Favorite Diesel Fuel Additives

[IslandTractor]

LOL. You are naive. If they say the car needs additives that are admitting they designed an inferior product to begin with because if they designed it right it would not need additives.

They are turning away because they know the car has a relatively short life unlike our farm tractors which last 3-4 times longer. The rest of the car is going to wear out about the same time as the fuel system so it's not an issue for them.

Big presumption. If you don't like BMW longevity, how about Cummins and Caterpillar and JD? What additives do they recommend or test? Given that the Cummins guide to improving MPG I linked a couple of days ago did not even mention additives, I'm thinking the big diesel boys don't think much of additives either.

BTW, not picking on you but do you recall how big STP was in the 1960s?? Where is it today? Debunked!

 

[houstonscott]

Big presumption. If you don't like BMW longevity, how about Cummins and Caterpillar and JD? What additives do they recommend or test? Given that the Cummins guide to improving MPG I linked a couple of days ago did not even mention additives, I'm thinking the big diesel boys don't think much of additives either. BTW, not picking on you but do you recall how big STP was in the 1960s?? Where is it today? Debunked!

If you read the tests you'll see B5 does most of what additives are designed to, and does it better. If your fuel already has biodiesel in it I see no need to use additives. Diesel additives became popular during the evolution of the modern high pressure diesel invented by VW and Bosch. If your supplier is selling diesel with a cetane rating under 40, (hard to know) you should take a good look at a cetane booster additive like PS silver. Nearly all the diesel around me has at least B5, I realize I live in a relative warm climate and it might not hold true where you live. My first diesel was a MB 300d, W123, been a diesel car guy for awhile. Operated marine diesels for decades in the Coast Guard, where it had to run, or people died. Cold starts are your enemy, keep them to a minimum if you can. HS

 

[buickanddeere]

Baloney. The process was similar in both cases. The major difference is that there were significant variants designed from the start.

The F-18A,B,C,D had military involvement . The much improved F-18E,F was built by McDonald Douglas just hoping that somebody would purchase it. . I would rather have two F-18F airframes than one F-35 . Four at-18's optioned to the max would cost less than half the price of one F-35.

 

[nova3930]

Why do you say that? Have you ever seen the military procurement process at work? From what I've seen there are about a hundred people involved in writing specifications for milspec paper clips so it seems inconceivable they don't have detailed procedures for purchasing and handling fuel.

As someone who works in military procurement, I can tell you that's not really how it works any more. Rigid Mil specs were thrown out the window some years ago and replaced with more flexible Mil standards.

System level requirements flow down from the users based on a defined capability need based on a lot of higher level policy decisions from the executive. We engineers then translate those into multiplle levels of functional requirements that each component of the system have to meet.

Fuel is a little outside my area but it is defined with requirements based on Mil Standards. Purchasing and handling would be covered by contracting and safety respectively in all probability.

Exactly. That is why the F-35 is such a turkey . The F-18F was designed by engineers and pilots.

The F-35 has issue for a lot of reasons but "not being designed by engineers and pilots" isn't among them. The biggest is that there was a high level policy directive for it to be a joint program to replace aircraft doing widely disparate missions in widely disparate environments. Primarily the USMC V/STOL requirement and it's associated lift fan compromises the aerodynamics and overall geometry in a way that makes it much less suitable for the Air Force and Navy missions, all in the name of cost cutting via a single airframe.

If the USMC needed a new aircraft, we should have sucked it up and built them one specific for V/STOL and then built a joint AF/Navy bird with no provision for V/STOL.

The F-18A,B,C,D had military involvement . The much improved F-18E,F was built by McDonald Douglas just hoping that somebody would purchase it. . I would rather have two F-18F airframes than one F-35 . Four at-18's optioned to the max would cost less than half the price of one F-35.

I don't know where you get that the Super Hornet had no DoD involvement. USN realization that the A-12 Avenger II was in trouble coupled with the cancellation of the Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter (navalized F-22) program caused the initiation the "Hornet 2000" study in the late 80s. When the A-12 was cancelled in '91 Hornet 2000 was evolved into the Super Hornet which was sold to Congress as a "low risk derivative aircraft" even though there are vast differences between the A-D models and the E/F models.

As far as composition of forces go, the right answer is what we did for many years, namely a high/low mix instead of a force composed entirely of silver bullets. We used to field a smaller number of expensive very capable systems for the 5% very difficult missions and a larger number of cheaper less capable systems for the 95% easier missions. Now we try to field an even smaller number of super expensive systems to try and cover all 100% of the mission profiles.

 

[IslandTractor]

As someone who works in military procurement, I can tell you that's not really how it works any more. Rigid Mil specs were thrown out the window some years ago and replaced with more flexible Mil standards.

System level requirements flow down from the users based on a defined capability need based on a lot of higher level policy decisions from the executive. We engineers then translate those into multiplle levels of functional requirements that each component of the system have to meet.

Fuel is a little outside my area but it is defined with requirements based on Mil Standards. Purchasing and handling would be covered by contracting and safety respectively in all probability.

Thanks for the clarification on mil spec vs mil standards.

I still gotta believe with all the hundreds of thousands of diesel engines in military use that SOMEBODY in the DOD with a legitimate engineering background has investigated whether routine civilian grade diesel is good enough or whether (and which) additives are necessary to optimize performance/efficiency/longevity etc.

