Favorite Diesel Fuel Additives

[Buggs67]

With proven F-18F flyaway at $61 million today and the problematic F-35 topping $100million a copy someday when in production. Then the higher overhead for the F-35 over it's lifetime vs the F-18F. It's a no brainer. Pro.........

Off topic?

 

[3930dave]

OK, I'll risk going back On Topic..... Well, at least much closer......

Question - Of the Anti-Additive Flat Earthers hanging out in this thread, how many of you presently Own and maintain a road-going (meaning non-Ag equipment) Diesel ?

Bonus Question - how long do you plan on owning same ?

Rgds, D.

 

[IslandTractor]

OK, I'll risk going back On Topic..... Well, at least much closer......

Question - Of the Anti-Additive Flat Earthers hanging out in this thread, how many of you presently Own and maintain a road-going (meaning non-Ag equipment) Diesel ?

Bonus Question - how long do you plan on owning same ?

Rgds, D.

Well, I guess you would consider me a "flat earther" so I'll respond. I don't currently own a road going diesel. But I can read and I do value objective experimental evidence and discount anecdotal evidence. What I read is that companies like Cummins (I do believe they produce at least a few road-going diesels) specifically recommends against using additives. I read that BMW specifically recommends against consumer additives and at least for some diesel models has a sticker on the fuel door telling you not to add anything to the fuel. I can also "read" the utter lack of compelling experimental data on either MPG or longevity published in reputable engineering journals to support the claims of additive makers. One popular additive claims 8% improvement in MPG? Do you believe that? Why? Do you generally just accept uncritically or with anecdotal evidence the marketing claims of business? If so, PT Barnum has something he'd like to sell you.

 

[buickanddeere]

One of the primary problems with the M4 Sherman was a thick headed pr1ck General Lesley Jame McNair . He fought against upgunning the Sherman with the 17pounder . Which made the Sherman capable of penetrating every German tank from any angle except a sloped area of the turrent on a Panther iirc?
McNair's stubberness delayed the end of the European war and cost countless lives.

 

[Buggs67]

One of the primary problems with the M4 Sherman was a thick headed pr1ck General Lesley Jame McNair . He fought against upgunning the Sherman with the 17pounder . Which made the Sherman capable of penetrating every German tank from any angle except a sloped area of the turrent on a Panther iirc?
McNair's stubberness delayed the end of the European war and cost countless lives.

I'm interested in history and every time I see or read about how inferior the gun on the Sherman was I wonder.What was in it for who? More a business decision than an equipment decision? I've read that it was a 4-1 ratio, i.e. it took 4 Shermans to eliminate a German. Lots of dead tankers. (Now I'm off topic. Sorry)

 

[buickanddeere]

The field reports early on in the Sherman history requested more firepower. There was however a classic "military type" by the name of Lieutenant General Lesley James Mcnair who went to great effort to actively prevent Sherman main gun upgrades. Mcnair had a couple of new tanks in mind and did not want to invest and time or money into something that could turn out better than his long delayed projects. McNair had also caused grief by his new recruit training program and individual replacement program. He was killed July 25th 1944 by "friendly fire" , an irony. Fortunately Several officers and influential persons were actively working on Sherman main gun upgrades even when told not to.

 

[3930dave]

Well, I guess you would consider me a "flat earther" so I'll respond. I don't currently own a road going diesel. But I can read and I do value objective experimental evidence and discount anecdotal evidence. What I read is that companies like Cummins (I do believe they produce at least a few road-going diesels) specifically recommends against using additives. I read that BMW specifically recommends against consumer additives and at least for some diesel models has a sticker on the fuel door telling you not to add anything to the fuel. I can also "read" the utter lack of compelling experimental data on either MPG or longevity published in reputable engineering journals to support the claims of additive makers. One popular additive claims 8% improvement in MPG? Do you believe that? Why? Do you generally just accept uncritically or with anecdotal evidence the marketing claims of business? If so, PT Barnum has something he'd like to sell you.

One of the reasons I asked that was Fuel Quality. If you have a good local supplier, then it's fairly easy to stock your tractor with decent fuel. Unless you are pulling a tanker, you have no choice but to deal with variable fuel supplies while driving long distance.

But I can read and I do value objective experimental evidence and discount anecdotal evidence.

It's not clear to me to what extent you have worked on fuel systems. Did you understand the significance of what I posted in #116 ?

What I read is that companies like Cummins (I do believe they produce at least a few road-going diesels) specifically recommends against using additives. I read that BMW specifically recommends against consumer additives and at least for some diesel models has a sticker on the fuel door telling you not to add anything to the fuel.

Perhaps not BMW, but Cummins would have been signatory to the EMA letter calling for a lower wear-scar limit in diesel fuel than what Big Oil bought in Washington. Do you understand the technical significance of this trade-off ?

There are bad practices still out there today. I for one, would never dump ATF into a fuel system; but there are people that still persist in dumping ATF into $100,000+++ machines. Organizations and many individuals like simple, lowest-common-denominator rules. Mostly, corporations are run by Finance and Legal Depts - They alone have enough clout to drive a No Additives edict, attaining the Lowest-Common-Denominator ease of warranty denial.

I can also "read" the utter lack of compelling experimental data on either MPG or longevity published in reputable engineering journals to support the claims of additive makers.

Nothing wrong with "reading", it is ONE source of useful information, and I do quite a bit of it myself. But, I also do my share of wrenching, and talking directly (in the real world) with diesel mechanics and injector repair shops.

Speaking of reading - Did you read what I've already posted ? I have zero expectation/requirement for MPG increase ! As long as an additive does not decrease my mileage, I DON'T CARE !

If you insist.... let's break that down...... Do you understand how life tests are done ? A manufacturer will use calibrated reference fuel, from a top tier supplier. Perhaps you do, but I don't have access to that kind of fuel. Lab tests and real world performance often differ.

Do you understand how injector performance degrades with deposit formation ? While some additives will change the combustion characteristics of fuel, mileage claims (again - which I don't care about) mostly relate to cleaning action. If you use an additive on a brand new vehicle, will you see a magic 5mpg increase ? Of course not. Put 130,000 miles on that same engine with varying quality fuel sources - chances are there are mpg affecting deposits in place that need cleaning.

One popular additive claims 8% improvement in MPG? Do you believe that? Why? Do you generally just accept uncritically or with anecdotal evidence the marketing claims of business? If so, PT Barnum has something he'd like to sell you.

There are other good additives out there, but to name one..... Do you understand what business Stanadyne is in ? The are a huge supplier of fuel injection hardware components. Do you honestly think they would jeopardize their profits in that business sector and risk long-term damage to their reputation by supplying additives that would cause harm to injection systems, or at best Do Nothing ?

Some people (like the OP) are looking for ways to improve the longevity and reliabiltiy of the expensive machines they own. I've done my research, made my choices, paid attention to the results I've achieved, and been happy with the performance of what I've used for additives.

I've worked in and with a lot of technical organizations. Out of all those people, I'd only put 5 of them on a Trusted list. And, even they only get Trust, but Verify. So No, I'm not an Easy Sell.

Some people hang out in threads like this to Listen, Think, and Learn. Other people show up with different agendas.

Between the Schizophrenic Thread Drifting, and the Non-Listening-Rhetoric-Spouting-Aspersion-Casting that's going on here, I dropped out of this thread for a while. Probably will again, as it's reminding me too much of the FP forum, instead of a technical one.

Rgds, D.

 

[3930dave]

I'm interested in history and every time I see or read about how inferior the gun on the Sherman was I wonder.What was in it for who? More a business decision than an equipment decision? I've read that it was a 4-1 ratio, i.e. it took 4 Shermans to eliminate a German. Lots of dead tankers. (Now I'm off topic. Sorry)

Resistance is Futile.

:laughing: Rgds, D.

 

[IslandTractor]

One of the reasons I asked that was Fuel Quality. If you have a good local supplier, then it's fairly easy to stock your tractor with decent fuel. Unless you are pulling a tanker, you have no choice but to deal with variable fuel supplies while driving long distance.

