Fuel Additive Study (long)

Help Support CattleToday:

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Some proof of the claims I make that diesel fuel additives are just a waste of money:

The following are the preliminary results of a research study on diesel fuel
Lubricity Additives. There is likely to be further commentary and
explanation added at a future time.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this research was to determine the ability of multiple diesel
fuel additives to replace the vital lubricity component in ULSD (Ultra Low
Sulfer Diesel) fuel.

HISTORY:

ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road diesel
engines. This fuel burns cleaner and is less polluting than it's
predecessor, called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel. Low sulfer fuel contained less
than 500 ppm of sulfer. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.
As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfer, it is
inadvertently stripped of its lubricating properties. This vital lubrication
is a necessary component of the diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel
delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high pressure pumps and
injectors. Traditional Low sulfer diesel fuel typically contained enough
lubricating ability to suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD
fuel, on the other hand, is considered to be very "dry" and incapable of
lubricating vital fuel delivery components. As a result, these components
are at risk of premature and even catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is
introduced to the system. As a result, all oil companies producing ULSD fuel
must replace the lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel purchased at
retail fuel stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace
this lost lubricity. The potential result of using inadequately treated
fuel, as indicated above, can be catastrophic. There have been many
documented cases of randomly tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests
prove that often times the fuel we purchase is not adequately treated and
may therefore contribute to accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems.
For this reason it may be prudent to use an after market diesel fuel
additive to ENSURE adequate lubrication of the fuel delivery system.
Additionally, many additives can offer added benefits such as cetane
improver, and water separators or emulsifiers.

CONTENT:

In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to
replace lost lubricity. The primary component of this study is a
side-by-side laboratory analysis of each additive's ability to replace this
vital lubricity. Additionally, claims of improving cetane, water separation
or emulsification, bio-diesel compatibility and alcohol content will be
noted. These notes were derived from information that was readily available
to consumers (via the label and internet information) and none of this
information has been evaluated for validity and/or performance. Cetane
information has only been noted if the word "cetane" was used in the
advertising information. The words "improves power" has not been translated
to mean "improves cetane" in this evaluation. Information on alcohol content
is provided by indicating "contains no alcohol". Omission of the words
"contains no alcohol" does not imply that it does contain alcohol. This
information was simply missing in the information available to a consumer.
However, the possibility of a form of alcohol in these products is possible.
Additionally, information on dosages and cost per tankful are included for
comparison purposes.

How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating Ability:

Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a
device called a "High 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 "wear 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.

METHOD:

An independent research firm in Texas was hired to do the laboratory work.
The cost of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating
additive manufacturers. Declining to participate and pay for the research
were the following companies: Amsoil and Power Service. Because these are
popular products it was determined that they needed to be included in the
study. These products were tested using funds collected by diesel
enthusiasts at "dieselplace.com". Additionally, unconventional additives
such as 2-cycle oil and used motor oil were tested for their abilities to
aid in diesel fuel lubricity. These were also paid for by members of
"dieselplace.com".

The study was conducted in the following manner:
-The Research firm obtained a quantity of "untreated" ULSD fuel from a
supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel engines.
However, this sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the fuel
for the purpose of replacing lost lubricity. In other words, it was a "worst
case scenario, very dry diesel fuel" that would likely cause damage to any
fuel delivery system. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at the Southwest
Research Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score
of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel. It was determined that
this batch of fuel would be utilized as the baseline fuel for testing all of
the additives. The baseline fuel HFRR score of 636 would be used as the
control sample. All additives tested would be evaluated on their ability to
replace lost lubricity to the fuel by comparing their scores to the control
sample. Any score under 636 shows improvement to the fuels ability to
lubricate the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine.

