www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2014 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You



Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > Fuels & Lubricants

Fuels & Lubricants Discussion all about Fuels & Lubricants. synthetic oil, conventional oil, brands, change intervals, diesel grades, gelling and such debated items like that. Non TDI related postings will be moved or removed. This forum is NOT for the discussion of biodiesel and other alternative fuels.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 23rd, 2006, 09:17   #16
tditom
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: san antonio
Fuel Economy: Golf: 54/48/43.5 B4 Passat: 52/48.5/45 B5.5 Passat: 30 mpg mixed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Man
Your "peace of mind" does not include possible adverse effects from using aftermarket additives, does it.

The bottom line is, if there is no credible evidence that the "preventive treatment" of fuel helps, it becomes a "faith based" activity.

TM
I'm not aware of any potential adverse effects from using an additive. Please share any data that would indicate there is one.

When balancing the risk-rewards of using additives or not, I would come down on the side of using them.
tditom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 09:40   #17
Tin Man
Veteran Member
 
Tin Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Coastal Empire
Fuel Economy: 51/40/30 TDI PD, 37/32/25 335d
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tditom
I'm not aware of any potential adverse effects from using an additive. Please share any data that would indicate there is one.

When balancing the risk-rewards of using additives or not, I would come down on the side of using them.
That was the point. You don't know.

There are additives that harm catalytic converters, that swell o-rings, that will rust metal parts, that clog filters, etc. in the history of additive marketing.

Its a matter of faith, not science, that they can prevent anything.

Specific reasons for using them aside such as gelling or low cetane, you need a manufacturer's recommendation nowadays to have anything near "proof" that an aftermarket additive does any good, and most will tell you not to in the owners' manual for possible harm that can be done.

Lubricity is a vague concept that may matter in heavy duty applications, but I have not seen any evidence that it matters at all not to mention if the additive in question helps. Stanadyne makes fuel pumps as well as lubricity improving additives. You need to trust their marketing people. There is no independent published data.

TM
Tin Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 10:07   #18
tditom
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: san antonio
Fuel Economy: Golf: 54/48/43.5 B4 Passat: 52/48.5/45 B5.5 Passat: 30 mpg mixed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Man
That was the point. You don't know.

There are additives that harm catalytic converters, that swell o-rings, that will rust metal parts, that clog filters, etc. in the history of additive marketing.

Its a matter of faith, not science, that they can prevent anything.

Specific reasons for using them aside such as gelling or low cetane, you need a manufacturer's recommendation nowadays to have anything near "proof" that an aftermarket additive does any good, and most will tell you not to in the owners' manual for possible harm that can be done.

Lubricity is a vague concept that may matter in heavy duty applications, but I have not seen any evidence that it matters at all not to mention if the additive in question helps. Stanadyne makes fuel pumps as well as lubricity improving additives. You need to trust their marketing people. There is no independent published data.

TM
I agree that there have been offers from snake-oil salemen that should be ignored. I don't put FPPF, Power Service, Stanadyne in that class. They each make products that specifically were designed to improve lubrication.

Lubricity matters to ALL tight tolerance diesel fuel injection systems. Lubricity in ULSD is a known problem that the oil company's have been concerned about. They have settled on a test that allows a certain amount of wear to the fuel injection components. The maker of our fuel injection systems has determined that a lower limit of wear is allowable. Because of the FI mfr having a tighter tolerance than the fuel industry, I will encourage people to use a lubricity additive until we are quite confident that there are no problems with the fuel as it shows up at the pump.

Do you know if you are using ULSD yet? Its great to have people like you who are willing to go along with the oil company's claims that the lubricity of ULSD is "good enough". Please report back in 6 years when we know that ULSD will have been at all the pumps for a significant amount of time. Then we'll know that the lubricity additives have been a waste of time.
tditom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 10:58   #19
Tin Man
Veteran Member
 
Tin Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Coastal Empire
Fuel Economy: 51/40/30 TDI PD, 37/32/25 335d
Default

I'll keep my alien preventing rock in my back yard and will also report to you if I have any problems with aliens in 6 years.

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

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

TM
Tin Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 11:14   #20
b4black
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: IL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tditom
Lubricity in ULSD is a known problem that the oil company's have been concerned about. They have settled on a test that allows a certain amount of wear to the fuel injection components. The maker of our fuel injection systems has determined that a lower limit of wear is allowable. Because of the FI mfr having a tighter tolerance than the fuel industry,....
It's not the 'fuel industry' that set the spec. It was ASTM and the fuel injection makers are very involved in that. The FI makers set the spec as much as the fuel prodcuers.

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


BTW, I haven't seen any aftermarket additves specifically for lubricty. All I see are "do everything" additives (cetane, deposits, lubricity, water, gelling and alien repulsion).
__________________
1998 Jetta TDI
1996 Dodge Ram Turbo Diesel
b4black is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 11:28   #21
Tin Man
Veteran Member
 
Tin Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Coastal Empire
Fuel Economy: 51/40/30 TDI PD, 37/32/25 335d
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tditom
I agree that there have been offers from snake-oil salesmen that should be ignored. I don't put FPPF, Power Service, Stanadyne in that class. They each make products that specifically were designed to improve lubrication.
Actually some very legitimate and useful aftermarket additives have had side effects as mentioned. The snake oil usually does nothing or clogs filters.

I don't wish to discount the opinions or findings of legitimate aftermarket additive makers or pump manufacturers. I just want more non-anecdotal evidence and can't find it anywhere.

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

TM
Tin Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 11:47   #22
TDIx2
Veteran Member
 
TDIx2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Saginaw Mi ~ looking out for deer and dangerous people!
TDI(s): 2014 Jetta
Default

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

Most diesel stations don't have premium diesel and if they do I bet the cetane is still below manufacture spec for my car. Using P/S will help with increasing the fuel to a level close to what my car needs.
__________________
2014~Jetta TDI premium/nav
^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
2008~EOS Eshmier Blue LUX:
TDIx2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 11:54   #23
Brock_from_WI
Veteran Member
 
Brock_from_WI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Green Bay, WI USA
TDI(s): 2003 wagon
Fuel Economy: 62/54/45
Default

What convinced me was a local trucking company uses some concentrated form of Power Service in their "premium" blend. They dump a 5 gallon pail in with each tank fill. They require all their own trucks to use the premium blend and since they started doing that they have never had a gelled up fuel system. They did have issues of trucks gelling in the past on the same fuel tanks.

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

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

To each their own...
__________________
Brock - 03 Jetta Wagon GLS, 5 Speed, silver, cold weather package, window tint, euro switch, ventectomy, trailer hitch, TDI heater, scangauge II

Brock_from_WI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 11:58   #24
tditom
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: san antonio
Fuel Economy: Golf: 54/48/43.5 B4 Passat: 52/48.5/45 B5.5 Passat: 30 mpg mixed
Default

from Bosch presentation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel Fuel Lubricity Requirements for Light Duty Fuel Injection Equipment

Conclusions




Reasoning for HFRR

  • HFRR is an adequate test method
  • HFRR provides customer satisfaction
  • HFRR 460 μm max. known to prevent field problems
  • All high-pressure fuel-lubricated injection systems are exceedingly lubricity-sensitive and require clean fuels (no free water and/or contamination)
  • Common-rail and Rotary pumps require the same level of lubricity
  • Lubricity specification in ASTM D975 needed ASAP
  • Spec. should not exceed HFRR: WS1.4 <460 μm (ISO 12156-1)

From National Assoc of Fleet Administrators, Aug. 2006 link
Quote:
Lubricity:
  1. Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to lubricate and protect the various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from wear. The processing required to reduce sulfur to 15-ppm also removes naturally occurring lubricity agents in diesel fuel.
  2. To manage this change the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) adopted the lubricity specification defined in ASTM D975 for all diesel fuels, effective January 1, 2005. The D975 specification is based on the High Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR) test (D 6079) and requires a wear scar no larger than 520 microns.
  3. As necessary, additives are added to ULSD prior to its retail sale to increase lubricity and to inhibit corrosion. With these additives, ULSD fuel is expected to perform as well as Low Sulfur Diesel fuel.
So the ASTM spec was subsequent to the Bosch recommendation, but did not follow THAT fuel pump mfr's input.

Since Bosch is the manufacturer of the tdi fuel injection systems, I feel better advising folks to follow that recommendation. If there is something more recent from Bosch stating that 520 micron is OK, then I do not see the need for any additional lubrication. Likewise, if someone can explain the disparity between the two specs.

The way I understand this, the fuel companies are obligated to meet the ASTM standard only. So for the small cost of additizing for the tdi, it is a no-brainer. If that's akin to being paranoid about alien invasions, so be it.
tditom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 12:27   #25
Tin Man
Veteran Member
 
Tin Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Coastal Empire
Fuel Economy: 51/40/30 TDI PD, 37/32/25 335d
Default

Specs are proof of a sort. What I am looking for is performance in the field. Real world data.

What they are talking about is the quality of the fuel itself BEFORE the consumer gets it. What evidence is there that the aftermarket supplier of additive actually makes a difference? Only anecdotal data, as you can see.

Why doesn't PS or anyone else tell you how much it improves lubricity. Cetane I can understand, and that has shown little effect on fuel of poor quality as I suspect lubricity improvers will too.

What you are saying is that even high quality, fresh fuel is liable to be detrimental to the pump. Great. Now tell me two things:

1. How much will the aftermarket additive help?
2. How many fuel pump failures due to lack of lubricity is anyone aware of?

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

TM
Tin Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 12:39   #26
Tin Man
Veteran Member
 
Tin Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Coastal Empire
Fuel Economy: 51/40/30 TDI PD, 37/32/25 335d
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tditom
from Bosch presentation


From National Assoc of Fleet Administrators, Aug. 2006 link

So the ASTM spec was subsequent to the Bosch recommendation, but did not follow THAT fuel pump mfr's input.

Since Bosch is the manufacturer of the tdi fuel injection systems, I feel better advising folks to follow that recommendation. If there is something more recent from Bosch stating that 520 micron is OK, then I do not see the need for any additional lubrication. Likewise, if someone can explain the disparity between the two specs.

The way I understand this, the fuel companies are obligated to meet the ASTM standard only. So for the small cost of additizing for the tdi, it is a no-brainer. If that's akin to being paranoid about alien invasions, so be it.
The question remains, what if Bosch is overstating their spec or if you will, why is ASTM understating it? For what purpose? What is the real world difference?

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

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

TM
Tin Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 12:48   #27
dabear95
Veteran Member
 
dabear95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Roseville, MI
Fuel Economy: 45+ lifetime
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Man
Your "peace of mind" does not include possible adverse effects from using aftermarket additives, does it.

The bottom line is, if there is no credible evidence that the "preventive treatment" of fuel helps, it becomes a "faith based" activity.

TM
Well, it would be very difficult to argue your statements and frankly not worth my time because I agree. Are you playing devils advocate using additives yourself or do you only use fuel of perceived (or not) quality?

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

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

Jason
__________________
2002 Golf GLS ~127K+ miles. I have Vag-Com...
Modifications: RC3 ASV, PP520, G60/VR6 Clutch, Koni FSD's, VDO Boost/EGT gauges, Boostvalve, HiddenHitch
dabear95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 12:50   #28
AndyH
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by b4black
BTW, I haven't seen any aftermarket additves specifically for lubricty. All I see are "do everything" additives (cetane, deposits, lubricity, water, gelling and alien repulsion).
AMSOIL's old items were a lubricity/detergent/cold flow product, and a cetane product.

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

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

Andy
AndyH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 13:11   #29
tditom
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: san antonio
Fuel Economy: Golf: 54/48/43.5 B4 Passat: 52/48.5/45 B5.5 Passat: 30 mpg mixed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Man
Specs are proof of a sort. What I am looking for is performance in the field. Real world data.
I don't know what to tell you but if you look at the Bosch presentation, that was all LSD fuels, which I've always understood were fine for lubrication. Some of the samples tested were flat out unacceptable.

What they are talking about is the quality of the fuel itself BEFORE the consumer gets it. What evidence is there that the aftermarket supplier of additive actually makes a difference? Only anecdotal data, as you can see.


Why doesn't PS or anyone else tell you how much it improves lubricity. Cetane I can understand, and that has shown little effect on fuel of poor quality as I suspect lubricity improvers will too.
I'm a bit confused by this request, because I thought you insisted on independant data. FPPF is providing test numbers below:
LUBRICITY PLUS FUEL POWER

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

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




Quote:
Originally Posted by TM
What you are saying is that even high quality, fresh fuel is liable to be detrimental to the pump. Great. Now tell me two things:

1. How much will the aftermarket additive help?
I would follow the dosing recommendation of the additive mfr.

2. How many fuel pump failures due to lack of lubricity is anyone aware of?
Well, ULSD has been in use exclusively in California since June, and has been slowly showing up at other retail pumps since then. I suspect we'll be getting real-life results in the next year or so.

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

TM
I'm just trying to be safe. Time will tell.
tditom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2006, 13:12   #30
AndyH
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Man
I don't wish to discount the opinions or findings of legitimate aftermarket additive makers or pump manufacturers. I just want more non-anecdotal evidence and can't find it anywhere.
TM,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy
AndyH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2014
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
© 1996 - 2013, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.22738 seconds with 9 queries
[Output: 142.19 Kb. compressed to 121.10 Kb. by saving 21.09 Kb. (14.83%)]