Favorite Diesel Fuel Additives

[3930dave]

Other than the stability of diesel fuel in storage, I don't see most govt operations having much skin in the game on the broader issues being discussed.

Gelled up, or microbially contaminated fuel would affect operational performance, so that would be an issue in a govt operation.

Other than that, So What if a govt owned diesel engine shows wear signs early ? Just crack open that tax-payer funded cheque book, and buy a new one.

What a govt does or doesn't do holds limited meaning to me, esp. in technical matters. Big Oil not adopting the EMA min. diesel lube standards in the USA being a relevant example.

Rgds, D.

 

[IslandTractor]

Other than the stability of diesel fuel in storage, I don't see most govt operations having much skin in the game on the broader issues being discussed. Gelled up, or microbially contaminated fuel would affect operational performance, so that would be an issue in a govt operation. Other than that, So What if a govt owned diesel engine shows wear signs early ? Just crack open that tax-payer funded cheque book, and buy a new one. What a govt does or doesn't do holds limited meaning to me, esp. in technical matters. Big Oil not adopting the EMA min. diesel lube standards in the USA being a relevant example. Rgds, D.

I'm not quite as cynical about government. If anyone in government thinks he can get a promotion by running a spreadsheet that shows an 8% increase in fuel economy will definitely get attention. Maybe from his own DOD office but surely from OMB and the opposing political party. An 8% increase in "MPG" translates to many billions of dollars per year. Nobody in government ignores the billion word.

Once attention is drawn to a product that could save billions, the company that produces the additive would have lobbyists beating down the doors in Congress. A rational response would be to fund an independent or government organization to do a simple study. It would not take very long at all to determine if there was anything close to an eight percent efficiency gain versus untreated fuel. Even gold plated such a preliminary study wouldn't cost more than a few hundred thousand and if necessary, a high school auto shop class could do that study for the price of fuel and a couple of identical diesel engines. If the result was positive then a full study looking at many other factors would be warranted. We are not talking a huge budget to test the simple hypothesis that fuel additives influence diesel engine performance. No way would a government ignore a simple way to save billions. They'd all be fighting for credit and promotions.

On the other hand, if a similar study has already been done and it was found that there was nothing close to an eight percent (or even two percent) advantage, then nobody would bother publicizing it as there would be no promotions or credit to be dispensed.

The fact that there is no publicized government funded study on this issue is fair prima facia evidence that pilot studies done by independent labs did not show any benefit. I'm sure that buried in the files of some government engineer such a negative study rests.

If any of these snake oil sales corporations had serious evidence to back their claims, you can bet your house that they would be lobbying the pants off both Congress and DOD. It would be insane not to, if they had the evidence, as they would surely make billions while saving the government even more.

The lack of independent controlled studies to back up the claims of the additive companies can only be explained by the fact that the product claims clearly do not stand up to critical review.

 

[buickanddeere]

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.



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.



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.

Putting all of our eggs in one basket with a smaller number of more $$$ and more complex machines.
Put the same latest whiz bang electronic packages on 3 or four s F-18F for the price of a single a F-35. Now send 6 to 8 F-18F's and 2of the F-35 out on an otherwise identical mission. The F-18F's will carry more payload farther and more reliably than the F-35's. I would rather go into battle with 5 to 7 fellow F18F jockeys than one fellow F-35 jockey.
The latest F-18F with the blisk fans in the engines are stealthy and powerful.
I would eliminate the folding wings and the tailhook to drop weight for F-18F's that will never be on carriers. Keep the HD landing gear.

