Yeah man, all good.

I've done the experiments they list on their site and combined 1/3 water and 2/3 K100D. It's amazing to watch as the water literally begins to combine with the K100 as it totally disappears.

I rolled up a paper towel, stuck it in the jar, let the mixture suck all the up the paper which I lit as a wick, it burned with no to very little smoke, and I could hear the water popping off as it was turned into steam by the flame. It just kept burning and never stopped.

I've talked to a few diesel mechanics here who love it. Met a guy who owns a newer deleted Chevy dually who runs it. I get your cautiousness towards it. No problem.

I have a container of diesel from my DFCM filter drains to change the filter. I have plans for it. I want to make some videos. Maybe I'll have to post them to my new thread involving that old diesel, some water and K100D. Maybe even some water detecting paste. We'll see...

Take it easy and good luck with your truck.

 

The whole problem is not whether or not a product can make the water “burn” off; but the fact that water is just that, water; and 35000 PSI. Years back I was working with some hydraulic pumping systems in an oilfield. We were only running 3500-4000 PSI and some of the pumps had metal to metal plungers in them using crude oil as the hydraulic fluid (what they were designed for). These pumps would put out from 2000-4000 barrels per day, so they were pumping a pretty fair volume of fluid.All it would take is a few drops of water to gall the plungers and lock the pump.
What I am saying is the water needs to be separated from the fuel, not emulsified to go through.

I would like to see a demonstration by an independent test lab run some water/fuel mix with this K100D through a CP4 pump at 35000 psi and see what happens.

 

I just had a freaky little deja vu!

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...el-fuel-2.html

 

Yep I remember that. Here's another reason I run K100D.

From this link.

https://allinthewristauto.com/diesel...el-hard-start/



Another reason I run it; get rid of the moisture, get rid of the potential of "bugs."

 

Again I see your point but you're talking about a way bigger piece of water than what the K100D breaks it down to.

K100D breaks the bigger chunks or pieces of water down to the molecular level. It combines with it chemically, totally encapsulating it in a burnable compound to be sent to the combustion chamber to burned off harmlessly. It is in permanent solution.

There is a spec for moisture in fuel and an acceptable amount. I remember reading that the very process of getting the sulfur out of fuel makes the fuel more susceptible to moisture absorption.

What happens if you get a tank of contaminated fuel and it over powers the water separator because there's too much moisture for it to handle? How do you know that it won't happen and the water separator can deal with it?

I'd love to send two samples of fuel from where I usually buy mine to a lab; one without K100D and one with. But it ain't cheap. If I could afford it, I would.

This does come down to a emulsifier versus a demulsifier. So I see your argument. But with the fuel constantly being agitated in a moving vehicle's tank, I don't see how it's guaranteed that my factory water separator will get every last bit of water if I was to get a tankful of bad diesel.

I have a 16. There has to be a reason why Ford changed up their fuel system to a bigger primary filter and water separator from my gen truck.

 

As stated, I would like to see the results of running fuel treated with K100D and a small % of water through a CP4 at 35000 PSI and see the actual results from an independent lab.
If someone will be so kind as to do that, I would be impressed.
PS: I don’t care if the water burns or not; but what condition the fuel system is in after the fact.

 

Believe it or not, I'm not the only guy running this stuff. There are trucking companies that buy it by the barrel. It's been around a long time. Like I said, Power Service has a similar product out of their many and they are endorsed by Cummins.

If this stuff was bad, I'd doubt they'd still be in business. Or selling the product. I just don't agree with the use of a demulsifier as opposed to what I use. I'll see at 125k miles when my truck gets there. Like I said, If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.

I haven't and don't drain my DFCM every other tank or month. I have confidence in K100D. If I had water, I wouldn't know it.

I have old diesel sitting in an container in my unheated garage that was drained the times when I changed the DFCM filter. I am saving it to possibly make a video or two. Stay tuned.

 

Well, I am not saying it is a *bad* product; just saying I need to see it work. Take a batch of known water contaminated fuel, treat it with their product, then run it through a stock 6.7 PSD. If the Fuel system survives with no damage, then I will believe. Until then, I will remain skeptical. Trucking companies use it, that is fine too. In my mere couple million miles driving the big rigs I never got contaminated fuel, so I am guessing the actual rate of finding bad fuel is pretty small. The likelihood of the fuel being contaminated by the operator is much greater, but that is another story.

 

The water issue is not the only reason I use it. It's also adds a few points of cetane, anti gel agent, anti microbe, dissolves alphaltenes back into fuel, adds lubricity to the fuel, is a combustion enhancer which I've seen listed for other products, fuel stabilizer, fuel cleaner, etc.

I know what you're saying. I never said you said it was a bad product. I'm just stating the reasons why I use it. No worries here.

