Fuel additive for TD5

[Disco58]

Evening Lads,

A quick one, is it advisable to run a fuel addative into the TD5 to clean injectors and improve performance? If so, any recommendations??? It's got around 250K on the clock.

Thanks

Wal

[Slunnie]

The Chemtech one seems to be the one that people speak highly of.

[Disco58]

Thanks Slunnie, appreciate your help.

Cheers, Wal:)

[bsperka]

Chemtech is sold as a fuel additive, not specifically an injection cleaner, although it indicates this as one of its benefits. (all of the products in the market seem to be sold in a similar vein). It is easy to get - at SCA and others, same as fuel doctor etc. I've never used Chemtech, but I have used fuel doctor which is good for what it's sold to treat.

For petrol engines, there is a toyota product that is the bee's knees, but it's $20+ for a bottle and you have to use the fuel within a short period of time, as it is a very good cleaner.

For my money, I recommend and use the cost effective fuel additive "CleanPower", as well as some of their other products, since I got my TD5 at 118k; it works a treat - a 250ml bottle lasts about a year; 10ml treats 40 litres if you haven't got it already in the tank, otherwise 10ml is good for 80 litres.. Have also used in the rest of my petrol vehicles to clean the fuel system - works really well, like all of their other products that I have used.

I recommended CEM's Flushing Oil Concentrate to a mate of mine with a Toyota Landcruiser diesel, as I used it originally in another mate's Hilux diesel. The oil is still clean after a couple of thousand k's in the Landcruiser, whereas previously it was black straight after the change (same as Hilux, I originally bought the product to see if it lived up to its claims, as the Hilux is used on a farm and lacked power, due to age and condition). My mate drove his Landcruiser around for a while and went for a trip to his daughter's. Said to his son-in-law "come and have a look at this" and checked the oil with the sil. The sil thought he had bought a new engine.

[Blknight.aus]

generally NO...

with the exception of an antifungal diesel snot killer every now and then (Usually the 50K service/yearly/1000l whichever comes first) some of the fuel additives can attack the plastics in the fuel lines or the rubber in the seals.

The chemtech additive that people are talking about is a dewatering antifungal additive and is very good at its job (it also aids in stabilizing the diesel for long term storage)

[Jason789]

Hello Disco58

'Fuel Doctor' , a full bottle in the tank every 12 months or so is good, followed by regular use of two stroke in the fuel.

Cheers,

Jason

[gofish]

My mechanic has me run Wurth additive in & speaks highly of it.

[johnb44]

i have been running a 200-1 mix of castrol t 2 stroke oil in mine with some excellent results on a trip not that noticable around town and a couple of mates with older 4 cyl d2's have been getting great results too in far better economy and quiter motor :D

[Blknight.aus]

i have been running a 200-1 mix of castrol t 2 stroke oil in mine with some excellent results on a trip not that noticable around town and a couple of mates with older 4 cyl d2's have been getting great results too in far better economy and quiter motor :D

See these are the kind Of testemonials that you can really rely on...:no2:

[Xtreme]

See these are the kind Of testemonials that you can really rely on...:no2:

Especially when their D2's are only running on 4 cylinders instead of 5 :confused:

[stig0000]

there a actule additive that LR approved,, its a weird name,, il get it on monday at work, but i think its more petrol base then diesel,,, its actuly part of a bulletin for finding fuel injector problems, super super strong cleaner of fuel injectors,

i put 2 stroke oil in some times if i remeber,,, striped a mates td33 poootrol motors head off,, he used 2 stroke like a religon and his chambers are very very clean for a diesel, ;)

[Blknight.aus]

or worse, 4 out of 8... but then unless you had one of the failed iceberg engines why would you be putting 2 stroke in the diesel?

[johnb44]

i should say 200 parts fuel to 1 part 2 stroke oil

my mates discos are 4 cylinder jobbies maybe the are disco 1's either way they are getting great results
mine is a 2004 d2a td5 on a trip ill get 980 km to 80 litres :D

[Blknight.aus]

and Ive done better on a td5 deefer without the 2 stroke..... 1000km or there abouts to the tank and that was with a trailer on the back...

you have way too many variables to be able to prove your statement.

SWMBOs disco I'll bet is returning the same or better KMs as your mates discos and I dont put 2 stroke in that.

[LOVEMYRANGIE]

or worse, 4 out of 8... but then unless you had one of the failed iceberg engines why would you be putting 2 stroke in the diesel?

If they made planes out of cast iron then it probably would still be in production today, however, the British aircraft industry wouldnt quite be what it is today, but think of all that available CI for the engines!! :p


Using Capitals, the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse or helping your uncle jack off a horse...

[Jason789]

See these are the kind Of testemonials that you can really rely on...:no2:


I suppose all the research and findings by Mercedes Benz and others into the lubricity of diesel fuel being affected by the reduction of sulpur are all false then.

Personal observations are of a quieter cleaner burning motor.




DIESEL FUEL LUBRICITY ADDITIVES
STUDY RESULTS
By
Arlen Spicer
August 2007

Copyright

© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer

Copyright



© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 1 - August, 2007

DIESEL FUEL LUBRICITY ADDITIVES 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
Sulfur 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 its predecessor,
called Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel. Low sulfur fuel contained less than 500 ppm of
sulfur. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.
As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfur, 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 sulfur 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, anti-gel agents and water
separators (demulsifiers). Some fuel additives include water emulsifiers that
cause the water to remain in suspension with the fuel.
Copyright




© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 2 - August, 2007

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. The independent lab 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.
Copyright




© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 3 - August, 2007

METHOD:

An independent research firm 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 independent 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. The fuel was tested using the HFRR
testing facility at the 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 biodiesel
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%
Copyright




© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 4 - August, 2007

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 the independent research
firm for testing. 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 technician at the 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, nonconventional,
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”.
Copyright




© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 5 - August, 2007

RESULTS

In Order Of Performance:
1) 2% REG SoyPower bio-diesel
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
Copyright




© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 6 - August, 2007

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
Copyright




© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 7 - August, 2007

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 15W-40, 5,000 miles used.
Unconventional
(Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems)
HFRR 634




, 2 micron improvement (statistically insignificant change)

200:1 ratio

16.64 oz/tank
price: $0.00
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
Copyright




© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 8 - August, 2007

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 strictest 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.
Copyright




© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer - 9 - August, 2007

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 be 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, the independent research firm, 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.
Copyright




© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer

Ranking Additive

HFRR
Score
Improvement
Over
Base Fuel
Blend
Ratio
Dose
Oz. per
26-Gal Tank
MSRP
$ Cost per
26-Gal Tank COMMENTS
Desired Engine Manufacturers Assoc DESIRED < 460




Desired by the Engine Manufacturers Association

Standard U.S. Standard < 520



U.S. Lubricity Standard for ULSD fuel

Baseline Untreated ULSD #2 Diesel Fuel 636



Baseline fuel used in this study

1 2% REG SoyPower Biodiesel



221 415 50:1 66.56 Market Soybean based bio-diesel

2 Opti-Lube XPD



317 319 256:1 13.00 $4.35 Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Cetane improver, Demulsifier

3 FPPF



RV, Bus, SUV


Diesel/Gas Fuel Treatment



439 197 640:1 5.20 $2.60 Gas & Diesel - Cetane improver, Emulsifier

4 Opti-Lube



Summer Blend 447 189 3000:1 1.11 $0.68 Multi-purpose, Demulsifier

5 Opti-Lube



Winter Blend 461 175 512:1 6.50 $3.65 Muti-purpose + anti-gel, Cetane improver

6 Schaeffer



Diesel Treat 2000 470 166 1000:1 3.33 $1.87 Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Cetane improver, Emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible

7 Super Tech Outboard

2-Cycle TC-W3 Engine Oil




474 162 200:1 16.64 $1.09 Unconventional

- (Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)

8 Stanadyne




Lubricity Formula 479 157 1000:1 3.32 $1.00 Lubricant, Demulsifier, Detergent, Anti-Oxidant, Corrosion Inhibitor, Alcohol-Free

9 Amsoil



Diesel Concentrate 488 148 640:1 5.20 $2.16 Multi-purpose - Demulsifier, alcohol free, bio-diesel compatible

10 Power Service



Diesel Kleen


+ Cetane Boost



575 61 400:1 8.32 $1.58 Multi-purpose - Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free

11 Howe’s



Meaner Power Kleaner 586 50 1000:1 3.32 $1.36 Multi-purpose -Alcohol free

12 Stanadyne



Performance Formula 603 33 480:1 6.93 $4.35 Multi-purpose + anti-gel - Cetane improver, Demulsifier, Detergent, Anti-Oxidant,


Corrosion Inhibitor, Alcohol-Free, 5% bio-diesel compatible

13 Used Motor Oil




Shell Rotella T 15W-40


5,000 miles used.



