Fuel additive OK with 2012 TDI?

vdubtdi11

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Location
NoVA
TDI
2011 golf TDI
Cool. Thanks, will do.

So in any event, suppose the big additives were benign to the fuel pump all together, is there a consensus on how they affect fuel economy or how the car runs? Are they beneficial the injectors, or is that the same lubricity idea as before?
 

JSWTDI09

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
TDI
2009 JSW TDI (gone but not forgotten)
Cool. Thanks, will do.

So in any event, suppose the big additives were benign to the fuel pump all together, is there a consensus on how they affect fuel economy or how the car runs? Are they beneficial the injectors, or is that the same lubricity idea as before?
A cetane booster can (might) increase mileage slightly. Every additive is slightly different in its composition, so any benefits to injectors will vary depending on the additive. As for "how the car runs" I cannot offer any scientific evidence (for Tin Man) but I can tell you what I (and others) have reported.

When I bought my car I also bought a case of 8oz Stanadyne Performance formula bottles. I noticed no significant difference in mileage or performance with or without it. However, when I switched from Stanadyne to Opti-Lube XPD there was a noticeable improvement in engine smoothness and in the sound (noise) it makes when running. I now use those little 8oz Stanadyne bottles to carry 6-7oz of Opti-Lube XPD in single tank doses. Several other members here have also reported that their engines run smoother and quieter when adding XPD. This is purely anecdotal evidence, but it has convinced me that this is good stuff. I will continue to add it to every tank until someone comes up with convincing evidence that it is harmful in some way (other than to my wallet).

Have Fun!

Don
 

WutGas?

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Location
Oklahoma City
TDI
The Last Real Jetta Sedan
Another not so scientific anecdote.....

There have been 0 HPFP failures reported on this forum from anyone who uses Opti-Lube XPD religiously.
 

tditom

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Location
Jackson, MI
TDI
formerly: 2001 Golf GL, '97 Passat (RIP) '98 NB, '05 B5 sedan
OK- I think I can work with you on this. :)
Ha ha! You won't hurt my feelings, promise!
I missed the link, and don't know why you just said that you didn't want to talk about it, but so be it.
Can I get the link on PS from you please?
...
Be nice, Frodo.

TM
See my sig for the link to "Why I recommend fuel additive"
...
I was reading the Canadian HPFP failure thread and couldn't help but notice that the poor fellow used Canadian diesel exclusively (with no aftermarket additives BTW) and that their diesel apparently complies with Bosch standards for lubricity. The talk is mostly about defective fuel pump design, not fuel per se.....
I agree that lubricity isn't the silver bullet, and said so earlier in this thread. I'm pretty sure there are other factors at play in HPFP failures. I do think that the fact that Canadian fuel meeting the EMA recommended lubricity wear scar has something to do with the reduced failure rate north of the border. Please don't hang me for not having proper "data", but the Canadian market is more receptive to diesels, and it is assumed by many that they have a higher ratio of tdi in use so anecdotally it could be inferred that the higher lubricity standard does help.

...
What would really be nice is to find a database that puts together brand of diesel and "best additive" to use for that particular type of additive package for those that wish to do so. Each additive company seems to put out a data sheet describing how theirs improves lubricity but often uses a graph without much detail or give any information for a statistician to analyze.
...
I think this is a fantastic idea, but good luck with the additive manufacturers giving out detailed info on that. They'd be concerned with someone ripping them off. The best thing I can suggest is to get a hold of Power Service and asked them if they've ever studied the interactions with various pump fuel/commercial additive packages. My thought is that the reason PS are so reluctant to make blanket claims about lubricity improvement is because fuel formulations can and do change from batch to batch. The end product at the retail pump has a changing baseline lubricity, so PS may only give 50 micron improvement on some fuels and 300 micron on others. They seem to be very conservative about this and that's one thing I really like about their approach. Their labs are well equipped, and claim to do hundreds of fuel tests a year, so I imagine they either have done or could do what you propose. The tricky part is to get them to OK sharing the results.
...
I am concerned about how diesel owners in the US put emphasis on needing additives, making the diesel experience that much more foreign to would be converts from the gasser side. It doesn't make much sense since there seems to be much more rationale to use them in gassers. There is so much bias against diesels in the US market that adding more angst about the quality of fuel that is potentially unnecessary is counterproductive. Perhaps just putting pressure on VW to make sure their fuel delivery systems are up to quality is a better strategy...
I share those concerns, but the fact is that VWoA has been very poor in communicating the scope of the issue, and what they are doing to remediate.
As for putting pressure on them, what leverage do we have? I'd love to see 60 Minutes show up at Herndon, VA but the sad part is that it seems people would need to die or be seriously injured before the media cares enough. :(
 
Last edited:

tdiatlast

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
TDI
2009 Sportwagen (boughtback); 2014 Passat TDI SEL (boughtback)
A cetane booster can (might) increase mileage slightly. Every additive is slightly different in its composition, so any benefits to injectors will vary depending on the additive. As for "how the car runs" I cannot offer any scientific evidence (for Tin Man) but I can tell you what I (and others) have reported.

When I bought my car I also bought a case of 8oz Stanadyne Performance formula bottles. I noticed no significant difference in mileage or performance with or without it. However, when I switched from Stanadyne to Opti-Lube XPD there was a noticeable improvement in engine smoothness and in the sound (noise) it makes when running. I now use those little 8oz Stanadyne bottles to carry 6-7oz of Opti-Lube XPD in single tank doses. Several other members here have also reported that their engines run smoother and quieter when adding XPD. This is purely anecdotal evidence, but it has convinced me that this is good stuff. I will continue to add it to every tank until someone comes up with convincing evidence that it is harmful in some way (other than to my wallet).

Have Fun!

Don
Totally different environment, different fuel sources, different Karma (Arlington, VA vs. Nevada...couldn't be more different...)
Exact same experience with Stanadyne vs. OptiLube. Still use the Stanadyne bottles to tote my XPD.
...carry on...no...wait a bit, please...I need to refresh my bucket of popcorn...
 

Lightflyer1

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Location
Round Rock, Texas
TDI
2015 Beetle tdi dsg
641 of the 828 listed hpfp failures used fuel with a lubricity HFRR score of 450 and below (77.4%). 229 of those were 300 or below (36%). Only 187 used fuel above 450 (22.5%). From the new documents in the NHTSA investigation for fuel testing.
 
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)
Apparently Chevron has put their opinion of lubricity testing and aftermarket additives in a technical bulletin (from their marketing department, for what its worth):
Lubricity

ASTM D 6078 – Scuffing Load Ball-On-Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator (SLBOCLE)
ASTM D 6079 – High-Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR)

There is no doubt that lubricity is an important property of diesel fuel performance.
A single tankful of fuel with extremely low lubricity can cause fuel injection system
components, such as a fuel pump, to catastrophically fail. Setting a lubricity requirement
to prevent catastrophic failure is relatively easy; setting a requirement to avoid long-term
fuel system wear is much harder.

There are three ways to evaluate the lubricity of a fuel. In order of decreasing long-term
and increasing simplicity, they are:

• Vehicle testing

• Fuel injection equipment bench tests

• Laboratory lubricity testing

Vehicle tests require a lot of fuel, time, and effort. They are usually reserved for basic
studies of fuel performance. Fuel injection equipment bench tests, such as ASTM D 6898,
require 50 to 100 gallons samples of fuel and 500 to 1,000 hours of operating time. Both
ASTM D 6078 and D 6079 are relatively quick, inexpensive, and easy to perform.

HFRR has become the dominant test method for fuels specification. In the United States,
ASTM D 975 – Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils requires that all grades of fuel,
Grade 1-D and Grade 2-D, at all sulfur levels have wear scar diameters no larger than
520 microns using the HFRR at 60°C. Europe and many regions in Asia Pacific have
adopted a more stringent maximum wear scar diameter of 460 microns maximum.

A lot of work has been done in the past few years to correlate these laboratory tests with
field performance. Some SLBOCLE studies indicate that fuels with values below 2,000 gram
(g) will usually cause accelerated wear in rotary-type fuel injection pumps. Fuels with values
above 2,800 g will usually perform satisfactorily.

The HFRR and the SLBOCLE tests can indicate that fuels treated with an effective
lubricity additive have poor lubricity, while the more accurate fuel injection equipment
bench test rates them acceptable.
What they are saying is that laboratory testing such as HFRR does not necessarily correlate to vehicle testing, which is expensive to do. Bench testing does not necessarily correlate with lab testing.

The Chevron article points to rotary type fuel pumps which may not correlate to the newer designs, I don't know.

The newest data from VW points to lubricity as a minor player in HPFR failures. The bigger concern may be contamination with gasoline at fuel stations for whatever reason - end user or station error/leakage etc.

TM
 
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)
For those willing to catch up to the thread http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?p=4019711#post4019711 it now appears that there is a defect in the fuel pump design causing HPFP failures that is also related to fuel contamination with gasoline and/or water. Lubricity is not the main part of the perceived problem as of yet, but the data is being interpreted in various ways by various people.

So for the owners of CR VW's of 2009-2013 (?years) vintage, the advice would be to buy fuel from a reputable brand name dealer that is as fresh as possible - i.e. high volume/turnover so that problems with storage and water seepage are minimized, but this is still possible unfortunately, and of course avoid putting in any gasoline by mistake.

