Bus Conversion Magazine Bulletin Board

Bus Discussion => Bus Topics ( click here for quick start! ) => Topic started by: JackConrad on December 10, 2007, 03:26:37 PM



Title: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: JackConrad on December 10, 2007, 03:26:37 PM
A friend sent me this research paper on a test of diesel fuel additives.  Kind of long, but very good reading.  Jack

DIESEL FUEL LUBRICITY ADDITIVES
STUDY RESULTS
By
Arlen Spicer
August 2007
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 1 - August, 2007
DIESEL FUEL LUBRICITY ADDITIVES STUDY RESULTS
The following are the preliminary results of a research study on diesel fuel
Lubricity Additives. There is likely to be further commentary and explanation
added at a future time.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this research was to determine the ability of multiple diesel
fuel additives to replace the vital lubricity component in ULSD (Ultra Low
Sulfur Diesel) fuel.
HISTORY:
ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road diesel
engines. This fuel burns cleaner and is less polluting than its predecessor,
called Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel. Low sulfur fuel contained less than 500 ppm of
sulfur. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.
As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfur, it is
inadvertently stripped of its lubricating properties. This vital lubrication is a
necessary component of the diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel
delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high pressure pumps and
injectors. Traditional Low sulfur diesel fuel typically contained enough
lubricating ability to suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD fuel,
on the other hand, is considered to be very “dry” and incapable of lubricating
vital fuel delivery components. As a result, these components are at risk of
premature and even catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is introduced to the
system. As a result, all oil companies producing ULSD fuel must replace the
lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel purchased at retail fuel stations
SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace this lost lubricity.
The potential result of using inadequately treated fuel, as indicated above,
can be catastrophic. There have been many documented cases of randomly
tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests prove that often times the fuel we
purchase is not adequately treated and may therefore contribute to
accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems. For this reason it may be
prudent to use an after market diesel fuel additive to ENSURE adequate
lubrication of the fuel delivery system. Additionally, many additives can offer
added benefits such as Cetane improver, anti-gel agents and water
separators (demulsifiers). Some fuel additives include water emulsifiers that
cause the water to remain in suspension with the fuel.
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 2 - August, 2007
CONTENT:
In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace
lost lubricity. The primary component of this study is a side-by-side
laboratory analysis of each additive’s ability to replace this vital lubricity.
Additionally, claims of improving Cetane, water separation or emulsification,
bio-diesel compatibility and alcohol content will be noted. These notes were
derived from information that was readily available to consumers (via the
label and internet information) and none of this information has been
evaluated for validity and/or performance. Cetane information has only been
noted if the word “Cetane” was used in the advertising information. The
words “improves power” has not been translated to mean “improves Cetane”
in this evaluation. Information on alcohol content is provided by indicating
“contains no alcohol”. Omission of the words “contains no alcohol” does not
imply that it does contain alcohol. This information was simply missing in the
information available to a consumer. However, the possibility of a form of
alcohol in these products is possible. Additionally, information on dosages
and cost per tankful are included for comparison purposes.
How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating Ability:
Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a device
called a “High Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR. The HFRR is currently
the Internationally accepted, standardized method to evaluate fluids for
lubricating ability. It uses a ball bearing that reciprocates or moves back and
forth on a metal surface at a very high frequency for a duration of 90
minutes. The machine does this while the ball bearing and metal surface are
immersed in the test fluid (in this case, treated diesel fuel). At the end of the
test the ball bearing is examined under a microscope and the “wear scar” on
the ball bearing is measured in microns. The larger the wear scar, the poorer
the lubricating ability of the fluid. The independent lab runs every sample
twice and averages the size of the wear scar.
The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a commercially available diesel fuel
should produce a wear scar of no greater than 520 microns.
The Engine Manufacturers Association had requested a standard of a
wear scar no greater than 460 microns, typical of the pre-ULSD fuels.
Most experts agree that a 520 micron standard is adequate, but also that
the lower the wear scar the better.
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 3 - August, 2007
METHOD:
An independent research firm was hired to do the laboratory work. The cost
of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive
manufacturers. Declining to participate and pay for the research were the
following companies: Amsoil and Power Service. Because these are popular
products it was determined that they needed to be included in the study.
These products were tested using funds collected by diesel enthusiasts at
“dieselplace.com”. Additionally, unconventional additives such as 2-cycle oil
and used motor oil were tested for their abilities to aid in diesel fuel lubricity.
These were also paid for by members of “dieselplace.com”.
The study was conducted in the following manner:
-The independent research firm obtained a quantity of “untreated” ULSD fuel
from a supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel
engines. However, this sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to
additize the fuel for the purpose of replacing lost lubricity. In other words, it
was a “worst case scenario, very dry diesel fuel” that would likely cause
damage to any fuel delivery system. The fuel was tested using the HFRR
testing facility at the Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a
very high HFRR score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD
fuel. It was determined that this batch of fuel would be utilized as the
baseline fuel for testing all of the additives. The baseline fuel HFRR score of
636 would be used as the control sample. All additives tested would be
evaluated on their ability to replace lost lubricity to the fuel by comparing
their scores to the control sample. Any score under 636 shows improvement
to the fuels ability to lubricate the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine.
BLIND STUDY:
In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the
following steps were taken:
Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the
counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the biodiesel
sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was
considered “experimental” at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on
the market. It was sent directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel
sample was sponsored by Renewable Energy Group. One of their suppliers,
E.H. Wolf and Sons in Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of 100%
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 4 - August, 2007
soybean based bio-diesel. This sample was used to blend with the baseline
fuel to create a 2% bio-diesel for testing.
Each additive was bottled separately in identical glass containers. The
bottles were labeled only with a number. This number corresponded to the
additive contained in the bottle. The order of numbering was done randomly
by drawing names out of a hat. Only Spicer Research held the key to the
additives in each bottle.
The additive samples were then sent in a box to the independent research
firm for testing. The only information given them was the ratio of fuel to be
added to each additive sample. For example, bottle “A” needs to be mixed at
a ratio of “480-1”. The ratio used for each additive was the “prescribed
dosage” found on the bottle label for that product. Used motor oil and 2-
cycle oil were tested at a rationally chosen ratio of 200:1.
The technician at the laboratory mixed the proper ratio of each “bottled
fluid” into a separate container containing the baseline fuel. The data,
therefore, is meaningful because every additive is tested in the same way
using the same fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness of each
additive is now obtainable.
THE RESULTS:
These results are listed in the order of performance in the HFRR test. The
baseline fuel used in every test started at an HFRR score of 636. The
score shown is the tested HFRR score of the baseline fuel/additive blend.
Also included is the wear scar improvement provided by the additive as well
as other claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive is also categorized as
a Multi-purpose additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity only, nonconventional,
or as an additive capable of treating both gasoline and diesel
fuel.
As a convenience to the reader there is also information on price per treated
tank of diesel fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per 26 gallon tank
provided as “ounces of additive per 26 gallon tank”.
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 5 - August, 2007
RESULTS
In Order Of Performance:
1) 2% REG SoyPower bio-diesel
HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.
50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel
66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel
Price: market value
2) Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Cetane Improver, Demulsifier
HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio
13 oz/tank
$4.35/tank
3) FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas Fuel Treatment
Gas and Diesel
Cetane improver, Emulsifier
HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.60/tank
4) Opti-Lube Summer Blend
Multi-purpose
Demulsifier
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
$0.68/tank
5) Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
Cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/tank
$3.65/tank
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 6 - August, 2007
6) Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Cetane improver, Emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible
HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.87/tank
7) Super Tech Outboard 2-Cycle TC-W3 Engine Oil
Unconventional
(Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
$1.09/tank
8) Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
Demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.00/tank
9) Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Multi-purpose
Demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.16/tank
10) Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
$1.58/tank
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 7 - August, 2007
11) Howe’s Meaner Power Kleaner
Multi-purpose
Alcohol free
HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.36/tank
12) Stanadyne Performance Formula
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Cetane improver, Demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement
480:1 ratio
6.9 oz/tank
$4.35/tank
13) Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15W-40, 5,000 miles used.
Unconventional
(Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems)
HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement (statistically insignificant change)
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
price: $0.00
14) Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant
Gas or Diesel
HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant
change)
427:1 ratio
7.8 oz/tank
$2.65/tank
15) B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech
Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive
HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant
change)
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.67/tank
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 8 - August, 2007
16) FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.12/tank
17) Marvel Mystery Oil
Gas, Oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage
2007 and newer systems)
HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel.
320:1 ratio
10.4 oz/tank
$3.22/tank
18) ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.38/tank
19) Primrose Power Blend 2003
Multi-purpose
Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, Emulsifier
HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline
1066:1 ratio
3.12 oz/tank
$1.39/tank
CONCLUSIONS:
Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an
HFRR score of 460 or better. This meets the strictest requirements
requested by the Engine Manufacturers Association.
Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an
HFRR score of 520 or better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel requirements for
maximum wear scar in a commercially available diesel fuel.
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 9 - August, 2007


