ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL LUBRICITY AGENTS AND ADDED LUBE

 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Bushtracker Forum Forum Index -> Tips on TOW VEHICLES
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bushtracker
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 4966
Location: Kunda Park
State:: Queensland
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:50 am    Post subject: ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL LUBRICITY AGENTS AND ADDED LUBE Reply with quote

Moved here from the General Forum, so it is not lost in archived pages...

Steve

Has your research looked into fuel additives? If so what have you found in this regard, particularly in the F250 area.

Thx

John
_________________
Not dreaming - doing

Back to top


Bushtracker
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 1326
Location: Kunda Park
State:: Queensland
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:31 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello John, I am honoured you would seek my council, and you are lucky as I have spent some time wrestling with this one and the Refinery Engineers...

This is something I have been interested in, but it is a very tough issue. Your engine was built for the sulfur in the fuel acting as a lubricant, if you have the 7.3 PSD, which was an engine that was discontinued in America in 2003. But we may be talking about two different things here. There are additives to put into the fuel if you are pickling the diesel for storage or cleaning out tanks, that is easy, and the effects are well known and beneficial. My concern is a little deeper, and I will assume you are talking about the new fuel and wear on the injection system, from an engineering viewpoint......

Now that we have ULSD, Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel, being a Rig Junkie (Tow Vehicle Enthusiast in civilized terms Laughing ), I have been concerned that there was not enough lubricity in the fuel to protect injectors and injection pump worth big biccies$$. Shocked This was added to when I found out OUR ULSD is even lower in sulfur than normal ULSD.. Shocked So now I even have a niggling doubt about my new engines designed for ULSD...

I have gone as far as a series of phone calls to get through to the Refinery Engineers, and had the best series of talks with the BP Guys, and brought the subject to Technicians on the Ford Forums in the U.S. Now it is a concern among some... At the Refineries, they reassure me that they have added lubrication, calling it "Lubricity Agents" sufficiently enough to protect the older diesels, at all diesel depots in Australia. They said the rumours of ULSD shortening the lives of injectors and injection pumps was only one batch years ago in North Queensland that caused some problems.... So now I am REALLY WORRIED...

Anyway, probably just throwing money away, but what I use is FlashLube. This is a cleaner and lubricant for the diesel, that protects the injection system from wear by adding its own lubricity agent to the fuel... At least that is what FlashLube claims. You use it at 1mm per litre, and it is expensive in small amounts. I started buying it by the litre to get the price down. Then I found that you get about a litre or half litre for free, buying it in a four litre jug. So that is what I do and decant it into the litre bottles to carry around in the trucks... If I estimate I am getting 100 litres, I pour in a rough 100 mm.. Since there are supposed to be lubricity agents in the fuel already, the question is am I wasting my money?????

You cannot answer that question, only speculate. There is no way of knowing, to be precisely scientific about it. But it gives me a little reassurance, and at a only a couple of dollars a tankful if you buy it in bulk, so I figure it is worth the effort..... If only it gives me peace of mind..

There is no scientific analysis that I can give to back up my opinion, as there is no way to know. But for peace of mind, it is worth it to me...

Best I can do, as there is no way to tell, but I have one tiny piece of evidence: The 2000 GXL I restored to new mechanical condition, covered in the Topic REBIRTH OF THE SUPER CRUISER, in TIPS ON TOW VEHICLES, had something unexpected we found. At 165,000 kms, when I put the new engine in it came complete to the injectors but no injection pump. I sent out the old one to be rebuilt, and they came back to me saying the pump head was severely worn and claimed it was not worth doing.. Shocked At $1500 to do that, I got a brand new pump in from Japan for $1700. Anyway, this is a 400,000 km engine, and the injection pump was worn out at 165,000 kms.... HOW??? Dirty diesel was the explanation, but I don't buy that as I would have thought the filters were adequate... So I am guessing the culprit could be the ULSD... Wink

So, conjecture, but for peace of mind on all my Rigs, FlashLube goes in with the diesel. Maybe it is a waste of money, maybe...... But it makes me feel good about that clear greenie light diesel..

Regards from the Ranger... And do you think this one should be saved for others by putting it in the TIPS ON TOW VEHICLES???

Back to top


Yogi and Muffin



Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 72
Location: Bendigo
State:: Victoria
Current Bushtracker owner:: Ordered Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:38 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Steve and John - don't think some additives can be too much of a waste of money, since Toyota now recommend the addition of a specific agent for the new 200 series TD in Australia despite even BPs best efforts! Not expensive, and if it saves the engine/parts from that kind of damage it seems a worthwhile thing to do. Others with this particular vehicle (not using additive) have apparently complained about early morning rough running on start-up, which we personally have NEVER experienced, thanks perhaps to additive use, and a moment or two in the garage while doing up seat belts etc.
Happy motoring (and vanning - can't wait for the call to say our baby is under construction at last!).
Ride well Steve, and enjoy the contests.
Jan
_________________
Got a Bushtracker. Smarter than the average bear!!

Back to top


Sooty & Sue



Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 19
Location: Oyster Bay
State:: NSW
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: Fuel additives...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Steve - honoured indeed Laughing I never believe in reinventing a wheel that someone else (you) would have already chiselled out. Thx very much for the input. Whilst I don't have had the same depth of knowledge as yourself I share you gut feel. I have a 7.3PSD (you may remember it from when we picked up the 'van - silver with duel rear wheels).

I certainly think this would be worth saving as a thread under the appropriate heading.

Cheers

John
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushtracker
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 4966
Location: Kunda Park
State:: Queensland
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is Lab testing of the top most common Diesel Lubricant additives... The only Independent Lab Testing I have ever seen of the top 20... The Green Band is all lubricity added in the test, white is a non event and the red band actually hurt the lubricity of the fuel... In the U.S. Standyne is a standard people use, and it tested nuetral, as in no advantage.

The one so far I have found that is available here is the Amsoil Diesel Concentrate... Number 9, not brilliant but better than no additive in the ULSD... There is at least one Agent in Sydney area, find them on the Internet... Anyway here are the test results in a table:



If you cannot copy and blow this up, you can see the original on the Powerstroke Forum on:
http://www.powerstroke.org/forum/general-6-0l-discussion/59507-diesel-additives-3.html

It was copied here from the report.

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.

Amsoil Diesel Concentrate is number 9. I have been using FlashLube, made in Australia, but cannot find any external lab tests to confirm the lubricity ... I might get some Amsoil if I cannot find any others...

Keep in mind our ULSD is even "Drier" with less Sulpher in PPM at 11 PPM. Sulphur is the Lubricant, and the old diesel was around 500 PPM Sulphur and gold coloured. It is now clear as water and only 11 PPM Exclamation If you love your motor better research the Lubricant additives range... Idea

Regards from the Ranger


Last edited by Bushtracker on Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yogi and Muffin



Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 78
Location: Bendigo
State:: Victoria
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi guys,

I would just like to echo Sooty and Sue's comments. Toyota definitely do recommend an additive which is available at all Toyota dealers. They espescially recommend it for the 200 series TD. One of the reasons the 200 series release was delayed was for Toyota to gather information from our refiners in regards to our ULSD.
We have used it since new and have had absolutely no problems with our 200 series. A bit of piece of mind for a small cost really.

Tony
_________________
Got a Bushtracker. Smarter than the average bear!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Loki of Condor



Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Posts: 593
Location: MANDURAH
State:: WA
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whereabouts have Toyota published this additive recommendation?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yogi and Muffin



Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 78
Location: Bendigo
State:: Victoria
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't know if it was published. It was a strong recommendation from the service manager and the owner of my Toyota dealership and Toyota certainly have the additive available at their dealerships. I also confirmed the recommendation with another dealership. I doubt that Toyota could publicise a statement that they thought Australian diesel is not adequate for their engines.
Tony
_________________
Got a Bushtracker. Smarter than the average bear!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Loki of Condor



Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Posts: 593
Location: MANDURAH
State:: WA
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just as I thought.

Another LC200 urban myth....

or a sales push on additives.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushtracker
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 4966
Location: Kunda Park
State:: Queensland
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correction, Loki of Condor, take it seriously..

An Insider of Toyota Engineering has stated that they did not even want to bring the 200 Series to Australia claiming the fuel was too coarse. In truth he goes on to state words to the effect that the Injection System in the 200 Series is very sensitive and bad fuel as in water in the fuel could cause up to $7000 in damages.

Take it seriously, and I would use the additive as there is good evidence our ULSD is lacking in Lubricity.

My best advice, and I am darn sure using it in all my vehicles.. Further I have personal evidensure: The fuel injection pump in my 100 Series should have been good for about 300,00-400,000 kms or more.... And it was stuffed and worn out at 165,000.. Less than half its life.... And that is NOT a very sensitive injection system.

Regards from the Ranger, research research research 24/7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushtracker
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 4966
Location: Kunda Park
State:: Queensland
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been using AMSOIL Diesel Concentrate now for the past year. Now it is hard to rate something, when you cannot tell the difference.
I would welcome a change to any other one that had independent Lab Testing as per the chart and link above, as that is some very indepth testing protocol. The results are echoed on other American Forums like the Duramax Forum, and on the list of Diesel Additives that reduce the erosion of the injectors, AMSOIL does hit the list and it is not very expensive. My costs are something around $6 per tankful.

My Injectors are a ridiculous cost. I am currently running the AMSOIL even in the new Silverado that is reportedly using a very robust Injector with a 300,000 km life or longer according to reports as they are calling for 300,000 MILES... That would equate to about 500,000 kms.

The only practical experience I have is a Professional Report on the Injection pump on my 100 Series when I did a full drive train restoration. I refer to that report "stuffed, Mate" and so I bought a complete new Injection pump for only about $200 more than reconditioning the old one.
Anyway, I feel out fuel from my studies is too dry and lacking lube, and while this is my only real evidence, that injection pump should have been good for double or triple that. Our ULSD is even "drier" than the American ULSD.

Regards, R&D on the road with the Ranger Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWIK



Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 3
Location: Buderim
State:: QLD
Current Bushtracker owner:: No
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Has anyone tried the bio diesel? I see it rated well in that test. Looking at the caltex website they have 2%, 5% and in south australia up to 20%.


***********************************************************
Hello JWIK,

WELCOME TO THE FORUM, POST NUMBER ONE!

Some exotic vehicles are sensitive to BioDiesel, check on a vehicle Forum for your particular vehicle to see if it is compatible. I general I hear it has some lubrication value added, and may be a benefit IF you can run it in your particular vehicle... Check first... Wink

And BTW, some people are using Low Ash, 2 Stroke oil added to their Diesel, in about 1 ounce per 5 gallon. But again, Google this for your own particular vehicle in relation to the emission controls...

***********************************************************
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bobrovin



Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Location: Sydney
State:: NSW
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Steve
On the use of 2T oil in the fuel.
After a lot of research I have now started using it in my common rail Nissan and have found that as well as the lubricating benefit, the motor is noticeably quieter at start up.
It has noticeably more power especially down low and is easier to get of the line (manual box) and the best bit is it saves money as it gets at least 2 l/h better economy when towing (that's 10% better)
I have been using it at 200:1. That's 500mls per 100 litres
I still add the Chem Tec as well for water and bug control
_________________
Bob & Laurel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
sahara80



Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Posts: 5
Location: Wagin
State:: WA
Current Bushtracker owner:: Ordered
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello to the lone ranger and all who read this link.

As per our appointment for next week ill do the following for you and show you in front of your eyes a test that you will not believe.

I am a manufacturer of fuel additives and have been doing so for a period on inexcess of 10 yrs.
Im not sure if this is the correct place to be telling you and so i wont say much here untill our meeting next week and then you your self can the say what you think as this is your web and im not going to invade it.
But ill explain it to you then you can allow me then to proceed with the claims and proof on here next week.

But 2 stroke oil is not the way to go.
In the petrol market which is aimed at the high performance market i have been the leader since the day i started according the ALL the magazines that have tested my products.

Untill then

Gosh

Making fuel additives that protect your engine and save you money






Bushtracker wrote:
I have been using AMSOIL Diesel Concentrate now for the past year. Now it is hard to rate something, when you cannot tell the difference.
I would welcome a change to any other one that had independent Lab Testing as per the chart and link above, as that is some very indepth testing protocol. The results are echoed on other American Forums like the Duramax Forum, and on the list of Diesel Additives that reduce the erosion of the injectors, AMSOIL does hit the list and it is not very expensive. My costs are something around $6 per tankful.

My Injectors are a ridiculous cost. I am currently running the AMSOIL even in the new Silverado that is reportedly using a very robust Injector with a 300,000 km life or longer according to reports as they are calling for 300,000 MILES... That would equate to about 500,000 kms.

The only practical experience I have is a Professional Report on the Injection pump on my 100 Series when I did a full drive train restoration. I refer to that report "stuffed, Mate" and so I bought a complete new Injection pump for only about $200 more than reconditioning the old one.
Anyway, I feel out fuel from my studies is too dry and lacking lube, and while this is my only real evidence, that injection pump should have been good for double or triple that. Our ULSD is even "drier" than the American ULSD.

Regards, R&D on the road with the Ranger Wink


***********************************************************

Two things Gosh,
First of all WELCOME TO THE FORUM, POST NUMBER 1....!

Secondly, less that 1 in 100 Bushtracker Owners would be using petrol tow vehicles. Reasons are fuel mileage, safety in carrying extra fuel, safety around fires and spinifex brush fires, safety around camp, and safety when refueling out of jerry cans in the remote parts of the Bush and more. There is a Topic on this in this section. Anyway, if your additives are for petrol as I thought your response indicated, then you will have a very small audience here... If it is for Diesel, then yes our ears will prick up.

I is surpising how some additives on the list that are readily available in Australia, Lucas for one, is WORSE for metal wear than the bare dry ULSD on this HFRR Lab report... To bad, as it would be all to easy... Wink

Anyway, Welcome to the Forum, there is a WORLD of help here for you.
Regards, lone Ranger
_________________
fuelx making the $ go further
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petpat47



Joined: 15 Dec 2009
Posts: 46
Location: sunshine coast
State:: qld
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Steve
Do you purchase the amsoil on line or from a supplier on the sunshine coast?
By the way, we had a great day at the factory yesterday going thru the layout and selection process. Phillip was a very helpful as well as Brian from SIM.
thanks
Peter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushtracker
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 4966
Location: Kunda Park
State:: Queensland
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Pet Pat 47,

Look, I got the Amsoil shipped up from the Distributor in Sydney. I think it does work and it does help... But depending on your vehicle here is one far better and cheaper..

I have 1000 Posts on the Ford Forum, and from the list of the top 20 additives on the High Frequency Reciprocating Rig tests for metal wear on the lube additives only the top ten had any improvment found on independent lab testing. Amsoil is number 9, number 7 (significantly better) is TC-W3 Outboard motor oil in the 200 to 1. I have tried it in a number of engines and it does work, quieter, smoother, lubricated like a fresh oil change is all I can tell you if you are really in tune with your engine... I swear an engine runs smoother and quieter right after an oil change, and this is the effect I feel from the Valvoline TC-W3 Outboard Motor oil: It does work and I can hear the difference..

Now I break this down scientifically, and the TC-W3 is readily available, Valvoline Outboard motor oil for two stroke engines, (they need the lube in fuel as they do not have a crankcase holding oil at all...) This is the best, but it is no good for diesel catalytic converters or DPFs. If you have a clean exhaust, this IS the easy and the best from all studies, and I DO study it as a real interest... But it is only good with a clean exhaust modified or earlier edition tow vehicle..

