I sent Power Service an email concerning the lubricity issues above and what to expect from additives. I am including the text of my questions and Brian's responses because I think many of you will find the information informative and useful:
From: David Dahl
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 9:06 PM
To: Power Service
Subject: Power service fuel conditioner -- lubricity improvement
Dave: I have a question about lubricity improvement with PS conditioner. Assume that I use the double dose rate -- recommended for max cetane increase and faster injector cleaning. Assume also that the low sulfur diesel fuel conforms to being slightly below an HFRR of 520 for lubricity. What should I expect the HFRR of this fuel to be with the double dose rate treatment with PS diesel conditioner.
Brian: ASTM D6079 establishes HFRR 520 as the official lubricity standard for fuel across the USA and technically took effect January 1, 2005. This standard will be official when the 2005 edition of D975 is published which will be around the third week of February. Some states will start enforcing the new standard (law) Jan 1st while others have stated that they will give the fuel suppliers a grace period before enforcement of the new standard.
Brian: I cannot give you exact numbers but I can do almost as well. All of the following are fuels from late 2004 which have not had lubricity added at the refinery and do not meet the new standard. We have been conducting lubricity testing on various fuels to determine how to approach the lubricity problem. For example, we took Amoco fuel out of Whitting, IN and it had a HFRR of about 700 micron wear scar. When we single treated the fuel with Diesel Fuel Supplement (DFS) with Slick Diesel the HFRR was 400 micron wear scar. We tested Phillips out of East Chicago and before treatment with DFS the HFRR was 710 micron wear scar and after treatment it was HFRR 440. We took Marathon out of Hammond, IN before treatment HFRR 560 micron and after treatment it was HFRR 435 micron. With a single treatment all samples were below the required HFRR 520 wear scar. If you were to double treat these fuels all of them would be below HFRR 380 wear scar. No other additive on the market, which we have tested, will do as well and many that we tested were not even close to these numbers.
Brian: An important note is that these fuels were last year’s fuels. If you take these same fuels since the HFRR 520 wear scar lubricity standard has taken effect and single treated them with our DFS with Slick Diesel they would all be below the HFRR 380 wear scar. BOSCH's study showed that HFRR 380 was very acceptable since it was know to prevent lubricity field problems. They also noted that Common-rail and Rotary pumps require the same level of lubricity. They were hoping that the new lubricity specification to be adopted would not exceed HFRR 460 micron wear scar. As it turns out they didn't get what they wanted.
Dave: This is very important to me because Bosch recommends and HFRR of below 460 (ideally 380 or so) for long life with common rail injection systems. The HFRR of 520 is what oil companies like Chevron will guarantee (sort of) for their fuel at the pump.
Brian: BOSCH did a lubricity study in February 2003 and in their sampling they claim that 80% of the fuels they tested were >460 micron. BOSCH said that the HFRR 450 micron was borderline lubricity and that they preferred a HFRR 380 micron standard. To BOSCH, Stanadyne, Siemens, Denso Corp. and Delphi HFRR 520 is not adequate to protect fuel pumps (Rotary and Common-rail). Don't forget that injectors will also greatly benefit from the increased lubricity standard. Chevron will guarantee the HFRR 520 only because it is law, not because they want to be a better fuel than say Exxon.
Dave: Incidentally, I have used PS for the last 9 years on my 96 Dodge Cummins pickup. It seemed to really improve the running consistency of the engine. However, my new 2005 Dodge has a common rail engine and I want to make sure the lubricity is appropriate for a long lived injection system. Since the US has no serious lubricity standards for Diesel, unlike the EUC, each owner is really on their own in this matter.
Brian: I have a 1998, 12-valve Dodge and it makes a difference when I don't treat the fuel. I would suggest that you use our Diesel Fuel Supplement during the winter months and in the non-winter months use the Diesel Kleen. Diesel Kleen does not have an antigel, however it has more detergents and Cetane Boost which will greatly benefit your truck. It has the same lubricity Slick Diesel package so no problem there. Diesel Kleen will give even more emissions reductions and give better fuel economy and engine performance.
Best regards,
Brian Wilson
(800)643 9089
-- email address removed --
Technical Support
Power Service Products, Inc.