You'd think the manufacturer/sponsor could come here and answer that question for everybody. I guess they don't really have one. Bo seems to recommend using the "every day diesel treatment" even though it claims to have a water emulsifier. They claim to have done fleet testing but cannot tell us anything about it. I wonder if they actually tested a 6.0L.

To me it seems like they are just blending random chemicals and slapping big words on the bottle in hopes that it might solve some random untested problem...and I don't want to be their guinea pig.

I don't think anyone is bored Bo, by all means educate us. Why would we want a water emulsifier in our system?

 

Ironically there have been a LOT of product spotlights on HSS lately on the PowerBlock and other related DIY shows on TV, yet the water emulsifier vs de-emulsier seems like a real OOPS to me - at least for the 6L (which is what WE ARE talking about here).

 

My apologies - I was referring to calling the manufacturer of the diesel equipment (in this case Ford) in regards to what they recommend for additives.

 

They have their own, so we know what they will say.

 

The argument of dispersing water vs. separating it out has been a debate in the additive industry for quite some time (long before common rail trucks were around)... In a perfect world, yes you would want to separate out the water and drain it out. That simply doesn't happen though. So when you drop out the water in the system, you are leaving standing water in the tank. This can lead to bacterial growth, corrosion, and other issues. By constantly using a dispersive additive, you are constantly removing trace amounts of water in the fuel, passing it safely through the system. You have to realize the droplets of water we are dispersing are so microscopically small, there is no way it could damage an injector. Conversely, if you let a water problem go too long, and the pickup grabs some straight water that was demulsified instead of fuel, then you have a problem. It would have to be a pretty severe water problem for that to happen, but it is still possible. We have thousands of customers with common rail trucks who use the Diesel Extreme and EDT, from new Volkswagens to Cummins ISX semis. If dispersing additives were a problem, we would have been out of business by now.

 

Ah...yeah, I bet Ford would only recommend the Motorcraft additives. Not sure if they claim to emulsify water, don't have time to look at the moment.

Bo, no answers for any of the other testing I asked about? Tell us about this fleet testing. What about lubricity testing?

 

Here is the Motorcraft diesel additive:
Power Stroke Diesel - Power and Pride

I notice it doesn't say anything about emulsifying or demulsifying water. My water trap seems to work just fine and my tank is plastic so I can't think of any reason a 6.0L owner could possibly need an emulsifier.


I suppose Bo must have been lying about the "fleet testing" if he can't share any results or describe what kind of testing was done. Sad. I'm sure no lubricity tests were done either. They're just making up random facts to put on the bottle. It's been a full week since I asked him to describe the testing...

The unfortunate reality is that most other fuel additive products are the same way, they can't prove much or any of what they claim to do.

 

I was able to dig up a test from an independant fleet that we were watching fuel mileage gains...


The lubricity is a lot like the cetane, we use a known lubricating additive in the mix, so that is why we can claim to boost lubricity. Though that test would most likely be an easier test to reproduce and quantify the lubricity added. I will check into what would be involved with sending off a sample to get tested.

 

Well, I have a bottle so I added a shot to this tank. My fuel mileage has such a wide range I wouldn't know if it did help though.

 

LOL. It's sad that forum members have to suggest that maybe testing is necessary to prove your claims. You should have already known that if you really are the oil expert you claim to be.

As for your fleet testing, that is a pathetic answer. I can make a graph like that in about 5 minutes, and it means nothing to anybody looking at it. Can you actually describe the testing? What kind of trucks? What kind of motors? What kind of miles? What kind of fuel? What kind of testing methodology? Did you just hand a bottle to the driver and say "test this" or was there a scientific method? You are the one that said you are "all about education", so why no answers?

One drop of oil in a thousand gallons of fuel will "boost lubricity" legally speaking, but not enough to do a single benefit for anybody. Your mix ratio of 3200:1 makes it useless as a lubricant. Your entire product isn't pure lubricant anyway, so the lube ratio is actually worse than that.

I think what we all have learned here is that there is no scientific basis what so ever for the prescribed dosage of 1oz per 25 gallons having any effect.

PS - a 15% improvement would be 2.7 miles per gallon gained if you got 18mpg to begin with. No possible way your product can do that. Even the 7% is very suspect.

 

So this means that you're claiming a lubricity increase only because the stuff contains a substance "known" to increase Lubricity, but with no test to support that claim ?


And I guess I missed it....

You mentioned a 7 "point" increase in cetane.....................That's just a claim too? with no supporting standard ASTM test to back it up?

Please forgive me for saying, I'm just a little bit appalled that you would offer for sale a product with claims that you admit haven't been independently backed up with standard tests to verify.....

It just supports the "Snake Oil" narrative....

 

Yep, no test. On anything. His guess to how good it works or not, is as good as yours. He even claims the math they used to get 7 points differs based on the fuel you are using, but can't give us an example of what the ideal fuel to use is that would get that 7 point gain.

 

It doesn't matter if it really "works" or not if people buy it and "feel better" after running it

 

Actually if it doesn't really work that's false advertising and that would be illegal. Most seem to get away with it, but it's still illegal. Bo seems to be playing a careful word game here.

Without a lubricity test, for example, it's possible that the product cannot measurably increase the lubricity of fuel at the recommended ratio.

 

That was the worst proof of "testing" I likely have ever seen.

6 months prior fuel useage of 30k miles compared to only 4400 miles?

A lot of variables considering winter blend fuel versus Summer blend etc.

Josh