Oil & Fuel Diesel fuel additives are so inexpensive to use.

[IslandTractor]

I don't know if you're just being dense on a technicality or really believe the manufacturers and their guidelines. Manufactures inherently will never admit to their products needing anything because their engineering is so advanced they don't need to face a world where variables exist. Fuel in California is different from fuel in Florida and it even changes from winter to summer. Therefore it's not in their best interest to spec for anything because it just creates confusion and they need to be viewed as a superior in the engineering department. The reality is fuel is made to different specifications and that changes from refinery to refinery (cetain levels), however cetain is not my reason for using an additive. The only thing they must conform to is the sulpher content of the fuel. Sulpher is known to provide lubricity for the pump and injectors. It's at a level where the moto is "minimum necessary" to not cause problematic issues. That sets the bar really low and by the time it has an effect, the machine is long past warranty, so why do they care. Fuel pumps and injectors are very critical on a diesel and why would someone want just the minimum necessary to protect those components? I'm not willing to settle for the government telling me that 15% sulpher is adequate for the critical components on my engine, because it's not. Not using no additive will probably get me to 3000 hours, but using an additive might get me to 5000 hours on the injectors and pump. At that time frame it's worth it.

I appreciate your recitation of the party line on fuel additives but where's the data to back it up??? If additives make a 40% difference in engine life then every single trucker and heavy equipment operator would use it. They don't. If there was a 40% difference then there would most certainly be a MilSpec document requiring such additives in all fuel. To my knowledge there isn't.

In the 1960s STP was the gas additive that was similarly touted to prolong engine life and power and mileage. It took decades before STP was proven to be baloney.

Where's the data on diesel lubricity additives? Especially, where's the evidence that it prolongs engine life in the real world?

 

[Snobdds]

I appreciate your recitation of the party line on fuel additives but where's the data to back it up??? If additives make a 40% difference in engine life then every single trucker and heavy equipment operator would use it. They don't. If there was a 40% difference then there would most certainly be a MilSpec document requiring such additives in all fuel. To my knowledge there isn't.

In the 1960s STP was the gas additive that was similarly touted to prolong engine life and power and mileage. It took decades before STP was proven to be baloney.

Where's the data on diesel lubricity additives? Especially, where's the evidence that it prolongs engine life in the real world?

I was trying to say, most people are not savvy enough to understand something beyond the printed material for their specific machine...in a nice way. However I guess it must be said, people are dumb and will only follow what is in their owners manual...written by lawyers and a marketing department. I doubt engineering is ever consulted on such trivial matters. Keep following that owners manuel.

I know Google is working today and there are countless articles on sulpher and lubricity in diesel, no reason to try and debate physics.

And just to clarify your point. Additives do not extend engine life, that's the oil's job. Additives extend fuel pump and injector life. Little bit of a difference there

 

[newbury]

<snip>
I had always understood that the lubrication aspect of the diesel additives were for when running old equipment that was never designed for low sulfur. For example your 1960 Oliver 770 Diesel might need a little help.

I think the ENGINE on the older machines suffer only a little with the reduced lubricity.
The primary area that I've read about is in the HPFP (High Pressure Fuel Pump) with US fuel.

How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating Ability:

Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a device called a 滴igh 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 努ear 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.

source

European diesel fuels have 460 microns as the standard.

Think of it as the difference between #1 gravel and #2 gravel, bigger rocks make bigger scars.

And lo and behold Bosch, the manufacturer of many HPFP's (like in my TDI) built their equipment for Europe.

As I often do, I perused this thread to see if there was knowledge to be had... and you blokes haven't failed me. Lubricity. I had no idea that it was a 'thing', let alone a requirement. So I looked up the diesel fuel that I regularly buy: Diesel

Which led me to see what the Australian standard is for diesel lubricity = 0.460mm (max) : Fuel Quality in Australia - Diesel fuel quality standard

I've never used an additive in my JD 4105's Yanmar donk, nor have I been advised to by either my JD dealership or Mates who run tractors. Winter-wise, the coldest it gets here in Tassie (which is the southern most State, therefore the coldest [excluding mountainous elevations] is a few morning hours at -1C (1 below freezing).

So, I guess what I'm saying/asking is, do I need to consider getting some sort of additive or do the Australian standards 'cover me'? :confused3:

Only if your concerned about algae.

Why wouldn't manufacturers specify the need for a lubricity enhancing additive if their engineers felt that modern low sulfur fuel was inadequate? Why would a major manufacturer design and build a modern diesel that had lubricity requirements that were not provided in modern diesel fuel?

I think the onus is on those who believe additives are necessary, not on those who go along with manufacturers stated fuel requirements (I'm talking about lubricity additives not anti gelling additives).

Because OUR (in the US) MODERN diesel fuel had standards set so the manufacturers could make money.

VW adamantly denied the need for lubricity additives in their Common Rail engine for years. By the time my son's HPFP cratered a few years ago they changed their tune and gave him a bottle of Power Service, and paid the several thousand to fix the car.

