2nd Gen Non-Engine/Transmission Fuel Additive

[RVnwithRAM]

I haven't driven my truck towing since last year and I have a trip planned for September , my question with this low sulfur fuel should I use an additive in my fuel . I was thinking about using seafoam as I have used it in my old gasoline engine truck with good results . It reads on the can for a diesel has any of you guys used seafoam in your Cummins engine ?

 

[JR]

If you have bio diesel available that is one of the best things you can be fueling your truck with.

OptiLube and Stanadyne have received high ratings in lubricity for diesels. TCW-3 2 cycle oil at an ounce per gallon has also been tested and proven to be a better lube additive than many name brand additives for the first and second gen trucks, including Sea Foam, Power Service, and Lucas. Stay away from anything that has any kind of alcohol in it, defeats the purpose of adding a lube additive.

 

[GAmes]

TCW-3 2 cycle oil at an ounce per gallon has also been tested and proven to be a better lube additive than many name brand additives for the first and second gen trucks, .

Really?? Who tested it?? Please don't link that worthless "study" that was posted on the Duramax site a few years ago. It is so flawed that I can't believe anyone who has enough intelligence to buy a Cummins would give it a second look.

 

[JR]

Really?? Who tested it?? Please don't link that worthless "study" that was posted on the Duramax site a few years ago. It is so flawed that I can't believe anyone who has enough intelligence to buy a Cummins would give it a second look.

It was performed by SouthWest Research Laboratory, in your home state. It may very well have been on a Duramax forum as well as many others over the years. If you have anything to dispute their findings, other than another cheap shot at me, I'd be interested to see it.

 

[GAmes]

The study on the D-Max site was a joke, and was not performed by SouthWest. I'll give Google a try, but I don't have any confidence that I'll find a credible report.

 

[JR]

Not sure what you keep referring to but here it is.



http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=974029



I'm not one to believe everything I hear but to me it seems like a legit test. If you have some facts to dispute the test I'd be interested to see anything you've got. Aside from your opinion and derogatory remarks.

 

[GAmes]

Google takes me to the BS report on the D-Max site. Totally flawed, and unbelievable. If you have any knowledge of proper testing protocol the questions should jump out at you. First they make a statement that is not verified by any testing including their own. "ULSD fuel, on the other hand, is considered to be very “dry” and incapable of lubricating vital fuel delivery components. " You should ask yourself, if they in fact had a machine to test lubricity, why didn't they test samples from several diesel fueling locations? Where is the data that supports the statement? The "test" was performed using fuel not available to the public. What good is that? They also didn't mention the "test" was performed at a commercial lab, not by an independent, non-biased facility.



My only observation about those who bought the blarney only proves P. T. Barnum was right on track.

 

[JR]

In 1993 diesel had a sulfur content of 500 ppm. Compare that to todays standards at 15 ppm, it doesn't take a study or a test to realize today's fuels are much drier than the fuels our trucks were designed to run off of. Even an idiot with a Cummins can see that. As to the fuel they used in the test, what difference does that make? As long as they used the same sample of fuel for each test, the end results are going to be the same. They could have used a sample of fuel from 20 years ago, that isn't going to change the performance of each of the additives. You seem pretty set in your ways and are certainly are entitled to your own opinion, but I've yet to see you provide any facts supporting your beliefs.
I'm not in any way promoting TCW-3, obviously there are better additives out there. I'm not even going to jump into mileage gains or performance gains, (never experienced either) but it is hard to dispute the fact today's fuel has changed drastically over the years and is not what the older engines were designed to run off of.
On the other hand, can you find any tests to prove TCW-3 is harmful to the pre Common Rail fuel systems? I would be interested in reading anything you may have, once again, other than opinions.

 

[fest3er]

On the other hand, can you find any tests to prove TCW-3 is harmful to the pre Common Rail fuel systems? I would be interested in reading anything you may have, once again, other than opinions.

Look at the additives in 2-smoke oil. Then decide if they are compatible with a high pressure fuel system with extremely small spaces between parts (tolerances). A reference: http://www.sea-doo.net/techarticles/oil/oil.htm.



A long thread concerning the use of 2-smoke oil in diesels: http://www.freel2.com/forum/topic878.html?highlight=oil.



You can also look up 'tribology' if you want to get technical.



If I was in a spot and had no other choice, I'd consider use straight oil with no additives in the fuel. But as long as I have a choice, I'll use proper cetane boost and diesel lubricity enhancers in my truck.

 

[BIGNASTY]

D4L must be something in the water south that makes um like that!

 

[JR]

By "straight oil" I assume your referring to engine oil, which is not designed to be emulsified in fuel or burned in a combustion chamber. But you would run that over 2 cycle oil which is designed to do both?

Neither one of those links proves anything, I only read through the first few pages of the second link which appears to be largely opinionated in favor of using TCW-3. It even talks of Mercedes using it on a cross country trip with positive results.