But I can read and I do value objective experimental evidence and discount anecdotal evidence.

It's not clear to me to what extent you have worked on fuel systems. Did you understand the significance of what I posted in #116 ?

What I read is that companies like Cummins (I do believe they produce at least a few road-going diesels) specifically recommends against using additives. I read that BMW specifically recommends against consumer additives and at least for some diesel models has a sticker on the fuel door telling you not to add anything to the fuel.

Perhaps not BMW, but Cummins would have been signatory to the EMA letter calling for a lower wear-scar limit in diesel fuel than what Big Oil bought in Washington. Do you understand the technical significance of this trade-off ?

There are bad practices still out there today. I for one, would never dump ATF into a fuel system; but there are people that still persist in dumping ATF into $100,000+++ machines. Organizations and many individuals like simple, lowest-common-denominator rules. Mostly, corporations are run by Finance and Legal Depts - They alone have enough clout to drive a No Additives edict, attaining the Lowest-Common-Denominator ease of warranty denial.

I can also "read" the utter lack of compelling experimental data on either MPG or longevity published in reputable engineering journals to support the claims of additive makers.

Nothing wrong with "reading", it is ONE source of useful information, and I do quite a bit of it myself. But, I also do my share of wrenching, and talking directly (in the real world) with diesel mechanics and injector repair shops.

Speaking of reading - Did you read what I've already posted ? I have zero expectation/requirement for MPG increase ! As long as an additive does not decrease my mileage, I DON'T CARE !

If you insist.... let's break that down...... Do you understand how life tests are done ? A manufacturer will use calibrated reference fuel, from a top tier supplier. Perhaps you do, but I don't have access to that kind of fuel. Lab tests and real world performance often differ.

Do you understand how injector performance degrades with deposit formation ? While some additives will change the combustion characteristics of fuel, mileage claims (again - which I don't care about) mostly relate to cleaning action. If you use an additive on a brand new vehicle, will you see a magic 5mpg increase ? Of course not. Put 130,000 miles on that same engine with varying quality fuel sources - chances are there are mpg affecting deposits in place that need cleaning.

One popular additive claims 8% improvement in MPG? Do you believe that? Why? Do you generally just accept uncritically or with anecdotal evidence the marketing claims of business? If so, PT Barnum has something he'd like to sell you.

There are other good additives out there, but to name one..... Do you understand what business Stanadyne is in ? The are a huge supplier of fuel injection hardware components. Do you honestly think they would jeopardize their profits in that business sector and risk long-term damage to their reputation by supplying additives that would cause harm to injection systems, or at best Do Nothing ?

Some people (like the OP) are looking for ways to improve the longevity and reliabiltiy of the expensive machines they own. I've done my research, made my choices, paid attention to the results I've achieved, and been happy with the performance of what I've used for additives.

I've worked in and with a lot of technical organizations. Out of all those people, I'd only put 5 of them on a Trusted list. And, even they only get Trust, but Verify. So No, I'm not an Easy Sell.

Some people hang out in threads like this to Listen, Think, and Learn. Other people show up with different agendas.

Between the Schizophrenic Thread Drifting, and the Non-Listening-Rhetoric-Spouting-Aspersion-Casting that's going on here, I dropped out of this thread for a while. Probably will again, as it's reminding me too much of the FP forum, instead of a technical one.

Rgds, D.

We are not really that far off in our opinions. I am fully aware that for certain purposes, gelling obviously and lubricity too, that there could well be value in additives especially when you have no control over your fuel source. Based on word of mouth advice here, I added 2 stroke oil to my tractor fuel for a while. Seemed reasonable. Cost was no biggie and I didn't see any harm.

The two areas that interest me most with regard to additive claims are their effects on longevity of the engine (and maintenance) and especially the claims on increased power or efficiency (MPG). Those are the areas that seem ripe for controlled studies to prove the claims and, as I noted earlier, I can find virtually nothing but anecdotal claims to bolster the manufacturer's claims. I appreciate that you are not making MPG claims (but some otherwise very well trusted TBN members are). The MPG claim just seems like such a trivial problem to prove or disprove that I am shocked there isn't any really good data on it. Why would an additive company not do such a study with a well recognized independent research organization? If the claims were proven they would markedly increase sales. They could use the data to lobby governments to require their additive in fuel. The benefits to the manufacturer of a scientifically proven enhancement of efficiency or power are simply HUGE, so why aren't those simple studies done? I am a skeptic and I believe they probably have been done but do not come close to supporting the manufacturer's claims and therefore are burying in a desk somewhere.

Longevity of engine life and lowered maintenance costs (fuel injectors etc) are also areas that have huge economic implications for individuals, companies and indeed the world. If routine use of a specific additive can be shown to decrease maintenance costs by even ten percent I would imagine everyone would adopt such an additive. So why isn't there "hard" data available to back up the claims of the additive companies? You raised Stanadyne as an example. I know bupkis about Stanadyne (or injectors) but why wouldn't a big company like that do longevity studies and publish them? Measuring lubricity gives you a laboratory number but not a real world outcome of importance. The wear index used in measuring lubricity has I am sure been standardized but what is the correlation between lubricity and real world wear? Is highly lubricating fuel any better than a fuel that has medium lubricity? Is there a cut off after which enhancing lubricity does not further good (and might cause unintended bad things)? Or, is lubricity the single most important factor in engine life and "more is better"?

I'm just arguing that DATA not anecdotes or "experience" should be the ultimate driver of decisions regarding whether to use and which additive to use. I come at this issue not as a diesel mechanic or owner of a fleet of diesel vehicles. I am basically applying the "evidence based practice" model that is standard for virtually every decision in my professional field to this decision making process. I think that "evidence based" standard can and should fit to resolve this issue.

 

[nova3930]

One of the primary problems with the M4 Sherman was a thick headed pr1ck General Lesley Jame McNair . He fought against upgunning the Sherman with the 17pounder . Which made the Sherman capable of penetrating every German tank from any angle except a sloped area of the turrent on a Panther iirc?
McNair's stubberness delayed the end of the European war and cost countless lives.

Whats worse is the Brits had already done all the design work, it just had to be rolled into our production lines. They sank the upgunned M4 along with delaying the M-26 Pershing with it's 90mm gun. Either one would have been a game changer.

I'm interested in history and every time I see or read about how inferior the gun on the Sherman was I wonder.What was in it for who? More a business decision than an equipment decision? I've read that it was a 4-1 ratio, i.e. it took 4 Shermans to eliminate a German. Lots of dead tankers. (Now I'm off topic. Sorry)

They didn't want to slow down production. The low velocity 75mm gun had been adequate in North Africa even with some encounters with Tigers. Based on some faulty intelligence on the number of Tigers in German inventory, the brass decided that the high velocity 76mm upgrade would be more than sufficient in Europe. Even after they encountered more Panthers and Tigers in Europe, faulty testing indicated that the 76 could penetrate their armor consistently. They never even testing the 76 against captured Panthers. The 76 was effective against Panzer IIIs and IVs but was still inadequate against Panthers and Tigers.

Their decision to stop the Sherman upgunning and delay the M-26 production cost untold numbers of tankers their lives....

The field reports early on in the Sherman history requested more firepower. There was however a classic "military type" by the name of Lieutenant General Lesley James Mcnair who went to great effort to actively prevent Sherman main gun upgrades. Mcnair had a couple of new tanks in mind and did not want to invest and time or money into something that could turn out better than his long delayed projects. McNair had also caused grief by his new recruit training program and individual replacement program. He was killed July 25th 1944 by "friendly fire" , an irony. Fortunately Several officers and influential persons were actively working on Sherman main gun upgrades even when told not to.

He was the prime culprit but Gen Devers had a hand in the issues too. He insisted the Brit 17lber be compared against the US 90mm in development, even though a 17lber could fit in the existing turret whereas the 90mm could not. Total apples to oranges and a classic case of "perfect being the enemy of good enough."

Devers also has the dinstinction of ordering all Shermans used overseas to be powered by gasoline, with the associated effects a highly flammable fuel has when subjected to ordinance.....