Diesel fuel lubricant

I have been hearing a advertisement for a lubrication, to be used in diesel fueled vehicles on my radio lately. Just add it to the fuel, to keep the fuel pump and injectors clean, and lubricated. This is a state full of yuppies. Most driving their big diesel powered vehicles. Are the sellers of this stuff just looking for a market for their product, or is this something useful? My self, I doubt I will be running to my nearest auto parts store any time soon, or should I. A few years ago I put some additive in my diesel MF 231, and a short time later I had a head gasket blow between the cylinders. Don't know it it was because of the additive or not, but not using anything like that again.Any thoughts? Stan

Well, Stan, you know how it is when you bring up a subject such as this. Opinions are like other things, everyone has their own. That being said, I would suspect that the company that makes the additive is looking to make money any way they can. There are always people out there who will buy something out of curiosity, if nothing else.
Consider this, diesel has a lubricating quality in itself. If a fuel pump needed extra lubrication, the factory would tell you in the operators manual. If fuel filters are changed on a regular schedule, there should be very little in the fuel to clog the injectors. I will admit, I am not a diesel expert, but that is the way I see it.

I use Power Service additive in all my older diesel engines.the older diesels relied on a high sulfur content for lubrication I am told--so the additive adds lubrication.cleaning for the injectors, and raises the cetane number.

I always thought it was just a scam to get your money. About two years ago it was cold as heck out. I was at the local JD dealer anyway and need to get some diesel conditioner/anti gel for the pickups. I picked up a quart just to try it out.

My high mileage Dodge pickup, over 400K, runs smoother with the additive in it. The odometer has not worked in years, it quit at 389,000 miles, but the speedo still works. So I do not have concrete evidence that the mileage is any better but it does run smother.

On the newer fuel rail systems I have not noticed any difference. It is mainly the older conventional injections systems that seem to do better when using it.

I have switched to using it rather than winter blend fuel. Each gallon treats over 400 gallons of fuel for about 8 cents. This is cheaper than K-1 and much less power loss.

I have used Howles and Lucas and did not notice any difference other than it did not gel. Engines ran the same.

I also bought a JD 4020 that the governor was hanging in the injection pump. It would not always start. You had to work the throttle a few times to get it to open. I put a heavy dose of the JD lub/additive in it. After a few tank fulls it is running fine. Now is it just being used more or did the additive work??? I can't tell you 100% but it seems like the additive is helping.

Chief I'm surprised at you!! This topic is on the every month schedule. How could you have missed it? Any way there never seems to be a consensus. JDemarais frequently posts the results of some laboratory tests that show how useless many products are and how downright detrimental some are. Myself, for the old equipment I like to add about two ounces of two stroke oil per five gallons fuel.

With the sulfur taken out, it is good to have some lubrication in the diesel.

Your fuel supplier should have some sort of additive package in the fuel....

Here in Minnesota, and perhaps other places, we run a 2-5% blend of soybean oil in our diesel fuel. That is a great lube for the fuel system, and all one would need. (It does make the fuel gel a tad easier, but we sort it out with the anti jell products.)

If you want to add something else, it seems a lot of different studies show most of the cans out there have more spent on advertising than actual product preformance......

Paul

This subject has been one here quite a few times, and the results are about the same each time. In other words some say use the additive, some say use two stoke oil, or some other fluid, and some say it's snake oil.

The industry magazines say they are adding stuff to make up for the loss of the sulfur, and that no one should have any problems with any of the fuel. The guys at the fuel shop dad and I have used for over 20 years love the changes in the fuel as their business always picks up, especially in the way of older pumps having seal leakage problems. They say if your not running additive, regardless of what kind it is, it's not a matter of if your going to have problems, it's a matter of when......Add in the latest thing of adding making the fuel as a blend with 5% to 10% bio-diesel blend, and that just adds insult to injury.

On that note, I've had my Freightliner for nearly 15 years. Until a few years ago the light indicating water, trash, etc in the fuel never came on. For the past two or three years, it routinely comes on. This tells me that fuel, straight from the pump, is now full if stuff that it didn't have in it just a few years ago.

Unfortunately with the bad fuel coming from the tanks, the fuel going to the injection systems on the newer engines (where they can be running fuel injection pressures as high as 20,000 to 30,000 psi) has to be cleaner than ever.


Personlly, my take on the whole subject is that I picked up nearly two MPG when I started running additive, and then lost it when they went to ULSD. I still run it in every tank of fuel I buy. My truck weight around 32,000 lbs all the time, and I routinely average 5 plus MPG out of it around town. Let me get on the interstate a good bit and I have gotten as good as a 9 MPG average over a 3 month period.

I know customers that were having problems and started using the additive, and the smoke, rough idle, etc they were experiencing went away.

In the end I know lab results will say one thing, industry magazines, and OEM's will say one thing, and I couldn't care less about either one. All I care about, and base my opinions on are the things I see actually happening with my, and my customers equipment.

"I also bought a JD 4020 that the governor was hanging in the injection pump. It would not always start. You had to work the throttle a few times to get it to open. I put a heavy dose of the JD lub/additive in it. After a few tank fulls it is running fine. Now is it just being used more or did the additive work??? I can't tell you 100% but it seems like the additive is helping."

JD I had the same experience with a 4320. Only I used 2cyl. Hot the governor would stick when idling down and it would stall not restart until cool or cover took off the pump and the linkage twiddled some. 2cyl oil cured it. I started with a gallon per tank then got down to a few oz's.

The service manual for my 2 cyl John Deere 830 states sulfur content should be as low as possible preferably less than 0.5% and in no case more than 1.0%. Wonder if the ULSD falls in this guideline. That being said I add 2 cycle oil to the fuel that goes in my M813A1 (army 5 ton truck) Cummins 855. Bill

My short term memory never has been that good, and doesn't seam to be improving. Anyone here belong to that club? Stan

(quoted from post at 01:35:55 12/09/14) The service manual for my 2 cyl John Deere 830 states sulfur content should be as low as possible preferably less than 0.5% and in no case more than 1.0%. Wonder if the ULSD falls in this guideline. That being said I add 2 cycle oil to the fuel that goes in my M813A1 (army 5 ton truck) Cummins 855. Bill

Click to expand...

The thing is there was a very small amount of sulfur before ULSD, and much lower than the percentage you mentioned above. The only thing now is there is even a smaller amount than before.

.5% & 1% is 5000 and 10000 PPM (parts per million). Even before ULSD came out the sulfur content was less than 500 PPM, that was in the mid 90's so you've been running low for a long time, if it was an issue then we'd already known about it.

ULSD fuel has been around since 2006, and it was LSD before that which still had a very small amount of sulfur compared to 20+ years ago. The most recent change to ULSD was going from up to 500 PPM down to no more than 15 PPM. That is about the equivelant of 36 water drops to 1 gallon of water or 0.07 fluid ounces.

Everyone that supplements their fuel with their own additives aren't adding the sulfur that was taken away, they are adding whatever the product decided was "good". Don't you think the fuel manufacturers already have this figured out? Do you think the fuel manufacturers are in the business of destroying millions of older (8+ years) diesel engines?

Its the actual sulfur that hurts the emission equipment on the newer trucks, sulfur adds to the soot levels. Modern diesel engines are designed to run on ULSD, this has nothing to do with the lubricity of ULSD, it has to do with the lack of sulfur. If anything at all, modern diesel engines need a better lubricating fuel than older diesel engines due to high fuel pressures (40,000+ PSI), smaller tolerances, nozzles, injectors etc.

The lack of sulfur in fuel is across the board for everything, including locomotives, marine diesels, on highway, offroad, stationary engines etc. Every thing that runs on diesel now has to run on ULSD. They are not dropping like flies due to that.

I think if a person really wanted some sulfur in the fuel for old diesels then add a little 90 weight gear lube to the fuel. The sulfur is what makes the gear lube smell.
My understanding is that the sulfur was good for the fuel system but a determent to the engine bearings. A small amount of sulfur would work past the rings and mix with water vapor in the crankcase. The mixture gets cooked forms sulfuric acid.

short term, yes, long term, yes I think.

All the studies on the subject I've read says that 2 cycle oil added at the rate of 1 oz. per 1 gallon of fuel works about as good as anything especially for older pumps.

(quoted from post at 23:08:51 12/08/14) My short term memory never has been that good, and doesn't seam to be improving. Anyone here belong to that club? Stan

Click to expand...

Stan, it is not that your memory is getting bad it is the much more complex thoughts that now occupy your mind compared to back when your hair was long and and your attention span short.

There has been controlled testing done that shows, for sure, that certain lubricants add to diesel lube and extend the life of rotary mechanical injection pumps. Note that newer, as you say, "Yuppie" diesels do NOT have mechanical rotary injection pumps. Old farm tractors often do though.

Cooked ultra-low diesel has less natural lube
and less BTU energy (as compared to the high
sulfur diesel). Companies that sell diesel at
the pump are required to put lube additives in
the fuel to make up for that. Do they always
put enough in to meet what some of the older
rotary fuel injection pumps need? I doubt it.
Maybe you are that trusting. I'm not.

Your rhetoric about locomotives, etc. is kind
of meaningless. The biggest concern with
lowered-lube diesel is with rotary mechanical
injection pumps NOT found on locomotives or
newer diesel cars and trucks. They were used
on many older farm tractors, and cars and
trucks up to the mid to late 90s. And yes, many
of those pumps do wear out prematurely.

I kind of wonder how many posters have a fundamental understanding of mechanical injection systems, metal wear, lube needs, etc. Looking a few inane replies, it seems not many. Rotary mechanical pumps with distributor sections are the ones that really suffer from low-lube. Not in-line pumps, not plunger pumps, not common-rail diesels, etc. There is ample evidence to show premature wear on the rotary pumps from lowered lube. With ideal lube they can last the 1,000,000 road-miles with major parts intact and never replaced. If one dies at 100,000 miles instead - i.e. 1/10th the normal life - who here would even notice?

None of these additive products can hurt. The additive manufacturers don't want to defend against class action lawsuits for blown-up engines any more than the oil companies do.

Gelling is a real thing, and anti-gel products are a definite benefit during the winter, provided they work as advertised.

Beyond that, it's whatever makes you feel better. I know some people will put the magic elixir in their tank and swear that they can somehow tell that the engine is running better/smoother/whatever.

I've fallen for the magic elixir/gadget spiel a couple times in my life, and after installing them I could swear that the truck was running better, had more power, or got better gas mileage. The reality was, I was subconsciously changing my driving habits, but I'd always return to my old driving style and quickly realize that the magic elixir/gadget/doodad really didn't do anything but separate me from my money...

For the record, the sulfur that was previously in diesel fuel WAS NOT what lubricated the pump and injector parts. The process of removing the sulfur removed some of the inherent lubricity of the fuel. Getting rid of the sulfur was good for the rest of the engine. Putting it back would be going the wrong way. Lubricity additives are usually put in the fuel by the the fuel supplier, if they are reputable. A 2% mixture of soydiesel works very well for this. Mike

What is wrong with yuppies driving big diesel vehicles ?

The study that jdemaris provided a link to recently showing that rotary injection pumps benefit from USLD supplements is the most objective that I have seen and the guide that I will follow until I see one that is better. I have two 93 Dodge diesels and two Oliver diesels with rotary pumps that I would like to keep running as long as possible. A quart of two stroke oil fits into my budget a lot better than a new injection pump.

Nothing wrong with it from my point of view. That
being said - I never noticed the connection. I
see lots of people with diesels that are far from
anything I'd call a "yuppie." I've got two diesel
cars and four diesel trucks and I've certainly
never been accused of being anything close to a
"yuppie." My ex-wife says I'm "white trash",
"red-neck", "woodchuck" and a few other colorful
titles I can't use here.

My day job is as a fuel system design engineer for a diesel engine manufacturer.

Fuel lubricity is measured by wear scar. It's a specialized test that measures the width of a flat spot on a hard steel ball after cycling it back and forth with a certain load. ASTM requires ULSD to be less than 520 um wear scar with typical values in the 300-350 range. Kerosene and Jet-A is much worse, typically around 650 um wear scar and TOYU (sp?) fuel from Japan is awful stuff with a wear scar around 720um. We test our components with a special Kerosene with all the lubricity removed and during the testing process we run the fuel through a clay filter that removes any resulting parrafins that would reduce the wear scar. It's typical wear scar is 750um.

A new generation diesel engine designed around the time of the introduction of ULSD will run just fine on ULSD without the use of any lubrication modifiers.

Early diesel engines had relatively low injection pressures and resulting stress and need for enhanced lubrication of moving parts in the fuel pump and injectors.

The problem era is early 90s and later engines (EPA Tier 2 and later) with electronic controls (multi shot modes) and higher injection pressures before the advent of ULSD may need some added fuel lubricity.