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

[Snobdds]

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.

That is an absolute extreme example to try and correlate to normal conditions. A person could go an entire lifetime and never experience such a situation.

If a station is dispensing fuel with that much water in it...it will destroy new common rail diesels with HPFP rather quick. That station is a litigation lawyers bread and butter, once they figured out how many motors water in fuel destroyed.

 

[IslandTractor]

That is an absolute extreme example to try and correlate to normal conditions. A person could go an entire lifetime and never experience such a situation. If a station is dispensing fuel with that much water in it...it will destroy new common rail diesels with HPFP rather quick. That station is a litigation lawyers bread and butter, once they figured out how many motors water in fuel destroyed.

I agree but my response was to a comment claiming that a trucker with engine damage due to a bad tank of fuel would have been saved if he'd only used additives. Debate continues on whether engine longevity is affected but I think it is fair to state unequivocally that additives will not protect an engine from a truly bad tank of fuel.

 

[AxleHub]

I agree but my response was to a comment claiming that a trucker with engine damage due to a bad tank of fuel would have been saved if he'd only used additives. Debate continues on whether engine longevity is affected but I think it is fair to state unequivocally that additives will not protect an engine from a truly bad tank of fuel.

Whete did inever state "engine damage" ?? Your response was to my example and you created a far greater severity than my statement. My example was a semi truckers tanks had to be dumped and cleaned and filters changed. Nothing about engine damaged.

 

[IslandTractor]

Whete did inever state "engine damage" ?? Your response was to my example and you created a far greater severity than my statement. My example was a semi truckers tanks had to be dumped and cleaned and filters changed. Nothing about engine damaged.

Ok my bad. But, fuel additives would not have changed anything for the trucker so what was your point?

 

[daugen]

I guess I'm very lucky. Less than a mile away is a little corner grocery store/grill with gas pumps. The end pump is 93 octane ethanol free, and I just filled up my five gallon can yesterday for $2.69 a gallon. Yes, I can buy regular unleaded for 50 cents less per gallon. But this place pumps a ton of this gas to landscapers.

My import car repair place was very familiar with VW's and other make's problems with gas common rail injection systems. I was told that as low as 50 or 60k miles the fuel pump and other parts are failing allegedly due to our gas. VW has enough problems with their diesels; now they and other Euro makes are having problems, maybe because Bosch makes all their fuel pumps.

JD seems to want moly in their greases btw; I asked. I tried their nice green grease, clashed horribly with my Kubota's orange...

Having owned large diesel engines in a boat, and having been a yacht broker for three years in Ft Lauderdale learning for sure the realities of diesel engine
ownership, everyone down South uses additives for algae. Biobor is sold everywhere. I always used Power Service and my old 8V71TI's absolutely smoked less when using additives. And started immediately. So I became an additive believer. We have no control over what is really in the tank of fuel being delivered to us. The station gets it from a supplier and often that fuel is bought due to low price. And delivered in tankers with no names on the side. And since the industry has no self imposed watchdogs (who is testing this stuff to make sure it meets spec and then publicize the results, continually), we have no idea what additives have already been added, and yes, if they have, adding more is likely an utter waste of time and money. But we don't know, and we don't want the potential downside, so we use them. And they don't hurt anything it appears if you use too much. So at least there is potential upside and no apparent downside, particularly as the cost of the additives is remarkably coming down.

somewhere I read that adding kerosene to diesel was an original additive.

Let's all remember that what is needed in Miami is likely not what is needed in Bar Harbor.

 

[AxleHub]

Ok my bad. But, fuel additives would not have changed anything for the trucker so what was your point?

I had previously written:

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.


"My Point" is that haf my trucker friend been using additives - it would havevstopped algae from getying started. It also would have reduced moisture in his tanks.

It is not reasonable to think that "a load of bad fuel" is limited to only one truck being affected . . As no others had the reaction he did when he added only 50 gallons and ithers added much more. But it is
reasonable to believe that a small problem in the fuel
When added to an exisying issue in his tanks . . Was the trigger for the problem.

Again "My Point" is . . had he been using additives already . . His tanks could have been healthy enough to not be so effected by the added fuel.