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Don Fairchild on December 10, 2007, 04:06:02 PM
jack;

Did they do any testing to indicate the emission implacations of the additive. here in cal any additive that raises the NOx or pm will not be permitted.

Good post.

Thanks

Don


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Reddog on December 10, 2007, 04:14:24 PM
Jack,
  Thanks for the info, good stuff. As the owner/operator of a gas station, I struggle with the confusion that surrounds ULSD. I preach the benefits of lubricity additives, but commonly hear "it runs fine". I know a guy who is on his 3rd injector pump in a Dodge PU, and he still won't use additives...you can lead a horse to water...
  I sold a BB Wanderlodge prior to my Thomas conversion and was involved in several discussions/debates in those forums over this issue. Frequently I heard "I'm just gonna add ATF, that'll do the trick", or "I buy Brand X from WallyWorld cause it's cheap, it's all the same stuff anyway". Neither plans seem to be in keeping with running a $100K+ rig down the road when many of those folks only carried a Good Sams card in their tool box.
  I did see a few products missing (no surprise, there are alot of them out there). BG makes good stuff and they are marketing a lubricity additive and SFR is good stuff too. FWIW, I just ordered some Opti-Lube.
  Keep 'em Rolling!
  Doug Engel, Gunnison, CO, 1990 Thomas, 8.3 Cummins/Allison


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Chaz on December 10, 2007, 04:56:39 PM
Awesome post!!!!!!!! I read the whole thing and actually understood it. I have a couple buddies to pass it on to.
   Thanx,
       Chaz


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Lin on December 10, 2007, 05:00:31 PM
Great information.  It looks like adding about a gallon of biodiesel per 50 gallons of fuel would be as good as it gets.


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Reddog on December 10, 2007, 06:10:50 PM
Be aware of the scouring effects bio can have on an older diesel system. Have a few spare filters handy.
 Doug Engel, Gunnison, Co


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Earl-8-Ky on December 10, 2007, 07:09:59 PM
I have a question. Does any one know the sulphur content of #1 diesel. All 2 cycle Detroits were built to burn #1. If it is a low sulpher fuel,you may not need additives for the 2 cycles. I know #1 is thinner thaN #2. Just something to think about..


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: rcbishop on December 10, 2007, 07:11:39 PM
Not particularly espousing this, but.....a friend ( mechanic, truck dealer years ago) said a  "coke " can of gasoline in the tank is " as good as it gets"....or words to that effect.  :)

Comments welcome.  ;D

Thanx,
R.C.Bishop


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: RTS/Daytona on December 10, 2007, 07:32:20 PM
Jack