BLIND STUDY:

In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the
following steps were taken:
Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the
counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-diesel
sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered
"experimental" at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market.
It was sent directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel sample was
sponsored by Renewable Energy Group. One of their suppliers, E.H. Wolf and
Sons in Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of 100% soybean based
bio-diesel. This sample was used to blend with the baseline fuel to create a
2% bio-diesel for testing.
Each additive was bottled separately in identical glass containers. The
bottles were labeled only with a number. This number corresponded to the
additive contained in the bottle. The order of numbering was done randomly
by drawing names out of a hat. Only Spicer Research held the key to the
additives in each bottle.
The additive samples were then sent in a box to An independent research
firm. The only information given them was the ratio of fuel to be added to
each additive sample. For example, bottle "A" needs to be mixed at a ratio
of "480-1". The ratio used for each additive was the "prescribed dosage"
found on the bottle label for that product. Used motor oil and 2-cycle oil
were tested at a rationally chosen ratio of 200:1.
The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio of each "bottled fluid" into
a separate container containing the baseline fuel. The data, therefore, is
meaningful because every additive is tested in the same way using the same
fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness of each additive is now
obtainable.
 
OP
D

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
THE RESULTS:

These results are listed in the order of performance in the HFRR test. The
baseline fuel used in every test started at an HFRR score of 636. The score
shown is the tested HFRR score of the baseline fuel/additive blend.
Also included is the wear scar improvement provided by the additive as well
as other claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive is also categorized
as a Multi-purpose additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity only,
non-conventional, or as an additive capable of treating both gasoline and
diesel fuel.
As a convenience to the reader there is also information on price per
treated tank of diesel fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per 26
gallon tank provided as "ounces of additive per 26 gallon tank".

In Order Of Performance:

1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel
HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.
50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel
66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel
Price: market value

2)Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier
HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio
13 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment
Gas and Diesel
cetane improver, emulsifier
HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.60/tank

4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend
Multi-purpose
demulsifier
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
$0.68/tank

5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/tank
$3.65/tank

6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible
HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.87/tank

7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
$1.09/tank

8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.00/tank

9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Multi-purpose
demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.16/tank

10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
$1.58/tank

11)Howe's Meaner Power Kleaner
Multi-purpose
Alcohol free
HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.36/tank

12)Stanadyne Performance Formula
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement
480:1 ratio
6.9 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000 miles used.
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems)
HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
price: market value

14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant
Gas or diesel
HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
427:1 ratio
7.8 oz/tank
$2.65/tank

15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech
Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive
HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.67/tank

16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.12/tank

17)Marvel Mystery Oil
Gas, oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 and
newer systems)
HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel.
320:1 ratio
10.4 oz/tank
$3.22/tank

18)ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.38/tank

19)Primrose Power Blend 2003
Multi-purpose
Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, emulsifier
HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline
1066:1 ratio
3.12 oz/tank
$1.39/tank

CONCLUSIONS:

Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR
score of 460 or better. This meets the most strict requirements requested by
the Engine Manufacturers Association.
Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR
score of 520 or better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel requirements for
maximum wear scar in a commercially available diesel fuel.
Products 16 through 19 were found to cause the fuel/additive blend to
perform worse than the baseline fuel. The cause for this is speculative.
This is not unprecedented in HFRR testing and can be caused by alcohol or
other components in the additives. Further investigation into the
possibilities behind these poor results will investigated.
Any additive testing within +/- 20 microns of the baseline fuel could be
considered to have no significant change. The repeatability of this test
allows for a +/- 20 micron variability to be considered insignificant.

NOTES

At this point, I'm posting notes I collected, that were in response to the
survey. Accuaracy not guaranteed, simply included for thought and
discussion.

According to Steve Westbrook at SwRI, The lubricity benefit of biodiesel is
pretty much maximized at 2%. Up to 4% gives a SLIGHT increase over 2%, but
we are talking sharply diminishing returns. He even offered up that most of
the benefit seen at 2% would also be seen at as little as 0.5%. This is nice
to know if you are thinking of using bio as a lubricity additive. The need
for 100%, 20%, or even 5% bio really isn't at all necessary from a lubricity
standpoint.

This answers another recent post. Someone wanted to know if the benefit of
additives is cumulative. In other words, add an additive with benefit 300
microns to bio, do you get a crazy low wear scar number. The answer is NO.
There is a saturation point. More additive may improve HFRR to a point and
then it stops. Adding 3+3 may only equal 3.2.



Emulsifiers tend to allow water past a water separator. This means that
water can condense in the system after shut down, causing huge problems in
the form of rust, and perhaps sulfuric acid, depending on fuel sulfur
content.

BOTH certifications for 2-cycle oil are ashless/low ash. Some 2-cycle oils
contain higher amounts of ash but they certainly wouldn't receive
certification because that's just one requirement of the certification.
What's on the list includes oils that are very, very similar and in some
cases are identical in their ingredients/concentrations. They are all
produced by the same refinery. I've done some exhaustive searches for
something with almost ALL lubricating oil but the problem I have run into is
that ALL 2-cycle oils have some degree of solvents (naphtha) in them. They
add these so that the higher viscosity lubricating oils will mix better with
gasoline on contact and to lower the flash point. The ashless part of the
equation comes into play because the ashless/low ash oils burn very clean. I
will still be looking for more oils but so far, most of the other MAJOR
manufacturers, use a lot of extras that end up diluting or reducing the
actual amount of "lubricating" oil that you're putting in. As for Naptha, it
is a flash-point lowering form of petroleum, and YES, it is oily and can be
considered a lubricant. But, that term has to be taken into context. Your
diesel, in your tank, is oily as well. But, it's still low on lubricity.
Naptha isn't as dry as Kerosene (most fuel injector cleaners) but when mixed
with lubricating oil, it will actually cut it or thin it down a bit. When
mixed with very dry petroleum, it most certainly will provide some
lubrication. The real question is, "Is that ENOUGH lubrication for the VP44
injection pump?". That's why I've listed oils that are high on lubricating
oil to begin with. The higher the oil-to solvent ratio, then the better
lubed your fuel system will be. I'm still looking but most others are
already out of the running for those reasons alone. And, I also want to
point out that I didn't push towards one particular brand, but some are
clearly not formulated like we need. The entire Valvoline, Chevron, and
Citgo lines of oil are high on solvents and additives that are really not
needed when being used with a diesel fuel. The majority of those additives
are added to aid in the blending with GASOLINE. Here's a VERY SIMPLE
breakdown in layman's terms.


-----------------------------------------------> 2-CYCLE (low solvent)

GASOLINE ]----------+----------+----------+----------+----------[ DIESEL

-----------------------------< 2-CYCLE (high solvent)

Basically, gasoline and diesel are on opposite ends of the fuel spectrum.
One is very dry and highly-volatile (gasoline), the other is lubricated and
more stable (diesel). The 2-cycle oils fall into this spectrum closer to the
side of diesel. The solvents/naphthas are added to help push the mix closer
towards gasoline on this scale because the mix with gasoline has to burn
like gasoline. For our use, we don't need that extra naptha because we don't
need the lower flash point, high flammability. Hope this helps.

We all know that diesel fuel has more BTU's than Gasoline right...

#2 Diesel .......................... 139,000 BTU's
Gasoline............................ 125,000 BTU's

So this is why diesel does more work (TQ) and has better MPG numbers
compared to there gasoline brothers...

Here is some more to think about for BIO fuels... Small reduction but not
bad...

Ethanol ............................. 76,000 BTU's
B20................................... 138,000 BTU's
B100.................................. 130,000 BTU's

Now for you common 3 diesel additives...

Naptha............................... 15,000 BTU's
Mineral Spirits...................... 19,000 BTU's
Xylene............................... 18,000 BTU's

So this proves the MORE fuel additives you use the LESS amount of HP/TQ and
MPG your going to get from your truck... All its doing is washing out the
fuel...

So how about 2 cycle oil...

2 cycle oil (avg).................... 138,000 BTU's

So 2 cycle oil isn't going to reduce the BTU value of diesel fuel. So its
still a excellent choice as a fuel additive so far...


