I found this link(http://www.delphidiesel.com/DATA/DDSU203.pdf), and it shows that Diesel Kleen (Power Service) actually decreases the lubricity of un-treated diesel fuel. Mabey that is where the metals are coming from in alot of the UOA. If this is an accurate rating ,it is bad news for me because I have always used DK for an addtiive! Any idea if it is bogus? I e-mailed Power Service about a week ago, but haven't got a response. Mabey no response is because the rating is accurate.
Not all lubricity additives are rated equal!
- Thread starter Machinistika
- Start date
- Status
That graph looks like a marketing add for Delphi. As the title of the post says, not all additives are rated equally and I would not put a lot of faith into that graph. I have used Power Service products before and I don't have anything particularly negative to say about them. I have been and prefer using Stanadyne additives. Stanadyne is almost universally accepted by OEM's, even ones who build competing fuel systems. I don't have any concrete proof as I have never had lab tests run on fuel treatments that I have bought OTC, however Stanadyne seems to make a difference that I can detect. Quite a few engines seem to run a bit better with it and injector life has increased.
Power Service products may have been providing some benifit but no one in the shop could "tell" that it was working. I'm not a real big fan of any kind of additive whether it be oil, fuel, transmission, etc. There are a lot of fuel system products on the market that do nothing or are actually harmful. For that very reason I run biodiesel whenever possible. Otherwise it's Stanadyne. Another thing I like about Stanadyne is I've never hurt anything by overdosing a tank. I'm pretty sure I may have toasted a set of injectors with Diesel Kleen on a long trip once as I was using the wrong bottle (markings made for some other additive) and was putting about three times the max in the tank!!
Since I haven't commissioned any tests personally nor have I seen any tests on fuel additives that I consider reputable, the only information I can give is my experience with the product and the warm and fuzzy feeling Stanadyne give me.
Power Service products may have been providing some benifit but no one in the shop could "tell" that it was working. I'm not a real big fan of any kind of additive whether it be oil, fuel, transmission, etc. There are a lot of fuel system products on the market that do nothing or are actually harmful. For that very reason I run biodiesel whenever possible. Otherwise it's Stanadyne. Another thing I like about Stanadyne is I've never hurt anything by overdosing a tank. I'm pretty sure I may have toasted a set of injectors with Diesel Kleen on a long trip once as I was using the wrong bottle (markings made for some other additive) and was putting about three times the max in the tank!!
Since I haven't commissioned any tests personally nor have I seen any tests on fuel additives that I consider reputable, the only information I can give is my experience with the product and the warm and fuzzy feeling Stanadyne give me.
Thanks 1040Werckerman. If this is legit, the only thing I can figure is that DK uses something so dry (like kerosene) that it can't lubricate itself let alone the diesel. One must note that the diesel was "UN-TREATED" so I would assume ULSD. Since theULSD we get from the pump is treated at the refinery (or distributor i'm not sure) it SHOULD meet minimum standard for lubricity.
My concern is can we trust that they have treated it correctly. Are there spot checks by any athorities?
Best switch to Stanadyne .(or maby Delphi???)
My concern is can we trust that they have treated it correctly. Are there spot checks by any athorities?
Best switch to Stanadyne .(or maby Delphi???)
Is that the accepted test for Diesel fuel? I thought it was HFFR or something like that. Stanadyne is always high in the ranks and that is why I use it.
The BOCLE test is an accepted test method. I'm on not sure, but I think the ASTM test uses both BOCLE and HFFR for their lubricity test. I posted some details about how fuel lubricity is tested but I can't find that post with the search function.
Although ULSD does require a fuel to have a certain lubricity factor it is a minimum and not really substantial enough for the requirements of most engines for longevity. I always use a lube additive when running regular pump diesel because I won't take a chance on fuel system reliability or longevity to save a couple of dollars on a fuel additive.
Although ULSD does require a fuel to have a certain lubricity factor it is a minimum and not really substantial enough for the requirements of most engines for longevity. I always use a lube additive when running regular pump diesel because I won't take a chance on fuel system reliability or longevity to save a couple of dollars on a fuel additive.
The newer version of DK has soy additives in it for lubricity as claimed on the bottle. I never have had any problems, and just added the 6 cetane boost dosage to a full tank of winterized #2 tonight. I find it helps with starting, warm up time, engine noise, and fuel economy in our tractors, TDI, and my HPCR Cummins and (older) PSD pickups. I have no idea what it is doing for lubricity but I have not had any failures with it. We run bio whenever we can though.
