Fuel additive OK with 2012 TDI?

Its really quite simple and it might have never been done: a fleet of cars or trucks, half get fuel additive, half get placebo (diesel fuel only in the bottle - itself compliant with what the additive tells you that it does, so even the label won't be false!) Run all engines the same way without anyone knowing which additive is real - double blind. Collect all data and wait for engine failures.

Betcha if any such study was done with enough statistical power, the additive manufacturer would be all over it , advertising it to the max. Never happened that way. If it was ever done, probably didn't make any difference!

The original single small study by Spicer used raw unadditized diesel fuel and a bunch of different additives: several additives made the lubricity worse. In a different one, PowerService silver made the lubricity worse! This study second study was taken off this forum, so you can only take my word for it.

TM

tditom said:

And there is reason why. Please see this thread on a BMW tech training document at bimmerfest. This info is on page 56:

The obvious reasons for this special internal coating is the lower lubricity standard for US fuel.

Since the VW diesel HPFP are failing, one theory is the substandard lubricity. I have previously shared test results from Power Service and Tin Man pooh-poohed those as well, so I don't expect any different here, but there are results of additive benefit for lubricity available to us on this forum.

I realize that lubricity is only one factor, but I think it is wise for all US diesel operators to use a proven lubricity additive- especially VW TDI CR owners.

Click to expand...

Saying you have not proven your point or have any data is not the same as pooh-poohing it. I'm sure you have an equally sure-footed theory of why there haven't been as many failures after the 2009 or so model years, or how Mercedes and BMW have somehow avoided having such great numbers of pump failures (without additives of course if you can even get that data) in their diesels in the US???

The easiest explanation is one to blame the manufacturer (or fuel suppliers) for being greedy and careless. I choose not to be so cynical nor do I mock those that disagree with me, other than say they are wrong or in denial of things.

The most logical explanation is that the fuel pumps that failed prematurely were not built to proper spec or proper quality control/tolerance. Engineering is the art of compromise. Certainly a fuel pump can be designed and built to withstand worse fuel for a million miles, but it might cost as much to manufacture as an entire engine. Manufacturers play the game all the time: to make all components last a certain amount of time/miles that within reason would approximate the lifetime of the vehicle.

TM

tditom said:

And there is reason why. Please see this thread on a BMW tech training document at bimmerfest. This info is on page 56:

The obvious reasons for this special internal coating is the lower lubricity standard for US fuel.

Since the VW diesel HPFP are failing, one theory is the substandard lubricity. I have previously shared test results from Power Service and Tin Man pooh-poohed those as well, so I don't expect any different here, but there are results of additive benefit for lubricity available to us on this forum.gin

I realize that lubricity is only one factor, but I think it is wise for all US diesel operators to use a proven lubricity additive- especially VW TDI CR owners.

Click to expand...

One manufacturer adapts to a lower standard for lubricity than that which was advised by only Bosch (maybe with Stanadyne in tow - they also make additives). One set of engines gets some bad fuel pumps and you advise all of us to use additives? Nice work. That means all of us need flood insurance too if the areas that didn't design for flood protection didn't have it? Great logic.

Its much more likely that Mercedes, which designs its engines to live in many third world hostile environments, already over-engineers their components. BMW is also a very highly respected diesel engine maker and has modified their diesel engines to the US fuel.
What about VW, the "value leader"? Did they go cheap on us with these fuel pumps or did Bosch already have a bunch of fuel pumps in production before the new ULSD standards were agreed upon???

Do we even know if these VW fuel pump failures were fed off-brand diesel with likely inferior additives from the suppliers? I use Chevron/Texaco whenever I can and avoid non-branded diesel for this very reason.

The reason the standards are different is that fuel delivery is different and lubricity is additivized differently in Europe. The US suppliers chose a different compromise number while the Bosch people likely were into the "over-engineering" mind-set and expected to sell their cheaper pumps to VW. If you look at the numbers, why not even have a higher lubricity number?? There was no direct data showing any of the numbers made any difference in real life - they used a lab test showing a scar on a piece of metal immersed in diesel oil! If you understand how numbers are understood, each level of lubricity was a multiple - there wasn't that much fine tuning or discussion of many real world variables. The general feeling was that changes leading to the new ASTM ULSD standard would make the fuel significantly better in all areas and more uniform, and not even lower lubricity in many cases, and that to meet the new standard, most refiners would surpass the new lubricity standard anyway!

