Re: adding 2cycle oil to diesel fuel for vehickes??

JDemaris

Well-known Member
What does it mean exactly when you say a "thread
died off" 3 1/2 years ago? Does that mean to you
it's "old news" or somehow has been disqualified?

There have been several published and controlled
lab tests on metal scar/wear in injection system
parts with several lube additives and two-stroke-
cycle has proven to be very cost effective. Once
something is "true", it stays "true" . . in my
world.
 
I add about 2 oz. every time I put 5 gallons in our JD
4600, cheap insurance. It might smoke a little more but
that just means I need to work it harder!
 
(quoted from post at 05:40:23 10/31/14) What does it mean exactly when you say a "thread
died off" 3 1/2 years ago? Does that mean to you
it's "old news" or somehow has been disqualified?

There have been several published and controlled
lab tests on metal scar/wear in injection system
parts with several lube additives and two-stroke-
cycle has proven to be very cost effective. Once
something is "true", it stays "true" . . in my
world.

Millions of diesels in the world running with no additive and no problems.
 
That reminds me of when Billy Bob and Bubba wired their own homes over a case of beer but when one points out something they did was hazardous and a violation of the NEC they scream well its been that way for 40 years and IT WORKS FINE. I guess that's proof enough for them and the NEC panel of experts have no idea what they're talking about. Another example is if you notice after a guy says big bucks for say an elec ignition THEY ALWAYS TELL YOU HOW MUCH BETTER IT RUNS. Seems no one would ever admit they paid all that and it made no difference lol

John T
 
I'm sure NEC has also changed there ways over a 40 year span.
Look at Knob and tube wiring in the old houses.( I think that's what they called it )That's the way they were to be done WAY back then until someone came up with a better mouse trap.
 
Yeppers its up for review every three years. Each time we had to buy new code books and maybe attend update seminars etc. etc. Many changes were made because someone lost their life or a structure burned down. However I doubt Billy Bob and Bubba used ANY versions of the NEC let alone the latest lol

John T
 
there is absolutely more wisdom stated in this post than all the rest I have read in the last several years I have visited here! Congratulations mkirsch for telling it like it is.
 
Now I was just over at Bubba's the other day and he does use the NEC book , To block up his Chevy !!! LOL.
 
That is utter nonsense. Diesel fuel we buy at the
pump is legally required to have lube additive put
into it before you get it.

Also - how in the heck would you know about
"millions" of mechanically injected diesels with
rotary pumps that have "zero" problems? The best
you can possibly do is guess and assume.
 
Common rail doesn't need it, inline pumps lube with engine oil, rotary pumps do need some extra lubricity added since the advent of ultra low sulfur unless you can verify with your fuel distributor that they treat their fuel with an additive package,ie bio diesel. Stanadyne recommends the use of a fuel additive/lubricant. Alot of the world, mostly 2nd and 3rd world countries still have high sulfur diesel which doesn't require the use of additives
 
Telling exactly "what" as "it is?" I see a lack of wisdom in that sweeping pontification. yet you revere it?

There are plenty of controlled studies that have been conducted on injection parts metal wear and lube additives. Especially for rotary mechanical injection pumps with distributors (head and rotors). All ultra-low sulfur fuel sold in the USA for motor-use is required to have lube additives put into it. I see a lot of nonsense here and feeble attempts to discredit by innuendo and John T's use of "Bubba" in the argument.

Easily verified facts are thus:

The process to cook to the sulfur out of diesel and make it "ultra-low" removes much of the inherent lubricity. Also removes some BTUs of energy.

Older diesel systems with mechanical rotary-distributor pumps require more lube then newer systems to last as long as designed. That includes CAV, Rotodiesel, Stanadyne AMBAC, Bosch, Diesel Kiki, etc.

The Federal requirement for lube additives put into ultra-low-sulfur-diesel is not as high as the diesel fuel was originally.

A typical rotary mechanical injection pump can last 1,000,000 road miles or more with the major metal parts still working well with good lube.

How many people here - smart people or John T's "Bubbas" have any idea how many actual miles or hours are a pump when it craps out? Keep in mind that so-called "rebuilt" pumps often have many, many hours/miles on the parts inside.

How many here even know, for sure, exactly what parts failed inside their pumps when they do fail?

I'll bet very few people work on their own pumps (some of us do). Those who send them out may never know for sure what really happened and why.
 

I see both sides....

If the truck or tractor runs till I sell it.. no fuss, no muss..

however if I keep it forever.. then maybe there's some money to be saved by adding...


here there is a boutique refinery that does nothing but take diesel and jet-fuel and re-do it for military specs.... they end up adding special lubricating additives back to the diesel to meet the specs to add the longevity back to the government aviation fuel. Studies showed that the military could double the life of their engines or better by changing the new fuel back. And they do it to save money,, big money. However they keep their equipment forever and put lots of hours on it. You may or may not.

So yes,, it will extend the life... No, not all people need to do it.
 
The US Army has had a miserable time with
Stanadyne rotary injection pumps and metal
wear. That's with GM 6.2s and 6.5s in Humvees
and cargo-rigs. All metal wear problems in the
head-and-rotors. Yes they keep the stuff for a
long time but also replace a lot of engines and
injection pumps. There were several proposals
for a fix.

One was to find a way to use an engine with an
in-line injection pump and dump the GM engines.
Judged not to be feasible.

Another was to order special hardened pump
parts from Stanadyne called the "Artic" kit.
Made for thin fuel with low lube. That was done
on many military Stanadyne pumps.

Another was for an improved fuel with better
lube.
 
I would expect that most of us that do not put several hundred hours on an engine in a year will never see a difference. The ones that put several hundred to thousands of hours might need a little added lubricity over several years.
 
There are published results done on fuel
lubricity and mechanical injection pumps. Done
with controls and John T's "Bubba" not
involved. Here's an older one, one of many. GM
did one, Stanadyne did one, The US Army did
one, etc. Lucas did one. I've read over a dozen
and I'm sure there are more. I don't know
where you nay-sayers come up with this
anecdotal nonsense that NO real tests have been
done.

I've read countless claims by diesel pickup
owners from the 80s-90s with mechanical
injection pumps and problems by 150,000 miles
(or sooner). They have their pumps exchanged
and are usually clueless as to what really went
wrong and why.

Here's one older study. One of many.

Lubricity Additive Study Results

The following are the preliminary results of a
research study on diesel fuel Lubricity
Additives. There is likely to be further
commentary and explanation added at a future
time.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this research was to determine
the ability of multiple diesel fuel additives
to replace the vital lubricity component in
ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel) fuel.

HISTORY:

ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for
use in all on road diesel engines . This fuel
burns cleaner and is less polluting than it’s
predecessor, called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel. Low
sulfer fuel contained less than 500 ppm of
sulfer. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.
As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the
polluting sulfer, it is inadvertently stripped
of its lubricating properties. This vital
lubrication is a necessary component of the
diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel
delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates
pumps, high pressure pumps and injectors.
Traditional Low sulfer diesel fuel typically
contained enough lubricating ability to suffice
the needs of these vital components. ULSD fuel,
on the other hand, is considered to be very
“dry” and incapable of lubricating vital fuel
delivery components. As a result, these
components are at risk of premature and even
catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is
introduced to the system. As a result, all oil
companies producing ULSD fuel must replace the
lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel
purchased at retail fuel stations SHOULD be
adequately treated with additives to replace
this lost lubricity. The potential result of
using inadequately treated fuel, as indicated
above, can be catastrophic. There have been
many documented cases of randomly tested
samples of diesel fuel. These tests prove that
often times the fuel we purchase is not
adequately treated and may therefore contribute
to accelerated wear of our fuel delivery
systems. For this reason it may be prudent to
use an after market diesel fuel additive to
ENSURE adequate lubrication of the fuel
delivery system. Additionally, many additives
can offer added benefits such as cetane
improver, and water separators or emulsifiers.

