2 stroke oil added to fuel?

[Zach6.7CTD]

Hey guys. I know with my old 2nd gen truck I added a qt of 2 stroke oil to eacheck fuel fill to help lubricate the fuel system. Is that ok/desirable to do in the new 6.7s and is there any positive or negative effects of doing it? Does it help at all with fuel economy etc or is it just a wasted step at a fuel stop.

 

[Bob4x4]

The aftertreatment will die............

 

[Zach6.7CTD]

Ok well that's sums that up for me. So no go on the oil at least until after it's deleted

 

[Ozymandias]

No it wont, it works flawlessly even on EURO6 Trucks, it is very common in Europe to do so.
Don't use synthetic oil, just plain mineral oil in a 1:200 mixture.

And yes, the Highpressure Pump and the injectors have a benefit from that oil that the ULSD Diesel haven't anymore.

 

[Jim W]

I have an 08 with 85K miles on the engine and I have never added 2-stroke oil to the fuel. As Bob4X4 stated the emission exhaust treat will be ruined by this addition of oil in to the fuel. Bob is a dealer mechanic I believe who has provided a wealth of information on these engines. You will also be footing the repair bill for the emission components; this is around $1,700 on e-bay for a 2007.5-2012 MY new DPF.
I have added Power Service Diesel winter treatment when the temps are super cold with no issues. You may want to consider this if you want to added anything.

Jim

 

[JR]

The question is is it really needed. ULSD has been around for 8+ years now and the OEMs have had plenty of time to develop their equipment to the current fuel standards. Much different than the vulnerable rotory pumps that were designed to run LSD.

 

[Newsa]

My emissions throws enough codes on straight #2 diesel. It's been better for the last 2 months.

But I don't want to run anything other than diesel in there.

 

[MichaelOverfield]

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.

 

[Zach6.7CTD]

Well I'm already using the amsoil diesel injector/system cleaner/conditioner.

 

[Killgore]

From my signature you can see that I'm probably not messing any fancy pollution control system up by using snake oil. Ozy convinced me some time back to add a little 2-stroke because it is always questionable whether or not the ULSD was properly dosed by the supplier with the required additive package (and here I cite many comments by Big Nasty from his days behind the wheel delivering the stuff and knowing what goes on behind the scenes). Yes, occasionally I use a little snake oil, especially if I've just been driving around town for an extended period without getting out on the open road and really putting the engine under load. Does it help? Are there benefits from an economical standpoint? Is one brand better than another (look at the MSDS' and tell me if you see any real significant differences)? Well then, I guess it's a comfort factor. All things being considered though, the best snake oil is getting that truck on the road and running it like it was designed to be run, whether it's a 5.9 or 6.7.

Reminds me of the old country vet. who had a woman come to his office complaining about how her cat had become fat, lazy and lethargic. He took the cat out back, grabbed it by its' tail, and spun him around. The woman was amazed at the change in her cat's personality, and the cat...well, he was wide awake. That's all it takes...a good spin. :-laf

- Ed

 

[rashwor]

I never ran any additives in any of my previous trucks. I only started running Power Service in the '05 about 2 years ago when I was having injector problems. Yeah, the best solution was to replace the set of injectors, but I replaced the one that was bad and have been running PS since with no further problems. It works for me.

 

[Newsa]

Well, I never planned on using any additives. But almost 2 years in, I have changed my mind.
I broke down and bought a case of stanadyne power formula. Got warm weather blend at a reduced price on ebay.

It was cheaper than the amsoil even with the preferred customer price. I'm thinking the seller was trying to unload stock before winter.

I changed my mind because even Ram talks about how gum can build up and even harden over time.
That's why they don't recommend going back and forth between petroleum diesel and biodiesel.
Apparently, the solvent-like properties of bio diesel helps loosen up gum which can clog filter or injector.

Live and learn, I guess. Lol

 

[Killgore]

And, that's not all bad. I too had some issues about two years ago, primarily smoke when I cranked the engine when she was cold. Finally, #3 started failing (0.5 ohms). I shut her down until I could locate a set of new Bosch injectors and replaced the whole set. Ouch! Today, I continue to squirt a little PS in the tank and I generally add some 2-cycle because I'm OCD. Engine is relatively quiet, pulls great and doesn't smoke. In my delusional state, I'm a happy old man.

- Ed

 

[Newsa]

Put some stanadyne power formula in today when refueling.

It no longer diesels (continues to try to run on fumes) after turning off the ignition key

 

[cerberusiam]

ULSD has been around for 8+ years now and the OEMs have had plenty of time to develop their equipment to the current fuel standards.

Doesn't work that way. Manufacturers don't develop to the lowest common denominator, Bosch definitely doesn't. US fuel by itself has rarely met minimum requirements for the CR systems.

The debate on 2 stroke causing emissions issue is murky. Hard to claim 2 stroke will cause problems yet an additive is ok to run. The 200:1 mix might be the root of that though, that mix provides optimal lube but can have some detrimental effects.

 

[JR]

So your telling me that the EPA sets the fuel quality to the manufacturers needs?

 

[promisedland]

i dont have a 4th gen...i have been adding fppf-total power at every fill-up

 

[cerberusiam]

So your telling me that the EPA sets the fuel quality to the manufacturers needs?

Who is telling you that? Did you answer on the correct thread? That is even a little further out in the weeds than most comments.

 

[JR]

Your previous post insinuated manufacturers develop their equipment without regards to fuel standards, I'm no engineer and have been known to take pretty long walks in the weeds but it has long been well known that the EPA sets the emissions standards (and consequently fuel standards) and the OEMs are continuously forced to develop their systems to not only meet the requirements but also do it reiably with said fuel. To say they don't take the fuel into consideration when developing fuel systems is just something I can't wrap my head around. I absolutely see the benefits of adding a lube to the fuel of older rotory pump injection systems due to their design and the fact they were manufactured during a time when the fuel was much different. But in my tiny corner of the world it just hasn't held true for the newer CR systems. Especially with the widespread distribution of B2, B5, and some states now offering B10. B2 has been tested and shown to improve the HFRR 2 and a half times better than a 200:1 mixture of 2 cycle oil. We've got several cranes, shuttle wagons, and loaders well north of 10k hours (2 of the shuttle wagons have 15k+ hours) and none have ever so much as had a drop of anything with the exception of the occasional anti gel during cold snaps. All still on original injection pump and injectors. Our supplier does use B2, so maybe that is a testament of the benefits of using low doses of bio. My experiences are just that and obviously a very small piece of the pie and likewise I stated it as an opinion. Not to say a fuel additive couldn't be beneficial to curtail any potential shortfalls occurred during the transport/storage of fuel but that is not what the OP asked about

One equally important part of the equation that is often overlooked is fuel source. We've got a very reliable supplier with a good reputation. The company that delivers fuel to us is owned by an individual that also owns a large construction company. He owns all together over 40 pieces of equipment along with a handful of class 6 and 8 trucks not including his fuel tankers. I worked for him for 13 years and can say without a doubt he is very anal about the quality of fuel dropped in his tanks as well as the condition of his in ground tanks, which have all been replaced within the last 8-10 years. It is the only place I buy fuel from locally and have never heard of any problems associated with fuel coming from his station. Virtually all the local farms get fuel delivered from him as he is the only station in the county that has off road fuel.

 

[cerberusiam]

Your previous post insinuated manufacturers develop their equipment without regards to fuel standards,

Ask yourself this, do you think Bosch really cares about your fuel quality when they develop the fuel systems? Short answer is no.

Bosch is not concerned about emissions, Euro or EPA, or anything other than building a system to deliver x amount of fuel at y pressure. Naturally there will be some collaboration between engine builders to fine tune the interfaces but by and large, Bosch will TELL manufacturers what fuel standards are required for warranty and adequate performance.

Evidently your little corner of the world did not get the word that Bosch supplied the parameters while Cummins and Dodge both adopted a fuel standard for warranty work BECAUSE of all the problems that substandard fuel has been causing HPCR systems for some 12 years. While you may have gotten lucky with a supplier there are many all around you that weren't. The early failures of HPCR systems were well documented as were the causes, fuel quality was number 1. Solids and water were the downfall, the refineries, suppliers, and transporters had to ALL update and change their processes. This is FUEL QUALITY issues that Bosch had specifically said were BAD. They gave all the buyers a list of fuel standards for water, solids, cetane, etc, for their systems, they TOLD the industry what the standard was going to be or they would not warranty their product. Bosch developed the HPCR system to use Euro quality fuel which US refiners have yet to meet consistently because the delivery infrastructure is pretty much crap in places.

Your original statement is still wrong. OEM's don't build to the lowest common denominator to use what is available for fuel, they DEFINE the standards the industries need to meet.

Bio ha sits own problems that negate its usefulness. It is much worse than ULSD for water retention and its tendency to act like a solvent causes many more problems than it solves. Its only saving grace is the lubricity it supplies. The mandating of using a bio mix is nothing but political pork and protectionism. If it really was that good the industry would demand it, not be forced to use it. The real truth is bio has its problems and until those are solved it will remain a protected niche fuel additive, not a mainstream solution.