulty Fuel Rail Pressure sensor.

I'm assuming this is just a coincidence but figured I would ask anyway. Is there any chance that an additive could ruin a Fuel Rail Pressure sensor?

I apologize if this is a ridiculous question but I really have no idea.

Thanks.

You're definitely on track with using something to add lubricity. These new "drier" ULSD fuels need an additive to help with engine wear and the injectors. That said, I wouldn't suggest using any type of oil with fuel. Oil has a different flash point, and will lead to additional sediment that could lead to injector failure and/or catostrophic failure. Your best bet is to use an excellent fuel additive with a great lubricity package.

I have been using 2 stroke for some time now with no negative effects on the engine or CAT. I always thought diesel was a "fuel oil" if I can't add oil I'm wondering what all these additive companies use instead of oil? Lubricating water, liquified whale blubber, attorney squeezings? Somehow I think it's oil.

I have been using 2 stroke for some time now with no negative effects on the engine or CAT. I always thought diesel was a "fuel oil" if I can't add oil I'm wondering what all these additive companies use instead of oil? Lubricating water, liquified whale blubber, attorney squeezings? Somehow I think it's oil.

:rotflmao::rotflmao:Liquified whale blubber...now that is funny!!!!!!! I agree....been using 2-cycle oil for awhile now and have good performance with it. 20mog and smooth running with PLENTY of power....what more does a man want?

G'day, I have followed the contributions to this thread with great interest sin Spicer first posted the test results into the efficiency and merits of various fuel additives in currently being peddled in the marketplace. Firstly, I would like to state that I am not a scientist nor and engineer. Secondly, being Australian I live in a country economically and environmental very like the USA, but socially and politically similar to Canada. Until recently, non commercial diesel vehicles were very rare and the class of vehicle such as the 2008 GMC 2500HD LMM Duramax 6-Speed Allison Crew Cab 4x4 Z71 rarer still. However with the current fuel crisis and dramatic price increases, diesel engines( mostly European and Japanese) have gained popularity as has Bio-diesel and Ethanol. ( although bio-diesel receives no government assistance and actually attracts additional tax!!!!). Hmmmm...but I digress.
Naturally there has been a tremendous interest in the various fuel saver, fuel additive technology promoted. Some of these are simply pathetic scams originating from, but long since discredited in USA, and hoping to find a new following among the gullible rubes in Australia.(particularly multi-level scams). Some of these product are really bizarre, while others would appear to have some surface credibility. One example of this kind of semi-scientific product description is as follows:-



The Centron ll E3008 MCF Electro-Phoresis Dynamics (EPD)
treatment is superior as because instead of relying on heat or friction to coat the engine parts,EPD utilizes the bar magnet quality of polarity, the universal principal that opposite poles attract. The engine pre-treatment, bottle1, the POLARIZER> this gives
the metal surface a powerful CATIONIC or electo-positive charge . The treatment itself, bottle 2, the ANIONIC, or electro negative, seeks out out the cationic and locks onto the metal surface. The result is long term (100,000 klms+) protection.Centron ll uses PTFE at the lower end of the engine,(shafts,journals,bearings and cylinder walls) to give it a tough, slippery film of longlife lubrication. But ant the other end, on
the rings, in the high-temperature, oil destroying area of the combustion chamber Centron ll makes the most dramatic difference from oil additives.MCF(Metallo-Chhlorbutanol Flurethylene) resistant to 2500-3000F,gives the engine piston rings a similar protective coating as the bearings receive. It is THIS coating which traps the combustion energy above the piston crown and delivers it to the crankshaft.

I must state that the rest of the products in the Centron 11 range would appear to be astonishingly similar to products from the well respected Centron Energy Corporation USA, who deny all knowledge of Centron 11 Australia.

Is it just sceptically old me, or have Centron 11 (aus) really discovered an lubricant delivery elixir that has defied the best US technology ?? Hmmm..why do I doubt well probably because this is the most information I could obtain on this 'revolutionary" product. (4Ethos anyone?)

I would appreciate any views from guy's with more knowledge than me.

G'day, I have followed the contributions to this thread with great interest sin Spicer first posted the test results into the efficiency and merits of various fuel additives in currently being peddled in the marketplace. Firstly, I would like to state that I am not a scientist nor and engineer. Secondly, being Australian I live in a country economically and environmental very like the USA, but socially and politically similar to Canada. Until recently, non commercial diesel vehicles were very rare and the class of vehicle such as the 2008 GMC 2500HD LMM Duramax 6-Speed Allison Crew Cab 4x4 Z71 rarer still. However with the current fuel crisis and dramatic price increases, diesel engines( mostly European and Japanese) have gained popularity as has Bio-diesel and Ethanol. ( although bio-diesel receives no government assistance and actually attracts additional tax!!!!). Hmmmm...but I digress.
Naturally there has been a tremendous interest in the various fuel saver, fuel additive technology promoted. Some of these are simply pathetic scams originating from, but long since discredited in USA, and hoping to find a new following among the gullible rubes in Australia.(particularly multi-level scams). Some of these product are really bizarre, while others would appear to have some surface credibility. One example of this kind of semi-scientific product description is as follows:-

The Centron ll E3008 MCF Electro-Phoresis Dynamics (EPD) treatment is superior as because instead of relying on heat or friction to coat the engine parts, EPD utilizes the bar magnet quality of polarity, the universal principal that opposite poles attract. The engine pre-treatment, bottle1, the <POLARIZER> this gives the metal surface a powerful CATIONIC or electo-positive charge . The treatment itself, bottle 2, the ANIONIC, or electro negative, seeks out the cationic and locks onto the metal surface. The result is long term (100,000 klms+) protection. Centron ll uses PTFE at the lower end of the engine, (shafts, journals, bearings and cylinder walls) to give it a tough, slippery film of longlife lubrication. But at the other end, on the rings, in the high-temperature, oil destroying area of the combustion chamber Centron ll makes the most dramatic difference from oil additives. MCF (Metallo-Chhlorbutanol Flurethylene) resistant to 2500-3000F, gives the engine piston rings a similar protective coating as the bearings receive. It is THIS coating which traps the combustion energy above the piston crown and delivers it to the crankshaft.