Just as much of a guess as yours. I'm ready to see real data when it comes, in the meantime, its just conjecture and approximation, lead by a very convincing uninformative sales pitch for additives. Vitamins are no different in the marketplace.

TM

tin man-
If you read half as much as you posted you would already have the answers. I'm not going to spoon feed you the oft-shared Bosch study that showed the impact of wear scar to component life. Its there for you to look at (again), but since you seem to have your mind made up it probably wouldn't do you much good anyways.
Does this quote from your sig somehow explain your attitude about seeing reality?

"We see things not as they are, but as we are."

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by tditom
I realize that lubricity is only one factor, but I think it is wise for all US diesel operators to use a proven lubricity additive- especially VW TDI CR owners.

Click to expand...

Please provide us the DATA of these "proven lubricity additives" - there is no data. If its anything like some diet pills that tell you that you will lose weight, and show a .01 lb loss, you can't say they lie. The only proof that matters is longer engine component life, and this has never to my knowledge been shown in the aftermarket additive field with any normally operating engines using clean fresh brand name diesel.

If anything, putting additive in might make it worse - using a top brand name fuel may be the best advice for the 2009 CR TDI and we may not even know it.

TM

Tin Man said:

Please provide us the DATA of these "proven lubricity additives" - there is no data...

Click to expand...

Do you consider HFRR wear scar numbers taken before and after additives were used on a fuel sample as DATA? If not, then why not?

tditom said:

tin man-
If you read half as much as you posted you would already have the answers. I'm not going to spoon feed you the oft-shared Bosch study that showed the impact of wear scar to component life. Its there for you to look at (again), but since you seem to have your mind made up it probably wouldn't do you much good anyways.
Does this quote from your sig somehow explain your attitude about seeing reality?

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of the determination. The science is a bit less definitive since the ULSD standard wasn't applied to real life in that article, while somewhere else in the article it said that ASTM thought the lubricity standard was unreasonably expensive given the different distribution network and would be exceeded anyway by the suppliers. But this is not to say that they weren't correct to argue.

The behind the scenes argument may be that perhaps they weren't willing to produce a good enough fuel pump. BMW and Mercedes seem to be OK with the current US fuel quality. You might want to read my posts as well.

Your straw argument is that I am against additives, which in general is not true. I am against blindly following advertising that is patently deceptive with lack of proof. Just because the fuel itself has "poor" lubricity doesn't make any of the aftermarket additives any good in real life, especially with what the brand name suppliers put in already.

TM

tditom said:

Do you consider HFRR wear scar numbers taken before and after additives were used on a fuel sample as DATA? If not, then why not?

Click to expand...

Good question.

Take it from the medical field. A drug called Atromid-S was found to lower cholesterol. This in effect was given to millions of patients. Later on it was found that those that took Atromid-S had lower life expectancy.

You are putting the cart in front of the horse by implying that an aftermarket additive which improves lubricity in a limited environment will work in the real world without testing it properly. How do you know that this additive doesn't interfere with some oil company additives in other ways or clog up exhaust manifolds etc.?? Its also well known that different raw diesel needs different levels of additive to be properly "balanced" in the various areas of things like lubricity, cetane, etc.

So no, its what is called technical data but not definitive to your statements of using aftermarket additives. All the wear scar data says is that the diesel fuel coming from the suppliers may not be good enough, it doesn't say anything about aftermarket additives being anything better if at all.

But even so, there really is no good study of wear scar of normal pump diesel with and without additive, so your "data" is meaningless since if you are referring to the study using raw diesel, its a loser to begin with.

TM

Texas has been doing bi yearly diesel fuel testing.

http://m.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/mobilesource/txled/cleandiesel.html

I have been in contact with them several times and am encouraging them to include lubricity testing in their matrix next time around. Average cetane rating has been around 47 to 50 IIRC across all the varied stations they tested. Hopefully they will do this and give some idea what the lubricity values look like as well. It won't answer the additive question but should let you know what quality pump fuel is. The data from all the stations tested is in a document on that site somewhere.

