What did you expect for that sort of work he produced?

Ok. What has it really told us besides the lubricity properties of each can of snake oil?

Yes it is repeatable. I don't doubt that one bit. What does that really mean? Brand X snake oil is slipperier than Brand Y? If that is what you are trying to prove, fair enough. Please define "effectiveness". IF all you care about is having a lower lubricity number, fair enough. This is more effective than that. If you care about the engine components, how does this show anything that resembles effectiveness? Now if he could show that using 460 score fuel gives you an average of 50000 miles over score 520, I will be the first to admit you have something. Show me from his data, how it helps reduce my operations cost and by how much.

Fair enough. Is his test representative of the fuel I will get from the pumps? Now if he said that the average fuel score is 550, we might have an issue. But to say that the worst case scenario where no additive is added to raw ULSD, is going to be the case every time I fuel up, that is a stretch. Everybody and their brother will accept that raw ULSD has too little lubricity for what we are doing. Nobody has really established what the point of deminishing returns is, AFAIK. Would it be 550? 450? 220? 500? What I see is someone trying to instill fear.

 

What I see is the EMA wanting better lubricity than the EPA approved. You're point about the return on investment (does buying the additive pay for itself) is valid. None of us really know. If you can find one that offers some increase in MPG or extends the life of your injectors, then some consider this a wise investment.

Personally, I use an additive. It makes me feel better, and peace of mind has to be worth something. Of course it doesn't hurt that I can still get 20+ mpg (empty) with my stock injectors that have over 270,000 miles on them.

As long as we're talking about injector life, I'd like to remind everyone that the fuel delivery portion is only half the injector. Since oil is the other half, observing proper oil change intervals is 10 times more important than using a fuel additive in my opinion.

 

Is it a perfect test? Of course not. I doubt there is such a thing. I don't think he was trying to instill fear in anyone, but I think he was trying to prove a point.

Most manufactures of any type of additive, be it oil additives or fuel additives, often make huge claims that they cannot back up. In this case, he tested the claim of increased lubricity. Does every single additive increase lubricity? According to the results, no. For many people though, they believe that any additive can and will add lubricity to the fuel. By looking at the study that Spicer did, you can make a more educated decision about what you put in your tank.

He bases his recommendations off of industry standards. That's all the data he has to use, so that is all he is able to go by. Is there a perfect wear standard? Is there the perfect amount of lubricity? How much is it going to affect engine life? Who knows. He doesn't try to state that in his study, so it's up to the reader to interpret how comfortable he/she feels about each additive and what they feel is best for their own trucks.

Imagine the amount of time, money, and effort it would take to test hundreds of engines (yes you would need hundreds of them to make any kind of statistical measure valid) and measure longevity based on various fuels and their wear scores. I doubt he has that kind of money to put into a test like that.

Take the study at it's face value. It's a simplistic test designed to challenge a single claim.

 

Just to add some additional information. Southwest Research in San Antionio was the lab that did the testing for the report. They also stated that independent random testing of diesel fuel from gas stations has show that there have been many documented cases where diesel fuel was not adequately treated. It's not that uncommon.

here's the link to SW Researches report:

http://www.natbiogroup.com/docs/educ...%20results.pdf

I have argued this point with Aklim plenty of times. I'm done beating the dead horse.......


Joe, Glad you like the Soyshied. I like it also - a great product and helps support the American farmer, glad it is working out for you! Wish it would have been tested with the others on the lubricity study.

 

Well this may be a bit OT for this thread now lol but I went and bought some Diesel Kleen and dumped some in before a fill up and I do have to say I like it. I ain't gettin better gas mileage which nothing I've done so far has helped (fuel filter, new air filter, fuel treatment, oil change etc) but I did notice I don't "feel" my engine through my pedal anymore. It also likes to accelerate a noticeable amount more and feels smoother. My engine has always ran well but the treatment helped the mid-range where it felt doggy and rough before. I'm already happy after just one treatment so I'll pay for the piece of mind cause to me that's all it is.

