straightliner
Veteran Member
Power Service,Stanadyne etc.are these required?and is there a advantage to them?I thought all winter blend fuels already had the necessary additives.
chris
chris
If you are familiar with the station, and you are confident that the fuel is properly winterized (i.e. you've never had problem with their fuel), I don't think you need to add any additive for anti-gel. If you are on the road and fueling in unfamiliar territory, it is relatively cheap insurance.straightliner said:Power Service,Stanadyne etc.are these required?and is there a advantage to them?I thought all winter blend fuels already had the necessary additives.
chris
That might be at least partly true of ULSD BEFORE the additive package is added. You will not find any such diesel at the pump, unless someone is asking for a federal charge. The federal (US) specifications for the fuel at the pump require additives to increase the lubrication attributes of the fuel. Well actually it just specifies the attributes, if they can be meet without additives, that would be fine.semihappy said:with the ulsd there is very little if any lubrisicity.the wear and tear on your pump will be dramitically increased. Also ..
The relatively small amount of additive would not make a difference with such mistakes, but each person makes their own decision about additives since there is very little credible evidence of effectiveness as a "preventive" treatment.wny_pat said:I have seen winterized fuel freeze up and I have also seen a load of water delivered to a truck stop and dumped into the underground diesel fuel tank. It came straight from the refinery. Somebody turned the wrong valve. Mistakes happen. Additives are cheap insurance, provided it is a good additive. Going one step further, I once attempted to deliver a load of gas at a station. I could not open the internal valves or the manifold discharge valves because they were frozen from the inside. Had to take the tanker back to the shop and let it set inside over the weekend for everything to thaw out. They drained off 20 some gallons of water. That was from what was a cleaned, drained tank getting it's first load at a refinery. %&#* happens.
I'm not aware of any potential adverse effects from using an additive. Please share any data that would indicate there is one.Tin Man said:Your "peace of mind" does not include possible adverse effects from using aftermarket additives, does it.
The bottom line is, if there is no credible evidence that the "preventive treatment" of fuel helps, it becomes a "faith based" activity.
TM
That was the point. You don't know.tditom said:I'm not aware of any potential adverse effects from using an additive. Please share any data that would indicate there is one.
When balancing the risk-rewards of using additives or not, I would come down on the side of using them.
I agree that there have been offers from snake-oil salemen that should be ignored. I don't put FPPF, Power Service, Stanadyne in that class. They each make products that specifically were designed to improve lubrication.Tin Man said:That was the point. You don't know.
There are additives that harm catalytic converters, that swell o-rings, that will rust metal parts, that clog filters, etc. in the history of additive marketing.
Its a matter of faith, not science, that they can prevent anything.
Specific reasons for using them aside such as gelling or low cetane, you need a manufacturer's recommendation nowadays to have anything near "proof" that an aftermarket additive does any good, and most will tell you not to in the owners' manual for possible harm that can be done.
Lubricity is a vague concept that may matter in heavy duty applications, but I have not seen any evidence that it matters at all not to mention if the additive in question helps. Stanadyne makes fuel pumps as well as lubricity improving additives. You need to trust their marketing people. There is no independent published data.
TM
It's not the 'fuel industry' that set the spec. It was ASTM and the fuel injection makers are very involved in that. The FI makers set the spec as much as the fuel prodcuers.tditom said:Lubricity in ULSD is a known problem that the oil company's have been concerned about. They have settled on a test that allows a certain amount of wear to the fuel injection components. The maker of our fuel injection systems has determined that a lower limit of wear is allowable. Because of the FI mfr having a tighter tolerance than the fuel industry,....
Actually some very legitimate and useful aftermarket additives have had side effects as mentioned. The snake oil usually does nothing or clogs filters.tditom said:I agree that there have been offers from snake-oil salesmen that should be ignored. I don't put FPPF, Power Service, Stanadyne in that class. They each make products that specifically were designed to improve lubrication.