Now I am out at a horse competition, and have had toooo many Corona beers and I am hurt and recuperating with the anti-venom, Laughing Forgive any poor spelling, but look in your best interests here ARE the actual test results and definitions on this:

**********************************************************
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 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.

CREDITS:

This study would not have been possible without the participation of all companies involved and dieselplace.com. A special Thank You to all of the dieselplace.com members who generously donated toward this study and waited longer than they should have for the results. You folks are the best.

************************************************
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

lone Ranger
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,001

[i][b]Thank you for that on behalf of everyone... I have seen that study before and used Amsoil Diesel Concentrate for years... It is in 9th Place and what is SIGNIFICANT is everything below that is USELESS or may even be harmful...

TOWBOSS: My new King Ranch F-450 is the same colour as yours.. Anyway, I did not bite with comments on the Lucas Product, but here note that it is 14th of the list. No value, maybe no harm, but now value on this Lab testing which is Mil Spec and accurate by an independent lab... The “High Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR WEAR rating is below the baseline of untreated ULSD...

Anyway, I will try and find the spec quoted on that two stroke oil, as it is in 7th place, and that is better than the Amsoil that barely makes it over the mark... Interestingly the 2 Stroke rates better than Standyne, Amsoil, and Power Service which is what most Members of this Forum use most commonly..

Cheers, from Australia
Lone Ranger, Your Resident "Mad Scientist" stripping down opinion to reveal the science of things....


Last edited by Bushtracker on Sun Aug 29, 2010 2:12 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petpat47



Joined: 15 Dec 2009
Posts: 46
Location: sunshine coast
State:: qld
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve
Thanks for that info. Will need to read a few times and will print it out to keep on file. Good luck at the horse competition.
Peter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aubs



Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 242

State:: QLD
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

G'day Steve and Members, I was doing my Postie run in Calliope on Friday and took out 5 mins to admire another BT parked at our shopping Center. I rode away envious.

In another life I helped distribute Castrol oils, one thing that most of us used to do was put Castrol BioLube in our fuel tanks, both pertrol and diesel and there was a marked difference. At the time I got it at cost plus a small margin but I think its close to $40 per liter now. The use of BioLube was very obvious when driving

It maybe just another one for you to try.

cheers from an envious
aubs
_________________
Some things are worth keeping to yourself
Paul & Sharon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DavidI



Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 13
Location: Central Coast
State:: NSW
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Steve,
David Isaac here. I'm the guy that was up last month with the blue Troopy and Tuff Alloy Bull Bar you admired and stated that it was a bit of a waste on a rice cracker. I actually got a good laugh out of that comment, cause I call Toyos rice crackers as well. You guys did some excellent maintenance on my BT ... thanks.

While traveling through Brisbane I put the Troopy on the Roo Systems Dyno at Banyo to check power out put which was excellent for an unchipped 70 series with only a 3" exhaust. It came in at 149.75 Hp at the wheels.

Anyway that is not my question ... they also sold me a fuel lubricant called Liqui-Moly Diesel clean and boost. I have now treated about 1,000 litres and used the whole litre. I have noticed a progressive increase in economy and a quieter engine, but the increased economy may have just been me getting used to my new tow vehicle. I am just not sure.

I am actually a fan of using two stroke oil, some of my colleagues use it in aircraft engines and claim better engine wear performance.

Anyway have you heard any reports on the Liqui-Moly at all in terms of lubricity? I am not sure whether to continue with it or revert to TS outboard oil.

Thanks,
David and Shirley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Loki of Condor



Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Posts: 593
Location: MANDURAH
State:: WA
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I now add marine two stroke oil to my fuel tank at a ratio of 200:1.

Heaps of info available about it helping lubricity with ultra low sulphur diesel.
_________________
Stephen J
Mandurah WA
http://farcanal.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DavidI



Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 13
Location: Central Coast
State:: NSW
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Loki of Condor wrote:
I now add marine two stroke oil to my fuel tank at a ratio of 200:1.

Heaps of info available about it helping lubricity with ultra low sulphur diesel.

Thanks Loki.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bobrovin



Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Location: Sydney
State:: NSW
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am another user of 2 stroke. Been using it for 6 years and do notice the increase in noise and fuel use if I stop using it for a while. The better economy about equals the cost of using it so extra protection at no real cost.
_________________
Bob & Laurel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DavidI



Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 13
Location: Central Coast
State:: NSW
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What brand of 2S oil do you guys use and are you both running Toyota V8 diesels?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aubs



Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 242

State:: QLD
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been using Valvoline for the last 2 bottles, mainly because its been the only choice. I cant notice any difference to other brands I have used. Used in a Canter and my sons lux
_________________
Some things are worth keeping to yourself
Paul & Sharon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bushtracker
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 4966
Location: Kunda Park
State:: Queensland
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Valvoline TC-W3 is the best available, without a doubt, no opinion it is per the Laboratory tests shown above...

Number 7 is that Super Tech TC-W3, better than Amsoil and others, and it is distributed by Valvoline here in Oz... Wink

Now one caveate you have to know: If you have the new DPF or Blue Add DPF, you cannot use these additives as it will clog up your DPF and put you into Regeneration faster and burn more fuel. If you clean up your exhaust, like I intend to on the Cummins Dodge Ram, you will not only then get better fuel economy (you need a Tuner), but then you can also put in these additives to give you extra engine Life...

My experiments show all the engines like it, seems to quiet down the valve train just a touch... Don't know if I need it in the Dodge, as there are Cummins engines in the Dodge High Mileage Club with between 1,000,000 and 2 Mil miles on them.. Shocked Cool Wow.....

Anyway, watch that you have a clean exhaust before using this. The TC-W3 is cheap at about $27 for four litre jug, and my best mix was 250 to 1 with no smoke.

On the road, Ranger
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DavidI



Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 13
Location: Central Coast
State:: NSW
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Steve,
Valvoline on the shopping list, thanks everyone for your input,
Regards,
David
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Trish & Adrian



Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 32
Location: central coast
State:: N.S.W
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi to all contributors on this subject.
Nobody wants to pay for a diesel pump rebuild if they can avoid it and although i have an older non electronic landcruiser this subject caught my eye.
I called my local Repco branch and although they are a Valvoline reseller they didnt have tc-w3 on their system and said if they order it in I would have to buy the complete carton.
Is there a nother name this product is known by or can anyone tell me where i might be able to purchase it?
Thanks Adrian
_________________
Are we there yet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushtracker
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 4966
Location: Kunda Park
State:: Queensland
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Simple, go to another Auto Parts place...

TC-W3 is common, real common... All the super high horsepower outboard people use it, almost all the constant injection 200 HP and up outboard people use it.. It is a full synthetic oil and viewed as the best...

Simple, go to another auto parts house, it will probably be on the shelf.

Kind regards, on the road with the Ranger, out at QSEC with three of my horses preping in the QSEC arena getting ready for the Nationals in two weeks....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Braggy



Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Posts: 15
Location: Sunshinecoast
State:: QLD
Current Bushtracker owner:: Ordered
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If that TC-W3 oil is full a synthetic, I would check other sources ,before using it,
As most diesel mech, the LCOOL and most other sites, say that full sync does not mix well with diesel, and only use mineral based 2 stoke oil.

Cheers Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushtracker
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 4966
Location: Kunda Park
State:: Queensland
Current Bushtracker owner:: Yes
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Braggy,
The Independently verified Laboratory tests show otherwise. I rate the tests on that rather than personal opinions and heresay. The rumour network is full of myths.

That fully Independent Laboratory test results are accepted by the Industry and millions of people, doing big work and competition with these trucks. There is a Cummins High Mileage club running over a million miles and the leader at two million. Forget that misinformation, it mixes very well... I have been using it for years in a 100 Series, and exhaust modified Ford, and a Silverado 3500. It works.. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Bushtracker Forum Forum Index -> Tips on TOW VEHICLES All times are GMT + 10 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum