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
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.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
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. SPICERQLCsteve;1975577; said: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, 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. SPICER5150 H1;1975734; said: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
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
So I was wondering if the Stanadyne bottles you received for the test were the old formula or the new formula.
Formulated for
ULTRA LOW SULFUR
You can check out their new labels HERE.
That's what I am refering to.rtquig;1977176; said: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.
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. SPICERRayMich;1977188; said: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.
Could very well be.Idle_Chatter;1977548; said: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. SPICERIdle_Chatter;1977548; said: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.
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?SPICER;1977640; said: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
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. SPICERschiker;1977749; said: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.