Additives are imo a very small investment in keeping the system strong and capable of absorbing an occasional weak fuel situation. Which is why I quoted above and from my previous postings that

"an additive can help it from developing or help it from accelerating."

 

[IslandTractor]

I had previously written:

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.


"My Point" is that haf my trucker friend been using additives - it would havevstopped algae from getying started. It also would have reduced moisture in his tanks.

It is not reasonable to think that "a load of bad fuel" is limited to only one truck being affected . . As no others had the reaction he did when he added only 50 gallons and ithers added much more. But it is
reasonable to believe that a small problem in the fuel
When added to an exisying issue in his tanks . . Was the trigger for the problem.

Again "My Point" is . . had he been using additives already . . His tanks could have been healthy enough to not be so effected by the added fuel.

Additives are imo a very small investment in keeping the system strong and capable of absorbing an occasional weak fuel situation. Which is why I quoted above and from my previous postings that

"an additive can help it from developing or help it from accelerating."

You are bouncing around here. You stated in your original post about your trucker friend that he got a bad load of fuel. I presume that means a tank of fuel contaminated with sufficient water and debris to affect engine performance as he had to have the fuel pumped out. No additive would have changed that scenario at all. Algae is not a problem for long haul truckers who go through a tank of fuel in a day. Algae is a big problem for boaters and perhaps for other situations where fuel sits in warm temperatures for months before being consumed. Additives do nothing to protect a tank or make it "healthy enough not to be effected (sic) by the added fuel". If you dump 50 gallons of contaminated fuel into a 130 gallon tank of fuel, you have 130 gallons of contaminated fuel regardless of what additives you put in. The only way to clear the fuel is to "polish" it by passing it multiple times through filters.

You are simply dreaming if you think additives will have any impact on a seriously contaminated load of fuel oil. If additives did protect the way you wish they did, the additive manufacturers would be marketing exactly that and have demonstrations of bad fuel being added without consequence. Doesn't happen. Biocides are important for fuel that sits for a long time especially in warm climates. Biocides do not clear algae from fuel they can only prevent them from growing. Drying agents can help for the same reason if fuel isn't consumed regularly and just collects condensation but drying agents cannot handle even 1-2% water in contaminated fuel. Anti gelling can help in very cold climates though winter fuel is generally adequate.

I personally am still dubious about the lubricity claims as there haven't been any outcome data from any reliable source published to my knowledge. I do agree that is an open question but think the onus is on the additive manufacturers to demonstrate real world benefits not simply lab results. All the rest of the claims about additives are simply marketing hype swallowed by the consumer as best I can tell. Perhaps there is some milspec out there that shows otherwise but I find it very hard to believe that the military wouldn't demand these aftermarket additives if they had been shown to improve reliability and durability. In fact it would be shocking if they ignored something easy to do that would improve combat readiness or survivability in battle. I'd imagine that big fleet owners like UPS or FedEx would similarly have well known policies about additives. I haven't heard that any of them do. It seems mostly independent truckers and individual diesel owners who buy into the aftermarket additive claims. And those are exactly the folks who have the least access to real engineering data and cost benefit analysis. Maybe someone can provide real evidence to the contrary but I've never seen it.

 

[Turbys_1700]

I run Power Service in my Ford 4610 SU because I ran it in my New Holland 1720. Like Daugen stated cold is not necessarily the issue here in NC but the possibility of bad diesel is. Algae can happen in units that are not used regularly like boats and such. Does it help? Never had an issue. Would I have had an issue without using it? Don't know.

Ford did not specify SCA additives for their engines in the 70's. When some of them developed cavitation issues then they recommended it. Just because a manufacturer does not recommend a specific treatment does not mean it is not needed. Ford later updated the blocks on those engines to deal with cavitation but still recommend SCA's which I use in my 4610.

 

[IslandTractor]

I run Power Service in my Ford 4610 SU because I ran it in my New Holland 1720. Like Daugen stated cold is not necessarily the issue here in NC but the possibility of bad diesel is. Algae can happen in units that are not used regularly like boats and such. Does it help? Never had an issue. Would I have had an issue without using it? Don't know.

Ford did not specify SCA additives for their engines in the 70's. When some of them developed cavitation issues then they recommended it. Just because a manufacturer does not recommend a specific treatment does not mean it is not needed. Ford later updated the blocks on those engines to deal with cavitation but still recommend SCA's which I use in my 4610.

The SCA additive story is interesting but shows these things can be double edged swords when insufficient data is available. People who added SCA additives to red coolant actually made matters worse for their engines.

I understand the argument that "just because a manufacturer does not recommend a specific treatment does not mean it is not needed". There is some truth to that but it is also very dangerous territory. I hear the same sort of argument from health food advocates all the time. "Just because the FDA says you only need X amount of a vitamin doesn't mean that more isn't better". But in fact, using the vitamin analogy, there are other considerations. Consuming excess vitamins, like vitamin C, that are water soluble is no problem because the excess is simply pee'd out within a few hours and does neither good nor harm. On the other hand, oil soluble vitamins can actually cause severe disease in large quantities. Vitamin A overdoses can kill you. Point is that "just because the manufacturer doesn't recommend it" is only half the information you need. You also need to know what the potential downside is.

With diesel additives the downside seems limited to loss of the additive cost so I understand why people are comfortable using them. Placebos make people feel good and so long as they don't do harm it's difficult to argue strongly against them.

Too bad we don't have an FDA like organization that screens additive company claims and requires hard data of both efficacy and safety before marketing.

 

[LD1]

I always wonder how something diluted at a 400 to 1 ratio can do anything other than,,,

Have wondered the same thing about other products. Like herbicides and 2-4d, roundup, etc and all that other stuff that gets sprayed on fields that is heavily diluted. Always wondered how that worked.....but it just does.

As to the diesel issue.......the general consensus from many in the field that I have talked to is that if you always use fresh fuel, there is little to worry about with a modern diesel.

IF you live in a climate that varies like mine, and we have both winter and summer diesel available depending on the time of the year.....and you have a bulk storage tank that lasts several months. Then the need for a winter additive is a real concern at times.

As is algae if you have untreated fuel left sitting.

My truck holds 35 gallons. It gets used to haul my tractor in the summer for business, and used for plowing snow in the winter. Depending on the jobs, and the snowfall, its not uncommon to go 3-months between fill ups. Thus algae is a real concern.

I purchased my 5.9L cummins truck at 70k miles about 6 years ago. it currently has 95k miles. What I assume was the OEM pump, went out at 85k miles. 1.5 years and 8k miles later, the bosch CP3 went out again. It was sent in for warranty evaluation and denied due to contamination.

Its easy to point a finger at poor fuel.....but what the h3ll is a guy supposed to do? How can one prove poor fuel when you use several different stations? And these are all large truck-stop type stations? Dont notice all the big trucks breaking down as a result. So I have to trust that the fuel company has their ***** together and the issue is with ME and not driving often enough to always ensure fresh fuel in there. (and yes, I keep the fuel filter changed every year, which is ~6k miles. and about 4-5 times a year I flip the lever to drain any water out of the bottom of the filter bowl).

Weather additives work or not, I have no idea. But every single company that rebuilds these bosch pumps that I have talked to all said I need to run some type of algacide at the very least. So for less than 10 cents per gallon, thats what I do. If it dont work....its not like it put me in the poor house. And if it does work, it will save me a few $1000 injector pumps every 25k miles, it was money very well spent.

 

[Turbys_1700]

Point well taken Island...
I don't think "Red Antifreeze" was available back in the late 70's...
The gentleman that I purchased my 4610 from last year had just replaced the water pump...
Added regular "Green Antifreeze"...
I asked if he had added any SCA's and he said no...
So I added them...
Most farmers back in the day only used regular antifreeze thus the need for SCA's...
The advanced formulas that we have today were not available back then...
Ford did correct that issue with the newer block design...

 

[rswyan]

... 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.

Are you sure it was a STP gas additive ... or was, in fact, STP Oil Treatment that you are referring to ?

Personally, I think you are either mistaken ... or playing a little loose with the actual facts of the matter.

Truth is, back in the day, the original product (STP Oil Treatment) did exactly what it was intended to do: help engine oil resist thinning at high temperatures and pressures ...

Of course, that was well before the highly-engineered motor oils that we have today even existed.

Like most such additives, it was never intended to be a "Miracle-In-A-Can" ... but was a legitimate product with a valid purpose.

What ultimately happened was that the company changed hands a number of times, and eventually there were some dubious claims made - that had no supporting scientific evidence or studies to back them up - as to what the original product would do - which were well beyond what it's original purpose was.

That ended up as a matter before the Federal Trade Commission ... and the product's then owner (Beatrice Foods) eventually agreed to settle for $888,000.00.

U.S. Settlement Reached on STP Oil Ads - NYTimes.com

As far as I know, there was never any controversy surrounding their fuel additives ... and in fact, as late as 2006, Marathon Oil was using STP fuel additives in their gasoline, likely in answer to Chevron's "Techron" additive ...

 

[daugen]

Too bad we don't have an FDA like organization that screens additive company claims and requires hard data of both efficacy and safety before marketing.

The Bureau of Snake Oil Testing?

Might we all agree on:
it makes sense to add a water dispersing additive in high condensation low usage situations? (as well as external filters for sure)
it makes sense to add an antigel in the far North if the fuel bought is not already treated?
it makes sense to add a lubricity additive if Bosch's minimum standard is higher than what is regularly available here?
it may not make sense any other time...

I think it's fair to gauge this based on current Tier II through IV engines, not something made thirty years ago. Lot of us with modern Kubotas...
now I wonder if my fuel pump is a Bosch or a Denso...I'm sure someone knows. Though I think I remember reading that Kubota does not recommend additives,
nor does it condemn them. I believe the latest Kubota engines are common rail though mine isn't. Now I'm glad I bought a Tier II. My Massey is also a Tier II.

And what about what goes up the exhaust and into one of those catalytic converters or reburners or whatever high temp exhaust device is being used?
Combine BlueDef with your favorite additive chemical and you get? Probably nothing, water vapor, but stuff doesn't disappear...just smaller ppm floating around unless truly incinerated. Your tractor is what it eats... and so is our air. One sure hopes one has carefully tested the exhaust smoke toxicity of fuel additives. Low concentrations but so is cyanide.

I'm sure it's just fine. I believe all those manufacturers are careful.

Only way I know to get water out is to polish/filter it (everyone has an Alfa Laval centrifuge in their barn, right?), burn it out if in low enough quantities, or pump and clean the tank. Maybe an additive might help in the second situation.

 

[daugen]

btw Axlehub thanks for bringing this whole thing up. Now I might stock up a bit while prices are lower.
Of course that then begs the question of what is the shelf life of this stuff.

 

[IslandTractor]

Are you sure it was a STP gas additive ... or was, in fact, STP Oil Treatment that you are referring to ?

Personally, I think you are either mistaken ... or playing a little loose with the actual facts of the matter.

Truth is, back in the day, the original product (STP Oil Treatment) did exactly what it was intended to do: help engine oil resist thinning at high temperatures and pressures ...

Of course, that was well before the highly-engineered motor oils that we have today even existed.

Like most such additives, it was never intended to be a "Miracle-In-A-Can" ... but was a legitimate product with a valid purpose.

What ultimately happened was that the company changed hands a number of times, and eventually there were some dubious claims made - that had no supporting scientific evidence or studies to back them up - as to what the original product would do - which were well beyond what it's original purpose was.

That ended up as a matter before the Federal Trade Commission ... and the product's then owner (Beatrice Foods) eventually agreed to settle for $888,000.00.

U.S. Settlement Reached on STP Oil Ads - NYTimes.com

As far as I know, there was never any controversy surrounding their fuel additives ... and in fact, as late as 2006, Marathon Oil was using STP fuel additives in their gasoline, likely in answer to Chevron's "Techron" additive ...

You are correct, I was thinking about the oil additive and the unproven marketing claims.

It comes back to my earlier point about the need for an FDA like organization (or UL or Consumer Reports) that would do objective validated testing of marketing claims before products hit the shelves. We do have a buyer beware culture in this country but there should be someplace reliable to look for objective data to compare to the sham wow and Barnum and Bailey marketing claims that fly around. These fuel additives are probably a billion dollar business. I'd sure like to think that consumers are getting what they think they are paying for. I see no reason why a company that sells $100 million worth of product cannot be subjected to requirements to validate their claims. We got the FDA during Teddy Roosevelt's administration (I think it was his administration) because of untested snake oil sales that actually did harm as well as ripping off the public. The FDA does a pretty good job of keeping worthless medication and outrageous marketing claims under control. I don't need a nanny state but do need trustworthy outcomes data to back up marketing claims. I simply don't trust the companies themselves to do that and I don't think that lab tests (like for lubricity) are meaningful until somebody shows there is a real world correlation.

 

[IslandTractor]

btw Axlehub thanks for bringing this whole thing up. Now I might stock up a bit while prices are lower.
Of course that then begs the question of what is the shelf life of this stuff.

Voodoo additives have an unlimited shelf life!

 

[AxleHub]

"it makes sense to add a water dispersing additive "

"it makes sense to add an antigel in the far North if the fuel bought is not already treated"

"it makes sense to add a lubricity additive"

"Only way I know to get water out is to polish/filter it, burn it out if in low enough quantities, or pump and clean the tank. Maybe an additive might help in the second situation."

Daugen, I whittled down to "the pearls of reason" on some of the things we agree on.

Like the water supply systems in many parts of our country . . there are now more small little pieces and parts of piping or tank debris flowing with the water. Same is true with fuel supplies. So a year ago I started using a Mr. Funnel which I used to laugh at until I saw it work. I now use them for my scut, my lawn tractor, my small engines, generator, etc.. if properly used they separate out water and debris.

And I've started reading labeling on additives more too. As an example, Power Services is a well recognized name for several products. I noted that their standard product labeling mentions it is to be used when colder conditions exist (32 ° F or lower) . . but to useva different product they offer in warmer climates and conditions).

My point . . like you were making . . is doing things that are reasonable. I know my trucker friend who had to dump his tanks and have someone clean them asked the service technician how bad was it and for recommendations and he now uses a couple inexpensive additives as recommended.

The point is . . most problems are cumulative . . not sudden. And additives used properly . . are designed for cumulative problem solving . . . just like filters (Mr. Funnel) are. I see my tractor fuel filter as backup protection . . not my "primary protection" . . because its so easy and fast to filter my fuel and much more visual to judge who my suppliers are the better choices.

 

[daugen]

I remember using Slick 50 (?) when it came out. Added teflon or something slippery.
Nothing broke, nor did it improve....

Is there any downside to adding antigel chemicals when you don't need them? It gets below freezing here, but not for long nor very often. Did hit 9 degrees last winter, but seriously unlikely I'll be out in my tractor then, unless it's a storm and trees are down. Then it had darn well better start.

 

[AxleHub]

I remember using Slick 50 (?) when it came out. Added teflon or something slippery.
Nothing broke, nor did it improve....

Is there any downside to adding antigel chemicals when you don't need them? It gets below freezing here, but not for long nor very often. Did hit 9 degrees last winter, but seriously unlikely I'll be out in my tractor then, unless it's a storm and trees are down. Then it had darn well better start.

1. Slick 50. Remember it . . I still use it occasionally. Its especially beneficial for those who don't check their oil levels often and run low. Saved my wife a new engine.

And for 10 bucks once every 12 ton18 months you get a free warranty. I knowcsomeoneveho collected on it.

2. Power Service has several products. One of them is good for your needs and benefit.

 

[IslandTractor]

1. Slick 50. Remember it . . I still use it occasionally. Its especially beneficial for those who don't check their oil levels often and run low. Saved my wife a new engine. And for 10 bucks once every 12 ton18 months you get a free warranty. I knowcsomeoneveho collected on it. 2. Power Service has several products. One of them is good for your needs and benefit.

You might add some voodoo juice to your daily breakfast too. Who knows it might help.