Where you guys pickin this stuff up at?

 

Walmart!

 

Yep -- it's Soyshield. So far, it's kicking ****!! I'm almost to 500 miles now after lunch, and I'm still over 1/4 tank. We all know how that last 1/4 is, but I think I'll be breaking my all-time record with it!!

 

BTW, here's what it looks like:

 

I havent tried any Soyshield yet. I will be very soon though. I am hearing to much good stuff about it.

 

Never. Never saw a need for it. Never saw any real proof that it extends anything but the seller's profit.

 

I don't run any fuel additives. Several years back I tried a bunch of different ones - most of the popular ones - and I never noticed anything different in power, mileage, or engine noise. As a comparison, I also ran bio diesel. Bio was the only thing that ever changed the amount of smoke my truck puts out, and also quieted the engine down a bit.

Also after reading Spicer's results of diesel fuel additives, it only showed me concrete evidence of what I suspected. Many of the popular additives really don't do anything. There's only a handful in his study that do improve lubricity significantly. The rest, well.... you can see for yourself: Lubricity Additive for Ultra Low Sulfur Fuel - StriperSurf Forums

 

Where can you get Soy Sheild?? I'd like to try it.

 

If you look at that study, there is a disparity between what the engine manufacturers want for minimum lubricity (460), and what the US fuel standards are (520). Assuming the fuel meets the minimum requirement of 520 (remember, they used "dry" untreated fuel for their study), there is room for improvement to meet the engine manufacturers' requirements. It just so happens that DieselKleen improves the score by ~60 points, thus bringing a minimum fuel scoring 520 down to below 460 where the engine manufacturers want it. To me, if the fuel is really at 520, it's like running the wrong oil in the truck -- your owners manual says one thing, but the oil you're dumping in is something else. The way I see it, it can't hurt (as long as you don't use the once on the bottom of the list!!), and it SHOULD help with lubricity, cetane, and fuel system cleanliness. From what I've seen in my own fuel system, it's been working. It's completely clean.

I'd like to see a study of the fuels out there and see where each are on that scale without any additional additives. If they are only at 520ish, then the additives are a good thing. If the fuels are already at 460 or so, then there is much less of a need for them.

EDIT: Supercab --> You can get Soy Shield from your local Schaeffer Distributor/Rep.

 

Doesn't prove a thing because it has less smoke or quieter.

Spicer writes rubbish as far as I am concerned. All his crap alludes to is "more is better". Below is my usual retort for his crap.

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 ***.

 

Have they done engine tests to show us what more we get out of it by going from 520 to 460 from a consumer standpoint? I think not. So, if it costs $1000 more to bring it from 520 to 460, the cost borne by the consumer to save $100 worth of engine repairs would it be worth it to the consumer? To the factory, probably since it is one less repair they have to entertain under warranty and it boosts their reputation.

 

You always say that, Aklim. The ENGINE MANUFACTURERS say they want an HFRR of 460 or lower. The US standards are at 520. I'm making an assumption that the oil companies aren't going above & beyond for the heck of it to make fuel at 460. I may be wrong, but I think I'd rather err on the side of caution. If someone comes back with a study that says fuel is at 460, then I'll cut back running my additives. Until then, I'm assuming the oil companies are just meeting the standards at around that 520 mark, so I'll use DK, Schaeffer, or one of the other ones at the top of that list.

On another note, how are the new sticks running for you?

 

I know. I am kinda of a "Prove it" guy. I should move to MO so I can say "I'm from MO. Show me". Actually, the oil companies aren't doing much of anything. IIRC, additive is to be added at the terminal level. I would agree with you that you probably won't ever see 460 unless there is something happening I don't hear or know about. Somehow, I don't see anyone out there, including the manufacturers of the snake oils even doing something to prove to us what they can save us so I am skeptical that it will do anything. I agree it won't harm anything but so far, nobody has shown me that by doing this I will save that. My experiments with additives are basically to get mpg added. So far, nothint conclusive.

The new sticks are running good. A little different than split shots and maybe a little more smokey but that is the way it goes. If I get the itch someday to stop running with 2nd best I will go to Jody and do a live tune to get the best tune possible. Unfortunately I am at the limit of the engine now so I don't know what else I can do until it is rebuilt with forged rods.

 

Yeah, I should've said "fuel companies"...

I'm on a run right now towards my best mileage EVER, and that's with this Soy Shield stuff in there. Granted, I'm driving milder than usual, but I'm still getting on it every now & then. Still, I'm at 500 miles right now, and about a needle below a 1/4 tank. My best mileage driving like this was 520 miles on ~28 gallons (~18.5 MPG), and I'm about to blow that away. Should be around 600 on 30, or 20 MPG.

 

Sorry to say, but that's a pretty poor retort. If you don't like the study, then do one yourself. Quite honestly, his study is repeatable, so you can try it yourself to see if your results are the same or not. Until that time happens, what other "proof" do you see out there that confirms or denies a fuel additive's effectiveness? The only thing I ever see is the manufacture's claims, and that's it. At least this is a third party test.

For example, you have an issue with him testing raw fuel. So what? At least he can get a true baseline (untouched, raw diesel) so that his test can be repeated. If you just get pump diesel fuel from any gas station, then the additives present can be different from one station to the next, making the test invalid and un-repeatable. You see now why he chose the base fuel that he did? There are reasons for his methods that you are ignoring.

If you want more info to digest, take a look at the Federal Trade Commision. Search different kinds of oil additives, fuel additives, etc. You might be surprised at what the conclusion is for many products. Can you say "snake oil"?