I have switched to Schaeffer's products, but I got the super concentrated stuff for our farm bulk tanks, so single truck tank treats are ridiculous, I think it would tank like
This kind of scares me, so I think I might stick with Schaeffer's and find a way to mix small batches and dilute them out with Neutra or something so I can just dump a twelve ounce bottle in my tank and go.
I have switched to Schaeffer's products, but I got the super concentrated stuff for our farm bulk tanks, so single truck tank treats are ridiculous, I think it would tank like
This kind of scares me, so I think I might stick with Schaeffer's and find a way to mix small batches and dilute them out with Neutra or something so I can just dump a twelve ounce bottle in my tank and go.
"Are there spot checks by any athorities?" No. Yhey are mainly concerned with sulfur content for now.
"Although ULSD does require a fuel to have a certain lubricity factor it is a minimum and not really substantial enough for the requirements of most engines for longevity."
The hfrr (high frequency reciprocating rig) is the new test method for ulsd. Cost 60-80k. The refineries do NOT add a lubricity pkg. That is done at the terminal and/or the jobber. We completed numerous tests thru out the US and found that the lubricity for ulsd was far from standards set. These standards are also below what oem' wanted and below Europes.
"Although ULSD does require a fuel to have a certain lubricity factor it is a minimum and not really substantial enough for the requirements of most engines for longevity."
The hfrr (high frequency reciprocating rig) is the new test method for ulsd. Cost 60-80k. The refineries do NOT add a lubricity pkg. That is done at the terminal and/or the jobber. We completed numerous tests thru out the US and found that the lubricity for ulsd was far from standards set. These standards are also below what oem' wanted and below Europes.
This is the Response that I got from Power Service
Dear Machinistika:
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
No, our current Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost or Diesel Fuel Supplement
would NOT make lubricity worse in any test or fuel.
Attached are some HFRR data (D6079 High Frequency Reciprocating Rig) in
ULSD's done over the last 6-8 months on DK+CB. Fuels vary around the
country, and some are more "treatable" than others. Even so, our
products significantly improve lubricity in ULSD's, which is all that
matters today. Most of the fuels we test are unadditized, and as shown
attached, many of them do not meet the current D975 lubricity
specification.
Consider the following about the Delphi posting:
1. Copyright is 2004, so the data is at least 2+ years old. The data has
to be in a non-ULSD fuel, and could be as much as 3+ years old. See the
file name that ends in 203 (Feb of 03)?
2. The product name is "power service new formula with lubricity
improver" and the treat rate is 1:500, neither of which is recognizable
to me over the last 3+ years. In 2004, our Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
and Diesel Fuel Supplement were improved in lubricity properties by the
addition of Slick Diesel, a proprietary mixture of lubricity agents.
3. The test is a SCBOCLE, which is a different test measurement device
than the HFRR, which we use exclusively and was finally use to establish
the current D975 lubricity specification effective January, 2005. The
SCBOCLE is a "research tool" that was standardized, but never accepted
for the standard, even as an option.
Thank you for your interest in our products. Continued use of DK year
round and DFS in the winter will protect your diesel fueled equipment
from pre-mature wear due to poor lubricity fuels.
Best regards,
David Forester
Director of Technical Services
Dear Machinistika:
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
No, our current Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost or Diesel Fuel Supplement
would NOT make lubricity worse in any test or fuel.
Attached are some HFRR data (D6079 High Frequency Reciprocating Rig) in
ULSD's done over the last 6-8 months on DK+CB. Fuels vary around the
country, and some are more "treatable" than others. Even so, our
products significantly improve lubricity in ULSD's, which is all that
matters today. Most of the fuels we test are unadditized, and as shown
attached, many of them do not meet the current D975 lubricity
specification.
Consider the following about the Delphi posting:
1. Copyright is 2004, so the data is at least 2+ years old. The data has
to be in a non-ULSD fuel, and could be as much as 3+ years old. See the
file name that ends in 203 (Feb of 03)?
2. The product name is "power service new formula with lubricity
improver" and the treat rate is 1:500, neither of which is recognizable
to me over the last 3+ years. In 2004, our Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
and Diesel Fuel Supplement were improved in lubricity properties by the
addition of Slick Diesel, a proprietary mixture of lubricity agents.
3. The test is a SCBOCLE, which is a different test measurement device
than the HFRR, which we use exclusively and was finally use to establish
the current D975 lubricity specification effective January, 2005. The
SCBOCLE is a "research tool" that was standardized, but never accepted
for the standard, even as an option.
Thank you for your interest in our products. Continued use of DK year
round and DFS in the winter will protect your diesel fueled equipment
from pre-mature wear due to poor lubricity fuels.
Best regards,
David Forester
Director of Technical Services
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked