fuel additive for the '03
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: SLC UT
Re:fuel additive for the '03
I have an 03' I also have a Neighbor that works for Cummins, he has stated to me that the Motor was designed to not to use any additives, if there is a fail it will be becouse of Mech., not clogged injetors. He stated its just a wast of money, he also showed me 2 injetors one with additives one without, I have choosed not to use additives.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
From: Odessa, Mo
Re:fuel additive for the '03
I use Howes diesel treat with anti-gel in the winter. I also use it in the summer too by I am trying Lucas fuel additive right now. I might stick with it through the Spring/summer/fall. But I always use Howes in the winter. -Anthony
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
From: Cistern,Tx
Re:fuel additive for the '03
I use Stanadyne Performance Formula and I get it here<br>http://www.dieselpage.com/add1htm<br>and I get a few tenths better mpg.I use it in the VW TDI and it does increase mpg.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between a rock and hard place.
Re:fuel additive for the '03
No additives for me. Well over a million miles put on diesel vehicles without using additives and still waiting for my first clogged injector or inadequately lubricated injection pump.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,488
Likes: 1
From: Cleveland, OH
Re:fuel additive for the '03
You have nothing to lose using quality fuel additives and only stand to gain. The pour/gel point depressants in formulas like Stanadyne performance formula are great in the winter. Cetane boost aids in starting and power, considering the crappy 42 cetane average junk that's served up in the US, we need all the boost we can get. Other important functions of the additives are water dispersion and lubricity addtives. Lubricity additives add life to your injection system, and the dispersion additives will help greatly to prevent free water damage if you get a bad tank of diesel. Primrose Powermaster 405 for example, provides all those benefits, at a relatively low cost. 2.7 cents per treated gallon. Not exactly breaking the bank when we're talking about helping out a $45k vehicle... The only thing to avoid with additives is anything that contains alcohol, it could damage your injection equipment. A few gallons of biodiesel thrown in the tank will take care of the cetane and lubricity boost if thats all you're looking for...smells good too =]
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between a rock and hard place.
Re:fuel additive for the '03
You can learn a lot about diesel fuel and the role of additives here: http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuel...ltechinfo.shtm
Read up and you will find that there is no additive that has any effect on #2 cloud point, only pour point, and pour point is typically not the problem in cold temps--cloud point is. Mixing #1 with #2 is the only thing that lowers cloud point. Some additives claim to be able to modify the shape and size of wax crystals, but the effect is the same--a clogged filter. It just takes longer. This is something of a moot point anyway, as the Dodge has a heated fuel filter.
Boosting cetane does not add power, it primarily aids in cold starting. 42 cetane is more than adequate--Cummins only specifies 40.
As far as lubricity adding life to the system, as I said, over a million miles--still waiting for a lubricity problem to crop up.
Water dispersion (emulsification) is the last thing you want. Cummins puts a fuel/water separator on this engine to trap as much water as possible and keep it from going through the injection system--emulsifiers do the opposite: they send it on through. Your injection system will have digested every bit of water ever put in your fuel whereas left alone, the water separator would have prevent much of it from ever reaching your injection system.
Every one has a different opinion, and mine is no better than any one else's but adding fuel additives without understanding why demonstrates a lack of understanding of fuel oil and is, to me, a mindset not unlike the Slick50 crowd of a few years ago..."Can't hurt, can it?" was the motto when in fact, it actually could hurt. People, with minimal understanding of fuel oil properties, believe the fuel additive makers hype and repeat it verbatim when there is no way to substaniate what they claim.
In addition to recommending that biodiesel not be used, Dodge clearly states in the '03 manual, "Note: In addition, commercially available fuel additives are not necessary for the proper operation of your Cummins Diesel equipped Dodge Ram Truck." Why would Dodge put that in the manual if, in fact, additives really were necessary?
edit: reworded to remove possibly offensive statements. I sometimes write things that aren't meant to sound offensive, but sometimes do. Apologies offered if necessary.
Read up and you will find that there is no additive that has any effect on #2 cloud point, only pour point, and pour point is typically not the problem in cold temps--cloud point is. Mixing #1 with #2 is the only thing that lowers cloud point. Some additives claim to be able to modify the shape and size of wax crystals, but the effect is the same--a clogged filter. It just takes longer. This is something of a moot point anyway, as the Dodge has a heated fuel filter.
Boosting cetane does not add power, it primarily aids in cold starting. 42 cetane is more than adequate--Cummins only specifies 40.
As far as lubricity adding life to the system, as I said, over a million miles--still waiting for a lubricity problem to crop up.
Water dispersion (emulsification) is the last thing you want. Cummins puts a fuel/water separator on this engine to trap as much water as possible and keep it from going through the injection system--emulsifiers do the opposite: they send it on through. Your injection system will have digested every bit of water ever put in your fuel whereas left alone, the water separator would have prevent much of it from ever reaching your injection system.
Every one has a different opinion, and mine is no better than any one else's but adding fuel additives without understanding why demonstrates a lack of understanding of fuel oil and is, to me, a mindset not unlike the Slick50 crowd of a few years ago..."Can't hurt, can it?" was the motto when in fact, it actually could hurt. People, with minimal understanding of fuel oil properties, believe the fuel additive makers hype and repeat it verbatim when there is no way to substaniate what they claim.
In addition to recommending that biodiesel not be used, Dodge clearly states in the '03 manual, "Note: In addition, commercially available fuel additives are not necessary for the proper operation of your Cummins Diesel equipped Dodge Ram Truck." Why would Dodge put that in the manual if, in fact, additives really were necessary?
edit: reworded to remove possibly offensive statements. I sometimes write things that aren't meant to sound offensive, but sometimes do. Apologies offered if necessary.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re:fuel additive for the '03
"As far as lubricity adding life to the system, as I said, over a million miles--still waiting for a lubricity problem to crop up."
Point #1, lubricity - or the LACK of it, has only been an issue in recent years due to changes in diesel refining - so your "million miles" on PREVIOUS, older engines, is rather moot in that regard...
Point #2, do that "million miles" all on the SAME 24 valve engine, equipped with a VP-44, THEN get back to us with your views on the value of added lubricity... AND, before you point out the difference in fuel systems between the '03's and older Cummins, I pretty much figure ANYTHING that improves the operation and lifespan of the older stuff, will probably provide additional benefits for the NEWER stuff as well... And don't overlook the likelihood that improving lubricity for the FUEL system ALSO has the additional benefit of providing added lubricity ot OTHER engine components as well, such as rings/cylinder walls and valve stems/guides...
Point #3, even Bosch has pointed out the dangers of reduced lubricity in today's fuels, and EVERY one of the Bosch reps *I* have talked to (3), have stoutly underlined the advantages and recommendations for fuel additives containing lubricity improvers for best VP-44 life - the latest Cummins might not benefit as much due to fuel system changes, but basing your opinions on experiences gained across a variety of older engines, and BEFORE lubricity was the issue it is today is strictly apples/oranges, and contradicts what Bosch claims about diesel fuels commonly available today!
Point #1, lubricity - or the LACK of it, has only been an issue in recent years due to changes in diesel refining - so your "million miles" on PREVIOUS, older engines, is rather moot in that regard...
Point #2, do that "million miles" all on the SAME 24 valve engine, equipped with a VP-44, THEN get back to us with your views on the value of added lubricity... AND, before you point out the difference in fuel systems between the '03's and older Cummins, I pretty much figure ANYTHING that improves the operation and lifespan of the older stuff, will probably provide additional benefits for the NEWER stuff as well...
And don't overlook the likelihood that improving lubricity for the FUEL system ALSO has the additional benefit of providing added lubricity ot OTHER engine components as well, such as rings/cylinder walls and valve stems/guides...Point #3, even Bosch has pointed out the dangers of reduced lubricity in today's fuels, and EVERY one of the Bosch reps *I* have talked to (3), have stoutly underlined the advantages and recommendations for fuel additives containing lubricity improvers for best VP-44 life - the latest Cummins might not benefit as much due to fuel system changes, but basing your opinions on experiences gained across a variety of older engines, and BEFORE lubricity was the issue it is today is strictly apples/oranges, and contradicts what Bosch claims about diesel fuels commonly available today!
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between a rock and hard place.
Re:fuel additive for the '03
Gary, with all due respect, talking to few people does not make them (or you) an expert on lubricity. Or me either.<br><br>Are you saying that a.)today's #2 does NOT meet the lubricity requirements of ASTM D975, or b.)the VP44 pump needs lubricity above and beyond the minimum specified by ASTM D975? There is a huge difference. For starters, I don't think either situation is true, but assuming "a" is true, there would be pump failures galore. There aren't. If "b" were true, it would mean that Bosch somehow forgot how to build injection pumps when they made the VP44. Somehow, I doubt that, too.<br><br>And lastly, sorry I can't log a million miles in advance on some vehicle I don't own so I can report back to you from the future as to how the "new" pumps hold up. Until I can link up with Doc Brown, I guess the only experience I can offer up is the miles I've driven in the past--they'll have to do. But, BTW, over 250,000 of that million plus has been on Bosch pumps--with no additives, and no failures.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re:fuel additive for the '03
"Gary, with all due respect, talking to few people does not make them (or you) an expert on lubricity. Or me either."
Well gee, it sorta DOES, when one is the OWNER of a Bosch authorized service agency, and the other 2 are long-term direct workers on those pumps, and see the innards of more injector pumps in a DAY than MOST of us will see in a lifetime! ;D ;D ;D
And yeah, *I* will take THEIR version of "expertise" over that of the random fella chatting at the gas pumps of the local Texaco ANY day!
