ULSD- Whats the best additives to use??
#1
06-13-2008, 02:04 PM
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ULSD- Whats the best additives to use??
Just thought I would ask you guys what fuel additives you are using and popinions on the best and most effective ones. I have heard of adding a half a quart of ATF to each tank, does that really help and is it ok for the fuel sysem and injectors, it would seem to me that the ATF would not mix well or become suspensed in the diesel. I currently use Standydine or the Power Systems slick-deisel/cetane boost stuff.
#2
06-13-2008, 02:44 PM
Elder User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Greeneville,TN
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#4
06-13-2008, 03:01 PM
Elder User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Middleton, Idaho
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a study done by Arlen Spicer that I posted awhile back with all the unbiased info that you can sink your teeth into. Hope this helps!!
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/6...ml#post5113217
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/6...ml#post5113217
#5
06-13-2008, 03:37 PM
Here is a study done by Arlen Spicer that I posted awhile back with all the unbiased info that you can sink your teeth into. Hope this helps!!
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/6...ml#post5113217
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/6...ml#post5113217
Yep. That is the rubbish that I have seen all day long. Stupid "study" that has no real answers. All anyone needs to know from that study is "more is better". Don't need to know why or how.
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.
Not one word about the score of <acronym title="Limited Slip Differential">LSD</acronym> though. That is what we need to know so that we can see how much more lubricity is needed. Yet they didn't even think to include that in their "study". What a load of crap.
CONTENT:
In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity.
Really? How will you do that when you don't even know how much you "lost"? How do you know how much you lost when you don't even know how much you had to begin with? Did you test pre-LSD fuel? If so, I didn't see it in the "study".
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.
Manufacturers want score X? WGAS what they want. They want you to make the engine last till it is out of warranty ON YOUR DIME. Sure, they can advocate a 300 HFFR score. Why? If you get 101000 miles instead of 99000 miles, they are off the hook (assuming 100K is the warranty). Now, to add all the lubricity agents to get that 300 score, it might cost YOU $2000. OTOH, it cost them NOTHING. If it gives you 2000 miles more, they are home free. Whether that 2000 miles is worth the $2000 you spent is another story. Again, it is ON YOUR DIME, not theirs. Hell, I can advocate you wash your car every day in the winter. Your dime, not mine but if I am saving on paint warranty, it is good for me. Practical? Who knows. Good for the manufacturer? Sure. They can't lose so they can recommend the stars and the moon. What "experts"? Cite source, please.
Lower wear scar is better? To what point? With everything there is a point of diminishing returns. If it is mentioned in that rubbish study, that note escapes me. If I am hungry, I eat some food. Food is good. Does 30 plates of food fill me up any more than 1 meal where I eat till I can't eat any more? Probably not. At what point do you get the most bang for your buck? Again, missing in the "study". Does it make any difference to spend $10,000 to coat your door to make it last 500 years when the house itself will probably last say 50 years? I suppose if you love your door that much.
Documented cases of not having enough lubricity? Where? Cite source. Woefully absent. Sure, if you talk about the first days of <acronym title="Limited Slip Differential">LSD</acronym> to ULSD conversion, possible. Is it still happening? Who knows. I do know this. There are tons of diesel vehicles out there that are smart enough not to fall for a stupid "study" like this. Most of them are still running on the streets. If it were that bad, most of them would be part of the lines to the diesel repair shops. Talking to the shops, I see that ULSD in fact, did have an issue. My own diesel MB had leaks in the IP. Why? Because ULSD was leaching the sulfur out of the O-rings and shrinking them. Is that lubricity related? Not at all. Unless their snake oil puts sulfur back in the fuel, it is probably still going to happen.
The cost of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive manufacturers.
I wonder if they have an ax to grind.
This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel.
And how typical is this sort of fuel? If it is so common, why aren't trucks lined up at the repair shops? When did you do this random test? During the first days of ULSD?
So, if I bring the score down from 520 to 460 like they want, how much money would I save in the end? Maybe they won't know but perhaps they can tell me how much more life it gives the average engine? That way I can calculate how much it costs me to get each mile out of it? Why is 460 the "gold standard"? Why not 350 or 300? Why not 400? Where is the graph that even shows wear increment from 520 to 460?
Sorry, to call this a study is to give it some sort of respectable name and is like calling the housewife a "domestic engineer". Sounds real good but actually meaningless. If we took this rubbish to any PhD student who will undoubtedly have done some research methods schoolwork, I'll bet they could rip it a new one. As far as I am concerned, that study is for morons to look up to. It isn't even worth the paper it is written on. Hell, even as toilet paper it would be useless since it would scratch my ***.
#7
06-13-2008, 04:20 PM
Elder User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Middleton, Idaho
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unbiased, huh? Who sponsored it?
Yep. That is the rubbish that I have seen all day long. Stupid "study" that has no real answers. All anyone needs to know from that study is "more is better". Don't need to know why or how.
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.
Not one word about the score of <ACRONYM title="Limited Slip Differential">LSD</ACRONYM> though. That is what we need to know so that we can see how much more lubricity is needed. Yet they didn't even think to include that in their "study". What a load of crap.
