ulsd additives?
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 26,966
Likes: 50
From: Texas
Adding sulfur won't help. The sulfur isn't the thing that adds lubricity. The process in the refinery that removes the sulfur is what lowers the lubricity.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,308
Likes: 250
From: Hartford, WI
Sorry about the cut and paste but here is what I had to say about it then and still feel the same way.
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 ***.
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 26,966
Likes: 50
From: Texas
See. I told you not everyone used it. Aklim makes a valid argument. The part we disagree on is I don't believe the EMA even considered our little powerstrokes when they started looking at ULSD. I think they were concerned about the engines in the big trucks and how the new fuel might affect breakdown.
Since the OTR drivers run out of warranty real quick, it's not about warranty. It's about the reputation of your motor. A trucking company that loses half it's fleet to injector issues would start looking for different trucks really fast. They wouldn't even consider a motor that would start failing at 101,000 miles.
Since the OTR drivers run out of warranty real quick, it's not about warranty. It's about the reputation of your motor. A trucking company that loses half it's fleet to injector issues would start looking for different trucks really fast. They wouldn't even consider a motor that would start failing at 101,000 miles.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,308
Likes: 250
From: Hartford, WI
BTW, I do use additives in the sense that I try them out to see if I get any mileage. Dieseltreat 2000 seems to be a hot favorite and so far, the average is slightly less than 1 mpg. I use it for a while, get an average, stop using it and get another average and then reuse it and see where it goes.
As to the OTR drivers, you have a point. However, there are also thousands of smaller diesels that are running out there that would be having a problem if the fuel was affecting them. ULSD was causing a problem with the seals so they made up "kits" at the local shop. That way, if a Cummins or Powerstroke came in with leaky seals, they have something all ready to fix it. No scurrying around for parts.
As to the OTR drivers, you have a point. However, there are also thousands of smaller diesels that are running out there that would be having a problem if the fuel was affecting them. ULSD was causing a problem with the seals so they made up "kits" at the local shop. That way, if a Cummins or Powerstroke came in with leaky seals, they have something all ready to fix it. No scurrying around for parts.
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 26,966
Likes: 50
From: Texas
BTW, I do use additives in the sense that I try them out to see if I get any mileage. Dieseltreat 2000 seems to be a hot favorite and so far, the average is slightly less than 1 mpg. I use it for a while, get an average, stop using it and get another average and then reuse it and see where it goes.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,308
Likes: 250
From: Hartford, WI
Costs me $4.69 to go 16 miles. With the stuff, you are going 17 miles tops. Don't know about towing yet but that is cruising. Costs about $60, IIRC to treat 2000 gallons so I would think financially the gain is slight. Is it worth the hassle? So far, not yet. Now if it could get 5% like they say, it would be worth something.
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 26,966
Likes: 50
From: Texas
If you get 16 MPG untreated, then a 5% increase would be 0.8 MPG.
I still believe the best way to improve fuel mileage is just to slow down. If I always shift at or below 2000 rpm's, and keep the highway mileage below 60, I can flirt with 22 MPG. I will say the 6637 intake filter did increase the mileage I lost from the switch to ULSD.
I still believe the best way to improve fuel mileage is just to slow down. If I always shift at or below 2000 rpm's, and keep the highway mileage below 60, I can flirt with 22 MPG. I will say the 6637 intake filter did increase the mileage I lost from the switch to ULSD.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Lead Driver
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,308
Likes: 250
From: Hartford, WI
If you get 16 MPG untreated, then a 5% increase would be 0.8 MPG.
I still believe the best way to improve fuel mileage is just to slow down. If I always shift at or below 2000 rpm's, and keep the highway mileage below 60, I can flirt with 22 MPG. I will say the 6637 intake filter did increase the mileage I lost from the switch to ULSD.
I still believe the best way to improve fuel mileage is just to slow down. If I always shift at or below 2000 rpm's, and keep the highway mileage below 60, I can flirt with 22 MPG. I will say the 6637 intake filter did increase the mileage I lost from the switch to ULSD.
Possibly but at below 60, I might just fall asleep at the wheel. It would make the drive so long and boring that I'd splurge for the extra fuel just to keep it at a more acceptable speed.
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 26,966
Likes: 50
From: Texas
It's much easier to keep to a slower speed right after you just paid for a fill up. After 100 or 200 miles it becomes more difficult. I drive enough miles to experiment with it. Most people aren't yet willing to pay the price (longer driving time at slower speeds) for better fuel economy.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,308
Likes: 250
From: Hartford, WI
It's much easier to keep to a slower speed right after you just paid for a fill up. After 100 or 200 miles it becomes more difficult. I drive enough miles to experiment with it. Most people aren't yet willing to pay the price (longer driving time at slower speeds) for better fuel economy.
New User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Since i was young and my father taught me to always use an additive i have stuck to it religously and ihave been using diesel kleen grey bottle in summer and the white bottle in the winter i picked up half a mile per gallon when i started using 1/3 of the bottle everytime i got fuel
Lead Driver
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,308
Likes: 250
From: Hartford, WI
Since i was young and my father taught me to always use an additive i have stuck to it religously and ihave been using diesel kleen grey bottle in summer and the white bottle in the winter i picked up half a mile per gallon when i started using 1/3 of the bottle everytime i got fuel
Does that half mile per gallon, assuming it is a constant that we can count on really add up when you figure in the cost of the snake oil?
Lead Driver
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,308
Likes: 250
From: Hartford, WI
So far, it seems like I lost about 1 -2 mpg depending on where I get the fuel