are additives to fuel necessary???

tditom said:

From Biodiesel.org paper

Will this have any impact on the life expectancy of our TDI's? Beats me. But for the pennies per gallon it will cost us to ensure sufficient lubricity, it is a no-brainer indeed.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. But the real world impact is not clear, as you say.

But the data that the aftermarket additive will help, and consistently do so, is also a bit sketchy, as you can see from the previous posts.

This really begs to find out from car manufacturers what they think about it, with rumored new diesels coming from Honda etc. for 2008.

TM

tditom said:

So 50% of the LSD fuel wasn't up to the Bosch standard in '98, and that had risen to 80% by 2002. Is this because the demand on fuel refined increased and they were trying to save?

Does it stand to reason that in a highly competive industry like the oil industry, there would be a strong temptation to reduce expensive additives? Remember the volume this industry has. A few cents of additive saved per gallon for them is big buck$ to the bottom line.

Click to expand...

With all that internet detectiving, I'm shock to see such a big hole in your arguement. The oil industry could not reduce the use of additives at all back then to save a few cents if the wanted to......lubricity additives were not in use in 1998 or 2002. The ASTM lubricty spec went in place in December 2004 and most lubricty injectors weren't in place until 2005.

b4black said:

With all that internet detectiving, I'm shock to see such a big hole in your arguement. The oil industry could not reduce the use of additives at all back then to save a few cents if the wanted to......lubricity additives were not in use in 1998 or 2002. The ASTM lubricty spec went in place in December 2004 and most lubricty injectors weren't in place until 2005.

Click to expand...

Good point. I missed it while looking over that Bosch report.

I'm still concerned with the disparity between the ASTM limit and the FI mfr limit. The only mention I could find on lubricity from US major oil producers was from BP and Chevron. Both claimed they will address the ULSD lubricity issue by meeting the ASTM limit. As we can see from the Bosch report, it is a pretty linear degradation of the components.

If we had actual HFRR data on ULSD fuels (as they come out at the pump), that could help put this issue to rest.

tditom said:

...If we had actual HFRR data on ULSD fuels (as they come out at the pump), that could help put this issue to rest.

Click to expand...

George has already provided some data. (from Interesting ULSD HFRR test results thread):

Georgeseq said:

Jusst received some interesting HFRR results for 3 premium diesel fuels, as pumped, along with the same samples treated with Primrose 409 winter additive at l:1500 and their attendent HFRR results performed as per ASTM D6079 by Southwest Research, completed 10/9/06.

Amoco ULSD#2 untreated 448 Treated 360
BP ULSD #2 unreated 328 Treated 295
Marathon ULSD #2 405 Treated 352

Thus all three samples provided lubricity below the standard of 520, although not too distant from the manufacturer's recommended 480 [tditom EDIT: this should say 460] scar size. The Primrose test results indicate a good level of additional lubricity enhancement.
Given that the Feds are only concerned with sulfur levels and that the lubricity additization of ULSD takes place at the last point prior to transport load, it would seem prudent to have a bit of lubricity insurance.... Just in case.. No one is doing field lubricity checks...

Click to expand...

This is comforting to know that at least some brands in some areas are under the Bosch limit.


Another post from that thread that gives hope:

Ponderosa said:

We check lubricity additive injection on a daily basis. It is done by pulling sample, testing at rack/truck, and automatic functions of loading computer. If a load is low on additive injections, the computer will lock out BOL function, and stop loading. Then we have to investigate the failure, check product, and either bypass failure, or unload and reload. We are usually at 110% of company required injection levels, this puts us well over 150% of ASTM standards for lubricity levels.
...

Click to expand...

At least THAT terminal is doing it right! If we can be assured this is the norm throughout the industry long term (after the market gets into full "competition mode"), then we can feel better going additive free. I'm glad I don't normally need to worry about this as my local B20 will certainly provide enough lubrication. I suppose I will continue to additize for lubricity when in unknown territory- just for peace of mind.

Sounds reasonable.

Makes sense that trucking companies would get all huffy about this.

I'm planning to call Mercedes.

TM

looks like the answer is no in canada!

From the HFRR thread:

danlef said:

The email below contains information I received from Ultramar Canada. In my email to Ultramar, I asked if it was a good idea to use diesel fuel additives. The information is comforting assuming it is true.

At all Ultramar retail outlets, on-road undyed diesel shall be Ultra Low Sulphur. This is an Environment Canada rule in force since September 1, 2006.

I do not feel appropriate for you to add any after market additive to improve your fuel quality.
Cetane: Ultramar easily meets the 40 cetane standard. We currently produce 45-48
Lubricity: US standard is 520 microns max on the High Frequency Reciprocating Rig Test, when Canadian standard is more stringent with 460 max. We typically observe about 380 max.
Pour point: Ultramar is using Cloud point which is more severe than pour and is meeting the Canadian standard of the "2.5% winter design temperature" for the zone where any diesel is supplied. The 2.5 WDT is using weather data based on 50 years of monitoring.
​

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tin Man said:

I'm planning to call Mercedes.

Click to expand...

Think it would be better to call the people who manufacturer the injection system - Bosch. They would know better than Mercedes or VW.

wny_pat said:

Think it would be better to call the people who manufacturer the injection system - Bosch. They would know better than Mercedes or VW.

Click to expand...

Could be, but Mercedes is more directly responsible for its product to me. They would also have, theoretically, the most experience with this over the years. I also wonder what their response would be to the differing recommendations, as Bosch has made theirs apparently clear.

I called the dealer (as I am always asked to do this first) and was referred to MBNA to either write a letter or e-mail them. I will try when I get a chance to.

TM

I will save you the hassle, Bosch prefers a 400 HFFR.

For emissions reasons cars without NOx traps (Pre-BLUETEC) were designed to run on 30 ppm sulfur fuels along with 49 Cn minimum.

You guys can figure out the rest...

Not sure where the 460 came from but it does not apply to the TDI or the MB CDI fuel systems.

To be clearer yet, 2oz per tank of power service will work perfectly in the Benz without worry. Also limit any biodiesel usage to B5 (5%) maximum to preserve your warranty that applies to the I-6 and V-6 CDI motors including BLUETEC versions.

Tinman, let me know if you need any technical information on the Benz, I have the complete DVD library for the E320 211 up through 2006.

DB

" Not sure where the 460 came from but it does not apply to the TDI or the MB CDI fuel systems."

How so, DB? i thought Bosch developed the system for VW cars?

DB is saying 460 is not what Bosch recommends, they prefer 400.

I started using Diesel Kleen four tanks ago, and I noticed an immediate increase in MPG of about 1.5. My MPG varies, as sometimes I'll drive a tank more highway than other tanks, but while using Diesel Kleen, I got 47.4, which is 1.5 above my max ever.

I didn't buy the product for fuel economy, because I'm usually skeptical about additives to increase fuel economy. I bought it due to the fact that my dealer told me that the water separater no longer has a drain, and I was concerned about water in the system. Still--I noticed an immediate increase in fuel economy, since I measure every tank, and always use the same B20 pump.

Over the four tanks, my average is 1.5 higher. I haven't changed anything except less A.C. usage, however, I did not notice a decline in mpg when I started using the A.C. I run low fan, and only in highway driving. Windows down in the city.

It cost $6.50 for a quart, and it lasted me four tanks. I just switched to the winter version of Diesel Kleen, so I don't know how this will affect things.

I don't know if the cost of the product justifies the savings in fuel, but I'm for it, even if it comes close, as better fuel economy is worth more to me than the monetary value.

Drivbiwire said:

I will save you the hassle, Bosch prefers a 400 HFFR.

Click to expand...

Thanks. So Mercedes should say this to its customers, no?

For emissions reasons cars without NOx traps (Pre-BLUETEC) were designed to run on 30 ppm sulfur fuels along with 49 Cn minimum.

Click to expand...

Not to belabor the point, I guess its the customer's job to find the right fuel then....

You guys can figure out the rest...

Not sure where the 460 came from but it does not apply to the TDI or the MB CDI fuel systems.

To be clearer yet, 2oz per tank of power service will work perfectly in the Benz without worry. Also limit any biodiesel usage to B5 (5%) maximum to preserve your warranty that applies to the I-6 and V-6 CDI motors including BLUETEC versions.

Tinman, let me know if you need any technical information on the Benz, I have the complete DVD library for the E320 211 up through 2006.

DB

Click to expand...

Just the section on recommended lubricity (and perhaps how to get it/find it) would be nice for now.

Thanks!

TM

wny_pat said:

Think it would be better to call the people who manufacturer the injection system - Bosch. They would know better than Mercedes or VW.

Click to expand...

I'm in contact with Bosch on this subject and should be able to post some info later this week.

In the Bosch/Delfi presentation, they advocated compliance with EN590, which sets a maximum of 460. I haven't seen anything that indicates Bosch want EN590 altered. No doubt the fuel producers aim to get below the 460 level: safety margin always required.

nortones2 said:

In the Bosch/Delfi presentation, they advocated compliance with EN590, which sets a maximum of 460. I haven't seen anything that indicates Bosch want EN590 altered. No doubt the fuel producers aim to get below the 460 level: safety margin always required.

Click to expand...

On your side of the Atlantic, this is mandatory. Over here the standards organization ASTM came up with a 520 level. That's what has some of us concerned. And just because a few tests show that we (in the US) have fuel that currently meets the EN spec, it doesn't mean that they will always do so. Why would they spend more on additives than they *must*?

Odd that ASTM doesn't apparently listen to the FI mfrs. Wonder what their agenda is?

nortones2 said:

Odd that ASTM doesn't apparently listen to the FI mfrs. Wonder what their agenda is?

Click to expand...

The last time something like this happened, it was the big three lobbying against engine oil standards to prevent extra wear on overhead cam engines, to so-called "Japanese" engine specs. They were mostly producing overhead valve engines then.

TM

Started my car this morning.. 35 deg F. I noticed the GP light cycled a bit longer than usual.. and whamo.. started without any hesitation, no louder than usual, no smoke whatsoever.. (and I had smoke on cold mornings last march) Never missed a beat.. So..

Did the additives work like they are supposed to? Do they help keep the fuel in check for Centane #'s ? I am also running in line with my best tank again and I ran it rather hard these past 700 miles. Is it coincidence that I have had my best 4/5 tanks on the last 4 fillups using PS?

I'm not about to stop using PS to check to see if the additives are what is helping, but for the extra $6 bucks over 9-10 tanks.... I'll take the chance that it's working like it should...

I have seen one too many pictures of melted pistons, and the most likely culprit was a clogged injector causing hot spots from poor spray paterns. I routinely run fuel injector cleaner in my gas vehicles, and notice an improvement each time.. so why would I not want to use something for diesel fuel. And if those that use Diesel Purge every so often report great results, clearly there are carbon deposits that need to be removed.

For those who don't use.. hey.. I support your attitude too.. heck you are saving the extra $$$ and sometimes hastle of adding anything (anyone who has spilled it knows what I mean) but at least make sure your fuel source is from a reputable station who is diligent about testing the fuel they sell. And if you live up north, make sure you have a towing service # handy for the first time your fuel gels. I say first time, cuz I know you will never have a second time

I tried PS a couple of tankfuls and it helped it seems. The next 3 tankfuls later without PS it was still good. May be just from switching over to ULSD and cetane differences.

I've never heard of "dirty injector" failures in any TDI or CDI engine, have you? Advertising implies many things without backing them up.

Oh, and try to tell me that my fuel will gel over this winter when it hasn't for years. Sheesh.

TM

The problem is....the folks on TDIclub represent a very small portion of TDI owners in the US.

hmm, interesting fact on here guys, hmm, it's hard to say, some additives work, and some of them are money traps. I can't tell you personally which ones work. But for example. slick 50. Great Stuff! But yeah, you can buy these other chemicals that claim to do stuff but are actually doing more harm than good. my best advice would be to use what VW recommends, The germans are very intelligent in that area. Hmm, as far as ULSD lubricity goes, they've pretty much assured us that the lube properties are way past low sulfur diesel. It would be interesting to grab a sample Of ULSD from Europe and compare the properties to our ULSD. I heard they've been using ULSD for 10 years and it would be assuring to know that it infact doesn't cause any harm. I'm 100% positive that they would make sure it's ok before it's mass produced. hmm, I read some where that people were using 2-cycle oil in their TDI, I don't know, I'd think that that would damage the Catalytic converter cause it burns dirty, even in a gas engine, and the same as inside a gas engine, that stuff makes alot of carbon. One thing I'm looking forward to though is having ULSD cause nomore cleaning out the EGR and intake manifold. yeah....! I don't mean to be contradicting anyone so don't take this personal if it does.

Tin Man said:

II've never heard of "dirty injector" failures in any TDI or CDI engine, have you?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Dirty Injectors is not a point of failure, its a deterioration of performance ability.
If a diesel is run and run, and then begins to smoke excessively, undoubtedly the cause is "dirty injectors". This is a well known phenomenom.
And the remedy is to clean the injectors, either by pulling them and resetting them, or by using a Diesel Purge. Then in the future to use a preventative additive in every tank, which is a less expensive solution in the long term.
cheers.

Can they get dirty enough to spay fuel incorrectly enough to melt a piston?

Something here which indicates that injector dribbling is harmful. Linked to lubrication shortfall also. http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/eng/features/oilrefiner/?show=55767

Bob_Fout said:

Can they get dirty enough to spay fuel incorrectly enough to melt a piston?

Click to expand...

Did you ever see tsterkel's thread

Could be the one I'm thinking of...

Tin Man said:

I've never heard of "dirty injector" failures in any TDI or CDI engine, have you? Advertising implies many things without backing them up.

Click to expand...

I remembered this thread:
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=125400

But Terry Sterkel deleted all his relevant messages in that thread and in a couple others, related to the problems he had. So it's not clear whether his problems were fuel-related or lubrication-related.

tditom said:

I'm in contact with Bosch on this subject and should be able to post some info later this week.

Click to expand...

I have finally been able to make contact with one of the Bosch folks who wrote the presentation on lubricity issues. He did not want to be quoted, so I will summarize our conversation about lubricity additives.

He (and Bosch) does not recommend any additives to diesel. The reasons for this are that he thinks that additives may do more harm than good if mis-applied, and he trusts that the oil companies will go above and beyond additizing for lubricity- enough that we won't experience any FI component failure.

He said he could see my point about fuel distributors potentially being tempted to cut costs by skimping on lubricity additive, but he doesn't believe that they will risk any damage to our systems.

This seems to fly in the face of the presentation he was part of, as well as the other documents from Bosch indicating a preference of something less than 400.

I'm not sure if I understood this part correctly or not, but he may also be a member of the ASTM team that created the 520 standard. He mentioned he was attending an ASTM meeting in the near future.

I think that if we do choose to use additives, we should be careful to not over-do it. More is not necessarily better, or even good, when it comes to additives. I'm glad that I have access to quality biodiesel, and feel confident in the B20 I have been using for 4+ years- even when the D2 balance is ULSD.

Thanks for the post!

Potential side-effects that may be greater than potiential benefits, just like medicines, makes it more likely that additives be recommended only when a problem is identified. Most good qualified mechanics and automotive engineers seem to follow this line of thinking.

TM