2nd Gen Non-Engine/Transmission Fuel Additive

[jgillott]

Oh, and for the record, I use a little shot of PowerService per tank on my trucks. Had some problems with gelling in the winter years ago and it has done the trick. Lubricity is a welcomed bonus. Oh, and a dose of ashless 2-cycle engine oil when an FCA starts to stick a little, which is one of the few little complaints I have on the 3rd gens.

 

[Killgore]

Getting back to off the subject - Not long after we got married I ran into an old friend and introduced my wife with my first wife's name. Without hesitation she fired back,"I don't think so!" I still cringe when I think about it and that was fifteen years ago. Ouch!



Ed

 

[GAmes]

Nobody EVER said VP-44's did not expire before ULSD came along, just pointed out the subsequent failures had a lot to do with the reduction in native lubrication properties of diesel fuel.



You are basically arguing a moot point, your IP does not strictly require the properties being discussed here.

That is exactly where this conversation started. There are laboratories whose sole function is to determine why mechanical devices fail. Where is the evidence that ULSD causes failures of injection pumps? The increase in failure couldn't possibly be because the introduction of ULSD happened when VP-44s were as much as 9 years old could it? So far all that has been presented are anecdotes and hyperbole.



Whether or not you think that P7100s need as much internal lube as any other close tolerance pump is the moot point. What I know is that all those fuel lubed componants in my pump have retained the close tolerance required to continue to provide presurized fuel to my injectors. I only presented the Lycoming fuel controls as evidence that materials have existed for over 50 years that do not require the mythical higher lubricity qualities of LSD to function correctly and for a long time.

 

[Killgore]

Well one things for sure. If I ever get myself hemmed up in a corner and can't laugh, talk or fight my way out of it, I hope you're there to back me up. You sure are a persistent cuss that won't give up and my hat's off to you for that anyway. However, I still think you're having a $2000 argument over forty cents worth of whistle juice. Yeah, and I'll buy the beer!



Ed

 

[cerberusiam]

There are laboratories whose sole function is to determine why mechanical devices fail. Where is the evidence that ULSD causes failures of injection pumps?

Exactly. The fuel in its native form did not meet the ISO standards for lubricity that were applied to the operation of the internally lubed IP's. That in itself is the evidence. Add to that the evidence that Blue Chip and every other builder has noted that failures from lack of lube increased at the same time of the implementation and it is not hard to draw conclusions from that. Simple cause and effect analysis.

Whether or not you think that P7100s need as much internal lube as any other close tolerance pump is the moot point.

I don't think I know there is a huge difference between an P7100 pump and the rest when it comes to fuel lubing. Basing all your arguments on that fact is the reason why you will never be taken seriously. It is what is is and you can't change it.

 

[BIGNASTY]

"Treat her like you did the first time you wanted into her pants!!!!!!!!!"

Now that's some excellent advice BIG. Even worth a dope slap.

Blu when I wanted to be there I was the most congenial guy on the planet and happy to do what I had to to achieve the above mentioned GOAL!!! I don't know for sure but in these times and being that my Daughter is 26 she's a BIG girl and has been on her own from when she was 22. I have no doubt that she's a good catch for this young man that she is about to take into her life, im no prude and don't expect she is either, Penny nor I have EVER denied them the conversation NO MATTER WHAT TOPIC it was, both of our Children can talk to us about ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL.

Picture this... ... The wife was expecting our daughter. I walked in the kitchen while she was making my breakfast. One of those moments occured when the words that shouldn't have been in my mind just happened to slip out. I still have the lump on my head to prove it.



Just remind your soon to be son-in-law that the words "God your *** is huge" should never be said near any woman, especially a pregnant one near a heavy metal object.

When My Daughter was flying around the world working as a flight nurse she couldn't get enough exercise and gained some weight. She said something to me about her weight and I said I don't know the answer, We had dinner she ate like a Blind, Starving Dog in a meat locker. I said what to know why your *** looks like the back end of a Freight Van with both doors open? Slow down and you'll get full faster and wont eat so much!!! Guess Both the wife and her left their sense of humor someplace else that evening.

 

[GAmes]

That in itself is the evidence. Add to that the evidence that Blue Chip and every other builder has noted that failures from lack of lube increased at the same time of the implementation and it is not hard to draw conclusions from that. Simple cause and effect analysis.



I don't think I know there is a huge difference between an P7100 pump and the rest when it comes to fuel lubing. Basing all your arguments on that fact is the reason why you will never be taken seriously. It is what is is and you can't change it.

No, that is not the evidence, you just want it to be. The so called "study" supposedly had the apparatus required to test and prove that ULSD from the pump was lacking in lubricity. No evidence was presented. Somewhere the author of the ruse is laughing his *** off. Cause and effect? Only applicable if the cause is scientifically pinpointed, and it has not been in this case. You try this avenue only because you do not have any proof that injector pump failures can be caused by ULSD.



Your opinion about lubricity requirements for a p-pump is only an opinion. It is not fact just because you pontificate and parrot internet myths.

 

[cerberusiam]

Your opinion about lubricity requirements for a p-pump is only an opinion.

Its not an opinion when it is documented fact.

It is not fact just because you pontificate and parrot internet myths.

The effects of less than adequate lubrication and filtration are well documented by multiple sources using scientific methods. Those very results are so compelling both Cummins and Bosch have adopted fuel quality standards that directly address the issue. Pretty much shoots holes in every argument you present when the manufacturers directly contradict your opinion.

 

[JR]

Hey Cerb, you gettin tired of beating your head of that wall yet?:-laf:-laf

I argued those very points and even provided some links on the specs from Cummins and Bosch. Turns out, they only published all that info to make a buck off idiots like me :-laf:-laf

 

[cerberusiam]

Hey Cerb, you gettin tired of beating your head of that wall yet?:-laf:-laf

Yep, done. Just wanted to see how far down the path of insanity he was willing to go to support an unsupportable position. It is one thing to argue theoretical outcomes as was done 10 years ago, quite another to ignore established fact in support of an invalid comparison. Slow holiday week, we needed drama I guess. :-laf

 

[GAmes]

Its not an opinion when it is documented fact.







The effects of less than adequate lubrication and filtration are well documented by multiple sources using scientific methods. Those very results are so compelling both Cummins and Bosch have adopted fuel quality standards that directly address the issue. Pretty much shoots holes in every argument you present when the manufacturers directly contradict your opinion.

You keep saying how well documented all your statements are, but never provide a document.



The fact that Bosch and Cummins adapted fuel quality standards enforces my position. Neither have stated that ULSD from the pump lacks required lubricity and therefore requires an additive.

 

[cerberusiam]

You keep saying how well documented all your statements are, but never provide a document.

The fact that Bosch and Cummins adapted fuel quality standards enforces my position. Neither have stated that ULSD from the pump lacks required lubricity and therefore requires an additive.

Why re-post the same thing D4L provided? Posts 22,23 and 30 provide the documentation you claim doesn't exist, from both Bosch and Cummins.

They clearly state that the ULSD from the refinery lacks the needed lubrication. Nuff said.

 

[Sticks]

Doesn't this thread fall under the "No oil wars" in the forum rules? The crux of the argument is lubrication - oil.

73 posts and we have, what, 3 actual responses to the OPs question?

Give it a rest guys and agree to disagree.

 

[GAmes]

Why re-post the same thing D4L provided? Posts 22,23 and 30 provide the documentation you claim doesn't exist, from both Bosch and Cummins.



They clearly state that the ULSD from the refinery lacks the needed lubrication. Nuff said.

I have re-read those links. No where do they state that ULSD from the pump lacks the needed lubrication.



The link in post 22 contains; In some instances, the introduction of low sulfur diesel fuel to older engines may affect fuel system components or loosen deposits in fuel tanks. As part of a thorough maintenance program, customers should monitor diesel-powered vehicles closely for potential fuel system leaks or premature fuel filter plugging during the changeover to low sulfur diesel fuel.



Nothing about lubricity problems there.



The link in post 23; We don't know for sure that BOSCH considered low-sulfur fuel when designing the pump, since the pump is fuel lubricated and today's fuels are low-sulfur.



Cummins insists that the pump is designed for low sulfur fuel and no injector pump lubrication should be added to the fuel.



No joy there either.



Post 30 has some pictures of damage caused by low lubricity, but no indication what so ever that ULSD from a pump is the culprit. D4L states "I would place a fair wager if someone were to randomly sample fuel across the country, there would be a lot of variances in the fuel. " So he admits there is no actual proof that pump fuel is lacking.



It is obvious to me that chicken little has many cousins.

 

[Tractorat]

Cummins insists that the pump is designed for low sulfur fuel and no injector pump lubrication should be added to the fuel.

Not taking sides here. But it seems to me that if cummins were to admit that the pump had problems with the fuel, they would open themselves up to a whole lot of liability and litigation.

 

[HHhuntitall]

Not taking sides here. But it seems to me that if cummins were to admit that the pump had problems with the fuel, they would open themselves up to a whole lot of liability and litigation.

Yep. Someone's been paying attention and thinking for themselves..... :-laf

For myself, I look at the simple failure rate and reasons for repair... . On the VP44s, I see the biggest failure in the electrical connections... . The earlier P7100, PT/PTGs, and especially the VE44 are prone to failure from what is obviously poor lubrication when viewing the internal components effected. In talking to pump repairmen from both Cummins and various repair shops across the country, the common consensus is poor lubrication. I'm no chemical engineer, and I'm no mechanical engineer, but I think I'm intelligent enough to gather the commonalities and deduct my own conclusions... .

The way I see it, the EPA regulations for emissions is to blame for the majority of failures, be it the lead reduction in the solder used in the electrical connection, or the lowering of sulfur in diesel fuel..... and all we do is complain to each other.

 

[GAmes]

Not taking sides here. But it seems to me that if cummins were to admit that the pump had problems with the fuel, they would open themselves up to a whole lot of liability and litigation.

I can't see how. ULSD wasn't on the market until about 8 years after the VP-44 was fielded, 13 years for the p-pump. If anyone was in a position to prove that ULSD was causing pump and/or injector failures it would be Bosch and Cummins. Without adequate testing, which for all we know has been done, the proponents of additives are left with nothing but rumor and speculation. If the testing has been done I, for one, would love to see the results. Show me something that proves pump fuel requires an additive, I can live with it. Not only that, I'll buy it.

 

[Tractorat]

I can't see how. ULSD wasn't on the market until about 8 years after the VP-44 was fielded, 13 years for the p-pump.

Not necessarily a good answer. I dont know when the usld mandate was given a date to be mandatory. But at some point prior, if there was a problem, bosch/cummins could be held liable if their product didnt work with the new fuel spec.

Show me something that proves pump fuel requires an additive, I can live with it. Not only that, I'll buy it.

Once again, In not taking sides here. Im not a mechanic or engineer, and I just dont know. But I follow this kind of thread hoping to some day be enlightened.

 

[cerberusiam]

CLEARLY Cummins recognizes the lack of lube and even suggests that adding additives is a good idea. The only question left is the lack of ability to interpret plain english... .

#ad


The complete source is here http://www.cumminsfiltration.com/pdfs/product_lit/americas_brochures/LT32599_08.pdf.

Bosch has signed off on studies in an attempt to head off the negative publicity they have gotten. It is CLEARLY the fuel that is the issue because THIS PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST IN EUROPE!!!!!!!

http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf


Contrary to claims from the uninformed, both Bosch and Cummins recognized early on the ULSD was an issue and attempted to inform the general public that problems would ensue. Even as far back as 2003 this has been known as a potential problem and it bit big time with the CR systems. All the documentation has now been posted twice. All the pertinent points have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt AND backed up with 10 years of data on the LSD fuels.

If one chooses not to believe Cummins and Bosch, call them and tell them they are a bunch liars that are ripping people off and see what response one gets. :-laf

 

[GAmes]

CLEARLY Cummins recognizes the lack of lube and even suggests that adding additives is a good idea. The only question left is the lack of ability to interpret plain english.



If one chooses not to believe Cummins and Bosch, call them and tell them they are a bunch liars that are ripping people off and see what response one gets. :-laf

No, it is not clear. Are you hanging your hat on Lubricity additives are added

at the fuel pipeline rack, however, lubricity additives sold in the aftermarket can be considered insurance to provide fuel system wear protection.



or results from when low sulphur diesel (not ULSD) was introduced in CA in 1993? If you had done your homework you would know that the pumps affected 20 years ago were rotary pumps, not p-pumps and certainly not VP-44s.



I notice that you have abandoned the link that contains Cummins insists that the pump is designed for low sulfur fuel and no injector pump lubrication should be added to the fuel. :-laf



I do believe Cummins and Bosch, and you haven't provided ONE THING that shows they believe ULSD from the pump does not contain adequate lubricity. You read into the "plain english" of the articles you have presented and then throw in a few red herings for effect. Your arguements are based on (please forgive me for repeating myself, but it doesn't seem to bother you) anecdotes, hyperbole ("The P7100 would run on fermented potato juice and probably thrive. " How stupid is that?), rumors and speculation. Repeating the same tired none-facts will not make them true. Dump anything you want into your tank, like I said before, it is your money. You certainly haven't made a convincing case to anyone except those who already have drank the kool-aid.