Engine/Transmission (1994 - 1998) 2 cycle oil in fuel

[MUDDY]

Now if this stuff was beneficial to diesel engines don't you think they would be smart enough to market it as such? The same goes for ATF. If it was a bonifide diesel fuel supplement wouldn't it be on the shelf next to engineered diesel fuel supplements?



.

#ad


:-laf

Oo.

Using 2 cycle oil in Diesel Fuel... - Page 6 - Idaho Bombers Forum

 

[GAmes]

:-laf Good One. It would have been even better if the price sticker for the PS had been placed under the bottlefor the photo shoot.

 

[JDiepstra]

I would like to say that just because oil companies are adding lubricants or whatever addatives to their diesel to meet government standards, that does not mean it is good enough for our trucks. The government is also mandating things that result in DPF's in the 6. 7's. Has adding those to out trucks been good for the performance of the trucks?

 

[RRees]

I put distilled water in my radiator and it's not marketed as such. Just common knowledge that you wouldn't want to use tap water unless that's all you had available.



I would think that would apply to the 2-cycle oil in diesels. Similar logic.



Of course sometimes my logic is watered down. Or, I'm all wet in my thinking.

 

[Dieseldemon]

RRees That is a good way of looking at it never thought of it in that light.

 

[radar doctor]

Fuel Additives

Very Good Article,,ive Got A 2003 And I Sure Don't Want To Have Pump Or Injector Trouble. . I Don't Think We Have Bio-diesel Around Here But Im Going To Look. . im Dumping 4 Oz Of Outboard Oil And 4 Oz Of Rotella Fuel Conditioner In 35 Gal Of Diesel. . just Started This So Don't Have Any Data Yet. . Thanks For All The Inf. On Here Great Site... radar Doctor...

 

[SRath]

If you read the label of any available diesel additive nowadays, you will see it "meets Government specs for ULSD fuel". Meaning it doesn't have any "good stuff" in it either.



If the Government is mandating something, I am 99% sure I don't want any of it. That goes for anything they "approve" as well.



Please note that ULSD is "required" in '07 and newer vehicles only. But we can't buy the old stuff anymore for our vehicles that were not designed to run on ULSD. Why? As always: Follow the money (straight to the Big Oil companies and politicians).



That said, I have been using up the excess synthetic 2-stroke oil my son won during the motocross season as contingency prizes from a local sponsor in my diesel fuel all winter long. My truck has been getting some extreme cold weather workouts plowing snow. I can think of few things as hard on any vehicle as plowing snow. And I can't prove a negative ("my engine hasn't blown up, so it must work"), but I enjoy peace of mind knowing my engine is definitely getting some fine topend lubricant. These engines all burn oil to some degree. Crankcase oil. At least 2-stroke oil is designed for combustion.



Please note that I also use the same high-quality anti-gel additive I have used for years when the weather gets sub-zero. My fuel filter has not been changed since last May, either. My Dodge starts easily even when not plugged in and runs great. What more could I ask?



Interestingly, my big-rig fuel ALL comes from our company pump and tank in which they use the same additive. Other drivers who park in the same lot I do over the weekend, but buy fuel for their identical company trucks at other truckstops, have all kinds of problems with hard starting even when plugged in. They have been forced to leave their trucks running all weekend lately. Mine fires right up even when not plugged in (accidently got unplugged). So I know that stuff works for cold weather problems. But it makes no claims for providing supplemental lubrication, so I feel compelled to find a way to replace what ULSD took away. For me, that's (free) synthetic 2-stroke oil.



I know from doing regular topend maintenence on our racebikes that there are huge differences in 2-stroke oils and the deposits they leave. Fuels, too. The synthetic 2-stroke oil I am using leaves no deposits in the combustion chamber and, when mixed with unleaded gas, our piston domes are extremely clean and the skirts and cylinder bore show no wear. In fact, the stuff is so doggone good at lubricating, that I learned the hard way it cannot be used during break-in after installing new pistons and rings. It won't let the rings seat, so we use some cheap 2-stroke oil for 1 tankfull for break-in. My son once ran his racebike for over an hour on straight gas he mistakenly poured from the wrong can. That bike is still going strong 3 full racing seasons later, so I strongly suspect the synthetic oil we use leaves a very slippery film where it counts most. It saved that motor.



Someone said 2-stroke oil is bad to use in cold weather. If so, snowmobiles would be toast.



It is specifically designed to mix with fuels and stay suspended and mixed under all conditions. It is so extremely good at lubricating that dirtbike and snowmobile engines that are tortured to temperature extremes never seen by diesels rely soley upon it to lube the crank and rod bearings. And that is with it mixed with gasoline, which tends to act as a solvent under most conditions. So I think it can probably handle the lubrication demands of moving diesel fuel pump parts.



I enjoyed the quotes in this post about the lubricating properties of sulphur. I got slammed and lambasted by resident "experts" in another post when I mentioned that I had read that same info and believed it. So do our diesel mechanics at work.



As for using 2-stroke oil in my Cummins, I never even considered it until reading about here. (Why didn't I think of that?). Now I do use it and I see no reason to stop. Especially since it's free for me as long as "the kid" keeps grabbing the checkered flag!:-laf

 

[Swamp Donkey]

I hope I did not waste my money on this... ..... AMSOIL - Diesel Concentrate (ADF) I bought a 5 gallon pail of it! 3200 gallons treated for about 170 dollars Canadian. I would try 2 stroke oil, but this stuff just seems better to me. Not an amsoil guy at all. In fact this is the only amsoil product I use. It is convenient for me. Every fill up for the last 4 months and I guess I am used to it, because I don't notice anything using it! LOL :-laf

 

[DPellegrin]

Gentlemen- Some very interesting (and emotional) posts over several months on the subject of ULSD. My experience is this: I buy 11 million gallons of ULSD each year we test it regularly for among other things lubricity and it always meets the requirements of Cummins and Detroit Diesel as well as ASTM-D975-DF-2. I have never had a fuel system failure that was tracable to the lack of fuel lubricity. I have spoken to my peers on the left and right coasts who have been using ULSD for 6+ years because of the fleet emissions benefits, their experience has been the same as mine. I regularly speak with the local Cummins service manager and have attended meetings with Cummins technical service engineers from Columbus and none of these folks (and I have asked) are aware of a lubricity problem as it relates to ULSD. Doesn't it seem odd that Cummins has never published any kind of service bulletin about the evils of ULSD? I guess them big oil companies must be paying them big $ to keep their mouths shut... Pull-ease!



My only conclusion is this that since ULSD was mandated by the government it must not be good for us and is part of a "tree hugger" plot to take over the world. The facts are these: sulfur in the fuel is converted to sulfuric acid in the combustion process. I don't know about you, but the less sulfuric acid in the air the better.



"If the facts do not fit the theory, change the facts. " Albert Einstein



Respectfully,

 

[Stark_Ent9802]

So... To Add or Not to add???



I may try on my 12v first in the spring.

 

[SRath]

If you're old enough to remember when they phased out leaded gasoline, you will recall the same propaganda DPellegrin believes in being spread by, not surprisingly, much the same people.



I still have the heads from my '69 Z/28 with the exhaust valves pounded clear into the seats to prove it was a huge lie.



At least this time, the powers that be did not make the same promise they made the American people back then: That leaded fuel would always be legal and available for vehicles not designed to run on unleaded. This time, they simply force all of us to buy fuel not intended for our pre-'07 vehicles from the git-go.



Our shop and mechanics would take great exception to the "no damage from lack of lubricity issues".



But for those who think they are doing the environment a favor, just consider the much poorer fuel mileage with ULSD. On paper, it may appear to offer tiny reductions in pollutants on a per-gallon-burned basis, but in reality, the increase in the number of gallons-burned-per-mile results in an overall increase in emissions to move the same load the same number of miles.



This is particularly true in the heavy truck industry. Fuel mileage is down, way down, across the board at a time we need to be using less. It is all undeniably making Big Oil and the OPECkers even more filthy stinkin' rich AND killing our economy while falsely claiming to be good for the environment. Follow the money Grasshopper...

 

[tgordon]

Several of you are sceptical of the lack of lubricity in the fuel. I am guessing none of you have looked at indipendant test results. Go talk to your local Staynadyne service center and ask them, I have a pamplet that they have written their claim on.



The farm equipment dealership I was working at replaced 4 injection pumps in the first 4 months of the fuel being released, and every owner ran the ULSD from the pump in their engines.



I interviewed for a job with Cenex as a "energy specialist", aka sales man. When I asked the interviewer about the ULSD he stated that Cenex adds biodiesel to their fuel as a lubricant to get it back to the level of lubricity it was at before the reduction.



Has anyone ever seen one of these systems disassembled after running the two stroke oil?

 

[DPellegrin]

SRath- It's always good to have an opposing view! But let's see if I understand what you are saying: You say it was a bad thing to take the lead out of gasoline? Humm, I'm not understanding that!! The fact is I am old enough to remember the late 60's and 70's as I grew up in Southern Calif. I can remember in the early 70's that I could not see the San Gabriel mountains, although they were only 10 miles away from where I lived. Today you can actually see the mountains and the air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is actually better than it was back in the 60's. In fact, when I graduated college I did a summer internship at what was then called the Air Pollution Control District (now called the South Coast Air Quality Management District). I remember clearly the dume and glume that the hod rod community stated about the installation of this thing called a catalytic converter that showed up in 1975. I also remember, not quite the way you do, the warnings about leadless gasoline and its effect on valves and valve guides on SB Chevys. These warnings came from the manufacturer (GM) and were acknowledged by CARB. There were no covert secrets about this.



In 1984 I worked at a place that used 35 million gallons of fuel each year. That year we went from 5000ppm to 500ppm sulfur, no fuel economy penality. I disagree with your statement that there has been this huge fuel economy penality with the use of ULSD. Do you really think that that reducing the sulfur by 485ppm did something to the heating value of the fuel? The API gravity (energy content) of the fuel my fleet uses has not changed in years. My fleet fuel economy has not changed. My CTD fuel economy has not changed. It is hard for me to believe that the trucking industry would put up with any fuel economy penality, let alone some of the anecdotal claims I have seen on TDR.



The fact is sulfur is the primary component in diesel fuel that causes particulate emissions. "... while falsely claiming to be good for the environment". You really should review the emissions levels of diesel engines in the last 10 years! NOX and especially Particulate emissions are reduced from 0. 6gms/bhp-hr. to around 0. 05gm/bhp-hr.



I know that you and I are going to agree to disagree on this subject. That's OK with me!



Best regards,

 

[SRath]

You are right. We won't ever agree, but that really is OK. In fact, here is how far apart we are, and this is not personal; just a widely held conviction among many non-Californians, particularly this one. My brother lives in San Diego and I tell him the same thing, though I care about him very much:



I live in Iowa. Iowa is a "net zero" state. That means our crops and woodlands clean more air than we pollute. Fact. The extreme opposite of the Golden state and many others. We have no vehicle emission inspections, but we have been running ethanol since long before ethanol was "cool" and politically correct. We should, we make it here and it helps support our farmers. As the farmers go; so goes Iowa. We have our problems, but we have many good things, too.



I, quite frankly, neither care about California's problems, whether they be pollution or gun control or whacko celebrities or whatever, and deeply resent having to suffer the consequences of them. The left (or right) coast just isn't my world and those who live there should clean up their own act, or at the very least, quit forcing their problems on the rest of us. We don't do that to Californians that I know of. They often seem to have a hard time understanding that the rest of us could get along just fine without that strange and beautiful state. Who made California the "shining example" for the rest of us to follow anyway?



If you read about the history of pre-white man California, you will find it has always had areas of stagnant, unclear air. Basins hemmed in by the mountains and the ocean air currents as I understand it. The Indians even gave appropriate names to some places due to this. Los Angeles is one such place (the effect, not the name). Maybe true, maybe not; but interesting all the same.



As for ULSD, our entire fleet has seen an across-the-board decrease in fuel economy since the introduction of ULSD. Just a simple fact. As a driver who would like to get his fuel mileage bonus, I resent that. I'm not doing anything differently than I did before, but my mileage is definitely down as it is in my Dodge, too. We also have regular fleet fuel pump problems since ULSD, though the expensive additives we are now forced to have blended in our fuel ourselves mitigates that somewhat.



All in all, I'd say Exxon/Mobil is more than getting even for the puny fines they paid for the Exxon-Valdeze disaster. Laughing all the way to the bank, no doubt. And our "pals", the Saudis, the worst non-democratic terrorist nation on earth, is working hand-in-hand with them. Together, they own our Government and it's propaganda machine. All safeguarded and paid for with the blood of American troops as well as our tax dollars. Now tell me there is any reason to trust anything the Government does.



We were far better off when Saddam was in control and should have let him have his way with his neighbors. As soon as we permanently removed the greatest threat to them, Saddam, the OPECkers (run by Saudi Arabia who has more oil than all the other members combined) no longer had any reason to be "nice" to us and promptly launched a wicked economic attack upon us. Our Big Oil companies do not make a fixed-price-per-refined gallon; they instead adjust their profits as a direct percentage of what a barrel of crude costs. So the more the OPECkers charge, the more our Big Oil copanies profit. What a scam! And our politicians get greased to turn a blind eye and focus our attention elsewhere. Like on ULSD...



ULSD is just another feel-good red herring to divert attention from what's really going on and to get their hands deeper into our pockets.

 

[DPellegrin]

SRath- I guess I hit a nerve. I'm disappointed that you have chosen to make this a political argument, not to say there isn't a political element to it, but that's not my purpose here. It's to bad that your response is to make malicious generalizations about people who don't live or think the same way you do. Further, not withstanding your statement to the contrary what you have said is personal and offensive. But no matter, I been there before.



I would be glad to debate/discuss the merits or demerits, depending on your point of view of ULSD with you on a technical basis that is, emissions, fuel economy, engine durability etc. , you never know we may even learn something from each other. However, If your next reply is similar to the last one I will choose not to.



BTW, I no longer live in Southern Calif. But I do intend on returning there some day and I too have a brother that lives in San Diego, actually Fallbrook. I now live in a very nice place not far from you, just north of St. Paul, MN. Growing up in Southern Calif. I learned spanish as a second language, for which I am very thankful.



Respectfully and with Kindest regards,

 

[Northrunner]

Marvel Mystery Oil?

Have any of you guys ever used Marvel Mystery Oil in your fuel? On the back of the bottle it states"This diesel fuel additive DOES NOT comply with federal ultra-low sulfur content requirements for use in model year 2007 and newer diesel motor vehicles". Would the "DOES NOT COMPLY" portion make you comfortable using this product as an added lubricant? I know it's been around for many years...

 

[WDixon27]

i tried it at the request of a mercedes guy last summer as a experiment for 3 tanks and actually seemed to loose a mpg or so, (didn't really loose during the test but it went up a mpg for a couple tanks afterwards then i stopped paying attention) at the time i was driving da truck regular and mileage was almost with in a couple tenths from tank to tank, can't say i really noticed anything else

Have any of you guys ever used Marvel Mystery Oil in your fuel? On the back of the bottle it states"This diesel fuel additive DOES NOT comply with federal ultra-low sulfur content requirements for use in model year 2007 and newer diesel motor vehicles". Would the "DOES NOT COMPLY" portion make you comfortable using this product as an added lubricant? I know it's been around for many years...