Mix auto transmission fluid in diesel fuel?

[Steve DAntonio]

It's not engine damage, it's injector and injection pump failure either of which is inexpensive to repair. Witness the Bosch CP4 injection pump explosions on Chevy Duramax engines. These pumps were designed with European lubricity standards in mind. North American lubricity standards are lower. Own a common rail diesel? No lubricity improver used? Some owner down the road will experience a pump,or injectors failure sooner rather than later.

Agree to an extent. Conventional rotary injection pumps are a different animal, and are more sensitive to lubricity issues. These are used on many marine diesels including some Deeres. I ran a VW Beetle diesel, which had a Bosch rotary pump, for 10 years and religiously used a lubricity improver.

US diesel fuel lubricity does not meet many diesel engine manufacturer requirements. However, in spite of that, I am not seeing wholesale pump failures in common rail or other systems. If we were, European diesel engine and car/truck manufacturers would not sell and warrant the product in the US.

Having said all that, I am an advocate of lubricity additives like Stanadyne Perf Formula, it improves cetane as well as lubricity.

 

[Circumnavigator]

First, 120,000 miles is just getting broken in for a quality diesel -- I expect good diesels to go 10,000 hours or more before needing anything besides oil changes and other routine stuff. I have talked to people who have gone much farther.


Second, why would you think that you know better than the manufacturer how to treat the engine? This certainly voids any warranty.


Jim

 

[sunchaser]

Not saying this means anything, but...

Four F350 diesels and one F450 from 1993 to 2017, 250,000 to 450,000 miles, never an additive of any sort, mostly highway with good loads. Never an engine problem of any sort.

Your results are similar to millions of other diesel users. Thanks

 

[NCheaven]

Research

Steve, thanks for the link to your site and for the extensive interviews and research provided to all of us via your site. Great info for all of us following this thread.

 

[fgarriso]

When I purchased my Chevy 2500 (used) my mechanic advised putting a cheap quart of transmission fluid with every 20gal of fuel during fill-up. Since then I've put 120K miles on the truck with no injector issues. Does this process make sense in a marinized diesel environment?

You didn't say how old the engines are? Or what type of injection systems you are working with?

We have used gallons of ATF in the diesel fuel for years on older engines at a ratio of 1gal to 100gal every other tank full on marine and HD trucks.

 

[JDCAVE]

More often than not it's bacteria, which is an animal.

Actually no. If it’s a bacteria, it’s a bacteria, not an animal! Sorry Steve! ;-)

Jim, retired biologist.

 

[BandB]

Since trucks are being referenced, this from Engine manufacturers:

Volvo recommends any required additive be added at the fuel terminal.

Detroit Diesel recommends using Top Tier fuels, fuels that have registered and met certain standards. In some ways this is a road equivalent of Valvtect.

Cummins endorses two Power Service products, Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost and Diesel Fuel Supplement + Cetane Boost.

For our Freightliner trucks and our Thomas school buses, we use all Valvtect fuel, but on the road when unable to get Valvtect we will add their Diesel Guard product.

 

[backinblue]

Thanks B. Once I learned about Valvtect, that's all I use unless I have no choice. I also use their BioGuard during winter layup as was recommended by a Valvetect customer service tech. They have very responsive customer service btw which is always good to see.

Electric buses seem to be the new rage and should become pretty common in the near future as more cities and town are trying to be more green. I noticed the governor of california has now made gas leaf blowers illegal. I'm not going to argue the pros/cons here, but those kinds of laws worry me and I wonder how the landscapers trying to make ends meet deal with this new expense. I get it that electric is cleaner and quieter, but if you are a professional and have to blow leaves all day long to make a living, it seems like an unfair burden. It also bothers me because it wouldn't be a big leap to outlaw small gas-powered outboards next, then bigger ones, then diesel-powered pleasure boats, and so on.....

 

[Steve DAntonio]

Actually no. If it’s a bacteria, it’s a bacteria, not an animal! Sorry Steve! ;-)

Jim, retired biologist.

