Well...same sad story told many times by lots of other folks. 03 Dmax, 30K miles, fuel filter changed faithfully at 10k intervals, tried to hit high volume dealers for fuel, nicktane at 4k miles....and then...

Last week started to get tough to start. First a couple of seconds, then a few more, until by last friday I had to crank the crap out of it to get it started. Got the bad news today....all eight are getting replaced as I write. Was told I would get it back tomorrow afternoon....we will see. This blows! -:t

John

:(

It does seem that folks are getting their trucks back fairly quickly now - none of this 8 week wait. Has the supply on the injectors finally opened up nationwide?

John, sorry to hear you fell victim as well. While I only had 2 replaced, this thing is quieter and stronger than ever!! I dropped the truck off on a Thursday afternoon and was able to pick it up on the following Monday, so thankfully no long wait for me either.

Seems like alot of trucks in colorado with injector issues. My guess is that fuel lubricity is poor - and is the first order cause of problem. I would suggest stocking up on some stanadyne lubricity formula and adding it religiously.

We were supposed to get a new astm diesel standard on jan 1 that includes a new lubricity specification. Turns out that that the lubricity additive was contaminating jet fuel in the pipelines. The pipelines, in turn, banned all lubricity additives - so now we are worse off than we were before. My guess is that we will see a great upsurge in injector failures due to poor fuel lubricity. Couldn't happen at a worse time of the year, with winter blend fuel having even worse lubricity parameters than "normal" diesel #2

- jeff

So, the suggestion of stocking up on Stanadyne seems to run counter to the warranty manual/guide book that came with my truck. It seems like I read in the book that the use of an additive would/could void the warranty ---- is that true?


Regards, Jim R.

My guess is that fuel lubricity is poor - and is the first order cause of problem. I would suggest stocking up on some stanadyne lubricity formula and adding it religiously.
- jeffWell.....I have been using FPPF Total Power religiously since day one, and that includes a lubricity additive.

John

So, the suggestion of stocking up on Stanadyne seems to run counter to the warranty manual/guide book that came with my truck. It seems like I read in the book that the use of an additive would/could void the warranty ---- is that true?


Regards, Jim R.
No, it is not true. GM came out with a bulletin that stanadyne and racor were "good suppliers" of additives and that owners who use additives should avoid those that use emulsification for water handling or contain alcohol. It is listed here in the TSB section on the site. Look here. (http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=141)

It is not listed in it's entirety, so I have listed in below; The key statement in it related to this issue is "some customers may desire to use a lubricity additive to aid in the longevity of their fuel system components."

If you look on the california Air Resources board website you will find a presentation from Bosch stating that 80% of the fuel in the U.S. does not have sufficient lubricity to protect our trucks (this is based on sampling in summertime - with winter blend fuel it would be worse data).

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

Date: March, 2003

INFORMATION
Subject:
Information on Diesel Fuel Additives

Models:
1994-1996 Chevrolet Chevy G-Van, Sport Van
1994-1999 Chevrolet Suburban, Tahoe, P Chassis
1994-2000 Chevrolet C/K 1500, 2500 Models
1994-2002 Chevrolet C/K 3500 Model
1996-2002 Chevrolet Express
2001-2003 Chevrolet Silverado
1997-2003 Chevrolet F Model (T Series) Medium Duty Tilt Cab
1999-2003 Chevrolet W Series Medium Duty Tilt Cab
2000-2003 Chevrolet WT5500 Model Medium Duty Tilt Cab
2003 Chevrolet 4500, 5500 Series Medium Duty Trucks
1994-1996 GMC G-Van (Rally Wagon, Vandura)
1994-1997 GMC Yukon
1994-1999 GMC Suburban, P Chassis
1994-2000 GMC C/K 1500, 2500 Models
1994-2002 GMC C/K 3500 Model
1996-2002 GMC Savana
2001-2003 GMC Sierra
1997-2003 GMC F Model (T Series) Medium Duty Tilt Cab
1999-2003 GMC W Series Medium Duty Tilt Cab
2000-2003 GMC WT5500 Model Medium Duty Tilt Cab
2003 GMC 4500, 5500 Series Medium Duty Trucks
1997-2003 Isuzu FSR, FTR, FVR Model Medium Duty Tilt Cabs
1999-2003 Isuzu NPR, NQR Model Medium Duty Tilt Cabs
2000-2003 Isuzu FRR Model Medium Duty Tilt Cab
with 6.5L, 6.6L, 7.2L or 7.8L Diesel Engine (VINs F, P, S, Y, 1, B, 3 - RPOs L65, L49, L56, L57, LB7, LC8, LG4)