I believe the Opti-Lube people are out of Miami Florida - Perhaps a call to them can get them to give a pitch and hawk there product at Bussin 2008

see--> http://www.opti-lube.com/contact.htm

Pete RTS/Daytona


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: jackhartjr on December 10, 2007, 07:48:57 PM
I especially liked this part; "There have been many documented cases of randomly
tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests prove that often times the fuel we
purchase is not adequately treated and may therefore contribute to
accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems."
I have not heard of this being a problem...and I am real keen about the ULSD fuel.  I have studied it well.  I am convinced the jerks that sell it to us are putting plenty of lubricant in the fuel.  To not would be catastrophic to them!
Not trying to be argumentative here...however the test results I have read say the additives as it pertains to lubrication in diesel...is snake oil!
For what it's worth!
Jack


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: tekebird on December 10, 2007, 08:11:16 PM
Fuel dealer that does some of my maint said one of the buyers for a large Oil Company told him at a conference that 30% of what they are given to buy does not meet thier testing......I suspect it is pawned off one someone somewhere


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: buswarrior on December 11, 2007, 06:45:35 AM
Depending on what you are driving...

The whole point is emisions control, so if we change what goes in, we change what comes out...

If you have a 2007 or newer motor, with a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF), the issues of homespun additives are very important.

Those without, do whatever feels good to you.

Those with a DPF need to be very concerned with what might plug it, and trigger costs to service it and the loss of performance and economy that leads up to failure.

I see a great profit centre for the RV store near you, to get a DPF cleaner and soak the owner double the commercial rate, just like many of their other services.

Don't be fooled into putting any oils into your fuel tank if you have a DPF....!

happy coaching!
buswarrior


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: makemineatwostroke on December 11, 2007, 06:59:14 AM
Earl, what DD called low sulphur content was .5 or 5000 ppm and now its 500 0r 15 ppm but the no 1 fuel had less carbon.


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: HB of CJ on December 11, 2007, 02:49:03 PM
Thank you Jack.  Absolutely a superb post.  Yeah, I read it twice and I think I grok it.  Do we need permission or can we/I pass this report on to others?  You may have saved a lot of people a lot of grief.  About the only thing I can think of is that correct information is.... $PRICELESS$!!  :) :) :)


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Tony LEE on December 11, 2007, 04:32:56 PM
Looks like Marvel Mystery Oil is not the universal panacea after all


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: HB of CJ on December 12, 2007, 03:02:47 PM
After thinking about it for awhile (a difficult thing for me!) I wonder if the most effective additives which ARE ALSO the most $cost$-efficient-per-tank would work EVEN BETTER if the amount/percentage added to the fuel was increased?--or is there a level of concentration where the added lubricity benefits no longer are a factor?   Perhaps another study looking at this possibility is needed.

Also, in my opinion, (and probably wrong) if the manufactures of the stuff which appears to work better at a lower cost per "tank" decide to "maximize" their $profits$, then the observed cost data would change and would no longer be accurate.  This study appears to be well done.  I also wonder if we will be seeing other "studies" bought and paid for by the very companies selling the stuff.

Finally, since we are always protected by government who knows more than we do, all of this new ultra low sulfur fuel may already have the very best, least expensive, most effective additives ALREADY added somewhere in the "pipeline" soosss all of our fuel injection systems will last as long as before.  Or.....will we be responsible to protect ourselves?  :) :) :)


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: rcbishop on December 12, 2007, 05:42:46 PM
Way to go Henery......Huh?????? Say what???
 :D
 :D
 ;D
RCB


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Reddog on December 12, 2007, 08:22:07 PM
From talking to the fuel and additive guys,  I am told that most diesel additives work on a molecular level. That is to say that anti-gel additives actually prevent the paraffin molecules from joining up and "gelling" as opposed to "thinning" the fuel. I assume lubricity additives work the same, they took out sulphur, not "oil" and we lost lubricity...right? So back to my original thought (I get sidetracked sometimes), the additive guys say more is not necessarily better, since it's a chemistry thing we're doing here. I added more butter to some cookies I was making once, and believe me, they were not better.
Doug Engel, Gunnison, CO. (-8 tonight so far)


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Christyhicks on December 13, 2007, 05:01:17 AM
At the risk of irritating some people, I succumbed to the temptation to throw a little water on this hot topic.  I think the study would be more believable if it were performed by an independent group.  Since the Diesel Place receives much of it's support from diesel additive manufacturers/suppliers, they can not be considered an independent agency by any means.  Haven't figured out who in the heck A.D. Spicer is yet, so someone could pass that info on.  The "independent lab" testing facility is not named, so there is no way to verify their methods either.  I remain skeptical. 

I think that if you believe that up to 30% of the ULSD fuel sold on the open market is truly not treated with the required lubricants, you probably should take advantage of a great opportunity to make a bundle of money.  Proof of violations by the fuel supply industry is surely to pay off I would think.  Pay off BIG!  IMHO, Christy Hicks


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Christyhicks on December 13, 2007, 05:17:28 AM
Um, whoops :-[, hit the "post" button a little too soon. . never did say what I was REALLY thinking. . . which is:

This test, as performed, is irrelevant to any of us, simply because, well, they didn't perform the test using the fuel we buy.  A properly done test would use random samples of deisel, straight out of the nozzle, at both large truck stop chains, and at smaller retailers.  Then, they should see what the true pre-test levels are, and whether the supplements made the fuel better, or worse, for your engine.  You see, the only way the test results mean anything to you is if you plan on purchasing untreated, "pure" ULSD and adding your own lubricants. 

No one has ever proven to me that the engine manufacturers have anything to gain by encouraging premature destruction of their product, so I'm inclined to go with their recommendations.  If there is ONE thing I learned at Arcadia last year, it was at the seminars where I learned how much design, effort, testing, etc., goes into production of engines, and when the manufacturer says, "use this anti-freeze" and "use this oil", well, I'm inclined to listen.  (It's good for me to listen to men at least ONCE in awhile,  ;) :D)


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: HB of CJ on December 13, 2007, 03:06:52 PM
Great insight everyone.  I am afraid it is even worse than our greatest fears.  Or....I know I am paranoid...the question is....am I paranoid enough.  The forementioned study is a good start.  More studies, unfortunately, are needed.  We already know why.  What we do not know or understand can hurt us.  We are responsible for the well being of our mostly older diesel injection systems.

Like others have already said, we need to set back and look at the entire picture.  What was the old high sulfer diesel like?  What was the old low sulfer fuel like?  Different parts of the country?  Where did the fuel come from?  Is all ultra low sulfer fuel the same?  What refinery additives, if any, are added in different parts of the country?  What are the standards, if any, for the addition of this alledged additive?

Yeah, for all sorts of reasons, the test described earlier in this post MAY be considered biased for all sorts of reasons.  If it were a scientific paper for


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: HB of CJ on December 13, 2007, 03:27:08 PM
Humm...something may be wrong with this board, or maybe it is just me.   My post just got dumped from me and posted to you all for no apparent reason.  Anyway....as I was spouting...if the formentioned study was a scientific paper I used to have to grade, I would only give it a "C" because it had an obvious bias in the source of the funding.  The study may be good as far as it goes...the intent and funding source is questionable.  Usually the funding people have an influence in the character and slant of any results.  Makes sense?

I showed a copy of the study to my auto and coach mechanic.  Hope I don't go to jail because of sooss.  He showed me a one pint plastic bottle he paid $14.00 for which was not included in the study being described.  We don't know why.  The fine print on the bottle said all sorts of things which were meaningless in nature.  Much to do about nothing.  He was slightly upset in me rocking his boat regarding his expensive fuel additive which he swears by.  He then said he was mad because he may have thrown away money.

Do engine manufactures have our best interest?.....or is it more of a gentleman's agreement to manufacture and warrant diesel engines that are so closely representative of each other that it makes no practical difference.  Nobody makes a mill that is "twice" as good as any other.  Why not?  Could they make a better product?  The point is that everything seems to have a common demominator of a profit motive.  Nothing wrong with that...any alternative is very scary.  Could fuel additives be by their profit...

