Diesel Fuel additive research results

[HB of CJ]

After thinking about it for awhile (a difficult thing for me!) I wonder if the most effective additives which ARE ALSO the most $cost$-efficient-per-tank would work EVEN BETTER if the amount/percentage added to the fuel was increased?--or is there a level of concentration where the added lubricity benefits no longer are a factor?   Perhaps another study looking at this possibility is needed.

Also, in my opinion, (and probably wrong) if the manufactures of the stuff which appears to work better at a lower cost per "tank" decide to "maximize" their $profits$, then the observed cost data would change and would no longer be accurate.  This study appears to be well done.  I also wonder if we will be seeing other "studies" bought and paid for by the very companies selling the stuff.

Finally, since we are always protected by government who knows more than we do, all of this new ultra low sulfur fuel may already have the very best, least expensive, most effective additives ALREADY added somewhere in the "pipeline" soosss all of our fuel injection systems will last as long as before.  Or.....will we be responsible to protect ourselves? 

[rcbishop]

Way to go Henery......Huh??? Say what???



RCB

[Reddog]

From talking to the fuel and additive guys,  I am told that most diesel additives work on a molecular level. That is to say that anti-gel additives actually prevent the paraffin molecules from joining up and "gelling" as opposed to "thinning" the fuel. I assume lubricity additives work the same, they took out sulphur, not "oil" and we lost lubricity...right? So back to my original thought (I get sidetracked sometimes), the additive guys say more is not necessarily better, since it's a chemistry thing we're doing here. I added more butter to some cookies I was making once, and believe me, they were not better.
Doug Engel, Gunnison, CO. (-8 tonight so far)

[Christyhicks]

At the risk of irritating some people, I succumbed to the temptation to throw a little water on this hot topic.  I think the study would be more believable if it were performed by an independent group.  Since the Diesel Place receives much of it's support from diesel additive manufacturers/suppliers, they can not be considered an independent agency by any means.  Haven't figured out who in the heck A.D. Spicer is yet, so someone could pass that info on.  The "independent lab" testing facility is not named, so there is no way to verify their methods either.  I remain skeptical. 

I think that if you believe that up to 30% of the ULSD fuel sold on the open market is truly not treated with the required lubricants, you probably should take advantage of a great opportunity to make a bundle of money.  Proof of violations by the fuel supply industry is surely to pay off I would think.  Pay off BIG!  IMHO, Christy Hicks

[Christyhicks]

Um, whoops , hit the "post" button a little too soon. . never did say what I was REALLY thinking. . . which is:

This test, as performed, is irrelevant to any of us, simply because, well, they didn't perform the test using the fuel we buy.  A properly done test would use random samples of deisel, straight out of the nozzle, at both large truck stop chains, and at smaller retailers.  Then, they should see what the true pre-test levels are, and whether the supplements made the fuel better, or worse, for your engine.  You see, the only way the test results mean anything to you is if you plan on purchasing untreated, "pure" ULSD and adding your own lubricants. 

No one has ever proven to me that the engine manufacturers have anything to gain by encouraging premature destruction of their product, so I'm inclined to go with their recommendations.  If there is ONE thing I learned at Arcadia last year, it was at the seminars where I learned how much design, effort, testing, etc., goes into production of engines, and when the manufacturer says, "use this anti-freeze" and "use this oil", well, I'm inclined to listen.  (It's good for me to listen to men at least ONCE in awhile,  )

[HB of CJ]

Great insight everyone.  I am afraid it is even worse than our greatest fears.  Or....I know I am paranoid...the question is....am I paranoid enough.  The forementioned study is a good start.  More studies, unfortunately, are needed.  We already know why.  What we do not know or understand can hurt us.  We are responsible for the well being of our mostly older diesel injection systems.

Like others have already said, we need to set back and look at the entire picture.  What was the old high sulfer diesel like?  What was the old low sulfer fuel like?  Different parts of the country?  Where did the fuel come from?  Is all ultra low sulfer fuel the same?  What refinery additives, if any, are added in different parts of the country?  What are the standards, if any, for the addition of this alledged additive?

Yeah, for all sorts of reasons, the test described earlier in this post MAY be considered biased for all sorts of reasons.  If it were a scientific paper for

[HB of CJ]

Humm...something may be wrong with this board, or maybe it is just me.   My post just got dumped from me and posted to you all for no apparent reason.  Anyway....as I was spouting...if the formentioned study was a scientific paper I used to have to grade, I would only give it a "C" because it had an obvious bias in the source of the funding.  The study may be good as far as it goes...the intent and funding source is questionable.  Usually the funding people have an influence in the character and slant of any results.  Makes sense?

I showed a copy of the study to my auto and coach mechanic.  Hope I don't go to jail because of sooss.  He showed me a one pint plastic bottle he paid $14.00 for which was not included in the study being described.  We don't know why.  The fine print on the bottle said all sorts of things which were meaningless in nature.  Much to do about nothing.  He was slightly upset in me rocking his boat regarding his expensive fuel additive which he swears by.  He then said he was mad because he may have thrown away money.

Do engine manufactures have our best interest?.....or is it more of a gentleman's agreement to manufacture and warrant diesel engines that are so closely representative of each other that it makes no practical difference.  Nobody makes a mill that is "twice" as good as any other.  Why not?  Could they make a better product?  The point is that everything seems to have a common demominator of a profit motive.  Nothing wrong with that...any alternative is very scary.  Could fuel additives be by their profit...

...nature be sossss close to each other that it makes no difference?  Or....is it possible that we could, thru research and this excellent board, find a fuel additive that actually works and will protect our older stuff from dry ultra low sulfer fuel....or is all of this spouting off by me senseless since Uncle Sam will always protect us from ourselves?...and none of this amounts to a hill of beans anyway?  I am kinda of a control freak.  Oh well.  Maybe it is time for me just to kick back and have some more red wine. 

[Reddog]

  Just to throw a little more wood on the fire. Last winter, when ULSD first became the only diesel I could buy to resell, there was alot of chatter about how since it was different in makeup, it would react differently (in a negative way) to anti-gel additives. I ran my own hillbilly research lab with dry ice, a coffee can and some denatured alcohol to see where the fuel started to "wax". I can tell you from first hand experience, some additives are snake oil and some are not.
  I did get my Opti-Lube today (fast shipping), but unfortunately I can't take a road trip and give you folks the results. I try to take most "surveys" and information with a grain of salt, so we will see how the Opti-Lube product fares (maybe to AZ for the rally in May!).
  Point is, it is not all snake oil, but much may be. I don't think the additive folks are in it for the overall good of us bus folk. They like dollars too, but some of the stuff does do at least some of what they say. Nor do I think the fuel refinery folks are doing what they can to safeguard our engines, we all know they like dollars.
  Doug Engel, Gunnison, CO

[rcbishop]

So.... I humbly ask...what does anyone think about the " coke can" of gasoline in a tank?

Thanx.
RCB

[Reddog]

Gunnison is historically a ranching community, with lots of "Rancher Wisdom", some good, some bad. Adding gasoline to diesel fuel around here was the way they used to thin diesel and fuel oil to make it flow in the cold months of winter. It works, sort of. Other than that, I can't imagine why someone would cut their diesel with unleaded gasoline.
Doug Engel. Gunnison, CO

[goinnowherefast]

I'm new to all this and am all ears.

This is some pretty technical stuff. I have an old Detroit 1966 8v71 and was told by a few people to make sure that I add a quart of trani fluid every 100 gallons.

Was told that it helps with lubrication for injectors and pumps and such.

Anyone out there who wouldn't mind giving some helpful hints to a 66 MCI5A Challenger Conversion owner, I would appreciate the time.
This bus sat up in Oregon for 4 years before it was given to me by my father. He went to pick it up 4 years ago when he bought it but the clutch was bad.

After 4 years I tried to locate the seller but I can't so I started out knowing nothing about anything and made it from Oregon to San Diego with very few mishaps.

That is unless you figure losing air pressure in SusanVille Nevada or Melting a battery terminal and trying to figure out where the main fuse is to restore juice when I have no juice or main fuse to begin with.

Or bottoming out in my seat so many times that my knees ached from pushing up every time I felt the front go down.

The seat manual taught me the adjustment for the seat 815 miles later.

Like I say, Any instruction from a person familiar with this kind of bus is welcome.
It has a 4 speed manual transmission

Darrell at webmaster4@cox.net

[Stan]

goinnowherefast: The big criteria is how many miles you are going to put on the engine. The 8V71 is old technology, rugged design. If you are only going to drive it 2000 miles per year, it would do that with two bad cylinders while it blows smoke and drips oil. If you want new technology and higher HP it is expensive to repower (especially a MC-5). You can do an out of frame rebuild if you want to drive it another 400k miles.

Re all the discussion on fuel, go to a major truck stop and fill up with what they have in the tank. Be diligent on frequent strainer and filter changes and the old technology will likely last as many miles as most RVs go.

Drive more - Worry less.

[buswarrior]

I'm with Stan.

Fill 'er up and let's go coach driving!

happy coaching!
buswarrior

[Reddog]

Earl said DD's were built to run on #1. Around here, #1 is basically kerosene and used in the winter to thin the #2. If DD's were made to run on the thinner stuff, maybe the ULSD doesn't even enter into the equation for the 2 strokers. Seems like they would be even more sensitive to this issue. Then again, the DD's I've been around seem to run on just about anything...gotta love that!
Doug Engel, Gunnsion, CO

[Ncbob]

With all due respect to all the contributors and their research I've been adding 1 gallon of Soybean oil to every top off of at least 100 Gallons.  I don't notice any difference, no smoke or problems. I know Detroits will run on peanut oil so I don't feel I'm doing anything to harm my engine...but it does give me some peace of mind.

Bob