Like I said it ain't helped one bit on gas mileage (who knows if it helps my injectors) but I do hammer it alot more often now because it feels better and it wants to do it. I only fill up twice a month so it's no skin off my *** for an extra 72 bucks a year. I'm going to try some soy shield too but other than that will it prolong anything? Who knows and personally I don't care because it did give me a result I'm happy with. Heck in the long run it will probably cost me more because I beat on my truck alot more now but at least I gots me a smile on my face while I'm doin it.

 

If they did the test when ULSD first came out, it might not be indicative of what it is NOW. Besides, as I have said before, nobody has ever shown a graph of lubricity vs (insert component here) wear. As such I don't consider these numbers very revealing. Not much point in treating your door so it lasts 1000 years if the rest of the house is only good for 200 years. When they do a proper study, I will be the first to admit it.

 

When you can do random double blind tests on that and reproduce the results, I will admit you have found something. I frequently use the wife-o-meter to evaluate something. Sometimes I have her drive the truck or car after I have done something and sometimes not. She doesn't even know whether she is driving a "modified" car or not. She reports back to me "the brakes felt better" or the engine felt "weird". Since she has no clue as to how things work, she is the best evaluator. She cannot tell the difference between using DieselTreat 2000 or not and neither can my wallet so that is how I conclude it does nothing for me. When I put the SS brake lines on, she could instantly feel the difference although I told her that all we did was replace the OEM pads so it should not feel different. I told her that if it feels weird, let me know since those are new pads.

If I knew that and you lived closer I would have given you my Diesetreat 2000 instead of dumping it into the tanks. I must have dumped over a quater gallon into my 44 gallon tank and maybe the rest into my 22 gal car tank. I got fed up of seeing no results and having that gallon jug sit on the table. I think it has that soy shield thingy in it too.

 

I don't feel like I need my wife to tell me the truck that I drive every day is running better or worse just to give me an "x" in an equation. Do I need to prove with math or numerics that the "feeling" that my motor is now giving me is different after changing something in my routine? No I don't is the answer. I'm a complete noob at diesels, but I've tuned many engines by feeling and trying which in the old days without dyno's made the difference.

Like I said I could care less if it improves anything numerically. The feeling like it's running smoother and has more powerband in the mid range is all I need to spend six bucks a month extra. Will it prolong my engine life hell if I know the fact that I'm happier with my motor through the next "x" amount of miles however many it may be is good 'nuff for me. The fact that I just went through a weather change could have caused my engine to run better too not the diesel kleen. I won't rule out other factors that just simply don't fit into mathematical equations to produce a constant. So all in all I'm trying it for a while to see if it keeps "feelin" good and if it does then it stays if it goes back to old ways then the kleen goes towards startin my wood for my next briskit smokin .

 

Are you in Texas by chance, Deuce?

 

Yessir I'm out in West Fort Worth (white settlement).

 

I started using Diesel Kleen shortly after I bought the truck. I don't know how much it improves longevity, but it certainly doesn't hurt. I saw about 1mpg increase when I started. I'm sure that there are better additives out there, but when I can stop by Wal-Mart and pick up a jug for around $16 the convenience is worth it. I use the standard 3oz for every 10 gallons. This adds about 3 cetane points. I always use the silver bottle since I'm in SoCal. Wal-Mart does also sell the white bottle (winter blend with anti-gel) too.

I haven't tried any others because it's just too much hassle to get them. Being in a metropolitan area makes it hard to find a rep for anybody, plus you gotta deal with shipping or some kind of rendezvous.

 

I've been using Standadyne additive at every fill up. Is Diesel Kleen better,or are they comparable?

 

Nothing wrong with Stanadyne, it's just harder to find. The reason you read so much about folks using Diesel Kleen, is it's available everywhere.