Diesel fuel lubricity

[Lavoy]

Just remembered this. John Demaris had posted an excellent article on lubricity additves in ULSD for those of us running fuel right out of the pump as opposed Low Sulfur Diesel. It is in the John Deere forum on YTMAG.com, you might have to search for it a while. It is really an eye opening article, really informative, especially for these old crawlers.
Lavoy

[jdemaris]

Just remembered this. John Demaris had posted an excellent article on lubricity

Lavoy - this is probably the one you mean.

The following are the preliminary results of a research study on diesel fuel Lubricity
Additives. There is likely to be further commentary and explanation added at a future time.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this research was to determine the ability of multiple diesel fuel additives
to replace the vital lubricity component in ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel) fuel.

HISTORY:

ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road diesel engines. This fuel
burns cleaner and is less polluting than it’s predecessor, called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel.
Low sulfer fuel contained less than 500 ppm of sulfer. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.
As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfer, it is inadvertently stripped
of its lubricating properties. This vital lubrication is a necessary component of the diesel
fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high
pressure pumps and injectors. Traditional Low sulfer diesel fuel typically contained
enough lubricating ability to suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD fuel, on
the other hand, is considered to be very “dry” and incapable of lubricating vital fuel
delivery components. As a result, these components are at risk of premature and even
catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is introduced to the system. As a result, all oil
companies producing ULSD fuel must replace the lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD
fuel purchased at retail fuel stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to
replace this lost lubricity. The potential result of using inadequately treated fuel, as
indicated above, can be catastrophic. There have been many documented cases of
randomly tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests prove that often times the fuel we
purchase is not adequately treated and may therefore contribute to accelerated wear of our
fuel delivery systems. For this reason it may be prudent to use an after market diesel fuel
additive to ENSURE adequate lubrication of the fuel delivery system. Additionally, many
additives can offer added benefits such as cetane improver, and water separators or
emulsifiers.

CONTENT:

In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity.
The primary component of this study is a side-by-side laboratory analysis of each
additive’s ability to replace this vital lubricity. Additionally, claims of improving cetane,
water separation or emulsification, bio-diesel compatibility and alcohol content will be
noted. These notes were derived from information that was readily available to consumers
(via the label and internet information) and none of this information has been evaluated for
validity and/or performance. Cetane information has only been noted if the word “cetane”
was used in the advertising information. The words “improves power” has not been
translated to mean “improves cetane” in this evaluation. Information on alcohol content is
provided by indicating “contains no alcohol”. Omission of the words “contains no alcohol”
does not imply that it does contain alcohol. This information was simply missing in the
information available to a consumer. However, the possibility of a form of alcohol in these
products is possible. Additionally, information on dosages and cost per tankful are
included for comparison purposes.

How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating Ability:

Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a device called a “High
Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR. The HFRR is currently the Internationally
accepted, standardized method to evaluate fluids for lubricating ability. It uses a ball
bearing that reciprocates or moves back and forth on a metal surface at a very high
frequency for a duration of 90 minutes. The machine does this while the ball bearing and
metal surface are immersed in the test fluid (in this case, treated diesel fuel). At the end of
the test the ball bearing is examined under a microscope and the “wear scar” on the ball
bearing is measured in microns. The larger the wear scar, the poorer the lubricating ability
of the fluid. Southwest Research runs every sample twice and averages the size of the
wear scar.
The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a commercially available diesel fuel should produce
a wear scar of no greater than 520 microns. The Engine Manufacturers Association had
requested a standard of a wear scar no greater than 460 microns, typical of the pre-ULSD
fuels. Most experts agree that a 520 micron standard is adequate, but also that the lower
the wear scar the better.

METHOD:

An independent research firm in Texas was hired to do the laboratory work. The cost of
the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive manufacturers. Declining
to participate and pay for the research were the following companies: Amsoil and Power
Service. Because these are popular products it was determined that they needed to be
included in the study. These products were tested using funds collected by diesel
enthusiasts at “dieselplace.com”. Additionally, unconventional additives such as 2-cycle oil
and used motor oil were tested for their abilities to aid in diesel fuel lubricity. These were
also paid for by members of “dieselplace.com”.
The study was conducted in the following manner:
-The Research firm obtained a quantity of “untreated” ULSD fuel from a supplier. This
fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel engines. However, this sample was
acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the fuel for the purpose of replacing lost
lubricity. In other words, it was a “worst case scenario, very dry diesel fuel” that would
likely cause damage to any fuel delivery system. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at
the Southwest Research Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR
score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel. It was determined that this batch
of fuel would be utilized as the baseline fuel for testing all of the additives. The baseline
fuel HFRR score of 636 would be used as the control sample. All additives tested would
be evaluated on their ability to replace lost lubricity to the fuel by comparing their scores
to the control sample. Any score under 636 shows improvement to the fuels ability to
lubricate the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine.

BLIND STUDY:

In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the following steps were
taken:
Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the counter
purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-diesel sample. The
reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered “experimental” at the
time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market. It was sent directly from Opti-Lube
company. The bio-diesel sample was sponsored by Renewable Energy Group. One of their
suppliers, E.H. Wolf and Sons in Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of 100%
soybean based bio-diesel. This sample was used to blend with the baseline fuel to create a
2% bio-diesel for testing.
Each additive was bottled separately in identical glass containers. The bottles were labeled
only with a number. This number corresponded to the additive contained in the bottle. The
order of numbering was done randomly by drawing names out of a hat. Only Spicer
Research held the key to the additives in each bottle.
The additive samples were then sent in a box to An independent research firm. The only
information given them was the ratio of fuel to be added to each additive sample. For
example, bottle “A” needs to be mixed at a ratio of “480-1”. The ratio used for each
additive was the “prescribed dosage” found on the bottle label for that product. Used
motor oil and 2-cycle oil were tested at a rationally chosen ratio of 200:1.
The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio of each “bottled fluid” into a separate
container containing the baseline fuel. The data, therefore, is meaningful because every
additive is tested in the same way using the same fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the
effectiveness of each additive is now obtainable.

THE RESULTS:

These results are listed in the order of performance in the HFRR test. The baseline fuel
used in every test started at an HFRR score of 636. The score shown is the tested HFRR
score of the baseline fuel/additive blend.
Also included is the wear scar improvement provided by the additive as well as other
claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive is also categorized as a Multi-purpose
additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity only, non-conventional, or as an additive
capable of treating both gasoline and diesel fuel.
As a convenience to the reader there is also information on price per treated tank of diesel
fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per 26 gallon tank provided as “ounces of
additive per 26 gallon tank”.

In Order Of Performance:

1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel
HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.
50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel
66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel
Price: market value

2)Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier
HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio
13 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment
Gas and Diesel
cetane improver, emulsifier
HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.60/tank

4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend
Multi-purpose
demulsifier
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
$0.68/tank

5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/tank
$3.65/tank

6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible
HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.87/tank

7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
$1.09/tank

Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.00/tank

9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Multi-purpose
demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.16/tank

10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
$1.58/tank

11)Howe’s Meaner Power Kleaner
Multi-purpose
Alcohol free
HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.36/tank

12)Stanadyne Performance Formula
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement
480:1 ratio
6.9 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000 miles used.
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems)
HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
price: market value

14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant
Gas or diesel
HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
427:1 ratio
7.8 oz/tank
$2.65/tank

15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech
Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive
HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.67/tank

16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.12/tank

17)Marvel Mystery Oil
Gas, oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 and newer
systems)
HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel.
320:1 ratio
10.4 oz/tank
$3.22/tank

18)ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.38/tank

19)Primrose Power Blend 2003
Multi-purpose
Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, emulsifier
HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline
1066:1 ratio
3.12 oz/tank
$1.39/tank

CONCLUSIONS:

Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 460
or better. This meets the most strict requirements requested by the Engine Manufacturers
Association.
Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 520
or better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel requirements for maximum wear scar in a
commercially available diesel fuel.
Products 16 through 19 were found to cause the fuel/additive blend to perform worse than
the baseline fuel. The cause for this is speculative. This is not unprecedented in HFRR
testing and can be caused by alcohol or other components in the additives. Further
investigation into the possibilities behind these poor results will investigated.
Any additive testing within +/- 20 microns of the baseline fuel could be considered to have
no significant change. The repeatability of this test allows for a +/- 20 micron variability to
be considered insignificant.

[Hartlyboy]

Great summary and useful info. I need to switch brands of additive. These tests were run with ULSD which had not been treated to go into fuel tanks at the service stations, though, correct? Was there any data on how the commercially treated stuff that goes into the retail tanks did on the test?

[Lavoy]

John,
Yes, that's it. I searched for it again last night, and could not find it, thanks.
In doing a general search on lubricity yesterday, I found some other info that is concerning. Some refiners have said that once they switch to ULSD, the will refine only it, and will no longer offer Low Sulfur Diesel. So it is possible that even the off road/dyed fuel may be ULSD and you don't even know it.
Lavoy

[Tigerhaze]

Wow, thank you for pulling up this story. I will need to look into this before I use my crawler again- the results weren't exactly what I would have expected.

[jdemaris]

Some refiners have said that once they switch to ULSD, the will refine only it, and will no longer offer Low Sulfur Diesel. So it is possible that even the off road/dyed fuel may be ULSD and you don't even know it.
Lavoy

Yes, that's been in the grand-plan all along. All part of that big world agreement the USA and Eupope signed. I'm going by memory, but I think by 2010 all fuel-oil will be ultra-low sulfur. At some point, even home heating oil. Here in New York, home heating oil is no longer legal farm fuel - it was phased out about 6 months ago.

So, the diesel is now much higher than regular gas, we pay to remove the sulfur and add lube additives, and get a diesel fuel with less BTU energy then the old stuff. Great deal.

And, to further complicate things, major ZDDP antiwear additives, to some degree, have been taken out of almost all road-use motor oils, gas or HD diesel including Shell Rotella T. So, for any engine with a conventional camshaftsand lifters (no rollers), we need a additive for our oil too. At least in the USA and Canada. Europeans got to keep their additives.

[CELSESSER]

John,
Have you seen any comparisons of motor oil additives? What do you look for on a label to know which oil has what in it?
Seems like there was a discussion about it some time ago. I will see if I have any luck with the search engine, maybe it needs some additive-- or I do..

Chuck

[jdemaris]

John,
Have you seen any comparisons of motor oil additives?

Read this:

Zinc Dialkyl Dithiophosphates
widely used as an anti-wear agent in motor oils to protect heavily loaded parts, particularly
the
valve train mechanisms (such as the camshaft and cam followers) from excessive wear. It
is also
used as an anti-wear agent in hydraulic fluids and certain other products. ZDDP is also an
effective oxidation inhibitor. Oils containing ZDDP should not be used in engines that
employ
silver alloy bearings. All car manufacturers before 2007 recommend the use of dialkyl
ZDDP in motor
oils for passenger car service.
ZDDP was the most commonly used additive in engine oil for sixty years and is a
multi-functional additive which provides the wear protection in almost all engine oil
formulations.
In very simple terms, ZDDP, when heated in the high temperatures of the engine,
decomposes
to form an extremely thin layer of phosphorous glass over the engine surfaces (sometimes
referred to as "glassivation"). This new layer of glass is perpetually worn away and
replenished,
protecting the metal surfaces from wearing away.

The problem for 2007 is that while ZDDP works to protect engines very nicely, it has
other
performance features that have become "possibly" detrimental in modern automotive
engines to
certain parts of the emissions and exhaust systems.

Oil companies have been cutting back on the use of Zn and P as anti-wear additives, and
turning to alternative zinc-free (ZF) additives and ash-less dispersants since Zn, P, and
sulfated
ash have been found to be bad for catalytic converters (new low SAPS oils).
This reduction is a mandate issued by API, American Petroleum Institute, who is in charge
of
developing standing standards for motor oils. The latest API SM standard for car oils calls
for a
zinc and phosphorus content less than 0.08% to reduce sulfur, carbon monoxide, and
hydrocarbon emissions. As a result of this mandate, some motor oils now have as little as
0.05% zinc and phosphorus - including Shell Rotella T "Triple Protection" blend. Prior to
the new CJ-4 API standard for diesel oils, we found most
of the CI-4 15w40 and 5w40 oils to have excellent levels of Zn and P.
These new API guidelines do not need apply to “racing,” “severe duty,” or any motor oils
that
do not carry an API “starburst” seal or clearly state for off-road-use only. Motor oils
meeting
“Energy Conserving I or II” standards should be avoided as well as those with an API SM
classification, with it's lower Zn and P levels, which applies only to 0w20, 0w30, 5w20,
5w30,
and 10w30 "ILSAC" GF-4 grades. Although having been more sensitive to emissions and
the
environment than American standards, we find the European ACEA A3 and B3/B4
classifications, which place a cap on P levels at 0.10-0.12%, to be better in taking into
consideration wear and engine longevity while limiting emissions and protecting emissions
control devices.
Although difficult to find, some manufacturers are continuing to produce their CI-4 oils,
some of
which can be found at your local auto parts stores. Check the label. If it says CI-4 or
CI-4+
alone with no mention of a CJ-4, it's probably good.

From Mobil:

The active ingredient that you are talking about is phosphorus which is added thru a
component called ZDDP. For products that meet the new ILSAC GF-4 specification the
phosphorus levels for the oil must be less than 800 ppm phosphorus. The ILSAC level for
phosphorus has been reduced to protect the catalytic converter and other emission
protection equipment. The engine manufacturers are confident that this level of
phosphorus will protect both new and older engines. However, there are Mobil 1 products
which have a higher level of phosphorus (phos) and can be used in engines in racing or
high performance applications; see the attached

Mobil 1 Turbo-Diesel Truck - has 1100 PPMs of Zinc via ZDDP. Most diesel applications.
Applications requiring higher phosphorus (ZDDP), including engines with diesel particulate filters.
CJ-4, CI-4, CI-4 Plus, SM, SL



I was using Shell Rotella T 15W-40 until I ran out of the old-formula oil. I'm now using
Tractor Supply "Traveller" 15W-40. It doesn't have the new CI-4 diesel rating for
automotive emmissions - so I assume it still has the antiwear additives.

I still prefer Rotella simply because I've been using it for years - but nobody in my area
stocks the old formula anymore. I can special order it - but that brings the price up.

The fact is - Shell does not post the amount of ZDDP in their tech-sheets for the new
Rotella. So, I wonder why? Regulations require it to be below .08% and I've read that
the new Rotella "Triple Protection" is at .05%.

Older engines need oil at over .1%. So, the new Shell Rotella T does not have it.

The Mobil website makes things much clearer - and plainly states that they no longer make
a diesel-oil rated for older engines EXCEPT their synthetic. Their Mobil 1 Turbo-Diesel
Truck oil has .11 % ZDDP. In the future, I might start using that oil.

Back to Rotella, the older formual Rotella T Mulitgrade has .12% ZDDP. The new
Rotella T Triple Protection only has .05% - going by what is posted at other sources. Shell
does not give the info.

[cow50boy]

this is alot of information most dont know, even me, but when you use the new shell does adding oil additives such as "lucus" help out i have heard both sides.
is there a good site to go to to find this information?
thanks jdemaris and lavoy,and others for all the helpful info

[pop pop]

wow, after reading this i think we're all screwed!!! i guess i'll just start mixing some bio-diesel in with my regular fuel

[Tigerhaze]

wow, after reading this i think we're all screwed!!! i guess i'll just start mixing some bio-diesel in with my regular fuel

Smile, we're helping the environment through cleaner diesel emissions. We will also unintentionally destroy our older, polluting engines which will then be replaced with newer, costlier computer controlled lower emission engines.

[pop pop]

i suppose its for our own good,,, but, do you think the rest of the worlds refineries located in MAJOR BIG TIME POLLUTERS SUCH AS CHINA and other axis of evil nations will actually give a chit(shite', she-ite')(congressional brains)

[zbo2]

i was talking to a pennzoil rep and he told me to add assembly lube to the rotella to bump up the zinc content. he also said that the zinc was used to help with the breakin on the older flat tappet style engines and after they're broken in the higher zinc content is not really needed. it will not hurt anything to add the assembly lube if it gives you some piece of mind......i was also told by an old diesel mechanic to add a quart or 2 of automatic transmission fluid to a tank of diesel for added lube and it helps to keep everything clean. i've done that for years (25+) on my JD yanmar garden tractor......still goin strong and never had a problem.

[digitup2]

Darned I should stock up on Rotella T15w40 as we still can still buy it in Canada Just got two barrels of it last week .I find that these additives lift sediment off the bottom of the fuel tank as well .They seem to keep things really well suspended any way .I have two round fuel tanks that are now clean on the bottom and fifteen years ago had considerable sediment build up on the bottom.We changed filters on the fuel truck tanks every couple of months now and never did years ago I am kind of glad we still get the low sulfur diesel fuel at this point but word is the ULSD is going to be at more than just truck stops .You can't make horse power if you don't have BTU's can you ? . I am going to have to crank the injector pumps up on the old stuff just to keep the pony's up .Doesn't make much sense !!But as they say up here save some trees shoot a beaver! .Digitup.

[pop pop]

i searched around and found some chevron Delo 100 40 wt. at of all places... a boating supply store, named west marine,,$90 and for 5 bucks more would ship a 5 gallon jug to your door(until Christmas).. hohoho!!that stuff ain't cheap no more!!!