Here I am

2nd Gen Non-Engine/Transmission Fuel Additive

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

Engine/Transmission (1998.5 - 2002) diesel smell

Status
Not open for further replies.
That reinforces what I have to say. Pump fuel requires no additional additives. Thanks Big.



That is a near certainty *today*. When ULSD first came out, there were areas that experienced abnormally high injection pump failures (such as the Houston vicinity; ask gtobey) where #2 oil did not meet ASTM lubricity requirements. It was a clusterfudge because fuel transporters (pipelines) could not provide jet fuel with any trace of additives. Thus it fell on the area distributors to add lubricity to the fuel; and those distributors sometimes fell down on the job (mistakes or miscommunication). #2 oil lubricity around the country was, mmm, inconsistent.



Today, I would expect distributors to have the additives down to the usual 'science'. I would also expect #2 lubricity around the country to be fairly uniform and consistent. But machines fail and humans err. If I had a new truck/engine I truly cared about, I'd still add some amount of lubricity additive to the fuel. Just in case.



As I said before, if I was between a rock and a hard place, had to increase fuel's lubricity and had no recommended product, I'd take my chances with straight motor oil with no additives. Any oil with additives would be my last resort. 2-smoke oil's additives are designed to coat metal surfaces, then be burned off by ignition--which is absent in fuel pumps and lines.
 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cumminsfiltration.com%2Fpdfs%2Fproduct_lit%2Famericas_brochures%2FLT32599_08.pdf&ei=USgeUqrFAZTRsATDv4GwBQ&usg=AFQjCNEZjPBW0VxRKbCg4C97k6nlju2mKw&sig2=No7JRYnjtDbbnlqT9cldtA



Even Cummins recognizes the lack of lubrication in ULSD and the benefits of adding lubrication back into the fuel for older fuel systems. If you take the time to read it, they even include the mechanical injection pumps and the early electronic injection vp44, (probably the most negatively affected of all pumps). The additives put into ULSD cater to the modern fuel systems . Cetane improver, biocides, and anti waxing, as well as other additives, are needed largely due to the removal of sulfur from the fuel. The link I posted didn't hit on ULSD and the differences between it and the older 500 ppm fuel because that is not the test. Again, if the same variable is used in each of the tests, how can the out come of the comparisons be any different? Are you implying that all of the other additives tested are bogus as well?

I think it's great that you have been able to rack up many miles with no additives. Good for you. But if I smoked 2 packs a day for 80 years and had a clean bill of health does that mean everyone should be able to expect the same results? There are exceptions to everything.

Your absolutely right, you or I do not have the credentials to determine if it is or isn't detrimental to the fuel system. That is up to the engineers. You keep saying the test is bogus, but you have yet to provide any facts on why it is bogus. The HFFR test is one of two Widely accepted methods of lubricity testing. Is the research company bogus? I can point you to a number of people who have been running the stuff for hundreds of thousands of miles on the same injectors and pumps, at a lot less than 20 bucks a gallon. I have seen the injector tips with not one spot of tarnish or deposits on them. TCW-3 is ashless and leaves no deposits like engine oil and trans oil. Like it or not it is a widely used additive. If it was detrimental there would be posts all over the place. I bet you can't find one single report of TCW-3 causing a fuel system or engine failure.

Again, I concede there are better additives out there. I am in no way stating otherwise. But show me in the form of a test or study where it has been deemed harmful.
 
*2-smoke oil's additives are designed to coat metal surfaces, then be burned off by ignition--which is absent in fuel pumps and lines.



That is exactly where they are needed, on the metal surfaces of the fuel components. ;)

Then the oil is burned at compression and unlike ATF and engine oil, no deposits Or ash are left behind.
 
Even Cummins recognizes the lack of lubrication in ULSD and the benefits of adding lubrication back into the fuel for older fuel systems.



You keep saying the test is bogus, but you have yet to provide any facts on why it is bogus.



But show me in the form of a test or study where it has been deemed harmful.



From your link; Additionally, low sulfur diesel fuel has lower lubricity due to the refining de-sulfurization process. 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.

Just where does Cummins recognize the lack of lubrication in ULSD? I see them jumping into the fuel additive market because of the widespread myth and cashing in on your and many other people's phobia.



I did, you just refuse to see it. The "study" is bogus because it only pretends to be a scientific study. None of the initial hypothesises (the ones I highlighted in red) were documented or proven. Without that, the rest of the article is just rhetoric.



As for harmful I never said it is, to the engine anyway. The harm is just to the wallet. A total waste of money.
 
Last edited:
I don't care about ANY TEST INFO, I have never let ANYONE'S opinion sway mine. I don't believe the NEWS or the NEWSPAPER or anyone that has anything to do with ANY political party, Government or State agencies. Companies have their own agenda its to make money. Good or Bad what ever is best to their pocket is what the test or info is going to show. Cummins is NOT in the business of telling you what is going to make your truck last longer, they are into selling and fixing the things when they break, wouldn't that be a little self defeating to prove to you that it would make it LAST LONGER?? Unless they had the market on lube's!!! Same goes for Dodge do you REALLY think that they care about you, me or my dog? they want you to come in open up your wallet and fork over the greenbacks and get the Heck out.

I use lube when EVER I fill with ULSD and I use Amalgamated, if you don't and have gotten great service out of your equipment GREAT!! but then don't expect me to change just because you did.

People tell me that using my homemade BIODIESEL is BAD!!!!!!!!! for my 3rd gen, ive been using B100 for the almost 4 years ive been up in MT during the summers and would use it year round if I could keep it from turning to JELLO in the winter without using some BS chemical. Has it had any problems NO!!!!!! no test needed for that one!!!

Bottom line is OPINIONS are like BUTT HOLES EVERYBODY HAS ONE!!!!!!

ME :D
 
Last edited:
As far as refinery added additives go. A test was done in the seattle area a few years ago for ethanol. Some stations were found to have as much little as 5%. Some were found to have over 25%. It was supposed to be only 10%
 
LSD had an HFRR of 390-450. This is the fuel that the early vp's were choking on, and which Cummins conceded to being a drier fuel than the pump was capable of handling long term.

ULSD has an HFFR of 600-800, similar to the test fuel used in the "bogus" test. ( ASTM specs are 520, the Engine Manufacturers Association is rated even lower at 460. ULSD fails these specs right out of the box without the additives that are put in at the racks. Are all of the additives added in the proper dose, EVERY time, at every rack? 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. For an extra 2 bucks a fill up, it's an easy decision for me. Your decision is obviously different, but that doesn't mean the choice to use an additive is bs or that the test is bs. All it means is you disagree with it, plain and simple.



Little comparison between 400 HFFRR and untreated ULSD. The way I understand it (help me out BIG) the fuel is delivered to the rack untreated (which is what happens in the bottom photo if BIG is too busy checking out the melons in the Porsche convertable driving by and forgets what he's doing... . :D) compared to the older spec LSD fuel in the top photo.

bosch-testing-vp44-pass.jpg


bosch-testing-vp44-fail.jpg


bosch-testing-vp44-pass.jpg


bosch-testing-vp44-fail.jpg
 
Last edited:
This has been an enjoyable as well as interesting thread that has boiled down to everyone at least agreeing that it is an individual decision. As for myself, I consider the Racon that I add to the tank as an insurance premium that I buy on my truck every time I fill up. I use Valvoline Extreme Premium Blue synthetic, run good tires, and wash the old girl quite often, etc. etc. I also buy insurance, take medical presciptions, and exercise on a regular basis so that I feel good, act reasonable on some ocassions, and try to extend my expected lifespan beyond the genetic blueprint that I inherited. Again, it's a personal decision. Can it be monetarily justified? - Yes, no, maybe. Am I going to change? No, I've always tried to afford the best and maintained it like I was going to keep it for a lifetime. A dollar or two isn't going to break me one way or the other, especiallly if some doofus on the loading rack is having a bad day and doesn't add the magic package. Peace of mind is important the older you get and the less complex life becomes.



Ed
 
Well, I agree, this really has been an interesting thread. I've heard most of the info before and I agree that the ULSD additives have to be inconsistent if you're adding it in somewhere after refining it. Especially "at the rack". I have added a 2 um fuel filter after my stock filter to further clean the fuel so I can use a gallon or so of waste oil to make sure the VP44 is well lubed. I have put 2 VP44s on my truck before I decided to run a little more lube in the fuel. Do I need it? I don't know but I refuse to believe that it hurts it and its free so why not?
 
A little bit of trivia that a lot of people don't know. Canada and California were changed over to ULSD completely before the rest of us started the transition in 2007. Does anyone besides me find it amazing that there wasn't any paranoia then since their transitions were completed pretty quietly? It wasn't until some moron posted on the internet that suphur is a lubricant and therefore ULSD needs a lubricity enhancer that all this nonsense started. Thankfully, the members of the TDR are smarter than that. Apparantly there is now only the job to overcome the phobia of not enough additive being mixed with the fuel.



More than half a century has passed since fuel controls for jet and shaft turbine engines were developed that could handle jet fuel without failing. I personnally burned thousands of gallons of Jet-A and JP-4. Between 85 and 100 gallons per flight hour in UH-1s and Cobras and abot 135 gallons an hour in Apaches. In case you haven't heard, jet fuel has virtually no lubricity. So if the materials and research are that old, why is everyone so paranoid? Does no one think that technology isn't employed in injection pumps?



Has anyone started a conversation with a stranger and immediately knew that what the stranger said was either an exaggeration or an out right lie? After that point, did you trust that whatever else the stranger had to say was truthful? Maybe it's just me, but since the opening paragraphs of the "study" are exaggerations and lies, I have no faith that anything past it is accurate.



I have put about 600,000 miles on my truck since the change over. According to my records very close to 43,500 gallons. If fuel quality is really an issue wouldn't the odds say I would have somewhere along the line got a few tankfuls of this bad fuel? I buy fuel all over the US and Canada, so I bought ULSD before I even knew it was different.

Why isn't my pump damaged? Do I have one of a kind? I doubt it.



I listen to a program on the Sirius trucking channel that is hosted by a small fleet owner. He doesn't use additives other than for gell prevention. He has tested several, but none are cost effective or live up to their claims. So, to that end, I did a little stubby pencil work. Current prices of Power Service for 250 gallons is $18 at WM. TCW3 is $14 and Stanadyne Lubricity Formula for 500 gallons of diesel is $29 shipped. Assuming the average cost over the last seven years is 75% of todays price, and if I had believed the blarney and had added the exact amount of ounces to gallons (which is pretty much impossible) I would have spent $1892 on Stanadyne, $2349 on Power Service and a whopping $3570 on 2 cycle oil, a product that isn't designed for diesel engines. All of those numbers are far and away more than the cost of a rebuilt pump.



The lesson learned is, if you are that fearful of the boogy-man, put the money in a savings account. The odds are you won't have to spend it on a new pump.
 
Last edited:
GAmes,
I dont have a side to fall on here because I just dont know. But if your truck is a 97, doesnt that mean that it does not have a vp44 and therefore not subject to the bad things that they say the new fuel can do to your injector ?

And unless those helicopters had vp44's in them, doesnt that mean that they were not subject to being taken down by the lack of sulpher (at least the lack of damage to a vp44 that legend has it that the lack of sulpher will do ?
 
GAmes,
I dont have a side to fall on here because I just dont know. But if your truck is a 97, doesnt that mean that it does not have a vp44 and therefore not subject to the bad things that they say the new fuel can do to your injector ?

And unless those helicopters had vp44's in them, doesnt that mean that they were not subject to being taken down by the lack of sulpher (at least the lack of damage to a vp44 that legend has it that the lack of sulpher will do ?

His comparisons are worlds apart. Jet fuel is (or was) a mixture of kero/gasoline. The difference is the military is the government, and for the longest time they didn't have to adhere to the same epa standards. Take the Clean Air Act for example. The Air Force got around it for years, under the clause that they were all "non road" engines. Non road or mobile engines were not subject to the Clean Air Act. For all I know, it may still be that way. My point is, the epa has us designing equipment around fuel standards, not the other way around.
 
