Truthfully, I really see no increase in MPG using Enerburn. If there is any, it's very little. What I do see is decrease in soot creation. I find that the g/l number actually decreases when I'm on a steady roll at normal speeds, Plus my regen have gone from 10 to 15 miles down to 5 miles or less. That in itself has to be saving fuel. I haven't reached that magical 500 mile number between regens yet because most of my driving has been in town, but next week I'm going on an 800 mile trip pulling a 16000lbs 5th wheel. We shall see if my mpg or regen acts then.
From my experience so far, the main plus about enerburn, is the DPF regen improvements. I hated seeing regens every 200 to 250 miles. Now around town, I'm getting an average of 350 to 400 miles.

 

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you decrease the frequency and length of all your regens, you should see a corresponding increase in mpg's. At least based on the decreases the regens have caused in my truck.

If enerburn doesn't translate to better mpg's, what's the point?

 

It's been hard for me to get a real good MPG readout as most of my last two tanks have been in town driving.. I just like the fact that my regens are short and more miles between. To me its totally worth it no matter what. The DPF system is expensive to replace, so the less it works the better for me. I need more miles to really see if there has been any increase.
I agree with you though.. with the faster regens and more time between, it has to be saving me some fuel. I started using in cold weather (cold for Florida anyway), so that may have made a difference.. Enerburn doesn't advertise as a fuel saver. it's mostly for the DPF improvement.

 

There is no point, except for the company to make money. This stuff is basically a placebo-effect product. Of course everyone wants it to work.

Ford PM22 may raise cetane and add lubricity to the pump, but my truck doesn't get any better fuel economy or run any better with it in the tank. But it makes people feel good adding it!

 

I respectfully have to disagree with you on the placebo-effect. I've been monitoring my readings very carefully since I started using it. I'm not a fan of the price of it, but it does go a long way on one bottle. It's never advertised as an MPG increase. The push it as a DPF helper product, which is what I really wanted. Before I started using it, my DPF regens were happening at least every 200 to 250 miles and take over 15 minutes or 15 miles to regen from 2.7 to 1.1 G/L. Since I started using it, I've gone up to 300 to 400 miles between regens (around town) and it only takes 5 miles or 5 min or less to do the same regen. That's absolutely NOT a placebo-effect. I've certainly not been trying to sell this product, but simply reporting my results which is what I was looking for. I've tried a variety of other product including PM22, and Deisel Kleen, and those showed absolutely no improvements in anything. This is the first product,(to me) that does what it says it does. Sorry for the rant, just wanted people to know that this was only my opinion, and NOT a sales pitch.

 

Harleyjoeky, how does it reduce DPF regenerations? I appreciate the respectful reply; I was probably a bit rude with my statement.

 

Troverman.. No problems... Actually, I wondered the same thing, and asked The customer service (or owner) Jane about it. Here's her explanation.(by the way, she is an awesome person to correspond with. She will always respond to questions) Pay special attention to Factor 2. I think that's the main reason.

Explanation for shorter times for active regen to complete.

Joseph, this is normal and frequently reported by end-users of EnerBurn. Presumably the onset of the regen is triggered by either reaching 500 miles driven since the last active regen or the High Limit Level of the back pressure as sensed by the ECM is reached because of soot build-up, whichever comes first.

Now you, and other Ford 6.7 L pick-up engine owners are now getting to the 500 mile limit with proper use of EnerBurn. Then, reasoning by deduction, before EnerBurn the active regens that were occurring at less than 500 mile intervals most likely were triggered by the back pressure getting too high. The back pressure is calculated by the ECM using inputs as fed from two pressure sensors; one positioned near the inlet and the other near the outlet of the DPF. (I don’t know the exact sensor feedback and algorithm strategy used by Ford but the ECM back pressure is method is pretty standard for the vocational 13L – 16L OEM engines).

Once commenced then the “active” burn-out cycle automatically stops as soon as the set point for the Low Limit Level for back pressure in the DPF is reached.

Factor 1: less soot has built up at the 500 mile interval with EnerBurn than before, without Enerburn; less soot requires less time to burn off.
Factor 2: the soot that is present is impregnated with the combustion catalyst ingredient (trace amounts) and this causes it to burn off faster and at a much lower EGT temp (some 200 – 300 degrees lower as measured by independent laboratories).

Both of these factors combined will definitely result in significantly less time the system needs to perform an active regen than before without the use of EnerBurn.

My humble opinion, of course, but it is an educated one.
-Jane

 

Hmm. How can soot be "impregnated" with this combustion catalyst and not actually burn off either in the cylinder itself during combustion (soot is just leftover diesel that only partially burned) or when it passes through the DOC (which is designed to increase heat)? I would be surprised if whatever "liquid" formula could remain in the diesel and survive a trip through the engine, the hot turbo, the DOC, the SCR, and finally remain lodged and active in the DPF until a regen commenced? Maybe, but I guess I'm naturally skeptical.

 

We're all skeptics Troverman lol. But like I said, it works for me.

 

I started using Enerburn a month ago after reading all the hype. I noticed an improvement after the first 30-40 gallons of fuel consumed. My regens were at 90-120 miles and now are in the 200+ range. The last three active regens lasted 5.5 miles (no more than 7-8 minutes). Mileage went up from 13.7mpg to 15.1mph (combined highway/town). I've watched it passively regen (DPF screen dropped 5-10%) on short two mile 6% grades that it normally just added soot load before using Enerburn. This is all empty driving. When I tow, the temps were always high enough (above 750) to passively regen and the filter stayed near 0%. It would get to the 500 mile limit and then regen.

I think the key is the additive chemically modifies the fuel so that the carbon molecules burns off at lower temps or reacts to form other compounds (like CO and CO2) that don't get trapped in the filter as soot.

 

Jetskier... I think the reason I haven't seen the increase in MPG, is that mine is already pretty good at an average of 18 to 20. Plus I've been driving more in town than anything else these past few tanks. Heading to Key West pulling a 16k 5th wheel next week, so I'll see what it does then.

 

Florida is flat compared to where I am. It's minimum 4600ft with mountains all around (east of Lake Tahoe near Carson City). If there's not a mountain, there's a traffic light. My instantaneous freeway mileage at 70 varies between 18 and 20, but the stop and go in town kills it fast.

 

18 and 20 is what I've Been getting all along. So hard to get much better than that. As I've said over and over; my main interest in Enerburn was the regen improvements.

 

Yes, that was why I tried it especially since I wasn't even hitting 100 miles. So far I'm impressed with the results.

 

For me, the fuel mpg's go to pot when the regen kicks in. If it weren't for the regen, I would get decent mileage. In my case, any reduction in regens would have to translate to an increase in mpg's, but then again I already go 300 - 400 miles or so between regens without any additives.

Perhaps you should take it on longer drives. I often drive that many miles in a single day and my regen intervals are easily 3 times or more than yours.