i would like to see some of the cen-pe-co stuff tested...

 

I have a friend that works in a fuel testing lab. I pick up diesel samples for him at retail sites from time to time. I showed him the old test - he said it was pretty much meaningless and explained why.

1) All base diesel fuels are different. The will respond differetly to each additive. in other words, a good additive for base fuel A may be a poor additive for base fuel B.

2) The HFRR test itself is very imprecise. He can run the same full multiple times and get different results each time. Results plus or minus 50 units apart for the same fuel are normal. Many labs do thier own repeats as part of QC - he recommends asking for these results if possible.

3) If looking for pass-fail, one test is enough. When trying to rank fuels, he recommends running in duplicate, even triplicate. Too easy for a single test to have something go wrong.

4) Nearly all retail samples pass and are well into the 400's already. Many are in the 300's. They already have thier own additives from the distribution terminal.

5) When mixing two additives (the additives already in the fuel and then the aftermarket additive by the owner), some help each other and some hurt each other.

6) If you want to start with an unadditized fuel, buy some Kerosene. It's basically diesel #1 without any additives. Diesel #1 is typically worse to begin with than diesel #2, so it is a more severe test.

To do it right, you would need a variety of fuels each run mutilple times with each additive. He said people using aftermarket additives probably won't hurt anything, but then probaly don't help much either. He doesn't know of any issues cuased by poor lubricty fuel - that gasoline and water contamination are a much bigger problem.



(PS - I'm just the messenger. Maybe whoever sets up this second experiment can discuss these points with the lab that runs the new tests.)

 

Anychance we can have details of this testing lab??? as it seems odd that you have been on this site for nearly 8 years and have little to no posts

 

I'd like to see some waste fluids. Waste ATF and WMO.

Both filtered to running status and then tested.

 

I would also test basic #2 pump fuel.
This would be a check and balance approach for those who feel refineries are properly adhering to lubricity standards.

 

How about Forté Premium ULS Diesel Booster? I and several others I know have been using this stuff with good results for a couple years now.

 

My thoughts are that lubricity is only one part of what an additive needs to do. The others are the ability to get rid of water and their detergent ability or the ability to keep injector nozzles clean and free from carbon, which to me is much more important. Also, a lot of these additives claim to raise the cetane level of the fuel. Do they really work.

 

How about Red Line - Diesel Fuel Catalyst. A friend talked me into trying it and I'd like to see how it stacks up with other brands.

 

I'd like to see Gdiesel tested, but seeing as how I don't live in nevada it really would only be for curiosity sake to see how far along this next "generation" of diesel fuel is stacking up.

 

Glad to gear about a new test. I would like to see Amalgamated Diesel Fuel Treatment included in the test. Amalgamatedinc.com

 

I sort of mentioned this earlier, but I would like to know if adding more than the recommended dose improves the rating of the tested additive.

By the way, I would be willing to donate a bottle of Stanadyne Performance Formula and a bottle of Lubricity Formula.

 

Biodiesel from different feedstocks.

It won the last test.

It is readily available everywhere.

It does not cost anymore than diesel.

The next logical step is to test it more extensively.



Yes, store bought additives have other features as mentioned, but they are not relevant in this test.

Multiple biodiesel samples is definitely necessary for this test. Varying concentrations would be interesting but probably unnecessary since 2% appears to be so effective. Maybe procuring B100 and testing it, then diluting to B5 for the bulk of the test.

Ryan

 

Biodiesel from different feedstocks.
It won the last test.
It is readily available everywhere.
It does not cost anymore than diesel.
The next logical step is to test it more extensively.

Yes, store bought additives have other features as mentioned, but they are not relevant in this test.
Multiple biodiesel samples is definitely necessary for this test. Varying concentrations would be interesting but probably unnecessary since 2% appears to be so effective.

I agree whole-heartedly about biodiesel being the easiest (if available locally) and most cost-effective warm weather additive.

But what would be interesting is testing smaller concentrations (less than 2%) of biodiesel to see how the concentration affects lubricity. Maybe the first 1/2% gains more than the next 1/2% (and so on). A good test would be 1/2%, 1% and 2%.

The reason for the lower percentages would be to help those who don't have a nearby source of biodiesel at the pump, or they want to use the lowest possible concentration to avoid cold weather gelling, or want to stay well below GM's recommended maximum because they don't want to run any risk of regen-related problems.

It would also be useful to test Shaeffer's Soyshield or All-Season SoyShield which are basically premium biodiesel fuel with an additive package.

And based on a comment I saw about how different additives produce different results in different fuel stocks, I'd also like to see biodiesel tested with severl different different fuel stocks from different parts of the country and/or different times of the year.

Whatever the final decision, I hope it focuses on various biodiesel combinations. It seems pretty clear that they offer the most bang for the buck, especially if locally available.

 

How about including Monster Diesel Additive?

 

Did you find some some where? Thought that product died a while ago

 

Biodiesel from different feedstocks.

It is readily available everywhere.
Actually, it's not.

It does not cost anymore than diesel.
From my experience it costs at least 20 cents more per gallon over regular dlesel the times I've been able to get it.


Multiple biodiesel samples is definitely necessary for this test. Varying concentrations would be interesting but probably unnecessary since 2% appears to be so effective. Maybe procuring B100 and testing it, then diluting to B5 for the bulk of the test.

DEWFPO

 

Fair enough. I suppose I forget that I live in a major metro area.

 

subbed, curious about bio diesel effects.

 

Sea Foam and Essentialube for sure, as they are old school and still used for all the same purposes as the newcomers. I recall my Dad and Grandpa using them at the farm as far back at late 70s. They also used them in crankcase in addition to fuel system.

Essentialube also makes Power Kleen and I would like to see that tested.

Thank you!

 

Paul Tuetle swore up and down about monster diesel

 

Yeah.
I only knew about Monster Diesel cause OCC made a bike for Monster Diesel. (Diesel MC. Which was cool.) When the episode 1st aired, I searched for Monster Diesel & found the website. I filled out a thing to get a free sample of the fuel additive & I never received the sample.

 

How about FTTP Total Power?

Mike P

 

I would like to see if the products that say they increase centane actually do and how many points they increase it.

 

Thats not part of lubrisity and would be a different study

 

That's what I'm hoping for Diaric. There should be a lot more to a diesel fuel additive study than just Lubricity. Besides lubricity how about how well they help fuel flow in cold temperatures? How well do they improve centane? How well do they keep injectors clean? Do a complete test on all of them to see how well they do what they say they do?

 

I agree with previous posts stating that we need either different sources for the fuel, or #1 diesel. Around here, they constantly vary the mix of the fuel to account for temperature changes, so that it performs the same in all conditions, unclear how this would affect additives.

I could likely get biodiesel, #2 diesel, and possibly kerosene right out of the refinery, before it is loaded into the tanker trucks. If we can get this from several refineries, we could have some good numbers, which could be divided up and averaged if so chosen.

I agree also, that the additives should be "off the shelf" products

 

Around here, they constantly vary the mix of the fuel to account for temperature changes, so that it performs the same in all conditions, unclear how this would affect additives.

I don`t quite think so. They don`t blend the fuel for today and tomorrows temps. Once your into winter diesel, its blended to flow all winter. If you get your farm tank filled on a warm winter week, you want good fuel from it next month when its -40C

If it's true that winter blend is cut with kerosene (something I once heard or read), what effect does that have not only on winter blend's lubricity, but on any additives as well, including the amount needed.

Its not cut with Kerosene, its blended with #1 diesel, which is very similiar to kerosene. Lubricity is added at the terminals to any fuel being used as engine diesel. If it was being sold as home heating fuel, they wouldnt bother.

This discussion really needs to be in a winter diesel thread though

 

Chevyinlinesix, one thing I would like to see added to the testing is doing duplicate testing on the winter blend we folks (like you) get in the north this time of year. If it's true that winter blend is cut with kerosene (something I once heard or read), what effect does that have not only on winter blend's lubricity, but on any additives as well, including the amount needed.

 

I buy that Gdiesel stuff, i live in reno. Id like to see a test on it too


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

Regarding the fuel blends, I will have to dig up some documents I received from UPI Energy's Regional Fuels Manager (If I am remembering his title correctly). As a 50/50 Joint Venture of Suncor Energy Products Inc. and GROWMARK, Inc., UPI Energy LP is a fully independent province-wide marketer of petroleum, propane, lubricants and related energy services to rural Ontario. On an annual basis, UPI markets approximately half a billion litres of petroleum, propane and lubricant products to thousands of customers including the Agricultural Member Co-operatives.

I also had correspondence from Shell Canada (I forget which branch).

I am not saying all fuel is this way, as it is most likely not. But if the folks who are doing this lubricity test were to get this same information from various suppliers, we could have even better data.

I do not want to derail this thread Tom, however I recently purchased a Snap-on eddy current brake dyno. Which is what I intend to use for mileage tests. Except for temperature, humidity, and very slight variations such as initial accelerations, it is the best way I can come up with relevant results. You may PM me if I have missed certain details or have suggestions.

 

I would like to see if the products say they "increase centane" Do they really do what they say they will? Pure centane improvers I'd like to know how much they actually improve the centane level in fuel. Thanks

 

I would like to see if the products say they "increase centane" Do they really do what they say they will?

I share your interest, but that's way outside the scope of this test - it's strictly a lubricity study based on scar testing, not in-depth laboratory testing that tests burn rates, BTU ratings, etc.

When and where is this test taking place? Im ready for the results!

This is a long term thing guys, it's still VERY much a work in progress. I don't want to make any commitments or suggestions on when we might make it happen, but I will say with certainty that it's not going to quick - there are a lot of people, variables, and planning that needs to go into putting this all together, and it's far from a done deal unfortunately.

 

With all of the press and hoopla given to Primrose 405 in the early years of this website, and with the late George Morrison's firm backing (even after the results of the first test came out he PM'ed me that 405 was the bomb) I though that omitting Primrose 405 from the first test was a major oversight.

I will gladly supply the sample. Can we please do Primrose 405?