As I look for additional fuel filtrataion for my DMAX, I’m trying to work through the need for an additional water separator. I think I understand the basics of emulsifying vs. demulsifying, but still have some questions on the details. Could some of you please comment on the 3 scenarios below?


<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">No use of fuel additive. Water stays mixed in with the fuel, and should be separated once it hits the OEM fuel filter assembly. In this case, it would seem to be advantageous to have an additional water separator that would be part of a pre-OEM additional filter.</LI>


<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">Use of a demulsifying additive such as Stanadyne’s. Free water is separated from the fuel, and would most likely end up staying in my fuel tank. If this is true, it would seem as if water separators would not do much good, as the additive would separate the water in the tank. A separator may help with excessive amounts of water. Since we have no drains for our tanks, will this be a problem for those who use Stanadyne?</LI>


<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">Use of an emulsifying additive such as Primrose or Total Power. Free water in the fuel is encapsulated within the diesel. Again, it would seem as if water separators would not do much good except in the case of excessive water that could not be absorbed. The encapsulated water goes through the fuel system, but must somehow be burned in the combustion process. What happens to steam created by the moisture? Does the steam harm the injectors or other components involved in the combustion process? </LI>Edited by: Roegs

I think your argument on #2 is faulty. A demulsifier helps the water form into droplets that can more easily be seperated by the filter/water seperator. It doesn't necessarily sit at the bottom of the tank and realize that the fuel recycles back to the tank at a fairly fast rate. I think it was JohnyO who recently cut his oem filter open after running stanadyne and found enough water to make him happy he was using it...


Any claims of any emulsifying additive to encapsulate water to a sufficient degree to protect our fuel injection system is doubtful, at best. The amount of water is not controlled (in proportion to encapsulating additive). The amount of pressure in our fuel injection system is extreme and could easily break any polar bond. The state change from water to steam happens before the solution can exit the injector or at it's tip. This results in either a cracked injector or the injector tip being blown off.


Also, I believe that any emulsifying additive will degrade the lubrication (lubricity) by washing it away; Lubricity is a critical feature that is lacking in most diesel fuels for our trucks. George Morrison has stated that a large percentage of diesel fuel has 3% water. It would be "interesting" to see how well a sample of diesel fuel would do on an HFRR lubricity test with 3% water added and a dose of an emulsifying additive (that GM and Bosch say to avoid like the plague). Again, the only additives that I have seen with published HFRR lubricity data to show less than 460 micron wear scar diameter (level set by bosch as minimum acceptable) - are stanadyne and shell rotella dfa.


On the issue of secondary filtration and water separation, the Racor product manager for the dmax stated that their new primary filtration kit would benefit water seperation by removing asphaltines in the primary filter (the one added) so that the secondary filter (oem) could more effectively remove water; Asphaltines degrade the ability of the oem filter's aquabloc media to seperate water.


Asphaltines are created in the heating of the diesel fuel that is used to cool the injectors and subsequently returned to the fuel tank. The point to note here is that if you heavily work the truck, have a heavy foot, or a "juice on level 11" (for you spinal tap fans) - you probably need to go to a shorter replacement interval on the oem filter due to asphaltines plugging the filter and also degrading it's water removal abilities.


- jeffEdited by: dmax lover

I agree that #2 is flawed. The pickup is at the bottom of the tank, so any water separation within the tank would be pulled through the pickup and then into the filter where hopefully it can be separated out.

The water present in generally available diesel fuel is going to pass through the system, irrespective of the separator. i.e. 80 ppm of water before separator will end up being 80 ppm of water after separator. Thus we are passing losely emulsified water through our system and yes, steam possibilities are clear and present dangers as per dmax lover's concern when either not additizing or using an emulsifying fuel additive. By using an emulsifying additive for normal water levels we are chemically tying up the free water and surrounding it with a lubricating boundary and essentially eliminating free water from the fuel flow stream. As CAT has demonstrated in its 'clean burn' engine, using emulsification to throughput very high levels of water and utilizing the oxygen component for ultra clean burn fuel, all without any compromise for pump and injector life.
Regarding lubricity, I have repeated requested the site for the Shell and Stanadyne data on passing HFRR acceptance with anything but K1 fuel.. K1 is not ULS Diesel fuel... DMAX Lover please post those sites showing less than 460 mm scar with ULS...
George MorrisonEdited by: Georgecls

Here are my emulsifying pics...

thread (http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6858&PN=1)

I've been following George's advice for a long time. I ran Redline Oil's 85Plus emulsifying additive for a long time and recently switched to Primrose. When I changed my filters a couple weeks agao there was no visible water in either of them and absolutely no rust. The engine runs smooth as glass.

TC

These threads generally debate emulsification vs. demulsification as if you have to choose one or the other. I feel that an effective approach will combine both. A small quantity of water will always be passing through the system to combustion. This is the water that I want to emulsify. Sometimes unfortunately a larger quantity of water may enter the fuel system. Hopefully the water separator will catch it.


My questions are: What additive and treatment ratio will provide the best balance? And is the stock filter going to be sufficient to prevent a catastrophic quantity of water from entering my injectors? I would consider adding another separator if I thought it would be beneficial.


And yes lubricity is another valid concern. I don't know of a general purpose non alchohilic emulsifier that doesn't adress lubricity though. --SS

The water present in generally available diesel fuel is going to pass through the system, irrespective of the separator. i.e. 80 ppm of water before separator will end up being 80 ppm of water after separator. Thus we are passing losely emulsified water through our system and yes, steam possibilities are clear and present dangers as per dmax lover's concern when either not additizing or using an emulsifying fuel additive. By using an emulsifying additive for normal water levels we are chemically tying up the free water and surrounding it with a lubricating boundary and essentially eliminating free water from the fuel flow stream. As CAT has demonstrated in its 'clean burn' engine, using emulsification to throughput very high levels of water and utilizing the oxygen component for ultra clean burn fuel, all without any compromise for pump and injector life.
Regarding lubricity, I have repeated requested the site for the Shell and Stanadyne data on passing HFRR acceptance with anything but K1 fuel.. K1 is not ULS Diesel fuel... DMAX Lover please post those sites showing less than 460 mm scar with ULS...
George Morrison

Item #1 - Fuel Emulsion & CAT, etc

The creation of the emulsion of which you speak requires...
<ul> A special blending unit that is proprietary to Lubrizol Normal Diesel Fuel Purified Water Lubrizol's proprietary PuriNOx Additive[/list]
I agree that if it were possible for any commercially available additive to do as you claim - which is to completely surround all the water in a lubricative barrier at a molecular level - it would be a good thing. But, one of the required ingredients to the emulsified fuel that you make reference to is purified water, the other is a ultra high speed blending unit.

The water in one's fuel tank is far from "purified" and our trucks do not come equipped with the ultra high speed blending unit that is required to create such an emulsion. Therefore your claims concerning Primrose's ability to put water into emulsion in the manner which you describe are highly improbable.

- jeff
Edited by: dmax lover

These threads generally debate emulsification vs. demulsification as if you have to choose one or the other. I feel that an effective approach will combine both. A small quantity of water will always be passing through the system to combustion. This is the water that I want to emulsify. Sometimes unfortunately a larger quantity of water may enter the fuel system. Hopefully the water separator will catch it.


My questions are: What additive and treatment ratio will provide the best balance? And is the stock filter going to be sufficient to prevent a catastrophic quantity of water from entering my injectors? I would consider adding another separator if I thought it would be beneficial.


And yes lubricity is another valid concern. I don't know of a general purpose non alchohilic emulsifier that doesn't adress lubricity though. --SS




Sounds like Shell Rotella DFA will do what you want - it puts small amounts of water into emulsion via a polar bond with one of it's components. Any larger amounts of water are demulsified in order to increase effectiveness of the water trap. Look at the Shell Rotella Forum and search for Techexperts response to my question on this topic. (emulsification versus demulsification).

