Lubricity Study

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

FF

Guru
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
22,552
Found this interesting piece on a big truck board , copied and pasted.

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td width="7"></td> <td><pre> Flowing are the preliminary results of a research study on diesel fuel Lubricity
Additives. There is likely to be further commentary and explanation added at a future
time. PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to determine the ability of multiple
diesel fuel additives to replace the vital lubricity component in ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfer
Diesel) fuel. HISTORY: ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road
diesel engines. This fuel burns cleaner and is less polluting than its predecessor,
called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel. Low sulfer fuel contained less than 500 ppm of sulfer.
ULSD contains 15 ppm or less. As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting
sulfer, it is inadvertently stripped of its lubricating properties. This vital
lubrication is a necessary component of the diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel
delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high pressure pumps and injectors.
Traditional Low sulfer diesel fuel typically contained enough lubricating ability to
suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD fuel, on the other hand, is considered
to be very dry and incapable of lubricating vital fuel delivery components. As a
result, these components are at risk of premature and even catastrophic failure when ULSD
fuel is introduced to the system. As a result, all oil companies producing ULSD fuel must
replace the lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel purchased at retail fuel
stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace this lost lubricity. The
potential result of using inadequately treated fuel, as indicated above, can be
catastrophic. There have been many documented cases of randomly tested samples of diesel
fuel. These tests prove that often times the fuel we purchase is not adequately treated
and may therefore contribute to accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems. For this
reason it may be prudent to use an after market diesel fuel additive to ENSURE adequate
lubrication of the fuel delivery system. Additionally, many additives can offer added
benefits such as cetane improver, and water separators or emulsifiers. CONTENT: In this
study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity. The
primary component of this study is a side-by-side laboratory analysis of each additives
ability to replace this vital lubricity. Additionally, claims of improving cetane, water
separation or emulsification, bio-diesel compatibility and alcohol content will be noted.
These notes were derived from information that was readily available to consumers (via
the label and internet information) and none of this information has been evaluated for
validity and/or performance. Cetane information has only been noted if the word cetane
was used in the advertising information. The words improves power has not been
translated to mean improves cetane in this evaluation. Information on alcohol content
is provided by indicating contains no alcohol. Omission of the words contains no
alcohol does not imply that it does contain alcohol. This information was simply missing
in the information available to a consumer. However, the possibility of a form of alcohol
in these products is possible. Additionally, information on dosages and cost per tankful
are included for comparison purposes. How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating
Ability: Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a device
called a High Frequency Reciprocating Rig or HFRR. The HFRR is currently the
Internationally accepted, standardized method to evaluate fluids for lubricating ability.
It uses a ball bearing that reciprocates or moves back and forth on a metal surface at a
very high frequency for a duration of 90 minutes. The machine does this while the ball
bearing and metal surface are immersed in the test fluid (in this case, treated diesel
fuel). At the end of the test the ball bearing is examined under a microscope and the
wear scar on the ball bearing is measured in microns. The larger the wear scar, the
poorer the lubricating ability of the fluid. Southwest Research runs every sample twice
and averages the size of the wear scar. The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a
commercially available diesel fuel should produce a wear scar of no greater than 520
microns. The Engine Manufacturers Association had requested a standard of a wear scar no
greater than 460 microns, typical of the pre-ULSD fuels. Most experts agree that a 520
micron standard is adequate, but also that the lower the wear scar the better. METHOD: An
independent research firm in Texas was hired to do the laboratory work. The cost of the
research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive manufacturers. Declining
to participate and pay for the research were the following companies: Amsoil and Power
Service. Because these are popular products it was determined that they needed to be
included in the study. These products were tested using funds collected by diesel
enthusiasts at dieselplace.com. Additionally, unconventional additives such as 2-cycle
oil and used motor oil were tested for their abilities to aid in diesel fuel lubricity.
These were also paid for by members of dieselplace.com. The study was conducted in the
following manner: -The Research firm obtained a quantity of untreated ULSD fuel from a
supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel engines. However, this
sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the fuel for the purpose of
replacing lost lubricity. In other words, it was a worst case scenario, very dry diesel
fuel that would likely cause damage to any fuel delivery system. This fuel was tested
using the HFRR at the Southwest Research Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a
very high HFRR score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel. It was determined
that this batch of fuel would be utilized as the baseline fuel for testing all of the
additives. The baseline fuel HFRR score of 636 would be used as the control sample. All
additives tested would be evaluated on their ability to replace lost lubricity to the
fuel by comparing their scores to the control sample. Any score under 636 shows
improvement to the fuels ability to lubricate the fuel delivery system of a diesel
engine. BLIND STUDY: In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the
following steps were taken: Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet
or over the counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-diesel
sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered
experimental at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market. It was sent
directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel sample was sponsored by Renewable Energy
Group. One of their suppliers, E.H. Wolf and Sons in Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with
a sample of 100% soybean based bio-diesel. This sample was used to blend with the
baseline fuel to create a 2% bio-diesel for testing. Each additive was bottled separately
in identical glass containers. The bottles were labeled only with a number. This number
corresponded to the additive contained in the bottle. The order of numbering was done
randomly by drawing names out of a hat. Only Spicer Research held the key to the
additives in each bottle. The additive samples were then sent in a box to An independent
research firm. The only information given them was the ratio of fuel to be added to each
additive sample. For example, bottle A needs to be mixed at a ratio of 480-1. The
ratio used for each additive was the prescribed dosage found on the bottle label for
that product. Used motor oil and 2-cycle oil were tested at a rationally chosen ratio of
200:1. The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio of each bottled fluid into a
separate container containing the baseline fuel. The data, therefore, is meaningful
because every additive is tested in the same way using the same fuel. A side-by-side
comparison of the effectiveness of each additive is now obtainable. THE RESULTS: These
results are listed in the order of performance in the HFRR test. The baseline fuel used
in every test started at an HFRR score of 636. The score shown is the tested HFRR score
of the baseline fuel/additive blend. Also included is the wear scar improvement provided
by the additive as well as other claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive is also
categorized as a Multi-purpose additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity only,
non-conventional, or as an additive capable of treating both gasoline and diesel fuel. As
a convenience to the reader there is also information on price per treated tank of diesel
fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per 26 gallon tank provided as ounces of
additive per 26 gallon tank. In Order Of Performance: 1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel HFRR
221, 415 micron improvement. 50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel 66.56 oz. of
100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel Price: market value 2)Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel cetane improver, demulsifier HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio 13 oz/tank $4.35/tank 3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment Gas and
Diesel cetane improver, emulsifier HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement 640:1 ratio 5.2
oz/tank $2.60/tank 4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend Multi-purpose demulsifier HFRR 447, 189
micron improvement 3000:1 ratio 1.11 oz/tank $0.68/tank 5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel cetane improver HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement 512:1 ratio 6.5
oz/tank $3.65/tank 6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000 Multi-purpose + anti-gel cetane
improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement 1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank $1.87/tank 7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil Unconventional
(Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems) HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio 16.64 oz/tank $1.09/tank 8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula Lubricity Only
demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio 3.32 oz/tank $1.00/tank 9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate Multi-purpose
demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement 640:1
ratio 5.2 oz/tank $2.16/tank 10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio 8.32 oz/tank $1.58/tank 11)Howes Meaner Power Kleaner Multi-purpose Alcohol
free HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement 1000:1 ratio 3.32 oz/tank $1.36/tank 12)Stanadyne
Performance Formula Multi-purpose + anti-gel cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel
compatible, alcohol free HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement 480:1 ratio 6.9 oz/tank
$4.35/tank 13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000 miles used. Unconventional
(Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems) HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement 200:1 ratio 16.64
oz/tank price: market value 14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant Gas or diesel HFRR 641, 5
microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change) 427:1 ratio 7.8 oz/tank
$2.65/tank 15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech Multi-purpose, canola oil
based additive HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant
change) 1000:1 ratio 3.32 oz/tank $2.67/tank 16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power
Multi-purpose + anti-gel Emulsifier, alcohol free HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than
baseline fuel 1000:1 ratio 3.32 oz/tank $1.12/tank 17)Marvel Mystery Oil Gas, oil and
Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 and newer systems) HFRR 678, 42
microns worse than baseline fuel. 320:1 ratio 10.4 oz/tank $3.22/tank 18)ValvTect Diesel
Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive Multi-purpose Cetane improver, emulsifier,
alcohol free HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel 1000:1 ratio 3.32 oz/tank
$2.38/tank 19)Primrose Power Blend 2003 Multi-purpose Cetane boost, bio-diesel
compatible, emulsifier HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline 1066:1 ratio 3.12 oz/tank
$1.39/tank CONCLUSIONS: Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to
an HFRR score of 460 or better. This meets the most strict requirements requested by the
Engine Manufacturers Association. Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the
unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 520 or better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel
requirements for maximum wear scar in a commercially available diesel fuel. Products 16
through 19 were found to cause the fuel/additive blend to perform worse than the baseline
fuel. The cause for this is speculative. This is not unprecedented in HFRR testing and
can be caused by alcohol or other components in the additives. Further investigation into
the possibilities behind these poor results will investigated. Any additive testing
within +/- 20 microns of the baseline fuel could be considered to have no significant
change. The repeatability of this test allows for a +/- 20 micron variability to be
considered insignificant. CREDITS: This study would not have been possible without the
participation of all companies involved and dieselplace.com. A special Thank You to all
of the dieselplace.com members who generously donated toward this study and waited longer
than they should have for the results. You folks are the best. Arlen Spicer,
organizer." Tags: Additives, diesel, fuel, Lubricity Share Bookmark and Share
Reply to This Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Add Hyperlink Add an Image
Upload a File Upload Files Attach File(s): * * * Replies to This Discussion jud thomas
Permalink Reply by jud thomas on August 17, 2009 at 6:11pm Delete Thanks Chuck, this is
good stuff to know. Makes that old Low Sulfer Diesel look good don't it ? Reply
to This Richard - AKA "Big Jayhawk" Permalink Reply by Richard - AKA "Big
Jayhawk" on August 18, 2009 at 8:52am Delete Once a month, I just put a gallon of
straight Vegetable Oil (Soy) in each tank, it works like a charm... Reply to This
Herb C. Hampton Permalink Reply by Herb C. Hampton on August 18, 2009 at 3:52pm Delete
Big Jayhawk, what engine do you have and how much fuel capacity? I would like to add
biodiesel but cannot find it in Oklahoma where I live. Herb C. Hampton. Richard - AKA
"Big Jayhawk" said: Once a month, I just put a gallon of straight Vegetable Oil
(Soy) in each tank, it works like a charm... Reply to This Richard - AKA
"Big Jayhawk" Permalink Reply by Richard - AKA "Big Jayhawk" on
August 18, 2009 at 4:02pm Delete I have a Detroit 60 Series in a '97 Freightliner w/ 1.5
million miles on it. I have 110 gallon tanks. I started doing it by accident. My wife
found some out of date vegetable oil in the back of the cupboard, and instead of throwing
it out, I poured it in the tanks. It smoothed out the vibration in the engine on hard
pulls, and I always get my best mpg when it's in there. I've been doing it for 3 or 4
years now, with no problems... Herb C. Hampton said: Big Jayhawk, what engine do you have
and
 
Wow. In that test, Marvel Mystery oil actually made the fuel worse!
 
Interesting information, thanks. The lubricity additive we have used in our boat since acquiring it in 1998 is Hammond's Select3. This was on the recommendation of the diesel shop we use. It uses a mil-spec lubricity agent they developed called Lubribor. Hammonds is the same company that makes Biobor, the fuel "bug killer." We use that in our fuel, too.
 
Marvel Mystery oil actually made the fuel worse!


MM as far as I can find out is #1 diesel, oil of winter green to change the smell and red die.

Why would you think it helps anything?

ATF has been used by some folks .
 
Bob Smith of Lehman fame swears by MM, that's why I use it.
 
Folks that spill salt , toss some over their shoulder , works for them.
 
I found this study in my Favorites based on Bio-Diesel and Lubricity.<a href="http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/Lubricity.PDF">

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/Lubricity.PDF</a>

I know from experience that when cleaning an emergency generator fuel tank that has had Bio-Diesel, it is like pushing peanut butter. I stongly suspect the warm returned fuel being introduced back in to the tanks causes this thick glob...


El Sea/L.C.

Suckin Sludge & Havin a Gas
 
No one seems to mention that the study is based on "on highway" or road diesel. Its viscosity is far less than that of marine diesel, and has a much lower flashpoint (illegal by marine regulatory standards). The molecular arrangements that make those differences make a big difference in the wear test results.

Do you know what's in your tank?
 
"No one seems to mention that the study is based on "on highway" or road diesel. Its viscosity is far less than that of marine diesel, and has a much lower flashpoint (illegal by marine regulatory standards)."

Perhaps on ships there is some difference , but here in the USA most marinas are serviced by the same trucks delivering the same fuel they supply to gas stations.

Diesel ashore comes in #1 and #2 grades , and of coyrse is modified for winter use with additives.

Most "marine" diesel is died red to show the road tax has not ben paid , big no no for diesel car or truck users.

The "off road diesel" used to be the old style ( not super low sulfur) fuel , but now its the same (at least on farms and in the marinas in FL ) as comes out of every road truck.
 
FF wrote: Perhaps on ships there is some difference , but here in the USA most marinas are serviced by the same trucks delivering the same fuel they supply to gas stations.

The "off road diesel" used to be the old style ( not super low sulfur) fuel , but now its the same (at least on farms and in the marinas in FL ) as comes out of every road truck.
First, nobody mentioned ships so I don't understand why you brought that up. If I were talking about merchant ships I would have said so.

Second, I suggest you stop by your friends at Roland Martin's, they advertise "marine diesel" - ask them what the flash point is.

Marine diesel is the term used to describe a product*which meets certain specifications. The flash point for marine diesel is minimum 60*C. The minimum flash point for automotive diesel is 38*C.

Considering the cutoff between a combustible liquid (diesel) and a flammable liquid (gasoline) is at 37.8*C, the difference between automotive and marine diesel is considerable for both regulatory as well as operational considerations.

Here in Fort Lauderdale, the diesel sold at Bahia Mar is just under 68*C, the mobile fuel barge is pumping diesel that is just under 67*C. I have not bothered to query all the marine fuel stations in town but I suspect that if they are selling marine diesel,*the specs will be*the same.

And for what it's worth, the European standard for automotive diesel is 55*C minimum flashpoint, considerably above ours and nearly as safe as marine diesel.

The link below leads to a dated but still very relevant study on this topic.

http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/fr/dfuelrpt.pdf

*
 
I don't think it can hurt using additives.* I mean what is the down side, so maybe I waste 20 bucks?*
 
Phil Fill wrote:

*I mean what is the down side ...?*

You wreck your fuel pumps or injectors, burn up a few pistons or liners.

The question should be "what is the up side?
 
Ok, what is the up side?

What addtive do you suggest to increase the Lubricity for the off road low sulfer pumped at most marina pumps?* *

-- Edited by Phil Fill on Tuesday 30th of March 2010 09:14:10 PM
 
Opri Lube Summer blend , at a 3000-1 mix it may help on the sliding parts and should not destroy the engine.

It costs almost as much to ship a gal as a Qt ,

a gal should handle a Millenum at 4 hours a year!
 
Phil Fill wrote:

What addtive do you suggest to increase the Lubricity for the off road low sulfer pumped at most marina pumps?* *


What part of "you don't need any" is creating confusion?
 
Well, that is to simple?* What is the catch?*


*
I sort of believe that no additives are needed as I run 20 gallon/wee in the pick up with 275,000 miles with no problem except the fuel seal leak vs 20 gallon/year through the boat.* I still do not understand the down side of adding additives for lubrication?


*
Also, I do not understand the flash point of on road low sulfur #2 vs marine off road low sulfur #2?* I thought it was the same except had die in it.****I know #1 diesel and home heating burn cleaner than #2diesel, ignites easier and burns cleaner.* Again if*the #2*works in the pickup why not the boat?* So what is the plus/minus with having a lower flash point besides being more*eazier to ignite?
 
The "you don't need any" reply might not be accurate for all diesels. Maybe on the newer generations of them, but the old low rpm thumpers with jerk-injection like the FL120 depend on fuel lubricity for their injection pumps and injectors to not wear out abnormally fast. All the diesel experts I've talked to on the subject, from the folks at the diesel shop we use to a friend in the marine diesel manufacturing industry, recommend a lubricity additive for our engines (FL120s). I haven't asked them about newer engines since we don't have any. So we've been using a lubricity additive that was recommended when we bought the boat and it's been twelve years now. That's not to say the engines won't explode tomorrow, but so far so good.
 
Marin wrote:

The "you don't need any" reply might not be accurate for all diesels. Maybe on the newer generations of them, but the old low rpm thumpers with jerk-injection like the FL120 depend on fuel lubricity for their injection pumps and injectors to not wear out abnormally fast.
You mean the old mechanical engines with larger clearances than modern close tolerance, high speed, heavily loaded pumps and fuel injectors that make those in the Lehman look like something built in China in the 60s?

Look up ASTM D-975. If you can buy it on the street or dock, diesel fuel meets that spec right out of the refinery.* A Lehman is as industrial as your 985, you would be hard pressed to wreck the pump if you blended*black oil*in your tanks.
*
I don't buy or sell additives, and I certainly don't recommend them to anyone.*The only people I know who use them are those boaters who spend all their time talking about engines rather than using them and people who write about being truck drivers.*We go through a few million gallons of diesel every year in engines from*"thumpers"*down to little 1200 rpm*4 cylinder gensets and*lawn equipment sized*single cylinder fire pumps, all without*a drop of mouse milk added to any of them. I cannot recall a single instance of a fuel pump or injector failing due to lack of lubricity and I see the bills and talk to the repair shops.

*


-- Edited by RickB on Wednesday 31st of March 2010 12:57:19 PM
 
I buy that Valvtec stuff. I would assume it is marine diesel but I am gonna ask next time. And I don't know if the 20 year olds at the dock would know....
 


The "you don't need any" reply might not be accurate for all diesels. Maybe on the newer generations of them, but the old low rpm thumpers with jerk-injection like the FL120 depend on fuel lubricity for their injection pumps and injectors to not wear out abnormally fast.
FWIW - I've gotten the same instruction as Marin from everyone who has had anything to do with my FL120.*

That said, I have seen the study(ies) that say MMO reduces lubricity. And that is the only contradiction to Bob Smith direction that I've ever heard regarding our engines.

So I use this stuff http://www.fppf.com/rvbusformula.asp



*
 
According to my business suppliers for both equipment and diesel fuel, lubricity in today's commercial diesel fuel is not an issue. This applies to 50 year old and new engines -*Cat branded.*California nutcase CARB declarations notwithstanding.

BTW, the lubricity "study" that started*this chain seems at odds with the type of "professional" fuel info I routinely see from Chevron. It seems statement rich, fact* short and biased towards what additive is the best/worst rather than "Is one necessary at all?" FYI, the refiners use additives to keep thier fuels within "spec." And what additives does the VW diesel owner use who makes points and press by burning french fry grease?
 
RickB wrote:
You mean the old mechanical engines with larger clearances than modern close tolerance, high speed, heavily loaded pumps and fuel injectors that make those in the Lehman look like something built in China in the 60s?
I can only go on what we have been told by people in the engine industry.* According to them, the nature of the Lehman 120's jerk-injection Simms/CAV injection pump makes fuel lubricity extremely critical.* There are no seals on the plungers--- the injection pressure is created by the fit of the plungers in their bores.* I don't know how the tolerances compare to newer engines, but whatever the injection pressure is in an FL120, it is all created by*the*fit of*each plunger in its bore.

The only thing that lubricates the plungers is the fuel.* The lube oil in the sump of a Simms/CAV injection pump is there only to lubricate the pump's drive mechanism.

If the fuel does not have the required lubricity the plungers and bore walls wear abnormally fast.* This not only accellerates the rate of fuel dilution of the lube oil down below but it will eventually start to reduce the injection pressure at which point the pump has to be rebuilt.* Given that the pump is the single most expensive item on an FL120 and is very costly to overhaul, the advice has been from everyone I've talked to to use a lubricity additive in today's diesel fuel to ensure that the wear rate*of the plungers and the bore walls is kept as low as possible.

That's what we've been told and we have followed the advice of the people that have told us this.* How this relates to newer engines I have no idea.*

I'm not saying that*what you say is wrong.* But not being a diesel design engineer, or*the owner of*a shop that tears down and overhauls things like FL120*injection pumps,*I can only*go on the advice of people who are these things.

*
 
Marin wrote:
There are no seals on the plungers--- the injection pressure is created by the fit of the plungers in their bores.* I don't know how the tolerances compare to newer engines, but whatever the injection pressure is in an FL120, it is all created by*the*fit of*each plunger in its bore.

The only thing that lubricates the plungers is the fuel.

And that is exactly the way every diesel engine high pressure pump works. Even on the largest engines there is no seal, it is a lapped fit. The same applies for mechanical injectors.

There is simply nothing exceptional about the Lehman or any other small high speed diesel engine. None of them require a fuel additive for any reason. It is much more likely that the fuel system will be damaged by water and other contaminants in small boats than from the "poor lubricity" bogeyman.

If nothing else, those old industrial engines (Lehmans and its ilk) are far less demanding and far less prone to wear than modern highly loaded injection systems that use plungers ground and fitted to light wave tolerances.

It wasn't but a few years ago that diesels in small privately owned boats were the exception and they were surrounded by a highly cultivated mystique intended to enhance the status of their owners and the bank accounts of those who maintained them. Not much has changed except the "gurus" are now grinding the ULSD rumor mill.

This stuff is right up there with the fear mongering that surrounded "oversquare" operation that had the hangar flying crowd so freaked out a few years ago.

*


-- Edited by RickB on Wednesday 31st of March 2010 08:18:22 PM
 
"None of them require a fuel additive for any reason."

All modern diesels require an additive , its just the local distributor is "supposed" to blend it into the fuel.

Insurance if someone doesn't would make sense.

Penny wise or Pound foolish? Depends on who pays for the replacement items.
 
While they may not "require" additives, why would you not use them if they help prevent wear on your fuel systems? I may change what I use based on this article, but I'm still using them. As long as you use them per manufacturer's specs, they can't hurt and sure can help. There are lots of references and test results out on the web that show this. Check out Chevron's Oronite line of diesel fuel additives. I'd say they know what they're talking about.
 
FF wrote:

Penny wise or Pound foolish? Depends on who pays for the replacement items.

Fuel meets the lubricity standard when it leaves the refinery. Period. That standard was developed by a consensus of engine manufacturers, the people who design, manufacture, and warranty the engines that would suffer from lack of lubricity.

There is no manufacturer that requires the user to blend an aftermarket fuel additive to maintain the warranty of their products. Most warn against the practice and state very clearly that the warranty is void if damage is found to be the result of using fuel that does not meet their specifications, which is universally the ASTM fuel standard as delivered from the refinery.

There is a huge body of literature available online regarding the use of additives. Most are published by those who sell the stuff.

There is practically nothing published about pump and injector failures due to low lubricity since the institution of ASTM D-975 after the ULSD low lubricity phenomenon was identified.

Please feel free to link to documented cases of diesel failure due to the use of fuel that has not been sanctified with aftermarket lubricity additives.

Like I wrote earlier, our yachts burn millions of gallons of fuel annually. Several of them make the crossing between the Caribbean and the Med on their own bottoms twice a year, some are on multi-year circumnavigations. We have an intense interest in the health of the main and auxiliary engines on those boats - of all sizes from 6m tenders to 80m megayachts. We are also interested in not wasting the owner's money on mythology or unnecessary maintenance and* materials.

There is no mystery about marine fuel, its handling or its use. You don't need to take my word for it, go talk to the technical superintendent or port engineer for your local tugboat fleet operation and ask what they do. Stop by Northern Lights in Seattle and ask what lubricity additive they require to keep their warranty in effect.

There is a huge amount of mysterious bulls**t surrounding the same engines and fuels when they are used on a 15 or 20m trawler yacht.
 
Keith wrote:While they may not "require" additives, why would you not use them if they help prevent wear on your fuel systems?

Check out Chevron's Oronite line of diesel fuel additives.

Who, other than*those who sell the stuff, says that aftermarket lubricity enhancers reduce wear or provide any benefit to the user?

Why experiment with the fuel chemistry around which the engine was designed, tested, certificated, and warrantied*to operate as its manufacturer intended and the end user based his purchase decision.

Chevron has a long history of marketing its fuels by promoting "enhancements" that other refiners don't offer. It is pure consumer marketing strategy.*Chevron's marketing department*knows very well that many consumers are convinced that adding mouse milk to gasoline, lube oil, diesel fuel, and gin*improves their lifestyle*and they are not above cashing in on our insecurities.

Ask Chevron if their diesel fuel requires*aftermarket*additives to meet engine manufacturers fuel standards in order to maintain warranty and achieve design life.
 
Pure and simple, Chevron clearly states to its big buyers ( I am one in my business world) its diesel fuel does not require aftermarket additives. rickB is correct (IMHO, on all counts on this issue), the additives business is exactly that, business. If Chevron doesn't sell the additive*to us that we want, Walmart or West Marine will.

Now if your tank is full of old water laden green slime fuel, forget this discussion. Just throw that fuel*away and start over.
 
Back
Top Bottom