Fuel additives

GTIDan · May 6, 2010

Marlyece said:
A VW tech e-mailed me the following regarding using Stanadyne on '09 and '10 TDIs:

"VW'S official answer is no at this time. Germany is testing other
additives that develop less ash when burned at this time. I have no ETA
though or what particular product they are testing but Stanadyne does
not work well with DPF."

...and Tornado, it's ma'am, not sir no biggie!

If what you say is for real than the answer is clear for those of us with 09/10 TDIs............ would stay away from Stanadyne and, for me, all of the additives out there.

Marlyece · May 6, 2010

GTIDan said:
If what you say is for real than the answer is clear for those of us with 09/10 TDIs............ would stay away from Stanadyne and, for me, all of the additives out there.

I am staying away until VW is done with testing, there is good reason to listen to them, I'm thinking. Glad I never tried the stuff. I spoke with a tech guy at VW who is on the ball with this stuff and he advised me to stay away.

dweisel · May 6, 2010

Marlyece said:
I am staying away until VW is done with testing, there is good reason to listen to them, I'm thinking. Glad I never tried the stuff. I spoke with a tech guy at VW who is on the ball with this stuff and he advised me to stay away.

I would be more apt to ask the tech where he got his results on additive use being bad for the dpf. Or is this just based on his personal opinion. I lost all faith in VW TECH's when the number 12 rated tech in the nation told me I had put metal contaminated fuel in my car.

I have to commend you for doing your due diligence on to add or not to add. Most people wouldn't go that far.
dweisel

nj1266 · May 6, 2010

If Stanadyne does not work well with a DPF, could it be because it has sulfur in it? Adding sulfur will increase lubricity, but will also clog the DPF. I doubt that the EPA would have allowed the sale of Stanadyne if it had sulfur in it.

GTIDan · May 6, 2010

Diesel additives are, too me, what the STP, Duralub and Slick 50 got people to believe years ago. It may not hurt anything to use it but until they can show me a before and after result of their product they can keep it.......

TheDieselIdea · May 6, 2010

http://www.sfrcorp.com/

The only stuff I ever used that i just went "wow"!!!

I dont think a company selling a product and making claims for 25 plus years would still be thriving if this product was bad.

Every story I've heard has been an amazing one and they never end.

I was driving down the road at 70 when my TB jumped time and died.

The only thing I found was a questionionable lifter. I replaced all the lifters and TB kit and 4000 miles later, all is well. 45mpg and running smooth.

I'm not a salesman...just a believer! They have products for all components. Check it out. watch the test!

GTIDan · May 6, 2010

TheDieselIdea said:
http://www.sfrcorp.com/

The only stuff I ever used that i just went "wow"!!!

I dont think a company selling a product and making claims for 25 plus years would still be thriving if this product was bad.

Every story I've heard has been an amazing one and they never end.

I was driving down the road at 70 when my TB jumped time and died.

The only thing I found was a questionionable lifter. I replaced all the lifters and TB kit and 4000 miles later, all is well. 45mpg and running smooth.

I'm not a salesman...just a believer! They have products for all components. Check it out. watch the test![/quote]

A test conducted by who? Figures don't lie but liars figure as they say.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The TV was flooded with test results with STP, Duralub and Slick 50 back a few years back and they sold billions of dollars worth of it. I think times have changed today.

The results of some tests are a lot like believing in a higher authority..... There is absolutely no proof of either being real. You can only have faith and faith, my friends, is not proof of anything. Your call.........I've made mine. No intent to offend anyone here by the way.

nj1266 · May 6, 2010

GTIDan said:
Diesel additives are, too me, what the STP, Duralub and Slick 50 got people to believe years ago. It may not hurt anything to use it but until they can show me a before and after result of their product they can keep it.......

Well I might be able to help prove that additives work for imporved fuel mileage purposes.

My last tank was filled with Shell ULSD only. I drove it till right after the fuel light came on. I had 672.5 miles on the trip meter when I refilled with 14.2 gallons of ULSD from the same station and pump. I topped it off just like before. My mpg was 47.2 mpg.

On this new fill-up I added 50 mL of Schaeffer DT2000. It is supposed to increase fuel mileage by 5%. So the next fuel tank should net me 49.56 mpg.

I drive the same way all the time. No major changes in style. 65 mph using CC on the freeway. Coast out of gear to a full stop for lights and freeway off-ramps. 75% freeway and 25% street. Drive too and from the Gym everyday except Tuesday. I drive 4 days a week to work, not 5. Same 41-42 psi in the tires. My driving is designed to maximize fuel mileage ALL the time.

I will report back when I re-fill the tank. I usually fill once every 15-17 days. My next fill-up should be on May 15-17.

BTW, Schaeffer does provide the most data about their product including HFRR and fuel economy numbers. The company is as old as dirt. It has been in business in the SAME family since 1849. It is not a late comer by any means

Tin Man · May 8, 2010

Tin Man said:
I spoke (typed?) too soon. The CEL came back on after having the glow plug light on for a while. This may be a battery or alternator problem (had that once already). I'll get it checked on the scanner. Sigh.

TM

Well, I had it scanned (no charge! - their idea too) and there was nothing wrong. They couldn't make sense of the codes, so the computer was reset and the thing keeps running fine.

Go figure.

Oh, and since I don't use additives, this "proves" that not using additives fixes CEL's. Don't you love anecdotal evidence!

TM

DPM · May 9, 2010

was a VAG- compatible scanner used, or just a generic one?

Tin Man · May 9, 2010

DPM said:
was a VAG- compatible scanner used, or just a generic one?

The scanner was for a Mercedes, and is I assume not VW or any other brand-specific type, by law.

TM

DPM · May 9, 2010

could explain why the codes didn't make any sense then.

Tin Man · May 9, 2010

DPM said:
could explain why the codes didn't make any sense then.

Mercedes shop dedicated to Mercedes run by a Mercedes certified mechanic who is a real German. Doubt it.

Computer glitch? Likely.

Why would you want to use a VW scanner on a Mercedes?

TM

DPM · May 9, 2010

Oh, wait. I'd wrongly assumed that your problem was with the TDI.

pgenis · May 10, 2010

nj1266 said:
If Stanadyne does not work well with a DPF, could it be because it has sulfur in it? Adding sulfur will increase lubricity, but will also clog the DPF. I doubt that the EPA would have allowed the sale of Stanadyne if it had sulfur in it.

Sulfur does not increase lubricity. Aromatic hydrocarbons do and they are removed (mostly) when the sulfur-rich components are removed.

I am glad to have 2006 engine and this DPF business is not affecting me. But this is on a side.

And BTW, I am using currently AMSOil and PS Diesel Kleen together. And love it.

Bob_Fout · May 11, 2010

Cetane boost, good.

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?p=2497030

nj1266 · May 21, 2010

I have proof that the DT2000 that I use actually improves FE.

On my last tank I got 47.2 mpg w/o the DT2000. Then I filled the car from the same station/pump w/DT2000. I just hand calculated the results and I got 49.9 mpg, a 2.7 mpg improvement. The DT2000 is supposed to improve FE by 5%. Doing the math I got 5.7% improvement. That is right in the ballpark of 5%.

I drove the same way on both tanks: 25% street and 75% highway; coasting to a stop; cruising on the freeway at 65 mph; I use the AC on the way back from work, but not on the way to work; I rev the car to 2500-3500 rpm till I get up to speed when I enter the freeway.

On the D2 only tank I got 672.5 miles before I filled 14.262 gallons and the fuel light was on since I hit 668 miles on the trip meter.

On the D2+DT2000 tank I got 671.5 miles before I filled 13.461 gallons and the fuel light was not on and the MFD was showing a 100 mile range. I think I still had 25 miles to go before the fuel light would come on.

eb2143 · May 21, 2010

nj1266 said:
I have proof that the DT2000 that I use actually improves FE.

Hey, that's a strong word! 6% variation is well within the realm of normal variability, especially on a new car. For better proof, alternate tanks for half a year and show that you gain and loose around 5% consistently depending on its use. But you'd have to really run tanks down to empty.

nj1266 · May 21, 2010

eb2143 said:
Hey, that's a strong word! 6% variation is well within the realm of normal variability, especially on a new car. For better proof, alternate tanks for half a year and show that you gain and loose around 5% consistently depending on its use. But you'd have to really run tanks down to empty.

The Schaeffer website states that I should get a 5% improvement in fuel mileage

http://www.schaefferoil.com/diesel_treat_2000.html

So I go and test this claim just like any other lay person would:

1. I used the same fuel from the same station and the same pump.
2. I filled the D2 only tank to the top of the filler neck.
3. I filled the D2+DT2000 tank to the top of the filler neck.
4. I drove 672.5 miles on the D2 tank.
5. I drove 671.5 miles on the D2+DT2000 tank.
6. Only one driver drove the car. No passangers rode in the car.
7. I used the same driving style for both tanks. The style is designed for fuel efficiency.
8. I drive almost the same route 4 days a week.
9. I drive 25% city and 75% highway.
10. The tire psi stayed the same for both tanks.

I ended up gaining 2.7 mpg from the D2+DT2000 tank over the D2 only tank. That is exactly a 5.7% gain. DT2000 claims a 5% gain. I think that is plenty of proof for a lay person.

If I follow your method, then the driving style/route will become a factor, the fuel quality that I use will become a factor (even if it is from the same station) and weather conditions will become a factor. There will be more variables if I do a long term test like you want me to. I am trying to limit the impact of outside variables on the test, hence the two tank test.

JC_1992 · May 21, 2010

I agree with your findings. I run DT2000 in my car and well and have found good improvements. Plus it has shown to have much more lubricity than any of the power service products in multiple tests that have been performed on other sites.

Claudio · May 21, 2010

nj1266 said:
I have proof that the DT2000 that I use actually improves FE.

On my last tank...[cut]

to do a real test you should make at least 5 fillup without and 5 with the additive, then do the average and see if you have had any improvement.

as the friend above said, 5% increment should be just because the outside temp was warmer.

TornadoRed · May 21, 2010

It is almost impossible for any driver to perform fuel economy tests that prove anything. Even if you travel the same roads at the same speeds every day, even if temperatures do not vary from week to week or month to month, even if you fill to the exact level each time, it will be almost impossible to prove that some other factors do not enter into the equation.

I have either added my own fuel additive to each tank, or filled up at a station offering a premium diesel blend, almost every time I've fueled up for the last 250k-270k miles. I have not done so because I expected better fuel mileage, but because I wanted slightly better performance and better protection for my fuel system components. I keep very good records and have never been able to identify difference in fuel economy based on fuel or fuel additives -- except when I used B20 or B99, and then it was obvious.

Plus 3 Golfer · May 21, 2010

nj1266, I think you should test PS next and see if you can match the 11.7% increase over no additive (50-65 mph speeds) in the quote below. How else are we going to know whether DT2000 is better than Diesel Kleen.

And for lubricity just add a quart of B99/B100 per tank. B99 is actually cheaper than D2 in AZ. BTW, PS claims upto 8% increase in fuel economy and appears to be cheaper than DT2000.

The solar system lined up just perfectly where I had three identical 600 mile round trip runs from Tucson to El Paso with no load or trailer, so I decided to try out two DFAs. I fueled up at the same stations each time.

The first trip I ran straight pump fuel with no DFA of any kind.
75-80mph cruise speed (Tucson-El Paso) net 15.1 mpg
60-65 mph cruise speed (El Paso-Tucson) net 18.8 mpg

Second trip with Shell Rotella DFA.
75-80 mph cruise speed (Tucson-El Paso) net 15.5 mpg
60-65 mph cruise speed (El Paso-Tucson) net 19.8 mpg

Third trip with Diesel Kleen (grey bottle)
85-93 mph cruise speed (Tucson-El Paso) net 16.0 mpg
60-65 mph cruise speed (El Paso-Tucson) net 21.0 mpg

itchytweed · May 22, 2010

Just printed the MSDS's from Schaeffer for their five offerings of DT2000. Now to digest and have some fun with.

danham · May 22, 2010

The companies that sell fuel additives that promise better FE know that in the real world, nobody will ever prove the claims to be bogus. There are just too many variables, so they can say whatever they want (within reason). In addition to variables already mentioned in this topic, there are discrepancies in wind direction and velocity, traffic, road gradient, pump and odometer accuracy, and barometric pressure -- and more -- all muddying the waters.

Given those variables, I could construct a two-tank test that "proves" that wearing a red shirt while driving gives me 5% better fuel economy than a blue one. If I sold you a special fuel-saving red shirt, you would be able to reach the same conclusion, and would be somewhat reluctant to admit in public that you paid good money for such a swindle, hence the positive reports you read online.

Also, doing a more legitimate long-term FE test, it makes no difference whether you run to empty or not, or fill up to the brim each time. What you are trying to do is account for every drop of fuel used over a reasonably large number of miles, to average out the variables mentioned above. Using 14 gallons to drive 600 miles is the same over time as using two seven-gallon fillups to drive 300 miles each. Differences in refill level will disappear in that analysis, which is another reason a two-tank test is not valid.

Here's my personal choice of a bottom line. Using an additive to get better mileage is a waste of money and time. Using one to improve lubricity to reduce fuel system wear is defensible, but has to be balanced against potential damage to the emissions system on the common rail motors. I choose not to use any additive.

-dan

nj1266 · May 22, 2010

All I know is this:

1. The claims that Schaeffer made about DT2000 comport with my findings. They claimed 5% improvement in FE and I got 5.7% improvement in FE. I posted the numbers and the way I acquired them. I did the test like a layperson would as I outlined above. I am just sharing my findings. Doing more than two tanks introduces more variables into the testing.

2. Of all the additives that I read about Schaeffer made the most realistic and least outrageous claims about their DT2000. Schaeffer published the most data about their products compared to other additive companies.

3. Schaeffer is not some Johnny-come-lately or fly-by-night company. They have been in business since 1848, that is before the US Civil War. How many of the other additive comapnies can claim that? They have a long history and a long reputation.

4. When it came to reduction in lubricity Schaeffer claimes a reduction of 0.107 micron on the HFRR test (from 0.561 to 0.454). The Spicer study showed a reduction of 0.166 micron on the HFRR test (from 0.636 to 0.470). The fact that the independent Spicer study and Schaeffer's own study gave close results sold me on the DT2000. When you have repeatability in testing, then you have more trustworthy results. Most other Additive companies did not even bother publish their HFRR results.

danham · May 22, 2010

Hey, if you find good value in the Schaeffer additives, go for it and I sincerely wish you the best of luck. But ...

1. no, that's incorrect; doing longer tests reduces the influence of the variables which render a two-tank test invalid.

2. that is a good sign.

3. I drive a Jetta Sportwagen not a Conestoga Wagon [grin].

4. As I said previously, lubricity is the most legit reason to spend money on an additive. But will Schaeffer buy you a new DPF or other exhaust parts if their product contaminates the catalyst system? Don't tell me that they "guarantee" it won't. That "guarantee" does not include buying you very expensive VW parts, I'd wager.

For me that's the point at which I decide not to use any of these additives in my JSW. Obviously you disagree and to repeat myself, I hope it works out for you over the long haul.

-dan

nj1266 · May 22, 2010

danham said:
Hey, if you find good value in the Schaeffer additives, go for it and I sincerely wish you the best of luck. But ...

1. no, that's incorrect; doing longer tests reduces the influence of the variables which render a two-tank test invalid.

And a long term test would do the same:

1. Your driving style and the driving conditions would vary more under a multiple fuel tank test than under a two tank test.

2. Weather conditions would vary more under a multiple fuel tank test than under a two tank test. Weather conditions do affect fuel economy. There are multiple posts of people geting worse fuel economy in the winter than in the spring/summer in their diesel cars.

3. It is well known that as the TDI engine breaks-in it gives better fuel mileage. A long term tests introduces that variable into the equation. You end up not knowing if the mpg improvement was from the additive or from the engine breaking in.

3. I drive a Jetta Sportwagen not a Conestoga Wagon [grin].

I do not get the joke, sorry

4. As I said previously, lubricity is the most legit reason to spend money on an additive. But will Schaeffer buy you a new DPF or other exhaust parts if their product contaminates the catalyst system? Don't tell me that they "guarantee" it won't. That "guarantee" does not include buying you very expensive VW parts, I'd wager.

The DPF will be damaged from the use of high sulfur diesel fuel or high sulfur additives. Schaeffer states that DT2000 has less than 15 ppm sulfur and complies with EPA requirements. I see no reason why the additive will damage the DPF, but then again anything is possible.

I have only read about one failed DPF on these boards. There does not seem to be a rash of DPF failures on 09-10 TDIs using additives.

By contrast, there does seem to be about a 5% failure of fuel pumps on these forums especially in states outside of CA where diesel quality is not so good.

Plus 3 Golfer · May 22, 2010

nj266, contrary to what you may believe, a long term test will yield results with a higher level of confidence than your "layman's" test. If you really want to try to show the affect of DT2000 you should introduce additional independent variables like ambient temperature, average speed, and probably several others and extend the test for say 30 tanks. If you believe break-in to be a significant variable, then introduce odometer reading as an independent variable. You will then get a better handle on what likely affects differences in mpg among tanks of fuel. And of course, you should not know which tanks have the additive and which do not so you do not subconsiously adjust your driving style.

danham is correct in that the more data points the less affect a variable should have on the results. For example, the number of dpf regens during each tank can significantly alter the results of a two tank test but its affect over many tanks will be reduced.

You simply have reported one data point. Your inference is that DT2000 is the cause of the 5% change in mpg. Maybe it is but maybe it isn't. I get 5% variances and more from tank to tank and I wonder what changed between the two tanks. Maybe you went through two DFP regens in the non-additive tank and only one in the tank with an additive.

Bottom line - your data point is simply an indication that DT2000 may have something to do with your increase in mpg but it's far from being a slam dunk. It's like shooting from half court. Making one shot from half court is not an indication that subsequent shots are likely to go in.

Enjoy your DT2000.

nj1266 · May 22, 2010

Plus 3 Golfer said:
nj266, contrary to what you may believe, a long term test will yield results with a higher level of confidence than your "layman's" test. If you really want to try to show the affect of DT2000 you should introduce additional independent variables like ambient temperature, average speed, and probably several others and extend the test for say 30 tanks. If you believe break-in to be a significant variable, then introduce odometer reading as an independent variable. You will then get a better handle on what likely affects differences in mpg among tanks of fuel. And of course, you should not know which tanks have the additive and which do not so you do not subconsiously adjust your driving style. danham is correct in that the more data points the less affect a variable should have on the results. For example, the number of dpf regens during each tank can significantly alter the results of a two tank test but its affect over many tanks will be reduced.

You simply have reported one data point. Your inference is that DT2000 is the cause of the 5% change in mpg. Maybe it is but maybe it isn't. I get 5% variances and more from tank to tank and I wonder what changed between the two tanks. Maybe you went through two DFP regens in the non-additive tank and only one in the tank with an additive.

Bottom line - your data point is simply an indication that DT2000 may have something to do with your increase in mpg but it's far from being a slam dunk. It's like shooting from half court. Making one shot from half court is not an indication that subsequent shots are likely to go in.

Enjoy your DT2000.

This is your opinion and I respect it. This is your testing methodology and I respect it too. This is my testing method and I am sticking it with it. It is better than no testing at all and going with the seat of your pants.

Here in the breakdown of the mileage so far on the car:

First tank with unkown D2 filled by the dealer = 46.3 mpg
Second tank filled with Chevron D2 = 46 mpg
Third tank filled with Shell "premium" D2 = 47.15 mpg

The average for the three tanks w/o an additive was 46.48 mpg

Then I fill ONE tank with Shell "premium" D2 and DT2000 and the mpg jumps to 49.88 mpg. So just by ACCIDENT the mpg jumped by 3.4 mpg from the AVERAGE of 46.48 mpg. Just like that, all by itself.

So I am supposed to believe that some other variable caused the increase in mpg other than the obvious one which is adding the 50 mL of DT2000

. Maybe it was the read shirt that I was wearing that changed all that. Maybe it was a change in my diet

If you want to believe that, then go ahead and do that. Mileage does not jump just like that when only ONE person drives the car, uses the same style of driving, uses the same destination in his daily driving, fills up from the same fuel station and the same fuel pump.

I will continue to monitors my FE with DT2000 and see what the average adds up to. I will then post the results. But I guarantee that some of you will whine and complain how the weather would have been a factor or winterized diesel would have been a factor, or how the engine is now broken-in and that is the reason behind the higher FE and not the DT2000. Some of you have made up your minds that additives do not work and no amount of data will convince you.

Fuel additives

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Oil Wanker

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member