Cruisers & Sailing Forums (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/)
-   Engines and Propulsion Systems (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f54/)
-   -   Fuel additives? Yes or no (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f54/fuel-additives-yes-or-no-223498.html)

Dr. D 09-09-2019 18:53

Re: Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
No.


Next question?

a64pilot 09-09-2019 19:58

Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Compass790 (Post 2973269)
According to my reading of it they used the untreated dry fuel for the test & then added the additives.

They did not test the fuel as it comes out of the pump with the additives which I found strange.

They did give a figure for the pump fuel wear test standard



What is untreated dry fuel if it’s not fuel out of the pump?

On edit, just reread the report, they did test untreated fuel from the pump, that was the baseline, they called it dry as that is what most Diesel people were complaining about, that the new ULSD was a “dry” fuel like a pure solvent with no oil like properties like the old #2.

skipperpete 10-09-2019 00:11

Re: Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Delray (Post 2970751)
I have twin 490hp Yanmar Diesel engines. Should I use fuel additives or not?

If you should use them, why isn't the fuel pre treated?



If your Yanmars are common rail injection it would be good practice to add one of the better additives such as Stanadyne if you're in the US or Liqui Moly in Europe. Common rail systems need ultra clean fuel as well as the benefits of a good fuel additive.

Compass790 10-09-2019 03:04

Re: Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by a64pilot (Post 2973332)
What is untreated dry fuel if it’s not fuel out of the pump?

On edit, just reread the report, they did test untreated fuel from the pump, that was the baseline, they called it dry as that is what most Diesel people were complaining about, that the new ULSD was a “dry” fuel like a pure solvent with no oil like properties like the old #2.

I read it differently

From the study :"-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. "

Then you go back earlier in the article & it says "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."

This means that they were conducting their additive tests on fuel that did not meet the standard for commercial sale .The fuel companies put in a lubricity additive in to meet the US standard.
I see that as not a real world scenario but certainly ok for testing the additives

Badsanta 10-09-2019 05:01

Re: Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
I like https://opti-lube.com/?gclid=CjwKCAj...BoCzWkQAvD_BwE

Works for me. But time will tell.

a64pilot 10-09-2019 07:31

Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
Trust me, the fuel they tested was pump fuel that is sold to the public, pump fuel is not or was not then treated to increase lubricity, treating means adding an additive of course ,and that was the point of the test.
Which brand of fuel used wasn’t specified and may have had an impact as different refiners will often add different additive packages.
Valv tec for example has an anti microbial package added from the supplier, it’s a different type than Biobor JF, so the two together work very well.
The worst case scenario spoke of just straight pump, fuel with no customer supplied additives, as that is presumed to be worst case, however the test showed many additives that actually increased friction and wear.
Thereby showing that some additives actually make the problem your trying to solve, worse.
There are some good additives, some do no harm, but do no good, and some actually make the problem worse.
There is a lot of snake oil sold.

a64pilot 10-09-2019 07:36

Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Compass790 (Post 2973476)
I read it differently



From the study :"-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. "



Then you go back earlier in the article & it says "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."



This means that they were conducting their additive tests on fuel that did not meet the standard for commercial sale .The fuel companies put in a lubricity additive in to meet the US standard.

I see that as not a real world scenario but certainly ok for testing the additives



There is no regulatory standard of a wear scar that fuel has to meet, like the amount of sulphur is mandatory, or apparently wasn’t then, maybe there is now, but I doubt it.
The use of the word “should” in not mandatory, when your talking mandatory you use the word “must”

Although it may have been fuel without the refiners additive package, who knows?

Mainebristol 10-09-2019 07:54

Re: Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
I have to say, I add, but then all the local marinas sell number 2 heating oil instead of diesel. That way, they don't have to pay the road taxes. For as long as I can remember, every drop of diesel that I've run through my wonderful Y2gmf has been red. I put the additive in there just because... I mean, why not? It makes me feel better.

a64pilot 10-09-2019 07:58

Re: Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
Red dye just denotes fuel that the road tax hasn’t been paid, farm tractors for instance burn red Diesel.
Huge fine if your caught on the road with red Diesel.
Unlikely they are selling heating fuel as motor fuel.

Mainebristol 10-09-2019 08:02

Re: Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
Oh. I guess that makes sense. Not much difference between the two, anyway.

Simi 60 10-09-2019 11:25

Re: Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by skipperpete (Post 2973418)
If your Yanmars are common rail injection it would be good practice to add one of the better additives such as Stanadyne if you're in the US or Liqui Moly in Europe. Common rail systems need ultra clean fuel as well as the benefits of a good fuel additive.


Fuel filters
Perhaps you've heard of them?

a64pilot 10-09-2019 13:45

Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simi 60 (Post 2973811)
Fuel filters
Perhaps you've heard of them?



No, he is very correct. Common rails run about 30,000 PSI fuel pressure, my truck ran as high as 50,000 PSI, normal Diesels about 600 or so, the extreme high pressure of a common rail will allow any, even tiny contamination to cut an injector tip like a water jet.
Plus a set of overhauled injectors for my Duramax 8 cyl, hence 8 injectors was I believe $3,500 a few years ago, I assume they may have come down some since then. I only had one or two that were bad, but changing them took all weekend with a trained mechanic and good tools, no way was I only going to change the bad ones, to have another go out a week later.
But common rail motors need as clean a fuel as is possible, and almost certainly a fuel with a good lubricity improver will have one running longer with fewer problems.

Compass790 10-09-2019 17:18

Re: Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by a64pilot (Post 2973644)
There is no regulatory standard of a wear scar that fuel has to meet, like the amount of sulphur is mandatory, or apparently wasn’t then, maybe there is now, but I doubt it.
The use of the word “should” in not mandatory, when your talking mandatory you use the word “must”

Although it may have been fuel without the refiners additive package, who knows?

That's how I read it, it was fuel without the refiners additive package but I accept "who knows"
I do know the refiners add something to increase lubricity in ULSD

Simi 60 10-09-2019 18:30

Re: Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by a64pilot (Post 2973937)
No, he is very correct. Common rails run about 30,000 PSI fuel pressure, my truck ran as high as 50,000 PSI, normal Diesels about 600 or so, the extreme high pressure of a common rail will allow any, even tiny contamination to cut an injector tip like a water jet.

Sure, but i stand by my comment that a filter will pick up contaminants before they hit the engine.
If not, those filters and engine have no place.......anywhere.

sail sfbay 11-09-2019 12:47

Re: Fuel additives? Yes or no
 
This is a fascinating thread!!

To answer the question whether ultra low sulfur (ULSD) is #2 diesel. Yes it is.

Thought the forum might be interested in ULSD lubricity specification and why and where a lubricity improver is added.

In 2006 the US Diesel Fuel sulfur specification was lowered from 500 ppm maximum in Low Sulfur Diesel (LSD) to 15 ppmw maximum (10 ppmw in the EU) and was now called Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD). The deeper oil refining desulphurization required to meet the lower sulfur specification resulted in the loss of natural fuel lubricity. The lubricating properties of diesel fuels are important for rotary and distributor type fuel injection pumps to help prevent wear. In these pumps, moving parts are lubricated by the diesel fuel and not engine oil. The ASTM D975 lubricity specification that went into effect on January 1, 2005 was prompted by concerns over the loss of lubricity with the new ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Simply put, lubricity is determined by rubbing a metal ball on a flat disc submerged in the fuel being tested to determine scarring and wear. The test methods to determine lubricity are ASTM D6079 and ASTM D7688 Lubricity by HFRR (High Frequency Reciprocating Rig) and the US specification is 520 maximum micron (0.520 mm) wear scar. European lubricity specifications are even more stringent at 460 maximum micron (0.460 mm) wear scar.

ULSD produced at the refinery has a typical wear scar of 600+ microns. To meet the lower ULSD ASTM D975 HFRR lubricity specification a lubricity improver is added to the fuel prior to loading into trucks that transport diesel to road and marine refueling stations and terminals do th. Refiners only do that when they sell finished diesel at their terminal, whereas pipeline terminal operators do that after they receive the diesel by pipeline since the improver is lost during pipeline transport.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 17:16.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.