...nature be sossss close to each other that it makes no difference?  Or....is it possible that we could, thru research and this excellent board, find a fuel additive that actually works and will protect our older stuff from dry ultra low sulfer fuel....or is all of this spouting off by me senseless since Uncle Sam will always protect us from ourselves?...and none of this amounts to a hill of beans anyway?  I am kinda of a control freak.  Oh well.  Maybe it is time for me just to kick back and have some more red wine.  :) :) :)


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Reddog on December 13, 2007, 04:28:04 PM
  Just to throw a little more wood on the fire. Last winter, when ULSD first became the only diesel I could buy to resell, there was alot of chatter about how since it was different in makeup, it would react differently (in a negative way) to anti-gel additives. I ran my own hillbilly research lab with dry ice, a coffee can and some denatured alcohol to see where the fuel started to "wax". I can tell you from first hand experience, some additives are snake oil and some are not.
  I did get my Opti-Lube today (fast shipping), but unfortunately I can't take a road trip and give you folks the results. I try to take most "surveys" and information with a grain of salt, so we will see how the Opti-Lube product fares (maybe to AZ for the rally in May!).
  Point is, it is not all snake oil, but much may be. I don't think the additive folks are in it for the overall good of us bus folk. They like dollars too, but some of the stuff does do at least some of what they say. Nor do I think the fuel refinery folks are doing what they can to safeguard our engines, we all know they like dollars.
  Doug Engel, Gunnison, CO


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: rcbishop on December 13, 2007, 05:38:29 PM
So.... I humbly ask...what does anyone think about the " coke can" of gasoline in a tank?

Thanx. :)
RCB


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Reddog on December 13, 2007, 05:44:28 PM
Gunnison is historically a ranching community, with lots of "Rancher Wisdom", some good, some bad. Adding gasoline to diesel fuel around here was the way they used to thin diesel and fuel oil to make it flow in the cold months of winter. It works, sort of. Other than that, I can't imagine why someone would cut their diesel with unleaded gasoline.
Doug Engel. Gunnison, CO


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: goinnowherefast on December 13, 2007, 06:19:48 PM
I'm new to all this and am all ears.

This is some pretty technical stuff. I have an old Detroit 1966 8v71 and was told by a few people to make sure that I add a quart of trani fluid every 100 gallons.

Was told that it helps with lubrication for injectors and pumps and such.

Anyone out there who wouldn't mind giving some helpful hints to a 66 MCI5A Challenger Conversion owner, I would appreciate the time.
This bus sat up in Oregon for 4 years before it was given to me by my father. He went to pick it up 4 years ago when he bought it but the clutch was bad.

After 4 years I tried to locate the seller but I can't so I started out knowing nothing about anything and made it from Oregon to San Diego with very few mishaps.

That is unless you figure losing air pressure in SusanVille Nevada or Melting a battery terminal and trying to figure out where the main fuse is to restore juice when I have no juice or main fuse to begin with.

Or bottoming out in my seat so many times that my knees ached from pushing up every time I felt the front go down.

The seat manual taught me the adjustment for the seat 815 miles later.

Like I say, Any instruction from a person familiar with this kind of bus is welcome.
It has a 4 speed manual transmission

Darrell at webmaster4@cox.net



Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Stan on December 14, 2007, 06:01:48 AM
goinnowherefast: The big criteria is how many miles you are going to put on the engine. The 8V71 is old technology, rugged design. If you are only going to drive it 2000 miles per year, it would do that with two bad cylinders while it blows smoke and drips oil. If you want new technology and higher HP it is expensive to repower (especially a MC-5). You can do an out of frame rebuild if you want to drive it another 400k miles.

Re all the discussion on fuel, go to a major truck stop and fill up with what they have in the tank. Be diligent on frequent strainer and filter changes and the old technology will likely last as many miles as most RVs go.

Drive more - Worry less.


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: buswarrior on December 14, 2007, 06:56:05 AM
I'm with Stan.

Fill 'er up and let's go coach driving!

happy coaching!
buswarrior


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Reddog on December 14, 2007, 07:57:43 AM
Earl said DD's were built to run on #1. Around here, #1 is basically kerosene and used in the winter to thin the #2. If DD's were made to run on the thinner stuff, maybe the ULSD doesn't even enter into the equation for the 2 strokers. Seems like they would be even more sensitive to this issue. Then again, the DD's I've been around seem to run on just about anything...gotta love that!
Doug Engel, Gunnsion, CO


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: NCbob on December 15, 2007, 03:19:38 PM
With all due respect to all the contributors and their research I've been adding 1 gallon of Soybean oil to every top off of at least 100 Gallons.  I don't notice any difference, no smoke or problems. I know Detroits will run on peanut oil so I don't feel I'm doing anything to harm my engine...but it does give me some peace of mind.

Bob


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: NJT 5573 on December 15, 2007, 05:56:53 PM
Seems reasonable to use 2 stroke motor oil as a fuel additive for a 2 stroke engine!

 What a stroke of genius, those numbers are pretty good and the price is right in there too.

Red Dog, When I was a kid, for 10 years, I pulled produce from Ca/Az to Calgary and Winnepeg and meat back to So Cal. If I got caught comming or going with #2 in the tank in the cold, (real cold), I used to mix a couple gallons of gas to the #2 to keep me going until I got a tank of #1. That came from my shop foreman and I was part of a 150 truck fleet. Those trucks had one fuel tank mounted behind the sleeper out of the airstream.

 I had a 4 stroke Cummins in those days and don't think I would ever do this to my bus engine.


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Reddog on December 16, 2007, 09:10:20 AM
I used to run Schaeffer synthetic two stroke oil as a fuel additive in my '81 Wanderlodge, seemed to work fine, but it seemed to run fine without it as well. I would sure go with a 2 stroke oil as opposed to ATF just because i don't know what all additives they put in ATF, I know it has some seal softeners that I don't think I want sitting in my injector pump.
  I've had some locals talk about the gasoline in the diesel trick for cold weather, but like you say, they uses it as a last resort when they can't get any #1.
Doug Engel, Gunnsion, CO (-26 this AM)


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: lyndon on December 16, 2007, 04:26:05 PM
When it got so cold that even winter fuel started to gel, we used to carry a gallon or two of kerosene to thin the fuel. I would hesitate to use gasoline for its lack of lubricity.

Don


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: white-eagle on December 16, 2007, 07:06:05 PM
Jack, thanks for the post in the first place.  all the rest of you, or at least a lot of you, thanks for making me feel not so bad for not knowing what's right.

i have put up to half tank of 2 or 3% biodiesel into my tank and it seemed to run better.  i THINK i got better mileage and maybe better HP, but i only knew of one place to buy it, so when the tank's empty, we buy flying j. 

seems to me the specs indicated that bio was the best lubricity "additive".  why not just run bio diesel? or at least the premixed stuff i found at the local farmer owned place?


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Chris 85 RTS on December 17, 2007, 12:13:17 PM
I've debated this study on other sites before, and I am in line with what Christy said, which is they add the additives and compare the results to fuel we can not even buy. 

"The independent research firm obtained a quantity of “untreated” ULSD fuel
from a supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel
engines. However, this sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to
additize the fuel for the purpose of replacing lost lubricity. "

What we really need to know is what is average of the fuel we can buy.  Then using a representative, or even worst case sample of that, what do we need to add to make it acceptable, if anything.

I'd also like to point out, that many of the failure reports I have read about have been on newer trucks, not older DD's.  I believe these newer injector pumps are much much closer in tolerences than anything we had on our DD's.


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: HB of CJ on December 17, 2007, 01:51:42 PM
Chris has it right.  My '82 VW Rabbit Diesel has a wopping 5,000 psi injection pressure.  The new Detroits have, if I read it correctly, way over 30,000 psi injection pressure.  Quite a difference.  The operator's manual with my VW Rabbit says I can add 10% gasoline to #2 Diesel to thin out the fuel for emergency use in the winter.  My Rabbits' injection pump is basically Bosch-type late 1930's technology and the entire vehicle is basically your low-tech (now) cheapo production stuff.

I would hate even to think what a new injection pump with injectors will cost to exchange out on one of the new 2010 type emissions heavy truck diesels.  $Name your own manufacture$.  Just a new pump may cost more than my entire 1974 Crown Super Coach is worth!  Figuring out the entire $stake$ with all the new equipment on the road boggles my feeble mind.  What we Bus Conversion People may need to do is find an additive that WORKS and is $cheap$ to use.  :) :) :)


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: junkman42 on December 18, 2007, 06:30:48 AM
The common rail injection systems generate all of the high pressures within the injector itself.  Fuel at about 80 lbs and oil at pressures lower than common tractor hydraulic pressure is used to operate a multiplier piston and are electro mechanicaly actuated and in some pizeo electric tripped.  The only lube problem they have is in the piston bores.  Most all are rated for dry fuel meaning jet fuel.  Makes one wonder about lubricity.  My two cents worth.  John


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: lyndon on December 18, 2007, 08:32:35 PM
This topic got me flipping through my MC-9 Maintenance Manual (1-1-89; Section 9, Fuel System) and I found some interesting -- some surprising -- statements:

About heating fuel (kerosene?):

"The ignition quality (cetane rating) of burner fuel (ASTM D-396) is poor compared to diesel fuels (ASTM D-975)."

Lube oil:

"TMC/MCI does not recommend the use of drained lubricating oil in diesel fuel. Furthermore, Detroit Diesel Allison will not be responsible for any detrimental effects which it determines resulted from this practice."

Alcohol:

"Very small amounts of isopropyl alcohol (isopropanol) may be used to preclude fuel line freeze-up in winter months. No more than one pint of isopropyl alcohol should be added to 125 gallons of diesel fuel for adequate protection."

"CAUTION: Commercially marketed diesohol or gasohol or gasoline should never be added to diesel fuel. An explosion and fire hazard exists if these blends are mixed and/or burned."

(Nothing said about engine damage, though.)

Fuel Additives:

"TMC/MCI does not recommend or support the use of any supplementary fuel additives. These include all products marketed as fuel conditioners. smoke suppressants, masking agents, deodorants, and tune-up compounds."

They continue with a DD warranty disclaimer.

Sulfur:

"The sulfur content of the fuel should be as low as possible to avoid premature wear, excessive deposit formation, and minimize the sulfur dioxide exhausted into the atmosphere."... and, ... "Too high a sulfur content results in excessive cylinder wear. For most satisfactory engine life, fuels containing less than 0.5% sulfur should be used."

That one surprised me. Isn't replacing the "lubricity" of sulfur in modern ultra-low sulfur fuel the whole reason we are discussing using additives?

Don


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: Sean on December 18, 2007, 09:02:35 PM
...

That one surprised me. Isn't replacing the "lubricity" of sulfur in modern ultra-low sulfur fuel the whole reason we are discussing using additives?


Don,

The sulfur itself is not where the lubricity that is lost comes from.  It is the process by which the sulfur is removed, which also reduces total aromatics, that is the problem.  Sulfur is not a lubricant -- the aromatics are.

-Sean
http://OurOdysssey.BlogSpot.com



Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: lyndon on December 18, 2007, 09:10:01 PM
Thanks for clarifying, Sean. After what I've been hearing about ULSD and lost lubricity, this had me scratching my head.

Don


Title: Re: Diesel Fuel additive research results
Post by: makemineatwostroke on December 18, 2007, 09:20:04 PM
lyndon, the 0.5 low sulfur fuel was 5000 PPM ( A spec they have had for years) and the new fuel is at 500 PPM down to 15 PPM and only time will tell. I don't think the low sulfur fuel will have any effect on the 2 strokes because when EPA dropped it to 1500 PPM in the 90s DD did not send out any service bulletins about the fuel   But I do think it will probably have some effect on injection pump type engines if they are not design for the new fuel