I'll be the first to admit I am no engineer and I don't pretend to be for one minute. If the test I linked is bogus, I have yet to see it legitimately disputed. I am open to and would be interested in anything that proves it is detrimental to any pre common rail engine. So far I have only seen opinions.

 

[JR]

D4L must be something in the water south that makes um like that!

Probably all that natural spring fed bottled water :-laf

 

[BIGNASTY]

Probably all that natural spring fed bottled water :-laf

With minerals added for flavor and extra TEXTURE!!!!

 

[GAmes]

Here is the deal. If you are going to publish an article that is supposed to be a scientific study it would seem prudent to follow a scientific format. The article started out with the premise that ULSD needs some sort of lubricity enhancer, yet gives no reference to that "fact". Just repeating a myth that was started with no supporting evidence, then repeating it does not give it credibility. We can pretend that the numbers are accurate, but again, so what? If you pour water into a bowl of water does it become wetter? Why add a lubricant to something that doesn't need additional lubrication? To beat a dead horse, where is the evidence that any of the following things (highlighted in red) are true?



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



All ULSD fuel purchased at retail fuel stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace this lost lubricity.



In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity.



There is also 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. yet not even one is provided. Can you find any?



I have a standard P7100 pump with over a million miles on it. There have been thousands of gallons of pump ULSD pumped through it, close to 4000 just this year. It has never had a fuel lubed part replaced in it. My original injectors passed a pop test with over 400k miles on them. I replaced them because so much fuel had been pushed through them that the holes in the nozzles were enlarged. The PDR 215s I replaced them with were used until I installed my rebuild. I never had them tested since I believe a new engine requires new injectors.



So pretend that the premise is accurate and a lubrication additive is needed. How about the aftermath of pumping gallons of 2 cycle oil through the combustion chambers. In my case, that would be 31 this year. Where are the numbers that show the flash point of 2 cycle oil? If it is higher, or lower, what are the effects to the pistons and injector nozzles? Where is the cost effective payback? At $20 a gallon that is over $600 additional cost to me. When do I break even?



Bottom line is neither you or I know if there is any harm in pouring 2 cycle oil into the tank. The "study" is bogus. But, if I were to spend my money on something that is questionly required, it would be Stanadyne. That is what the military adds to the JP8 that is used in their non-tubine powered vehicles.

 

[BIGNASTY]

Just got off the phone with 3 different companies, Tesoro (BP ARCO), Chevron, Exon Mobil, Talked to the guys at the rack that run the things called TO's (terminal operators that I have known for quite a few years) if you have the idea that your fuel does NOT have additives in it, THINK AGAIN, the LUBRICITY additive that is added is Nalco EC 5711e, there is another but has NOTHING to do with lubricity its an anti static thing that is added so the people and rack DONT BLOW UP!!!! when its loaded into a truck, or dropped into the ground at the station.



ME

 

[BIGNASTY]

They don't add this CRAP from the goodness of their hearts they do it BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO. One company made 46 BILLION dollars in PROFIT do you think that they would put something in that COST'S THEM MONEY? if they weren't forced to?



Again ME

 

[GAmes]

Just got off the phone with 3 different companies, Tesoro (BP ARCO), Chevron, Exon Mobil, Talked to the guys at the rack that run the things called TO's (terminal operators that I have known for quite a few years) if you have the idea that your fuel does NOT have additives in it, THINK AGAIN, the LUBRICITY additive that is added is Nalco EC 5711e, there is another but has NOTHING to do with lubricity its an anti static thing that is added so the people and rack DONT BLOW UP!!!! when its loaded into a truck, or dropped into the ground at the station.

That reinforces what I have to say. Pump fuel requires no additional additives. Thanks Big.

 

[BIGNASTY]

That should have been an a not an e on the additive sorry I got fat fingered

 

[BIGNASTY]

To be fair I was also told that the amount that is put in wasn't very much, I asked how much is not very much? DROPS TO THE GALLON!!! they aint going to give anything away, its PROFIT!!!!!! AND MONEY!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BIGNASTY]

When I ran fuel I did mostly commercial accounts for half of the 27 years, at that time Diesel was Diesel. Then when they made it go to what ever it was before ULSD MAJOR trucking companies started to drop additives into the tanks at their facilities before I dropped so it would be mixed, Frito Lay, Toy R US, FedEx, UPS, England that's also part Prime, Swift, Overnight, Motor Cargo and some other PRETTY BIG COMPANIES!!!! went the same route EVEN THOU THE FUEL HAD ADDITIVE IN IT FROM THE RACK!!!!!!!!!! must be something to this way of thinking, even Chevron put in additive at the pump which was at the rack for our truck to fill up, we dropped in our truck tanks and filled for the next shift and they did the same. JMO and I don't need to have a knock down drag out with this, when I put USLD in my tank in goes ALGAMATED,

ME