634 + 2


Insignifficant 200:1 16.64 $0.00 Unconventional

-




(Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems)


14 Lucas



Upper Cylinder Lubricant 641 - 5


Insignifficant 427:1 7.79 $2.65



Gas or Diesel

15 B1000



Diesel Fuel Conditioner


by Milligan Biotech



644 - 8


Insignifficant 1000:1 3.32 $2.67



Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive

16 FPPF



Lubricity Plus Fuel Power 675 - 39 1000:1 3.32 $1.12 Multi-purpose + anti-gel - Emulsifier, alcohol free

17 Marvel



Mystery Oil 678 - 42 320:1 10.40 $3.22 Gas, Oil and Diesel fuel additive

- (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 and newer systems)

18 ValvTect




Diesel Guard


Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive



696 - 60 1000:1 3.32 $2.38 Multi-purpose - Cetane improver, Emulsifier, alcohol free

19 Primrose



Power Blend 2003 711 - 75 1066:1 3.12 $1.39 Multi-purpose - Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, Emulsifier

Products 13 through 15



had a statistically insignifficant effect on the HFRR score compared to the baseline fuel.

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.
DIESEL FUEL LUBRICITY ADDITIVES STUDY RESULTS
Products 1 through 4




were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 460 or better. This meets the strictest 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 be investigated.


Copyright© The Diesel Place & A. D. Spicer August, 2007


I hope this sparks peoples interest to look a little farther into the subject rather than to can something with nothing to back it up. :ohyes:


Cheers,


Jason

[Blknight.aus]

yep, because according to mercedes test results some addatives are bad for your fuel..

and unless its just pre coffee me I dont see 2 stroke anywhere on that list AND on top of that its pre coffee me, read the red bit about the 2 cycle addative that was tested.
something about not complant and may damage....

just because an addative lets you get less wear from that tank of fuel that does not automatically translate to a better fuel consumption figure Although IF you happened to run nothing but the addative that causes less wear in your fuel over time you would expect your fuel consumption drop off from wear rate to be lower.

your stated observation is that


mine is a 2004 d2a td5 on a trip ill get 980 km to 80 litres :D

your testamonial is

d a couple of mates with older 4 cyl d2's have been getting great results too in far better economy and quiter motor :D


which means its totally irrelevent to this topic about adding 2 stroke to td5s because your either talking tdi or they've blown pots out/swapped motors.

[Jason789]

As a wise man once said to me, 'There are none so blind as those who will not see'

Cheers,

Jason

[amtravic1]

I cant comment on fuel additives for Landrover diesels as I don't own one, just a V8 however I do have an Isuzu Dmax and VW Passat. The Passat I don't touch however I have used Wurth additive and my motor does not seem to like it at all. I have also used Firex sold by Isuzu Motorsport (probably a re-badged other product and it seems to do the job.


I also use Castrol 2 stroke at around 200:1 mix and I know for a fact the motor is quieter and has more torque. I don't have printed results to back this up but no-one will convince me it is not worth adding. My brother has a Nissan Navara 3 litre which has done close to 500.000 kms and has run 2 stroke almost from new. It is a work car and and never had a problem apart from a blown hose or pipe to the turbo. It runs as well as the day he bought it.

Ian

[vnx205]

As a wise man once said to me, 'There are none so blind as those who will not see'

Cheers,

Jason

Are you offering that as a form of confession or as a form of accusation? :p:p:p

[Tombie]

Seeing a TD5 can run on Kero which is quite abrasive I fail to see how a coke cans worth of 2 stroke will benefit a fuel system rated for far more abrasive fuel mixes.

I won't bother trying to convince anyone otherwise - they know what's best for their motors after all :D

If your fuel system is in good order, your filters are clean etc then the vehicle will work fine.


"Where the Desert meets the Sea"
'Did I mention some great 4WDriving is just 5 minutes from home?'

[rick130]

I suppose all the research and findings by Mercedes Benz and others into the lubricity of diesel fuel being affected by the reduction of sulpur are all false then.

Personal observations are of a quieter cleaner burning motor.



[snip]

Really ?

First up, sulphur in the form it exists is in diesel has no lubrication qualities whatsoever.
However, the process to remove the sulphur tends to remove some of the aromatic compounds that add lubricity to diesel

Secondly, have you bothered to check the Australian (and Euro) specs that specify a minimum lubricity for diesel ?

The AS specifies a wear scar that is at least that which is achieved with the old sulphur laden fuel.
In other words, lubricant is added at the refinery to bring it up to the minimum lubricity of the old fuel.

AFAIK Australian ULSD is also of a higher standard than US fuel, (IIRC it has a higher cetane rating, off the top of my head I can't recall the lubrication requirements) so comparing what may be happening here to US test results is not really relevent.

In my experience performing used oil analysis, many diesel fuel treatments adversely affect oil test results.
Small amounts of the detergents get past the rings and really go to town on the bearing overlay.
It's a bit disconcerting to see your wear metals spike badly, just from using a fuel 'conditioner'.

In my limited testing, the only ones that didn't adversely affect the oil and engine wear were Redline's RL2 and 85 Plus.

Even BP's own diesel fuel cleaner gave adverse test results (IMO) and again, IMO, adding a good quality two stroke lube gives no performance benefits whatsoever, just a bit of peace of mind that older VE type rotary pumps might live a little longer. (and i reckon most of that is placebo effect)
Our TD42T Patrol is just about to clock 400,000km and its had minimal amounts of fuel additive used (probably less than 15% during the total run time)
The pump and injectors are original and untouched.
With the minimal amounts off additive used, I can't really claim they've helped much.

[Jason789]

Really ?

First up, sulphur in the form it exists is in diesel has no lubrication qualities whatsoever.
However, the process to remove the sulphur tends to remove some of the aromatic compounds that add lubricity to diesel

.

ROFL!!!! :Rolling: Sulphur has no lubrication properties in diesel. Is that aromatic sandalwood,jasmine or curry?

Heres a little more info with statistics at the end. This is from Dieselpower , the worlds largest diesel magazine.










From the time the Environmental Protection Agency proposed that ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) be run in all on-highway diesel vehicles to when it was fully implemented in late 2006, there has been much debate about this new fuel's effect on older diesel engines. Specifically, the fear that ULSD has a lower lubricity and cetane rating, which could affect pre-2007 diesel engines and fuel systems.

One major oil company has assured us that the proper lubrication formulas are now added and mixed before the fuel we use ever makes it to the pump. Still, many aren't convinced this is the case, as a lot of folks in the pickup segment, and especially those in the trucking industry, noticed a decrease in fuel economy once ULSD became our nation's primary diesel fuel.

The Importance Of Cetane
Diesel engines will operate fine on any cetane rating between 40 to 55, but the higher the number, the shorter the ignition delay is, and the more complete and efficient the combustion cycle becomes. In our research we found that cetane numbers in ULSD fluctuate between 40 to 45. And coinciding with what we've seen, with inconsistencies in cetane ratings at the pump, many diesel owners experience fluctuating fuel mileage.

During the refinement of ULSD, fuel is flooded with hydrogen to remove sulfur, but in the process also removes much of the fuel's lubrication properties, as well as cetane content. This leads to many things, but we're focusing on the fact that cetane numbers aren't consistent. This means each time you fill up at your local station, the quality of fuel is different. Knowing this, we contacted FPPF about using its 8+ Cetane Improver.

The Importance Of Lubricity
Another reason ULSD has been blamed for premature fuel system and engine wear is due to its low sulfur content. At 15 ppm (out of 1 million parts, just 15 can be sulfur), ULSD contains only a fraction of the sulfur concentration found in the previously used low-sulfur diesel (LSD), which was roughly 500 ppm. And since sulfur acts as a lubrication agent in diesel fuel, ultra-low sulfur content in ULSD is thought to be one of the main suspects in causing fuel-related problems in pre-2007 diesels, which were designed to run primarily on LSD.

According to Exxon Mobil, ULSD's refining process can reduce the energy content of the fuel. They say a reduction is minimal, but nevertheless, energy loss occurs. Knowing this, we contacted Opti-Lube about its XPD fuel additive, which is designed to increase diesel fuel's lubricity as well as its cetane rating.

Our Test And Its Parameters
Between ULSD's lower cetane rating and lubricating abilities and the fact that diesel prices in Southern California peaked as high as $5.39 a gallon in the summer of 2008, the idea of testing several fuel additives came to us rather easily. After all, everyone at that time wanted some help in the mileage department, so we set out to bring readers a basic, real-world diesel additive test. The experiment kicked off with us running straight diesel fuel for some baseline fuel economy numbers, followed by a lubricity-only additive (Opti-Lube's XPD), and finally, FPPF's 8+ Cetane Improver.

Did Solely Increasing Fuel Lubricity Increase Mileage?
To find out if the above question was true, we decided to run a two-stroke oil pre-mix as an additive in our test vehicle (unconventional at best, and with no cetane improvement). And after 2,000 miles of testing the product, the answer was yes. Our overall mileage increased 1 mpg in combined highway and city driving. Now, is it worth running this as an additive to gain a measly mile per gallon? You be the judge. But for less than $10, we got a 7 percent improvement in fuel economy and enough oil for 10 tanks worth of testing.

Opti-Lube XPD
At the time of our test, Opti-Lube's XPD formula was rumored to be one of the best diesel additives on the market. Along with providing lubricity-enhancing ingredients, XPD also claimed to increase each tank's cetane number by three to five points when mixed properly. In addition, Opti-Lube stated that its product contained injector cleaning agents, could improve not only fuel economy but water separation in fuel, and help cold weather performance as well.

FPPF 8+ Cetane Improver
Another highly regarded fuel additive is FPPF's 8+ Cetane Improver. And by running a 256:1 mixture, it claimed each tank's cetane number could be increased by 8 points. This meant that by filling up with 40 cetane or 45 cetane fuel at the pump we would still be able to make our fuel as energy-dense as possible. Along with increasing cetane rating, FPPF's additive was also capable of reducing smoke and engine noise, and providing quicker start-ups.

Conclusion
Please check out our results, which should dispel any rumors that all fuel additives are a gimmick, or a myth. At least in our '97 Power Stroke's case, the myth has been proved, rather than busted-the fuel additives we tested did increase fuel economy.



https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/01/929.jpg (http://www.aulro.com/tech/ford/0911dp_fuel_additive_test/photo_02.html)


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/01/930.jpg (http://www.aulro.com/tech/ford/0911dp_fuel_additive_test/photo_03.html)


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/01/931.jpg (http://www.aulro.com/tech/ford/0911dp_fuel_additive_test/photo_04.html)









Test Vehicle
Year/Make/Model: 1997 Ford F-350 4x4 Crew Cab
Engine: 7.3L Power Stroke
Transmission: E4OD Automatic
Axle Ratio: 4.10
Tire Size: 285/75R16

Modifications: Upgraded fuel injectors from Full Force Diesel, TS Performance six-position chip with daily driver setting from Bean's Diesel Performance, free-flowing K&N air intake and MBRP 4-inch exhaust, and upgraded transmission from North American Diesel Performance

Test Variables
• Each additive was mixed at the manufacturers' recommended ratio and poured in the empty tank first, before filling up with fuel. (Opti-Lube XPD = 256:1, FPPF = 256:1, the two-stroke, which had no recommendation, was run in a 200:1 mixture).

• The same three filling stations were used throughout testing, and the truck was topped off at the same level each time.

• Real-world driving scenarios: stop-and-go city traffic, interstate commuting (65 to 70 mph, cruise control), and minimal off-road use. Note: Hauling and towing instances were purposely excluded from the test results.

• Eleven thousand miles were driven during testing: first with no product, then with two-stroke oil, Opti-Lube, and FPPF.

• Weather did not play as big a role as one might think. With one of the mildest climates in the country, Southern California allowed us to conduct the test in a virtually uncorrupted manner (no freezing temperatures or extreme heat conditions were faced).

• Heat and air conditioning were rarely needed (no unnecessary drag was placed on the engine).

• Regular maintenance was performed on the truck. And because we were dealing with HEUI, we made sure our oil was changed every 4,000 miles for the cleanest oil possible actuating our injectors (we ran Shell's Rotella T Heavy-Duty 15W-40 engine oil). We also inspected and then replaced the fuel filter before switching to the next additive (no fueling or performance modifications were made to the truck once the testing began).

NO ADDITIVE
Highway Average 14.6 mpg
City Average 13.7 mpg
Overall Average 14.1 mpg

TWO-STROKE PRE-MIX
Best Highway (one tank) 16.3 mpg
Best City (one tank) 14.9 mpg
Highway Average 15.6 mpg
City Average 14.6 mpg

OPTI-LUBE XPD
Best Highway (one tank) 17.4 mpg
Best City (one tank) 15.7 mpg
Highway Average 16.1 mpg
City Average 14.4 mpg

FPPF 8+ CETANE IMPROVER
Best Highway (one tank) 17.3 mpg
Best City (one tank) 15.0 mpg
Highway Average 16.1 mpg
City Average 14.9 mpg




Cheers,

and do some more research into additives in diesel fuel. There is always new information out there. This is relevant information but then anyone can put the blinkers on and ignore it if they want to.

Jason

[Blknight.aus]

I'll see your ROFL and raise you a few.. (Ive also turned all your red points to blue so I may use the red font to highlight some points with)


ROFL!!!! :Rolling: Sulphur has no lubrication properties in diesel. Is that aromatic sandalwood,jasmine or curry?
hexadecane, toluene, tetrahydronaphthalene, naphthalene
Aromatics, not incense and spices... The first is the collective name for a bunch of chemicals found in dead dino fuel, the second is stuff that indians burn to hide the smell of the byproduct of digesting food they prepare with the last. A simple mistake, one that your probably intended to be humorous but came across as kind of ignorant, but you knew that and did it just to throw us of the scent, right?



Heres a little more info with statistics at the end. This is from Dieselpower , the worlds largest diesel magazine.


Never let it be said that any magazine Ever skewed tests or misrepresented results in order to appease their advertisers funding, to do so might let you regard the rest of the quoted text as being of "questionable reliability"










From the time the Environmental Protection Agency proposed that ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) be run in all on-highway diesel vehicles to when it was fully implemented in late 2006, there has been much debate about this new fuel's effect on older diesel engines. Specifically, the fear that ULSD has a lower lubricity and cetane rating, which could affect pre-2007 diesel engines and fuel systems.

One major oil company has assured us that the proper lubrication formulas are now added and mixed before the fuel we use ever makes it to the pump. Still, many aren't convinced this is the case, as a lot of folks in the pickup segment, and especially those in the trucking industry, noticed a decrease in fuel economy once ULSD became our nation's primary diesel fuel.

The Importance Of Cetane
Diesel engines will operate fine on any cetane rating between 40 to 55, but the higher the number, the shorter the ignition delay is, and the more complete and efficient the combustion cycle becomes. In our research we found that cetane numbers in ULSD fluctuate between 40 to 45. And coinciding with what we've seen, with inconsistencies in cetane ratings at the pump, many diesel owners experience fluctuating fuel mileage.

During the refinement of ULSD, fuel is flooded with hydrogen to remove sulfur, but in the process also removes much of the fuel's lubrication properties, as well as cetane content. HANG about here, firstly there is no cetane content in diesel. Cetane number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Cetane number is the number thats assigned to the fuel after testing that relates to its combustability, If we were to remove the Cetane Content of Diesel we would be rendering nonvolatile and thus totally useless as fuel, secondly it removes the sulfur comma space new point but in the process also removes much of the fuels lubrication properties... so.. removing the sulfur isnt the problem the process used also lowers the lubricity, yep, nothing new there removal of some types of the aromatic polymers (http://www.selerity.com/main/Documents/AppNote302.pdf) has been known for ages to lower the lubricity of diesel removal of some of the others is also known to raise the cetane rating unfortunately removing the sulfur generaly takes out the A+APs.

This leads to many things, but we're focusing on the fact that cetane numbers aren't consistent. This means each time you fill up at your local station, the quality of fuel is different. Knowing this, we contacted FPPF about using its 8+ Cetane Improver.

The Importance Of Lubricity
Another reason ULSD has been blamed for premature fuel system and engine wear is due to its low sulfur content. At 15 ppm (out of 1 million parts, just 15 can be sulfur), ULSD contains only a fraction of the sulfur concentration found in the previously used low-sulfur diesel (LSD), which was roughly 500 ppm. And since sulfur acts as a lubrication agent in diesel fuel, ultra-low sulfur content in ULSD is thought to be one of the main suspects in causing fuel-related problems in pre-2007 diesels, which were designed to run primarily on LSD.


Urmmmm hang on didnt he say 2 paragraphs ago that, and since it seems to be the key point in your argument I'll requote it


fuel is flooded with hydrogen to remove sulfur, but in the process also removes much of the fuel's lubrication properties,
let us continue




According to Exxon Mobil, ULSD's refining process can reduce the energy content of the fuel. They say a reduction is minimal, but nevertheless, energy loss occurs. Knowing this, we contacted Opti-Lube about its XPD fuel additive, which is designed to increase diesel fuel's lubricity as well as its cetane rating.

Our Test And Its Parameters
Between ULSD's lower cetane rating and lubricating abilities and the fact that diesel prices in Southern California peaked as high as $5.39 a gallon in the summer of 2008, the idea of testing several fuel additives came to us rather easily. After all, everyone at that time wanted some help in the mileage department, so we set out to bring readers a basic, real-world diesel additive test.
Just screams conducted in a rigorously controlled manner to me in the same way that "trust me, as prime minister there will be no carbon tax" Inspires faith and trust


The experiment kicked off with us running straight diesel fuel for some baseline fuel economy numbers,
Yep just some numbers, not a nice solid single base line number

followed by a lubricity-only additive (Opti-Lube's XPD), and finally, FPPF's 8+ Cetane Improver.

Did Solely Increasing Fuel Lubricity Increase Mileage?
To find out if the above question was true, we decided to run a two-stroke oil pre-mix as an additive in our test vehicle (unconventional at best, and with no cetane improvement). And after 2,000 miles of testing the product, the answer was yes. Our overall mileage increased 1 mpg in combined highway and city driving. Now, is it worth running this as an additive to gain a measly mile per gallon? You be the judge. But for less than $10, we got a 7 percent improvement in fuel economy and enough oil for 10 tanks worth of testing.

Opti-Lube XPD
At the time of our test, Opti-Lube's XPD formula was rumored to be one of the best diesel additives on the market. Along with providing lubricity-enhancing ingredients, XPD also claimed to increase each tank's cetane number by three to five points when mixed properly. In addition, Opti-Lube stated that its product contained injector cleaning agents, could improve not only fuel economy but water separation in fuel, and help cold weather performance as well.

FPPF 8+ Cetane Improver
Another highly regarded fuel additive is FPPF's 8+ Cetane Improver. And by running a 256:1 mixture, it claimed each tank's cetane number could be increased by 8 points. This meant that by filling up with 40 cetane or 45 cetane fuel at the pump we would still be able to make our fuel as energy-dense as possible. Along with increasing cetane rating, FPPF's additive was also capable of reducing smoke and engine noise, and providing quicker start-ups.

Conclusion
Please check out our results, which should dispel any rumors that all fuel additives are a gimmick, or a myth. At least in our '97 Power Stroke's case, the myth has been proved, rather than busted-the fuel additives we tested did increase fuel economy.



https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/01/929.jpg (http://www.aulro.com/tech/ford/0911dp_fuel_additive_test/photo_02.html)


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/01/930.jpg (http://www.aulro.com/tech/ford/0911dp_fuel_additive_test/photo_03.html)


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/01/931.jpg (http://www.aulro.com/tech/ford/0911dp_fuel_additive_test/photo_04.html)









Test Vehicle
Year/Make/Model: 1997 Ford F-350 4x4 Crew Cab
Engine: 7.3L Power Stroke
Transmission: E4OD Automatic
Axle Ratio: 4.10
Tire Size: 285/75R16

Modifications: Upgraded fuel injectors from Full Force Diesel, TS Performance six-position chip with daily driver setting from Bean's Diesel Performance, free-flowing K&N air intake and MBRP 4-inch exhaust, and upgraded transmission from North American Diesel Performance

Test Variables
• Each additive was mixed at the manufacturers' recommended ratio and poured in the empty tank first, before filling up with fuel. (Opti-Lube XPD = 256:1, FPPF = 256:1, the two-stroke, which had no recommendation, was run in a 200:1 mixture).

• The same three filling stations were used throughout testing, and the truck was topped off at the same level each time.

• Real-world driving scenarios: stop-and-go city traffic, interstate commuting (65 to 70 mph, cruise control), and minimal off-road use. Note: Hauling and towing instances were purposely excluded from the test results.

• Eleven thousand miles were driven during testing: first with no product, then with two-stroke oil, Opti-Lube, and FPPF.

• Weather did not play as big a role as one might think. With one of the mildest climates in the country, Southern California allowed us to conduct the test in a virtually uncorrupted manner (no freezing temperatures or extreme heat conditions were faced).

• Heat and air conditioning were rarely needed (no unnecessary drag was placed on the engine).

• Regular maintenance was performed on the truck. And because we were dealing with HEUI, we made sure our oil was changed every 4,000 miles for the cleanest oil possible actuating our injectors (we ran Shell's Rotella T Heavy-Duty 15W-40 engine oil). We also inspected and then replaced the fuel filter before switching to the next additive (no fueling or performance modifications were made to the truck once the testing began).

NO ADDITIVE
Highway Average 14.6 mpg
City Average 13.7 mpg
Overall Average 14.1 mpg

TWO-STROKE PRE-MIX
Best Highway (one tank) 16.3 mpg
Best City (one tank) 14.9 mpg
Highway Average 15.6 mpg
City Average 14.6 mpg

OPTI-LUBE XPD
Best Highway (one tank) 17.4 mpg
Best City (one tank) 15.7 mpg
Highway Average 16.1 mpg
City Average 14.4 mpg

FPPF 8+ CETANE IMPROVER
Best Highway (one tank) 17.3 mpg
Best City (one tank) 15.0 mpg
Highway Average 16.1 mpg
City Average 14.9 mpg




Cheers,

and do some more research into additives in diesel fuel. There is always new information out there. This is relevant information but then anyone can put the blinkers on and ignore it if they want to.

Jason

Capping the data.. you've presented an article which shows that some additives increase fuel lubricity, some make no difference and some make it worse and make no mention of any change in performance, on top of which the only 2 stroke listed in it isnt the one you're recommending its not even listed at the ratio that your mixing it at. The above article can be summated roughly thusly

"Whelp now me an billy bob here got our hands on this neato scam where we could drive our one truck round and get free fuel and some addative just to write up this ere report yall aint gunna believe what we worked out.."

If one truck in uncontrolled conditions is enough for accurate reporting and is an acceptable basis for published fact then Jurnos and advertisers must love you.

sage advice perhaps if you actually presented some well documented research you might carry a little more weight with your arguements?

Not going to disagree with you.

[rick130]

Jason, do some real research on diesel rather than reading advertising copy. ;)

[edit]BTW, cetane levels have risen with the tighter ULSD specs in Australia, not dropped, and sulphur is a contaminant, full stop. (ULSD here is now <10ppm, cetane average @ three years ago across the three refiners was a minimum of 50)

[Jason789]

Yes ! Yes! Yes!

Ever so sorry. How foolish could little ol' red neck me be so foolish. I whole heartedly apologise to one and all for being so foolish as to not see the whole scam that is going on here. You've pointed it out so clearly.

I'm gonna spend the rest of life kicking my backside for ever believing that the pure as the virgin snow, unadulterated, diesel fuel that we get here way down south in little ol Ustrayleu could ever have improvements made to it to get better milage and performance or make it any cleaner burning.
Because then I wouldn't here about people saying that one brand of diesel is better than the other....dey is all the same coz dey maken to dem standuds....

Sorry again, I retract everything. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I don't know how I could be ignorant as to believe any of that sort of guff. Oh and I'm gonna remove my fuel chip and fit a Hyclone coz dem Hyclones is scientifically tested ands mys fuel chip does no cum wit dem scientifics analisis and get all mys gas froms de 7/11

Cheers,

Jason

[Blknight.aus]

tell you what...

find some decent research to back up your claim and not seat of the pants crap from magazines...

heres a really good example (http://www.billswebspace.com/AirFilterTest.htm)of how to go about testing something

[Jason789]

Ba humbug.

There are write ups on 2 stroke as a diesel additive all over the net, not just one, many. I accept that they are all wrong, that I was wrong, and you must be right.
I bow to ye omnipotant presence.

Cheers,

Jason

[BMKal]

Heres a little more info with statistics at the end. This is from Dieselpower , the worlds largest diesel magazine.


Ah Bugga !!!

So based on that .................. we're all driving the wrong bloody vehicles. :o

If the "world's largest diesel magazine" is to be taken as gospel on this topic, then I suppose that "Australia's largest 4WD magazine" must also be the holy grail on 4WD's - and we all know how regularly they tell us that Toyotas are better then Landrovers. ;)

I'm off to trade my Disco in on a Hi-lux then. :p

[Tombie]

Ba humbug.

There are write ups on 2 stroke as a diesel additive all over the net, not just one, many. I accept that they are all wrong, that I was wrong, and you must be right.
I bow to ye omnipotant presence.

Cheers,

Jason

Based on that thinking...

Facebook must be the only way to communicate
Nissan Silvia are the single best vehicle made.
DCDC chargers are the only way to charge batteries in a vehicle

How about this thought...

If it was as simple as 400mls of 2 stroke don't you think it would be added at the refinery?

And yes, road based testing has too many variables to be taken seriously.

But that's ok.... You can still put 2 stoke in your tank.
We won't stop you. You're allowed to!

But how can adding $10.00 worth of oil be a benefit to economy savings of 5-8 litres of fuel?

[Pinelli]

Based on that thinking...


If it was as simple as 400mls of 2 stroke don't you think it would be added at the refinery?


because this would make it more expensive per litre, and most folk would still buy by price at the bowser, not by long term economies.

Is it time perhaps to let this thread rest? Plenty of info for everyone to read and make their own mind up about.

[Tombie]

because this would make it more expensive per litre, and most folk would still buy by price at the bowser, not by long term economies.

Is it time perhaps to let this thread rest? Plenty of info for everyone to read and make their own mind up about.

Rubbish....

It's because it doesn't work...

They add a lubricity product, they add anti-foam. They add detergents...
$0.0005 worth of "2-stroke" per litre, if it gave them a marketting and sales edge would be promoted.

BP did with it's "ultimate diesel"

The ultimate economy gains are a combination of:
2 stroke added to tank, through a polariser, dual hiclone set up, breathing through twin K&N filters and exhaling via a twin 6" truck stack.

(That bit was sarcasm you realise)

[Jason789]

Based on that thinking...

Facebook must be the only way to communicate
Nissan Silvia are the single best vehicle made.
DCDC chargers are the only way to charge batteries in a vehicle

How about this thought...

If it was as simple as 400mls of 2 stroke don't you think it would be added at the refinery?

And yes, road based testing has too many variables to be taken seriously.

But that's ok.... You can still put 2 stoke in your tank.
We won't stop you. You're allowed to!

But how can adding $10.00 worth of oil be a benefit to economy savings of 5-8 litres of fuel?

Tombie

if you are paying $10 for 400ml of 2 stroke, then I'm glad that I haven't paid for your services

PS, by your statement about improvements in economy, it appears that you agree that there are benefits of adding 2 stroke oil to diesel fuel(no sarcasm intended)

Cheers, Jason

[Tombie]

No - I think it's a complete bloody waste of time...

And wouldn't bother.

I've seen bigger effects just from different fuel stations and the same station on different days (deliveries).

Also perform differently at different altitudes... My vehicle runs very different at home to Canberra.



"Where the Desert meets the Sea"
'Did I mention some great 4WDriving is just 5 minutes from home?'

[Pinelli]

The ultimate economy gains are a combination of:
2 stroke added to tank, through a polariser, dual hiclone set up, breathing through twin K&N filters and exhaling via a twin 6" truck stack.


Brave man - you said the 'H' word!

Couldn't get a picture, but I came across a Mazda Bravo last week with what must have been a 5" exhaust :eek:

I mean, if you've got that much spare cash to spend on ridiculous mods, why buy a Bravo????

[amtravic1]

I have never seen an improvement in economy using 2 stroke in my Isuzu Dmax however I know the engine is quieter and has a bit more torque. I only use Caltex fuels unless I get a 20 cent discount voucher from Shell/Coles. People can think what they like, no amount of talk here will change me from using 2 stroke at 200:1. I am old enough, wise enough and have driven enough kms to know what works for me.

Ian

[ZippoParis]

Hi all,

I just realized that, my math is so bad (It's true, it's true. If you don't use it, it goes away).

How exactly does one workout 200:1 ? I understand the 200 parts of fuel to 1 part of 2 stroke. It's the formula for, let's say, 92lt of diesel (That's the Disco 2 tank size, right?), how much 2 stroke?

I'm getting 0.46lt of 2 stroke.

Did I get it? Do I win?

Cheers.

[Naks]

A quick one, is it advisable to run a fuel addative into the TD5 to clean injectors and improve performance? If so, any recommendations??? It's got around 250K on the clock.

2-stroke oil at a 1:200 ratio will do the trick

[isuzurover]

And now for some real, scientific studies, rather than biased/erroneous (advertising) copy or internet heresay.


Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects
Volume 33, Issue 3, 2010
A Study on the Prediction Model for the Lubricity of Hydrogenated Ultra-low Sulfur Diesel Fuel
A Study on the Prediction Model for the Lubricity of Hydrogenated Ultra-low Sulfur Diesel Fuel
PreviewView full textDownload full text
Full access

DOI:
10.1080/15567030902842210

B.-H. Linab, B.-X. Shena & J.-G. Zhaoa

pages 254-264
Available online: 23 Oct 2010
Recent concerns over diesel-powered equipments' impact on the environment have driven various countries to legislate for reductions in vehicle exhaust emission levels and to change diesel fuel's quality. For instance, environmental regulations of 2006, which applied in Europe, US, and other countries, limited the emission level to lower than 15 μg/g. The European IV Emission Standard has been implemented since Jan1, 2008, in Beijing to welcome the 2008 Olympic Games. It was regulated that the sulfur content should be controlled to no more than 50 μg/g, which was a sign to indicate that Beijing had moved into European IV Era. Therefore, the low sulfur-content diesel oil was an inevitable trend (Li etal., 2004).
These modifications to diesel fuel quality have been achieved by increasing the use of refining processes, such as hydro-treating or hydro-cracking. However, these processes also tended to reduce the lubricating properties of the fuel. In other words, the desulfurization treatment minimized polyaromatics and polar compounds. Polyaromatics and polar compounds, such as oxygen and nitrogen-containing compounds, were recently known to enhance fuel lubricity (Liu etal., 2007).
The lubricity of diesel fuel has been the subject of a large number of investigations since the introduction of low-sulfur diesel. Diesel pumps were lubricated by the fuel itself and rapid failure was observed as the natural boundary lubricants were removed from the fuel along with the sulfur. These pumps relied on the fuel for lubrication, and the failures were linked directly to the reduced lubricity of low sulfur fuels (Lin etal., 2005).
The lubricity of diesel became more and more important with the inevitable trend of low sulfur diesel in China, which means improving the lubricity of diesel; the assessment of the lubricity of diesel must be used at first in order to improve the lubricity of diesel. ....