LSD had an HFRR of 390-450. This is the fuel that the early vp's were choking on, and which Cummins conceded to being a drier fuel than the pump was capable of handling long term.
ULSD has an HFFR of 600-800, similar to the test fuel used in the "bogus" test# # ASTM specs are 520, the Engine Manufacturers Association is rated even lower at 460# ULSD fails these specs right out of the box without the additives that are put in at the racks# Are all of the additives added in the proper dose, EVERY time, at every rack? 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# For an extra 2 bucks a fill up, it's an easy decision for me# Your decision is obviously different, but that doesn't mean the choice to use an additive is bs or that the test is bs# All it means is you disagree with it, plain and simple#

Little comparison between 400 HFFRR and untreated ULSD# The way I understand it #help me out BIG# the fuel is delivered to the rack untreated #which is what happens in the bottom photo if BIG is too busy checking out the melons in the Porsche convertable driving by and forgets what he's doing#### :D# compared to the older spec LSD fuel in the top photo#
#ATTACH=CONFIG#86385#/ATTACH#
View attachment 86386

D4L The only thing the driver has control of is what info he put in to the card reader at the rack. Yes if im at a community rack and put in the wrong supplier codes then I get the wrong product, It clearly states on the BOL the supplier, and vendor incase it was fuel the was purchased by a vendor that way they can account for the amount of gallons purchased vs the amount loaded.

The part about what's in the tank IS VERY CLOSLEY WATCHED, one of the other posts above said that in WA the amount of Ethanol was way off or way to much, I can ALMOST guarantee it was a Mon and Pop station that the problem occurred. Company stores cant have this kind of crap happen, the fine is very large, if it was a Company store someone made a mistake and Crossed dumped product # Regular into the Midgrade or Prem tank# even then to have that large of a difference is unlikely. The Ethanol is NOT in the fuel when it is put in the pipeline it is added at the rack along with the brand of additive that the company uses, in Chevrons case Techron, Shell had theirs Arco had theirs and on and on. The Computer that adds the Ethanol and additives is SPOT ON there are no MISTAKES AT ALL, if the mix is the least bit off the BOL will show it #and even a driver could see the difference# or in most cases the BOL will not be printed and Terminal or rack people will have to see what the out of spec fuel is to much or dump it and start again. If they dump it, it goes into a storage tank and held until they have enough to blend the fuel and say that its Regular or Mid or Prem and sold to the MOM AND POP or places like Costco, Sams club, that is how they can sell it cheaper than brand name spec fuel. Not saying that its bad fuel but you have so many variables in that fuel I wouldn't run it, people do and it obviously works as for me I WONT TOUCH THAT STUFF. Unless you go to a Company Rack to load fuel or Gas you have no idea WHO'S gas or fuel your getting!! the base products are the same or how else could it work, do you always use Chevron, Shell, Arco? it all works, its the additives that MAKE THE FUEL DIFFERENT. Ethanol in the pipeline would do the same thing that BIO Diesel does in your truck CLEANS LIKE NEW and that aint going to happen the filters that are used in the pipeline cost big bucks, Ethanol is trucked in or railroad, gas is added to it so that it cant be consumed ;# Department of Weights and Measures and AQMD hand out fines to companies that are not to believed as to the amount, to have out of spec fuel in a tank of 25% ethanol content I say BS prove it to me im from Missouri.

Diesel is pretty much Diesel all of them have an additive #in calif at least and the other states that I worked in hauling fuel# have a lubricity additive, THEY ALL HAVE AN ANTI STATIC additive, The Lubricity additive is DROPS to the Gallon #not enough to do much of anything in my book# its there because the Government MADE THEM PUT IT IN when the took out the Sulfur, So to say the its NOT A LUBE im no chemist but it don't take a ton of Crap to fall on me to understand that you don't get under the Manure wagon. They took out sulfur but was made to add a lubricity additive??????? :rolleyes: Is it ME or is something wrong there? Again they are only going to add as much as some Government twerp said that it needed and bet your Butt he was paid off. They don't care about you or your truck they added a few drops and it shut people up, CASE CLOSED and they were happy about it. The anti static is added to cut down sparks when dropping fuel in the station tanks, and the main reason is that if Gas is loaded first in one compartment and then Diesel is loaded in a compartment next to the gas there are Sparks so bad it looks like the 4th of july, Some think that's part of what happened in Texas Arco when the BBQed 15 people,

On my Post above I said I don't trust any info!! I use additive because at company parties they made us sit with other employees from different facilities, Penny and I went to a Christmas Party and got seated next to a Lab Rat from our El Segundo Refinery. The man holds two PHD's in Chemistry and some sort of BIO chemistry, He attained BOTH OF THESE at the same time, they were from a little out of the way place named MIT don't know if you have heard about it but its a GOOD ONE!!! We have been friends with his wife and him for many years, he said that you need to use it, he does in his Chevy Diesel and so that was good enough for me. His reason came from MIT when he sent info back to his friends that ran tests and use it as a final for their graduation. Again GOOD ENOUGH for me. :D

What this all boils down to is if you think that YOU DONT NEED IT!!!!!!! DONT PUT IT IN!!!!!!!!! pretty simple even for a old tanker yanker that probably sniffed to many gas fumes. On the other hand if you think you need it PUT IT IN!!!!!! and again Pretty simple must have sniffed more Premium fumes than Regular.


Have a Great Argument

BIG

PS: If you think that you can load the wrong fuel AT THE RACK!!!!!!!! think again this is just a few of the Load rack cards that are still good to go for me. They have thought of everything that a TRUCK DRIVER can screw up and have prevented it, except loading a Chevron load and dropping it in a Shell station, and don't think that hasn't happen.

cards 001.jpg
 
Last edited:
Quote

More than half a century has passed since fuel controls for jet and shaft turbine engines were developed that could handle jet fuel without failing. I personnally burned thousands of gallons of Jet-A and JP-4. Between 85 and 100 gallons per flight hour in UH-1s and Cobras and abot 135 gallons an hour in Apaches. In case you haven't heard, jet fuel has virtually no lubricity. So if the materials and research are that old, why is everyone so paranoid? Does no one think that technology isn't employed in injection pumps?

Jet engine oil is a whole different world than motor oil, could that be a factor???? I think so.
 
Last edited:
GAmes,

I dont have a side to fall on here because I just dont know. But if your truck is a 97, doesnt that mean that it does not have a vp44 and therefore not subject to the bad things that they say the new fuel can do to your injector ?



And unless those helicopters had vp44's in them, doesnt that mean that they were not subject to being taken down by the lack of sulpher (at least the lack of damage to a vp44 that legend has it that the lack of sulpher will do ?



Nope, don't have a VP44. But the arguement is that the OLDER engines need an additive supplement. P7100s are older than VP44s so if they need an additive I REALLY need it:-laf I'm aware that there are those who talk out of both sides of their mouths though, so I expect to hear about how bulletproof the p-pump is.



The point about the jet fuel is that it is much "drier" than diesel. If the technology existed over 50 years ago to make a fuel control that was impervious to the lack of lubricity I believe it stands to reason that modern injection pumps can and probably do use the same internal materials. BTW, jet fuel is not a mixture of gas and kerosene. Any easy google search can verify that.
 
Because the Military bought $400. 00 dollar coffee pots don't mean that their thinking and ability to use OUR MONEY would be used by car manufactures, to raise the already high price of their Pumps, again wouldn't it be better to have the pump wear out so they have to buy another or rebuild??? Some get lucky some dont
 
In case you haven't heard, jet fuel has virtually no lubricity. So if the materials and research are that old, why is everyone so paranoid? Does no one think that technology isn't employed in injection pumps?



Gas turbine engines do not rely on the fuel to lube the internal parts, neither does the P7100 pump. Take away the oil lube\cooling and they would just fly apart into a million pieces, as they do when oil pressure goes away.



Everything you say, have proposed, point out, etc, is true in respect to a P7100 pump. It is totally false in repsect to the VE, VP, and HPCR systems. You are comparing apples to oranges on a minority build. It will never compute.



The only lubing fuel does in your IP is the barrels and the clearances there are so loose it doesn't matter as long as you don't run water or other extremly dry fuel thru it. The P7100 would run on fermented potato juice and probably thrive. Try to do that on any other fuel lubed system and it will die in short order.



Whether you believe it or not, when ULSD was phased in pumps started dying and leaking, HPCR injectors and CP-3's started suffering. Cummins is specifying minimum fuel quality recs that would disqualify over 50% of the fuel in this country without added filtration and additives. It is just not an arguable point anymore for the bulk of the trucks on the road.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top