 

[nova3930]

I still gotta believe with all the hundreds of thousands of diesel engines in military use that SOMEBODY in the DOD with a legitimate engineering background has investigated whether routine civilian grade diesel is good enough or whether (and which) additives are necessary to optimize performance/efficiency/longevity etc.

Oh yeah, somebody has looked at it for sure. Army Reg 70-12 that governs fuel usage references ASTM D975 specification for commercial diesel for ground vehicles.

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r70_12.pdf

Also, all military gear is supposed to be designed for JP-8 which is essentially Jet-A with corrosion inhibitors, lubricity improvers, static dissipators and icing inhibitors with Jet-A primarily being kerosene. I can't find the JP-8 spec at the moment but I do recall that it has no minimum cetane or lubricity number. Kerosene with lubricity additives is probably roughly equivalent to commercial diesel...

70-12 does have this section as well

3–5. Additives

a. Any new fuel or lubricant additives will be introduced only if there is a proven need and justification is fully
supported by adequate testing and evaluation. ASTM–D4054 provides the process for the qualification and approval of
fuel and additive products. Although ASTM–D4054 refers to aviation products, the Army uses this process for both
ground and aviation materiel.

b. Aftermarket additives primarily intended for maintenance and facility personnel to use in the field environment
are not to be procured, tested, evaluated, or used by any elements of the Active Army, the Army National Guard, or the
U.S. Army Reserve. Requests for aftermarket additives must be forwarded to RDECOM–TARDEC (RDTA–DP
(MS110)), 6501 E. 11 Mile Road, Warren, MI 48397–5000 for validation and approval.

 

[IslandTractor]

Oh yeah, somebody has looked at it for sure. Army Reg 70-12 that governs fuel usage references ASTM D975 specification for commercial diesel for ground vehicles. http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r70_12.pdf Also, all military gear is supposed to be designed for JP-8 which is essentially Jet-A with corrosion inhibitors, lubricity improvers, static dissipators and icing inhibitors with Jet-A primarily being kerosene. I can't find the JP-8 spec at the moment but I do recall that it has no minimum cetane or lubricity number. Kerosene with lubricity additives is probably roughly equivalent to commercial diesel... 70-12 does have this section as well

Thank you! That was exactly what I was looking for.

I especially note the last section where they state essentially that no special additives are to be used. If the DOD, after professional review, has concluded that additives should not be used, why should the rest of us pour money down the drain? And recall that no major diesel manufacturer recommends additives either.

Fuel additives IMO are a modern day snake oil. All about the hype and hope that they will make things better but with claims that simply don't stand up to critical review.

 

[nova3930]

Thank you! That was exactly what I was looking for.

I especially note the last section where they state essentially that no special additives are to be used. If the DOD, after professional review, has concluded that additives should not be used, why should the rest of us pour money down the drain? And recall that no major diesel manufacturer recommends additives either.

Fuel additives IMO are a modern day snake oil. All about the hype and hope that they will make things better but with claims that simply don't stand up to critical review.

Be careful about assuming that something has been evaluated and found lacking because it's prohibited from use. In all probability, being prohibited means it has NOT been evaluated. DoD defaults to "prohibited unless told otherwise" and they won't say otherwise till they evaluate whatever it is, whether it's a radio, fuel additive or whatever. In order to do an evaluation, the program manager must identify a need and generate a requirement, then request the appropriate section of RDECOM (who I work for several steps down the line) qualify whatever it is.

Not to put too fine a point on it, you're talking a metric butt ton of $ to do that, which isn't going to happen. Not to mention if they have engines wearing prematurely, they can change the specifications for the additive package that turns kerosene into JP-8. Buying 10 million barrels of fuel a year has certain advantages in the marketplace

 

[nova3930]

Thank you! That was exactly what I was looking for.

I especially note the last section where they state essentially that no special additives are to be used. If the DOD, after professional review, has concluded that additives should not be used, why should the rest of us pour money down the drain? And recall that no major diesel manufacturer recommends additives either.

Fuel additives IMO are a modern day snake oil. All about the hype and hope that they will make things better but with claims that simply don't stand up to critical review.

Be careful about assuming that something has been evaluated and found lacking because it's prohibited from use. In all probability, being prohibited means it has NOT been evaluated. DoD defaults to "prohibited unless told otherwise" and they won't say otherwise till they evaluate whatever it is, whether it's a radio, fuel additive or whatever. In order to do an evaluation, the program manager must identify a need and generate a requirement, then request the appropriate section of RDECOM (who I work for several steps down the line) qualify whatever it is.

Not to put too fine a point on it, you're talking a metric butt ton of $ to do that, which isn't going to happen. Not for gunk they're going to depend on a private fresh out of AIT to pour in the tank every time. Not to mention if they have engines wearing prematurely, they can change the specifications for the additive package that turns kerosene into JP-8. Buying 10 million barrels of fuel a year has certain advantages in the marketplace. You can just tell the manufacturers to change the additive package so you don't have to depend on Mr. Private.

 

[Raw Dodge]

I have used Schaeffers dieseltreat for the last 22 yrs,this past year i started using Bestline diesel fuel treatment,on the advice of a good friend and excellent mechanic that has been using it...so far im very happy with the Bestline, its lubricity is clearly better than Schaeffers at least with metal to metal contact,as evidenced on the bearing test stand...Im also using Bestline No squeek,the best light oil ive ever tried...