| Author |
Message |
Pete/RTS Daytona (Pete_rtsdaytona)
Registered Member
Username: Pete_rtsdaytona
Post Number: 391
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 208.118.14.128
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 4:33 pm: | |
Here's an interesting post from a memeber on the Yahoo RTS Board - comments ??
As I read the report on additives - Rather than add any fancy new ULSD additive product - it looks like adding:
2 Gallons of Bio-Diesel per 100 Gallons of ULSD
or
1 Gallon SoyBean Oil per 100 Gallons of ULSD
will actually provide more Lubricity than the older Low Sulfur Diesel
here's the info sites first -->
http://www.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/BiodieselEd/publication/06.pdf
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/Lubricity.PDF
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/19980201_gen-070.pdf
plus this
here's the data (it a lot folks)
The following are the preliminary results of a research study on diesel fuel
Lubricity Additives. There is likely to be further commentary and
explanation added at a future time.
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
Sulfer Diesel) fuel.
HISTORY:
ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road diesel
engines. This fuel burns cleaner and is less polluting than it’s
predecessor, called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel. Low sulfer fuel contained less
than 500 ppm of sulfer. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.
As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfer, it is
inadvertently stripped of its lubricating properties. This vital lubrication
is a necessary component of the diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel
delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high pressure pumps and
injectors. Traditional Low sulfer diesel fuel typically contained enough
lubricating ability to suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD
fuel, on the other hand, is considered to be very “dry” and incapable of
lubricating vital fuel delivery components. As a result, these components
are at risk of premature and even catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is
introduced to the system. As a result, all oil companies producing ULSD fuel
must replace the lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel purchased at
retail fuel stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace
this lost lubricity. The potential result of using inadequately treated
fuel, as indicated above, can be catastrophic. There have been many
documented cases of randomly tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests
prove that often times the fuel we purchase is not adequately treated and
may therefore contribute to accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems.
For this reason it may be prudent to use an after market diesel fuel
additive to ENSURE adequate lubrication of the fuel delivery system.
Additionally, many additives can offer added benefits such as cetane
improver, and water separators or emulsifiers.
CONTENT:
In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to
replace lost lubricity. The primary component of this study is a
side-by-side laboratory analysis of each additive’s ability to replace this
vital lubricity. Additionally, claims of improving cetane, water separation
or emulsification, bio-diesel compatibility and alcohol content will be
noted. These notes were derived from information that was readily available
to consumers (via the label and internet information) and none of this
information has been evaluated for validity and/or performance. Cetane
information has only been noted if the word “cetane” was used in the
advertising information. The words “improves power” has not been translated
to mean “improves cetane” in this evaluation. Information on alcohol content
is provided by indicating “contains no alcohol”. Omission of the words
“contains no alcohol” does not imply that it does contain alcohol. This
information was simply missing in the information available to a consumer.
However, the possibility of a form of alcohol in these products is possible.
Additionally, information on dosages and cost per tankful are included for
comparison purposes.
How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating Ability:
Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a
device called a “High Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR. The HFRR is
currently the Internationally accepted, standardized method to evaluate
fluids for lubricating ability. It uses a ball bearing that reciprocates or
moves back and forth on a metal surface at a very high frequency for a
duration of 90 minutes. The machine does this while the ball bearing and
metal surface are immersed in the test fluid (in this case, treated diesel
fuel). At the end of the test the ball bearing is examined under a
microscope and the “wear scar” on the ball bearing is measured in microns.
The larger the wear scar, the poorer the lubricating ability of the fluid.
Southwest Research runs every sample twice and averages the size of the wear
scar.
The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a commercially available diesel fuel
should produce a wear scar of no greater than 520 microns. 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.
METHOD:
An independent research firm in Texas was hired to do the laboratory work.
The cost of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating
additive manufacturers. Declining to participate and pay for the research
were the following companies: Amsoil and Power Service. Because these are
popular products it was determined that they needed to be included in the
study. These products were tested using funds collected by diesel
enthusiasts at “dieselplace.com”. Additionally, unconventional additives
such as 2-cycle oil and used motor oil were tested for their abilities to
aid in diesel fuel lubricity. These were also paid for by members of
“dieselplace.com”.
The study was conducted in the following manner:
-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. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at the Southwest
Research Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score
of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel. It was determined that
this batch of fuel would be utilized as the baseline fuel for testing all of
the additives. The baseline fuel HFRR score of 636 would be used as the
control sample. All additives tested would be evaluated on their ability to
replace lost lubricity to the fuel by comparing their scores to the control
sample. Any score under 636 shows improvement to the fuels ability to
lubricate the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine.
BLIND STUDY:
In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the
following steps were taken:
Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the
counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-diesel
sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered
“experimental” at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market.
It was sent directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel sample was
sponsored by Renewable Energy Group. One of their suppliers, E.H. Wolf and
Sons in Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of 100% soybean based
bio-diesel. This sample was used to blend with the baseline fuel to create a
2% bio-diesel for testing.
Each additive was bottled separately in identical glass containers. The
bottles were labeled only with a number. This number corresponded to the
additive contained in the bottle. The order of numbering was done randomly
by drawing names out of a hat. Only Spicer Research held the key to the
additives in each bottle.
The additive samples were then sent in a box to Southwest Research. The only
information given them was the ratio of fuel to be added to each additive
sample. For example, bottle “A” needs to be mixed at a ratio of “480-1”. The
ratio used for each additive was the “prescribed dosage” found on the bottle
label for that product. Used motor oil and 2-cycle oil were tested at a
rationally chosen ratio of 200:1.
The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio of each “bottled fluid” into
a separate container containing the baseline fuel. The data, therefore, is
meaningful because every additive is tested in the same way using the same
fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness of each additive is now
obtainable.
THE RESULTS:
These results are listed in the order of performance in the HFRR test. The
baseline fuel used in every test started at an HFRR score of 636. The score
shown is the tested HFRR score of the baseline fuel/additive blend.
Also included is the wear scar improvement provided by the additive as well
as other claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive is also categorized
as a Multi-purpose additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity only,
non-conventional, or as an additive capable of treating both gasoline and
diesel fuel.
As a convenience to the reader there is also information on price per
treated tank of diesel fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per 26
gallon tank provided as “ounces of additive per 26 gallon tank”.
In Order Of Performance:
1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel
HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.
50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel
66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel
Price: market value
2)Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier
HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio
13 oz/tank
$4.35/tank
3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment
Gas and Diesel
cetane improver, emulsifier
HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.60/tank
4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend
Multi-purpose
demulsifier
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
$0.68/tank
5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/tank
$3.65/tank
6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible
HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.87/tank
7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
$1.09/tank
8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.00/tank
9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Multi-purpose
demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.16/tank
10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
$1.58/tank
11)Howe’s Meaner Power Kleaner
Multi-purpose
Alcohol free
HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.36/tank
12)Stanadyne Performance Formula
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement
480:1 ratio
6.9 oz/tank
$4.35/tank
13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000 miles used.
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems)
HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
price: market value
14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant
Gas or diesel
HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
427:1 ratio
7.8 oz/tank
$2.65/tank
15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech
Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive
HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.67/tank
16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.12/tank
17)Marvel Mystery Oil
Gas, oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 and
newer systems)
HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel.
320:1 ratio
10.4 oz/tank
$3.22/tank
18)ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.38/tank
19)Primrose Power Blend 2003
Multi-purpose
Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, emulsifier
HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline
1066:1 ratio
3.12 oz/tank
$1.39/tank
CONCLUSIONS:
Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR
score of 460 or better. This meets the most strict requirements requested by
the Engine Manufacturers Association.
Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR
score of 520 or better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel requirements for
maximum wear scar in a commercially available diesel fuel.
Products 16 through 19 were found to cause the fuel/additive blend to
perform worse than the baseline fuel. The cause for this is speculative.
This is not unprecedented in HFRR testing and can be caused by alcohol or
other components in the additives. Further investigation into the
possibilities behind these poor results will investigated.
Any additive testing within +/- 20 microns of the baseline fuel could be
considered to have no significant change. The repeatability of this test
allows for a +/- 20 micron variability to be considered insignificant.
CREDITS:
This study would not have been possible without the participation of all
companies involved, Southwest Research and Steve Westbrook, and
dieselplace.com. A special Thank You to all of the dieselplace.com members
who generously donated toward this study and waited longer than they should
have for the results. You folks are the best. Arlen Spicer, organizer. |
niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Registered Member
Username: Niles500
Post Number: 773
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.43.39.156
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 4:49 pm: | |
Thanks Pete - do you know what the HFRR was after being treated AT the refinery and before retail delivery? |
Pete/RTS Daytona (Pete_rtsdaytona)
Registered Member
Username: Pete_rtsdaytona
Post Number: 393
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 208.118.14.128
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 5:41 pm: | |
Niles
If I read that report right
last years LSD = 460-520 microns HFRR
this years ULSD = 636 Microns HFRR
ULSD with 2% biodiesel added = and even better 221 microns HFRR |
niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Registered Member
Username: Niles500
Post Number: 774
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 72.91.168.92
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 10:08 pm: | |
Thanks Pete - but if I read this right (and taking into account past info on the incompatability of bio to your fuel system) that "Opti-Lube Summer Blend" is the best bang for your buck - What say you ? |
Tom Caffrey (Pvcces)
Registered Member
Username: Pvcces
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 5-2001
Posted From: 65.74.67.130
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 10:43 pm: | |
Thanks, Pete. It looks like it might be a while before we buy any more Howe's.
I really like the detail that you have here.
Tom Caffrey PD4106-2576
Suncatcher
Ketchikan, Alaska |
Chris Peters (Chris_85_rts)
Registered Member
Username: Chris_85_rts
Post Number: 43
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 66.194.150.45
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 1:45 pm: | |
As I read it, the 636 number is for untreated ULSD. We would not be able to buy this at the pump.
"-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. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at the Southwest
Research Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score
of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel. " |
Austin Scott Davis (Zimtok)
Registered Member
Username: Zimtok
Post Number: 163
Registered: 9-2006
Posted From: 216.37.73.226
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 1:47 pm: | |
I think Opti-Lube will see an increase in their sales very soon....
. |
Chris Peters (Chris_85_rts)
Registered Member
Username: Chris_85_rts
Post Number: 44
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 66.194.150.45
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 1:59 pm: | |
I can not find any reference to the HFRR of commercially available ULSD. |
Pete/RTS Daytona (Pete_rtsdaytona)
Registered Member
Username: Pete_rtsdaytona
Post Number: 395
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 208.118.14.128
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 2:54 pm: | |
see--> http://www.wellworthproducts.com/tech-articles/8.pdf (page 2 - middle of the page
....
The current method for measuring Lubricity worldwide is known as High Frequency
Reciprocating Rig (HFRR). This testing device uses vibration between metal surfaces to
determine the lubricating characteristics of fluids.
With HFRR a lower number is better.
High Sulfur #2 diesel provides a HFRR of 300-350
Low Sulfur #2 diesel provides a HFRR of 350-390
Ultra-Low Sulfur #2 diesel provides a HFRR of 600-800
Ultra-Low Sulfur #1 diesel provides a HFRR of 700-900
The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) has determined that it can accept an
HFRR of 460 or lower. (They would greatly prefer 400 or even lower)
The European Union (EU) has determined that they will accept an HFRR of 460 or lower
for their fuels.
.... |
marvin pack (Gomer)
Registered Member
Username: Gomer
Post Number: 89
Registered: 3-2007
Posted From: 76.4.149.200
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 4:26 pm: | |
Hey Pete; thanks for all the info. just what is the best for the money after all is said and done? I have 2 8v-71's and a 6-71. this might be called the bottom line, but for the money what is the final recomendation? Gomer |
Chris Peters (Chris_85_rts)
Registered Member
Username: Chris_85_rts
Post Number: 45
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 66.194.150.45
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 4:27 pm: | |
Again, I am guessing those numbers are for untreated ULSD, which I agree has a higher HFRR than LSD. The reason I say guess is that it does not say one way or another. Each supplier is going to use their own enhancer, so I'd expect different numbers from each supplier.
Also, I agree that if you start with ULSD at 636 HFRR and add biodeisel, you will get down to 220 HFRR, but if you start with ULSD at 460 you will likely still only get down to 220 HFRR. I would hope the EMA is being conservative.
I guess I am biased that most additives are snake oil. I'd rather buy the best ULSD than mess with additives. |
Chris Peters (Chris_85_rts)
Registered Member
Username: Chris_85_rts
Post Number: 46
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 66.194.150.45
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 4:33 pm: | |
Gomer, I don't think there is an answer for you yet. We have not found the data that shows us what the HFRR is for commercially available ULSD. If say they came in at HFRR's of 400, I personally would not bother with additives. Just because you can get down to 221 with biodiesel does not mean you have to. We have been blindly running in the 300-390 range all along, so I don't see the need to suddenly think we need to do better than that. Also, based on the HFRR rating of the commercially available ULSD, you could use much less of the products than was used in the study above to get the same results. As far as I am concerned the jury is still out. If you want to be totally safe, I guess you could just use biodiesel, but what other effects might that have on your system, I don't have any idea. |
Justin Griffith (Justin25taylor)
Registered Member
Username: Justin25taylor
Post Number: 44
Registered: 4-2007
Posted From: 71.155.171.33
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 9:46 pm: | |
Pete, Thanks for another great article pal.
I was told by the fuel injection shop I use to add 1 pint of ATF or an 8OZ bottle of 2-cycle oil per tank of fuel on my 98 Chevy truck with 6.5 Detroit to "lubricate the injector pump"
I have done this for the last few years and my current injector pump has outlasted the 4 I have replaced during the life of the truck.
Any info on this or is it just coincidence?
Thank god our 2-stroke DD's don't have pumps on them.
Justin |
Brian Elfert (Belfert)
Registered Member
Username: Belfert
Post Number: 38
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 132.148.80.215
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 2:20 pm: | |
All diesel fuel in the state of Minnesota is blended with 2% biodiesel by law. They did suspend the blending due to some issues with low temp operations and suspect biodiesel, but I assume they restarted the blending. |
joe padberg (Joemc7ab)
Registered Member
Username: Joemc7ab
Post Number: 141
Registered: 6-2004
Posted From: 66.38.159.33
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 5:49 pm: | |
Justin
I saw a service memo from GM at a nearby dealership saying essentially the same thing about 15 years ago, probably at the beginning of the first phase of sulpher removal. I did exactly that with my several 5.7's over the years.
Joe. |
|