2 stroke oil added to fuel?

[JR]

Huh? Bosch may define THEIR standards they require for warranty work but they do not solely define industry standards. That is done by organizations such as ASTM and EMA. And I am quoting here, "ASTM specifications are established by consensus, based on the broad experience and close cooperation of producers of diesel fuels, manufacturers of diesel engines and fuel systems (and users of both), as well as other interested partners such as state fuel quality regulators. "
I have no doubt they take into consideration data and recommendations by manufacturers such as Bosch, Delphi, Denso, and Siemens but to say Bosch is solely responsible for THE industry standard is waaay out there. They're not the only game in town.

I'm not in anyway arguing that ULSD is perfect, nor is bio. But almost ALL of the problems you listed above are associated with poor handling, transportation, and storage practices. Show me some examples of FUEL related failures where none of the above problems are involved.

 

[cerberusiam]

I am just using Bosch as an example to demonstrate a point, not as the source of all evil. As you quoted ASTM specs are based on consensus among members, this RESULT of technological advances not the DRIVER for them. A spec is defined after the technology has been developed and proto-typed, this is how it works for evolving technologies. There are literally thousands of prototypes that have been built and tested with minimal fuels or supporting infrastructure that does not widely exist. Adoption requires a need, once the need is established then the infrastructure to support it has to be developed.

Common rail technology is a good example, it has existed for many more years than it has been used in vehicles. The demand drove the implementation and the support infrastructure had to catch up. There was no published diesel fuel standard for Bosch Common Rail fuel systems when they were installed, the Bosch recommendations and 3rd party testing evolved into the current standard. The needs drove the adoption and adherence to a specification, not the other way around.

Poor handling, transportation, and storage practices are not root causes of failures. These are the symptomatic results of infrastructure NOT supporting the product needs. Bosch developed the HPCR systems to meet the needs for emissions and the fuel MUST conform or the results are not achieved. It so happened that Euro fuel spec was adequate and the US fuel spec was not, the US industry AND infrastructure has had to evolve to meet the demands. The HPCR systems have inherent needs to perform adequately, not only for warranty from the builder, but also for MTBF at the consumer level. The needs around lubricity, water content, and solids evolved to the current fuel standard both Dodge and Cummins have published.

As I stated, OEM doesn't build to lowest common denominator of current standards, they build to demands of the technology and the supply side MUST meets those specs.

 

[Stab]

Stanadyne makes a great additive as preventative for all kinds of fuel system issues, and it does not conflict with the warranty and is compatible with the emissions stuff.. I've been using it for years, no issues. It is supposed to boost performance an economy to cover its cost, back when I first started using it I was measuring actual economy and noted a slight improvement, but even .5MPG is a big percentage if in the 15-18MPG range when one thinks about it.. besides the bottles I get treat 60 gallons.. so go a long way. Fuel system parts are about the most expensive parts anywhere on these rigs.. as such a bit of prevention seems prudent.

http://stanadyneadditives.com/

I use the performance formula... pretty much a general purpose additive.

Amen to all this!!^^

Why on earth would anyone spend $60K+ for a truck and put 2 cycle oil in it to begin with is beyond me.....plus for the price of a good bottle of 2 cycle oil you can buy the best: Stanadyn Performance designed to burn in your CR system. Go ask your fuel injection guy and just watch the look on his face!

 

[cerberusiam]

Why on earth would anyone spend $60K+ for a truck and put 2 cycle oil in it to begin with is beyond me.....

Compare the MSDS for the two and reassess that statement.

 

[Killgore]

An excellent discussion! And so ASTM, if I understand this right, has developed or established a testing procedure with a minimum 520 HFRR standard with the cooperative efforts of industry and governmental agencies; no standard deviations or other statistical mumbo, jumbo involved, just a minimum. This is recognized as the bottom-line on good verses bad fuel as far as lubricity. Fuel arriving at the supplier's terminal has an HFRR somewhere between 600-800, and in order to meet spec must be properly dosed by the supplier/trucker with a lubricity enhancer to barely meet the specification. Correct me if I'm wrong but is this not an over-whelming argument for some kind of additive if you don't have an engine designed and built to handle this marginal fuel?

I forgot to mention that virtually nobody is pulling a sample to insure compliance at the retailer level with lubricity standards. Hmm.. as a supplier, is this a matter of life or death? Oh, I think I'll just have another cup of coffee. Incidentally, the European standard is 400. The 520 was a compromise down from 460. All of this kind of reminds me of Dodge and Bosch discussing fuel filtration. Dodge looks at Bosch and says, "You want 4-micron fuel filtration; you gotta be kiddin! Hell, the warranty is up before the problems appear". Bosch walks away saying to themselves, "What a bunch of jerks!"

- Ed

 

[cerberusiam]

Correct me if I'm wrong but is this not an over-whelming argument for some kind of additive if you don't have an engine designed and built to handle this marginal fuel?

"Over-whelming argument" is a good description. LOL! Additives, more filters, etc, everything that is discussed time after time, ultimately it is on the consumer to maintain the fuel quality. The OE's have pushed that back with their published quality descriptions.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

Compare the MSDS for the two and reassess that statement.

Does the MSDS show the sulfated ash of the 2-stoke oil? Sulfated ash is what kills the DPF. If the two stoke is shown to be low on sulfur, and thus low sulfated ash... that would be something to seriously consider, but I'm not sure how we can know this, as it strikes me as something not likely to be on the MSDS or other technical data. They started putting this spec on engine oil for diesels after 2007 required the DPF and low sulfur content engine oil.. perhaps one could more safely burn a small amount of engine oil in your fuel and add lubricity, that would met the low sulfur standards.. I can burn engine oil in my diesel tractor (old school engine driven injection), as well as used transmission fluid.. it runs only slightly more smoky.. but I'd be very hesitant to put that in my trucks fuel tank.

 

[cerberusiam]

Sure, that is an important part of the composition with emissions being so high on the list. Some show no sulphated ash while others are less than %0.1 by weight. Considering the amount used for fuel lube and the fact that the engine oil will probably contribute more in the long run it becomes a non-issue. How much SA does it take to plug a DPF or render a CAT unusable? No data exists on that and what it would take to make it so. A DPF is assumed to need multiple cleanings over its lifetime and CAT's have a finite existence, no way around those known facts.

Take a look at the rest of composition, refined light petroleum oils, mineral oil, naphtha, etc. The oil bases for the additives and 2 stroke are almost the same, PS and the other add naphtha or naphthalene as a cleaning agent. Two stroke oil has proprietary additives for cleaning which probably the same derivative as the conditioners.

What is the cheaper alternative, a DPF cleaning, or, a fuel system\engine rebuild?

 

[JR]

It's more than just the DPF, ASTM identifies ash as an abrasive and detrimental to the fuel system as well as pistons and rings, and has been found to be a contributor to engine deposits. They limit ash to 0.01%, a pretty miniscule amount by any standards. If you insist on using 2 cycle oil TCW3 is the stuff to use, but I still feel its not the best solution by any means.

 

[cerberusiam]

SAPS is used as a detergent. Miniscule amounts of small particles of soft metals are not really going to impact the fuel system considering the amount of solids that are permissible. The size of the particles is more important as that will cause excessive scarring. The ash less 2 stroke is one of the better lubricants based on ASTM tests. If there were problems it would show in scar tests.

The only question really unanswered is the effect on the DPF. Definitely do not want to use the synthetics 2 stroke and the TCW3 does contain other additives. Just not enough data to say how it effects the DPF. The positive effects on the HPCR systems in general is pretty well known.

 

[promisedland]

i feal like a 1st grade kid among the the big boys...do you think they really know what they are talking about?!

 

[JR]

Did ASTM ever officially test 2 cycle oil? The only test I've ever seen was the comparison performed by someone over on the Diesel Place years ago which was average at best compared to the other additives tested. Which is why I guess I have a hard time understanding why one would choose to use 2 cycle oil over a product that has been engineered to improve lubricity as well as other benefits they provide.

 

[cerberusiam]

ASTM is like the UN, they really don't DO anything but issue decisions, proclamations, and such. All the testing is done to ISO standards by 3rd party facilities.

Two stroke has to have decent lube capabilities because that is what it is made for. No, it does not provide the cleaning that other products do but it is a lot cheaper and more effective as lubricant. In the pre-emissions trucks it had very positive results in a fuel that lube properties were so hit and miss, literally no downside when used in conjunction with a cleaning agent.

TCW3 ash-less is still a good option but it can't really be considered a full diesel treatment product. There are other properties of ULSD that require some type of cleansing agent.

 

[Killgore]

Making a silk purse out of a sow's ear is a difficult assignment according to Solomon. The same applies to our fuel at the retailer level, assuming nobody has come up with a simple pocket-sized lubricity tester that can be carried around in the glove-box. LOL That being said, Cerb, are you aware of any follow-up studies being done similar to Arlen Spicer's original lubricity test work?

His results were possibly skewed, as he noted, by the fact that Opti-Lube was considered an experimental product at the time of the tests and the samples were obtained from the manufacturer instead of off the retailer's shelf.

Besides being a very interesting discussion, I think all of us would agree that a search for the best product or combination is what we all seek after admitting that what we are purchasing doesn't consistently possess the qualities we think we are purchasing. Is this an opportunity for a group effort to fund a future blind study of lubricity and actually have some definitive results published, a follow-up to Arlen Spicer's original work? Is it really necessary, considering that all the manufacturers (and formulators) are so honest in their published advertising and marketing literature? LOL

- Ed

 

[cerberusiam]

I don't doubt fault can be found with any of the tests. After all, statistics can be compiled to deceive as well as convince.

What we have is what we have for testing, plus, experience. Have to make a choice at some point what to believe which is where the old Mark I is the final determinant.

 

[JR]

ASTM is like the UN, they really don't DO anything but issue decisions, proclamations, and such. All the testing is done to ISO standards by 3rd party facilities.

Correct, but your previous statement implied there has been some form of legitimate testing. I've only seen the one comparison i mentioned earlier and it put 2 cycle oil about mid pack which makes it average in that sense, not " a much better lube". Nothing official by any means but at least they attempted to use legitimate testing equipment. All other accounts stem from personal accounts and testimonials, which should be taken with a grain of salt. As to price point, the Walmart brand in gallon jugs is about ¢.60-.70 per 30 gallons cheaper than the Schaeffers Diesel Treat I've been using for the past 4-5 years. When you factor in the added benefits of running a multi purpose additive the price difference is essentially erased.

Different (2) strokes for different folks :-laf

 

[Killgore]

Ah yes, it comes down to a subjective guess or a hopeful decision, the only common denominator being a lack of faith in the terminal's personnel to adequately do their job. What lubricity agent are they hopefully dispensing? Without compliance monitored at the retail level we are left to our own devices; some good, some bad, and some an out-right waste of money.

- Ed

 

[cerberusiam]

Hopefully the "guess" becomes a bit more objective than subjective with some logical think and research. Maybe even that is a subjective statement.

Bottom line is what you pump into the tank is not always as portrayed by the retailer nor adequate for the system in question. It is not ONLY additives, but, you have to be extremely CAREFUL what and where you by the fuel. That ends being a "hopeful decision" more often than not.

 

[Killgore]

JR is fortunate to have a supplier that is delivering a consistent quality product from all indications. I purchase my fuel from one retailer and for all intensive purposes believe I am getting what I pay for, within reason. This doesn't negate human error, and I would be the first to admit that I have had my share of boo-boos when batching ready mix concrete with admixtures, even using a computer.

I definitely agree that being extremely careful where you buy is paramount. A 'good' retailer will hopefully have enough volume and storage capacity to dilute the batch that is deficient in lubricity agent; another good reason to have an auxiliary tank (?).

However, we are still unresolved as far as what to use and how much; subjective guesses and hopeful decisions. I know from looking around and doing just a little research that some of the additives are being sold out of Joe's Garage after being re-packaged from somebody else's fifty-five gallon drum with a gross profit margin that is criminally insane. Possibly a good reason why many have basically the same MSDS. I think I will apply the same logic to the selection of an additive that I use when I'm on the road and decide to fill-up with fuel - go with the big sellers (not really). I remain someone that is still mystified by all the smoke and mirrors; will continue to use 2-stroke that is proven to lubricate and burn (cleanly, I trust); and finally, add a squirt once in awhile of PS. IMO.

- Ed

 

[cerberusiam]

I use a mix of 2 stroke at about 600:1 with PS. Every 3rd mix MMO replaces the 2 stroke for cleaning. It is working well in our 2 trucks is about all I can offer as subjective input.