What fuel additives should I be using?

[Crunch]

Armed with the facts above, I run Redline and fill up at the same good quality fuel source every tank.

The last 7 words above are probably the best advice for most people. Once you find a good fuel source, stick with it and save your receipts. If you're a regular customer with documentation you're likely to have better recourse in the event you get a bad tank of fuel. When it comes to my truck I'm a creature of habit. I buy from the same vendor (a QT store/truck stop), and even try to get the same pump every time, since pump maintenence can vary, as well. I save every receipt and log my fuel purchases in an "event log". They know me so well by now that I can fill up without paying first, even though their policy is paying first after dark. I used to buy from a Pilot near where I worked, but they're a bit too proud of their fuel, and price it accordingly. The QT is the cheapest in the area, and QT also emphasizes the quality of their fuels. The only time I'm worried is when I travel out of my area or state. And even then I pass up the mom & pop fuel stations and opt for the larger, well known vendors.

 

[LightmanE300]

Crunch - one question is, do you truly KNOW your local fuel source is 'good' ? Are you basing that off your subjective experience as far as how it 'runs' in your truck, or have you actually tested and verified that it is a good fuel source?

 

[Crunch]

Crunch - one question is, do you truly KNOW your local fuel source is 'good' ? Are you basing that off your subjective experience as far as how it 'runs' in your truck, or have you actually tested and verified that it is a good fuel source?

I've never had it tested. I base it on my own experience and what I hear from truckers. It's not empirically scientific, but I believe it is statistically accurate. There are plusses and minuses for both methods. You can have a fuel sample tested, but the results are only good for that sample. If someone pisses in the fuel storage tank or drops a 5lb. bag of sugar in it after you sample it, the fuel is bad, but the test result won't reflect that. Listening to dozens of testimonials from truckers, who drive 100,000 miles per year demonstrates a pattern, but it is anecdotal. When you get right down to it, any one batch of fuel can be "bad", whether it's from lack of maintenence or a rain storm or the night shift clerk hosing down the parking lot. So, not having it tested at a lab I go by fuel economy (and the consistency in fuel economy), listening to my engine (and consistency in engine performance) and the experience of others. If you prefer having samples tested for quality the only way you could definitively say one station is better than another would be to test at close intervals over a reasonable period of time, then periodic testing after that. The one station who's fuel you tested could have had some intervening event that caused the test to show more contamination, while the other station may have just had their tanks cleaned or had newer tanks. My point is that neither method is 100% accurate, especially when small samples are used--few lab tests or small sampling of other drivers' opinions. Both have to be done often enough to show an accurate pattern.

 

[rweis]

Ok, we have these fuel quality issues with cetane, water, particulates, and a few other parameters.



The OEM is 10 micron at some Beta (presumably a high %) and a "free water" absorbancy factor. So at that point we have 10 micron particles "sandblasting" through the injectors.



I think a red blood cell is 8 microns in size, a bacteria is 2 microns in size.



If I put a 2 micron filter right up in front of all the fuel system, then there should be fewer of the larger particles going through the system. I do not know what the Beta value of the RACOR 690 2 micron filter is, but it should filter out more than the 10 micron filter (have to be changed more, but tighter filtering). Do particles smaller than 10 microns cause a problem?, do particles smaller than 2 microns cause a problem?



A question about the "free water". If you catch the free water from the tank, and the rest of the system is closed, can "free water" still form internal to the system? As the fuel is pressurized by the lp and the VP is "free water" more or less likely to form? Do higher system pressures hold the "free water" in solution? The volume of fuel in the fuel feed lines is fairly small. Even if "free water" can form is it significant?, or do you have to have a quantity of fuel like in a vehicle tank or in ground tank for "free water" to form?



Interesting discussion,



Bob Weis

 

[DBond]

... Guys, understand that all diesel fuel has water in it, typically 60-80ppm. Once that number gets around 115-120ppm, water will start to 'fall out' of suspension, and becomes 'free water'. Despite their claims, OEM and fancy aftermarket water separators do not filter out water smaller than 115ppm. I personally have verified this via laboratory testing on a variety of fuel filters, most noteably the OEM vw TDI separator/filter, and the Stanadyne Fuel Manager series of filters. We did before/after fuel analysis testing and the water was never substantially reduced (measured using Karl Fischer method), using Stanadyne's demulsifying additive for the test.



