Lubricity

[coobie]

That's your second dumbest post on this thread. Give up and crawl back into your hole.

I fully agree !!! coobie

 

[dennis52]

Well I am still uncertain.
After following this thread with interest from the start I was ready to go out and buy additives.
Then when I did some research on some of the additives available on the local market it turned out all they contained was hydrocarbons, nothing better than snake oil. And these are top selling brands.

When you read the labels on the additive bottles they tell you nothing about what is inside.

More than one dealer I have spoken to said not to worry about using additives.

I would like to be convinced but the products that performed well in the research document that has been posted are not readily available where I live.
Neither is biodiesel.

 

[Coyote machine]

My POV is this: if things were as bad as additive makers want us all to believe then NOTHING would be running the way it should, big rigs doing hundreds of thousands of miles, diesel backup generators for hospitals, you name it, it would all be seized up or broken down on the side of the road, field etc.
Studies are just that - studies. Graduate school taught me a number of things, one of the most important is follow the money in any research/study and one will find the underlying reason why the study was done.
Raw ULSD for the study makes sense for showing what the various additives could do if they were the ONLY thing being added to raw ULSD with no manufacturers additive package to contend with in the real world of fuel sold to consumers.
Seems to me the facts are: we as consumers are at the mercy of the fuel sellers and for that matter, the additive sellers.
In the real world it would be near impossible to do a study of the effects of each additive on say ten identical tractors, all doing the same work for a set number of hours etc., and then tear their engines down and see quantitative results that would be meaningful to us as to whether to use additives, and which ones, and in what quantity. Ten operators might get the same number of hours of work done but the results might still vary because of the human factor, the tolerances of each engine, defective parts, poorly set timing, injection pumps, etc.
So I say, go out and do your work/play etc. and use an additive if it gives you peace of mind, or subjective positive results for the $ it costs.

And don't forget to be on the lookout for shark bites, and meteors!:laughing:

 

[pickeringchris]

I was out with a buddy last night in his 2004 Jetta TDI. He has 450000 km's on it and said he has never added anything to the fuel.
Snake oil or not, I use an additive. For the 50hours a year I will use my machine, the cost is less than $20 and it makes me feel good.

 

[IslandTractor]

Raw ULSD for the study makes sense for showing what the various additives could do if they were the ONLY thing being added to raw ULSD with no manufacturers additive package to contend with in the real world of fuel sold to consumers.
Seems to me the facts are: we as consumers are at the mercy of the fuel sellers and for that matter, the additive sellers.

I agree. The study would have been better if it was larger and included real world fuel from a few different dealers at the point of sale after additive packages were included. If all fuels at the pump already have adequate lubricity then the after market additives are just frosting and more of a psychological boost than anything else. If however the additives do lower the wear numbers significantly while pump fuel is spotty then perhaps it is worth something.

I am most impressed by just plain old soy biodiesel. I wish they sold it in quarts so it would be easy to make up a 2% biofuel without storing larger amounts than would be likely to be used in a six month period.

 

[EMB5530]

My POV is this: if things were as bad as additive makers want us all to believe then NOTHING would be running the way it should, big rigs doing hundreds of thousands of miles, diesel backup generators for hospitals, you name it, it would all be seized up or broken down on the side of the road, field etc.
Studies are just that - studies. Graduate school taught me a number of things, one of the most important is follow the money in any research/study and one will find the underlying reason why the study was done.
Raw ULSD for the study makes sense for showing what the various additives could do if they were the ONLY thing being added to raw ULSD with no manufacturers additive package to contend with in the real world of fuel sold to consumers.
Seems to me the facts are: we as consumers are at the mercy of the fuel sellers and for that matter, the additive sellers.
In the real world it would be near impossible to do a study of the effects of each additive on say ten identical tractors, all doing the same work for a set number of hours etc., and then tear their engines down and see quantitative results that would be meaningful to us as to whether to use additives, and which ones, and in what quantity. Ten operators might get the same number of hours of work done but the results might still vary because of the human factor, the tolerances of each engine, defective parts, poorly set timing, injection pumps, etc.
So I say, go out and do your work/play etc. and use an additive if it gives you peace of mind, or subjective positive results for the $ it costs.

And don't forget to be on the lookout for shark bites, and meteors!:laughing:

Well said!:thumbsup:

But if there is a product that shows the "potential" of extending the life of equipment such as bio-diesel which is (in my area) inexpensive and(in all but winter months)available why not try it?

 

[ERE]

Quote: "Studies are just that - studies. Graduate school taught me a number of things, one of the most important is follow the money in any research/study and one will find the underlying reason why the study was done.
Raw ULSD for the study makes sense for showing what the various additives could do if they were the ONLY thing being added to raw ULSD with no manufacturers additive package to contend with in the real world of fuel sold to consumers.
Seems to me the facts are: we as consumers are at the mercy of the fuel sellers and for that matter, the additive sellers.
In the real world it would be near impossible to do a study of the effects of each additive on say ten identical tractors, all doing the same work for a set number of hours etc., and then tear their engines down and see quantitative results that would be meaningful to us as to whether to use additives, and which ones, and in what quantity. Ten operators might get the same number of hours of work done but the results might still vary because of the human factor, the tolerances of each engine, defective parts, poorly set timing, injection pumps, etc."


I think you miss the point of using independent testing labs and of having standardized tests that are NOT dependent on having" identical tractors doing the same work" etc. To avoid at ambiguities such as that, standardized tests are developed in all areas of science and engineering. There are innumerable examples. In the case of fuel lubricity, it is the HFRR, but it could, in other engineering fields, be yield tests, fatigue test or fracture toughness tests for metals, pH for liquids, or flow resistance for fluid systems. The point of any test like this is to be able to compare things with identical operating parameters. Does any test tell the whole story. No. But without standardized testing we can't compare anything to anything else. Since, to my knowledge, no fuel supplier will supply us with the lubricity specs of their fuel, we have to go with what we know, which is what the fuel is after removing the sulfur, what the engine and injector manufacturers say is required, and what our EPA requires of fuel suppliers (way higher (worse) than what engine manufactures need. So, bottom line is that some fuel suppliers may have adequate additive packages that provide sufficient lubricity, but we don't know. Our choice entirely. We can have faith that we get adequate fuel, or be proactive using industry accepted tests from an independent lab and and insure we are ok.

 

[Coyote machine]

Well said!:thumbsup:

But if there is a product that shows the "potential" of extending the life of equipment such as bio-diesel which is (in my area) inexpensive and(in all but winter months)available why not try it?

Thanks. I'm not saying to or not to try things like biodiesel, for instance, BUT I would caution to look at the potential downside and manufacturer's warnings about use of same.
Careful use of biodiesel, taking into consideration storage life, etc. is one's own personal choice.

 

[Coyote machine]

Quote: "Studies are just that - studies. Graduate school taught me a number of things, one of the most important is follow the money in any research/study and one will find the underlying reason why the study was done.
Raw ULSD for the study makes sense for showing what the various additives could do if they were the ONLY thing being added to raw ULSD with no manufacturers additive package to contend with in the real world of fuel sold to consumers.
Seems to me the facts are: we as consumers are at the mercy of the fuel sellers and for that matter, the additive sellers.
In the real world it would be near impossible to do a study of the effects of each additive on say ten identical tractors, all doing the same work for a set number of hours etc., and then tear their engines down and see quantitative results that would be meaningful to us as to whether to use additives, and which ones, and in what quantity. Ten operators might get the same number of hours of work done but the results might still vary because of the human factor, the tolerances of each engine, defective parts, poorly set timing, injection pumps, etc." End quote.

ERE wrote:
I think you miss the point of using independent testing labs and of having standardized tests that are NOT dependent on having" identical tractors doing the same work" etc. To avoid at ambiguities such as that, standardized tests are developed in all areas of science and engineering. There are innumerable examples. In the case of fuel lubricity, it is the HFRR, but it could, in other engineering fields, be yield tests, fatigue test or fracture toughness tests for metals, pH for liquids, or flow resistance for fluid systems. The point of any test like this is to be able to compare things with identical operating parameters. Does any test tell the whole story. No. But without standardized testing we can't compare anything to anything else. Since, to my knowledge, no fuel supplier will supply us with the lubricity specs of their fuel, we have to go with what we know, which is what the fuel is after removing the sulfur, what the engine and injector manufacturers say is required, and what our EPA requires of fuel suppliers (way higher (worse) than what engine manufactures need. So, bottom line is that some fuel suppliers may have adequate additive packages that provide sufficient lubricity, but we don't know. Our choice entirely. We can have faith that we get adequate fuel, or be proactive using industry accepted tests from an independent lab and and insure we are ok.

CM writes:
Sorry, I don't believe I'm missing the point of standardized testing. I am saying that one has to be aware of what and who is looking for what results from any given test. My adult life has been spent working for companies doing 'independent' testing starting with my BA in environmental science, in 1976 when I did testing for Texas Instruments as a subcontractor to Stone & Webster, Boston engineers doing a study of the effects of waste water flow from the Storm King Nuclear plant on the Hudson River.
Followed by working for Mallinkrodt Chemical in the food manufacturing field as a Quality Control lab geek. Then for the DOE on Solar Research and implementation for an MIT engineer and his firm. Since earning an MA in Applied Science, I've done plenty more field and lab work for various companies in similar engineering endeavors, including having own and run various businesses in applied science endeavors.
So back to my point of cautioning anyone ready to buy the snake oil or the we did a test and it proves this particular theory group of believers; caveat emptor- BUYER BEWARE! Just because a particular test says xyz product will grow hair doesn't mean it will. AND beware the money for the testing doesn't come from thin air- somebody with an axe to grind is paying for the test whether one wants to believe it or not.

 

[EMB5530]

Thanks. I'm not saying to or not to try things like biodiesel, for instance, BUT I would caution to look at the potential downside and manufacturer's warnings about use of same.
Careful use of biodiesel, taking into consideration storage life, etc. is one's own personal choice.

From what I have read as long as the bio is entirely plant based, and not used in excess(or switched over from normal diesel to 100% soy) such as a 10% mix there is no downside.
Or have I miss-interpreted something.
If you have info that shows otherwise I am always open for education/discussion.:thumbsup: