Bus Conversion Magazine Bulletin Board
April 21, 2018, 06:25:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: This BB is intended for the sole purpose of sharing conversion and bus related information among visitors to our web site. These rules must be followed in order for us to continue this free exchange of info. No bad mouthing of any business or individual is permitted. Absolutely no items for sale are to be posted, except in the Spare Tire board. Interested in placing a classified or web ad, please contact our advertising dept. at (657) 221-0432 or e-mail to: info@busconversions.com.

   Home   Help Forum Rules Search Calendar Login Register BCM Home Page Contact BCM  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
Author Topic: Diesel Fuel additive research results  (Read 10786 times)
Orange Blossom Special II
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 4448

73' MC-8 8V71/HT740 Southwest Florida

« 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

Arlen Spicer
August 2007
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 1 - August, 2007
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
4) Opti-Lube Summer Blend
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
5) Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
Cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/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
7) Super Tech Outboard 2-Cycle TC-W3 Engine Oil
(Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
Cool Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
Demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
9) Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
10) Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 7 - August, 2007
11) Howe’s Meaner Power Kleaner
Alcohol free
HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/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
13) Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15W-40, 5,000 miles used.
(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
427:1 ratio
7.8 oz/tank
15) B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech
Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive
HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/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
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
18) ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive
Cetane improver, Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
19) Primrose Power Blend 2003
Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, Emulsifier
HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline
1066:1 ratio
3.12 oz/tank
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

Growing Older Is Mandatory, Growing Up Is Optional
Arcadia, Florida, When we are home
Don Fairchild
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 792

« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2007, 04:06:02 PM »


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.


1990 Thomas "Hormone Derange" Gunnison, Colorado
Full Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 119

1990 Thomas Transitliner, 8.3 Cummins/Allison Auto


« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2007, 04:14:24 PM »

  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

"If people don't stare and point as you drive by, keep working."
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 1541

4108, 8V71 w/auto .


« Reply #3 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.

Pix of my bus here: http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g279/Skulptor/Motor%20Coach/
What I create here:   www.amstudio.us
"Imagination is more important than knowledge". Albert Einstein
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 5229

1965 MC-5a

« Reply #4 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.

You don't have to believe everything you think.
1990 Thomas "Hormone Derange" Gunnison, Colorado
Full Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 119

1990 Thomas Transitliner, 8.3 Cummins/Allison Auto


« Reply #5 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

"If people don't stare and point as you drive by, keep working."
Offline Offline

Posts: 6

« Reply #6 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..
Jr. Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 82

« Reply #7 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.  Smiley

Comments welcome.  Grin

Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 526

Pete RTS/Daytona ->'89 TMC 35' 102" 6V92TA 4:10


« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2007, 07:32:20 PM »


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

If you ain't part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 1347

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

« Reply #9 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 Hart, CDS
1956 GMC PD-4501 #945 (The Mighty SCENICRUISER!)
8V71 Detroit
4 speed Spicer Trannsmission
Hickory, NC, (Where a call to God is a local call!)
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 2263

« Reply #10 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
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 4471

'75 MC8 8V71 HT740

« Reply #11 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!

Frozen North, Greater Toronto Area

« Reply #12 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.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2007, 07:38:46 AM by makemineatwostroke » Logged
HB of CJ
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 1749

« Reply #13 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.... $PRICELESS$!!  Smiley Smiley Smiley
Tony LEE
Sr. Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 492


« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2007, 04:32:56 PM »

Looks like Marvel Mystery Oil is not the universal panacea after all

Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!