I must state that the rest of the products in the Centron 11 range would appear to be astonishingly similar to products from the well respected Centron Energy Corporation USA, who deny all knowledge of Centron 11 Australia.

Is it just sceptically old me, or have Centron 11 (aus) really discovered an lubricant delivery elixir that has defied the best US technology ?? Hmmm..why do I doubt well probably because this is the most information I could obtain on this 'revolutionary" product. (4Ethos anyone?)

I would appreciate any views from guy's with more knowledge than me.

Sound like double-talk, "snake oil" scam to me. I've never heard of a magnetic liquid, especially one with such miraculous properties. :rolleyes:

Ever hear of sea foam? Been around for longer than most others in the study just wondering how come it was not tested - I know it works well with Gas engines - Never tried it with Diesel but it is supposed to work well with diesel also.

every one that participated in the study got a say so on what was tested. I never heard sea foam being mentioned.

Seafoam is cleaning additive. It is not an additive that claims to increase lubricity in ULSD fuel. The study was on how much lubricity properties of certain additive. There was a thread on the discussion of what was tested and a lot of members were donating for their favorite additive. You can search on that.

http://www.seafoamsales.com/motorTuneUpTechDiesel.htm

They claim it does it all -- I have used it in my Skidloader helps alot starting cold and starting in general - Have not tried any additives with ULSD yet.

Have also used it in gassers works wonders on them

Remember, gas and diesel are two different animals. I am not trying to argue here. I know they claim to do everything, like many other additive. Do a search and you will find your answer. You can also go to Bobistheoilguy. A few of their moderators who owns diesel hang out here also. You can start a new thread in this section.

By the way, I used it in my Camry also, doing it through the vacuum system to clean the carbon. It is good cleaner. It is Naphta based which is similar to Alcohol. The chemist can shoot me but I think alcohol is not compatible with diesel. So I am leery to put it in the diesel since there are a lot of other good additive specially made for diesel.

If you want to try it, do so and report the result to us. Don't say that I recommend it.

well i have not added anything and probably will not most of our diesel has 2% bio in it. i was just curious have never seen any performance studies on Sea Foam. It is also only one of the additives i have actually seen work on gassers and older diesels do not know about the newer ones. My case is 1982. however i do not add it every tank.

A bit late to the party here, but what the hell....

Excellent thread! Thanks to the originators and contributors for an interesting read.

Just to throw my $0.02cdn in here, I was looking for a biodiesel source for our trucks and boats at work, and found a supplier who was willing to sell me a barrel of ASTM B100 for my personal use as well. I drive a stock 1997 F250 with the 7.3 litre Navistar in it. (I know, forum troll...) Mostly highway commuting to work with some hay hauling and odd jobs on the weekends and occasionally hauling a 7500 lb. boat and trailer. The truck just turned over 190,000 kilometres. I fuel up every week to 10 days. I have the following data series:

Pre-biodiesel, using ULSD: 22 fills, averaging 13.16 litres per 100 kilometres or 21.52 miles per (Canadian) gallon.
Biodiesel, starting at 5% and building up to 25% over 8 fills, with a total of 16 fills: 13.79 l/100 kms., 20.65 mpg.
ULSD only (ran out of B100, took a while to get more): 6 fills, 13.81 l/100kms., 20.58 mpg.

I'm not convinced I'm seeing a real mileage drop due to the lower BTUs of biodiesel. Using cruise control, following the speed limit, and staying out of town as much as possible can produce a greater difference in mpg between fills for me. I also spent three weeks during the biodiesel period this winter with a half ton of hay under the canopy (2WD - it was snowing and I needed the traction) which drops the mpgs down close to 19.

With the warm weather arriving (and the spike in diesel versus biodiesel prices) I may jack the mix up to B50 and see how things develop.

I recently read the Lubricity Additive Study Results and it popped up some questions that you could help me with. From a wvo burner's perspective:

1) Do I have a lubricity problem running wvo? I assume yes, as you can't get much lower sulfer in fuel than wvo.

2)As the additives are added into the diesel tank, I won't be running much of it through my engine running on wvo most of the time. So should I add it to wvo? Adding it to my vo would cause it to run through the engine more than the diesel tank, although I would do both.

3)I recently pulled my intake manifold off and saw a little bit of coking on one of the valve rods. Not able to do an injector replacement right now, so Many of these additives are both a cleaner and a lubricant. I am wondering if I should add some injector cleaner to the fuel system. If so, then back to question #2?

4)Will it cause problems to add such an injection cleaner to wvo? If not then what kind? (I already know to stay away from alcohol based cleaners used for gas engines.)

These questions may have been posted before, but after 2hr looking, I couldn't find them, so here they are (possibly again).



__________________
98 Chevy 6.5L K3500 Turbo, Crew Cab, 4X4 Longbed it's soooo big it takes up two parking spots and needs it's own zip code!http://www.frybrid.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif