Hey there, Mike... I kinda see where you're coming from, but from here is where my opinion is shaped and where it changes direction...
Having been a heavy equipment mechanic back in the 70's, a Pre-Tech Coordinator for Bosch, a trainer for fuel system repairs, built all major makes of fuel systems from the 70's on and an Association of Diesel Specialists Certified Diesel Injection Technician, I look at this from a slightly different standpoint. As you began, I agree with you in that folks can choose to run whatever they want in their engines, and it doesn't really bother me in the least. What I question is the way some choose a specific item to put into their fuel systems. Sometimes with proper thought and investigation, and other times through feelings or pure non-scientific experimentation with no real hard evidence to backup any claims. In that many years of paying my mechanical dues, I have seen quite a few things, and some things I wish I hadn't seen. Some types of experimentations became very costly. Some were not so costly, but caused frequent downtimes and aggravation. Some even reduced the longevity of the piece of equipment. Some were "marketed" for, some said "designed" for, and a lot of both that didn't work. I have no problems with either term, as I fully understand their differences.
A product specifically "designed for" a certain application could be beneficial in another not necessarily considered when it was originally made, and on the other hand, it could be detrimental! For example, read some of the problems that folks are experiencing with E-10 (ethanol) in gasoline. Some major expensive problems! Especially for the marine industry. So we can't assume that just because a product is good that it logically can be applied to another application without hard, steadfast evidence to support it. If you wish to fund the experimentation, by all means, do it, but have a control group, experiment under scientifically recognized controlled conditions as well as real world conditions, and document your scientific findings so that you don't spend good money for bad use or even good money for good use and have nothing to back it up or prove it with... .
The 'P" series Bosch pump was not specifically designed only for the 'B' or 'C' series Cummins engine, as the "P" series Bosch pumps, both flange mounted or cradle mounted were used on everything from Macks, Internationals, Volvo, Deutz, Fiat, Allis-Chalmers, and many other engines worldwide. This style of injection pump was and is also built under license in Japan by Nippondenso and the former Diesel Kiki which is now Zexel, for a host of other manufacturers throughout the world. These pumps are specifically "designed" for each type of engine that they are to work on, in engine timing, in horsepower, torque, and emissions, etc. , such that they are given an individual part number by the engine manufacturer for that specific application. And in 1994, when the 5. 9L Cummins made a change of design and went up in horsepower, Bosch sold Cummins the 'P' series pump to operate on the higher horsepower engine because the 'VE' style distributor pump used previously was reaching it's maximums in fuel delivery and longevity at that maximum fuel delivery. The 'P' series pump can deliver a lot more fuel than the 'VE' style, however, it was not because of emissions that Cummins chose this type of pump, but because of the quantity of the fuel delivery and longevity that the pump would provide to match the horsepower range that the 5. 9L engine could provide. The previous 'VE' style pump incorporated its own advance mechanism to provide for reduced emissions and better performance. In simple terms, like a distributor with a vacuum advance, only this one was hydraulically operated. The 'P' series pump is a "fixed timing" pump meaning that the static timing does not vary from cranking to high idle speed as there is no advance mechanism incorporated. It is for this reason that the 'VP44' model of pump entered the arena in 1998. 5 so that the engine could increase the HP and still meet EPA emissions standards with the return of a timing advance mechanism.
The governor on the P7100 is an 'RQV' style, very well suited for over-the-road applications, and the result is an accelerator pedal which feels much like a gas engine type versus that of a farm tractor. This 'RQV' design provides governor control to maintain idle speed of the engine, and fuel cutoff at maximum engine RPM to prevent overspeeding the engine. In-between low and high idle speeds, the accelerator pedal pretty much controls the fuel delivery up to the maximum settings provided for in the governor calibration.
Non-synthetic lube oil was designed such that it was a 'lube oil' and not a 'fuel'. We know that in order to lubricate the rings on a piston, that we have to have a certain amount of oil left in the "hatch marks" on the cylinder walls so that even the top compression ring is lubricated. The bottom ring, or "oil control" ring, serves that purpose. The cylinder wall is 'engineered' in the specific process of making and deburring these hatch marks, along with the correct degree of angle of those minute grooves and lands in combination with the specified oil viscosity to provide proper piston and ring lubrication. Some oil is meant to be left in those grooves to lubricate the piston/rings when the piston is on compression stroke, and that minute amount of oil is burned in the cylinder during combustion of the injected fuel. Manufacturers build engines knowing that this minute amount of oil is being burned in the cylinders over the lifetime of an engine and engineer them so that it should have no detrimental effects. In fact, as engines have become cleaner and cleaner, the EPA wants to further reduce the HC emissions and that means reducing the oil left in the hatch marks of a cylinder. But remember, you still have to leave enough there to lubricate the piston and rings! It's a catch-22 situation... That is why some manufacturers have started experimenting with ceramic coatings, exotic metals, etc. to help lower this emission from the exhaust of their engines.
I fully understand where petroleum diesel comes from, and the cracking process. I also know the process for removing sulfur from diesel, and have experienced first-hand what happens to fuel injection equipment without proper lubrication. I do disagree that engine oil is a "slightly heavier oil" than #2 diesel as this is similar to comparing aluminum to steel. Both are metals, but one is only slightly heavier than the other???? That is not an accurate analogy, however, I think you can see what I am saying. ASTM #2 Diesel and 15W-40 engine oil are as different as night and day even though they may be in the same family. Viscosity, API gravity, cetane, flash point, btu content, carbon residue, ash, cloud point, pour point, etc. are different in each. Read the past TDR article interviewing John Martin about the differences in diesel engine oils, and you'll see that even between oil brands the contents of the additive packages differ greatly! And what about these "heavy metals" in those additive packages? Where does that metal go when the oil is burned in the fuel? Rings, cylinder walls, coked or plugged injection nozzles, build up on valves, seats, or guides? What effect does all of this have on the engine? How long before the atomization of the fuel from the injectors is compromised from the metals/ash/carbon residue, anti-freeze such that fuel economy suffers or harder starting occurs? That is another uncalculated cost. Then calculate the labor involved to properly filter the old oil along with the cost of the filters when changed. Considering all of this, I disagree that blending a heavier oil (with totally different properties) in a small concentration is "no big deal".
And Glycol by itself is not a lubricant, but in fact is an industrial solvent in which other compounds are dissolved. Ask any mechanic how much lubrication is provided when your head gasket leaks ethylene glycol into the engine oil. You'd be best served to check your main and rod bearings if you do get it into the oil! In fact, water dissolves readily into glycol by itself, and it is used in the natural gas industry to remove water vapor in the gas in a process called gycol dehydration. Here's what you can expect from glycol in your engine: "Coolant system leakage is one of the most serious hazards for any lubricating system. Glycol from antifreeze breaks down at normal engine temperatures and forms sludge and deposits. Water in the coolant reduces lubricity and can cause corrosion and premature wear. " All of that havoc wreaked in the crankcase, but what do you think even a small amount would do exposed to the high temperatures and extreme pressures of the precision parts in the diesel fuel injection system with only 80 to 100 millionths of an inch clearance!? I want an additive that helps to remove water in the filter, and not carry it on forward into the critical components of my system...
(Continued in next post)
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
