[duramax]

I have been reading a lot about the effects of ULSD fuel and its lack of lube. On older trucks before 2007, people are using 2 stroke oil to increase lube for injectors, etc. I have used both 2 stroke oil and PS diesel clean in my duramax, and would like to increase the lube in the D. On new trucks with DPF's, I think you need to be more careful what you put in the tank. What are you guys using if anything at all? In a study, PS was not very good for adding lube.

[BMW1983]

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/f.../Lubricity.PDF

I'm going to add 1 liter bodiesel to each fresh tank of diesel.
Above article suggests it is a great lubricant.
Our cars can take up to B7 according to my fuel cap (7% biodiesel). Fuel in my area may already have up to 5% biodiesel. Our tanks are about 60 liters capacity so 1 liter of biodiesel added to 60 liters is 1.6% --- I think it is safe. Too much biodiesel can damage motor b/c it has a higher flash point and can be left uncombusted in the exhaust phase when our motors inject at times to burn off accumulation in the PDF......or so I understand it. Unburnt biodiesel could damage our oil is my understanding.

[cssnms]

Originally Posted by duramax

I have been reading a lot about the effects of ULSD fuel and its lack of lube. On older trucks before 2007, people are using 2 stroke oil to increase lube for injectors, etc. I have used both 2 stroke oil and PS diesel clean in my duramax, and would like to increase the lube in the D. On new trucks with DPF's, I think you need to be more careful what you put in the tank. What are you guys using if anything at all? In a study, PS was not very good for adding lube.

I am not so sure that I agree with your assessment, assuming of course you are referring to the Spicer test. Power Service with Cetane booster improved the HFRR score of untreated ULSD by 61 points or from a wear scar score of 636 to a wear scar (HFRR) score of 575 microns. All commercially available ULSD fuel should meet a wear scar score of 520 microns. If you apply Power Service to treated ULSD then the wear scar score should improve by 61 points resulting in a wear scar score of 459 microns, which so happens to be within The Engine Manufacturer's Association recommended wear scar score, which also so happens to be consistent with pre ULSD fuels.

That being said, Power Service did not show the "best" improvement. That award goes to 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel which improved the wear scar score of untreated ULSD by 451 points. The 2nd best tested product was
Opti-Lube XPD multi purpose with cetane improver, which improved the HFRR 319 points. Power Service is 10 on a list of 19 products tested so it finished in the middle of the pack.

Personally I run Power Service w/Cetane boost because it is more readily available at my local auto parts store then some of the others.

[duramax]

In independent tests, ULSD did not meet the required 520 or less. that is the problem and why you need a better additive than PS.

All commercially available ULSD fuel SHOULD meet a wear scar score of 520 microns.

[cssnms]

Originally Posted by duramax

In independent tests, ULSD did not meet the required 520 or less. that is the problem and why you need a better additive than PS.

All commercially available ULSD fuel SHOULD meet a wear scar score of 520 microns.

Results vary from station to station and I believe that is more of the exception and not the rule. I also believe if you are buying quality fuel from a reputable station it more often than not it meets the min requirement.

Think about it, a station would have to sell diesel fuel with a wear scar score of 581 for Power Service not to be effective and bring the HFRR within acceptable limits. A 61 point improvement should provide more than enough lubricity for any deviation unless of course you happen to fill up at that freak station selling diesel fuel with no lubricity additives. From my perspective Power Service provides more than enough benefit.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion regarding the benefits of Power Service, but from my perspective it is certainly good enough and better than nothing. If you want a product that provides even more lubricity buy Opti-lube.

[TotalPower]

i wouldn't add power service... you don't need an uncombustible oil inside your fuel system. you're better off adding 5w to your fuel than adding power service or optilube or uncle ted's lube

[hotrod2448]

Originally Posted by cssnms

I am not so sure that I agree with your assessment, assuming of course you are referring to the Spicer test. Power Service with Cetane booster improved the HFRR score of untreated ULSD by 61 points or from a wear scar score of 636 to a wear scar (HFRR) score of 575 microns. All commercially available ULSD fuel should meet a wear scar score of 520 microns. If you apply Power Service to treated ULSD then the wear scar score should improve by 61 points resulting in a wear scar score of 459 microns, which so happens to be within The Engine Manufacturer's Association recommended wear scar score, which also so happens to be consistent with pre ULSD fuels.

That being said, Power Service did not show the "best" improvement. That award goes to 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel which improved the wear scar score of untreated ULSD by 451 points. The 2nd best tested product was
Opti-Lube XPD multi purpose with cetane improver, which improved the HFRR 319 points. Power Service is 10 on a list of 19 products tested so it finished in the middle of the pack.

Personally I run Power Service w/Cetane boost because it is more readily available at my local auto parts store then some of the others.

Originally Posted by cssnms

Results vary from station to station and I believe that is more of the exception and not the rule. I also believe if you are buying quality fuel from a reputable station it more often than not it meets the min requirement.

Think about it, a station would have to sell diesel fuel with a wear scar score of 581 for Power Service not to be effective and bring the HFRR within acceptable limits. A 61 point improvement should provide more than enough lubricity for any deviation unless of course you happen to fill up at that freak station selling diesel fuel with no lubricity additives. From my perspective Power Service provides more than enough benefit.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion regarding the benefits of Power Service, but from my perspective it is certainly good enough and better than nothing. If you want a product that provides even more lubricity buy Opti-lube.

I don't believe you can look at the wear scar improvement from untreated and assume that it will have that same improvement on a higher quality fuel that already has a higher lubricity rating. As the fuel lubricity increases the effect an additive would have probably doesn't stay linear. Think along the lines of you can't take 93 octane, add 100 octane and have 193 octane.

[cssnms]

Originally Posted by hotrod2448

I don't believe you can look at the wear scar improvement from untreated and assume that it will have that same improvement on a higher quality fuel that already has a higher lubricity rating. As the fuel lubricity increases the effect an additive would have probably doesn't stay linear. Think along the lines of you can't take 93 octane, add 100 octane and have 193 octane.

Sure I can unless testing proves otherwise. What basis is there to suggest that the benefit or ability to reduce the wear scar score of a supplemental lubricating additive would be diminished after being added to treated fuel or otherwise not have a linear relationship? I also don't think the relationship between an octane rating and lubricity is a fair or accurate comparison. What you are proposing is that the combination of preexisting additives and a supplemental lubricating additive would have a negative effect on the lubricating properties of the supplemental additive. Perhaps?

As I have said before, testing the lubricity properties of a supplemental fuel additive using untreated fuel is the only way to establish a true baseline. That being said, I do agree further testing to support "my" or "your" theory would be warranted. Until further testing is conducted I stand by my theory and firm to the position that using a product like Power Service, Opti xd etc is better than using nothing at all.

[hotrod2448]

Originally Posted by cssnms

Sure I can unless testing proves otherwise. What basis is there to suggest that the benefit or ability to reduce the wear scar score of a supplemental lubricating additive would be diminished after being added to treated fuel or otherwise not have a linear relationship? I also don't think the relationship between an octane rating and lubricity is a fair or accurate comparison. What you are proposing is that the combination of preexisting additives and a supplemental lubricating additive would have a negative effect on the lubricating properties of the supplemental additive.

As I have said before, testing the lubricity properties of a supplemental fuel additive using untreated fuel is the only way there is to establish a baseline. That being said, I do agree further testing to support "my" or "your" theory would be warranted. Until further testing is conducted I stand by my theory and firm to the position that using a product like Power Service, Opti xd etc is better than using nothing at all.

I'm not saying it wouldn't still have some benefit. I'm saying that just because it provides a delta of 65 improvement in the lowest quality fuel that you shouldn't automatically assume you would see an improvement of 65 when using it with the highest quality fuel.

I'm theorizing that the additive has a maximum lubricity value and adding it to a low grade fuel with a lower lubricity will result in a larger delta than adding it to a fuel that already has a lubricity closer to that of the additive. While you might get a delta of 65 with low lubricity fuel it may only be 45 with a fuel with higher lubricity. Much like mixing octanes. If you mix 50/50 87 and 100 octane you will get a larger delta than you would mixing 97 and 100 while still ultimately ending up with a higher octane than the 87/100 mix.

[F32Fleet]

There is no best. All additives do not have the same results with different types of diesel fuel since not all diesel uses uses the same addtitives to reach the min spec with regards to lubricity. Powerservice is generally considered adequate to get the wear scar rating under 520 when used with retail sourced ULSD (Email them and they'll send you test results from various suppliers such as Shell, Chevron, etc). Generally speaking all the additives which contain a lubricity enhancer should get you below 520 um.

Biodiesel however is considered king for lubricity and you only need to fill your tank with concentrations no higher than 5 percent (B5).

[Concentric190]

"lube" heh

[cssnms]

Originally Posted by hotrod2448

I'm not saying it wouldn't still have some benefit. I'm saying that just because it provides a delta of 65 improvement in the lowest quality fuel that you shouldn't automatically assume get an improvement of 65 when using it with the highest quality fuel.

I'm theorizing that the additive has a maximum lubricity value and adding it to a low grade fuel with a lower lubricity will result in a larger delta than adding it to a fuel that already has a lubricity closer to that of the additive. While you might get a delta of 65 with low lubricity fuel it may only be 45 with a fuel with higher lubricity. Much like mixing octanes. If you mix 50/50 87 and 100 octane you will get a larger delta than you would mixing 97 and 100 while still ultimately ending up with a higher octane than the 87/100 mix.

Who knows you might be right at the end of the day. I didn't automatically assume anything. I simply have a theory; that by increasing the lubricant levels through a supplemental additive and despite the higher quantity of pre existing additive that the relationship will be more linear than not. Again, I also do not see the correlation between measuring/increasing octane and lubricating particles and thus viscosity. However, it is quite possible that the detergents, stabalizers etc that are added to the fuel along with the lubricating additive may have an adverse effect on the benefits of the supplemental lubricating additive and as such may cause viscosity variations from one manufacturer to the next. I would very much be interested in seeing an ASTM blending table to see the effects the other additves might have on the product's effectiveness. Until such time, it's my theory and I am sticking to it and to using Power Service or Opti-lube.

[cssnms]

Originally Posted by Concentric190

"lube" heh

[FormerRotor]

Where has the emulsifier/demulsifier argument fallen with the d crowd? I know this is almost as heavily debated as "to additive or not to additive", but I would think this would be an important point as I do not believe the d has any water separation in its filtration process.

I would love to stand corrected on the latter and hear the group's thoughts on the former.

[DieselDiner]

Originally Posted by FormerRotor

Where has the emulsifier/demulsifier argument fallen with the d crowd? I know this is almost as heavily debated as "to additive or not to additive", but I would think this would be an important point as I do not believe the d has any water separation in its filtration process.

I would love to stand corrected on the latter and hear the group's thoughts on the former.

As far as I have been able to determine, the d has no water separator, so you are correct.

There hasn't been much discussion in d circles regarding emulsifier vs. demulsifier, but as you know, there is exhaustive conversation on other boards like the tdiforum.

I *think* the preponderance of opinion for a situation like we have (no water separator) favors an emulsifier, since the demulsifier causes the water to fall out of suspension, and our cars have nowhere for the water to fall.

Having said that, I really don't know, since whichever side of the equation you choose, you will have several hungry hounds from the opposite to pounce on you immediately to tell you how wrong you are. LOL

[FormerRotor]

Originally Posted by DieselDiner

Having said that, I really don't know, since whichever side of the equation you choose, you will have several hungry hounds from the opposite to pounce on you immediately to tell you how wrong you are. LOL

This is, by and large, the most definitively accurate statement with regards to the additive debate that I have seen yet.

I came fom rotory engines and there we had the ongoing war of "to premix or not to premix". Fortunately we also had engine-specific experts (not of the self-proclaimed variety) and winning GT race teams looking at the same engine specs and hashing through the list of pros & cons.

Thanks for the input DieselDiner!

[DnA Diesel]

I don't run anything in my D as Canadian diesel spec is for a minimum of 460µm wear scar, vice 520 in the US. Yes, there will likely be variations in fuel that may exceed 460µm, but probably rare. If I was worried about lubricity, I'd look to add certified (QA-wise) bio to equate to the 2% level that Spicer noted was the best augmentation.

If I were to use something to address water, it would be an emulsifier for the same reason the DieselDiner stated. Unlike under the hood of my TDI, there is not enough room for a Cat 2µm filter and a water separator, but I run through a lot of fuel (~40,000km/yr) and always keep the tank topped up to minimize condensation.

Given the Bosch CP3.2+ pump is a proven workhorse, I'm not worried at all about the reduced lubricity with ULSD...unlike the poor VW TDI folks and the 09-11 CRs with Bosch CP4.1 pumps experiencing major pump failures.

Cheers
D.