CONTENT:

In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel
additives designed to replace lost lubricity.
The primary component of this study is a side-
by-side laboratory analysis of each additive’s
ability to replace this vital lubricity.
Additionally, claims of improving cetane, water
separation or emulsification, bio-diesel
compatibility and alcohol content will be
noted. These notes were derived from
information that was readily available to
consumers (via the label and internet
information) and none of this information has
been evaluated for validity and/or performance
. Cetane information has only been noted if the
word “cetane” was used in the advertising
information. The words “improves power” has not
been translated to mean “improves cetane” in
this evaluation. Information on alcohol content
is provided by indicating “contains no
alcohol”. Omission of the words “contains no
alcohol” does not imply that it does contain
alcohol. This information was simply missing in
the information available to a consumer.
However, the possibility of a form of alcohol
in these products is possible. Additionally,
information on dosages and cost per tankful are
included for comparison purposes.

How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating
Ability:

Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for
lubricating ability using a device called a
“High Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR. The
HFRR is currently the Internationally accepted,
standardized method to evaluate fluids for
lubricating ability. It uses a ball bearing
that reciprocates or moves back and forth on a
metal surface at a very high frequency for a
duration of 90 minutes. The machine does this
while the ball bearing and metal surface are
immersed in the test fluid (in this case,
treated diesel fuel). At the end of the test
the ball bearing is examined under a microscope
and the “wear scar” on the ball bearing is
measured in microns. The larger the wear scar,
the poorer the lubricating ability of the
fluid. Southwest Research runs every sample
twice and averages the size of the wear scar.
The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a
commercially available diesel fuel should
produce a wear scar of no greater than 520
microns. The Engine Manufacturers Association
had requested a standard of a wear scar no
greater than 460 microns, typical of the pre-
ULSD fuels. Most experts agree that a 520
micron standard is adequate, but also that the
lower the wear scar the better.

METHOD:

An independent research firm in Texas was hired
to do the laboratory work. The cost of the
research was paid for voluntarily by the
participating additive manufacturers. Declining
to participate and pay for the research were
the following companies: Amsoil and Power
Service. Because these are popular products it
was determined that they needed to be included
in the study. These products were tested using
funds collected by diesel enthusiasts at
“dieselplace.com”. Additionally, unconventional
additives such as 2-cycle oil and used motor
oil were tested for their abilities to aid in
diesel fuel lubricity. These were also paid for
by members of “dieselplace.com”.
The study was conducted in the following
manner:
-The Research firm obtained a quantity of
“untreated” ULSD fuel from a supplier. This
fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in
diesel engines. However, this sample was
acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the
fuel for the purpose of replacing lost
lubricity. In other words, it was a “worst case
scenario, very dry diesel fuel” that would
likely cause damage to any fuel delivery
system. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at
the Southwest Research Laboratory. This fuel
was determined to have a very high HFRR score
of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD
fuel. It was determined that this batch of fuel
would be utilized as the baseline fuel for
testing all of the additives. The baseline fuel
HFRR score of 636 would be used as the control
sample. All additives tested would be evaluated
on their ability to replace lost lubricity to
the fuel by comparing their scores to the
control sample. Any score under 636 shows
improvement to the fuels ability to lubricate
the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine .

BLIND STUDY:

In order to ensure a completely unbiased
approach to the study, the following steps were
taken:
Each additive tested was obtained independently
via internet or over the counter purchases. The
only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-
diesel sample. The reason for this is because
Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered
“experimental” at the time of test enrollment
and was not yet on the market. It was sent
directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel
sample was sponsored by Renewable Energy Group.
One of their suppliers, E.H. Wolf and Sons in
Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of
100% soybean based bio-diesel. This sample was
used to blend with the baseline fuel to create
a 2% bio-diesel for testing.
Each additive was bottled separately in
identical glass containers. The bottles were
labeled only with a number. This number
corresponded to the additive contained in the
bottle. The order of numbering was done
randomly by drawing names out of a hat. Only
Spicer Research held the key to the additives
in each bottle.
The additive samples were then sent in a box to
An independent research firm. The only
information given them was the ratio of fuel to
be added to each additive sample. For example,
bottle “A” needs to be mixed at a ratio of
“480-1”. The ratio used for each additive was
the “prescribed dosage” found on the bottle
label for that product. Used motor oil and 2-
cycle oil were tested at a rationally chosen
ratio of 200:1.
The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio
of each “bottled fluid” into a separate
container containing the baseline fuel. The
data, therefore, is meaningful because every
additive is tested in the same way using the
same fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the
effectiveness of each additive is now
obtainable.

THE RESULTS:

These results are listed in the order of
performance in the HFRR test. The baseline fuel
used in every test started at an HFRR score of
636. The score shown is the tested HFRR score
of the baseline fuel/additive blend.
Also included is the wear scar improvement
provided by the additive as well as other
claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive
is also categorized as a Multi-purpose
additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity
only, non-conventional, or as an additive
capable of treating both gasoline and diesel
fuel.
As a convenience to the reader there is also
information on price per treated tank of diesel
fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per
26 gallon tank provided as “ounces of additive
per 26 gallon tank”.

In Order Of Performance:

1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel
HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.
50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel
66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of
diesel fuel
Price: market value

2)Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier
HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio
13 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment
Gas and Diesel
cetane improver, emulsifier
HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.60/tank

4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend
Multi-purpose
demulsifier
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
$0.68/tank

5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/tank
$3.65/tank

6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel
compatible
HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.87/tank

7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage
2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
$1.09/tank

8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol
free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.00/tank

9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Multi-purpose
demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol
free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.16/tank

10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol
free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
$1.58/tank

11)Howe’s Meaner Power Kleaner
Multi-purpose
Alcohol free
HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.36/tank

12)Stanadyne Performance Formula
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel
compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement
480:1 ratio
6.9 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000
miles used.
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage
systems)
HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
price: market value

14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant
Gas or diesel
HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline
(statistically insignificant change)
427:1 ratio
7.8 oz/tank
$2.65/tank

15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan
Biotech
Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive
HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline
(statistically insignificant change)
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.67/tank

16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.12/tank

17)Marvel Mystery Oil
Gas, oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD
compliant, may damage 2007 and newer systems)
HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel.
320:1 ratio
10.4 oz/tank
$3.22/tank

18)ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty /Marine
Diesel Fuel Additive
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.38/tank

19)Primrose Power Blend 2003
Multi-purpose
Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, emulsifier
HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline
1066:1 ratio
3.12 oz/tank
$1.39/tank

CONCLUSIONS:

Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the
unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 460 or
better. This meets the most strict requirements
requested by the Engine Manufacturers
Association.
Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the
unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 520 or
better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel
requirements for maximum wear scar in a
commercially available diesel fuel.
Products 16 through 19 were found to cause the
fuel/additive blend to perform worse than the
baseline fuel. The cause for this is
speculative. This is not unprecedented in HFRR
testing and can be caused by alcohol or other
components in the additives. Further
investigation into the possibilities behind
these poor results will investigated.
Any additive testing within +/- 20 microns of
the baseline fuel could be considered to have
no significant change. The repeatability of
this test allows for a +/- 20 micron
variability to be considered insignificant.

CREDITS:

This study would not have been possible without
the participation of all companies involved and
dieselplace.com. A special Thank You to all of
the dieselplace.com members who generously
donated toward this study and waited longer
than they should have for the results. You
folks are the best. Arlen Spicer, organizer.
 
There are published results done on fuel
lubricity and mechanical injection pumps. Done
with controls and John T's "Bubba" not
involved. Here's an older one, one of many. GM
did one, Stanadyne did one, The US Army did
one, etc. Lucas did one. I've read over a dozen
and I'm sure there are more. I don't know
where you nay-sayers come up with this
anecdotal nonsense that NO real tests have been
done.

I've read countless claims by diesel pickup
owners from the 80s-90s with mechanical
injection pumps and problems by 150,000 miles
(or sooner). They have their pumps exchanged
and are usually clueless as to what really went
wrong and why.

Here's one older study. One of many.

Lubricity Additive Study Results



PURPOSE:

The purpose of this research was to determine
the ability of multiple diesel fuel additives
to replace the vital lubricity component in
ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel) fuel.


CONTENT:

In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel
additives designed to replace lost lubricity.
The primary component of this study is a side-
by-side laboratory analysis of each additive’s
ability to replace this vital lubricity.
Additionally, claims of improving cetane, water
separation or emulsification, bio-diesel
compatibility and alcohol content will be
noted. These notes were derived from
information that was readily available to
consumers (via the label and internet
information) and none of this information has
been evaluated for validity and/or performance
. Cetane information has only been noted if the
word “cetane” was used in the advertising
information. The words “improves power” has not
been translated to mean “improves cetane” in
this evaluation. Information on alcohol content
is provided by indicating “contains no
alcohol”. Omission of the words “contains no
alcohol” does not imply that it does contain
alcohol. This information was simply missing in
the information available to a consumer.
However, the possibility of a form of alcohol
in these products is possible. Additionally,
information on dosages and cost per tankful are
included for comparison purposes.

How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating
Ability:

Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for
lubricating ability using a device called a
“High Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR. The
HFRR is currently the Internationally accepted,
standardized method to evaluate fluids for
lubricating ability. It uses a ball bearing
that reciprocates or moves back and forth on a
metal surface at a very high frequency for a
duration of 90 minutes. The machine does this
while the ball bearing and metal surface are
immersed in the test fluid (in this case,
treated diesel fuel). At the end of the test
the ball bearing is examined under a microscope
and the “wear scar” on the ball bearing is
measured in microns. The larger the wear scar,
the poorer the lubricating ability of the
fluid. Southwest Research runs every sample
twice and averages the size of the wear scar.
The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a
commercially available diesel fuel should
produce a wear scar of no greater than 520
microns. The Engine Manufacturers Association
had requested a standard of a wear scar no
greater than 460 microns, typical of the pre-
ULSD fuels. Most experts agree that a 520
micron standard is adequate, but also that the
lower the wear scar the better.

METHOD:

An independent research firm in Texas was hired
to do the laboratory work. The cost of the
research was paid for voluntarily by the
participating additive manufacturers. Declining
to participate and pay for the research were
the following companies: Amsoil and Power
Service. Because these are popular products it
was determined that they needed to be included
in the study. These products were tested using
funds collected by diesel enthusiasts at
“dieselplace.com”. Additionally, unconventional
additives such as 2-cycle oil and used motor
oil were tested for their abilities to aid in
diesel fuel lubricity. These were also paid for
by members of “dieselplace.com”.
The study was conducted in the following
manner:
-The Research firm obtained a quantity of
“untreated” ULSD fuel from a supplier. This
fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in
diesel engines. However, this sample was
acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the
fuel for the purpose of replacing lost
lubricity. In other words, it was a “worst case
scenario, very dry diesel fuel” that would
likely cause damage to any fuel delivery
system. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at
the Southwest Research Laboratory. This fuel
was determined to have a very high HFRR score
of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD
fuel. It was determined that this batch of fuel
would be utilized as the baseline fuel for
testing all of the additives. The baseline fuel
HFRR score of 636 would be used as the control
sample. All additives tested would be evaluated
on their ability to replace lost lubricity to
the fuel by comparing their scores to the
control sample. Any score under 636 shows
improvement to the fuels ability to lubricate
the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine .

BLIND STUDY:

In order to ensure a completely unbiased
approach to the study, the following steps were
taken:
Each additive tested was obtained independently
via internet or over the counter purchases. The
only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-
diesel sample. The reason for this is because
Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered
“experimental” at the time of test enrollment
and was not yet on the market. It was sent
directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel
sample was sponsored by Renewable Energy Group.
One of their suppliers, E.H. Wolf and Sons in
Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of
100% soybean based bio-diesel. This sample was
used to blend with the baseline fuel to create
a 2% bio-diesel for testing.
Each additive was bottled separately in
identical glass containers. The bottles were
labeled only with a number. This number
corresponded to the additive contained in the
bottle. The order of numbering was done
randomly by drawing names out of a hat. Only
Spicer Research held the key to the additives
in each bottle.
The additive samples were then sent in a box to
An independent research firm. The only
information given them was the ratio of fuel to
be added to each additive sample. For example,
bottle “A” needs to be mixed at a ratio of
“480-1”. The ratio used for each additive was
the “prescribed dosage” found on the bottle
label for that product. Used motor oil and 2-
cycle oil were tested at a rationally chosen
ratio of 200:1.
The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio
of each “bottled fluid” into a separate
container containing the baseline fuel. The
data, therefore, is meaningful because every
additive is tested in the same way using the
same fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the
effectiveness of each additive is now
obtainable.

THE RESULTS:

These results are listed in the order of
performance in the HFRR test. The baseline fuel
used in every test started at an HFRR score of
636. The score shown is the tested HFRR score
of the baseline fuel/additive blend.
Also included is the wear scar improvement
provided by the additive as well as other
claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive
is also categorized as a Multi-purpose
additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity
only, non-conventional, or as an additive
capable of treating both gasoline and diesel
fuel.
As a convenience to the reader there is also
information on price per treated tank of diesel
fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per
26 gallon tank provided as “ounces of additive
per 26 gallon tank”.

In Order Of Performance:

1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel
HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.
50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel
66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of
diesel fuel
Price: market value

2)Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier
HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio
13 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment
Gas and Diesel
cetane improver, emulsifier
HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.60/tank

4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend
Multi-purpose
demulsifier
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
$0.68/tank

5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/tank
$3.65/tank

6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel
compatible
HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.87/tank

7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage
2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
$1.09/tank

8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol
free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.00/tank

9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Multi-purpose
demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol
free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.16/tank

10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol
free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
$1.58/tank

11)Howe’s Meaner Power Kleaner
Multi-purpose
Alcohol free
HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.36/tank

12)Stanadyne Performance Formula
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel
compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement
480:1 ratio
6.9 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000
miles used.
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage
systems)
HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
price: market value

14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant
Gas or diesel
HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline
(statistically insignificant change)
427:1 ratio
7.8 oz/tank
$2.65/tank

15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan
Biotech
Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive
HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline
(statistically insignificant change)
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.67/tank

16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.12/tank

17)Marvel Mystery Oil
Gas, oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD
compliant, may damage 2007 and newer systems)
HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel.
320:1 ratio
10.4 oz/tank
$3.22/tank

18)ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty /Marine
Diesel Fuel Additive
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.38/tank

19)Primrose Power Blend 2003
Multi-purpose
Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, emulsifier
HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline
1066:1 ratio
3.12 oz/tank
$1.39/tank

CONCLUSIONS:

Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the
unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 460 or
better. This meets the most strict requirements
requested by the Engine Manufacturers
Association.
Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the
unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 520 or
better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel
requirements for maximum wear scar in a
commercially available diesel fuel.
Products 16 through 19 were found to cause the
fuel/additive blend to perform worse than the
baseline fuel. The cause for this is
speculative. This is not unprecedented in HFRR
testing and can be caused by alcohol or other
components in the additives. Further
investigation into the possibilities behind
these poor results will investigated.
Any additive testing within +/- 20 microns of
the baseline fuel could be considered to have
no significant change. The repeatability of
this test allows for a +/- 20 micron
variability to be considered insignificant.
 
This is pretty neat, thanks for posting.

I do not think I can get B2 with only soy around here. Most of it is B20 and mixture of soy and animal fat.

Howes was not mentioned?
 
Makes sense, local station switched to a partial % bio a few months ago. I fussed about using it in my 93 Dodge Cummins but was to lazy to go elsewhere, but I noticed less noise smoother running and 1½ more mpg. Over the years I've tried it all and never saw that kind of difference. Not sure but makes me feel better.
 
It's OK... I'm still going to add 2 cycle oil to my '86 Chevy .. I've bought one pump for it, hopefully not any more.. That 6 or 8 ounces isn't going to hurt a thing.. It just makes me feel better when I fuel up , knowing I'm doing whatever I can to help prevent another failed pump.. I use the blue so it doesn't look like off road..
 
Thank you, jdemaris for being the only one to post any facts in this thread.
To those of you that don't think that you need to add any extra lubricant to USLD, for your mechanical injection equipment, don't do it. Its your money and your choice.
For those of you that think you need the lubricant, don't let someone's uninformed opinion sway your decision. Research it and decide for yourself.
 
a long time ago I had a 61 Dodge with the
police intercepter engine 11.5 to 1
compression. stopped a SHell station to fill
up. I think he filled it with regular as it ran
terrible and in two days went though more than
half of the tank so I filled it with high
octane ethel gas. it started up and in no time
was back running good again. thats what in call
instant gratification.
Walt
 
(quoted from post at 08:40:23 10/31/14) What does it mean exactly when you say a "thread
died off" 3 1/2 years ago? Does that mean to you
it's "old news" or somehow has been disqualified?

There have been several published and controlled
lab tests on metal scar/wear in injection system
parts with several lube additives and two-stroke-
cycle has proven to be very cost effective. Once
something is "true", it stays "true" . . in my
world.

Some people just can't leave well enough alone. They think there is nearly free magical returns of $2000 of power and reduced wear. If they pour $20 worth of "snake oil" in the tank of their vehicle. Or if they take exotic vitamins for themselves. They also tend to purchase lottery tickets, carry rabbits feet and collect four leaf clovers.
 
BD why don't you just go off and do it your way with your money
and your stuff and we'll do the same! Your logic is pure BShucks.
 
(quoted from post at 09:25:42 11/01/14) BD why don't you just go off and do it your way with your money
and your stuff and we'll do the same! Your logic is pure BShucks.

Texasmark1. How much did you spend on snake oil, vitamins and lottery tickets last year ?
 
You really should do some research before you comment on something, that you apparently know nothing about,then make snide remarks about someone's intelligence.
You were trying to make yourself look more intelligent than Texasmark1, but as usual, your comments had the opposite effect.
 
Pontification? Ha! You should know better than anybody else. I love it when some fish oil salesman or adherent springs forth from the crowd with PROOF to support their claims.......yet the manufacturers /warrantors of the engines/pumps do not recommend the use of such products in what they build.

I have an old friend who is an ardent supporter of STP and he tells the story of the Air Force using it in jet engines during his tour 1954-58 and if it was used in J57's, then it has to be great....in automobile engines. So, for the last 55-60 years, he has faithfully poured it in everything he owns and he may even use it on his wife for all I know.

But does the use of that product (STP) prove anything? His engines last no longer than mine do with no additive(snake oil) used. No auto maker recommends the use of STP in their engines. OF COURSE, the maker of STP can pull out data compiled to support their claims, but what does it prove? Nothing.

If it makes you feel better, go ahead and add whatever you choose. No doubt there is somebody in the crowd who will advocate peeing on the wheels to improve traction because they haven't been stuck once since doing so, all the way back to 1969.

Pontification! I have never heard somebody use so many big words to say so little in all my life.
 
Beg to differ on the common rail. 9770 JD combine. Injectors take turns sticking. John Deere's solution: dump a gallon of low-vis hydraulic fluid in the tank when you fuel each morning. As long as you do, it runs right.

60 series Detroit, rough idle, likely a bad injector. Dump a quart of 2-stroke in the tank, run a load of corn to town, idles smooth once you get to the elevator. Not the best long-term solution, but will certainly get it through harvest.
 

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Back
Top