When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Read & draw your own conclusions but I for one a am a fan of Bio-D as most of you know.
The research you have posted a link too is pretty comprehensive and informative.
Where I have an "issue" with their methodology is that they used "untreated diesel"... which had no normal lubricity added into it (such as the kind of fuel we would actually be getting at the pump). The fuel they used was fuel prior to the refinery making it ready for consumer use.
Cut & pasted from the actual research study PDF file posted above: "The Research firm obtained a quantity of “untreated” ULSD fuel from a supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel engines. However, this sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the fuel for the purpose of replacing lost lubricity. In other words, it was a “worst case scenario, very dry diesel fuel” that would likely cause damage to any fuel delivery system."
For me... I would have liked them to use right from the pump, ready to go diesel fuel (the stuff you and I would be buying)... and then conduct their test. If I were a manufacture of diesel additives, this is the kind of fuel you would be formulating your chemistry too... not "non-treated ready to buy fuel"!!!
I get it when they state that they were looking at "worse case"... but again, the chemistry of any additive is made to work with "consumer ready to buy" diesel fuel.
Obviously, this research is the most extensive one I have seen done... but I am surprised they performed their "tests" the way they did.
Read & draw your own conclusions but I for one a am a fan of Bio-D as most of you know.
I've been a fan of it for a while myself, but then I guess I see the big picture of what's possible and the all around benefits if it ever went to full scale production. I don't think they could have gotten a better spokesman than Willie Nelson.
The Research firm obtained a quantity of “untreated” ULSD fuel from a supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel engines. However, this sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the fuel for the purpose of replacing lost lubricity. In other words, it was a “worst case scenario, very dry diesel fuel” that would likely cause damage to any fuel delivery system.
For me... I would have liked them to use right from the pump, ready to go diesel fuel (the stuff you and I would be buying)... and then conduct their test. If I were a manufacture of diesel additives, this is the kind of fuel you would be formulating your chemistry too... not "non-treated ready to buy fuel"!!!
I get it when they state that they were looking at "worse case"... but again, the chemistry of any additive is made to work with "consumer ready to buy" diesel fuel.
Obviously, this research is the most extensive one I have seen done... but I am surprised they performed their "tests" the way they did.
Thanks,
That does kinda make me wonder as well. Why they did the testing that they did. You would think that as extensive as they had gone that they would have also tried to shoot for comprehensive as well.
MY guess as to why it was done the way they did was that every diesel fuel manufacturer as their own additive package( although all will pretty much use the same chemicals and in different quantities), but by using untreated fuel they were able to show what each consumer additive would do the the fuel being used regardless of the manufacturer additive package.
The way I see it (and based on the way I understand it), untreated diesel does not have the lubricating, anti-gel and cetane properties that it should have for our engines. The guy that fills the tanker is supposed to put in additives that take care of that he fills his tank.
Now I imagine that it is unusual for them to mess up and not add all the right stuff to a tank. And if they don't, one untreated tank of fuel probably isn't going to destroy my engine. But, I'm covered, because I'm adding it myself.
And if someone else doesn't want to, that's fine with me too. Not really my business.
The way I see it (and based on the way I understand it), untreated diesel does not have the lubricating, anti-gel and cetane properties that it should have for our engines. The guy that fills the tanker is supposed to put in additives that take care of that he fills his tank.
Now I imagine that it is unusual for them to mess up and not add all the right stuff to a tank. And if they don't, one untreated tank of fuel probably isn't going to destroy my engine. But, I'm covered, because I'm adding it myself.
And if someone else doesn't want to, that's fine with me too. Not really my business.
Actually, all fuel is made and treated to a federally mandated minimum. The refiner must manufature the fuel to this minimum ASTM standard (some may do more, but there is a minimum). The only "additive" that the fuel terminal or driver will add is "anti-gel" additives depending on the time of year and where they are delivering to. There is no reason to add anti-gel additives if the ambient temps for a given month or week will not be cold enough (why spend the extra money nor does the station or truck stop want to pay for it.).
I agree with you... I add my own whether the fuel needs it or not... I even add and use my Powerservice anti-gel formula even if the truck stop claims they have "winterized fuel". I am not willing to trust others especially when it comes to winter and using anti-gels.
I agree with you... I add my own whether the fuel needs it or not... I even add and use my Powerservice anti-gel formula even if the truck stop claims they have "winterized fuel". I am not willing to trust others especially when it comes to winter and using anti-gels.
Even if you burned a gallon of DK-White with every tank that's cheaper than one tow back to the house/shop when the fuel gels up on ya'. Which reminds me, it's that time of year to swap from gray to white bottle in the milk crate.
What y'all are taking about is just another form of "insurance policy". It really just depends on what it's worth to the next person. Maybe having been born, raised and live in the south I don't have much issue with gelling. However, I'm willing to bet that all over these region that cetane controls/mandates/whatever are going to be vastly different and I would think that if they are as lacking and/or mistake prone to adding their own additives back into the fuel it would have come and bit me in the butt some time or another. I can't be that lucky, although, despite all the issues that the 6.0 is known for I've seem to dodge the bullet on quite a lot of them.
Obviously I haven't done any scientific research, but I, and several of my friends have run Stanadyne in our 6.0's since day one.
Our friends that are against any type of fuel additive whatsoever seem to have fuel system component failure much more often than those of us who run it.
I run Diesel Kleen grey bottle in my 7.3 truck, and my E350 7.3, and will probably do the same for my 6.0 when my latest case of Stanadyne dries up.
Our friends that are against any type of fuel additive whatsoever seem to have fuel system component failure much more often than those of us who run it.
Do they do anything else that you are aware of that could contribute to a fuel system failure? I have a very hard time reconciling that not putting in a white or grey bottle every fillup (or whatever the ratio is) contributes to more failure with the fuel system.
Either that or I'm just one of those big statistics of one that just keeps on having astronomical luck. If only my lotto luck was as good.
I have been informed by a family member I have a better chance of being struck by lightning than winning the lottery. Hopefully my luck with my 6.0 will get better now since the issues it had were addressed. I do run Diesel Kleen in mine,and take notice when I have not mixed any in for a while.
I have been informed by a family member I have a better chance of being struck by lightning than winning the lottery. Hopefully my luck with my 6.0 will get better now since the issues it had were addressed. I do run Diesel Kleen in mine,and take notice when I have not mixed any in for a while.
I think just about everyone hears that from a family member. I was actually just kidding. I don't play the big lotto. Now the scratch offs I'm actually ahead of the game. I do have decent luck with those and BINGO. Other then that, no.
Do they do anything else that you are aware of that could contribute to a fuel system failure? I have a very hard time reconciling that not putting in a white or grey bottle every fillup (or whatever the ratio is) contributes to more failure with the fuel system.
Either that or I'm just one of those big statistics of one that just keeps on having astronomical luck. If only my lotto luck was as good.
Not that I can think of Tex.... A bunch of us bought new trucks between '03 and '07, at least 14 that I can think of, and the guys who don't run some type of additive seem to be the ones who go through injectors on a regular basis. We are good about service, some just don't want to spend the extra coin on the additive.
Like I said, not exactly scientific, just an observation we happened to be laughing about a couple weeks ago.
i usually run the motorcraft cetane booster & performance improver. always works for me and i've never had to drain out my HFCM. also, i only use chevron or texaco diesel.
my WIF light has never come on. over 100,000 miles and still going.