are additives to fuel necessary???

straightliner

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Location
n.w.indiana
TDI
09 TDI Jetta
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
 

wjdell

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 17, 2006
Location
Central Florida
TDI
06 Jetta TDI DSG PKG 1 17" VV Campy White/Beige
It might be wise to use a anti gel in your area even though the fuel has been thinned for winter use. I would use the one that VW recs.
 

WeekendWrench

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Location
Chicago, IL
TDI
B5.5 passat variant
Straightliner...given your location would guess part of the greater Chicago metro area..biggest thing is stick to stations with alot of truck traffic or at least turnover. there is a speedway off of calumet (just south of dynasty banquets) that has alot of turnover. More turnover--especially this time of year (early fall) is important so that you get (a) fresh fuel, and (b) the right additive package for the temperatures outside.
 

Joe_Meehan

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Location
Ohio USA
TDI
NB TDI, 2002.5, Silver
Well if they were required, they would be mandated by federal law and included in the fuel and/or you would see the requirement listed in your owner's manual. It appears that neither the federal government nor VW feels they are required.

The only time I would strongly suggest using them would be an early cold snap when the stations many not have their winter blend fuels up to the job yet.

Other than that, I really doubt if there is anything of real value to be gained, nor is there any real reason not to use them.

It seems no one is writing in asking how to fix problems caused by the additives nor is anyone writing about real problems caused by not using additives. If it feels good to you, use them.
 

tditom

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Location
Jackson, MI
TDI
formerly: 2001 Golf GL, '97 Passat (RIP) '98 NB, '05 B5 sedan
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
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.

Until ULSD has been out for awhile and there are no problems reported, I would advise using a lubricity additive. The reason for this is that there seems to be a conflict with the test limits called out by the ASTM scar wear test (520 microns, IIRC) and Bosch (our injection pump/PD mfr), who have a lower limit (460 micron, IIRC). Until I better understand this, I will be using a lubricity additive whenever I'm not tanking up at my normal fuel station. I'm confident that this fuel is OK because it is a B20 (extra lubricity for my fuel pump) and the balance is BP Premier 50 cetane D2.
 

semihappy

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Location
salem in
TDI
1997 mack ch350
additives

with the ulsd there is very little if any lubrisicity.the wear and tear on your pump will be dramitically increased. Also most cold weather additives also raise the cetane #, which will help with cold weather starting as well as performance.
 

Joe_Meehan

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Location
Ohio USA
TDI
NB TDI, 2002.5, Silver
semihappy said:
with the ulsd there is very little if any lubrisicity.the wear and tear on your pump will be dramitically increased. Also ..
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.
 

deezulmark

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Location
Elizabethton, TN
TDI
96 Passat Wagon
What about fuel mileage and other issues?

OK, lubricity is one issue vs. ULSD, but getting back to other issues with the additives:

I got my first TDI in August ('96 Passat Wagon) and am pretty happy with it so far. It is 213K miles young(!) and only burned about half a quart in the first 5000 miles I've had it.

I decided to try Power Service this last tankup (after my first 1000 mile tankful!) and see if I noticed any difference. It might be a little less smoky when starting and might be a little quieter. Very subjective gut feel thing only so far though. I'm in a relatively mild climate but it is getting cooler so figured it wouldn't hurt that way either.

But they claim it will increase fuel economy, at least enough to offset the cost of the additive. Has anybody out there tried comparing MPG with and without the additive in fairly static driving conditions? I got 47.5 mpg on the last tank or so without the additive driving mostly highway right at 65mph. Not running AC due to pleasant cooler weather.

A guy around here with a bunch of old diesel Rabbits swears by the stuff - somebody he knew that drove a big panel truck regulary put him onto Power Service and claimed it made a noticeable difference in overall performance in his truck. But truck engines and old NA diesels are not quite the same as TDIs.

So has anybody out there have any first-hand noticeable differences with and without an additive?

Thanks,
Mark
 

wny_pat

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Location
Western New York State
TDI
2002 Jetta TDI
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.
 
Last edited:

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
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.
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.

Additives are designed for specific purposes and conditions for which they may prove useful, but not for normally running, tuned engines on high quality fuel.

Doing a simple search of this forum will find volumes of opinions about additives that may be good reading (or not).

My personal experience is that the Mercedes CDI is more sensitive to cetane and perhaps the soot that develops from lower quality fuel than the 2002 TDI. What seems to be true, though, is that no additive will fix bad fuel, so I have made it a point to get the best fuel/additive package possible, and usually that means a brand name such as Shell or BP/Amoco around here.

