DiamondSCattleCo
Well-known member
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.
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.