My dad drove truck too. Got a soft spot for big truck drivers.

But with modern diesel fuel, I err on the side of caution. When I first bought my truck, my first diesel, I researched the fuel itself. The way I look at it is I'm not willing to throw the dice when it comes to my $69k truck. Opinions will vary, that I get. I look at it from the worst case scenario. On their site, they list ULSD as a 90 day fuel. So if I got an older batch of fuel, K100 would help to bring it back up to snuff. I don't believe in luck. But I do believe in Mr. Murphy. That's why I use it, because basically, I don't trust today's ULSD fuel. The same reason I conceal carry... just in case.

 

The old emulsifier vs demulsifier debate is similar to democrat vs republican. It's tough to say which one is better, and people that believe theirs is, will stick by it. Personally I like the emulsifiers due to the water presence which is guaranteed in diesel fuel, it will combine with this molecule and make it safe to burn. whereas untreated fuel will no doubt have this water and it will pass through the filter because it is entrained in the fuel solution and be like a little bomb going off when it is injected into the combustion chamber. If you can mitigate this, why wouldn't you? The additives that claim to demulsify the entrained water do work, but eventually you're going to suck up a lot of water and are you relying on your filter to catch all this and warn you in time? Odds are it's going to warn you when it's too late and when the damage is already done. Just my thoughts. Schaeffer's and others have done the high pressure common rail testing with both types of additives. Hence why I choose the ones I do.

 

Most of the failures that I have read about or ones seen here are that they get the "water in fuel' warning as the engine quits then they are up schit's creek. The damage has already happened.

The website, dieselsite.com and it's owner, Bob Riley had a similar experience with his truck. That's why he came up with their water separator filter system for the 6.7 trucks. I'm going off of memory here for this so I'm sorry if I'm wrong. Here's a link to the page for more info.

https://www.dieselsite.com/dieselsit...separator.aspx

There has to be a reason that Ford changed the design of their primary filter and water separator and made it bigger. I'm thinking it was for a bigger capacity for water separation to prevent what happened with the 11 to 16 trucks like mine.

So instead of going underneath the truck to periodically drain to check for water, I'd prefer to use K100D to take care of the water issue and not depend on the factory solution to separate it from the fuel. I'll also get the other benefits of my additive as well. But that's just me.

It's always puzzled me to how folks say to buy from high traffic fuel stations and I understand the point. But how does that guarantee that there won't be a little, some or a lot of water in that fuel without testing it? You can't stick your head inside the tank or look at the bottom of the tank to check.

I'm from the same camp that bobcat is with that you can be sure there is some moisture in that fuel when you fill the tank. My point was not so much about what I use, or that it is the best but rather why I use it and how I feel like it benefits me. That's all.

With these new, high pressure common rail fuel systems, their ability to deal with some moisture is non-existent. They simply cannot. The engines of the old days with their lower pressures were much more tolerant of moisture and other issues.

 

Yeah but you still have to drain it regularly and I bet that most don't.. I drain mine every two months and I have never saw water. I have also never heard of anyone in one of these trucks even report a "water in fuel" light.

Also saw a video on youtube where the guy said you are supposed to cycle the key multiple times (like when changing the separator). I have never done that but then again I only drain a couple ounces. Since the water is on the bottom anyway it's stupid to drain the whole separator

 

I don't drain mine as I stated before. I have confidence in my additive. I use it so I don't have to drain it. Since I've had my truck, once I started to use it, I haven't stopped. I don't expect you and others to agree with my method. Like I've said, if you have moisture in your fuel when you fill up, and the odds are with you that you probably won't run into it but I don't believe in luck but I do in Murphy, it may be enough to overpower the water separator and go straight through to the CP4.2 and take it out.

Since I don't have the exact facts or numbers on how these HPFP failures happened and how many, I'd rather play it safe with additive. My additive is designed to take water out of the equation. And it adds more lubricity to the fuel at the same time.

Maybe I am lucky. Or maybe my additive works. Time will tell. Meanwhile, I'm going to keep doing what I do.

 

The water separator was put there for a reason. To not drain it is gambling which I don't do. Been farming for 40 years and everything here is maintained meticulously. I use Optilube for added insurance but sure don't depend upon it. Good luck!

 

Yep. I'm well aware of that. The way I look at it is, that's for the guys who don't use additive religiously or not regularly. I totally understand your POV though. It's funny how all the other manufacturers have different additives for different functions.

This is just chemistry at work. I'm not a chemist so I really can't explain how it does it and how the water stays in permanent solution when the K100D reacts with it, breaks it down to the molecular level and encapsulates it with a burnable compound to not only keep the fuel system safe from the water, but to use it to harmlessly burn off in the combustion chamber for a cleaning effect.

Thanks!