I was thinking of the extra high Sulfur content US fuels before ULSD...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I "think" I remember that study used diesel that did not have any lubrication additives from the fuel dealer in order to make it consistent for all additives being tested. The theory was that each type or batch of diesel fuel might have different types and amounts of additives, so the study used straight no-additive-diesel to prevent significant discrepancies in comparing the additives being tested.


Subsequent nonrelated testing of diesel fuel from fuel stations around the US has revealed a lot of discrepancies in the amount and type of additives being used by fuel dealers. Evidently, the diesel additives are not put diesel fuel at the refineries, but are added by the fuel dealers themselves as the diesel is put into the tanker trucks for final delivery to the fuel stations. This can be problematic if the fuel dealers and/or the truck drivers do not put the proper amount and type of additives in the delivered fuel.


I've seen a couple of studies that involved testing of diesel fuel around the country to determine how effective the additives are. The tests showed that while most diesel supplies had sufficient additives to meet the scar index standards, some had inadequate additives which resulted in high scar indexes. As a result, it is recommended by many diesel users to put their own additives to assure their engines are protected at all times from excessive wear on their engines that can come from diesel with inadequate lubrication additives.

 

This is pretty interesting. I error on the safe side and use Opti-Lube. I know the PO was asking about recent. I did not realize the last test was 10 years old as Tom pointed out. I'll look ans see if I can find anything recent.

 

http://fleetowner.com/site-files/fle...e%209-1-12.pdf


Truck trend used our truck in this one. Pretty cool!

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/0...additive-test/

Hope these help.

 

Both were interesting reads. Thanks Byron!

 

I did some basic math on the truck trend one making some assumptions (I am an accountant): and the cost to run an additive vs fuel mileage and fuel cost...


Well 2 stroke wins that argument...


based on their averages assuming that they ran equal distance highway/city and equal distance on each test and a consistent cost of $2.50 a gallon


All of which can be argued...


my results were as follows:


no additive - 194.54 gal of fuel used - total cost $486.36 - 9.72 tanks of fuel


2 stroke - 182.32 gal of fuel used - plus $17.94 in 2 stroke oil in 8 oz containers from walmart equals $473.74 in total cost - 9.11 tanks of fuel


optilube - 180.89 gal of fuel used plus $72.47 in additive cost equals $524.69 in total cost or 9.04 tanks of fuel.


fppf +8 - 177.69 gal in fuel used plus $37.45 in additive costs total cost of 481.67 or 8.88 tanks of fuel

 

I'm guessing you meant $37.45 in the FPPF line... hahaha

Nice break down though. Thank you!!

 

fixed...darn shift key is temperamental.

 

Your an accountant? Yeah, you will look at this WAY differently than most lay people. I don't care about cost. I only care about performance. The cost to protection ratio doesn't really jive with me. I use Opti-Lube. More money? Yes, but it does more than 2-stroke oil (cetane, water disperse, cleaning) so it's worth it to me.

 

Everything I do is a cost benefit analysis.... Its also Why I do 80% of my own work on my vehicles...that way I see how things are or are not progressing and can nip bad things in the butt before they happen.

 

80.00 per gallon of redline makes me happy.

 

.27 cents per gallon (post #3). I use a Sta-Bil bottle, pump in 20 gallons and put a once in of Opti lube. Done!

 

This is about how I do mine Glenn. Pretty cost effective for the best product on the market IMO.