CONTENT:
In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity.
Really? How will you do that when you don't even know how much you "lost"? How do you know how much you lost when you don't even know how much you had to begin with? Did you test pre-LSD fuel? If so, I didn't see it in the "study".
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.
Manufacturers want score X? WGAS what they want. They want you to make the engine last till it is out of warranty ON YOUR DIME. Sure, they can advocate a 300 HFFR score. Why? If you get 101000 miles instead of 99000 miles, they are off the hook (assuming 100K is the warranty). Now, to add all the lubricity agents to get that 300 score, it might cost YOU $2000. OTOH, it cost them NOTHING. If it gives you 2000 miles more, they are home free. Whether that 2000 miles is worth the $2000 you spent is another story. Again, it is ON YOUR DIME, not theirs. Hell, I can advocate you wash your car every day in the winter. Your dime, not mine but if I am saving on paint warranty, it is good for me. Practical? Who knows. Good for the manufacturer? Sure. They can't lose so they can recommend the stars and the moon. What "experts"? Cite source, please.
Lower wear scar is better? To what point? With everything there is a point of diminishing returns. If it is mentioned in that rubbish study, that note escapes me. If I am hungry, I eat some food. Food is good. Does 30 plates of food fill me up any more than 1 meal where I eat till I can't eat any more? Probably not. At what point do you get the most bang for your buck? Again, missing in the "study". Does it make any difference to spend $10,000 to coat your door to make it last 500 years when the house itself will probably last say 50 years? I suppose if you love your door that much.
Documented cases of not having enough lubricity? Where? Cite source. Woefully absent. Sure, if you talk about the first days of <ACRONYM title="Limited Slip Differential">LSD</ACRONYM> to ULSD conversion, possible. Is it still happening? Who knows. I do know this. There are tons of diesel vehicles out there that are smart enough not to fall for a stupid "study" like this. Most of them are still running on the streets. If it were that bad, most of them would be part of the lines to the diesel repair shops. Talking to the shops, I see that ULSD in fact, did have an issue. My own diesel MB had leaks in the IP. Why? Because ULSD was leaching the sulfur out of the O-rings and shrinking them. Is that lubricity related? Not at all. Unless their snake oil puts sulfur back in the fuel, it is probably still going to happen.
The cost of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive manufacturers.
I wonder if they have an ax to grind.
This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel.
And how typical is this sort of fuel? If it is so common, why aren't trucks lined up at the repair shops? When did you do this random test? During the first days of ULSD?
So, if I bring the score down from 520 to 460 like they want, how much money would I save in the end? Maybe they won't know but perhaps they can tell me how much more life it gives the average engine? That way I can calculate how much it costs me to get each mile out of it? Why is 460 the "gold standard"? Why not 350 or 300? Why not 400? Where is the graph that even shows wear increment from 520 to 460?
Sorry, to call this a study is to give it some sort of respectable name and is like calling the housewife a "domestic engineer". Sounds real good but actually meaningless. If we took this rubbish to any PhD student who will undoubtedly have done some research methods schoolwork, I'll bet they could rip it a new one. As far as I am concerned, that study is for morons to look up to. It isn't even worth the paper it is written on. Hell, even as toilet paper it would be useless since it would scratch my ***.
Yep. That is the rubbish that I have seen all day long. Stupid "study" that has no real answers. All anyone needs to know from that study is "more is better". Don't need to know why or how.
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.
Not one word about the score of <ACRONYM title="Limited Slip Differential">LSD</ACRONYM> though. That is what we need to know so that we can see how much more lubricity is needed. Yet they didn't even think to include that in their "study". What a load of crap.
CONTENT:
In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity.
Really? How will you do that when you don't even know how much you "lost"? How do you know how much you lost when you don't even know how much you had to begin with? Did you test pre-LSD fuel? If so, I didn't see it in the "study".
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.
Manufacturers want score X? WGAS what they want. They want you to make the engine last till it is out of warranty ON YOUR DIME. Sure, they can advocate a 300 HFFR score. Why? If you get 101000 miles instead of 99000 miles, they are off the hook (assuming 100K is the warranty). Now, to add all the lubricity agents to get that 300 score, it might cost YOU $2000. OTOH, it cost them NOTHING. If it gives you 2000 miles more, they are home free. Whether that 2000 miles is worth the $2000 you spent is another story. Again, it is ON YOUR DIME, not theirs. Hell, I can advocate you wash your car every day in the winter. Your dime, not mine but if I am saving on paint warranty, it is good for me. Practical? Who knows. Good for the manufacturer? Sure. They can't lose so they can recommend the stars and the moon. What "experts"? Cite source, please.
Lower wear scar is better? To what point? With everything there is a point of diminishing returns. If it is mentioned in that rubbish study, that note escapes me. If I am hungry, I eat some food. Food is good. Does 30 plates of food fill me up any more than 1 meal where I eat till I can't eat any more? Probably not. At what point do you get the most bang for your buck? Again, missing in the "study". Does it make any difference to spend $10,000 to coat your door to make it last 500 years when the house itself will probably last say 50 years? I suppose if you love your door that much.
Documented cases of not having enough lubricity? Where? Cite source. Woefully absent. Sure, if you talk about the first days of <ACRONYM title="Limited Slip Differential">LSD</ACRONYM> to ULSD conversion, possible. Is it still happening? Who knows. I do know this. There are tons of diesel vehicles out there that are smart enough not to fall for a stupid "study" like this. Most of them are still running on the streets. If it were that bad, most of them would be part of the lines to the diesel repair shops. Talking to the shops, I see that ULSD in fact, did have an issue. My own diesel MB had leaks in the IP. Why? Because ULSD was leaching the sulfur out of the O-rings and shrinking them. Is that lubricity related? Not at all. Unless their snake oil puts sulfur back in the fuel, it is probably still going to happen.
The cost of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive manufacturers.
I wonder if they have an ax to grind.
This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel.
And how typical is this sort of fuel? If it is so common, why aren't trucks lined up at the repair shops? When did you do this random test? During the first days of ULSD?
So, if I bring the score down from 520 to 460 like they want, how much money would I save in the end? Maybe they won't know but perhaps they can tell me how much more life it gives the average engine? That way I can calculate how much it costs me to get each mile out of it? Why is 460 the "gold standard"? Why not 350 or 300? Why not 400? Where is the graph that even shows wear increment from 520 to 460?
Sorry, to call this a study is to give it some sort of respectable name and is like calling the housewife a "domestic engineer". Sounds real good but actually meaningless. If we took this rubbish to any PhD student who will undoubtedly have done some research methods schoolwork, I'll bet they could rip it a new one. As far as I am concerned, that study is for morons to look up to. It isn't even worth the paper it is written on. Hell, even as toilet paper it would be useless since it would scratch my ***.
http://www.johnfjensen.com/Diesel_fu...itive_test.pdf
Trending Topics
#8
06-13-2008, 04:26 PM
Someone crap in your wheaties this morning? Here is the link for the study in it's original form. Sponsored by members of the Diesel Forum. I have found the info quite useful and informative. I hope you wake up on the other side of the bed tomorrow.
http://www.johnfjensen.com/Diesel_fu...itive_test.pdf
http://www.johnfjensen.com/Diesel_fu...itive_test.pdf
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
#9
06-13-2008, 04:50 PM
Elder User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Middleton, Idaho
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original poster asked for opinions on additives I provided him with a link to a study that I found informative. Many others on this site have also found it useful and informitive. You may have some valid points, I am in no position to argue with you, pro or con. The newbie asked for some opinions and you have panties in a bunch. Have a nice day!!
#10
06-13-2008, 04:59 PM
The original poster asked for opinions on additives I provided him with a link to a study that I found informative. Many others on this site have also found it useful and informitive. You may have some valid points, I am in no position to argue with you, pro or con. The newbie asked for some opinions and you have panties in a bunch. Have a nice day!!
#11
06-13-2008, 06:22 PM
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#12
06-13-2008, 06:25 PM
By law they have to. If not, think about all the profit Exxon/Mobil made last year. Think about it and then some going to lawsuits when you see truck after truck die on the highway. If that happens, Exxon/Mobil is going to need a government bailout.
#13
06-13-2008, 06:40 PM
For some reason the EPA decided in 2005 that it knew more about what was acceptable for diesel engines than the EMA (engine manufacturer's association) and the folk who make the injectors. Once the law was passed the engine guys had no choice but to accept the EPA numbers if they wanted to sell engines in the US. The current lubricity and wear scar are acceptable according to law, but that does not mean their ideal.
Your engine won't stop running tomorrow if you decide not to use an additive. It's up to you to decide if the additive is worth it as a preventative maintenance measure.
http://www.enginemanufacturers.org/a...upload/192.pdf
#14
06-13-2008, 06:41 PM
#15
06-13-2008, 06:54 PM
It's up to you to decide if the additive is worth it as a preventative maintenance measure.
http://www.enginemanufacturers.org/a...upload/192.pdf
http://www.enginemanufacturers.org/a...upload/192.pdf
lubricity specified as a maximum wear scar diameter of 520 micrometers using the HFRR test method (ASTM D6079) at a temperature of 60°C. Based on testing conducted on ULSD fuels, however, fuel injection equipment manufacturers have required that ULSD fuels have a maximum wear scar diameter of 460 micrometers. EMA recommends that the lubricityspecification be consistent with the fuel injection equipment manufacturers’ recommendation.
What we have is that 520 is specified while 460 is recommended.We know what the cost of going to it is going to be based on the amount of additive. OTOH, we don't know what the cost of it is by NOT doing it. As I have talked about, there is a point of diminishing returns. Without knowing that, how can we determine what is needed and what is not needed? To the manufacturer, if you can get more miles out of it ON YOUR DIME, it makes them less liable from a warranty standpoint. So yes, they can advocate anything because YOU are paying for it.
Without knowing what the effects are, how do you know what to do? IOW, will reducing the numbers from 520 to 460 give me 1000 miles more? 2000 miles more? 10000 miles more? Without knowing that, how do you calculate if it is worth it?