Therefore what folks need to do is decide if they want to use a fuel additive on a regular basis for the unlikely event of getting a bad tank full of free water, or if they want to use an additive that will make the small amounts of present water(less than 115ppm) safer to pass through, since it will do so inevitably. The reality is that additives only disperse their own volume of water (2oz additive only disperses 2oz water), so if you get a truly bad tank of water, the additives aren't gonna help either way, not to mention the fact that the separators typically will catch really large slugs of water.

LightmanE300



great info. Let me see if I understand.



"good" fuel will likely have 60-80ppm water in it. (about . 33 oz/34 gal tank?)



Is this normal water level fairly evenly distributed through the fuel?



Your approach is to use an additive to evenly spread the water though the fuel?



In your tests, what was the water level of the fuel to start with? ie was it "good" or "bad" fuel?



What about condensation in the truck fuel tank, is this likely to push the water level up much? can it turn a tank of "good" fuel into bad?

 

[LightmanE300]

I've never had it tested. I base it on my own experience and what I hear from truckers. It's not empirically scientific, but I believe it is statistically accurate. There are plusses and minuses for both methods. You can have a fuel sample tested, but the results are only good for that sample. If someone pisses in the fuel storage tank or drops a 5lb. bag of sugar in it after you sample it, the fuel is bad, but the test result won't reflect that. Listening to dozens of testimonials from truckers, who drive 100,000 miles per year demonstrates a pattern, but it is anecdotal. When you get right down to it, any one batch of fuel can be "bad", whether it's from lack of maintenence or a rain storm or the night shift clerk hosing down the parking lot. So, not having it tested at a lab I go by fuel economy (and the consistency in fuel economy), listening to my engine (and consistency in engine performance) and the experience of others. If you prefer having samples tested for quality the only way you could definitively say one station is better than another would be to test at close intervals over a reasonable period of time, then periodic testing after that. The one station who's fuel you tested could have had some intervening event that caused the test to show more contamination, while the other station may have just had their tanks cleaned or had newer tanks. My point is that neither method is 100% accurate, especially when small samples are used--few lab tests or small sampling of other drivers' opinions. Both have to be done often enough to show an accurate pattern.

Interesting point. Our stations were sampled once a month for 4 months, for the reasons you listed a few times.



Truckers generally don't know much about fuel, other than where to get the cheapest stuff that moves in a lot of volume.



Fuel analysis testing has proven that a busy station doesn't always ensure good fuel. There are many, many factors from transport to tank maintenance to bottom water draining intervals, etc.



For the record Crunch, I'm not saying that your fuel is good or bad, just that you really don't know how it is - other than you dont have a problem using it and get good mpg. If all you've ever run is 40 cetane fuel and your engine 'sounds good' to you, do you know any better? It's only informative if you do one test as you said - however fi you do, you might find as I did that your local stations vary a bit in quality. As mentioned above, I had one station that had 7 times more dirt than the other. Both had 42 cetane. Then I tested another local station and found consistently higher cetane numbers - 49, 50,51,49. The dirt was about the same as the cleaner of the abovementioned stations, so I switched to the high cetane station. The bottom line is that if your truck runs fine on the diesel you're using, you really don't NEED to do anything about it. If youre picky and want the best fuel out there for your truck, lab testing is the way to find it.

 

[LightmanE300]

LightmanE300



great info. Let me see if I understand.



"good" fuel will likely have 60-80ppm water in it. (about . 33 oz/34 gal tank?)



Is this normal water level fairly evenly distributed through the fuel?



Your approach is to use an additive to evenly spread the water though the fuel?



In your tests, what was the water level of the fuel to start with? ie was it "good" or "bad" fuel?



What about condensation in the truck fuel tank, is this likely to push the water level up much? can it turn a tank of "good" fuel into bad?

Yes, average diesel fuel in this country that would receive no complaints tyipcally has 50-80ppm of water.