 

[IslandTractor]

Here is a press release from the Pentagon regarding their multi billion dollar program to increase energy efficiency in all areas. Ya think they would have a few bucks to test out fuel additives. I do recognize that the military can specify exactly how they want their fuel formulated but the notion that their current standards to not mention cetane or lubricity, two areas that additives focus on, might tell us that they haven't found naturally occurring levels in big oil fuel products to be lacking.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Release No: 678-12
August 15, 2012
Department of Defense Certifies Key Energy Investments Support Increased Combat Capability

The Department of Defense’s proposed budget supports the military’s operational energy goals according to a report released today titled “Energy Investments for Military Operations: for Fiscal Year 2013.”
The report certifies that the Defense Department’s proposed 2013 budget adequately funds the operational energy strategy, highlighting $9 billion in planned investments to improve energy use in military operations between fiscal years 2013-2017. This includes $1.6 billion in fiscal 2013.
“The innovative approach the Defense Department is taking to achieving greater operational efficiency and boosting combat effectiveness is exactly in line with our new defense strategy,” Secretary Leon E. Panetta said. “These investments in new energy technologies, more than 90 percent of which are for energy efficiency or energy performance upgrades, will enable our forces to operate longer and at greater distance while enhancing our energy security at home and, in many cases, reducing costs.”
The Operational Energy Strategy, released in June 2011, stated three ways DoD will increase energy security in military operations -- by reducing the demand for fuel, diversifying energy supplies and incorporating these considerations into building the future force.
For the report, Sharon E. Burke, assistant secretary of defense for operational energy plans and programs and her team examined the Defense Department budget to see how well energy investment matched these three elements.
“Our first priority with these investments is to improve combat capabilities for our warfighters,” said Burke. “From tactical solar technologies to reduce the need to transport and protect fuel in combat to more efficient aircraft, ship, and combat vehicle engines that let our forces fly, sail, and drive further, the Defense Department is tackling energy use to improve military capability.”
The report is online at: 404 - File or directory not found. .

 

[Reg]

None, based on engine manufacturer's recommendation and fuel supplier's assurances that the lube benefits of sulfur have been taken into account in the ULS blend.

IOW it ain't needed, can be harmful and is in any case a waste of money - unless you are able to believe the additive manufacturer's claims and derive some peace of mind from burning (more) money.

 

[3930dave]

Personally, I don't care if an additive boosts mileage at all; so long as it doesn't decrease mileage, I'm good.

What I've after is longevity, and decreased nuisance (clogged injectors) problems.

This is the diesel fuel filter that came out of my 7.3, changed at the factory interval.



I dose with Stanadyne, at the prescribed rate. Even in your hand, that filter is hard to distinguish from new.

Bought the truck used. The filter that came out was black as coal - same goes for the trucks I see down at my friends commercial garage.

Do the research on veggie oil conversions. One issue commonly encountered when converting an old diesel to veggie, is that a lot of the crud sitting in the system gets flushed - you end up changing fuel filters many times in a short order, till the system gets cleaned out. High bio-diesel concentrations act in the same manner on old diesel fuel systems.

Bio-diesel is very rare in my area, let alone in the high concentrations that exist in parts of the USA. If my diesel additive does nothing else but keep my fuel system spotless, then I consider it money well spent. I change my fuel filters myself, but it's not something I want to have to do when I'm driving through the USA on vacation.

I don't imagine that you see extended -40 temperatures RI way. Anti-gel and cetane boost come in real handy at those temperatures. The point in my ramble here..... not everybody has the same goals for additives.

If one sees no need, of course, don't use 'em .

Despite the photo op nonsense, fuel mileage is not really a top priority for govts. Gas engined cars today basically get the same mileage as my friend's 1978 Rabbit.

Rgds, D.

 

[IslandTractor]

Personally, I don't care if an additive boosts mileage at all; so long as it doesn't decrease mileage, I'm good. What I've after is longevity, and decreased nuisance (clogged injectors) problems. This is the diesel fuel filter that came out of my 7.3, changed at the factory interval. <img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/files/oil-fuel-lubricants/398271-favorite-diesel-fuel-additives-2014-11-12-17-36-a"/> I dose with Stanadyne, at the prescribed rate. Even in your hand, that filter is hard to distinguish from new. Bought the truck used. The filter that came out was black as coal - same goes for the trucks I see down at my friends commercial garage. Do the research on veggie oil conversions. One issue commonly encountered when converting an old diesel to veggie, is that a lot of the crud sitting in the system gets flushed - you end up changing fuel filters many times in a short order, till the system gets cleaned out. High bio-diesel concentrations act in the same manner on old diesel fuel systems. Bio-diesel is very rare in my area, let alone in the high concentrations that exist in parts of the USA. If my diesel additive does nothing else but keep my fuel system spotless, then I consider it money well spent. I change my fuel filters myself, but it's not something I want to have to do when I'm driving through the USA on vacation. I don't imagine that you see extended -40 temperatures RI way. Anti-gel and cetane boost come in real handy at those temperatures. The point in my ramble here..... not everybody has the same goals for additives. If one sees no need, of course, don't use 'em . Despite the photo op nonsense, fuel mileage is not really a top priority for govts. Gas engined cars today basically get the same mileage as my friend's 1978 Rabbit. Rgds, D.

I guess the question for you is what evidence is there that the fuel additive keeps your engine and fuel system more reliable. I can certainly understand that would be a reason to use an additive even if there were no other benefits but 1) other than anecdote what evidence is there and 2) are you sure the additive does no harm?

Again, I think there are many big organizations that have significant interest in engine reliability so the same studies that I mentioned earlier for MPG cloud and should have been done by any company trying to sell additives. If the studies were credible and positive, I think we'd all hear about it.

Anti gelling is an obvious benefit in specific conditions and presumably is easy to demonstrate in the lab. Increases in cetane and lubricity however really need to be backed up by real world controlled testing showing positive effect on performance to be believable.

As for the 1978 Rabbit, US autos, as a group, are considerably more fuel efficient today than in 1978. Pretty sure if you dig out the MPG and performance data you'd see that the 2015 Rabbit is more powerful with better MPG despite being considerably heavier than the 1978.

 

[TomSeller]

Most private organizations have an interest in fuel economy and engine longevity. Most governments in the US have programs driven by political contributions. If political contributions come from those interested in poor fuel economy to sell more fuel to the government, then policies encouraging poor fuel economy will be put in place as long as they are not blatant. If political contributions come from those interested in the replacement of worn out equipment, then government policies will encourage some premature wear.

 

[houstonscott]

Most private organizations have an interest in fuel economy and engine longevity. Most governments in the US have programs driven by political contributions. If political contributions come from those interested in poor fuel economy to sell more fuel to the government, then policies encouraging poor fuel economy will be put in place as long as they are not blatant. If political contributions come from those interested in the replacement of worn out equipment, then government policies will encourage some premature wear.

Right now the environmental left has control and is forcing the military at great expense to develop fuels that are "green", what ever that means. So fuel costs are going to be 10-50 times as expensive just to said to be green. Stupid. HS

 

[IslandTractor]

Most private organizations have an interest in fuel economy and engine longevity. Most governments in the US have programs driven by political contributions. If political contributions come from those interested in poor fuel economy to sell more fuel to the government, then policies encouraging poor fuel economy will be put in place as long as they are not blatant. If political contributions come from those interested in the replacement of worn out equipment, then government policies will encourage some premature wear.

Most governments work under budgets and know that taxpayers don't want to pay more. A government therefore would have an interest in stretching tax dollars as far as they could. Saving 8% on a fuel bill would be quite a large sum in the context of most government budgets. I'd imagine that my town's public works/police/fire depts must use on average at least 20 gallons/vehicle/week times about 50 vehicles. 1000 gallons/week. 50,000gallons/year Close to $200,000 for fuel. Save 8% of that is about $15000 or so each year. That would buy some new equipment or let the town manager crow about what a good manager he was.

More to the point, any additive maker that had data suggesting that a town manager could save $15,000 a year (minus additive cost) would likely be able to make a sale. So why don't they share their convincing data??