What appears to be the case is that Bosch didn't account for the variable fuel supply when they designed/marketed their pump..... a problem that may or may not be preventable with use of known aftermarket additives. So this may still be a situation of a known defect that may benefit from using an additive, as is often legitimate. Which one and how much and whether it actually would work on water and/or gasoline contamination is the question. Some on the HPFP thread feel a retrofit of a better pump is a solution, though.

TM
 
Last edited:

tdiatlast

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
TDI
2009 Sportwagen (boughtback); 2014 Passat TDI SEL (boughtback)
Thanks, Tin Man, for a clear post reinforcing what several of us have been trying to say for the past 3 years. The variables involved in solving this HPFP failure issue are indeed complex, and we're all really "grasping at straws" for solutions.

I completely agree with you that the "additive" issue is as clear as mud (no pun intended!), as the consumer has no way of knowing if the fuel being purchased is up to minimal standards. A couple of us here in No VA have spoken with BPGlobal re: their locally available fuel, and BP quoted to me their own local field tests that showed their OWN fuel, that THEY delivered, to vary from 42-47 in cetane, and lubricity numbers from 380-490 (IIRC...it was several months ago). (FYI, I forced 3 BP/Amoco stations to replace their 47 stickers to 40...they claimed that BP/Amoco never alerted them to the official drop in cetane)

You must have missed at least one thread where we lowly wannabe "gearheads" discussed the "how much is too much?" lubricity question, and attempted to predict what the risks of too much additive are re: HPFP/ injectors/DPF, etc. Of course, the discussion was, like this thread, a circuitous one, with no conclusion.

You are correct that a lab test for lubricity (HFRR) is hardly proof that "x" additive will save a defective design, and in fact, that the HFRR test is a poor substitute for real-time engine testing.

Alas, these tests, and fuel analyses, and UOA (to check for fuel dilution)are all we have to go on, and we won't know the consequences of our additizing until many, many more miles are logged.

As has been the case for the 3 1/2 years I've been a member here, I learned some new things from this lengthy and convoluted thread. I have great respect for those of you that entered into the discussion and kept it (for the most part!) civil.

...carry on...
 

MotoWPK

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Location
Colorado
TDI
2009 Jetta
What appears to be the case is that Bosch didn't account for the variable fuel supply when they designed/marketed their pump..... a problem that may or may not be preventable with use of known aftermarket additives.
TM
Even before variability [of fuel quality] there is the fact that Bosch has gone on record saying, in effect, that their HPFP's are not designed for fuel with an HFRR rating used in the US fuel specification (see http://www.globaldenso.com/en/topics/files/120730common_position_paper.pdf, page 2, paragraph "Lubricity") without adverse affects to the lifetime of some fuel injection system components.

Variability in the fuel supply is to be expected, but logicially the reference point the fuel injection system components are designed for enters into this; e.g. a pump designed for an HFRR rating of 520 would be expected to tolerate occasional fuel at, say, 570, better than a pump design for an HFRR rating of 460, which Bosch clearly indicates was the reference for their HPFP design. One has to wonder what considerations NHTSA is giving to this apparent discrepancy in pump design vs US diesel fuel specifications.

With Bosch having stated their pump is designed for standards better than specified for US diesel fuel, it would seem the responsibility would lie with VW having chosen to use this pump in the vehicles they sell in the US. Perhaps this enters into VW's assertion that fuel contamination is the culprit in HPFP failures.
 

vdubtdi11

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Location
NoVA
TDI
2011 golf TDI
Even before variability [of fuel quality] there is the fact that Bosch has gone on record saying, in effect, that their HPFP's are not designed for fuel with an HFRR rating used in the US fuel specification (see http://www.globaldenso.com/en/topics/files/120730common_position_paper.pdf, page 2, paragraph "Lubricity") without adverse affects to the lifetime of some fuel injection system components.

Variability in the fuel supply is to be expected, but logicially the reference point the fuel injection system components are designed for enters into this; e.g. a pump designed for an HFRR rating of 520 would be expected to tolerate occasional fuel at, say, 570, better than a pump design for an HFRR rating of 460, which Bosch clearly indicates was the reference for their HPFP design. One has to wonder what considerations NHTSA is giving to this apparent discrepancy in pump design vs US diesel fuel specifications.

With Bosch having stated their pump is designed for standards better than specified for US diesel fuel, it would seem the responsibility would lie with VW having chosen to use this pump in the vehicles they sell in the US. Perhaps this enters into VW's assertion that fuel contamination is the culprit in HPFP failures.
So, maybe I'm trying to make a conclusion on something that is inconclusive as of yet, but the above being said, wouldn't most of you guys agree that a fuel additive to both remove water and improve lubricity in the HPFP at least benefit the situation? Additionally, look at the number of cars not using an additive that had a failure vs the ones where an additive was used. Again, Im a newb, but based on everything I have read, cant there be at least some agreement that an additive is at worst a wast of time/money and at best, a band aid to the crappy HPFP we have been equipped with?
 

MotoWPK

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Location
Colorado
TDI
2009 Jetta
...cant there be at least some agreement that an additive is at worst a wast of time/money and at best, a band aid to the crappy HPFP we have been equipped with?


As others have pointed out, that's not definatively known. Referring to Chevron's technical document http://www.chevronwithtechron.com/products/documents/Diesel_Fuel_Tech_Review.pdf, page 92;

"It may be helpful to regard additives as medicine for fuel. ... Sometimes, indiscriminant use of additives can do more harm than good because of unexpected interactions."

Presumably the additive packages used by diesel fuel suppliers are prepared by experts (the additive manufacturers) who test their additive packages on the fuel to which it is being applied. The additives we have available to us at retail have not been formulated or tested for a specific diesel fuel and, notably, one already containing a specific additive package. Can this result in 'more harm than good' do to interactions? I don't know but the possibility would seem to be a valid concern.
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
Thanks for keeping this discussion technical and scientific, friends.

The idea that there might be an additive that can prevent damage from "mis-fueling" is attractive, but the data may not be so easy to find.

Perhaps some of the major additive manufacturers have it. If VW could ask for receipts of past years fillups and purchases of additives if any, that could help their HPFP database, since just analyzing the fuel that was in the tank at the time may not be enough to show poor or good lubricity over the lifetime of the pump.

Of course, this may all be wishful thinking since it appears this kind of data gathering can be very expensive and not always beneficial to the interests of marketing etc. But it doesn't hurt to ask....

TM
 

vdubtdi11

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Location
NoVA
TDI
2011 golf TDI
Im not sure if all companies do this, but BP back up their fuel by saying that any fuel contamination caused by their fuel, the resulting damage will be paid in full (including rental car). I spoke to a person on the phone and they said that they do on occasion have these problems and that she had seen a number of instances where the fuel itself was the problem. She said for me to just keep my receipts to prove that I had their fuel in my tank, and should anything happen, have the garage you go to (VW) send a copy of the bills to them with the receipt of purchased fuel. They said "certified garage". And I specifically asked how I could get my fuel sample to them. She said that the report from the 'certified' garage would do. Thats pretty good assurance! If you fill up at BP, its either their fault or VW's.. Right?
 

vdubtdi11

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Location
NoVA
TDI
2011 golf TDI
Right now prove which one. That is the problem. All stations are liable if their fuel is contaminated, this isn't just BP.
They are liable, but do they all back up their fuel with that kind of guarantee? And by the sound of it, if you have a problem, she made it sound like it was a pretty easy proven process to get reimbursed.. She said that she had only seen one instance where there was even an investigation!
 

vdubtdi11

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Location
NoVA
TDI
2011 golf TDI
Another not so scientific anecdote.....

There have been 0 HPFP failures reported on this forum from anyone who uses Opti-Lube XPD religiously.
That would be promising, but how many of us use opti lube religiously? My guess would be less than a quarter use anything at all and even fewer use it religiously.. What do you think?
 

WutGas?

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Location
Oklahoma City
TDI
The Last Real Jetta Sedan
I think that not many use it (in relation to all the TDIs on the road), and it means absolutely nothing, but it still feels good to hear it :)
 

vdubtdi11

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Location
NoVA
TDI
2011 golf TDI
I think that not many use it (in relation to all the TDIs on the road), and it means absolutely nothing, but it still feels good to hear it :)
:):):) yes it does! I think that I am leaning towards getting some. I have been searching and no autozone or auto parts store has it so far..
 

Lightflyer1

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Location
Round Rock, Texas
TDI
2015 Beetle tdi dsg
They are liable, but do they all back up their fuel with that kind of guarantee? And by the sound of it, if you have a problem, she made it sound like it was a pretty easy proven process to get reimbursed.. She said that she had only seen one instance where there was even an investigation!
How it is handled and what kind of hassle it will be is any ones guess. If you can prove the fuel is contaminated any station is liable. BP may be easier to deal with in this regard though. No BP's in Texas or neighboring states though.
 

vdubtdi11

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Location
NoVA
TDI
2011 golf TDI
How it is handled and what kind of hassle it will be is any ones guess. If you can prove the fuel is contaminated any station is liable. BP may be easier to deal with in this regard though. No BP's in Texas or neighboring states though.
After that catastrophic spill, I can see why those states wouldn't want BP!
 

IFRCFI

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Location
Winchester, VA
TDI
2013 Touareg TDI Lux
That would be promising, but how many of us use opti lube religiously? My guess would be less than a quarter use anything at all and even fewer use it religiously.. What do you think?
Every tank since January, 2010...including the 1/2 tank on the dealers lot.
 
Top