Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Fuel additives/Dipetane efficiency?
Options
Comments
-
Yeah, but "does" what? I've used it in a good few vans, noticed bugger all difference/mileage increases/smoothyness and so stopped using it -a bit of a placebo effect being observed here I think, also most lads who fail on emmissions are told "put in some dipethane, give it socks to get it nice and warm and then re-test it". Which is doing the trick, the "socks" or the Dipethane? Personally, never noticed a single improvement in any yoke I've put it into. Matter of fact, there's 2 gallon cans and a couple of liter cans sitting in the workshop and no-one's bothered using them, so I'm not alone there..I use it in a hard worked FIAT 2.8JTD Power engine (50K miles done) and a Volvo S40 1.9D (182K miles done), both Common Rail, and 'it does exactly what it says on the tin' (bottle) with no nasties.0 -
Technoprisoner wrote: »it can be used in any engine without worry's
Even with pretty precise injection systems? Or dpfs? That's my worry.0 -
If the manufacturers can't provide proof for any benefits for common rail diesels then you'd have to ask yourself if there's any benefit (if there was any then you'd expect them to be shouting about it).
Their last documented NCT proof is just under ten years old (April 2003) on cars that are well behind current technology (and consequent repair bills such as replacing DPF):
http://www.dipetane.com/downloads/nct.pdf0 -
a dpf is not much different from a catalytic converter..... the dipetain is made of the same stuff your diesel is made of. it should not cause any problems what so ever. The common rail engine is not something special ...if you look at the link i posted it shows that this stuff is made of hydrogen and carbon....exactly what every fuel is made of....so if something does happen your engine it wont be the dipetane that caused it0
-
If the manufacturers can't provide proof for any benefits for common rail diesels then you'd have to ask yourself if there's any benefit (if there was any then you'd expect them to be shouting about it).
Their last documented NCT proof is just under ten years old (April 2003) on cars that are well behind current technology (and consequent repair bills such as replacing DPF):
http://www.dipetane.com/downloads/nct.pdfMuppetcheck: Even with pretty precise injection systems? Or dpfs? That's my worry.
“[Diesel Fuel Injection Equipment Manufacturers]: It is essential that the lubricity of the fuel as measured by the HFRR test specified in ISO 12156-1 meets the requirement of a wear scar diameter not greater than 460 microns. In addition, it is recommended by the Diesel FIE manufacturers, that “first fill” of the fuel tank should be with fuel with good lubricity characteristics (HFRR < 400 μm) in order to guarantee good “run-in” of the injection system components. The US diesel specification (ASTM D 975-09) includes a lubricity value of 520 μm maximum (according to ASTM D 6079). It is expected that the useful operating lifetime of any mechanical component will be adversely affected by fuel with a lubricity exceeding 460 microns.”
Good EU diesel has a lubricity of 460microns. That is the standard and it is considered low sulphur diesel. Dipetane have released tests done on 550 micron ULSD (USA standard) which was determined to have a lubricity of 420 microns with dipetane added. As said it deosn't contain any detergents or anything that could chemically affect your FIE.
http://www.bosch-kraftfahrzeugtechnik.de/media/pdf/themenimfokus_1/FIEM_Common_Position_Statement_2009.pdf
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dipetanenortheast.com%2Fdocuments%2FLubricityPR.doc&ei=SxLFUIbkGNG6hAfrp4DoBw&usg=AFQjCNFvKAYhXk5087ERoos8DP_GGJlqLA&sig2=JxoDA9xdOBA5uwEeJTnoAA
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infineum.com%2FDocuments%2FFuels%2520Technical%2520Papers%2FSAE%2F2009-01-0848.pdf&ei=dxPFUJyvJ8KShgfOsID4Cw&usg=AFQjCNE1-u09qwlja7onLTzvasFFCGz2rw&sig2=fwDqtm56dxJ3snco_bVn2g
from their website http://www.dipetane.ie/Protects DPF’s, EGR’s, DOC’s & CATS against poorly combusting fuels
It does say that it lowers combustion temperature which may reduce the dpf ability to burn off but at the same time their should be less in it.