Actually, the following quote does not mention lubricity at all. Having recently followed BMW diesel literature, it may actually be more in tune with their concerns over the problems with Biodiesel!

The high pressure fuel system is mostly identical in design and
function as compared to the European version. However, some
components have been adapted to the different fuel specification.
These components are:
• High-pressure pump
• Fuel rail
• Fuel injectors.
These adaptations are restricted to different coatings and materials
on the inside.

Click to expand...

Just goes to show how easily one can tailor the "facts" to predisposed beliefs!

TM

Tin Man said:

Actually, the following quote does not mention lubricity at all. Having recently followed BMW diesel literature, it may actually be more in tune with their concerns over the problems with Biodiesel!



Just goes to show how easily one can tailor the "facts" to predisposed beliefs!

TM

Click to expand...

No- it just refers to how the system was modified to deal with the inferior US fuel spec. Which indicates their concern about lubricity.

You gotta be trying really hard to not see what they're referring to. Or trolling...

FYI: the spicer test. It uses raw diesel to start with and found six aftermarket additives made the lubricity worse.

There was another test put on the web that also had limited value that had totally different results with the PS additive making lubricity worse, but that was taken off the web to my knowledge.

Also from a supplier of additive:

Fuel terminal operators didn’t expect to have to deal with this issue until mid 2005,
believing that diesel fuel with a lubricity additive to meet the new ASTM specification
would originate at the refinery gate and be shipped through the pipeline system to
terminals meeting the January 1, 2005 timeline. This issue took a pivotal turn during
October when pipeline operators said they would not allow diesel fuel with lubricity
additive to be shipped through its’ pipeline system, even on a temporary basis. Testing
revealed that the lubricity additive had the potential to contaminate batches of jet fuel that
interfaces or pick up residue off pipeline walls with the additized diesel fuel during
shipment.
Lubricity additive injection appears now to fall at the terminal operator level. In most
cases, this means installing injection equipment at the terminal.

Click to expand...

In Europe, much more of the shipping of fuel is by truck, not pipeline. There is not the same limitation of additive sourcing as in the US making it cheaper to put in additives in Europe.

TM

I really don't care to discuss the Spicer test. I also know you've seen the Power Service test results that were done on pump (not raw) diesel. You engaged me on that thread at length. I'm posting this for others to read for themselves so your disinformation doesn't go unchallenged.

In Europe they have a stricter lubricity standard, many more diesels, and many fewer HPFP problems. Any correlation at all?

tditom said:

No- it just refers to how the system was modified to deal with the inferior US fuel spec. Which indicates their concern about lubricity.

You gotta be trying really hard to not see what they're referring to. Or trolling...

Click to expand...

This is an offensive post. You are obviously towing the line for additives, given the poor evidence you have consistently put on this site.

It takes a little mind to start calling people names when you are found to be wrong or to have someone disagree with you. You might be considered the troll in this case.

TM

tditom said:

I really don't care to discuss the Spicer test. I also know you've seen the Power Service test results that were done on pump (not raw) diesel. You engaged me on that thread at length. I'm posting this for others to read for themselves so your disinformation doesn't go unchallenged.

In Europe they have a stricter lubricity standard, many more diesels, and many fewer HPFP problems. Any correlation at all?

Click to expand...

And you have this data from Europe or anywhere for that matter? Please give it to us.

Interestingly I have never disagreed with the presumed inferior standards of US ULSD. It is merely a straw argument on your part.

Please stop the trolling

TM

Tin Man said:

Just goes to show how easily one can tailor the "facts" to predisposed beliefs!

TM

Click to expand...

There is evidence of this on both sides of this issue. However, I am curious about why additive usage in a 2012 CR diesel has all of a sudden become such a big issue for the father of the owner of a 2004 PD TDI. About 1/3 of the posts in this thread are from you (15 of 45 so far). It is beginning to look like you have an ax to grind for some reason. There are dozens of threads here about the use of lubricity additives and somehow this one has become important to you.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing with you. Most of the points you bring up are valid, but that is no reason to dismiss as worthless the posts of others who might have differing opinions. This is (after all) a matter of opinion. Both sides of this additive/no additive argument have precious little in the way of hard facts on their side. To be dismissive of those who disagree with you just weakens your arguments in the eyes of many people. Let us try to keep our discussions on a civil and respectful level and just agree to disagree.