Properties and Performance of Levulinate Esters as Diesel Blend Components
Author(s): Christensen, E (Christensen, Earl)1; Williams, A (Williams, Aaron)1; Paul, S (Paul, Stephen)2; Burton, S (Burton, Steve)3; McCormick, RL (McCormick, Robert L.)1
Source: ENERGY & FUELS Volume: 25 Issue: 11 Pages: 5422-5428 DOI: 10.1021/ef201229j Published: NOV 2011
Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 28 [ view related records ] Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: The properties of ethyl (EL) and n-butyl levulinate (BL), two potential cellulose-derived diesel blend components, were assessed as both neat oxygenates and blends with diesel fuel. The samples tested were produced commercially from cellulose and alcohols but were not reagent-grade samples. They were relatively free of impurities, although EL contained some acidic compounds and both contained parts-per-million levels of calcium. Both esters exhibited a very low cetane number. The melting points of both esters were less than -60 degrees C. The water solubility of EL was 15.2 wt %, while that of BL was only 1.3 wt %. Blends of diesel fuel with EL were found to have an elevated cloud point, despite the extremely low melting point of this compound, because EL separates from diesel fuel as a separate liquid phase at low temperatures. This can be mitigated to some extent by including biodiesel in the blend. BL remained in solution and raised the diesel cloud point only when blended into -45 degrees C cloud point/15% aromatic no. 1 diesel fuel. Both esters were found to significantly increase diesel lubricity and conductivity. The esters were treated with the cetane-enhancing compound 2-ethyl hexyl nitrate and were tested as blends with diesel fuel in a 2008 model year Cummins ISB engine with the measurement of regulated pollutant emissions over the federal heavy duty diesel transient cycle. Fuel chemistry had no effect on tailpipe total hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter for this diesel oxidation catalyst and particle filter equipped engine. The engine-out smoke number was reduced by 41.3% with a 10% blend of EL (EL10) and reduced by 55% with a blend of 20% BL (BL20). EL10 had no effect on emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO(x)), while BL20 increased NO(x) by 4.6%. Because of the poor solubility of EL in diesel fuel at low temperatures, its use as a diesel blend component will be technically challenging. The low cetane number of both esters can be addressed with cetane improver additives.
Accession Number: WOS:000297001400055


Obtaining of Ashless Additives for Diesel Fuel Impoving the Lubricating, Anticorrosion and Protection Properties
Author(s): Yordanov, DI (Yordanov, D. I.)1; Petkov, PS (Petkov, P. S.)1
Source: PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Volume: 27 Issue: 15 Pages: 1783-1788 DOI: 10.1080/10916460802686400 Published: 2009
Times Cited: 1 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 17 [ view related records ] Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: The production of "ultra pure" diesel fuels is connected with the deterioration of their certain performance characteristics. The lubricating properties of ultra pure diesel fuels are poor; their relative stability worsens; they tend to be corrosion-aggressive toward metal surfaces; and their electrophysical properties sharply deteriorate to increase the possibilities for accumulation of static-electric charge by transportation and feeding into vehicles (Tasheva, Petkov, and Ivanov, 2003; 2004).

These negative properties of the ultra pure diesel fuel are usually overcome by adding special substances to improve their lubricating properties, electric conductivity, and oxidation stability and to eliminate their corrosion aggressiveness.

[ZippoParis]

"These negative properties of the ultra pure diesel fuel are usually overcome by adding special substances to improve their lubricating properties, electric conductivity, and oxidation stability and to eliminate their corrosion aggressiveness."

So, is the "special substances" 2 stroke oil???

[goingbush]

I have never seen an improvement in economy using 2 stroke in my Isuzu Dmax however I know the engine is quieter and has a bit more torque. I only use Caltex fuels unless I get a 20 cent discount voucher from Shell/Coles. People can think what they like, no amount of talk here will change me from using 2 stroke at 200:1. I am old enough, wise enough and have driven enough kms to know what works for me.

Ian

DITTO

I add 1/3 litre marine 2 stroke (non synthetic) per 100 litres diesel at every fill.
my 80 series 1HDT broke at 540,000 klm and it was a non fuel related failure. After an oil change it took about 2000 klm for the oil to start going black, where my work truck (no 2 stroke oil) went black within 100klm after an oil change. Same now with the TD5 it stays nice & golden brown for about 1500 klm. Nothing is going to stop me adding 2 stroke oil.

If you stop using 2 stroke it takes a couple of fills to get it out of the system & you think nothing changed until you add it again & get an instant decrease in rattle at idle & engine cruise noise.

[isuzurover]

"These negative properties of the ultra pure diesel fuel are usually overcome by adding special substances to improve their lubricating properties, electric conductivity, and oxidation stability and to eliminate their corrosion aggressiveness."

So, is the "special substances" 2 stroke oil???

The "special" substances are a range of products added by refineries to improve lubricity without harming cetane rating.

The difference is the additives the refineries add have been subject to a battery of tests to ensure suitability. There is no guarantee that your homebrew 2-stroke (or other additives) won't do more harm than good.

Bush65 commented in another thread, that many injector pumps (e.g. ISUZU) are lubricated by engine oil rather than fuel. So adding a lubricant to the fuel won't make a difference to IP longevity.

The main claim of the proponents of 2-stroke, is that the engine "sounds smoother". How is better lubrication of the pump(s) and injectors supposted to be "heard"??? If the engine runs smoother with 2-stroke added, it sounds more like a moderation of the combustion process, which may or may not be a good thing.

Case in point, a friend converted his isuzu diesel to run on WVO. He didn't realise that he had low compression on one cylinder. The result, his engine idles smoothly (all 4 cylinders) on WVO, but roughly (3 cylinders) on Diesel. You could use that to say that it is much better for the engine to run it on WVO, but we know that is not necessarily the case, There are lots of potential downfalls of using straight WVO.

[alpick]

After ploughing thru all this goods guts info on fuel additives I added the recommended amount of chemtec to a full tank.

reduced the "rattle" and general engine noise quite considerably and feels a little more sprightly as well.

Can't hurt right?:huh:

cheers

[Blknight.aus]

ok fair enough finally some research indicating that there are some additives to increase lubricity...

however...


Diesel pumps were lubricated by the fuel itself and rapid failure was observed as the natural boundary lubricants were removed from the fuel along with the sulfur. These pumps relied on the fuel for lubrication, and the failures were linked directly to the reduced lubricity of low sulfur fuels

since the td5 doesnt have an injector pump.....

neither of the compounds listed(the BL and the EL) as being tested are 2 stroke oil or any other commercially available additive (that I've been able to find, which doesnt mean its not in some of them) and if I've read correctly and found the right info an Alcohol based additive and a derivitive of a type of biodiesel (the wood fungus one I think but Im not betting the farm on that).

just from the added NOX of 4.6% on the BL20 mix if thats an after after treatment (cat/DPF) figure then its probably enough to blow some engines past their EUROX requirements for emmissions (although NOT a TD5 in AUS as they are only required to meet EURO II/III)

[djam1]

Lots of interesting stuff
I understood that the development of the TD5 injectors was done using kerosine.
This was done to give the worst case scenario.
On that basis I don't think I could be stuffed metering out two stroke oil to get the limited benefit.
That being said its your engine you do what you want

[LandyAndy]

DITTO

I add 1/3 litre marine 2 stroke (non synthetic) per 100 litres diesel at every fill.
my 80 series 1HDT broke at 540,000 klm and it was a non fuel related failure. After an oil change it took about 2000 klm for the oil to start going black, where my work truck (no 2 stroke oil) went black within 100klm after an oil change. Same now with the TD5 it stays nice & golden brown for about 1500 klm. Nothing is going to stop me adding 2 stroke oil.

If you stop using 2 stroke it takes a couple of fills to get it out of the system & you think nothing changed until you add it again & get an instant decrease in rattle at idle & engine cruise noise.

You cannot compare the oil colour in a TD5 to ANY jap stuff.Jap engines burn dirty,the TD5 burns much cleaner and has an additional centrifuge oil filter.
My D2 TD5 has 263000ks on it,its been on synthetic oil since new,I change oil at 20000ks,guess what,my oil remains clean for 20000ks,I can wipe my dipstick clean without getting my fingers dirty,even after 20000ks.The same goes for my TD5 Defender,it has 160000ks on it.Yes I have owened dirty Jap diesels and operate earthmoving equipment for a living.Two stroke oil wont clean your sump oil,NEVER.Jap diesels glaze very easily,its what turns your sump oil black.The Cost Effective Maintence products mentioned in an earlier post work VERY WELL on Jap diesels to help with the black oil/glazing issue.The owner markets them to do so,I used the products with great results on my Mitsy Triton 4d56 diesel and a Toyota 1HZ work ute,they are not required on a healthy TD5.
The ONLY fuel treatment both my TD5s,and my boat get are the occasional dose of diesel power or simalar,ONLY to prevent algeal growths and any water in the fuel.
Andrew

[Tombie]

400cc of Snake Oil will quiet a diesel down too...

What a pile of crap this thread is...

Different weather, temperature, humidity will also change the economy and sound of a diesel engine...

Ahhhh...

Thud.....

You know what - stick a 200:1 ratio of 2 stroke to your tank of fuel....
Works wonders... Helps economy... Reduces NVH...
And as an added bonus - makes those who believe it works feel righteous and justified.

So I beg of all of you... Use 2 stroke in your fuel... The righteous have spoken.


"Where the Desert meets the Sea"
'Did I mention some great 4WDriving is just 5 minutes from home?'

[LandyAndy]

400cc of Snake Oil will quiet a diesel down too...

What a pile of crap this thread is...

Different weather, temperature, humidity will also change the economy and sound of a diesel engine...

Ahhhh...

Thud.....

You know what - stick a 200:1 ratio of 2 stroke to your tank of fuel....
Works wonders... Helps economy... Reduces NVH...
And as an added bonus - makes those who believe it works feel righteous and justified.

So I beg of all of you... Use 2 stroke in your fuel... The righteous have spoken.


"Where the Desert meets the Sea"
'Did I mention some great 4WDriving is just 5 minutes from home?'

I wonder if Lizzard Milk works better than snake oil Tombie;););););)
Andrew

[whyatts]

We have been using PROMA DT5 Fuel system cleaner in our workshop
for the past 10 years and have found it to be very effective.
1 Litre bottle costs about $30.00 and it's enough for 1000 litres of diesel.

[Tombie]

I wonder if Lizzard Milk works better than snake oil Tombie;););););)
Andrew

It does...

But I can't get the ****ing bucket under it :D


"Where the Desert meets the Sea"
'Did I mention some great 4WDriving is just 5 minutes from home?'

[rick130]

It does...

But I can't get the ****ing bucket under it :D


"Where the Desert meets the Sea"
'Did I mention some great 4WDriving is just 5 minutes from home?'

Hahahaha.

I was once asked by a checkout chick how they got the milk from rice to make the carton of rice milk I was buying.

"First you start with a very low stool"

The little old lady behind me nearly wet herself laughing, the checkout chick went "huh ?" :D

[rick130]

and just for the record I still use Redlines RL2 commercial engine diesel 'conditioner' occasionally as at least it has a fair bit of legitimate, verified testing behind it, but I'm under no illusions that I can feel anything different in any of our diesels.

[Blknight.aus]

It does...

But I can't get the ****ing bucket under it :D


"Where the Desert meets the Sea"
'Did I mention some great 4WDriving is just 5 minutes from home?'

no requirement to, its a lite milk. just turn the lizard upside down then milk it under the upturned bucket, centrifigual force takes care of the rest.

[Basil135]

Based on the "more is better" theory that modern man survives on, if I run my car on straight 2 stroke, add all of the cleaners, performance enhancers, system cleaners etc I can find, along with my hyclone & my Power Chip, I should be able to capture the diesel from my exhaust that it would produce, and it would be as pure as a new born lamb...


:angel:


:wasntme:



BTW - just for the record.... I tried the 2 stroke in my car for about 12 months, keeping records of fuel consumption. I PERSONALLY did not notice any difference at all. But, that is just MY experience, using a range of fuels.





The opinions of this poster are those made by this poster, and in no way reflect the opinions of others, including but not limited to, the owner and other users of this forum, any qualified or bush mechanic, vehicle manufacturers, fuel supplier, oil driller, mean mongrel of a whale hunter, boy scout, girl guide, little old lady, my local priest, the guy next door with a bad back, my milkman, or the guy ripping up my street to rebuild it... :D

[isuzurover]

Some more quantitative research...

Addition of BioD improved Lubricity in this study.

Enhancing the lubricity of an environmentally friendly Swedish diesel fuel MK1
Author(s): Sukjit, E (Sukjit, E.)1; Dearn, KD (Dearn, K. D.)1
Source: WEAR Volume: 271 Issue: 9-10 Special Issue: SI Pages: 1772-1777 DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2010.12.088 Published: JUL 29 2011
Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 21 [ view related records ] Citation MapCitation Map
Conference: 18th International Conference on Wear of Materials (WOM) Location: Philadelphia, PA Date: APR 03-07, 2011
Abstract: The lubricity of diesel fuel has a direct effect on the service life of the fuel injection equipment, and when alternative fuels are specified, is of vital importance. One such fuel is the Swedish diesel fuel, MK1 which contains low levels of sulphur and low lubricity. This paper investigated the use of ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) and fatty acid methyl esters derived from rapeseed (RME) blends to improve MK1 lubricity. Fuel lubricity was assessed using a high frequency reciprocating rig. The wear scar diameter of the ball specimen was measured using optical microscopy while the wear profile and surface roughness of the disc were analysed using a profilometer. Scanning electron microscopy with an energy dispersive spectrometer was used to evaluate the microscopic topography and chemical compositions of the surfaces. Results confirm that MK1 has poor lubricity when compared to other base fuels. Of the blended fuels. ULSD showed little improvement. However, a small percentage of RME improved the lubricity of both the pure MK1 and the blends. Analysis of the worn surfaces indicated that chemical compositions of MK1 did not adsorb and react as well when compared with those of ULSD. RME and selected blended fuels. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

However, before you go adding Bio:

Compatibility of automotive materials in biodiesel: A review
Author(s): Haseeb, ASMA (Haseeb, A. S. M. A.)1; Fazal, MA (Fazal, M. A.)1; Jahirul, MI (Jahirul, M. I.)1; Masjuki, HH (Masjuki, H. H.)1
Source: FUEL Volume: 90 Issue: 3 Pages: 922-931 DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2010.10.042 Published: MAR 2011
Times Cited: 2 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 81 [ view related records ] Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: Use of biodiesel in automobile can significantly reduce our dependence of fossil fuel and help reduce environmental pollution. However, there are concerns over the compatibility of currently used automotive materials in biodiesel. A few automobile manufacturers extended their warranty only to lower blends of biodiesel (e. g. B5). Higher blends (e. g. B50 or B100) are still not covered by warranty. In automobile fuel system, metallic materials like ferrous alloy and non-ferrous alloys, and elastomers come in contact with fuel. Biodiesel, having different chemical characteristics from diesel, can interact with materials in a different way. It can cause corrosive and tribological attack on metallic components and degrade elastomer parts. This paper attempts to present an overview of the work done so far on the compatibility of biodiesel with automotive materials. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Accession Number: WOS:000287476000002

However on the wear/lubricity front. On average, Bio is better than petro-diesel (from the paper above):

Table 4. Static engine test results on wear in biodiesel as compared with diesel.
Biodiesel Sources Engine operation hours Wear elements Ref.
Al Cr Cu Fe Pb
B100 Ethyl soyate 200 H L H L H Clark et al. [42]
B100 Methyl soyate 200 L S L L H
B20 Rapeseed 512 L L L L L Agarwal et al. [61]
B100 Rapeseed 1000 L L – L L Peterson et al. [68]
B50 Rapeseed 1000 L L – L L
B100 Palm oil 1000 H H H S H Prateepchaikul and Apichato [64]
B7.5 Palm oil 100 L – L L L Kalam and Masjuki [70]
B15 Palm oil 100 L – L L L

H = Higher, L = Lower, S = Similar wear, compared to that in diesel.


