Sorry, RamDan03 that didnt really come out right on the computer...

I just meant that the service manual probably will never mention using additives.....I guess its ultimately up to the owner..

 

I knew what you were saying...no harm done

 

I didn't think the 3rd generation trucks had a conventional injection pump. And I'm sure they(Cummins and the DC *****) are not interested in 'selling' replacement parts during the warranty period. It would seem justifiable on their part to ask the owner to supply any necessary lubricity enhancement to the fuel if that is an issue.

The extra lubricity can't be "very" important because if that were the case, people like me (who don't use additives) would be having at least a few failures from neglecting this 'lubricity' issue. Not the case, for me anyway.

We used to haul fuel to a number of big users of diesel equipment (truck lines, truck rentals, quarries, etc). None used additives in their fuel except those who ran unblended #2 would sometimes (not always) get a pour-point depressant additive in the winter. I've got to think that people who burn 7200 gallons a week would be able to tell over the course of time if there is a maintenance or performance benefit to be had by using additives. When we see a testimonial from Yellow Freight or Penske or Ryder saying, "We run XXX additive in all our trucks....and get YYY more miles out of injection pumps......and get 15% better mileage,etc....." then the case for additives will be proven.

Don't hold your breath until that happens.

 

Yea, I agree with the ounce of prevention idea, here in Washington its been oh from 8 to -5 degrees faht thats cold. Even my mules complain about that, but should be in teens soon. I always use the Diesel Power additive even with #1 and have for 10 years also with my 93 Cummins. This protects the fuel in the tank and in the lines before it enters the engine. I do a lot of winter traveling going to sportsmen trade shows and I know its save my bacon through the years.
Nimrod

 

1- you are correct in saying that the 3 rd gens dont have an injector pump....but they do have a LIFT pump and injectors. While the late model second gens have the VP44 injector pump, they also have a lift pump and injectors. The additives may be somewhat more important in trucks with a VP44, since the pump is lubricated by the fuel. But, I still think there are lots of pluses to using additives with the 3 rd gens....

2- DC isnt interested in selling parts during the warranty period....really??? Where do you get your information from?? I beg to differ...there are lots of dealerships out there that dont know the first thing about the Cummins engine. They are VERY happy to take the $300+ labour from an uninformed owner after they tell him (incorrectly) that the lift pump isnt covered under warranty. Ive heard of the same thing happening to people with their $2000+ VP44 injector pumps. So it does happens, and with a million of these trucks on the road now, it happens every day.

3- You claim that people like you that dont use additives would be having failures - have you actually sat down and read this and the other sites??? there are still a LOT of lift pump failures on the third gens, even after the "so-called" lift pump improvements have been made.

4- How can you even compare a Cummins pickup engine with an OTR diesel in a big rig??? I will most certainly tell you that many operators do use fuel additives. Besides, when you go through that much fuel additives are likely not needed....but I have to ask you, how much fuel you you go through in a week??? Im pretty sure its not anywhere near what a big rig burns....therefore, additives will be more important for you as your truck doesnt burn the great volume of fuel and your truck sits more and likely has more startups and shutdowns than the bigger trucks.

As I said before, its ultimately up to the owner.....

 

I like the idea of added insurance when the temps are in the single digits or -0. I have used all of them over the last 6 to 8 years or so (that I could find up here), Stanadyne, Power Service, Shell. I have never had a gelling problem with any of them, but even with that nasty winter fuel, my truck runs the best when I use Shell Rotella Diesel Fuel Additive (DFA)...no clatter at all. Sounds like crap in the winter when I use Power Service. Stanadyne is OK, however it is much more popular amongst the forum users. I personally will stick with Shell DFA at every fill-up, winter or summer. I am sometimes amazed at how much quieter and smoother it makes my truck run in the winter. Just my observations. As far as gelling goes, they all did the job, even in –30 temperatures.

 

I stopped by the Cummins service center in Cedar Rapids after work today to pickup an oil filter. I spoke with their service manager for a while, picking his brain on anything he was willing to share.

I asked about fuel additives and he stated that Cummins does not recommend a fuel additive. In fact, he stated in cases where they had pump and injector failures, Cummins has denied warranty claims after finding additives in the fuel. I asked about the lift pump failures in the new ISB engines and he stated that he is aware of the lift pump problems, but Cummins has not found any relationship between fuel and the pump failures. He said the older style rotory pumps had problems with lack of lubrication, but Cummins replaced those in the new engines.

He did say they run an additive in their own trucks just for the winter. That is only to prevent jelling though, not for lubricity. In fact the additive they use is made by Fleetguard. He did warn about the possibility of a warranty denial from the Dodge dealer if I used the additive. I got the impression that he was recommending using the anti-jelling additive, but couldn't openly say it because it went against Cummins policy.

On a side note....I didn't know this, but Fleetguard is a busniess unit of Cummins.

Another FYI, I asked what oil they run in their trucks and the ones they service. He stated either the Cummins brand or Shell Rotella.

I just want to let ya'll know what I found out. I will used the Fleetguard additive in my truck for the winter. I also plan on going synthetic with my oil once my truck is broken in. The funny thing about my visit was that my Ram was one of two of the smallest trucks in the lot. Most of the others were semi tractors....he he.

-Muzzy

 

I'll venture 2 comments that I guess contradict one another.

1) Outfits like Stanadyne Corporation don't stay in business by us little guys. I recently purchased a "small" 5 gallon container of it at a diesel shop that was loaded with 55 gallon drums of the stuff. So someone's buying it......

2) Is it possible that big fleets don't use additives because they're gambling on their equipment not breaking down without using it? If you're buring 7200 gallons a week, you'd be using a lot of Stanadyne. An occasional injection pump replacement may be cheaper than dosing the entire fleet with an additive.

 

Commatoze, it isn't really a "gamble" at all. What it amounts to is that fleet users have enough units to make a valid statistical comparison. One person using additives in his truck and then proclaiming that using additives is what prevented him from having problems doesn't make sense--there is no way to tell what would have happened had that person NOT used additives.

With fleets, a 50 or 100 unit sample is more than enough to reliably determine whether the sample attains a benefit when compared to another sample which doesn't use the product in question. Big fleets have people (statisticians) whose only job is to perform such studies to reduce per mile cost. If a reduction of even a fraction of a cent per mile can be attained by using additives, that adds up to real money when multiplied by the millions of miles racked up by all their trucks over the course of a year.

Yeah, but.....those are semis, right? And this is a Cummins 5.9 forum, so how does that correlate? For one thing, many of the rental truck fleet use the 5.9, so the comparison is almost direct. They're all diesels--International, Caterillar D9, Kubota B7100, Cummins 5.9, or BNSF locomotive--and all share common fuel requirements. All have minimum requirements for cetane, lubricity, and ability to flow in cold weather, among other ASTM standards. All these companies have engineers whose job is to determine whether or not their product will function in the field on the available fuel supply. To my knowledge, no manufacturer has determined a need to use additives unless using fuel with a known deficiency.

As far as the 'warm, fuzzy' feeling of using additives goes, I'm not sure how to address that. The only reason I can see for getting a 'warm, fuzzy' feeling would be that you either know or suspect that a.) the fuel we buy doesn't meet the standards established for #2, or b.) your vehicle won't run correctly on untreated #2 diesel, contrary to the statement that it will in the owners manual.

I would offer that many people got a 'warm/fuzzy' by dumping Slick 50 in their crankcases, too, until the air got cleared on that issue.

 

here's a link to a discussion of this over on the DieselRam.com



http://dieselram.com/cgi-bin/ultimat...;f=29;t=000570

 

The problem of course, is that we don't have portable fuel testing labs built in to our trucks and the average user here has no way of verifying the quality of fuel they are getting even from their usual fuel location, let alone the occasional fill up elsewhere.

Statistically speaking you are 100% right, probably not needed. Also statitistically speaking automotive insurance is not a good idea (that's why the companies make money, right?) . But even presuming it wasn't illegal to not have insurance, would you think that it was not prudent to do so?

 

I assume the implication is that additives offer some kind of insurance against fuel deficiencies. I can sort of see the analogy between that and auto insurance, but not really because auto insurance (for me) is mainly for covering me for liability in amounts that I can't possibly cover out of my pocket. I can afford to replace an injection pump; I can't afford a $300K personal injury judgement. It would be more apt to compare additives to extended warranties, don't you think? That's one form of insurance I choose to be without, along with the 'insurance' that additives offer.

Just curious: Why do you suspect that, a.) the fuel we buy doesn't meet the standards established for #2, or b.) your vehicle won't run correctly on untreated #2 diesel? It's refined and supplied to you by the same companies that provide our gasoline, lube oil, and jet fuel, all of which, I think most people would agree, are pretty good products. But when it comes to producing diesel, for some reason, they just can't make a quality product?

 

But when it comes to producing diesel, for some reason, they just can't make a quality product?

From reading that thread on the other site it would appear not. Even Cummins has a concern about quality fuel. No?

 

Interesting article, but did I miss something? I read about contaminants--not sure what additives can do about that other than emulsify water, which I maintain defeats the purpose of the fuel/water separator.

 

Agreed. I thought the issue was water/dirt in the lift pump, which is pre-filter. The additives might help keep the water from seperating inside the lift pump? But would do nothing for dirt, right?

Also the lubricty (sp?) of the fuel was in question, tho Cummins didn't back that up.

What that article did do is send me looking for a pre-lift-pump filter kit. I found very little other than some RV sites mentioning raycor kits.