From National Assoc of Fleet Administrators, Aug. 2006 linkDiesel Fuel Lubricity Requirements for Light Duty Fuel Injection Equipment said:
Conclusions
Reasoning for HFRR
HFRR is an adequate test method- HFRR provides customer satisfaction
HFRR 460 μm max. known to prevent field problems All high-pressure fuel-lubricated injection systems are exceedingly lubricity-sensitive and require clean fuels (no free water and/or contamination) Common-rail and Rotary pumps require the same level of lubricity Lubricity specification in ASTM D975 needed ASAP Spec. should not exceed HFRR: WS1.4 <460 μm (ISO 12156-1)
So the ASTM spec was subsequent to the Bosch recommendation, but did not follow THAT fuel pump mfr's input.Lubricity:
- [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to lubricate and protect the various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from wear. The processing required to reduce sulfur to 15-ppm also removes naturally occurring lubricity agents in diesel fuel.
- To manage this change the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) adopted the lubricity specification defined in ASTM D975 for all diesel fuels, effective January 1, 2005. The D975 specification is based on the High Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR) test (D 6079) and requires a wear scar no larger than 520 microns.
- As necessary, additives are added to ULSD prior to its retail sale to increase lubricity and to inhibit corrosion. With these additives, ULSD fuel is expected to perform as well as Low Sulfur Diesel fuel[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]. [/FONT]
The question remains, what if Bosch is overstating their spec or if you will, why is ASTM understating it? For what purpose? What is the real world difference?tditom said:from Bosch presentation
From National Assoc of Fleet Administrators, Aug. 2006 link
So the ASTM spec was subsequent to the Bosch recommendation, but did not follow THAT fuel pump mfr's input.
Since Bosch is the manufacturer of the tdi fuel injection systems, I feel better advising folks to follow that recommendation. If there is something more recent from Bosch stating that 520 micron is OK, then I do not see the need for any additional lubrication. Likewise, if someone can explain the disparity between the two specs.
The way I understand this, the fuel companies are obligated to meet the ASTM standard only. So for the small cost of additizing for the tdi, it is a no-brainer. If that's akin to being paranoid about alien invasions, so be it.
Well, it would be very difficult to argue your statements and frankly not worth my time because I agree. Are you playing devils advocate using additives yourself or do you only use fuel of perceived (or not) quality?Tin Man said:Your "peace of mind" does not include possible adverse effects from using aftermarket additives, does it.
The bottom line is, if there is no credible evidence that the "preventive treatment" of fuel helps, it becomes a "faith based" activity.
TM
AMSOIL's old items were a lubricity/detergent/cold flow product, and a cetane product.b4black said:BTW, I haven't seen any aftermarket additves specifically for lubricty. All I see are "do everything" additives (cetane, deposits, lubricity, water, gelling and alien repulsion).
I'm a bit confused by this request, because I thought you insisted on independant data. FPPF is providing test numbers below:Tin Man said:Specs are proof of a sort. What I am looking for is performance in the field. Real world data.
I don't know what to tell you but if you look at the Bosch presentation, that was all LSD fuels, which I've always understood were fine for lubrication. Some of the samples tested were flat out unacceptable.
What they are talking about is the quality of the fuel itself BEFORE the consumer gets it. What evidence is there that the aftermarket supplier of additive actually makes a difference? Only anecdotal data, as you can see.
Why doesn't PS or anyone else tell you how much it improves lubricity. Cetane I can understand, and that has shown little effect on fuel of poor quality as I suspect lubricity improvers will too.
I'm just trying to be safe. Time will tell.TM said:What you are saying is that even high quality, fresh fuel is liable to be detrimental to the pump. Great. Now tell me two things:
1. How much will the aftermarket additive help?
I would follow the dosing recommendation of the additive mfr.
2. How many fuel pump failures due to lack of lubricity is anyone aware of?
Well, ULSD has been in use exclusively in California since June, and has been slowly showing up at other retail pumps since then. I suspect we'll be getting real-life results in the next year or so.
Show me the data. Otherwise, faith is the order of the day.
TM
TM,Tin Man said:I don't wish to discount the opinions or findings of legitimate aftermarket additive makers or pump manufacturers. I just want more non-anecdotal evidence and can't find it anywhere.