Characterization of the lubricity of bio-oil/diesel fuel blends by high frequency reciprocating test rig
Author(s): Xu, YF (Xu, Yufu)1,2; Wang, QJ (Wang, Qiongjie)2; Hu, XG (Hu, Xianguo)1,2; Li, C (Li, Chuan)2; Zhu, XF (Zhu, Xifeng)3
Source: ENERGY Volume: 35 Issue: 1 Pages: 283-287 DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2009.09.020 Published: JAN 2010
Times Cited: 5 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 17 [ view related records ] Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: The diesel fuel was mixed with the rice husk bio-oil using some emulsifiers based on the theory of Hydrophile-Lipophile Balance (HLB). The lubricity of the bio-oil/diesel fuel blend was studied on a High Frequency Reciprocating Test Rig (HFRR) according to ASTM D 6079-2004. The microscopic topography and chemical composition on the worn surface were analyzed respectively using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS). The profile and surface roughness of the rubbed trace were measured using a profilometer. The chemical group and composition were studied by a Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (FTIR). The results showed that the lubrication ability of the present fuel blend was better than that of the Chinese conventional diesel fuel (number zero). However, the anti-corrosion and anti-wear properties of the fuel blend were not satisfactory in comparison with those of conventional diesel fuel. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

I know TD5s are not commonrail, however:

Effect of Fuel Temperature on Performance and Emissions of a Common Rail Diesel Engine Operating with Rapeseed Methyl Ester (RME)

Date Published: 2009-06-15
Paper Number: 2009-01-1896
DOI: 10.4271/2009-01-1896

Citation:

Mamat, R., Abdullah, N., Xu, H., Wyszynski, M. et al., "Effect of Fuel Temperature on Performance and Emissions of a Common Rail Diesel Engine Operating with Rapeseed Methyl Ester (RME)," SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-1896, 2009, doi:10.4271/2009-01-1896.

Author(s):

Rizalman Mamat - Univ. of Birmingham
Nik Rosli Abdullah - Univ. of Birmingham
Hongming Xu - Univ. of Birmingham
Miroslaw L. Wyszynski - Univ. of Birmingham
Athanasios Tsolakis - Univ. of Birmingham

Abstract:

The paper presents analysis of performance and emission characteristics of a common rail diesel engine operating with RME, with and without EGR. In both cases, the RME fuel was pre-heated in a heat exchanger to control its temperature before being pumped to the common rail. The studied parameters include the in-cylinder pressure history, rate of heat release, mass fraction burned, and exhaust emissions. The results show that when the fuel temperature increases and the engine is operated without EGR, the brake specific fuel consumption (bsfc) decreases, engine efficiency increases and NOx emission slightly decreases. However, when EGR is used while fuel temperature is increased, the bsfc and engine efficiency is independent of fuel temperature while NOx slightly increases.

EDIT, another...

Technical and economic analysis of the problems observed in diesel engines with common rail injection systems in Turkey
Author(s): Karamangil, MI (Karamangil, M. Ihsan)1; Erkus, B (Erkus, Baris)1; Kaynakli, O (Kaynakli, Omer)1; Surmen, A (Surmen, Ali)1
Source: ENERGY EDUCATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PART A-ENERGY SCIENCE AND RESEARCH Volume: 28 Issue: 2 Pages: 563-576 Published: JAN 2012
Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 54 [ view related records ] Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: The ultimate goal of automotive manufacturers is the development of more powerful, economical and environmentally friend internal combustion engines. Also of note is the importance of noise reduction by increasing the fuel injection pressure to unsatisfactory levels. Obviously, higher injection pressures require materials of higher strength and lower production tolerances. However, one of the main issues regarding the use of these high-pressure fuel systems is their dependency on fuel quality. Therefore, concurrent efforts to improve diesel fuel quality are supremely important. In this study, we discuss the earliest engine problems commonly encountered in new generation diesel engines and their economical consequences for vehicle owners and the Turkish automotive market. We found that most of the problems in connection with the Common Rail (CR) systems emerged from inadequate fuel quality. In Turkey did not proceed at the same rate as the increase in diesel vehicle sales, because the improvement of fuel quality. Other reasons for the problems include faulty operation, lack of necessary knowledge particular to CR technology and late response to a problem by the drivers.
Accession Number: WOS:000297087600006

[Naks]

I tried the 2 stroke in my car for about 12 months, keeping records of fuel consumption. I PERSONALLY did not notice any difference at all. But, that is just MY experience, using a range of fuels.


2SO is not for lowering your consumption. I use 2SO to enhance the lubricity of the diesel and to prevent coking of injectors, EGR, etc, and because the diesel in SA and surrounding countries is sometimes diluted with parrafin and may be dirty.

If you start using 2SO on an old TD, you MAY see a slight improvement in consumption once the 2SO has cleaned the internals.

I used 2SO in my previous D2 Td5 AT - quicker startup in winter, smoother idle, smoother gearchanges.

Currently I use 2SO in my Audi 2.0 TDi (PD) - quicker startup in winter, smoother idle, less smoke; and in my Puma - smoother idle, less clattering.

[ZippoParis]

Hi All,

I seem to have a mental block. I can't seem to get my head around the formula for the 200:1.

Can someone please either give me a push towards working it out, or, how much do I put in. My tank is 95lt.

Cheers.

[amtravic1]

Hi All,

I seem to have a mental block. I can't seem to get my head around the formula for the 200:1.

Can someone please either give me a push towards working it out, or, how much do I put in. My tank is 95lt.

Cheers.

.47 of a litre. Remember, when you fill up next time you are unlikely to put in 95 litres. just divide the amount of fuel you put in by 200.

[ZippoParis]

.47 of a litre. Remember, when you fill up next time you are unlikely to put in 95 litres. just divide the amount of fuel you put in by 200.

No-way!

Too easy.

Thank you.

[LDS]

Hi All,

I seem to have a mental block. I can't seem to get my head around the formula for the 200:1.

Can someone please either give me a push towards working it out, or, how much do I put in. My tank is 95lt.

Cheers.

Hahaha,

I wanted to ask the same question, but didn't want to **** these guys off as I thought it to be silly. I will be taking on the recommendations and trying this.

A TD5 Series II is a 92lt tank?

What amount would a 200:1 ratio of 2 stroke be against a standard TD5 II.

Many thanks in advance

[alpick]

Old Aviation saying,

"No such thing as a silly question, just silly mistakes!"

I've learnt to ask lots of "silly questions" , makes it easier to find stuff in the supermarket/bunnings!:D

[DiscoJakes]

I just love reading these "debates".

BUT, its for lubrication only - and some kickbacks it offer.

FACT, we experience many diesels coming in beyond 150k before glow plugs get replaced. This is a nightmare for any workshop and customer since 90% of the time the glow plug tip get broken off, and subsequently the top need to be removed....

We did a test this week with 8 diesel vehicles of various brands all over 180k with original glow plugs. 1l of 2so was added on a full tank. Between Thu and Fri all 8 vehicles came in for servicing with 100% removal rate of the glow plugs...

Use it, don't use it.....

[Naks]

We did a test this week with 8 diesel vehicles of various brands all over 180k with original glow plugs. 1l of 2so was added on a full tank. Between Thu and Fri all 8 vehicles came in for servicing with 100% removal rate of the glow plugs... Use it, don't use it.....


Just to be clear DiscoJakes, was the 2SO beneficial or not? Also, which workshop is yours?

[Aaron40]

If like me you have problems with math and need to constantly work out ratio's for mowers, outboards etc try an iphone app called "Gas and Oil ratios" its a ripper!
;)

[LOVEMYRANGIE]

Or iRatio on the app store too.


Using Capitals, the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse or helping your uncle jack off a horse...

[DiscoJakes]

Just to be clear DiscoJakes, was the 2SO beneficial or not? Also, which workshop is yours?

Naks, it was "beneficial" for the fact that all glow plugs extracted first time round with no breakages, something which is very common these days to the point where owners are being pre-warned that the head might have to be removed to safeguard the workshop.

I'm the UFix DIY workshop guy.[biggrin]

[alpick]

Naks, it was "beneficial" for the fact that all glow plugs extracted first time round with no breakages, something which is very common these days ]

Sorry I'm confused,do you mean

First time extraction with no breakages is common or,

First time extraction with breakages is common?


Thanks

[DiscoJakes]

Sorry for the confusion. Breakages is becoming a major concern for workshops and customers alike.

The reason is sometimes disguised due to economic reasons where customers take very long before replacing items like glow plugs or cats for that matter. But I still believe "bad" fuel and a lack of lubrication is the main cause for concern. Some items just simply don't make it to their sell-by date!

[rick130]

In a nutshell, if you get enough carbon buildup around the tip of the glowplug it can make it hard/impossible to remove, hence they break instead.

Some injector cleaners work as combustion chamber cleaners too, and I didn't have a problem replacing all six glow plugs on a TD42T last year with 300,000+km on the clock.