HOHN

I'm using the recommended dosage rate of 640:1. It *is* some potent stuff. One whiff will convince you of that. Comparing it side by side with something like Power Service is no contest-- the Fuel Power is much thicker and "oilier".

One thing that we need to keep in mind is that it takes VERY little of a stronger lubricity additive to bring ULSD up to LSD standards or better.

The first drop of additive is the most effective drop. The second drop is almost as effective, but not as much. So it goes on down from there. You soon hit the point where you can double the additive amount without seeing much improvement or benefit.

Even 1% biodiesel blend has VERY good lubricity compared to straight ULSD.

I used to be a habitual overdoser-- I'd sometimes dump in almost half a quart of MOTOR OIL into a full fuel tank. It helped the lubricity, for sure. But at what cost? I think it was actually detrimental to have this much extra stuff in the fuel.

But I'm now "seeing the light" and going much lighter on the dosing for additives.

If LCD says that 1oz in 5 gallons is enough, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. That's basically a shot glass in a 5-gallon bucket.

Works for me. So far, I'm really happy with the new Fuel Power that replaced the FP60. Even in subzero temps, the additive bottle wasn't gelled up. It was starting to cloud, but not gelled. So I'm pretty confident that when diluted in the fuel, there's no additional gel up risk.

jmo

billmac

Justin - thanks for the good information. I always appreciate your insight. I believe that I will give the FP-60 Plus a try and hold off on the Stanadyne for now. I'm with you on the "too" much additive stuff. Problem is, I've noticed that my trucks' IP/injectors are noiser with the ULSD fuel. I don't think that is a good thing. If I had access to a good bio source I would go the 2% blend route. For now I'll have to settle on a good alternative.

Tough Old Goat

I stand by the old 2-cycle and power service from wall-of china-Mart.
I went from 18.x mpg to 20 mpg and the pump was much quieter.
The truck seemed to have more horses,which made it harder for me to drive for the best mileage and ignore the other guys with their v-8 automatics.
Okay so i did drag a little,but still 20 mpg.
The only place I know in Oklahoma to get Bio-diesel is in Pouteau at the frost oil company and it is only B-5,Seems the OERB has things sewn up.
I cant bring myself to trust the farmers around here who make their own as that tendency to add just a little more(I get carried away too sometimes)is
more widespread than is usually acknowledged and making good fuel requires
infinite care.
Or so I'm told.

Tractor Truck

Not to beat a dead horse, but I noticed today that the Power Service bottles have Slick-diesel added for lubricity. I don't remember the old bottles having the slick-diesel additive in it. My question is did the lab test done recently use the new Power Service bottle with the slick-diesel additive or the old stuff and is the new additive sufficient?

ViolentJ87

howes seems to be the best in my opinion

HOHN

Testing says otherwise. Howe's doesn't improve lubricity enough to even meet US gov't fuel specs, never mind the engine manufacturers preference.

See study here:
http://inchoate.harm.org/~halbritt/d...itive%20V3.pdf

Tough Old Goat

HOHN,
Thanks for the info on the lubricity tests.
I looked up the Opti lube site and going to order some payday.
I may try their oil additive too,the study mentioned shot my former favorite "Lucas" right out of the saddle.
The reason I used lucas was because of an old Honda motorcycle I used to have and I wanted to be sure the cam and followers had oil on them at startup,Lucas seemed to stick to the internals like spit to a blanket.
It just does not seem to have much lubricity.
Cheers,Rain.

skidooer76

Does anyone else use Lucas fuel additive????

hipsi

I can remember PS having Slick Diesel in it for the past 3-4 years..

Bob_24VCTD

90% of people don't even realize there is a whole 'additive discussion.' Cummins has said many times that they do not need an additive. The ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) says that fuel manufactures are required to have a minimum micron level for lubricity.

Based on that, I am happy with just going with my plain ol' Stanadyne, it's not the best according to that 'REPORT,' which has no real references, testing procedures, errors found. Heck, the only reason I still use stanadyne is the centane boost, it feels more responsive. (Heck, if the new diesel was killing our trucks we would find a way to sue someone...tisk )

Just my .02C.

HOHN

True, but Cummins is also part of the Engine Manufacturers Association that specifically requested a standard of 460 allowable wear scar (during HFRR test). The gov't gave them a lower standard for lubricity (giving in to pressure from oil refiners and the belief that lubricity improvements will cost a lot to implement).

Cummins' statement that additives were not needed were limited exclusively to LOW sulphur diesel (LSD), and extrapolating their comments to include ULSD is not only inappropriate, but counter to Cummins' (and Bosch's) statements on ULSD and its lack of lubricity being detrimental to the durability of fuel-lubricated engine equipment.

JMO

slenglis

Still I would like to see some tech data to support using any additives with the new LSD fuels. You all may be spending hard earned money for nothing....unless you see some concrete proof anything helps...or the manufacturers recommend adding anything...just my 2 cents.

HOHN

Tech data is in the link provided. What do you think is lacking in that info?

I can see maybe wanting more products tested, but I can't find fault with the methodology.

jh

NoSeeUm

It would have been nice if a HFRR test had been done on dry LSD.

Jim

nickg

LSD is "wetter" than ULSD, and they did use UNTREATED fuel, before any additives from the fuel companys ( Texico/Shell/ PetroCan )were added, so this test was run on fuel that was the worse possible case fuel, as likely you cannot even buy this fuel, Here is an excerpt

"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.