Most of the stations I tested were 65-75ppm. In the case of the stanadyne fm100 filter for example, the 'before' sample had 72ppm water, and the 'after' sample had 68ppm. Basically proving the point that separators are for the most part pretty ineffective at removing suspended, or what the filter industry calls 'emulsified' water. Some of those manufacturers claim 99% free water and 95% emulsified. Both are exaggerated numbers, however the emulsified claim is absurd. The free water is closer to accurate, I'd believe that a quality racor aftermarket filter or the like will remove 95+% of free water. We did not do before/after testing with purposefully water contaminated fuel.



Yes this water is evently distributed thru the fuel, because it's still 'suspended'. Once it becomes 'free' and falls out of suspension, then it will naturally (assuming the vehicle isn't moving) settle to the bottom as water is heavier than diesel.



My approach in laymans terms is as you said, to evenly spread it out, so that it passes thru the system (which is inevitable below 115ppm) more safely. It's more complicated than that, but the choice as I said earlier is - Do you personally want to use an additive to improve/treat your fuel on a regular basis or do you want to use it as insurance in the rare event of a really bad tank of fuel? I see the latter option as only partially feasible as well, as I had mentioned - additives only disperse their own volume in water - so if you truly do get a nasty tank, you're gonna have an issue either way.

 

[Crunch]

Interesting point. Our stations were sampled once a month for 4 months, for the reasons you listed a few times.

If the results were consistent from test to test you could probably say with reasonable certainty that you are getting consistent fuel quality. I was under the impression that you only did two tests, for a total investment of $100. Part of my opinion is also based on a TDR article by Bill Carson I read before I bought my truck and joined the TDR. In fact, it was one of the "free" articles found on the web. In regards to cetane, I don't recall ever seeing any place other than Shell advertising "premium" diesel, which is one reason I am going by the Carson article:



https://www.turbodieselregister.com/mixing_gasoline_and_diesel.htm

"Diesel at the pump can be found in two CN ranges: 40-46 for regular diesel, and 45-50 for premium. The minimum CN at the pump is supposed to be 45. The legal minimum cetane rating for #1 and #2 diesel is 40. Most diesel fuel leaves the refinery with a CN of around 42. The CN rating depends on the crude oil the fuel was refined from. It varies so much from tanker to tanker that a consistent CN rating is almost impossible. "



I admit, for the reason quoted above that I am assuming I am getting close to 45 cetane wherever I fill up. I also assume that every major fuel stop is adding their own blend of additives when they fill their tanks.

Truckers generally don't know much about fuel, other than where to get the cheapest stuff that moves in a lot of volume.

That may be true, but the reason I choose high volume fuel stations is because of the freshness factor. Fuel delivered to a low-volume dealer that does a lot of maintenence can still degrade in quality if it sits in the storage tank. That's why no matter where you buy your fuel you should save the receipts and document your fill-ups. And being a regular customer increases your chances of satisfying recourse should you get a bad tank of fuel.

Fuel analysis testing has proven that a busy station doesn't always ensure good fuel. There are many, many factors from transport to tank maintenance to bottom water draining intervals, etc.

I agree. That's why I believe that if you test the fuel you should test it on a regular basis. That same article also includes the quality of crude oil in the equation, which is something that can vary at any station, at any time.

For the record Crunch, I'm not saying that your fuel is good or bad, just that you really don't know how it is - other than you dont have a problem using it and get good mpg. If all you've ever run is 40 cetane fuel and your engine 'sounds good' to you, do you know any better?

That's where regular monitoring of the fuel filter(s) come into play. I've been replacing my fuel filter every 10,000 miles, and I've never noticed a build up of crud, or pulled any noticable water out of the fuel. The oil still looks good after each 5000 mile oil change, and I don't recall ever seeing any black smoke coming from the tail pipe. It's these kind of consistent patterns that lead me to believe the fuel quality is also consistent, regardless of the quality at purchase. I also try not to let the tank get too low, in order to keep any sludge in my tank (or variance in fuel quality from purchase to purchase) from passing through the engine in any significant concentration.

The bottom line is that if your truck runs fine on the diesel you're using, you really don't NEED to do anything about it. If youre picky and want the best fuel out there for your truck, lab testing is the way to find it.

I think the fuel discussions can play out a lot like the oil discussions. If you change your oil and filter every 3000 miles it probably doesn't make any difference which oil you use. Likewise, if you monitor engine performance and change out the fuel filter on a regular basis it probably doesn't matter where you buy fuel, as long as they meet minimum requirements and you don't get a bad tank because of some intervening reason. I keep a spare fuel filter in the truck for that purpose, but fortunately I've never had to use it.



Here's a thought regarding the testing of fuel. The members of the various diesel truck groups (TDR, TDS, etc. ) in cities or regions across the country could establish their own testing group. Members could contribute a few bucks to a fund, establish a rotation among agreed upon fuel stations and select members could do the sampling and send them in for testing. Those results could be made available on the web sites to the subscribers in the diesel groups. I'm not likely to spend $50 on a regular basis to test the fuel of the several dozen stations in my area, but I would donate to a fund that others also helped to maintain.

 

[LightmanE300]

There were probably 30 tests total done. I just brought up the example of my two local stations to contrast the dirt content.



For the record, you would never be able to see any of it as 'crud'. We're talking about particles between 5-15 microns. Cummins and many other engine manufacturers have realized that particles as small as 5-7 microns are causing wear in high pressure injection systems. You won't notice a difference in your oil or your tailpipe smoke between the dirty stuff and the clean stuff - but your injectors will. It's not something you're going to notice immediately or in the short run... it's similar in theory as you say to synthetic oil in a sense - how much caution and care are you going to take to preserve your equipment for the long haul? I prefer to use the best oil and fuel I can... then again some get by not even paying attention. . to each their own.



Yes a high volume station can guarantee freshness in contrast to some way rural station that actually may have fuel sitting for long periods, but average stations that turn their tanks every week have no disadvantage compared to the truck stops that may refill daily. The only issue with station volume is to avoid the stations with no diesel sales.

 

[DBond]

Lightman



Thanks. I like having objective data to support a view.



An idea I was thinking of is; when fueling, particularly if a location I'm not familiar with, putting some fuel in a pop bottle. Then let it set for a day or 2 and see if anything settles out. Sure, if that was very bad fuel it would already be running through the engine before anything in the botle would tell me, but maybe this could tell me they had "marginal" quailty fuel and not to return there.

 

[Buffalo]

Regarding finer fuel filteration, GM, for their Duramax engines, is now offering a dual element fuel filter made by Racor. The outer element filters to 7 microns while the inner element filters down to 5 microns.

GM seems to think that possibly some of their fuel delivery system problems may be related to dirty fuel. Whether or not they are just taking a "shot in the dark" at trying to solve this problem with better fuel filteration, I don't know. But, they are at least trying to do something!



Both Fleetguard and Cummins are now entertaining the idea of better filteration. Fleetguard already has some 5 micron filters out there for certain applications. Don't know which.



I, recently, installed a Caterpillar 1 micron fuel filter for my 115 gal. aux. fuel tank. It is huge. Probably 12/14" long, and works well.

Caterpillar has a lot of 1 micron filters. They seem to think it's important.



Joe F. (Buffalo)

 

[LightmanE300]

Joe, that's precisely the reason that I fill my fuel through my aux tank as well - it all runs through a 2 micron racor filter before ever hitting my main tank. Mine is smaller though and probably doesn't flow anything like that cat monster. Can you post a pic of that? Curious, it sounds sweet!

 

[rweis]

In another thread a couple of us are kicking around bypass filters. My point is saying it is a 1 micron filter is only useful if you know at what Beta (or percentage of filtration is happening at that micron rating).



My bypass filter is a 1 micron too, but it is Beta 2 (50%) at 1 micron, and Beta 400 (99. 75%) at 3 microns. I have a 10 micron RACOR fuel filter but I will have to research at what Beta. RACOR also has a 2 micron fuel fillter, but again I would have to do some research to find out what the Beta is.



I think the calculation for Beta = (1 - 1/Beta) *100 if I remember right.



2 Beta (1 - 1/2) *100 = 50%

3 Beta (1 - 1/3) *100 = 66%

4 Beta 75%

16 Beta 93. 75%

20 Beta 95. 00%

32 Beta 96. 875%

50 Beta 98. 00%

75 Beta 98. 67%

100 Beta 99. 00%

200 Beta 99. 50%

400 Beta 99. 75%



Bob Weis

 

[abdiver]

Lightman 300 Will the Air Dog filtration system and pump filter out the water better than Stock setup?

 

[Buffalo]

Hi, LightmanE300.



Before I get started, I will admit to being somewhat optomistic with some of the figures I've been throwing around here. My apologies. I was relying on my memory and eyeballing filter sizes, from a distance.



First of all, the Cat filter is 2 microns, not 1 micron, like I had previously stated.

Secondly, the Cat filter is 10-1/2" tall, not 12-14", as I had stated. Again, my apologies.

The filter head (mount) is 1-1/2" tall + the 10-1/2" filter=12". From a distance, the whole thing looked a bit larger, to me.



I do not have a digital camera to post pictures but, I will give you the information I have about the filter and filter head.



The filter is a Cat. #1R-0749 (Advanced Effiiciency Fuel Filter).



The filter mount (head) is a Fleetguard product #39930618-S.

I, originally, had a Fleetguard FS-1212 fuel filter on the head that came with my aux. fuel tank and the Cat. filter fits it perfectly. So, if the FS-1212 will fit then the Cat will also.



I don't have a price on the filter mount, because I already had a mount. But, I was able to buy the filter at a local Cat. dealer for $17. 07 + tax.



I hope this information helps you out.



Joe F. (Buffalo)

 

[Buffalo]

LightmanE300,



One more thing, check with Cat or Fleetguard and even Racor to see if they can cross reference any of the numbers, I gave you, to the Racor filter. You may get lucky, like I did, and the Cat filter may fit the Racor head. Hope so.



Remember, you will need more than 10-1/2" to screw on a Cat filter.



Joe F. (Buffalo)

 

[LightmanE300]

Lightman 300 Will the Air Dog filtration system and pump filter out the water better than Stock setup?

Abdiver, I haven't tested or even seen an Airdog unit in person. Just from looking at it though I would expect it should filter the water better than stock... I know it has 2 filters, one fuel and one air separation/water separation. I figure by that alone it should do better than stock.



When it comes to fuel systems, I'm most interested in the RASP. Although it offers no improvement in filtration, I'm more after PSI. I can really pull it down to 0 fast with the box turned up.





Rweis makes a good point, although presented in a more techy manner than the filter industry uses (although probably the most technically accurate). I think what he's trying to say is that it's important to know whether or not your filter is what the industry calls 'absolute' or 'nominal. ' When a filter is deemed absolute, it will trap 95% or more particulates in a given size. For example, my racor 2 micron is absolute, so it will stop 95% of particles that size. However, most filters, like the OEM filter are given nominal ratings. It makes them sound more impressive. While the OEM stratapore may be called a '5 micron' filter, that's a nominal rating; it probably only traps 60% of the particles 5 microns in size. . Very important point Rweis brought up.

 

[LightmanE300]

Buffalo Joe, thanks much for posting the info. I actually was just curious to see a pic after your 'huge' description. I am not looking to change my setup at all, I'm happy with the racor. Oh well. From your dimensions it DOES sound pretty huge, especially considering it's a single pass filter, compared to a filter that continuously sees fuel flow.

 

[rweis]

Sorry about the techie description



Actually a window screen is a 1 micron filter. IF the particle hits the screen mesh and sticks then it is filtered. Just the % filtered is pretty small, like . 0000000000001 % (or less)



T'was basically my point.



Bob Weis

 

[brods]

Marketing must have come up with the basically useless term “Nominal”



Is the term "beta" specific to a certain segment of the filtration market?



Also at what point do you think you’re getting diminishing returns for your efforts? Like does it make any substantial difference in the injection system longevity when you get all of the particulate below say 3 microns as compared to below 5 microns?



Anybody know what the largest size sphere the injection system can pass without sustaining damage?



Good stuff guys, keep it coming!