Diesel Place banner

Lubricity Additive Study Discussion

Info: 
423K views 439 replies 196 participants last post by  JMJNet 
#1 ·
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
 

Attachments

#2 ·
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olemax
#3 ·
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
 
#230 ·
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.
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#234 ·
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.
 
#5 ·
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
 
#7 ·
QLCsteve;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, 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
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrsavoie
#8 ·
5150 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
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrsavoie
#9 ·
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}
 
#10 ·
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 SULFUR​
So 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.
 
#294 ·
I got to check this one out,,,,let me check the web. I really need some lubricity in my LBZ.


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 SULFUR

So 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.
 
#11 ·
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.
 
#12 ·
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.
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.
 
#13 ·
RayMich;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.
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
 
#14 ·
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.
 
#15 ·
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.
Could very well be.

Perhaps they should be contacted to find out for sure if there is any difference.
 
#16 ·
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. SPICER
 
#17 ·
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
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. :)
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#19 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
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?
 
#21 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
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.
 
#23 ·
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?
 
#24 ·
schiker;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.
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
 
#25 ·
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)?
 
#26 · (Edited)
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).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top