See attached file.

 

In looking up more information on the opti lube xpd, I found several comments indicating they did not like product. The only thing I wished would have been included was actual cetane levels before and after.

 

This is a very interesting study. They did not include (or I missed)how they decided what ratios to add. I have used Diesel Kleen now for a year an a half. I add 16 oz to a 26 gallon tank. The study showed DK to improve wear minutely with 8 oz per tank. I don't think I will be spending that $17 anymore!

Perhaps I should go reread the forward to the results.

The results sure make me feel good about burning bio D.

 

I went back and reread the entire document. They claim to have mixed the supplements "at the prescribed dosage" on the label.

If the results are correct, I have wasted a lot of money dumping Diesel Kleen into my tank. "Wasted" might be a bit strong but I thought I was getting alot better lubrication from DK than the results show!

I believe I'll discontinue the DK and run Bio D.

Great survey.

 

Running Bio D is the best for lubrication. That is the only thing they are showing is the capability for lubrication. The information I read about the opti lube xpd product yesterday, which was #2, intelled that the overall perfomance was lower, i.e. mpg, throttle responce, erratic idle. Now this was one of many, not all had the same response. I wouldn't throw DK completely out yet, there is more to it than just lubricity. This is why I would have liked to see them include a few other items in the study, like actual cetane before and after. I would also like to have seen redline products evaluated as well. I have used DK for a while and can definately say the idle is smoother and the MPG difference pretty much pays for it self. Once I am out of the DK though, I am thinking I will give the redline 85 plus a try.

 

That study has been kicked around here a lot. One thing that I would like to add to the conversation. This was not a complete blind study like people have claimed. Just look under the paragraph titled blind study. opti lube was the only additive that submitted their sample. If some of the other companies were able to submitt their sample the results would have been a lot different. Other thing I would like to point out is that any of the products that have a anti-gel, the lubricity of the additive is less than it would be if there would was none added. Simple math. Something goes in something must come out. If you are looking for an additive for strictly lubricity stay with the ones without the antigel. One product that if have personal experience using is the Schaeffer's Diesel Treat 2000. My truck seems to like it a lot. I get a little better fuel economy and more horsepower. This study makes me feel a lot better about what I have been putting in my fuel.

 

IMO, it is the same worthless, alarmist study that has been touted all over the diesel world. The basic theme is "More is better".

Why do I say that? Firstly, they prefer to use raw ULSD as a "worst case scenario" or so they say. Sure, we knew that there were problems when ULSD came out just as when LSD came out. Let the bugs work out of the system first. Go sample the fuel and let us know what the majority of the samples tell you before we go running around announcing that the sky is falling.

Secondly, all they can allude to is that more is better. I have a 44 gal tank. I can fill up to 47 gals if it is empty. What does this mean? Well filling up the last 3 gals means I have 45 more miles. What happens when I fill 55 gals? I have the same mileage as 47. Why? Because the rest of it has spilled on the floor. IOW, more is better UP TO A POINT. So what is that point? Ah, they don't say.

Thirdly, they tell us manufacturers want a wear rating of 460 while 520 is adequate. OK. Lets talk about that. If we have reached the point of deminishing returns at 520, will 460 help at all? Yes and no. Yes from the standpoing that you might get 10000 miles more out of the truck. In that case, it is closer to getting out of warranty period so it is good for the manufacturers. Do I care? Probably not but we will address that next.

Fourthly, lets say I do get more mileage out of my parts. NILIF comes to mind. Nothing In Life Is Free. Show me what it costs to get this extra mileage. Lets say the extra mileage is worth $1000 to me. If I spent $5000 to get it, does it matter? I think not. Where is the cost study?

From this, I just laugh at the study and anyone who thinks it is meaningful because IMO, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. It is incomplete and alarmist at best.

 

Aklim, You make some very good points that I have never thought of before. But let me do a cost analysis. I get 1mpg better fuel economy when I treat my fuel. With Schaeffer, it cost me 1.90 to treat 29 gals fo fuel. That is 29 more miles per fill up. The cost of fuel is 3.25 here. My truck gets 16 mpg. That is 1.81 more gallons of fuel that I would need to go the same distance. That is a cost savings of $5.89 dollars of fuel. Minus the cost of the treatment. That is a savings of $3.99 per fill up. Plus the added benefits of the lubricity. To me it is well worth it to treat my fuel.

 

Ah, but that is from a different standpoint. In which case, I agree with you that the additive you used has paid for itself. I won't dispute that since I haven't looked into that. What I was talking about is just lubricity itself. If you got better mileage out of the additive, that would be worth it. Now if you were going to treat your fuel with agents because of this report with lubricity in mind, I'd say it is not a good idea. I won't buy any lubricity agents for my diesels until they have something better than that for a study. As I have said, all it alludes to is "more is better".

I'll give that stuff a try sometime.

 

Aklim,

My truck is out of warranty so at this point any thing that fails is on my nickel. The more miles I can get from the parts in my truck the fewer nickels I must part with. My point was simple. The survey addresses wear. If I can get less wear by using a diffrent product and the cost is the same or less then I come out ahead.

I my case I currently use DK to add lubricity and clean the fuel system. In my area diesel is currently $3.20 per gallon average. Plus the cost of DK. I can buy BioD for $2.90 per gallon. According to the survey, Bio D has better lubricity (less wear). It is also widely agreed upon that BioD is an excellent solvent so it will accomplishmy cleaning ambitions as well.

The survey opened my eyes to the fact that for less money I can attend better wear protection and better cleaning capacity. If those two factors add 10000 miles (to use your example) to the parts of my fuel system then, hey, those are found miles. And if I continue to use the same system they will add 10000 miles to the next round of fuel system parts in which case I saved money AND found 20000 miles.

Go ahead a laugh at me. I found something meaningful from the survey.

 

If you can find a product that costs less, you benefit. The question is whether you can get less wear or not that means something realistically. If I could get bio as cheap as you do, I'd use it. I agree that more lubricity means less wear. But by how much? If it gives me 1000 miles more, do I care?

I'm not too concerned with cleaning. I took my tank off and there was no sludge in it at all. Clean as a whistle.

As long as it doesn't cost more money, you are right. However, if you are going to use D2 AND an additive, IMO, at this point it is pissing money away.

 

I wish Bio here was 2.90 a gallon. It is more expensive here. So I guess I will stick with the #2 and continue treating with the additive.

 

The co-op wants me to pay $150 a year for the privilage of buying it for 70+ cents over D2. When I asked them why it isn't competitive, they basically said that if they wanted more customers, they would lower the price. IOW, somebody has to pay for the "No blood for oil" stickers.