Cheers,

TM
 
Last edited:

tditom

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Location
Jackson, MI
TDI
formerly: 2001 Golf GL, '97 Passat (RIP) '98 NB, '05 B5 sedan
chris- its a good idea to use a station with a high diesel turnover so you know your fuel is in season. The issue about ULSD is that because we aren't 100% sure that it will be sufficiently lubricated for the tdi fuel systems. Its a different issue than fuel gelling, but potentially more important.
 

Dunno513

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Location
Mirror Lake, NH
TDI
2006 NB PD-TDI DSG
I have been closely monitoring my fuel efficiency and use of approx 4 oz of Power Service Centane Boost at each approximate 15 gal fillup. What I can say so far is that I have not noticed any "quantifiable" difference in performance, ease of starting, or fuel effiency. But I am only into my fourth tank at almost 10k on the clock.

What my numbers do say is that there is definately no loss, or adverse effects. I do notice my mileage is consistantly above average for the last three fillups, but not a "best tank" by any means.

I am "anal" about consistency and even tend to doubt some of my numbers accuracy due to possible pump quantity errors, so I tend to compare tanks from the same station and pump vs. each individual fillup.

What I can say that I like about the additive is PEACE of MIND, especially with winter coming, and ULSD being questioned about it's fuel additive packages being added by the distributors. I would rather WASTE 5 bucks on 8-9 fillups than wonder and worry about whether or not my fuel was of acceptable centane, or lubricity requirements.
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
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
 

tditom

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Location
Jackson, MI
TDI
formerly: 2001 Golf GL, '97 Passat (RIP) '98 NB, '05 B5 sedan
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
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.
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
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.
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
 

tditom

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Location
Jackson, MI
TDI
formerly: 2001 Golf GL, '97 Passat (RIP) '98 NB, '05 B5 sedan
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
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.

Lubricity matters to ALL tight tolerance diesel fuel injection systems. 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, I will encourage people to use a lubricity additive until we are quite confident that there are no problems with the fuel as it shows up at the pump.

Do you know if you are using ULSD yet? Its great to have people like you who are willing to go along with the oil company's claims that the lubricity of ULSD is "good enough". Please report back in 6 years when we know that ULSD will have been at all the pumps for a significant amount of time. Then we'll know that the lubricity additives have been a waste of time.
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
I'll keep my alien preventing rock in my back yard and will also report to you if I have any problems with aliens in 6 years.

Trouble is, we don't know if "problems with lubricity" ever showed up in light duty diesel engines in the past let alone in the future. Just like aliens, we can only have faith that something that we are trying to prevent exists. Certainly your opinion is worth more than industry regulators or manufacturers themselves.:rolleyes:

You are still mixing up faith with science. Some of us are a bit more skeptical. To each their own.

TM
 

b4black

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Location
IL
TDI
1998 Jetta blue
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,....
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.

Overdosing of additves is real and that's probably one of the reasons 520 and not 460 was choosen. There are different types of additve chemistry and some of the best at reducing HFRR scars are the most likely to cause problems (what's in your additive of choice?).


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).
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
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.
Actually some very legitimate and useful aftermarket additives have had side effects as mentioned. The snake oil usually does nothing or clogs filters.

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.

I suspect many of the specs mentioned are important for the million mile heavy duty 18 wheeler engines. Not necessarily for the 400,000 mile light duty diesel engines. It is not important to me if an additive will help make my engine last an extra 10,000 miles AFTER it reaches a million miles since my car may not get there anyway.

TM
 

TDIx2

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2003
Location
Saginaw Mi ~ looking out for deer and dangerous pe
TDI
2014 Jetta
I have been using Power service in both of our TDI cars since we bought them. I have used P/S since the VW dealer sold me my first bottle off their shelf in 2001. Since using P/S we have never had a problems it the use of this product. We have had issues when I forgot to use it, primary in my Passat. It smokes at start up when the air temp is between 38 to 48 degree range, without P/S. When I add P/S it starts fast and no smoke. I also notice the motor is quite and smooth running when using P/S.

Most diesel stations don't have premium diesel and if they do I bet the cetane is still below manufacture spec for my car. Using P/S will help with increasing the fuel to a level close to what my car needs.
 

Brock_from_WI

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Location
Green Bay, WI USA
TDI
2003 wagon
What convinced me was a local trucking company uses some concentrated form of Power Service in their "premium" blend. They dump a 5 gallon pail in with each tank fill. They require all their own trucks to use the premium blend and since they started doing that they have never had a gelled up fuel system. They did have issues of trucks gelling in the past on the same fuel tanks.

I agree that most of the time it likely isn't necessary, but if it saves me once from having my car freeze up with the kids in the back, it is worth it. Even in the best of conditions things happen and water can get in a tank one way or another.

I am not saying power service is the best one to use, there are likely better ones. Some disperse water and some absorb water and again one is likely better then the other. But with the evidence I got talking to my brother in law at the trucking company was enough to convince me personally to use PS on every fill, just in case...

To each their own...
 

tditom

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Location
Jackson, MI
TDI
formerly: 2001 Golf GL, '97 Passat (RIP) '98 NB, '05 B5 sedan
from Bosch presentation
Diesel 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)​

From National Assoc of Fleet Administrators, Aug. 2006 link
Lubricity:
  1. [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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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]
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. :D
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
Specs are proof of a sort. What I am looking for is performance in the field. Real world data.

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.

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?
2. How many fuel pump failures due to lack of lubricity is anyone aware of?

Show me the data. Otherwise, faith is the order of the day.

TM
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
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. :D
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?

Is it wanting Ted Williams to bat for you, with a .400 average (Bosch) vs. Joe Morgan with a .300 average (ASTM)? Or is it "barely good enough" vs. "garbage."?

Too many unanswerable questions, IMO. We are on our own as usual, with not enough information to make the best decision.

TM
 

dabear95

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2002
Location
Roseville, MI
TDI
2002 Golf GLS, Silver
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
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?

However, I would also postulate that a major additive such as power service or Stanadyne that has been in service for 100's of thousands of miles on multiple TDI's causes no harm. Conversely, if the perceived (or not) benefits are worth a little comfort, so be it. Or faith be it :D

Personally I use Stanadyne performance formula November - April and performance formula junior May - October.

Jason
 

AndyH

Registered Vendor , w/Business number
Joined
May 25, 2001
Location
San Antonio, TX
TDI
'97 Passat Wagon 410K RIP
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).
AMSOIL's old items were a lubricity/detergent/cold flow product, and a cetane product.

The current line is a lubricity/detergent/antioxidant (ADF), a cold-flow additive (AFF), and a cetane additive (ACB).

This strategy gives the consumer full control and doesn't force them to use a cold flow improver in the summer in Florida, and doesn't force them to use cold flow or cetane in the summer with biodiesel, for example.

Andy
 

tditom

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Location
Jackson, MI
TDI
formerly: 2001 Golf GL, '97 Passat (RIP) '98 NB, '05 B5 sedan
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 a bit confused by this request, because I thought you insisted on independant data. FPPF is providing test numbers below:
LUBRICITY PLUS FUEL POWER


Year Round Diesel Treatment
Lubricity Plus Fuel Power is a year round diesel fuel treatment that combines the benefits of Fuel Power and a lubricity additive that exceeds the A.S.T.M. B.O.C.L.E. standards.

Used regularly, Lubricity Plus Fuel Power can offer the following benefits:
  • Contains Fuel Power.
  • Helps prevent piston fuel pump wear.
  • Contains lubricity additive.
  • Reduces pintle scoring.
  • Meets or exceeds B.O.C.L.E. standards.
  • Contains No Alcohols!
  • Helps prevent rotary fuel pump wear.
  • Improves engine starting.




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
I'm just trying to be safe. Time will tell.
 

AndyH

Registered Vendor , w/Business number
Joined
May 25, 2001
Location
San Antonio, TX
TDI
'97 Passat Wagon 410K RIP
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.
TM,

I appreciate what appears to be your desire for hard, unbiased, facts that minimized as much as possible the placebo/nocebo effect.

I think the best you'll find comes from standardized ASTM testing done in independent labs. The data on the labs and how the tests are run is available on the web, so I'll not include that info.

I don't know if you have a personal bias for or against the Southwest Research Institute, but the ASTM, EPA, worldwide equipment manufacturers, and folks from the fuels and lubes industry think pretty highly of them.

Here's some SwRI data on additives from 1996: http://www.stanadyne.com/new/ppt/showfile.asp?id=1156 These charts show pour point, lubricity, and cetane number for base fuel, and after using the 10 tested additives.

Georgeesq posted numbers from an Oct '06 lubricity test, performed by SwRI, of Primrose on three premium fuels here.

There was a significantly longer thread from earlier in the year that provides more test info from SwRI. The earlier tests were from LSD, however. George's numbers are the first I've seen on ULSD, and premium fuel at that.

For what it's worth -- Euro fuel lubricity is governed by British Standard EN590 - HFRR lubricity requirement is 460 microns. I really don't think that the difference between EN590 and ASTM D975's 520 micron number is about concerns about overtreating. The rest of the world appears to agree that 520 isn't enough.

Andy
 
Top