There is no benefit to using a higher cetane number fuel than is specified
by the engine's manufacturer.The ASTM Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel
Oils (D-975) states, "The cetane number requirements depend on engine
design, size, nature of speed and load variations, and on starting and
atmospheric conditions. Increase in cetane number over values actually
required does not materially improve engine performance. Accordingly, the
cetane number specified should be as low as possible to insure maximum fuel
availability." This quote underscores the importance of matching engine
cetane requirements with fuel cetane number!!!
So adding cetane boosters are not going to improve the performance of the
engine and/or fuel.
Cetane improvers modify combustion in the engine. They encourage early
ignition of the fuel. They encourage premature combustion and excessive rate
of pressure increase in the combustion cycle.
Look at the materials they use in most cetane boosters. Mineral Spirits,
Xylene, and Naptha none of these chemicals are even close to the diesel fuel
family. They also have very low flash points like gasoline! Every one of
them are used for degreasing and cleaning solvents.
Cetane Number is a measure of the ignition quality of a diesel fuel. It is
often mistaken as a measure of fuel quality. Cetane number is actually a
measure of a fuel's ignition delay. This is the time period between the
start of injection and start of combustion (ignition) of the fuel. In a
particular diesel engine, higher cetane fuels will have shorter ignition
delay periods than lower cetane fuels.
Cetane booster tend to advance the timing of ignition. Hence the ignition
knock that you hear. The lower the cetane number the less ignition knock
you'll hear. Also the flash point and the auto-ignition temps of the fuel is
reduced greatly.
Cetane number should not be considered alone when evaluating diesel fuel
quality. API gravity, BTU content, distillation range, sulfur content,
stability and flash point are very important. In colder weather, cloud point
and low temperature filter plugging point may be critical factors.
All of the cetane boosters on the market tend to reduce the BTU content of
the fuel. Hence it reduces the MPG and the HP/TQ numbers. Sulfur content is
been reduced national to 520 HFRR (<15 PPM Sulfur) which mean less lubricity
of the fuel. Cetane boosters tend to de-stabilize the flash point. Go back
to my Chemical definition page and look at the flash points of the different
chemicals.
 
OP
D

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Some important things to take from the study:

1) The improvements were only seen on raw, untreated ULSD of the variety you should never see at the pumps.
2) 3+3 = 3.2. In other words, a fuel with adequate lubricity will not see improvement with the addition of more lubricity agents. Diminshing returns.
3) My own: 3+3 = 2.9. In other words, not only are you not improving lubricity, since the lubricity agent tends to reduce BTU output, you're likely going to burn more fuel.

When I was running my diesel shop, I had several additive manufacturers approach me with their additives. I tested all of them, and quite frankly didn't see a single mpg improvement, nor did I ever hear a difference in the way the vehicle ran. The fuel conditioners I tested did allow me to run summer fuel in the winter, however I suspect the BTU output was the same as winter fuel anyway. So it was handy if there was some summer fuel left in a tank of a unit, and you wanted to run it out instead of draining it, but that was about it.

Rod
 

tom4018

Dumb Old Farmer
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
3,949
Reaction score
35
Location
Kentucky
IT has been a common practice to mis in automatic transmission fluid, I wonder how it would compare?
 
OP
D

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
tom4018":13j4o0u2 said:
IT has been a common practice to mis in automatic transmission fluid, I wonder how it would compare?

Its hard to say, however I certainly wouldn't be using it in new diesels designed to run ULSD. The oil is heavier viscosity, causing more wear on injector nozzles, not to mention there is no telling what it would do to the emissions stuff further on down the line. I don't even like the idea of using 2-stroke oil mixed with the gas because of the injector issue. Looking at modern fuel injected 2-strokes, you'll notice that they mix the oil AFTER the injector. This is a more difficult way to design an injection system, and its been done for a reason.

Rod
 

hayray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Michigan
I have a buddy of mine always trying to talk me into using those additives in my tractors and I am glad I never did that. It is hard for me to believe in all those special gimmicks like special air filters and additives. I would think that it is real hard to improve upon what the engineers designed because any improvement any manufacture can make over its competition would increase the bottom line so I gotta think they really try to get the most out of each engine. How about synthetic oil? Or maybe that would be another thread?
 

Aaron

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
5,220
Reaction score
11
Location
Stratton, ON, Canada
This study has been around for some time now. A lot of guys have been using the the Super Tech 2 Stroke Oil. Cheap and easy to find. I have been using it for over a year now and am thrilled with it. A lot of guys started using it after the ULSD finished off their fuel pumps and they had to replace them. :cowboy:
 
OP
D

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Aaron":2owfz0cp said:
A lot of guys started using it after the ULSD finished off their fuel pumps and they had to replace them. :cowboy:

Just out of curiosity, what proof do these guys have that ULSD actually "finished off" their pumps? We did see a couple pumps that were damaged when ULSD washed deposits out of them, but I'd call that less an issue with ULSD and more an issue with using poor quality diesel fuel for the years prior to ULSD. The pump place that rebuilds our pumps for us hasn't seen an increase in pump rebuilds either, so I tend to doubt claims that ULSD's "lack of lubricity" causes any damages at all.

As a matter of fact, PetroCanada actually had to reduce the amount of lubricity they added to their fuel when they first released ULSD. It came out to the whole 3+3 = 2.9. They simply added too much, received no additional lubricity and damaged the BTU content of their fuel.

Rod
 
OP
D

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
hayray":4pgz92ex said:
I have a buddy of mine always trying to talk me into using those additives in my tractors and I am glad I never did that. It is hard for me to believe in all those special gimmicks like special air filters and additives. I would think that it is real hard to improve upon what the engineers designed because any improvement any manufacture can make over its competition would increase the bottom line so I gotta think they really try to get the most out of each engine. How about synthetic oil? Or maybe that would be another thread?

I spent several years doing air and fuel system research while I was running my performance shop. There are very FEW gimmicks out there that actually do what manufacturers say they will, and often times, those that work are doing so completely by accident. If you leave your tractor or truck at stock power levels, there are very few improvements that can be made. 03 - 07 Dodge airboxes needed a little help, but NOT in the form of those garbage cotton gauze filters, but rather in complete replacement of the airbox with a properly designed one using a FOAM element. The factory clutches in trucks were no screaming hell, and all three automatics needed some slight tuning to eliminate the soft shifting.

So mostly I agree with you hayray. There are certainly some places where the bean counters took precendence over the engineers, but not as many as people seem to think. ULSD is one of the places where the engineers did their jobs. The new "designed for ULSD" engines simply don't need anything, and you'd have to argue long and hard and show some real positive scientific proof before I'd even remotely agree that you need anything on the older diesels.

Rod
 

Aaron

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
5,220
Reaction score
11
Location
Stratton, ON, Canada
DiamondSCattleCo":1xvehyd8 said:
Aaron":1xvehyd8 said:
A lot of guys started using it after the ULSD finished off their fuel pumps and they had to replace them. :cowboy:

Just out of curiosity, what proof do these guys have that ULSD actually "finished off" their pumps? We did see a couple pumps that were damaged when ULSD washed deposits out of them, but I'd call that less an issue with ULSD and more an issue with using poor quality diesel fuel for the years prior to ULSD. The pump place that rebuilds our pumps for us hasn't seen an increase in pump rebuilds either, so I tend to doubt claims that ULSD's "lack of lubricity" causes any damages at all.

As a matter of fact, PetroCanada actually had to reduce the amount of lubricity they added to their fuel when they first released ULSD. It came out to the whole 3+3 = 2.9. They simply added too much, received no additional lubricity and damaged the BTU content of their fuel.

Rod

I am referring to the Ford 7.3's which has a non-serviceable lift pump for the fuel pump. Lubricity wasn't in the ULSD and a lot of guys had their fuel pumps fail in late summer of '07, after leaks around internal and external seals developed (some cut their pumps apart and you could see the damage). This was attributed to the ULSD because for many people, including mine, it was the first time we ever had to switch out the fuel pumps, with mileage not being the issue (mileage range from 80,000 to 300,000+ miles) , but the period of time the trucks had run ULSD, which was about 18 months (US). I buy the majority of my fuel in the US, so I am not familiar with what PetroCan's 2.9 value. All I know is the ppm values of sulphur for diesel over the years. :cowboy:
 