I was trying to say, most people are not savvy enough to understand something beyond the printed material for their specific machine...in a nice way. However I guess it must be said, people are dumb and will only follow what is in their owners manual...written by lawyers and a marketing department. I doubt engineering is ever consulted on such trivial matters. Keep following that owners manuel.

I know Google is working today and there are countless articles on sulpher and lubricity in diesel, no reason to try and debate physics.

And just to clarify your point. Additives do not extend engine life, that's the oil's job. Additives extend fuel pump and injector life. Little bit of a difference there

Additive are needed for lubricity in SOME equipment, biocide in some situations, gel prevention in some situations. It's often easier to just add a cuouple of glugs of one that takes care of all to each tank than to try and define what you need exactly at any one time.

 

[crazyal]

40% more life is only relevant when you know what the normal engine life is. I've had diesels with 15k hours on them that still ran fine. They most likely didn't have a pampered life or a rebuild. That would be like 6 hours a day, every day, for over 7 years. With that much use other things are, or have, failed. Those other failures could be terminal for older equipment making it more valuable for salvage parts than repairing. I'm not saying investing in keeping your engine running better is not worthwhile, I'm just thinking that most people might not see the benefits and question the need. Up here you will not use a diesel in the winter without anti-gel.

 

[AxleHub]

I think there is some denial involved if you believe our fuel standards is all that is needed to safe guard an enginebweather gas or diesel.

I can't think of a single person I know who hasn't heard the term "bad gas" relating to a car problem. It happens in good stations and in weak stations because the tank farm could have been the problem or the delivery truck too. And its not just water in the gas. And diesel is no different.

We'd all like to think that each ststion we get diesel is perfect . . But we can't even guarantee our water from the water pipe so whay can we expect from the fuel pump ?

When I startedbthisbthreaf . . It wasn't about convincing people to use additives, it wss about how much the price of those adfitived has fallen in tje ladt 12 months (long after oil prices plummeted).

Living in the Northern part of the U.S. I can't afford to pinch a nickel so I can risk gel up situations or engine/pump issues.

Our fuel has changed in great measure over the last 10 years. Ultra low sulphur and a change in where oil is pulled from the ground has impacted our fuels and refinery's methods and settings.

As for me . . I filter all my diesel that goes into the tractor so I know exactly what the filter is catching. I use adfitives that are cheaper today than they were 1 year ago . . And my scut starts easy andveith very little smoke release at start up. Thinks are good and I use better engine oil than is recommendef too.

Like every doctir I see . . I listen to the manufacturer's recommendations for my scut . . but I don't belueve they are the final word just as doctor's opinions aren't the final word.

Thise who want to save that precious nickel by not using adfitives in their fuels are perfectly welcome to doubt and "conspiracy" everything to themselves . . but don't think that impresses other's opinions so easily.

I choose very selective and limited choices to enhance my engine powered equipment . . and our economy is helping people like me by making it even cheaper to do it at present.

I feel bad for a long haul trucker friend of mine who got some bad diesel and had to have 130 gallons dumped and his tanks cleaned besides. He learned an expensive lesson. 10 years he didn't have a problem but the 11th year he did.

 

[CalG]

I feel bad for a long haul trucker friend of mine who got some bad diesel and had to have 130 gallons dumped and his tanks cleaned besides. He learned an expensive lesson. 10 years he didn't have a problem but the 11th year he did.

If only he had used an additive... any additive. After all, fuel treatment is fuel treatment. And it's so cheap. I wonder why the long haul trucker hadn't been using something prior to this tragic event?

 

[Sawyer Rob]

The trend I see here is people that live in warm weather climates don't see a need for additives. People in cold weather climates use additivates.

I've lived in a cold climate my whole life including Alaska...

No additive needed, as long as you buy "winter diesel" in the first place...

I've driven all over the US in the winter, including the NE, bought all my fuel at gas stations, never had gelling problems...

SR

 

[IslandTractor]

If only he had used an additive... any additive. After all, fuel treatment is fuel treatment. And it's so cheap. I wonder why the long haul trucker hadn't been using something prior to this tragic event?

What is a fuel additive going to do to fix a bad tank of diesel contaminated with junk and water???

 

[AxleHub]

What is a fuel additive going to do to fix a bad tank of diesel contaminated with junk and water???

Well a couple things come to mind:

1. An additive that acts as a "dryer" for water.

2. An additive that helps correct algae issues.

Like gelling issues . . an additive can help it from developing or help it from accelerating. That's also true with either 1. Or 2.

 

[IslandTractor]

Well a couple things come to mind: 1. An additive that acts as a "dryer" for water. 2. An additive that helps correct algae issues. Like gelling issues . . an additive can help it from developing or help it from accelerating. That's also true with either 1. Or 2.

Methanol or ethanol will absorb small amounts of water like what happens when water vapor in a fuel tank condenses but cannot clear large volumes of water that might be dispensed from a bad load of fuel. I had one 5 gallon can of fuel from a service area that contained almost a full gallon of water. No additives will clear that.

Additives can prevent growth of algae but cannot clear it once the algae bloom has clogged up the fuel. Only filtration can clear debris.

I still don't think any additives would have saved that trucker from what was clearly a tank of bad fuel.