I use power service in my truck been using it since 2001 on my 7.3 it increases the cetane which is very low in Illinois where I live its only 40 Ford recommends at least 45 I noticed it starts much easier and runs better and gets a little better fuel mileage,plus they have a lubricator for the injection pump.works great I use it on every fill up.

 

Another "related topics" thread strikes again

 

Just out of curiosity, how do you know for a fact that the places you are stopping at have "quality" fuel? Or, that their "quality" is any worse or better than the place down the road?

I'm not being a smart butt here but trying to figure out how anyone knows if a place they stop at has fuel that is up to par short of experiencing something happening directly after getting fuel from that place. To my knowledge, there aren't portable testers so every consumer can test the fuel to see if it has a certain octane or cetane rating. Or, without getting all "techy" with physics and all that stuff, how would one be able to test whether a particular diesel fuel is bad, okay, better, or excellent when it comes to quality? Are there portable testers that can be purchased?

But maybe just as easily, aren't the fuel manufacturers supposed to meet a minimum guideline that they reach a certain octane or cetane rating as well as other things? I know one of my relatives used to work for the state and their job was to go around to all of the fuel stations and make sure that every single pump was meeting a certain minimum standard or guideline for certain things. So, aren't the "quality" requirements being met that way?

One thing I will admit based on my experience is that I understand how one could determine that a place has "bad" diesel fuel at least for one reason. For me, it was simply gelling and the only thing I can say that was at least one factor for certain WAS the fuel station because when I took a trip for about 230 miles on a cold evening, I had extremely poor fuel pressure for quite a bit of the trip. It was so bad that I really don't know how the truck didn't leave me on the side of the road but I guess I was lucky. As soon as I filled up at a different fuel station, my fuel pressure instantly picked back up and I didn't have a problem with that whole tank. I proceeded to fill up the following tank from the same place I did with the first (bad) tank once I got back home and the same things started happening the following week with that tank with poor fuel pressure. I decided not to fill up at that place anymore and I haven't had any problems since.

 

Were you able to see any actual test documents? All I see is a site that recommends a bunch of other sites. When I click on the first one, it's for Chevron lubricants so that's not it is it?

What am I missing here?

 

A once dead post, resurrected from 2009, I doubt you’ll get your answer……..

 

Crap, I got so engrossed in reading I didn't even bother to look at dates. Well, there goes that. Oh well. I guess I have my answer at least.

 

That's why I made my comment, this thread is the first one that shows up in the "related threads" section in the current additives topic started this week.

 

Lots of discussion on cetane in the early days (and they were as emotional as ANY oil thread). Discussions really picked up when it was pointed out that the minimum (ASTM) cetane number in the U.S. was lower than the minimum cetane number in many European countries (EN). Unfortunately the EGR system adds "extra" incentive for a clean burn, and sufficient cetane level helps in that area.

https://www.sae.org/publications/tec...ontent/861525/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/80.510

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...ne-rating.html

As far as bacteria or water contamination goes, those can easily show up in underground storage tanks. I know that there was an EPA push to eliminate diesel UST, so maybe there aren't as many anymore. Years ago when I had my 6.9L, I got some bad fuel on a trip. Since then, several friends warned me about one local station that had bad diesel (one had problems himself, the other just heard about it).

I carry a clear bottle on trips so I can put a small amount of diesel into the bottle for a visual check before filling up. I only do that when I am forced to fill up at a station that looks like it does not have much 18 wheeler business, and when I am a fair distance from home.

I do believe that the fuel additives that "demulsify" water do actually help the HFCM eliminate that water. I have no proof of it though.

 

All diesel USTs get water in them and that’s what the bacteria feeds on which creates a slimy algae like contaminate. Once the water in the tank gets to a certain level depending on the tank, the operator has to get it pumped out. In really bad cases biocide is added, and the fuel has to be polished. A station getting a fuel drop is what stirs up the junk the most. Try to avoid fueling if you see a tanker dropping fuel. The drop tube from the fill port, (spill bucket), goes to the bottom of the tank in the UST. The good thing is, each dispenser has at least a 10 micron filter. Our fleet dispensers use 30 micron, but thats not practical in a retail dispenser due to how quickly they clog. The filters will catch a lot of the junk swirling around the tank, so chances of seeing floaters in your clear bottle is pretty slim. The dispenser will be extremely slow before that happens. Also the suction tubes for the STP are positioned well above the bottom of the tank.

 

Almost all the responses to fuel additive questions are "testimonials", usually meaning "Here's what I use, and I've never had a problem"
I can offer a testimonial that actually happened to me but I don't think it means much either.

I bought a (loaded) K2500 4x4 6.5L diesel Suburban brand new in 1994 and sold it in 2014 with 210,000 miles on it. I religiously used Stanadyne Performance Formula for 60,000 miles (when the Stanadyne injection pump failed) because everybody said it "increases cetane and lubricity")

I then replaced the injection pump with a reman pump and drove it another 150,000 miles (but DID NOT USE ANY SNAKE OIL ADDITIVES like Stanadyne Performance formula, Power Service or others) I also never did replace the injectors or do any other fuel system "things" other than replacing fuel filters as needed.

Because of my experience, should I conclude that using Stanadyne Performance Formula "caused" my pump failure because it failed using it until 60k and but had no further problems NOT using it for 150K after? (HINT: I don't think it made a difference either way) but many people using fuel additives think it's doing something because they "use it every fill up and have never had a problem"

I can say that with my current 2005 6.0L Ford, I have never used additives and have not had a "problem" [period] and I usually get fuel from Costco or other big store station.

Most (or all) the additives out there speak to a specific problem like fuel lubricity, "bugs", cetane or cold weather properties. If you're using winterized fuel, it's usually not a problem because the refiners add #1D fuel as required depending on the temps expected but if you are making a trip from "warm" country to "cold" country, you best put the anti-gel additive in before you get to the cold country or you might be getting towed to a warm garage to clear the gelled fuel.

"Bugs" [bacteria where the fuel floats on the water at the bottom of the tank] are really not a problem unless you have your own tank, you allow water to sit in the fuel for a LONG time and you have poor filters. Biocide additives and ensuring the water is drained regularly fix that problem before it even happens.

I don't think US diesel (ULSD) has much of a lubricity problem any more (if it ever did) and it was more of a problem with injection pumps vs Common Rail HP pumps and HEUI injectors although "stiction" might be attributed to poor lubricity I suppose. There are hundreds of threads here talking about that and people frequently use oil additives to address it implying the fuel is less related to the problem because it seems the oil piston "sticks" vs the fuel piston sticking.......

With fuel additives, the people that market them feel really good about making money selling them

If using additives make you "feel better", then by all means USE THEM!

I feel fine not using them.

YMMV

Cheers,

Rick

 

HT32BSX115,
I kind of wonder the same thing.

One thing that gets me is that companies always make the "claim" that it will do XYZ but I don't know that there is actual proof that it does XYZ. Maybe they have tests and I'm not seeing those tests so perhaps that's what's going on.

My thought is that if they are going to claim that they can provide better lubricity which should provide longer life and better fuel economy and so on, then they should be able to do some tests and provide evidence that it can do this. Shouldn't you be able to do this by testing a particular piece of metal over a given period of time with standard diesel fuel and then compare that same piece of metal with and without any additive over a given period of time?

I'm not saying that Project Farm has the most scientific way of testing things but something similar to the way he has tested oils in the past would be one test that comes to mind. Heck, when I watched him do the test with the different winter additives, Howe's anti-gel additive actually tested worse than if no additive was used at all as far as the wear test was concerned. It was better to use just plain old diesel fuel for a lubricant at least in the test he did. So, if using this additive is actually going to be worse for lubricity or potential wear, is it worth using EVEN IF it provides good anti-gelling assistance?

I agree that I hear a lot of people say that they've "ran this stuff for decades" but how do they know that it's actually doing anything at all? Also, since we know that there are MANY diesel owners out there that end up having repair issues with injectors and HPOPs as well as other fuel and oil related components, how can it be claimed that the additives are actually helping anything if these same people are using them AND THEY ARE STILL having injectors fail and so on?

I don't get that part. Surely it can't be that the majority of people having injector failures are the ones that ARE NOT using any additives right? Aren't "most" diesel owners using some sort of additive? Or, am I just assuming that "most" people are when it's the exact opposite and "most" people just fill up and go? I would like to see some sort of proof with some video testing to show different wear patterns and results over a period of time. I feel these companies have to have at least a small budget to allow for them to test a few engines over the course of a few months or years to see what happens. Or, maybe it doesn't have to be years or months and just a cycle of running and shutting off and sitting for a period and repeating for different RPM ranges to get some different heat cycles under their belt.

 

Don't have any basis for thinking it, but I always figured that most people did NOT use a fuel additive. Fuel is so expensive on its own.

I thought it was helpful when recirculating EGR gasses. It SEEMED to reduce EGR fouling (no proof exists that I know of). I definitely don't think it improves fuel economy to any noticeable degree.

I do think that the early 6.0L injectors had some issues. Design improvements were implemented to reduce "scuffing", etc and the later ones seemed to be quite reliable (as long as stiction was prevented). Maybe there was some need for lubricity improvements in the early years, but not so much in the later years? Who can tell for sure.

There sure is a wide range of experiences on injector life. Some have had there original ones over 300k miles. Some didn't seem to make 50k. Fuel pressure plays a part in that, but not the only factor.

 

Main reason I use an additive - somewhere here on FTE one of our members posted pics of their EGR valve after running an additive (for some number of miles) and it just had a light soot coat. I initially started using fuel additives as the sulfur content in the diesel kept getting lowered, to replace lubricity - started with my Bobcat and then off and on with the 6.0 when ULSD came out. Have yet to have the injection pump failure in the Bobcat, that folks were experiencing way back when Low Sulfur Diesel came out (I used Redline for a long time), and our motorhome had just had a very expensive repair done by previous owner, replacing most soot fouled EGR components. So really other than the Bobcat, I'm hoping for help on the EGR side for the 6.0 and MH...

I guess I should pull my EGR valve and see what it looks like - it was supposed to have been cleaned 10K miles ago by the shop that did most of my other proactive "fixes"...

 

The last part is kind of what I'm thinking of here. And it makes me think of two types of people relative to how they "care" for their vehicles AND the "luck" they have because of this "care".

You have one person who will religiously maintain their vehicles as far as oil, fuel, and transmission fluid and filter changes go or be within a very short amount of mileage or time within the recommended intervals. But yet, these people STILL have issues with their engines or transmissions having failures of some sort in spite of doing maintenance when they are "supposed to" To some, maybe these "failures" aren't that big of a deal. In the diesel engine world with turbos, maybe it's an injector or two going out at 100k or a turbo going down at 100k and many people don't think this is a "big deal". To others, having even these two different types of repairs are catastrophic and obviously still quite costly.

Then, you have the "other" person who typically doubles the interval schedule or comes close to it AND THEY rarely have a repair issue. Also, these people are a bit "harder" on their trucks by pressing on the accelerator a bit more than they need to in order to get where they're going in comparison to the first person that is "nicer" to their vehicle and they also pull trailers at least once a week whereas the other person may pull a trailer or camper maybe 5 to 10 times (max) per year.

Oh yeah, and the first person used additives while the second person did not.

It's like the person that treated their vehicle worse had better "luck". So, if the additives were so good and changing the fluid and filters was supposed to make a difference, then why in the heck did they have more issues than the other person that was a bit "harder" on their vehicle?

I'm sure my example is low on the scale of actual owners but I'm betting that we've all heard or read of these people that have more issues than others even though they took better care of their vehicles.

And so, that's why I would like to see some actual test results that can show some evidence of better (or lower) wear and so on. I don't want to be in the minority and think that additives aren't doing anything because after all, I want to "feel" like my money is definitely going to a cause for 'the greater good" for the life of this truck and/or it's engine. But is it worth it?

I'm not against spending the money. I just wish I knew if it was making a difference or not.

Fuel IS expensive on its own and always has been. And it's obviously getting pretty expensive right now and I don't know if it's going to change anytime soon even though I did just recently see a headline somewhere that fuel prices are going to "drop" very soon here. I don't know what to believe when it comes to that so take that for whatever it's worth. I just thought that ALL diesel fuels were subject to a required minimum for certain things WHICH INCLUDED additives which also might have included certain detergents or wear agents and so on that are meant to help protect the engine and fuel system. Maybe I'm just wishful thinking.

If you think about it though, by the time you spend the minimum of $60 for even some of the cheapest oil (about $40 for 15 quarts) & filter (about $19) at Walmart, you've got about $65 wrapped up in an oil change with taxes. Now, include the additional costs for an oil additive that might be $20 for a container of whatever you choose to use. Now, include a fuel additive which might be $17 per container for 400 gallons of fuel which will take another 1/2 of this container to make it to about the 5,000 mile mark of the next oil change and now you've got about $28 in a fuel additive of some sort. Obviously, if you want to spend even more money you could. But, just with these costs alone, you've got about $120 wrapped up in oil change costs, oil & fuel additive costs and that's not including just the cost of diesel fuel. Sheesh. And even then, you might still have a repair issue with the additives.