Yep, sorry you are obviously correct and have the bona fides. Should have left it at, "it's bacteria...";-)

"Are Bacteria Animals or Plants?
Bacteria are neither animals nor plants. With bacteria sharing similar processes and characteristics to plants and animals it’s understandable why people would ask, “are bacteria animals or plants?”. Bacteria are single-celled, prokaryotic organisms in comparison to animals and plants which are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms. Because bacteria are prokaryotic, they do not have a nucleus and no membrane-bound organelles. In contrast, plants and animals are made up of eukaryotic cells, which means they have a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles like mitochondria or golgi apparatus."

 

[Benthic2]

I think you must believe that your mechanic is smarter than all the engineers that work for Chevy...

 

[Peter B]

Having waded through most of the posts on here, there seems to be a wealth of opinion, but what is the truth..?

In trying to ascertain that, I can't help coming back to what we know. The service intervals that are being recommended now for most vehicles are significantly longer than in past decades. Yet I doubt the engine tolerances in terms of manufacture have changed anywhere near as much, if at all.

So, surely the difference is that the newer lubricants and fuels are actually cleaner and better than previously, and contain the necessary additives to improve their performance, with cleaner burning, lubricity and injector cleaning properties for fuels. Together with the improved viscosity properties better lubrication across a wider range of temperatures, and therefore metal wear protection of the oils, without us having to add stuff.

Trusting this to be the case, I have tended to go for the higher end in both fuels and oils, and actually take the courage necessary to extend the service intervals of several of my earlier models from the original 6 month/5,000km interval to 12 months/10,000km with no noticeable problems, and one of those vehicles I drove for 28 of its 30 years of life, and it was still going strong when sold recently.

I also take heart from the fact several manufacturers are now allowing 15-20,000 km/18-24 month service intervals. I guess I rest my case on that. My conclusion being, as some others also maintained - that todays fuels are not inferior to those of yesteryear.

 

[Trawlerman]

It's not engine damage, it's injector and injection pump failure either of which is inexpensive to repair. .

I am not so sure that injectors are inexpensive, and I for sure know that injection pumps are not! I am all for lubricity to protect these items, and that is why I posted the info on the testing that was done using ASTM method (HFRR) on various additives in post number 67. The result being that several of them do nothing, the odd one makes it worse, and the best make a somewhat significant improvement. At the end of the day, using a good quality fuel is likely all that is needed to get expected life out of our engines. So many posts say "I used additive AAAA on my XXXX brand diesel and I got YYYYYY hours of trouble free use" but of course no evidence that the AAAA had anything to do with it.

 

[koliver]

Thanks B. Once I learned about Valvtect, that's all I use unless I have no choice. I also use their BioGuard during winter layup as was recommended by a Valvetect customer service tech. They have very responsive customer service btw which is always good to see.

Electric buses seem to be the new rage and should become pretty common in the near future as more cities and town are trying to be more green. I noticed the governor of california has now made gas leaf blowers illegal. I'm not going to argue the pros/cons here, but those kinds of laws worry me and I wonder how the landscapers trying to make ends meet deal with this new expense. I get it that electric is cleaner and quieter, but if you are a professional and have to blow leaves all day long to make a living, it seems like an unfair burden. It also bothers me because it wouldn't be a big leap to outlaw small gas-powered outboards next, then bigger ones, then diesel-powered pleasure boats, and so on.....

Not quite law, yet. I note too that the recent proposal in Cal will affect generators as soon as it will affect leaf blowers. If you need a gas fuelled generator when your connection to the hydro grid is out???
I suspect there will some debate before this proposal becomes law.

 

[backinblue]

Not quite law, yet. I note too that the recent proposal in Cal will affect generators as soon as it will affect leaf blowers. If you need a gas fuelled generator when your connection to the hydro grid is out???
I suspect there will some debate before this proposal becomes law.

Of course. Leave it to CA. If you lose power you should have an electric generator to supply electricity!

 

[Caballero II]

Having waded through most of the posts on here, there seems to be a wealth of opinion, but what is the truth..?

In trying to ascertain that, I can't help coming back to what we know. The service intervals that are being recommended now for most vehicles are significantly longer than in past decades. Yet I doubt the engine tolerances in terms of manufacture have changed anywhere near as much, if at all.

So, surely the difference is that the newer lubricants and fuels are actually cleaner and better than previously, and contain the necessary additives to improve their performance, with cleaner burning, lubricity and injector cleaning properties for fuels. Together with the improved viscosity properties better lubrication across a wider range of temperatures, and therefore metal wear protection of the oils, without us having to add stuff.

Trusting this to be the case, I have tended to go for the higher end in both fuels and oils, and actually take the courage necessary to extend the service intervals of several of my earlier models from the original 6 month/5,000km interval to 12 months/10,000km with no noticeable problems, and one of those vehicles I drove for 28 of its 30 years of life, and it was still going strong when sold recently.

I also take heart from the fact several manufacturers are now allowing 15-20,000 km/18-24 month service intervals. I guess I rest my case on that. My conclusion being, as some others also maintained - that todays fuels are not inferior to those of yesteryear.

Yeah, but we're talking about older engines, not brand new diesels. How to keep them going, is the point, and what helps once they're well beyond warranty limits.

 

[Caballero II]

Recently the newly commissioned Australian icebreaker delivered 1M litres of special Antarctic blend diesel fuel to our base there. Discharge requires pumping it from offshore via flexible hose to tanks onshore, very carefully, there was an on land spill once. Boats patrol the hose throughout the operation,penguins jumping aboard are repelled.
Anyway, here`s the fuel analysis, a few pages, but the composition seems to be disclosed: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/c...ervices/data-sheets/antarctic-diesel-fuel.pdf

So, what do you glean from this?

 

[Caballero II]

I didn't think it was harsh. I just meant that one experience is not indicative of much. In any case, if, if ATF is a lubricity improver then that is a good thing. But how do we know how much per gallon needs to be added to raise lubricity to the standard required by common rail engines? And many lubricity-improving products also raise cetane levels. Does ATF do this also? Seems to me using ATF may be just guesswork with no assurance that the goals being sought are actually reached. Indeed they may be but I am standing by for technical references, sincerely.

See the following posts, with specific recommendations for amounts. And it's not just one post, but a pretty commonly recognized recommendation throughout the industry. I don't know if there is good science behind it, but many technicians in the field do it, and from those that see these engines all day/every day. And please remember, these are older engines, well beyond their warranty periods. We're not talking about newer common rail engines still within their warranty ranges.

 

[BruceK]

So, what do you glean from this?

None so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Caballero II]

None so blind as those who will not see.

Seriously. What is the point of this? Asking the point sincerely. I'm happy to encounter what you're saying, but I'm not sure what it is.

 

[psneeld]

This caught my eye... "pretty commonly recognized recommendation throughout the industry."

What industry?

And "pretty commonly" can mean anything....especially widespread misinformation.

My research shows that some ATF does have lubrication/friction modifiers in them, but no mention if there are any downsides to using it in fuel.

So I have to assume there is not widespread study on why it should be used over anything or anything else.

 

[sford1952]

I have also been told by my good friend and mechanic to add ATF to my diesel fuel. Did this in my 35 hp for my sailboat for 15 years and it helped. I am now adding it to my 1983 Ford Lehman. It has responded well, running smoother and less smoke for the past 2.5 years.

Great share.

 

[Caballero II]

This caught my eye... "pretty commonly recognized recommendation throughout the industry."

What industry?

And "pretty commonly" can mean anything....especially widespread misinformation.

My research shows that some ATF does have lubrication/friction modifiers in them, but no mention if there are any downsides to using it in fuel.

So I have to assume there is not widespread study on why it should be used over anything or anything else.

I think I said that I know of no rigorous study demonstrating the efficacy of using ATF as a full additive, but the recommendation for it's use seems to be widespread in "the industry". By industry, I mean the diesel mechanic world.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

Having waded through most of the posts on here, there seems to be a wealth of opinion, but what is the truth..?

In trying to ascertain that, I can't help coming back to what we know. The service intervals that are being recommended now for most vehicles are significantly longer than in past decades. Yet I doubt the engine tolerances in terms of manufacture have changed anywhere near as much, if at all.

So, surely the difference is that the newer lubricants and fuels are actually cleaner and better than previously, and contain the necessary additives to improve their performance, with cleaner burning, lubricity and injector cleaning properties for fuels. Together with the improved viscosity properties better lubrication across a wider range of temperatures, and therefore metal wear protection of the oils, without us having to add stuff.

Trusting this to be the case, I have tended to go for the higher end in both fuels and oils, and actually take the courage necessary to extend the service intervals of several of my earlier models from the original 6 month/5,000km interval to 12 months/10,000km with no noticeable problems, and one of those vehicles I drove for 28 of its 30 years of life, and it was still going strong when sold recently.

I also take heart from the fact several manufacturers are now allowing 15-20,000 km/18-24 month service intervals. I guess I rest my case on that. My conclusion being, as some others also maintained - that todays fuels are not inferior to those of yesteryear.

No need to guess about any of this, fluid analysis does not lie. I'm of the firm belief that we throw away thousands of gallons of good oil in this country with our overly conservative change intervals. I have clients doing oil changes at 500 hours, with intermediate analysis. Deere approves this with use of their syn oil, Scania approves it with use of conventional oil, provided it meets their specs. More here, this covers bypass filtration but the concept remains the same https://stevedmarineconsulting.com/...ltration-ProBoat144_ByPassFilter-FinalOpt.pdf

 

[psneeld]

I think I said that I know of no rigorous study demonstrating the efficacy of using ATF as a full additive, but the recommendation for it's use seems to be widespread in "the industry". By industry, I mean the diesel mechanic world.

I just happen to disagree with widespread as a descriptor.

 

[catalinajack]

No need to guess about any of this, fluid analysis does not lie. I'm of the firm belief that we throw away thousands of gallons of good oil in this country with our overly conservative change intervals. I have clients doing oil changes at 500 hours, with intermediate analysis. Deere approves this with use of their syn oil, Scania approves it with use of conventional oil, provided it meets their specs. More here, this covers bypass filtration but the concept remains the same https://stevedmarineconsulting.com/...ltration-ProBoat144_ByPassFilter-FinalOpt.pdf

Ah, yes, finally an expert saying what I, not an expert, have been saying for years. Thank you Steve. I have my oil analyzed at 200 hours. If the lab says the oil is still good to use, it stays in the engine. So many guys say "yeah, but changing oil at 100 hours is cheap insurance", but it is not cheap. It is a total waste.

 

[catalinajack]

I have also been told by my good friend and mechanic to add ATF to my diesel fuel. Did this in my 35 hp for my sailboat for 15 years and it helped. I am now adding it to my 1983 Ford Lehman. It has responded well, running smoother and less smoke for the past 2.5 years.



Great share.

How do you know it helped. All you know is that you used it and experienced no engine falure. Besides, low lubricity fuel has no affect on engine life. The affect is on injectors and injection pumps so the fact that your engines live using ATF is meaningless. And is your friend a fuel industry professional? What are his qualifications?

 

[catalinajack]

None so blind as those who will not see.

See what?

 

[Steve DAntonio]

Ah, yes, finally an expert saying what I, not an expert, have been saying for years. Thank you Steve. I have my oil analyzed at 200 hours. If the lab says the oil is still good to use, it stays in the engine. So many guys say "yeah, but changing oil at 100 hours is cheap insurance", but it is not cheap. It is a total waste.

I should have added, that analysis must include TBN or total base number, not all do you may have to ask for it. This is the factor that most often condemns oil that is run in an otherwise sound engine. The consumption of the acid neutralizing agent, the base, is what occurs naturally over the life of the oil. This should be what drives an oil change, again assuming all other parameters are within normal ranges.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

When it comes to additives, a Mark Twain quote comes to mind...

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

I often see boat owners swearing by an additive because they have used it, and for no other discernable reason. I think it is human nature to want to believe something we are doing is working simply in the absence of failure.

I'm not trying to denigrate those using additives, I'm simply pointing out this phenomenon. Without lab type testing, everything is anecdotal.

 

[psneeld]

Pretty much sums up the way too many boat owners in general.

They defend everything they have bought for the boat (including the boat), to how they operate the boat.....otherwise they don't seem as smart as they think boat owners should be.