Scientific tests are very difficult to do. You'd be looking a buying 40 cars and exposing to to exactly the same maintainance, fuel, driving style etc. to get meaningful results.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ronnie Beck wrote: »
It does say that it lowers combustion temperature which may reduce the dpf ability to burn off but at the same time their should be less in it.
Scientific tests are very difficult to do. You'd be looking a buying 40 cars and exposing to to exactly the same maintainance, fuel, driving style etc. to get meaningful results.
this should not be too much of a problem as the eloy fluid is added to raise the temps anyways0 -
Can I buy the excess stuff off you then (seriously)?Matter of fact, there's 2 gallon cans and a couple of liter cans sitting in the workshop and no-one's bothered using them, so I'm not alone there..
What are you $hitting on about? Common Rail isnt new, its been around at least as long as Dipetane, if not longer. CR is a diesel engine type with high pressure injection. Its not the only type. In terms of viscosity, 300ml of virtually any thick liquid in 60litres of diesel is going to do sweet FA to the injection precision. In Liquid bodies the affect of viscosity is mostly influenced by the liquid thats in abundance.If the manufacturers can't provide proof for any benefits for common rail diesels then you'd have to ask yourself if there's any benefit (if there was any then you'd expect them to be shouting about it).
They dont need to break down each little subset of each engine type as its a hydrocarbon fuel enhancer.. those engines are designed to burn hydrocarbons. I assume you single out CR as you have one, well what about GDI, FSI, PD, TwinAir and all the other engine technologies? There is more to the world than a tax break special 4pot diesel. Either try it or dont.
Common Rail was out in 97. Dont see what DPFs have to do with this other than perhaps having less Particulate Matter to deal with.. ie better for them. Besides DPFs tend to do a great job of f-ing up all by themselves, no reason to scaremonger Dipetane into that mess. And, they do say its DPF safe on their site.Their last documented NCT proof is just under ten years old (April 2003) on cars that are well behind current technology (and consequent repair bills such as replacing DPF):
Last year I tested a Common Rail over 1000miles on Blends of Kerosene, Veg Oil and Diesel along with Viscosity and Cetane Enhancers. I found it worked fine, better than fine on Kero with Veg Oil (about 5litres per 50litres), which is a way more ambitious test than a puny 250ml of Dipetane.0 -
Yeah, but "does" what? I've used it in a good few vans, noticed bugger all difference/mileage increases/smoothyness and so stopped using it -a bit of a placebo effect being observed here I think, also most lads who fail on emmissions are told "put in some dipethane, give it socks to get it nice and warm and then re-test it". Which is doing the trick, the "socks" or the Dipethane? Personally, never noticed a single improvement in any yoke I've put it into. Matter of fact, there's 2 gallon cans and a couple of liter cans sitting in the workshop and no-one's bothered using them, so I'm not alone there..
we put it in the tank of a car running on an emissions tester and within 30-40 secs the CO came down a lot as we were looking at it. i use it in my jam jar and have better power and better fuel consumption. its quite noticible imo0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
I have done twice but didn't notice any difference in a 1.4 roverTechnoprisoner wrote: »
it is completely safe to put a full bottle of this stuff in the tank of your car....will casue no ill effects...well except for your wallet lol0 -
It is snakeoil.0
-
Sorry, I just can't see the CO coming down within 30-40 seconds, I doubt the contents of the pumps and filter/pipes would have even run through in 30 seconds of operation.
Like I said, I've never noticed any benefits.
I find many of the "miracles in a can" are pish, Nova stuff being an exception, but that's just my own view.0 -
-
Q: Can I use it in petrol?
A: Yeah, same stuff that is in petrol.
Q: Can I use it in diesel?
A: Yeah, no problem, it's same stuff that is in diesel.
Q: Can I use diesel in my petrol?
A: Yeah, no problem, it's all hydrocarbons. No, wait a minute...0 -
Matt Simis wrote: »Can I buy the excess stuff off you then (seriously)?
What are you $hitting on about? Common Rail isnt new, its been around at least as long as Dipetane, if not longer. CR is a diesel engine type with high pressure injection. Its not the only type. In terms of viscosity, 300ml of virtually any thick liquid in 60litres of diesel is going to do sweet FA to the injection precision. In Liquid bodies the affect of viscosity is mostly influenced by the liquid thats in abundance.
They dont need to break down each little subset of each engine type as its a hydrocarbon fuel enhancer.. those engines are designed to burn hydrocarbons. I assume you single out CR as you have one, well what about GDI, FSI, PD, TwinAir and all the other engine technologies? There is more to the world than a tax break special 4pot diesel. Either try it or dont.
Common Rail was out in 97. Dont see what DPFs have to do with this other than perhaps having less Particulate Matter to deal with.. ie better for them. Besides DPFs tend to do a great job of f-ing up all by themselves, no reason to scaremonger Dipetane into that mess. And, they do say its DPF safe on their site.
Last year I tested a Common Rail over 1000miles on Blends of Kerosene, Veg Oil and Diesel along with Viscosity and Cetane Enhancers. I found it worked fine, better than fine on Kero with Veg Oil (about 5litres per 50litres), which is a way more ambitious test than a puny 250ml of Dipetane.
Good info Matt,
As my earlier thread, I've been adding 2L of veg oil per 90L tank full of diesel. According to an expert it's great for lubriating the injectors, especially town traffic driving. I'm using this blend for the past 10K miles with no ill effect. Do you have an opinion on this?0 -
Matt Simis wrote: »What are you $hitting on about? Common Rail isnt new, its been around at least as long as Dipetane, if not longer. CR is a diesel engine type with high pressure injection. Its not the only type. In terms of viscosity, 300ml of virtually any thick liquid in 60litres of diesel is going to do sweet FA to the injection precision. In Liquid bodies the affect of viscosity is mostly influenced by the liquid thats in abundance.
They dont need to break down each little subset of each engine type as its a hydrocarbon fuel enhancer.. those engines are designed to burn hydrocarbons. I assume you single out CR as you have one, well what about GDI, FSI, PD, TwinAir and all the other engine technologies? There is more to the world than a tax break special 4pot diesel. Either try it or dont.
I'm a little taken aback by your response which comes across as defensive to say the least. I wasn't "$hitting on" as you put it but asking a question that remains unanswered. I am aware than other technologies other than CR exist and I'm aware that there is more than one type of fuel but most of the questions on any thread involving Dipetane involve diesels (and often whether or not Dipetane can be used to get an NCT/DOE failure through the test).
The NCT examples on the Dipetane website are for tests carried out in 2003. That means that the cars involved were at least four years old at that time and so were running technology that is now going on 15+ years old. Neither of the two diesels listed are common rail. I'm willing to agree that Dipetane will probably improve the combustion efficiency of an older inefficient diesel but may not improve the efficiency of a more modern common rail diesel where fuel is atomised and injected in a series of pulses.
There's no proof that it offers any benefit to a common rail user (or GDI for that matter).
FWIW, I've tried out Dipetane on four different cars, three CR diesels and one single carb petrol. Distance covered was just under 20,000 km and as I was commuting on back roads the only variable was the weather. I didn't log any benefit in terms of fuel consumption over that distance.0 -
Well I havent seen any harm, however I was only using it as the Kero doesnt have the lubrication of diesel. Saying that I have heard it said that modern diesel, as it gets cleaner also gets dryer, leading to premature failures. There are "professional" additives that combat this, but a small dose of (unused!) Veg Oil (or clean motor oil) likely does a good job too!nightster1 wrote: »Good info Matt,
As my earlier thread, I've been adding 2L of veg oil per 90L tank full of diesel. According to an expert it's great for lubriating the injectors, especially town traffic driving. I'm using this blend for the past 10K miles with no ill effect. Do you have an opinion on this?
Wait a second, you want proof? And you ask a public forum. There is no "proof" it does anything for anything, its their marketing spin + some feedback from your peers. There is no CR (or GDI) aspect to this question, just your attempts to make it a specific issue.There's no proof that it offers any benefit to a common rail user (or GDI for that matter).
Well you see the problem is someone that repeatedly asks a unanswerable question with negative connotations and insinuations (prove or its a lie, random mention of costly DPF failure, the whole NCT date conspiracy?) does come across as $hitting on the topic, IMO.I'm a little taken aback by your response which comes across as defensive to say the least. I wasn't "$hitting on" as you put it but asking a question that remains unanswered.
Like if I said there is no proof that "EVs dont make you go blind, why it no one testing this, what it there to hide, why havent I got an answer, look at this test its for something else." Its pure mud slinging.
I mean seriously, this is a public forum, none of us work for Dipetane (afaik) or have any commercial bias, have any inside info and in no way are in a position to "guarantee" you compatibility/results long or short term.. why the hell are you asking us or here? You already got the circumstantial response (lots of people use it) and the logical (CR is 15years old and logically its been tested professionally and via consumer usage).
But for the definitive answer... go email them and then post their reply here. A simple solution.0 -
Do you have a link to prove that? A common rail diesel and a dpf are expensive to repair/replace so it'd be nice if you could reassure those who have to actually foot the bill that there's no risk.
I've yet to see a study cited by the manufacturers of Dipetane that involves a common rail diesel and especially a euro V diesel.
I use Diptane in a 2003 Volvo S40 which IS common Rail and it gives about an extra 4 MPG (8%), so it pays for itself and some.
Also why not give THIS GUY a call and check with a bulk user.0 -
Matt Simis wrote: »Wait a second, you want proof? And you ask a public forum. There is no "proof" it does anything for anything, its their marketing spin + some feedback from your peers. There is no CR (or GDI) aspect to this question, just your attempts to make it a specific issue.
I asked another poster to provide a link to back up a point that they madeMatt Simis wrote: »Well you see the problem is someone that repeatedly asks a unanswerable question with negative connotations and insinuations (prove or its a lie, random mention of costly DPF failure, the whole NCT date conspiracy?) does come across as $hitting on the topic, IMO.
I never mentioned a conspiracy - its reasonable to expect a company selling a product to provide up to date scientific proof of claims that they (not I) are making. Why twist what I say? Why not just make a simple point instead of responding like an adolescent with anger issues?Matt Simis wrote: »Like if I said there is no proof that "EVs dont make you go blind, why it no one testing this, what it there to hide, why havent I got an answer, look at this test its for something else." Its pure mud slinging.
I merely pointed out that their test data is 15 years out of date. Use of additives in the context of DPF failure is not 'random'. I never mentioned EVs - your example is just introducing noise into this discussion
The rest of your rambling is pure comedy and has nothing to do with the discussion.Matt Simis wrote: »You already got the circumstantial response (lots of people use it) and the logical (CR is 15years old and logically its been tested professionally and via consumer usage).
But for the definitive answer... go email them and then post their reply here. A simple solution.
Please, please, please post a link to a common rail professional testing of the product. I emailed them a few years ago and got assurances but no hard data.
I don't see any point in engaging with you as you're not willing to hold a logical and reasoned discussion. I don't understand why you feel the need to attack rather than discuss. I don't mind if you have an alternative point of view but your approach is too aggressive for my liking. It sounds like you may have something useful to contribute but its getting lost in your need to win.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yeah, except they use mostly subbies that buy their own fuel and run their own vehicles. Do they use it?I use Diptane in a 2003 Volvo S40 which IS common Rail and it gives about an extra 4 MPG (8%), so it pays for itself and some.
Also why not give THIS GUY a call and check with a bulk user.0 -
Please, please, please post a link to a common rail professional testing of the product. I emailed them a few years ago and got assurances but no hard data.
I posted link a few pages back that show it improves lubrication in the lab. Here's an independant test on similar products using the same test. Includes 2 stroke oil and veg oil. What sort of test are you looking for. Do you realise what would be involved in a study to investigate the lifespan of a fuel system with and without dipetane. If you bothered to read the link you would realise that these are industry standard test designed to replicate the wear and tear experienced by fuel system over a long time. I use dipetane mainly to lubricate the injectors and fuel pump for the same reason putting oil on the chain of your bike makes it easier to cycle. I would use biodiesel if I had access to it in this country:mad:. I'm not convinced on veg oil in DI yet.
Lubricity Additive Study Results
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
8)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.
CREDITS:
This study would not have been possible without the participation of all companies involved and dieselplace.com. A special Thank You to all of the dieselplace.com members who generously donated toward this study and waited longer than they should have for the results. You folks are the best. Arlen Spicer, organizer.0 -
^ Can you post a link to that independent test? (if it is the one you said you linked a few pages back, sorry in advance).
Not your ornery onager
0 -
^ Can you post a link to that independent test? (if it is the one you said you linked a few pages back, sorry in advance).
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=177728
Sorry haven't managed to figure out the link thing
edit: Now it works, typical0 -
Thank you, I aim to entertain.The rest of your rambling is pure comedy and has nothing to do with the discussion.
The NCT is a professional test and many CR cars with Dipetane have been emission tested, multiple times on the same car over a period of years.. like the 15 or so that CR exists or the 8 or so that DPFs exist. Yet the papers arent covered with DPF explosions and Dipetane the company retains their "no claims of damage or problems - ever" title. Of course you want someone (on Boards since you keep asking here) to fund a long term and peer reviewed (hard data) scientific research project to re-assure you that CRs specifically are hunky dory with it.. thats not going to happen.Please, please, please post a link to a common rail professional testing of the product. I emailed them a few years ago and got assurances but no hard data.
Have you taken your quest for truth to them directly (recently at least) so you can stop stirring it here?I don't see any point in engaging with you as you're not willing to hold a logical and reasoned discussion. I don't understand why you feel the need to attack rather than discuss. I don't mind if you have an alternative point of view but your approach is too aggressive for my liking. It sounds like you may have something useful to contribute but its getting lost in your need to win.0 -
Ok, so additives 1-4 in that^ study were found to be good. Which one is Dipethane again? Is it branded differently in the US?0
-
Ok, so additives 1-4 in that^ study were found to be good. Which one is Dipetane again? Is it branded differently in the US?
The above test pointed out that fuel additives aren't snake oil while some are. Added Lubrication is reason alone to use an additive in common-rail fuel injection system IMO. I provided links, from the people who make CR system, earlier to show that EU diesel is below 60 microns below the lubricity limit for a brand new CR system.
linkDIPETANE FUEL TECHNOLOGY ANNOUNCES SIGNIFICANT RESULTSIN AN ASTM D6079 LUBRICITY TEST FOR ULSD FUELSDipetane II brings ultra dry fuel within Engine Manufacturer Association specifications
NEW YORK, November 18, 2008 – Dipetane Fuel Technology today announced the third party test results of ASTM D6079 Lubricity test showing Dipetane II to be an effective after-market lubricity treatment. In addition to its demonstrated proven fuel economy benefits shown earlier this year in the SAE J1321 / TMC Type II Fuel Consumption Test, Dipetane II now has proven ULSD fuel lubricity benefits.
Lubricity is a concern for all users of the new Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuels. ULSD does not have the lubricity that previous diesel fuels provided, and truckers know the difference. Although additized to compensate, the resulting fuels fall short of prior lubricity levels and in some cases are not additized properly – then they fall way short.
Dipetane’s lubricity formulation helps protect engines from lubricity shortfalls from even severely deficient fuels. In the industry standard ASTM 6079 High Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR) tests performed by Magellan Midstream Partners, Dipetane II increased lubricity by 162 microns. With an industry standard of 520 micron scar factor, Dipetane II improved a sample of poor lubricity ULSD 583 micron scar factor fuel to a 421 micron scar factor level. While this may sound technical, it helps to eliminate concerns of truckers throughout the country. They have to use ULSD and are worried about the damage low lubricity fuels are causing to their engines. Dipetane II cures the lubricity problem.
“In our SAE fuel economy test earlier this year, Dipetane proved better burn efficiency, with resultant improvement in fuel economy, horsepower and engine life,” said Richard McPherson, managing director of Dipetane USA. “Now with the added proof of significant lubricity, truckers can feel even more confident that they are getting their money’s worth.”0 -
For me dipetane and the other fuel additives aren't there to improve fuel consumption on a car already running 100%, but can on a car thats running rough.
I did pass the NCT on using it, with no mechanical changes to the car itself from the initial fail.0 -
Sorry, I just can't see the CO coming down within 30-40 seconds, I doubt the contents of the pumps and filter/pipes would have even run through in 30 seconds of operation.
Like I said, I've never noticed any benefits.
I find many of the "miracles in a can" are pish, Nova stuff being an exception, but that's just my own view.
irrespective of your eyesight it happened as I stated0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement