Sulphur Additives

[Green1]

yes, adding lubricants is unnecessary, Ask any of the suppliers and they will tell you that they have added lubricants to the fuels to replace the sulphur that has been removed. they have to, there are too many older vehicles on the roads.

And bacteria isn't a myth... well it is and it isn't... it exists, but if you have problems with it it is because you are either leaving your fuel sit in your tank for months on end unused, or you are buying from a supplier that is doing the same.

You are trying to say that none of the fuel suppliers or auto manufacturers know anything about diesel? and that I should take your word for it over theirs? I'm sorry, but that just isn't going to happen.

[ghmorris]

EnviroImports,
You are posting an amazing amount of misinformation. Please take some of your own advice and consider carefully before posting more that a newbie might take to heart.

Advocating biocide as a routine precaution is irresponsible. Many forum members have small children at home and not once have I heard you caution anyone on potential health effects!! This is dangerous stuff that you don't want to use unless you have a clearly demonstrated requirement, and even then you don't want to leave it lying around!

As far as lubricity goes, read the quote below. It comes from The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, not noted as a particular friend of the new regulations.
http://www.cppi.ca/ULSD_Q_A_s.html

The big fuel composition change for many of our older vehicles happened in 1993, not a year ago. Lubricity additives go into all ULSD as a matter of course. Personally, I expect a little more isn't going to hurt, but legitimate testing shows biodiesel to be the best and most cost effective lubricity additive for routine use.

What is happening, and what you haven't addressed, is the increased solvent effect from ULSD. That is well documented and fuel leaks are definitely something to keep an eye out for...

Q17. How will ULSD affect the operations of the existing fleet?
A: Engine and vehicle manufacturers expect ULSD to be fully compatible with the existing fleet and are not anticipating that current owners will have to make any changes to their equipment to operate with the new fuel.
Past ULSD-test fleet studies showed some fuel system leaks, but they are believed to be due to the specific test fuels that may differ from the ULSD entering the market this year. This effect is similar to that seen during the transition from high sulphur diesel to low sulphur diesel in 1993, but that transition changed the fuel chemistry to a much greater degree than the upcoming introduction of ULSD. Since the fuel formula change to ULSD is likely to be, comparatively, very small and since fleet seals should have been adapted long ago, any impact on seals during the transition to ULSD is expected to be extremely low, if it occurs at all. The most vulnerable vehicles are probably older (pre-1993), high mileage vehicles with original seals still in place. These vehicles may require preventive maintenance in the form of upgrading certain engine and fuel system seals. Maintenance records should be reviewed to ensure that fuel system seals have been changed with recommended materials at recommended intervals. Check with your dealer or the vehicle manufacturer for additional information. One of the reasons for this fact sheet is to encourage truck fleets to be aware of potential issues before the introduction of ULSD.
The transition to ULSD may dislodge some deposits from the tank and create a need to change fuel filters ahead of their regularly scheduled maintenance. In addition, filters on storage tanks or dispenser pumps may also require filter changes during the initial introduction of ULSD.
Like LSD, ULSD requires good lubricity and corrosion inhibitors to prevent unacceptable engine wear. When necessary, as with LSD, additives to increase lubricity and inhibit corrosion will be added to ULSD prior to its retail sale. With these additives, ULSD will perform as well, or better than, LSD for preserving engine life and maximizing intervals between oil changes in the existing fleet.
Q18. Because the process of removing sulphur from diesel tends to reduce lubricity, what is being done to adjust for this problem?
A: Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to protect the various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from excessive wear. The processing required to reduce sulphur to 15 ppm also tends to remove naturally occurring lubricity agents in diesel fuel. To manage this change, the Canadian General Standards Board has a lubricity specification defined in CAN/CGSB-3.517 for all diesel fuel that has been in effect for many years (in the U.S. the equivalent standard is ASTM D975 as issued by ASTM International). If a fuel lacks sufficient lubricity, suppliers add lubricity additives to ULSD, or to the RSD, to ensure that it meets the required lubricity specification when dispensed at the retail pump. This approach has been used successfully in Europe since the late 1990s.
Q19. How do I know that the lubricity additive works? Is it expected to meet certain standards for effectiveness? If so, what are they?
A: All diesel fuel, including ULSD, needs to meet the lubricity specifications defined in the Canadian General Standards Board CAN/CGSB-3.517. The lubricity specification can be met based on any one of five test methods, including the High Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR) test (D 6079) which requires a wear scar no larger than 460 microns (which is more stringent than the ASTM D975 specification of 520 microns).

You have an obvious commercial interest at work here, but I'm having trouble reconciling your advice - for biocide in particular - with your website tag line "Green Friendly lifestyle choices for a better Enviroment".

George

[Green1]

it should also be noted that routine use of biocide tends to breed biocide resistant bacteria...

[mararmeisto]

Why don't we all take a break from this post... let it rest for a couple of days and let our keyboards cool off. I think enough information has been shared here for the time being.

[Hankster]

WOW a little canola go's a long way He hee.

[rdub]

I would personally like the debate to continue,till it comes to a conclusion on this important matter,I have been useing lub's for my diesel and id like to here more on them,it is a little heated yes ,but It should come to a conclusion and any more information from gas companies or diesel manufactures that people can share would be most helpful. Simply put i want to know if it's a good thing or an unnecessary one. im not sold yet please dont stop.

Thanks rdub

[ghmorris]

Best study I have seen so far with practical applications. The original link was hard to get at recently,
http://dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=177728 The Diesel Place is a great spot to browse for similar information, facts and opinions.

Note the baseline test was conducted PRIOR to adding the normal lubricity additive package at the fuel distributor and represents a true worst-case scenario for ULSD...

Lubricity Additive Study Results

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following 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 it’s 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 additive’s 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)Howe’s 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.

[delicat]

Hey George,

Is this debate keeping you up at night?

Mararmeisto,
Your input was very timely, I appreciate to read both side of the coins but people become very protective of their opinions. Good for us reader as we get to read more from each point of views but I agree with Mararmeisto, there are time we need to cool off a bit...

To each our own!
Cheers,

[ghmorris]

Not much keeps me up nights except too much coffee.

If you're in BC I'm three hours ahead of you already, and as my day normally starts about 4am I'm up by the time some of you are just heading for bed. OTOH, I knock off around 3 most days... The joys of running a network.

Note the last post was gentle, polite and hopefully of some value to anyone interested in the topic.

George

[Erebus]

Q17. How will ULSD affect the operations of the existing fleet?
A: {snip} ... any impact on seals during the transition to ULSD is expected to be extremely low, if it occurs at all. The most vulnerable vehicles are probably older (pre-1993), high mileage vehicles with original seals [emphasis added] still in place. These vehicles may require preventive maintenance in the form of upgrading certain engine and fuel system seals... {snip}

I think this is the key phrase. Any vehicle that is 15+ years old with original seals is susceptible to leaks. Don't put all the blame on the fuel, put it on insufficient maintenance. And that might include many of our Delicas.

so the Ultra low sulpher diesel that is designed for vehicles in the last two years

Are you really trying to suggest that ULSD is only formulated for vehicles under 2 years old? That might be the case if we were using Microsoft Diesel, but the fuel refiners of the world are aware that there are older engines out there and aren't about to risk a class action suit. Just think of all the commercial operators (e.g., transit systems) who are running 10-20 year old diesels. Think they would hesitate to sue if the new fuel damaged their fleet?

Just my 2 cents worth.