2017 PSD motorcraft 10w30

[mattd]

He provided an explanation however it completely discounts Dysons’ analysis and my own experience seeing tin in a UOA while using a solvent based additive which was also Stanadyne PF. Coincidence? It must be…

It also assumes all constituents of the additive that make it into the oil don’t boil off at the normal operating temp and stay in complete balance. I do not have the knowledge or time to research this to see if would stay in equilibrium and if the additive cSt would be the same as you say.

And also discounting my own experience seeing 8% FD and dropping less than 1 cSt after 6500 miles with 10w30. My viscosity loss was less than half what you had. Also with 60% more fuel in my sample. I understand VI plays a part in this ratio but it’s not that significant since we’re comparing 10w30 vs 10w30 in a common rail engine. My last UOA is posted on here.

You do your testing with the HPL 5w40 and I’ll be the observer to see what happens. I look forward to seeing the results.

The result of the lack of viscosity loss from your 8% fuel run is most likely from oxidative thickening. Or possibly an error with viscosity measurement. I would have asked for a retest of fuel and viscosity if I saw that, but that is just me..

Just a little FYI, the 6.7 PSD does not contain tin in its bearings.

 

[MolaKule]

He provided an explanation however it completely discounts Dysons’ analysis and my own experience seeing tin in a UOA while using a solvent based additive which was also Stanadyne PF. Coincidence? It must be…

So which one were you in these posts 4 years ago? I am somewhat confused as to your point here. What exactly is your concern or question? Were you having injector problems or fuel quality problems that prompted you to use Stanadyne PF?

It is not unusual for me to disagree or to discount TD's analysis.

What did an analysis show "without" the Stanadyne PF in terms of analyses differences?

Stanadyne PF is simply a mix of decarbonization chemistry and glycol cleaners in a series of naphtha-type chemistry and all contained in a light petroleum oil carrier, similar to Berryman's B-12.

 

[mattd]

So which one were you in these posts 4 years ago? I am somewhat confused as to your point here. What exactly is your concern or question? Were you having injector problems or fuel quality problems that prompted you to use Stanadyne PF?

It is not unusual for me to disagree or to discount TD's analysis.

What did an analysis show "without" the Stanadyne PF in terms of analyses differences?

Stanadyne PF is simply a mix of decarbonization chemistry and glycol cleaners in a series of naphtha-type chemistry and all contained in a light petroleum oil carrier, similar to Berryman's B-12.

From what I understand he is convinced from what Terry told him about solvent based fuel additives exasperating fuel dilution and causing leeching of metals from engine due to the solvents used . But other than terrys word he has nothing to support what he claims, other than 1ppm of tin in one UOA. But I’ll let him clarify..

 

[CleverUserName]

From what I understand he is convinced from what Terry told him about solvent based fuel additives exasperating fuel dilution and causing leeching of metals from engine fuel to the solvents used . But other than terrys word he has nothing to support what he claims. But I’ll let him clarify..

You can see that Terry didn’t tell me anything. Why would you suggest otherwise? Can you read ?

So which one were you in these posts 4 years ago? I am somewhat confused as to your point here. What exactly is your concern or question? Were you having injector problems or fuel quality problems that prompted you to use Stanadyne PF?

It is not unusual for me to disagree or to discount TD's analysis.

What did an analysis show "without" the Stanadyne PF in terms of analyses differences?

Stanadyne PF is simply a mix of decarbonization chemistry and glycol cleaners in a series of naphtha-type chemistry and all contained in a light petroleum oil carrier, similar to Berryman's B-12.

My first analysis was in 2012-13. It and my subsequent results were posted as well in the same vehicle. I have many different analysis posted on here in different vehicles. Stanadyne was used because I believed it was a good product because of the OEM recommendations

I’m waiting for an explanation about the significant difference in viscosity loss in both 10w30 oils for fuel dilution in both situations. That in itself is baffling unless it an additive chemistry issue.

 

[MolaKule]

I’m waiting for an explanation about the significant difference in viscosity loss in both 10w30 oils for fuel dilution in both situations. That in itself is baffling unless it an additive chemistry issue.

Again, what did an analysis show "without" the Stanadyne PF in terms of analyses differences? Unless you did a Before and After analysis you won't know if it was the StanaDyne fuel additive or if it was injector programming as the cause.

 

[CleverUserName]

Again, what did an analysis show "without" the Stanadyne PF in terms of analyses differences? Unless you did a Before and After analysis you won't know if it was the StanaDyne fuel additive or if it was injector programming as the cause.

I had 2 analysis, one with and one without. That car was sold back to VW and crushed many years ago and never got an updated dieselgate tune. I actually planned on keeping it but a number of issues appeared at 100k miles and the buy out offer of $14k was too good to pass on. I stopped using Stanadyne years ago as well.

The current vehicle I’m using as my example is new to me. It has excellent cylinder balance and VG compression as I had it checked because of the high FD. The only issue it has is a bad thermostat.

 

[mattd]

Just wanted to post that I asked Polaris to retest fuel and viscosity and the fuel stayed the same @5% but viscosity came back at 10.9 this time around