Use of Cetane booster
#61
08-23-2016, 12:01 PM
If you buy a gallon of the stuff, and don't drive your truck much, does PM22 go stale in the can? Heck, we use Sta Bil for gasoline to prevent octane loss, right? This is the equivalent of that for diesel fuel, No?
This stuff increases Cetane. Does Cetane booster go stale with time? Sure wish we knew more about this big electro mechanical chemistry set we are playing with here. Ford shares some dope, but never enough.
This stuff increases Cetane. Does Cetane booster go stale with time? Sure wish we knew more about this big electro mechanical chemistry set we are playing with here. Ford shares some dope, but never enough.
Indefinitely in a sealed container. Once the seal has been broken, the best practice is to use the product within 12 to 18 months.
Fuel standards cannot be changed without a study on older vehicles. When ethanol was added, the industry would have preferred to add more but it was found higher levels were destructive in older vehicles. At one point, separate pumps were proposed for vehicles older than a certain year. In the end, the compromise was lower levels of Ethanol.
And that is a half truth. I do agree that the EPA wanted 20% and then 15%, but even those levels are bad for cars no designed to run on it. However, Ethanol is horrific at E10 levels in older (especially carb'd) cars. I know a LOT of people that have older carb'd cars and they go through great lengths to get non-ethanol fuel. There is an ethanol fuel treatment for them that you can buy, but it isn't as good as getting non-ethanol fuel. It also messes up small engines - I ended up having to replace or rebuild all of my 2-cycle yard equipment and even a mower went from it. Boats, Jet skis, sleds, and ATVs also have had issues if they were built prior to E10. (Not a problem in AK as Ethanol doesn't burn well at cold temps so there none of it here). And I remember the first ULSD fuel was causing older diesels to have issues.
California is mandating that older diesels that were not designed for, nor had from the factory DPFs and SCR be retrofitted with that technology... Any here think that is going to be good for the motor? As in, wouldn't you think if it could have been done to an existing motor that the manufacturers would have added it and not gone through the r&d process of designing a new motor?
I agree that to a point they do backwards compatibility testing and hopefully it works out well... In the end, the manufacturer (Ford, Government Motors, Fiat, Cat, Cummins, IH, Detroit Diesel, etc...) AND THE EPA/GOVERNMENT wants you to replace your old equipment with new. And really they only care until all the old stuff is out of warranty.
#62
08-23-2016, 01:50 PM
Elder User
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Witness Protection Progam
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Dakster;16518758]WHAT IS THE SHELF-LIFE OF YOUR PRODUCTS?
.
.
California is mandating that older diesels that were not designed for, nor had from the factory DPFs and SCR be retrofitted with that technology... Any here think that is going to be good for the motor? As in, wouldn't you think if it could have been done to an existing motor that the manufacturers would have added it and not gone through the r&d process of designing a new motor?
.I would say that all older Gasoline powered vehicles need Catalytic converters added, fuel injectors added over a carburetor, electronic ignition....
,
.
.
California is mandating that older diesels that were not designed for, nor had from the factory DPFs and SCR be retrofitted with that technology... Any here think that is going to be good for the motor? As in, wouldn't you think if it could have been done to an existing motor that the manufacturers would have added it and not gone through the r&d process of designing a new motor?
.I would say that all older Gasoline powered vehicles need Catalytic converters added, fuel injectors added over a carburetor, electronic ignition....
,
#63
08-24-2016, 03:54 PM
WHAT IS THE SHELF-LIFE OF YOUR PRODUCTS?
Indefinitely in a sealed container. Once the seal has been broken, the best practice is to use the product within 12 to 18 months.
Just my opinion ---
And that is a half truth. I do agree that the EPA wanted 20% and then 15%, but even those levels are bad for cars no designed to run on it. However, Ethanol is horrific at E10 levels in older (especially carb'd) cars. I know a LOT of people that have older carb'd cars and they go through great lengths to get non-ethanol fuel. There is an ethanol fuel treatment for them that you can buy, but it isn't as good as getting non-ethanol fuel. It also messes up small engines - I ended up having to replace or rebuild all of my 2-cycle yard equipment and even a mower went from it. Boats, Jet skis, sleds, and ATVs also have had issues if they were built prior to E10. (Not a problem in AK as Ethanol doesn't burn well at cold temps so there none of it here). And I remember the first ULSD fuel was causing older diesels to have issues.
California is mandating that older diesels that were not designed for, nor had from the factory DPFs and SCR be retrofitted with that technology... Any here think that is going to be good for the motor? As in, wouldn't you think if it could have been done to an existing motor that the manufacturers would have added it and not gone through the r&d process of designing a new motor?
I agree that to a point they do backwards compatibility testing and hopefully it works out well... In the end, the manufacturer (Ford, Government Motors, Fiat, Cat, Cummins, IH, Detroit Diesel, etc...) AND THE EPA/GOVERNMENT wants you to replace your old equipment with new. And really they only care until all the old stuff is out of warranty.
Indefinitely in a sealed container. Once the seal has been broken, the best practice is to use the product within 12 to 18 months.
Just my opinion ---
And that is a half truth. I do agree that the EPA wanted 20% and then 15%, but even those levels are bad for cars no designed to run on it. However, Ethanol is horrific at E10 levels in older (especially carb'd) cars. I know a LOT of people that have older carb'd cars and they go through great lengths to get non-ethanol fuel. There is an ethanol fuel treatment for them that you can buy, but it isn't as good as getting non-ethanol fuel. It also messes up small engines - I ended up having to replace or rebuild all of my 2-cycle yard equipment and even a mower went from it. Boats, Jet skis, sleds, and ATVs also have had issues if they were built prior to E10. (Not a problem in AK as Ethanol doesn't burn well at cold temps so there none of it here). And I remember the first ULSD fuel was causing older diesels to have issues.
California is mandating that older diesels that were not designed for, nor had from the factory DPFs and SCR be retrofitted with that technology... Any here think that is going to be good for the motor? As in, wouldn't you think if it could have been done to an existing motor that the manufacturers would have added it and not gone through the r&d process of designing a new motor?
I agree that to a point they do backwards compatibility testing and hopefully it works out well... In the end, the manufacturer (Ford, Government Motors, Fiat, Cat, Cummins, IH, Detroit Diesel, etc...) AND THE EPA/GOVERNMENT wants you to replace your old equipment with new. And really they only care until all the old stuff is out of warranty.
On a side note I'm heading out across the USA tomorrow..If I fuel up with blends of bio fuel is there anything I should worry about? or add an additive to it? or is it great for our 6.7's..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Fuzzpuss
6.0L Power Stroke Diesel
52
05-29-2017 05:54 PM
FTE Trigger
2004 - 2008 F150
2
06-01-2006 02:36 PM