Best diesel lubricity formula

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
R

richardschmidt2759

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
65
Location
us
I have been using STANADYNE performance formula & STANADYNE lubricity formula in my 1981 mainship 1 / 200 hp perk 1400 hrs. for years. A friend swears by OPTI LUBE XPD for increasing lubricity. Any thoughts on either product ? THANKS RICH S.
 
All major diesel oil brands have enough lubricity to keep your engine in shape. IMO there is no reason for additives. The same is true for synthetic oil. Yes its lubricity properties are better than dino oil, but not enough to make any difference.

David
 
Mediterranean diet, best longevity ever, use good quality olive oil!

( Disclaimer: this is only a joke and I am not responsible if you try it)

L
 
djmarchand said:
All major diesel oil brands have enough lubricity to keep your engine in shape. IMO there is no reason for additives. The same is true for synthetic oil. Yes its lubricity properties are better than dino oil, but not enough to make any difference.

David
Click to expand...
Disagree. Although my disagreement is an opinion as is djmarchand's.
 
Is it correct or not that the ulsd has less lubrication quality then the latter? Some I have heard said the sulfer helped lubed fuel systems. Thats before high pressure fuel pumps and tighter tolerance injectors.
 
I also previously used Stenadyne, and have a case of it in my garage and stopped using it awhile back, solely based on discussions on web forums. "What does the manual say" - nada, at least for the engines I had.


The question I would have is what are the commercial operators doing with their mid to larger size engines? IE, operators who rely on the engines for hard and long hours. I am going to guess and say they are not adding anything and the big organizatioins are doing periodic fluid sampling and pushing their fluid life cycles out as far as they can in general, so adding $ stuff like this is likely not in their budget, or worth the hassle for them.
 
Last edited:
Some engine manufacturers address it by saying if fuel does not meet spec, additives are recommended.

If they sell them, why wouldnt they recommend them all the time?
 
Someone else's opinion would seem useless in this endeavor. Why not just look for emperical data? Specifically lab reports of the HFRR scar number results of treated fuel. I'm not at work this week, but I do have the ASTM standard downloaded on my work PC.

The additive either decreases the scuffing or it doesn't.
 
I use Stanadyne PF on my CAT 3208 and my NL M843N per recommendation of Bob Senter. Bob is the gentleman responsible for training the NL and Lugger techs as well as offering owner training. He is sometimes referred to by the nickname "Lugger Bob" and is highly respected by many in the marine engine and mechanical systems space. I attended Bob's excellent diesel class as well as the free class for Northern Light owners in 2011 and have used SPF since.

A week ago Bob made a presentation to the CUBAR group and again suggested SPF. When asked about alternative products his response was that he couldn't speak to them as he had no scientific evidence of their performance and he had seen thorough documentation of such evidence re: SPF. He described the research done by an engine manufacturer (and source of base engines for Lugger) who tried to lay warranty related injector performance problems off on the injector supplier they used. The injector supplier indicated they'd specified SPF. The engine manufacturer then started a research process of following the injector supplier's recommendation with the expectation they'd refute the recommendation and then get their claim honored. After extensive analysis the engine manufacturer was not able to assert it's claim. And based on that analysis they started private labeling SPF as an additive they sell/supply to their customers. Thus the evidence of which Bob was referring.

My understanding is a fundamental design component is that large quantities of diesel fuel are pumped through the engine fuel system (substantially more than is used in the ignition process) to lubricate and cool the fuel system components - pumps and injectors. Thus the issues of managing fuel return lines to the tanks and so on. Ultra-low sulfur diesel is contrary to this system design need and thus the benefit of SPF.
 
Northern Spy said:
Someone else's opinion would seem useless in this endeavor. Why not just look for emperical data? Specifically lab reports of the HFRR scar number results of treated fuel. I'm not at work this week, but I do have the ASTM standard downloaded on my work PC.

The additive either decreases the scuffing or it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Yup.
 
Sealegs said:
I use Stanadyne PF on my CAT 3208 and my NL M843N per recommendation of Bob Senter. Bob is the gentleman responsible for training the NL and Lugger techs as well as offering owner training. He is sometimes referred to by the nickname "Lugger Bob" and is highly respected by many in the marine engine and mechanical systems space. I attended Bob's excellent diesel class as well as the free class for Northern Light owners in 2011 and have used SPF since.

A week ago Bob made a presentation to the CUBAR group and again suggested SPF. When asked about alternative products his response was that he couldn't speak to them as he had no scientific evidence of their performance and he had seen thorough documentation of such evidence re: SPF. He described the research done by an engine manufacturer (and source of base engines for Lugger) who tried to lay warranty related injector performance problems off on the injector supplier they used. The injector supplier indicated they'd specified SPF. The engine manufacturer then started a research process of following the injector supplier's recommendation with the expectation they'd refute the recommendation and then get their claim honored. After extensive analysis the engine manufacturer was not able to assert it's claim. And based on that analysis they started private labeling SPF as an additive they sell/supply to their customers. Thus the evidence of which Bob was referring.

My understanding is a fundamental design component is that large quantities of diesel fuel are pumped through the engine fuel system (substantially more than is used in the ignition process) to lubricate and cool the fuel system components - pumps and injectors. Thus the issues of managing fuel return lines to the tanks and so on. Ultra-low sulfur diesel is contrary to this system design need and thus the benefit of SPF.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
Northern Spy said:
Someone else's opinion would seem useless in this endeavor. Why not just look for emperical data? Specifically lab reports of the HFRR scar number results of treated fuel. I'm not at work this week, but I do have the ASTM standard downloaded on my work PC.

The additive either decreases the scuffing or it doesn't.
Click to expand...
 
Cummins Carl here in Australia has never mentioned it to me.
Does his not mentioning it cancel our Lugger Bobs?

Sounds like the usual fuel additive / biocide / magnets / fairys, snake oil to me.
 
Last edited:
I well remember the good old days before low sulfur fuels were around. The after market additives were there then. Similar claims. As Spy says, scuff tests results are out there.

One just has to look. Google Infineum. Their results showed no loss in fuel "acceptability" as sulfur levels decreased. In other words, refiners did their job.
 
Last edited:
Guys,

My buddy Darren owns a very large excavation company with over 60 diesel engines in his fleet. At any given time more than 50% of his fleet have in excess of 10,000 hours on them. He uses no fuel additives what so ever. He has had numerous un-rebuilt Cummins, Cats, Deere's, Yanmars and Kubotoa engines all exceed 20,000 hours. One of his employees, his lead mechanic, used to work as a diesel mechanic on outpost generators in Alaska, the same Cat, Cummins etc. engines we use in boats powering small towns or outposts. These engines run 24/7/365 and they also don't use any fuel additives. It's always good for me to pick their brains when I am over-thinking marine engines that barely see a few hundred hours per year..
 
Most larger engines the injection pump is lubed with lube oil, not fuel. On those very little metal is lubed with fuel. Unit injector engines in same category.

Some smaller engines use fuel lubed inj pumps: Lucas CAV, Cat 3208, Bosch VE, and now the common rail.

In 20yrs of marine diesel experience, I have replaced a few 3208 pumps due to cam wear, a couple CAV pumps with unexplained failures, and heard of quite a few VW CR car pump failures (crappy design).

The 3208 failures were all in high hour, high hp apps where engines were routinely run hard. No failures in trawler type service.

Other than those, injection equipment is fantastically reliable without using any additives.

I have never bought any additive for diesel in my fleet, and don't recommend them for the fleet where I coordinate maintenance. Only thing that may be used is a biocide, but that is a different issue.
 
CMS said:
Guys,

My buddy Darren owns a very large excavation company with over 60 diesel engines in his fleet. At any given time more than 50% of his fleet have in excess of 10,000 hours on them. He uses no fuel additives what so ever. He has had numerous un-rebuilt Cummins, Cats, Deere's, Yanmars and Kubotoa engines all exceed 20,000 hours. One of his employees, his lead mechanic, used to work as a diesel mechanic on outpost generators in Alaska, the same Cat, Cummins etc. engines we use in boats powering small towns or outposts. These engines run 24/7/365 and they also don't use any fuel additives. It's always good for me to pick their brains when I am over-thinking marine engines that barely see a few hundred hours per year..
Click to expand...
With respect, engine life has nothing to do with fuel lubricity. It's all about the life of the fuel injectors especially in ultra high pressure common rail engines. However, I am curious about whether your friend uses dino oil or synthetic, whether he does oil analysis, and how often he changes the oil.
 
The way I see it, the engine manufacturers specify the use of fuel that meets the ASTM diesel spec. It's D925 or something like that. Fuels all meet that spec, regardless of their sulfur content. When ULSD. Came about, additives were included such that the fuel continued to meet the spec.

Given this, why do I need more additives?

Btw, if there actually were a loss of lubricity in ULSD, wouldn't all the pre tier XYZ engines be dying horrible deaths left, right, and everywhere
 
Empirical evidence? Here is mine:

Owned my boat since new 1976. I have always followed the engine manufactures recommendations, Twin Perkins 6-354, over 3000 hours.

30W lube oil, Pennzoil, Delo, Shell, whatever is on sale, never used additives.
Fuel No.2 diesel from multiple sources, change filters every Spring, No additives, ever.

Valve job on one engine 10 years ago because of water ingestion from leaking coolant pipe. Pulled injectors at same time and had them checked, all within specs. Both Injector pumps are original and never rebuilt.

When I worked for UNICAL, the chemists would tell us:

"if there was an additive out there that would make our fuel or lube oil perform better, we or one of our competitors would buy it, incorporate it into our products and market the hell out of it." "But if you think there is "Value Added" putting something in your fuel or oil that won't damage you engine and it makes you feel better, it's your money, knock yourself out."
 
I traveled with a chemical engineer from Shell once. Same story when I asked him about additives. He said that Shell spends 100’s of millions to engineer a quart of oil to make it the best it can be. And you want to screw it up with a couple of dollars worth of additive? Really????
Cured me of the snake oil syndrome
 
Reptilian derived lipid products.
 
Northern Spy said:
Someone else's opinion would seem useless in this endeavor. Why not just look for emperical data? Specifically lab reports of the HFRR scar number results of treated fuel. I'm not at work this week, but I do have the ASTM standard downloaded on my work PC.

The additive either decreases the scuffing or it doesn't.
Click to expand...

They empirically do, some better than others, just as bypass filters reduce particulates in the oil and synthetic oil is more slippery than dino oil. The argument against is that these improvements don't matter in why most engines fail, and that is probably true, but hardly seems a valid argument against more slippery fuel, or more slippery and cleaner oil. For the few $ these three "improvements" cost, I say, why not?

One "study": http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/76.../177728-lubricity-additive-study-results.html
 
Last edited:
As we talk about snake oil - I have Ford 120's in my 1977 Grand Banks. 3,600 hours. Run well but a little smoke. I have been told that using Stiction Eliminator could help clear that up? (also told there is a stiction additive for fuel that would help the injectors and pump) anyone have any experance or thoughts?
 
My opinion only but I feel all these after market additives are just transfer devices. If the engine manufacturers and fuel manufacturers thought they were necessary they would add them to their product. If I thought this snake oil was beneficial to me I would certainly purchase it but I don’t like buying transfer products.

Transfer product threw you for a loop. Transfer products have the purpose and only purpose of transferring your money to another’s pocket.
 
catalinajack said:
With respect, engine life has nothing to do with fuel lubricity. It's all about the life of the fuel injectors especially in ultra high pressure common rail engines. However, I am curious about whether your friend uses dino oil or synthetic, whether he does oil analysis, and how often he changes the oil.
Click to expand...

He buys Rotella dino oil in 55 gallon drums and uses Blackstone labs for change interval data points, by the type of equipment. I know he uses Fleetguard, Wix and some Baldwin filters because I see them on the shelves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mvweebles
5-mos Cruising Pacific Mexico Q&A
Replies
11
Views
1K
PNW
PNW
B
Albin 25 with bow thruster
Replies
8
Views
3K
Butch
B
B
Mainship 34 HT 2008 for sale $195,000 Marco Island, FL
Replies
10
Views
5K
BellaDonna
B
Adopo
Stability and righting ability
Replies
19
Views
3K
Hippocampus
H
slowgoesit
1973 30' Willard/Fales Seeker for Sale, $29,500
Replies
4
Views
3K
Jeff F
Jeff F

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom