CP4.2 Owners Club

[JR]

During my research of the CP4 pump I learned my wife’s 2013 Audi Q5 3.0 TDI is equipped with one also. Well, She has 77k miles on it now with not a hiccup. No additives, No wiping the nozzle off before fill ups, Fuel filter has only been changed at the required service intervals.... Just Sayin'. When these pump failures start showing up on 2019 CTD's I'll start being concerned. I did look at the AirDog systems... I'd for sure go with one but I'll have to wait till my warranty runs out as I'm sure FCA would not be keen on it.... You have to bypass the in tank lift pump with the AirDog.

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?s=74fa15ec3023e528d104376f3a289d90&t=284441

This thread is for the 2.0 engine but also cp4.

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=299854
Scary part is, this is ONE forum that produced 85+ pages of failures. I wonder how many are really out there.

 

[Ozymandias]

A filter like that should have some sort of differential pressure switch to alert the operator prior to plugging up 100% if used in this kind of application.

Yeah that would be perfect, i have that in my Setup. But everyone should have that.
Don't know how FASS deals with that issue, aside from regular filter change, a bad batch can fill it within Miles.

I learned that even Aircrafts use that Filter Media - but always as a dual Setup that switches seamless over to the #2 filter if #1 reaches its limits.

 

[TCDiesel]

I have plugged 3AZL filters with 10OZ of water removed by 5 Gallons of Diesel Pumped at 2 Gallons per minute....Only an idiot would buy/Make a system that can endanger their Family and become a hazard on America Road ways.

Their a reason I have been supporting Auxiliary or Transfer filtering for over 18 Years.

LMBO , Fass is either lying or the filter does NOT do as it claims XWS-3002, if separator were is the Water Stored? if its encapsulating media were is the WARNING?

To couple all that its a spin on with Fass Labeled, Who knows WTH you are getting, China Gage ,China Media...

Anyone with CP4 that buys China, is that Bosch Fault? Bosch Publishes Recommended Minimums for Retailed Avg fuel. Bosch is somewhat to Blame in the Fact they don't make a filter for the CP4 on GM or Ram, Ford.

 

[Ozymandias]

Yep and as usual they are hiding the manufacturer.
But i dont think that they are starting to sell china crap, it would ruin them within short time.

Myself liked the old setup better, i wrote about my entire experience with FASS in another thread.
I wouldn't buy again.

So @TCDiesel you say it would be illegal to sell a filter with this propertys?
And therefor is no other filter manufacturer on the market with a similar product that we could might guess it is the actual manufacturer of the FASS filter XWS-3002?

 

[TCDiesel]

Their standalone Pumps ,were you can add Your Own Plumbing and Filters do well, those Utility pumps with filters attach don't last long, couple that with wintry cold conditions and you are ^%$**^%.

 

[Tuesdak]

TC was there a reason the factory housing and WIF light didn’t save your motor?

Combined with OEM all in one filter and water separators, frankly, the WIF lights are a JOKE! By the time the filter knocks enough water out of the fuel the injection system has eaten plenty of water.

Modern ULSD diesel holds more water in suspension than the high surfer diesel of the past. Biodiesel holds even more water in suspension and the suspended water can't trigger a WIF light.

When I added #2 diesel to contaminated B99 it finally dropped enough water out to trigger the light. The antique IDI fuel system was completely destroyed. Same fuel on different rig had a CAT water separator save it, but the metal fuel tank was still ruined.

@Wayne M. Corrosive wet fuel can rust things real quick! This pic is from buggy wet and corrosive fuel. The bugs made it corrosive. Wet B99 and out of spec B99 is the suspect. This can happen to any fuel including gasoline. This is the rusted governor spring linkage out of a DB2 pump. Replace: Injection Pump, Injectors, lift pump, fuel tank. Then fuel filter housing clean out, and gasoline used to kill bugs and clean other components.

https://www.turbodieselregister.com/threads/ulsd-and-biodiesel-exposed.248698/

I have plugged 3AZL filters with 10OZ of water removed by 5 Gallons of Diesel Pumped at 2 Gallons per minute....Only an idiot would buy/Make a system that can endanger their Family and become a hazard on America Road ways.

Their a reason I have been supporting Auxiliary or Transfer filtering for over 18 Years.

LMBO , Fass is either lying or the filter does NOT do as it claims XWS-3002, if separator were is the Water Stored? if its encapsulating media were is the WARNING?

To couple all that its a spin on with Fass Labeled, Who knows WTH you are getting, China Gage ,China Media...

Anyone with CP4 that buys China, is that Bosch Fault? Bosch Publishes Recommended Minimums for Retailed Avg fuel. Bosch is somewhat to Blame in the Fact they don't make a filter for the CP4 on GM or Ram, Ford.

TC, the engine is going to fail anyway from bad fuel and at times without so much as even a WIF light as a warning. The only difference is 3 extra seconds of power for a $5K + repair bill with HPCR systems and if it also wipes the engine add $10-20K. Yeah I see stories of ignorance pushing their busted transmission or whatever broken vehicles along at a slow clip on the freeway posing a hazard to them and others all the time. I always recommend having AAA or the like and let the professionals hook it without endangering the driver and others.

I have seen IDI engines melt a piston from a bad injector with no warning other than a tapping when in the throttle. It did continue to run on 7 of 8 cylinders and the free wrist pin and rod knocked 4 holes in the cylinder. For example:

Yes, it took an hour with a 10# sledge hammer to get this melted aluminum plug out. Yes, "that" used to be a piston.

Yes. The rod is bent.

Regardless there is no reliable indicator what-so-ever that I know of that warns the operator you got bad fuel and power loss from fuel system (and engine) failure is seconds away. I get a hot light if I blow a hose and can make a decision to completely expend the engine and risk a vehicle fire in an emergency. Charging system failure light with expendable battery, "Low oil pressure stop engine" is a clear case of expending the engine for the time it takes to get pulled over and stopped, but It's a warning before failure. So I honestly fail to understand why the expensive engine and injection system is default expendable without ANY indication of a problem before the engine stops from bad fuel regardless of damage done to the engine and injection system.

I can see a water blocking filter with a bypass valve that gives one a "Stop Engine ASAP" Warning when the bypass opens.

Fuel gelling is still a thing TODAY and will stop an engine. So again other than laws written by morons why are we concerned with a filter that plugs and stops an engine rather than letting an engine destroy itself and then stop running anyway?

 

[TCDiesel]

Tuesdak Thanks … I'm enjoying the conversation, members and readers, its NOT my goal to place fear in Ownership ( or anyone in this thread), My goal is to avoid what can happen.

Its not that difficult to install Transfer or Auxiliary Filtering, the Cost varies according to setup..IMO nothing can replace the ease of knowing you have any issue covered if in the unlikely case of getting Contaminate Fuel.

GTG.

 

[Wayne M.]

10-4 Tuesdak.
I was under the impression that the rusty, blowed up pump TC put up was a newer 4 or 4.2 pump. I doubt that kind of staining could happen so quick, but I guess anything is possible considering what the contaminant might be.

 

[Signal73]

What’s the best additive to keep water at bay for a new emissions intact truck that sits a lot during the winter?

 

[Newsa]

What’s the best additive to keep water at bay for a new emissions intact truck that sits a lot during the winter?

One vote for Stanadyne.

 

[Wayne M.]

What’s the best additive to keep water at bay for a new emissions intact truck that sits a lot during the winter?

Keep the tank full.

 

[Tmartin000]

Here is the best recorded tests:

The following are the preliminary results of a research study on diesel fuel Lubricity Additives. There is likely to be further commentary and explanation added at a future time.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this research was to determine the ability of multiple diesel fuel additives to replace the vital lubricity component in ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel) fuel.

HISTORY:

ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road diesel engines. This fuel burns cleaner and is less polluting than it’s predecessor, called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel. Low sulfer fuel contained less than 500 ppm of sulfer. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.
As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfer, it is inadvertently stripped of its lubricating properties. This vital lubrication is a necessary component of the diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high pressure pumps and injectors. Traditional Low sulfer diesel fuel typically contained enough lubricating ability to suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD fuel, on the other hand, is considered to be very “dry” and incapable of lubricating vital fuel delivery components. As a result, these components are at risk of premature and even catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is introduced to the system. As a result, all oil companies producing ULSD fuel must replace the lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel purchased at retail fuel stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace this lost lubricity. The potential result of using inadequately treated fuel, as indicated above, can be catastrophic. There have been many documented cases of randomly tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests prove that often times the fuel we purchase is not adequately treated and may therefore contribute to accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems. For this reason it may be prudent to use an after market diesel fuel additive to ENSURE adequate lubrication of the fuel delivery system. Additionally, many additives can offer added benefits such as cetane improver, and water separators or emulsifiers.

CONTENT:

In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity. The primary component of this study is a side-by-side laboratory analysis of each additive’s ability to replace this vital lubricity. Additionally, claims of improving cetane, water separation or emulsification, bio-diesel compatibility and alcohol content will be noted. These notes were derived from information that was readily available to consumers (via the label and internet information) and none of this information has been evaluated for validity and/or performance. Cetane information has only been noted if the word “cetane” was used in the advertising information. The words “improves power” has not been translated to mean “improves cetane” in this evaluation. Information on alcohol content is provided by indicating “contains no alcohol”. Omission of the words “contains no alcohol” does not imply that it does contain alcohol. This information was simply missing in the information available to a consumer. However, the possibility of a form of alcohol in these products is possible. Additionally, information on dosages and cost per tankful are included for comparison purposes.

How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating Ability:

Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a device called a “High Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR. The HFRR is currently the Internationally accepted, standardized method to evaluate fluids for lubricating ability. It uses a ball bearing that reciprocates or moves back and forth on a metal surface at a very high frequency for a duration of 90 minutes. The machine does this while the ball bearing and metal surface are immersed in the test fluid (in this case, treated diesel fuel). At the end of the test the ball bearing is examined under a microscope and the “wear scar” on the ball bearing is measured in microns. The larger the wear scar, the poorer the lubricating ability of the fluid. Southwest Research runs every sample twice and averages the size of the wear scar.
The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a commercially available diesel fuel should produce a wear scar of no greater than 520 microns. The Engine Manufacturers Association had requested a standard of a wear scar no greater than 460 microns, typical of the pre-ULSD fuels. Most experts agree that a 520 micron standard is adequate, but also that the lower the wear scar the better.

METHOD:

An independent research firm in Texas was hired to do the laboratory work. The cost of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive manufacturers. Declining to participate and pay for the research were the following companies: Amsoil and Power Service. Because these are popular products it was determined that they needed to be included in the study. These products were tested using funds collected by diesel enthusiasts at “dieselplace.com”. Additionally, unconventional additives such as 2-cycle oil and used motor oil were tested for their abilities to aid in diesel fuel lubricity. These were also paid for by members of “dieselplace.com”.
The study was conducted in the following manner:
-The Research firm obtained a quantity of “untreated” ULSD fuel from a supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel engines. However, this sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the fuel for the purpose of replacing lost lubricity. In other words, it was a “worst case scenario, very dry diesel fuel” that would likely cause damage to any fuel delivery system. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at the Southwest Research Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel. It was determined that this batch of fuel would be utilized as the baseline fuel for testing all of the additives. The baseline fuel HFRR score of 636 would be used as the control sample. All additives tested would be evaluated on their ability to replace lost lubricity to the fuel by comparing their scores to the control sample. Any score under 636 shows improvement to the fuels ability to lubricate the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine.

BLIND STUDY:

In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the following steps were taken:
Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-diesel sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered “experimental” at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market. It was sent directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel sample was sponsored by Renewable Energy Group. One of their suppliers, E.H. Wolf and Sons in Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of 100% soybean based bio-diesel. This sample was used to blend with the baseline fuel to create a 2% bio-diesel for testing.
Each additive was bottled separately in identical glass containers. The bottles were labeled only with a number. This number corresponded to the additive contained in the bottle. The order of numbering was done randomly by drawing names out of a hat. Only Spicer Research held the key to the additives in each bottle.
The additive samples were then sent in a box to An independent research firm. The only information given them was the ratio of fuel to be added to each additive sample. For example, bottle “A” needs to be mixed at a ratio of “480-1”. The ratio used for each additive was the “prescribed dosage” found on the bottle label for that product. Used motor oil and 2-cycle oil were tested at a rationally chosen ratio of 200:1.
The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio of each “bottled fluid” into a separate container containing the baseline fuel. The data, therefore, is meaningful because every additive is tested in the same way using the same fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness of each additive is now obtainable.

THE RESULTS:

These results are listed in the order of performance in the HFRR test. The baseline fuel used in every test started at an HFRR score of 636. The score shown is the tested HFRR score of the baseline fuel/additive blend.
Also included is the wear scar improvement provided by the additive as well as other claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive is also categorized as a Multi-purpose additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity only, non-conventional, or as an additive capable of treating both gasoline and diesel fuel.
As a convenience to the reader there is also information on price per treated tank of diesel fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per 26 gallon tank provided as “ounces of additive per 26 gallon tank”.

In Order Of Performance:

1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel
HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.
50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel
66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel
Price: market value

2)Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier
HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio
13 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment
Gas and Diesel
cetane improver, emulsifier
HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.60/tank

4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend
Multi-purpose
demulsifier
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
$0.68/tank

5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/tank
$3.65/tank

6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible
HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.87/tank

7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
$1.09/tank

8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.00/tank

9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Multi-purpose
demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.16/tank

10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
$1.58/tank

11)Howe’s Meaner Power Kleaner
Multi-purpose
Alcohol free
HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.36/tank

12)Stanadyne Performance Formula
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement
480:1 ratio
6.9 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000 miles used.
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems)
HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
price: market value

14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant
Gas or diesel
HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
427:1 ratio
7.8 oz/tank
$2.65/tank

15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech
Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive
HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.67/tank

16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.12/tank

17)Marvel Mystery Oil
Gas, oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 and newer systems)
HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel.
320:1 ratio
10.4 oz/tank
$3.22/tank

18)ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.38/tank

19)Primrose Power Blend 2003
Multi-purpose
Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, emulsifier
HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline
1066:1 ratio
3.12 oz/tank
$1.39/tank

CONCLUSIONS:

Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 460 or better. This meets the most strict requirements requested by the Engine Manufacturers Association.
Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 520 or better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel requirements for maximum wear scar in a commercially available diesel fuel.
Products 16 through 19 were found to cause the fuel/additive blend to perform worse than the baseline fuel. The cause for this is speculative. This is not unprecedented in HFRR testing and can be caused by alcohol or other components in the additives. Further investigation into the possibilities behind these poor results will investigated.
Any additive testing within +/- 20 microns of the baseline fuel could be considered to have no significant change. The repeatability of this test allows for a +/- 20 micron variability to be considered insignificant.

CREDITS:

This study would not have been possible without the participation of all companies involved and dieselplace.com. A special Thank You to all of the dieselplace.com members who generously donated toward this study and waited longer than they should have for the results. You folks are the best. Arlen Spicer, organizer.

 

[Tmartin000]

Here is a quick look:

 

[Newsa]

Here is the best recorded tests:

The following are the preliminary results of a research study on diesel fuel Lubricity Additives. There is likely to be further commentary and explanation added at a future time.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this research was to determine the ability of multiple diesel fuel additives to replace the vital lubricity component in ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel) fuel.

HISTORY:

ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road diesel engines. This fuel burns cleaner and is less polluting than it’s predecessor, called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel. Low sulfer fuel contained less than 500 ppm of sulfer. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.
As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfer, it is inadvertently stripped of its lubricating properties. This vital lubrication is a necessary component of the diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high pressure pumps and injectors. Traditional Low sulfer diesel fuel typically contained enough lubricating ability to suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD fuel, on the other hand, is considered to be very “dry” and incapable of lubricating vital fuel delivery components. As a result, these components are at risk of premature and even catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is introduced to the system. As a result, all oil companies producing ULSD fuel must replace the lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel purchased at retail fuel stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace this lost lubricity. The potential result of using inadequately treated fuel, as indicated above, can be catastrophic. There have been many documented cases of randomly tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests prove that often times the fuel we purchase is not adequately treated and may therefore contribute to accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems. For this reason it may be prudent to use an after market diesel fuel additive to ENSURE adequate lubrication of the fuel delivery system. Additionally, many additives can offer added benefits such as cetane improver, and water separators or emulsifiers.

CONTENT:

In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity. The primary component of this study is a side-by-side laboratory analysis of each additive’s ability to replace this vital lubricity. Additionally, claims of improving cetane, water separation or emulsification, bio-diesel compatibility and alcohol content will be noted. These notes were derived from information that was readily available to consumers (via the label and internet information) and none of this information has been evaluated for validity and/or performance. Cetane information has only been noted if the word “cetane” was used in the advertising information. The words “improves power” has not been translated to mean “improves cetane” in this evaluation. Information on alcohol content is provided by indicating “contains no alcohol”. Omission of the words “contains no alcohol” does not imply that it does contain alcohol. This information was simply missing in the information available to a consumer. However, the possibility of a form of alcohol in these products is possible. Additionally, information on dosages and cost per tankful are included for comparison purposes.

How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating Ability:

Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a device called a “High Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR. The HFRR is currently the Internationally accepted, standardized method to evaluate fluids for lubricating ability. It uses a ball bearing that reciprocates or moves back and forth on a metal surface at a very high frequency for a duration of 90 minutes. The machine does this while the ball bearing and metal surface are immersed in the test fluid (in this case, treated diesel fuel). At the end of the test the ball bearing is examined under a microscope and the “wear scar” on the ball bearing is measured in microns. The larger the wear scar, the poorer the lubricating ability of the fluid. Southwest Research runs every sample twice and averages the size of the wear scar.
The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a commercially available diesel fuel should produce a wear scar of no greater than 520 microns. The Engine Manufacturers Association had requested a standard of a wear scar no greater than 460 microns, typical of the pre-ULSD fuels. Most experts agree that a 520 micron standard is adequate, but also that the lower the wear scar the better.

METHOD:

An independent research firm in Texas was hired to do the laboratory work. The cost of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive manufacturers. Declining to participate and pay for the research were the following companies: Amsoil and Power Service. Because these are popular products it was determined that they needed to be included in the study. These products were tested using funds collected by diesel enthusiasts at “dieselplace.com”. Additionally, unconventional additives such as 2-cycle oil and used motor oil were tested for their abilities to aid in diesel fuel lubricity. These were also paid for by members of “dieselplace.com”.
The study was conducted in the following manner:
-The Research firm obtained a quantity of “untreated” ULSD fuel from a supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel engines. However, this sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the fuel for the purpose of replacing lost lubricity. In other words, it was a “worst case scenario, very dry diesel fuel” that would likely cause damage to any fuel delivery system. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at the Southwest Research Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel. It was determined that this batch of fuel would be utilized as the baseline fuel for testing all of the additives. The baseline fuel HFRR score of 636 would be used as the control sample. All additives tested would be evaluated on their ability to replace lost lubricity to the fuel by comparing their scores to the control sample. Any score under 636 shows improvement to the fuels ability to lubricate the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine.

BLIND STUDY:

In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the following steps were taken:
Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-diesel sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered “experimental” at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market. It was sent directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel sample was sponsored by Renewable Energy Group. One of their suppliers, E.H. Wolf and Sons in Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of 100% soybean based bio-diesel. This sample was used to blend with the baseline fuel to create a 2% bio-diesel for testing.
Each additive was bottled separately in identical glass containers. The bottles were labeled only with a number. This number corresponded to the additive contained in the bottle. The order of numbering was done randomly by drawing names out of a hat. Only Spicer Research held the key to the additives in each bottle.
The additive samples were then sent in a box to An independent research firm. The only information given them was the ratio of fuel to be added to each additive sample. For example, bottle “A” needs to be mixed at a ratio of “480-1”. The ratio used for each additive was the “prescribed dosage” found on the bottle label for that product. Used motor oil and 2-cycle oil were tested at a rationally chosen ratio of 200:1.
The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio of each “bottled fluid” into a separate container containing the baseline fuel. The data, therefore, is meaningful because every additive is tested in the same way using the same fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness of each additive is now obtainable.

THE RESULTS:

These results are listed in the order of performance in the HFRR test. The baseline fuel used in every test started at an HFRR score of 636. The score shown is the tested HFRR score of the baseline fuel/additive blend.
Also included is the wear scar improvement provided by the additive as well as other claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive is also categorized as a Multi-purpose additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity only, non-conventional, or as an additive capable of treating both gasoline and diesel fuel.
As a convenience to the reader there is also information on price per treated tank of diesel fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per 26 gallon tank provided as “ounces of additive per 26 gallon tank”.

In Order Of Performance:

1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel
HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.
50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel
66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel
Price: market value

2)Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier
HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio
13 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment
Gas and Diesel
cetane improver, emulsifier
HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.60/tank

4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend
Multi-purpose
demulsifier
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
$0.68/tank

5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/tank
$3.65/tank

6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible
HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.87/tank

7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
$1.09/tank

8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.00/tank

9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Multi-purpose
demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.16/tank

10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
$1.58/tank

11)Howe’s Meaner Power Kleaner
Multi-purpose
Alcohol free
HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.36/tank

12)Stanadyne Performance Formula
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement
480:1 ratio
6.9 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000 miles used.
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems)
HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
price: market value

14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant
Gas or diesel
HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
427:1 ratio
7.8 oz/tank
$2.65/tank

15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech
Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive
HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.67/tank

16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.12/tank

17)Marvel Mystery Oil
Gas, oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 and newer systems)
HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel.
320:1 ratio
10.4 oz/tank
$3.22/tank

18)ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.38/tank

19)Primrose Power Blend 2003
Multi-purpose
Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, emulsifier
HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline
1066:1 ratio
3.12 oz/tank
$1.39/tank

CONCLUSIONS:

Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 460 or better. This meets the most strict requirements requested by the Engine Manufacturers Association.
Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 520 or better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel requirements for maximum wear scar in a commercially available diesel fuel.
Products 16 through 19 were found to cause the fuel/additive blend to perform worse than the baseline fuel. The cause for this is speculative. This is not unprecedented in HFRR testing and can be caused by alcohol or other components in the additives. Further investigation into the possibilities behind these poor results will investigated.
Any additive testing within +/- 20 microns of the baseline fuel could be considered to have no significant change. The repeatability of this test allows for a +/- 20 micron variability to be considered insignificant.

CREDITS:

This study would not have been possible without the participation of all companies involved and dieselplace.com. A special Thank You to all of the dieselplace.com members who generously donated toward this study and waited longer than they should have for the results. You folks are the best. Arlen Spicer, organizer.

The question was not which provides more lubricity, but which will prevent water from getting into fuel. #1 on the list Synpower Bio will be very hygroscopic.

 

[TCDiesel]

Tmartin, That test is about 10 Years old, the age does not change its value or its results. I do value the results Thanks Tmartin

Now if those additive are tested with Clear #2 Retail the results would change.

Example: MN and surrounding States are required to provide Clear #2 at 5%-20% Yearly.

Conduct those same tests on Bio-Diesel Blended at 5%-20% and the results will show better improvements, SO WHY WOULD YOU USE ADDITIVES AT ALL. My Sources (Trustworthy) clearly claim additives can cause the Retail Blends to separate, Not good at all. So before you treat your fuel with additive(s) ask to see the drop Sheets on the Fuel, In MN and Most States this info must be available or posted....MOTO down the Road from Me PO Me when I ask for it, After I made a call to Weight & Measures (MN) The station Owner made the info available to Customers upon request. Why would you use Additive on Bio Fuel? its not necessary (Lube) and it may cause separating of the refined additives.

 

[Tuesdak]

Tuesdak Thanks … I'm enjoying the conversation, members and readers, its NOT my goal to place fear in Ownership ( or anyone in this thread), My goal is to avoid what can happen.

Its not that difficult to install Transfer or Auxiliary Filtering, the Cost varies according to setup..IMO nothing can replace the ease of knowing you have any issue covered if in the unlikely case of getting Contaminate Fuel.

GTG.

Well said. I am equally critical of all OEM's. I merely point out some of the bad things that can happen and hope it never happens to others. When it does there is not a lot of info out there on what has changed in diesel fuel. The bugs in fuel vs. at the water fuel layer old time diesel folks are used to is the biggest change in diesel due to Biodiesel blends. Biodiesel's biggest change (along with ULSD) is due to the higher water content the fuel blend can suspend.

It's time to take the "Engine oil" religious level of discussion and apply it to what's sold as as Diesel Fuel today. The changes to diesel fuel to get to ULSD and now the addition of Biodiesel to diesel fuel really warrants an article in the TDR. The old study is interesting but diesel fuel has changed since the study was done. Biodiesel is now nearly mandatory and Biodiesel providing lube to ULSD, well, what adds lube to this blend? Today it's common to get 5%-20% blends at the pump. Below 5% isn't even labeled. The Proven Unreliable by other OEM's CP4 that Cummins unwisely decided, or had, to use really brings this lube issue up. GM didn't switch away from the low cost CP4 unless Delphi was even a lower bidder or GM ate enough warranty to need to cut warranty costs via a change. Think how expensive of a change this was for GM to have to redesign, test, and EPA re-certify the non-CP4 Duramax fuel system as well as now stock both a CP4 and Delphi system parts for repairs.

Word is use everything including ATF in the fuel tank. OK the injection system may live through use of ATF, but, what about the really expensive catalytic converter and DPF? Engine oil standards have changed to remove things that ruin both of those expensive items just from oil vapor through the CDR system and what little oil the engine uses. So dumping ATF, engine oil, and other unknown and not designed for diesel fuel additives that contain the poisons to cats and ash to clog a DPF directly in diesel fuel, yeah, puts expensive after treatment parts at risk.

What about additives you added to diesel fuel ruining the other sensors in the exhaust?

What in the "designed for diesel fuel" and safe for DPF system additives would add lube to sub-standard fuel? Spare me the "fuel is fine because I been lucky": good for you and I hope your luck holds out. Did I mention save your fuel receipts in case you get unlucky? I have turned the State of AZ "Loose" on a Biodiesel supplier and they failed about every standard the fuel should have met including failing a test for high sulfur. They didn't even meet ULSD standards. The leftover "methanol" from the biodiesel process did a number on hoses, yellow metal, and ruined lift pumps that were not "Meth" rated. Some lift pumps for older diesel rigs are "obsolete" as their warranty is void with methanol use as it can ruin the valves in em.

The concern of @Signal73 over what to do about water:
Do you (And by you I mean in the 3rd person anyone) recommend a product like Drygas (something with alcohol or marketed to suspend the water) that sucks up all the water in the tank and gets it past the water separator to score up the injectors and CP injection pump?

Or do you recommend something that "drops the water out of the fuel" where it can harmlessly sit in the bottom of the fuel tank... Or as the additive suddenly hits the rest of the fuel system: drops water out of the fuel IN the injection pump, fuel lines, etc, and now as droplets of water in the fuel blow the injector tips clean off as it flashes to steam?

Maybe you recommend to add NOTHING and simply let the water separator do it's job? Consider we now have plastic fuel tanks that don't have the condensation problems as bad as metal tanks did.

 

[TFucili]

 

[Newsa]

Could a high pressure pump failure ever cause a rumaway engine? I know the 1990's 12V cummins had mechanical fuel pumps. But does switching off the ignition kill the fuel pressure in the pump or metering device?

 

[dieselshadow]

The injectors are electronic and what does all the fueling. HPFP doesn’t control fueling, only pressure and supply to the injectors.

 

[TCDiesel]

Newsa, NO the fuel is electronic controlled VIA FCA/Injectors, The HPCR CP3s blow up ,The CP4 self-destructs. Both pumps have monitoring COVs. HPCR gland and bang and shut down. on OEM setup... Now some Racers/pullers use switches on the FCAs that go to 0Vs those can run away and that's why they have fuel shut off and guillotines