Printable View
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?'
Really ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason789
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.
ROFL!!!! :Rolling: Sulphur has no lubrication properties in diesel. Is that aromatic sandalwood,jasmine or curry?Quote:
Originally Posted by rick130
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.
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
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)
hexadecane, toluene, tetrahydronaphthalene, naphthaleneQuote:
Originally Posted by Jason789
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?
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason789
HANG about here, firstly there is no cetane content in diesel. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetane_number"]Cetane number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] 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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason789
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 itQuote:
Originally Posted by Jason789
let us continueQuote:
Originally Posted by that guy you quoted
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 trustQuote:
Originally Posted by Jason789
Yep just some numbers, not a nice solid single base line numberQuote:
Originally Posted by Jason789
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 thuslyQuote:
Originally Posted by Jason789
"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.
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)
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
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 of how to go about testing something
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
Ah Bugga !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason789
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
Based on that thinking...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason789
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?