Whether or not additives help prevent fuel system problems is unknown, but there is also no evidence that it is harmful. Everyone if free to review all of the available information and make their own decisions about what they want to put into their cars.

Tin Man said:

Please stop the trolling

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure who is trolling here

Have Fun!

Don

JSWTDI09 said:

Whether or not additives help prevent fuel system problems is unknown, but there is also no evidence that it is harmful. Everyone if free to review all of the available information and make their own decisions about what they want to put into their cars.

Have Fun!

Don

Click to expand...

If you notice, this is exactly what I said, so why do you think I am arguing against these concepts?

TM

Tin Man said:

This is an offensive post. You are obviously towing the line for additives, given the poor evidence you have consistently put on this site.

It takes a little mind to start calling people names when you are found to be wrong or to have someone disagree with you. You might be considered the troll in this case.

TM

Click to expand...

The ironic thing is that I'm sure you are too intelligent to act so dense, so my conclusion was that you were arguing just for the sake of it. We know your belief, you know ours, so just let it be already...

Are you more (or less) offended now?

Yes I do have an axe to grind: National Math and Science Initiative

U.S. students recently finished 25th in math and 17th in science in the ranking of 31 countries by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Click to expand...

I get a lot of PM comments about standing up for scientific and Math principles in my posts and I enjoy doing it. If that is bad, well, maybe it explains why we are such drubs at scientific thinking and math in the US.

I find too many respond negatively to critical thinking and just like to wax eloquently - its an ego thing, with little to no good reasoning or data to back them up. Opinions are one thing, but having one with little to back it up is just foolishness.

I will end my rant and stop posting - please continue as you were.

TM

Tin Man said:

JSWTDI09 said:

Whether or not additives help prevent fuel system problems is unknown, but there is also no evidence that it is harmful. Everyone if free to review all of the available information and make their own decisions about what they want to put into their cars.

Click to expand...

If you notice, this is exactly what I said, so why do you think I am arguing against these concepts?

TM

Click to expand...

No it isn't; in fact you basically said the exact opposite and then began a 12 post rant on the topic; several of them in a row...

Tin Man said:

There is every reason to believe that you may be hurting as much as helping. No data.

Click to expand...

Tin Man said:

If that is bad, well, maybe it explains why we are such drubs at scientific thinking and math in the US.

I find too many respond negatively to critical thinking and just like to wax eloquently - its an ego thing, with little to no good reasoning or data to back them up. Opinions are one thing, but having one with little to back it up is just foolishness.

Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding. Whenever anyone "stands up for" science by making themselves themselves a martyr for it makes me ill. Get over yourself.

Firstly, you began this crusade by saying: "There is not one credible piece of data, not one scientific study, not one controlled double-blind fact filled article that any additive manufacturer has ever produced that shows there is any advantage to using additives for engines with no problems whatsoever."

This is dishonest, unless you literally have all the data and all the studies ever conducted around the world throughout history you can't make this claim. Regardless of that, if you know of studies that fail to pass your standards you should address the specific failures of the specific studies, or cite reports that take issue with those studies. This is a blanket statement without any of the facts you are crusading for.

The "no-facts" facts crusade continues. For instance "Leave the additive chemistry to the professionals at the oil companies." So, in chastising people about not having facts to support their opinion you say that we should just let someone else deal with it. This is so hypocritical its hilarious.

Moreover:
"The original single small study by Spicer used raw unadditized diesel fuel and a bunch of different additives: several additives made the lubricity worse. In a different one, PowerService silver made the lubricity worse! This study second study was taken off this forum, so you can only take my word for it."

WHAT?!?! The facts are available but you just can't cite them. Take your word for it. Really? For such a scientific martyr you are remarkably good at violating basic principles for dealing with data.

But, yet, you still hold others to those standards, constantly pushing people to show you data and facts. You have repeated, in some form or another, the phrase "show me the facts" or "I only care about the facts" many, many times. People have posted links to other studies. And yet you repeat. Anyone can "argue" by repeating the same phrase over and over while ignoring any new data that someone introduces - it is really more like bickering at that point. Repeating this call for facts is an indication that you aren't reading the information that is bring provided. That is not arguing in good faith, but being a troll.

You want a healthy debate? First, stop being a bully and at least meet your own standards of excellence. Second, stay on topic - don't bring up cholesterol drugs and don't quote studies about how far behind the US is in science. They have NOTHING to do with this thread.

cevans said:

You've got to be kidding. Whenever anyone "stands up for" science by making themselves themselves a martyr for it makes me ill. Get over yourself.

Firstly, you began this crusade by saying: "There is not one credible piece of data, not one scientific study, not one controlled double-blind fact filled article that any additive manufacturer has ever produced that shows there is any advantage to using additives for engines with no problems whatsoever."

This is dishonest, unless you literally have all the data and all the studies ever conducted around the world throughout history you can't make this claim. Regardless of that, if you know of studies that fail to pass your standards you should address the specific failures of the specific studies, or cite reports that take issue with those studies. This is a blanket statement without any of the facts you are crusading for.

The "no-facts" facts crusade continues. For instance "Leave the additive chemistry to the professionals at the oil companies." So, in chastising people about not having facts to support their opinion you say that we should just let someone else deal with it. This is so hypocritical its hilarious.

Moreover:
"The original single small study by Spicer used raw unadditized diesel fuel and a bunch of different additives: several additives made the lubricity worse. In a different one, PowerService silver made the lubricity worse! This study second study was taken off this forum, so you can only take my word for it."

WHAT?!?! The facts are available but you just can't cite them. Take your word for it. Really? For such a scientific martyr you are remarkably good at violating basic principles for dealing with data.

But, yet, you still hold others to those standards, constantly pushing people to show you data and facts. You have repeated, in some form or another, the phrase "show me the facts" or "I only care about the facts" many, many times. People have posted links to other studies. And yet you repeat. Anyone can "argue" by repeating the same phrase over and over while ignoring any new data that someone introduces - it is really more like bickering at that point. Repeating this call for facts is an indication that you aren't reading the information that is bring provided. That is not arguing in good faith, but being a troll.

You want a healthy debate? First, stop being a bully and at least meet your own standards of excellence. Second, stay on topic - don't bring up cholesterol drugs and don't quote studies about how far behind the US is in science. They have NOTHING to do with this thread.

Click to expand...

Wow. Just try to read my posts, objectively. And I did cite them properly, just click on the reference to Spiker's study, which supports my position. There aren't many.

If you notice, tditom didn't want to talk about it.

Please don't keep dragging me into this "debate" because there never was one. The facts are clear. The religion of aftermarket additives lives on.

TM

cevans said:

You've got to be kidding. Whenever anyone "stands up for" science by making themselves themselves a martyr for it makes me ill. Get over yourself.

Click to expand...

I'm a martyr? Gee, give me time and maybe I can be sainted!

Firstly, you began this crusade by saying: "There is not one credible piece of data, not one scientific study, not one controlled double-blind fact filled article that any additive manufacturer has ever produced that shows there is any advantage to using additives for engines with no problems whatsoever."

Click to expand...

Please, find me such a study - teach me and it will make my day! I have yet to find one in my many searches.

This is dishonest, unless you literally have all the data and all the studies ever conducted around the world throughout history you can't make this claim. Regardless of that, if you know of studies that fail to pass your standards you should address the specific failures of the specific studies, or cite reports that take issue with those studies. This is a blanket statement without any of the facts you are crusading for.

Click to expand...

Again, I have failed to find such studies but have pointed out the irony that even the additive manufacturers failed to do so also.

The "no-facts" facts crusade continues. For instance "Leave the additive chemistry to the professionals at the oil companies." So, in chastising people about not having facts to support their opinion you say that we should just let someone else deal with it. This is so hypocritical its hilarious.

Click to expand...

Interesting logic. I point out that there are no good studies, imply that the oil companies have the best data, and now I am supposed to have it all? Where did you learn such great debating skills? THIS IS TWISTED LOGIC AND BULLYING.

Moreover:
"The original single small study by Spicer used raw unadditized diesel fuel and a bunch of different additives: several additives made the lubricity worse. In a different one, PowerService silver made the lubricity worse! This study second study was taken off this forum, so you can only take my word for it."

WHAT?!?! The facts are available but you just can't cite them. Take your word for it. Really? For such a scientific martyr you are remarkably good at violating basic principles for dealing with data.

Click to expand...

Just click the FYI for the reference..

But, yet, you still hold others to those standards, constantly pushing people to show you data and facts. You have repeated, in some form or another, the phrase "show me the facts" or "I only care about the facts" many, many times. People have posted links to other studies. And yet you repeat. Anyone can "argue" by repeating the same phrase over and over while ignoring any new data that someone introduces - it is really more like bickering at that point. Repeating this call for facts is an indication that you aren't reading the information that is bring provided. That is not arguing in good faith, but being a troll.

Click to expand...

Actually I did, and the data was very poor. I didn't want to go into the specifics of it. Did you want me to go on and on? You already are saying I've said too much! Which is it?

You want a healthy debate? First, stop being a bully and at least meet your own standards of excellence. Second, stay on topic - don't bring up cholesterol drugs and don't quote studies about how far behind the US is in science. They have NOTHING to do with this thread.

Click to expand...

I have, and am being put in a position to defend myself unfortunately. I even explained how I have an axe to grind. I have been called a troll. When I cited data that disagreed with tditom he said he didn't want to talk about it. Who is bullying whom here?

TM

I'm having "oxford_guy" flashbacks......

Tin Man said:

... When I cited data that disagreed with tditom he said he didn't want to talk about it. Who is bullying whom here?

TM

Click to expand...

I was agreeing with you (sort of) that the "Spicer Report" was of limited usefulness! The link in my sig shares the test results that I obtained from Power Service that I think ARE relevant to the discussion. But you've already dismissed those HFRR results so I'm not sure they'll do you any good.

Sorry you felt "bullied", Precious.

tditom said:

I was agreeing with you (sort of) that the "Spicer Report" was of limited usefulness! The link in my sig shares the test results that I obtained from Power Service that I think ARE relevant to the discussion. But you've already dismissed those HFRR results so I'm not sure they'll do you any good.

Sorry you felt "bullied", Precious.

Click to expand...

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?

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. Again, the main references to fuel research mentions Spicer's research and this isn't much of a help, IMO.

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 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.

Be nice, Frodo.

TM

Lightflyer1 said:

Texas has been doing bi yearly diesel fuel testing.

http://m.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/mobilesource/txled/cleandiesel.html

I have been in contact with them several times and am encouraging them to include lubricity testing in their matrix next time around. Average cetane rating has been around 47 to 50 IIRC across all the varied stations they tested. Hopefully they will do this and give some idea what the lubricity values look like as well. It won't answer the additive question but should let you know what quality pump fuel is. The data from all the stations tested is in a document on that site somewhere.

Click to expand...

Lightflyer, Do you know what the marked cetane was on these pumps? Im trying to figure out if fuels can sometimes be higher than what they are marked or if you just have great diesel down there in TX. I see that we have a hand full of stations (4 or 5) here in the northern half of Virginia and some of southern Maryland that are marked 47 and a few more that are 45. The VAST majority are marked at only 40 cetane. Difference in quality based on location or are we here in the mid-Atlantic getting more than we know?

Also, thanks for the flood of quality information guys! Looks like its gotten a bit challenging, but that forces each side to back up their argument, and thats a good thing for a newb like me.
Dow we know if our VWs are equipped with the same inner engine/component coating or finish that is aforementioned in the BMW's and Benz diesels that prepares them for ULSD here in the states?

as for the fuel pump issue, is VW still putting the same pumps that some were having problems with into the '12 and '13 models, or are they still being produced?

I would think that the 40 cetane markings are "at least" numbers to show they comply with the standards. Could it be higher? Absolutely.

WutGas? said:

I would think that the 40 cetane markings are "at least" numbers to show they comply with the standards. Could it be higher? Absolutely.

Click to expand...

Based on Lightflyer's link, I have some hope!

Pumps are not marked here. When asked the only answer you will get is it meets the "minimum" 40 cetane standard. I have asked both station workers/owners and written/emailed the home offices with the same response. I am hoping the TXLeD guys will include the lubricity next go around in 2013 maybe. Check the hpfp thread some new info there.