With regards to lubricity enhancement - all additives are not created equal in this regard. With some not yielding any improvement in this area at all - look at the stanadyne website for a comparison of different additives. It all depends on what you start with (so comparisons are dependent on the base fuel), but some didnt improve lubricity at all - I thought it was a little comical that "Howe's Lubricator" appears to have no effect on lubricity at all.

- jeff
Edited by: dmax lover

Thus we are passing losely emulsified water through our system and yes, steam possibilities are clear and present dangers as per dmax lover's concern when either not additizing or using an emulsifying fuel additive. By using an emulsifying additive for normal water levels we are chemically tying up the free water and surrounding it with a lubricating boundary and essentially eliminating free water from the fuel flow stream. George Morrison


George...I was a little confused at the above portion of your response. The first sentence implies there are possible steam issues from emulsifying, but the second says emulsifying ties up the free water. I'm thinking that either way results in steam issues. Could you explain a little more? Thanks!

Now wait a minute Diesel Lover.. You say in one post
"The creation of the emulsion of which you speak requires...


A special blending unit that is proprietary to Lubrizol
Normal Diesel Fuel
Purified Water
Lubrizol's proprietary PuriNOx Additive"

And then two posts later you extoll the virtues of Shell Rotella DFA and its apparent ability to do what you say is impossible to do...
Hmmm.... Explanation please???
Additionally, can you please post the tech support reference site for your statments that Rotella DFA meets/exceeds lubricity requirements using ULSD as test fluid??
I am unable to find anything on Shell's site supporting your statements.

George Morrison, STLE CLS

Hmmm. Where to start...


1. I never made any statement regarding the performance of Rotella DFA with ULSD. I think you confused the fact that much of the data regarding the lubricity of current fuel is documented in the drive to set sensible lubricity standards for ULSD - for example, Bosch presentation to CARB on CARBs website asking for 460 micron wear scar diameter @ 60 degrees C on HFRR as a minimum standard. Bosch stated that this is needed to protect new high pressure fuel injection systems "in light duty trucks" (that would be trucks like ours). Also, Rotella's techexpert did quote performance of Rotella DFA relative to this proposed standard (not tested using this as base fuel). See item #2.


2. Shell doesn't post test data, but TechExpert on Shell Rotella's forum did post the performance of Rotella DFA relative to the lubricity standard that is proposed for ULSD by CARB; All of the base fuels used in their testing did not meet this standard - all fuels after treatment did meet proposed standard (HFRR 460 micron wear scar diameter at 60 degrees C). See here..


http://www.rotella.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=General&amp;Number=513&amp;page=3&amp; view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1





3. Stanadynes Data comparing the performance of different additives was with one base fuel that yielded a 571 micron wear scar diameter (HFRR); Base fuel was low sulfur diesel #2 (not ULSD and not K1). See the stanadyne document below for details on this testing.


http://www.stanadyne.com/dsg/showfile.asp?id=1156


In order to show that your additive performs on par with stanadyne (relative to lubricity)- I suppose you would have to start with a base fuel that has similar results in HFRR testing (571 micron wsd prior to treatment and 357 micron wsd after).


4. Rotella doesn't claim to surround minute amounts of water in a lubricative barrier that totally isolates the water from the fuel injection system. (And primrose doesn't claim that on their website either...). My comments regarding Rotella DFA are about allowing minute amounts of water to pass through the system, your statements claim an additional lubricative boundary layer that makes the water molecule "invisible".


5. If you look at available information on the web regarding what is required to encapsulate water in a lubricative boundary layer, you will find that it takes 40 passes through a mechanical and ultrasonic agitation process (along with pure water, etc.).


- jeff Edited by: dmax lover

dmax lover,


How does the installation of Bilstein's jive with loving it stock???? Anyway, these discussions continue, and the same basic data appears. You think one thing, and argue with Georgecls who believes another. I have had discussions at length with George via phone, and e-mail, and frankly I trust him quite a bit more than GM or any GM lackey. How can I have an opinion??? Worked for them when they acquired Hughes Aircraft. OBTW, now work for who they sold us to as well. They waited years to own up to the problems with the 6.5, and may wait that long to do the same on the D-Max. Fact is George seems to have more real world knowledge than anyone who speaks up.


My money, and my truck are on George. My first fuel filter change was before using Promrise, had rust &amp; water. Second change is vastly different, no rust or water. I'll stick with George.


Roegs,


I think you will find differing opinions, and eventually come to closure on what to do. I would read, and listen to all, and in the end do something. The crap in the bottom of my Racor Pre OEM is proof to me that our fuel is absolutely fithy.

I think your argument on #2 is faulty. A demulsifier helps the water form into droplets that can more easily be seperated by the filter/water seperator. It doesn't necessarily sit at the bottom of the tank and realize that the fuel recycles back to the tank at a fairly fast rate. I think it was JohnyO who recently cut his oem filter open after running stanadyne and found enough water to make him happy he was using it...


- jeff





Per the discussion item #2 above, the TechExpert at the Shell Rotella site had the following to say about their demulsifying product:


"DFA disperses small amounts of water by virtue of its deicing ability. This means water is attracted by polar additives that disperse it harmlessly in the fuel. This does not result in emulsion formation, or uptake of free water. Being dispersed in the fuel, water cannot form ice crystals that might plug fuel passages. The amount of water is so slight as to not cause harm to injectors (see below).

If fuel containing ROTELLA DFA contacts free water, it will shed that water rather than form an emulsion. In this case, the water remains in the tank bottom as a distinct layer, separate from the fuel. Any free water picked up from the tank will be separated at the filter, where it can be manually drained.

ROTELLA DFA contains corrosion inhibitors that reduce corrosion on steel surfaces, thus protecting tank, lines, and other steel surfaces when water is present.

Free water, or water/fuel emulsion delivered to an injector, can be a disaster. Water is instantly turned to steam with sufficient force to destroy injector tips. Not only is the injector ruined, but metal debris enters the combustion chamber where it can damage pistons and liners, as well as turbocharger fins."





Based on his comments, we could end up with considerable water at the bottom layer of the tank. Could this be an issue, or do we assume that its picked up by the fuel system, and removed by the water separator? Also, does the DMAX fuel tank pickup pull fuel from the very bottom of the tank?

Silatman...thanks for your notes. I guess I really don't see this thread as a 'bet' on anyone. Both George and Dmax lover have brought great comments and data to the table, and in my opinion, we all win in these dicsussions.

The Stanadyne test is a JOKE &lt;--------------

They compare their additive to the likes of STP Diesel treatment.

Lets see some real world tests against Amsoil, Primrose, Shell etc...

Jeff, you metioned a new Racor filter for the dmax. Are you talking about an aftermarket filter kit to supplement the oem? Is this avaialble from Racor?

Yes, it's similar to what Greg sells here. I have one for my truck - Racor part number RK32313. I bought mine from http://www.oregonfuelinjection.com - I bought the optional rock guard as well. Pretty beefy.


Look here for a brochure...


http://www.o-f-i.com/sec/Racor_Fuel_Filter_Duramax.pdf


I run a demulsifier (stanadyne) - so I wanted one more layer of water removal and also wanted the primary filter (the added one) to catch the asphaltines. It's also nice having a clear inspection bowl that's easy to access and drain.


The filter kit comes with a 10 micron filter - which is just fine by me (others would say it needs to be 2 micron); The majority of the fuel takes many passes through both filters, etc. so I am not too worried about it being "sufficiently clean".


I noticed the change interval printed on the filter is 500 hours, 12 months or 12,000 miles (whichever comes first) - sounds like a more reasonable change interval than the flat 15k miles set forth by GM on the oem filter.


- jeff


Edited by: dmax lover