[Barkbuster]

Thanks for your hard work. I`m bummed Howe`s diesel treat wasn`t tested since I used it thru the winter and ran out last month. So I tried Howe`s meaner kleaner at their minimum treat ratio that was tested and it did not do so good, and this bottle will last till it gets cold. Looks like I`ll be using something else this winter, and also up the dose a bit till its gone. Hopefully the fuel we buy at the pumps is already close and my truck has benefited with the extra additive I have used since USLD has arrived.

 

[guybb3]

Soooooo glad you tested BIO, Spicer. So as a lubricity additive it would be almost free. If a gallon of BIO is only 50 cents more a gallon than #2, it would "really" only cost you $1 to treat 100 gallons. After all you would be buying 2 more gallons of #2 to make the same volume anyway! Know what I'm getting at? Am I explaining my wierd thoughts right?

 

[SPICER]

Soooooo glad you tested BIO, Spicer. So as a lubricity additive it would be almost free. If a gallon of BIO is only 50 cents more a gallon than #2, it would "really" only cost you $1 to treat 100 gallons. After all you would be buying 2 more gallons of #2 to make the same volume anyway! Know what I'm getting at? Am I explaining my wierd thoughts right?

According to Steve Westbrook at SwRI, The lubricity benefit of biodiesel is pretty much maximized at 2%. Up to 4% gives a SLIGHT increase over 2%, but we are talking sharply diminishing returns. He even offered up that most of the benefit seen at 2% would also be seen at as little as 0.5%. This is nice to know if you are thinking of using bio as a lubricity additive. The need for 100%, 20%, or even 5% bio really isn't at all necessary from a lubricity standpoint.

This answers another recent post. Someone wanted to know if the benefit of additives is cumulative. In other words, add an additive with benefit 300 microns to bio, do you get a crazy low wear scar number. The answer is NO. There is a saturation point. More additive may improve HFRR to a point and then it stops. Adding 3+3 may only equal 3.2. SPICER

 

[SPICER]

One question about this. What level of confidence do you have that the product they sent you to test is what they actually decided to produce and release as a consumer available product? I'm wondering since it was "experimental" at time of test, if the final product chemical makeup was still TBD.
BTW, thanks for all the hard work.

This is a question for them. I have no way of knowing. SPICER

 

[SPICER]

Curious if any of these additives have interactions with fuel supplied lubricants and/or rely on their presence to work.

That is, it would be interesting to know how some of these work with treated fuel. Does a 316 additive improvement stack with a fuel's 200?

Does alcohol content invalidate the HFRR test or does it increase the wear using HFRR and real world in a similar fashion?

Oh, and Thank You for your efforts.

According to Steve Westbrook, it can cause poor performance in an HFRR test. Real world? I don't know. Alcohol is very dry and probably not good for the system. It is usually treated as taboo, hence the effort by some to label the product as "Alcohol Free". Alcohol is a great emulsifier, but there are other emulsifiers out there. Do they have similar effects on HFRR? I will ask Steve. SPICER

 

[SPICER]

Good job on the study! TYVM

Is there any copyright on the test?

Can I make a copy and hang it in my Biodiesel Production facility?

I have alot of customers who always ask what is the best additive and I guess I been telling them correctly!

As long as you are not selling the data, sure. The info should probably be presented as a complete document, not just bits and pieces. This prevents the tendency to selectively quote a study. Thanks for asking. SPICER

 

[monel_funkawitz]

This test may not answer ALL of our questions, but it definitely sets a train of thought going. I would like to see some manufacturers kick in again, and test a batch of normal ULSD from a couple different places, or see if we can find out WHAT lubricant packages are being added.

I'm rethinking my additive choices again. Bio-D is unobtainable for me, Opti-Lube I'd have to special order, so I'd have to go with 2 stroke still.

 

[RonJT]

I am not so sure the Bio diesel is diminished past 2%. I did my own research on the fuel and I remember a CAT study that showed that with the old 500ppm fuel most of the gains were had by 5%.

With the old california 200ppm fuel, the number had to go up to 20%.

Now maybe with the recent advent of better additives the oil companies finally caught on....but a baseline fuel is just that one sample. And it was 640..way too high.

Also, what happens to the lubricity when we have winterized fuel? One would expect that you would need a higher % of bio to achieve the same results here...Temp permitting.

 

[boondokr]

:thankyou2 SPICER for all your hard work. :bow: This will go down with your airfilter study in the list of great projects that we refer new members to for years to come.

 

[RayMich]

One thing to keep in mind is that the majority, if not all, of the diesel injection system manufacturers, such as Stanadyne, Bosch, Diesel Equipment, etc., keep warning NOT to use water EMULSIFIERS and definitely nothing that contains any type of alcohol.

They claim that emulsifiers will allow water to get past the water separator in the filter and enter the injection system components; then when the engine cools down, the water can get deposited inside critical components and when combined with other chemicals in the fuel such as sulfur, it can create acids that will eat away at the injection system.

GM also stresses the same point in every piece of literature that I've seen from them regarding diesel fuel systems.

I have seen injection pumps that were ruined from moisture that condensed inside after the vehicles sat around for a while without being run.

A few years back, Stanadyne engineers showed me a pump that came out of a Chevy truck that was seized after the truck had sat over a weekend during the summer. I don't know how much water had been sitting there, but is wasn't very pretty.

 

[truav8r]

I'm disappointed that Primrose Power Blend 2003 was chosen for this study, instead of Primrose 405 (or 405C) which I believe to be a far more popular product from the Primrose line.

 

[SixPak]

I still can't get over the fact that another form of diesel fuel (bio) has come out superior in lubrication abilities than ALL other lubricity products on the market. And, at 2%, it's not that expensive either. In fact, it's cheaper than many of the commercial additives tested on this study. Amazing!

If B2 is that good, B100 must be slippery as owl shite! I wonder what B100 would have tested at on the HFRR test... (Yes, I realize there's some drawbacks to running B100, especially in cold weather.)

I was really disappointed in Stanadyne's PF results in the study. While it did improve lubricity somewhat, it did not rank well in the final results. I'm sure it has other benefits, just not real great in the lubricity department. I've been using it for the last two years.

B100 will be my additive from now on...

 

[bo799]

Great work SPICER. Thanks for putting in the long hours. Did the companies that payed to test their own additive request the findings of the study? It would be interesting to know their reactions or what they say to defend their product. There was some well known products toward the bottom. I bet you may have changed the industry. We will be seeing "new and improved" on some bottles in the future. You are changing the diesel world one part at a time. Great work.

 

[gsbell]

Great job Spicer!

Looks like I'll reserve my remaining Stanadyne Performance Formula for deep freeze cold snaps. I'll hit Wally World for some 2-stroke oil as I don't see much bio around here.

 

[SPICER]

Great work SPICER. Thanks for putting in the long hours. Did the companies that payed to test their own additive request the findings of the study? It would be interesting to know their reactions or what they say to defend their product. There was some well known products toward the bottom. I bet you may have changed the industry. We will be seeing "new and improved" on some bottles in the future. You are changing the diesel world one part at a time. Great work.

Not all of the companies requested to get a copy of the results, but I am sure they are all interested. They did make the investment to be included after all. I would like to get their reactions also. My personal life is crazy right now. I don't have an afternoon to send e-mails to all participants right now. I will try sometime soon, but there is no light at the end of the tunnel right now. SPICER

 

[SixPak]

Interesting results......Good work once again.

Ive never heard of the Opti-Lube XPD, is it available to the buying public yet?

It is interesting how well this product, Opti-Lube XPD, tested. But, since the product is not yet available on the open market, AND the tested sample came direct from the manufacturer, I would be a little suspicious of it at this point. That, and the cost don't make it that attractive, even if it were readily available. Just my .02. YMMV.

Did someone slip us a 'mickey' ??

 

[SixPak]

Great job Spicer!

Looks like I'll reserve my remaining Stanadyne Performance Formula for deep freeze cold snaps. I'll hit Wally World for some 2-stroke oil as I don't see much bio around here.

Someone could make a fortune marketing half-gallon jugs of B100 via Walmart!

 

[RayMich]

I still can't get over the fact that another form of diesel fuel (bio) has come out superior in lubrication abilities than ALL other lubricity products on the market. And, at 2%, it's not that expensive either. In fact, it's cheaper than many of the commercial additives tested on this study. Amazing!

If B2 is that good, B100 must be slippery as owl shite! I wonder what B100 would have tested at on the HFRR test... (Yes, I realize there's some drawbacks to running B100, especially in cold weather.)

I was really disappointed in Stanadyne's PF results in the study. While it did improve lubricity somewhat, it did not rank well in the final results. I'm sure it has other benefits, just not real great in the lubricity department. I've been using it for the last two years.

B100 will be my additive from now on...

I am also surprised that Stanadyne's Performance Formula didn't do any better that 33 micron improvement for lubricity.

I think that the lubricating properties in Performance Formula were OK with the old 500 ppm LSD fuel, but ULSD fuel is really dry and I don't think they changed their formula.

However, keep in mind that Performance Formula has other major benefits besides lubricity:

• Wax Modifier / Pour Point Depressant
• Wax Dispersant
• Alcohol-Free
• Freeze Depressant
• Deposit Modifier
• Detergent
• Lubricant
• Corrosion Inhibitor
• Water DEMULSIFIER
• Anti-Oxidant
• Cetane Improver

Although lubricity is very important, these other benefits are very important to me as well. So I will continue using their Performance Formula. I'm going to start using their Lubricity Formula along with Performance Formula. I figure with both combined, I should be in good shape. I can cut back a little on the Performance Formula to balance out the dose of Lubricity Formula.

 

[bo799]

It is interesting how well this product, Opti-Lube XPD, tested. But, since the product is not yet available on the open market, AND the tested sample came direct from the manufacturer, I would be a little suspicious of it at this point. That, and the cost don't make it that attractive, even if it were readily available. Just my .02. YMMV.

Did someone slip us a 'mickey' ??

I thought the same thing too

 

[bo799]

I have been adding Stanadyne Performance to every tank. I run alot of Jet A too. I add both the Performance and Lubricity Formula to the jet fuel. At 26k all my injectors are around 1 except I have one at 1.9. It must be working. I am going to look at FPPF when I run out of the case of Stanadyne I just bought.