OP
D

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Aaron":3jp6ps17 said:
I am referring to the Ford 7.3's which has a non-serviceable lift pump for the fuel pump. Lubricity wasn't in the ULSD and a lot of guys had their fuel pumps fail in late summer of '07, after leaks around internal and external seals developed (some cut their pumps apart and you could see the damage). This was attributed to the ULSD because for many people, including mine, it was the first time we ever had to switch out the fuel pumps, with mileage not being the issue (mileage range from 80,000 to 300,000+ miles) , but the period of time the trucks had run ULSD, which was about 18 months (US). I buy the majority of my fuel in the US, so I am not familiar with what PetroCan's 2.9 value. All I know is the ppm values of sulphur for diesel over the years. :cowboy:

Just out of curiosity, do have a link to any of those pictures? The reason I ask is if the seals were cut in any way, shape or form, I'd say its more a case of loose deposits being run through the lift pump, versus lack of lubrication. I've seen that happen when guys here switched from running one brand of fuel for years and years, then switching to another brand with higher detergent.

I had helluva time with my older tractors when ULSD first came out. I burned through several sets of fuel filters in both Masseys while the higher detergent fuel was cleaning things up. Once things got cleaned up, everything went back to normal.

Or possibly the lubricity agent in your US fuel wasn't safe for the seal, causing them to swell and be damaged. But I'd have to see it with my own eyes before I believed it was lack of lubricity. Especially in the US, where litigation is a way of life. Any fuel company that didn't add lubricity to their fuels would be opening them up to a world of lawsuits. I do know on the Canadian side that we simply have enough lubricity in all fuels that we simply don't need to add more junk in the tank. I'd especially warn against 2-stroke or transmission fluid in the new common rail diesels.

And the 2.9 thing is my own. It makes reference to a spot in article detailed dimishing returns on adding lubricity agents. As in 3+3 does not equal 6. In PetroCan's case, they added so much lubricity agent that it dropped their BTU content, so 3+3 = 2.9. They ended up with less than they started with.

Rod
 

Aaron

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
5,220
Reaction score
11
Location
Stratton, ON, Canada
I don't have an easy link to photos. You could go to www.ford-trucks.com, www.dieselstop.com or www.powerstroke.org and search terms such as 'ULSD' and 'fuel pump' and bring up a couple months worth of reading. Not sure about Dodge and Chevy guys worldwide, but locally, they have also had issues.

A lot of fellas, locally, at least, have run into injector pump and fuel pump issues in their tractors, semi's and trucks. Some use US fuel, some Canuck...doesn't seem to matter. ULSD doesn't cut it by itself. Junk in it or not. Give me my original minimum of 1000-1500 ppm of sulfur diesel. No one ever complained. Was just out past your way out west (Yorkton & Lloydminster) and guys were saying the same thing = ULSD sucks and the new motors suck too :lol: :lol:

Anyways, enough for tonight. Keep your ears sharp Rod. Time to see if GM or Chrysler flinch tomorrow and declare bankruptcy. Although I am already hearing that Obama is going to give GM another 4 billion tomorrow morning to keep from declaring bankruptcy tomorrow. Hearing that makes my head hurt. :cowboy:
 
OP
D

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Oh, I know what guys on the forums are saying about ULSD, but you and I both know that for every 1 knowledgeable person on a diesel truck forum, there are 1000 fools who are ICPs (Internet Certified Professionals). I wonder how many of those guys that are saying "ULSD killed my pump" actually took their pumps into a reputable pump repair shop and asked them what killed it? And I wonder how many of those guys actually actually followed the recommendations of the fuel distributors and changed their fuel filters before putting the first drop of ULSD into their tanks? I guess I tend to take the word of our pump rebuilder over all else. Besides, if ULSD was so bad for lubricity, why have the pump failures not continued to happen? I saw a rash of threads when ULSD first came out, then these trickled off to nothing. That tells me that there were a whole whack of higher miler trucks out there with shellac coating everything, and they didn't bother doing their first filter change like they were supposed to.

I dunno. I guess I could be wrong, but the last time was in '68. :lol2: :lol2:

Rod
 
Top