The use of diesel fuel additives is not required or recommended for the 6.5L diesel or the 6.6L Duramax(R) 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. Both *Racor(R) and *Stanadyne(R) 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 which 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 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 many indicators of overall fuel quality such as cleanliness, specific gravity, volatility, viscosity, detergency, corrosion inhibiting abilities, and lubricity. Increasing the celane 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(R) 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 ISSUES

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.

Well.....I have been using FPPF Total Power religiously since day one, and that includes a lubricity additive.

John
Bosch has stated that fuel needs to meet en590 specification for lubricity in order for our fuel injection system to last - look here (http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf).

The additive needs to provide enough lubricity for it to perform well on an HFRR test (high frequency recriprocating rig). Specifically, I look for an additive that shows that "worst case fuel" treated with the given fuel will exceed the euro en590 standard - this is a minimum 460 micron wear scar diameter on an HFRR test. If you look on stanadyne's website - you will see that many additives do not perform well in terms of adding lubricity (it's funny that "howe's lubricator" almost does nothing in this regard). Stanadynes performance formula is shown to exceed an SAE standard that sets a 450 micron wear scar diameter limit (better than en590). Look here (http://www.stanadyne.com/new/ppt/showfile.asp?id=1156) for more information.


I don't believe that either fppf or primrose provide the lubricity necessary to protect our injectors. There was a poll asking about emulsifying versus demulsifying additives - demulsifying additives had half the failure rate of emulsifying (only 2 trucks that demulsified had problems the last time I looked and I noticed that one of them was "highly modified"). Thing is - the most used demulsifier on this board is stanadyne and #2 is probably rotella DFA. Both of these have published or stated results in hfrr lubricity tests where they treat worst case fuel and yield lubricity that exceeds european lubricity specs (en590). I have not seen published results from any other diesel fuel additive supplier that shows HFRR test results.

- jeff

Jeff I understand you have tracked down more articles and have recearched fuel additives more than most here on this site. So I do read your post and learn from them. I followed your link to the Stayadyne website testing. There testing basically shows that out of all additives in the test, Stanadyne was the only additive worth a darn.

I do have a few challenges. First, they did not test any of the current products that I see as real products. Primrose, Lucas, Chevron, Redline, biogold and finally Shell rotella dfa. I would be very curios to see how these products stand up to Stanadyne?

Finally I would like to have the oppurtunity to submit my own samples to this testing company and even some other testing companys. The same way we send in our oil samples. I think some independant testing would really get us closer to the true performers.

1. Stanadyne did use southwestern research institute - which is an independent testing outfit of high reputation.

2. George Morrison said that he would have HFRR test results for primrose long ago - he never came forward with them. He did present slbocle results - but bocle tests are being dropped because they do not correlate to actual wear on pumps and injectors on newer common rail fuel systems (see bosch study referenced above).

3. Shell Rotella DFA - on a thread over in the rotella forum their techexpert said that they tested with many different fuels and all were able to pass 460 micron wsd test when treated with shell rotella DFA.

Based on what data I have shell rotella DFA would meet the needs of those on this board the best - it removes minutes amount of water via polar bonding (making the emulsifiers happy) - this is done a molecule at a time, so no chance of steam blowing off the injector tips. For larger amounts of water, it demulsifies (which makes GM and us demulsifiers happy!).

Relative to the comment about having tests done. I was curious about this some time ago and contacted a company that had an HFRR test rig - the response was the following...

****************
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your e-mail. we can perform the requested test, Lubricity by
HFRR, ASTM D 6079. The cost for multiple samples is $ 275.00 per sample.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Phil Sorurbakhsh
Director of Laboratory Operations
Texas OilTech Laboratories, Inc.
10630 Fallstone Road
Houston, Texas 77099

************


- jeff

Man OH Man it sounds like we have to spend extra to keep a 46,000 dls truck,to stay running...the owner's manual does not say that lube is need for the injectors to last past 30k,this is p### me off.

Man OH Man it sounds like we have to spend extra to keep a 46,000 dls truck,to stay running...the owner's manual does not say that lube is need for the injectors to last past 30k,this is p### me off. In a nutshell - yes. I think that GM thought that they could "get by" until the new diesel spec with an hfrr lubricity requirement kicked in on jan 1, 2005.

The problem is a convergence of technologies and government regulations that will soon resemble an indonesian tsunami.

1. New clean burning and quiet diesel engine technologies use extremely high pressures which need greatly increased fuel lubricity.

2. Processing of fuel to remove sulfur to meet new EPA and CARB standards removes the lubricity needed.

3. Attempted introduction of new lubricity spec backfires when lubricity additives contaminate jet fuel and lead to banning of lubricity additives from all oil pipelines. This happened a month and a half ago (Have you noticed an increase in the number of posts on injector failures over the last few weeks?- I have...)

The problem effects all the newer quiet diesels; Some terminals have the ability to inject additives at the terminal (after the pipeline) - but most refiners expected to be able to additize at the refinery. So, it's a crapshoot. A presentation on the CARB website said that 20% of terminals in california did not have injection equipment. In other parts of the country, who knows? All the oil companies just got a hall pass with this snafu.


- jeff

Interesting that we are looking at GM recommendations for additives. I'm not so sure they know as much as we wish they did. I used Primorose the whole time I had my Dmax which is an emulsifier type additive. From posts gone by, the emulsifying additives only have the ability to emulsify very small amounts of moisture. It's not like it will dissolve a quart of water in your tank. I never had any injector problems. I'm using Primrose in my Dodge now. I'm not saying the additive is the ticket. Just that I haven't had injector issues while using it.

Well, guess I may have to try DFA with this set of injectors...

Got the truck back tonight...so far so good. Here are some particulars from the tech write up...
Key On Engine Off actual fuel rail pressure 1.6 Mpa
Fuel Supply vacuum at idle 3 inches/mm
Initial Injector Bank Return Flows Left - 30 Right - 25
Commanded Fuel Pressure to 160 Mpa with scan tool. Actual FRP 85 Mpa
After replacement, commanded 160, actual 160.

All I can say is wow! It idles much smoother, is quieter, and pulls much harder. It is also quieter at speed...seems like the motor is not even there. I never realized how loud it was with the old injectors. I guess I never knew it was underperforming. Can't wait to check the mileage. This one has never been one of the better performers in the mileage department.

Regards,

John

Relative to the comment about having tests done. I was curious about this some time ago and contacted a company that had an HFRR test rig - the response was the following...

****************
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your e-mail. we can perform the requested test, Lubricity by
HFRR, ASTM D 6079. The cost for multiple samples is $ 275.00 per sample.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Phil Sorurbakhsh
Director of Laboratory Operations
Texas OilTech Laboratories, Inc.
10630 Fallstone Road
Houston, Texas 77099

************


- jeff275.00 is a little rich for my blood. It is too bad the additive story can not gather the same type of momentum Spicer gathered with the air filters. That study enlightend us all. I am sure if we all picthed together we could reasonably test 5 or 6 of the most popular additives. We all would come out for the better.

OK...so, where can I get Rotella DFA. I have already checked my local Wal-Mart and no joy! Any internet distributors out there?

Thanks,

John