Here's a post, and a pointer from another thread on the subject, pointing to what Bosch OFFICIALLY has presented on the subject quite recently:
=======
...as presented in a recent Bosch workshop held in Sacramento Ca... Note that *80%* of California diesel fuels sampled fell OUTSIDE the recommended levels of proper lubricity for Bosch injector pumps!
This is a PDF file... Page 15 deals specifically with the VP-44 - but it's ALL excellent stuff!
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cbg/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf
Good reading for anyone SERIOUSLY interested in their VP-44 injector pumps - and my reason for posting in THIS group...
======
Another related article? SUUUuure, why not! ;D ;D
====
Low Sulfur and Diesel Fuel Lubricity - The Continuing Saga
July 24, 2000
by
Maurice E. LePera
LePera and Associates
In October 1993, EPA limited sulfur in diesel fuel for “on-road” vehicles to a maximum of 0.05% or 500 parts per million (PPM). This created many fuel related problems that resulted from the poor lubricating quality of the low sulfur diesel fuel. Since the maximum limit for sulfur in diesel fuel prior to October 1993 had been 0.50% or 5000 PPM, the refinery processing not only lowered the sulfur content but also removed trace amounts of certain polar impurities. Both organo-sulfur compounds and these polar impurities were the ingredients that gave diesel fuel its needed natural lubricating qualities.
From this new low sulfur limit for all “on-road” vehicles, several laboratory testing procedures were developed in the mid 1990’s that measured the lubricity of diesel fuel. Chevron’s Technical Review of Diesel Fuels publication defines lubricity as “the ability to reduce friction between solid surfaces in relative motion, the lubrication mechanism being a combination of hydrodynamic lubrication and boundary lubrication.” More simply stated, lubricity is that quality that prevents wear when two moving metal parts come in contact with each other. Three methods were developed which are now available for measuring fuel lubricity; namely, the Scuffing Load Ball on Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator (SLBOCLE), the High Frequency Reciprocating Wear Rig (HFRR), and the Ball on Three Seats Method (BOTS).
EPA proposed new regulations in May of this year that will further reduce sulfur for “on-road” diesel fuel to a maximum of 0.0015% or 15 PPM. The proposed regulation is to go into effect June 1, 2006. This reduction in sulfur is fully supported by engine manufactures who contend their new exhaust catalyst systems needed to meet the enacted emission standards will not work if sulfur exceed 15 PPM. However, the proposed legislation is not supported by the refining industries and oil companies who are recommending the limit be set at 0.0050% or 50 PPM. They explain that attempting to meet the anticipated demand for diesel fuel having sulfur at 15 PPM or less will be extremely difficult and very costly for consumers.
We first have to understand why lubricity is important for diesel fuel. There are several types of diesel fuel injection systems being used by engine manufactures which depend on fuel lubricity in varying degrees. Of all systems being used, the rotary distributor injection pump is the one most dependent on lubricity because the fuel provides 100% lubrication to the internal parts of the injection pump. As the rotary distributor injection pump is highly susceptible to boundary lubrication wear (i.e., when heavy metal-to-metal contact occurs with the fuel providing little or no lubrication), this potential wear becomes more severe with increasing ambient temperature and increasing loading on the engine. Any significant wear will lead to under run and/or stalling annoyances, and eventually premature pump failure. The remaining other types of fuel injection systems are not as highly dependent on the fuel for lubrication and therefore, are not as sensitive to low lubricity diesel fuel, sometimes referred to as “dry diesel fuel.”
These rotary distributor injection pumps, typically found on small to medium size engines, are widely used, and are manufactured by Stanadyne Automotive Corporation,, DENSO Corporation, Robert Bosch GmbH, and Delphi Diesel Systems. These types of fuel injection pumps are typically found in most US and foreign manufactured light duty vehicles and a wide variety of equipment systems.
Since the introduction of low sulfur diesel fuel in 1993, there has been a considerable amount of effort by the automotive industry, users, and the petroleum industry to incorporate a “lubricity requirement” in commercial diesel fuel; namely, ASTM D975. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened due to a combination of politics and other factors. However, there had been in Europe a greater awareness and acceptance for specifying a lubricity requirement. The European Union ‘s Diesel Fuel Standard EN590 now requires all low sulfur diesel fuel sold in Europe to meet a lubricity standard that uses the HFRR procedure.
In the United States, the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) published their “Recommended Guideline on Premium Diesel Fuel” in 1997. This document, identified as EMA FQP-1A, did include a lubricity requirement for both grades of low sulfur diesel fuel. Additionally, the World-Wide Fuel Charter published by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) in January 2000 also specified a lubricity requirement for all four of their diesel fuel categories. More recently, the Diesel Fuel Injection Equipment Manufacturers (FIE) issued a “Common Position Statement on Fuel for Diesel Engines.” in June 2000. Contained within this statement was a strong recommendation for including the same lubricity requirement as in the EN590 standard. So there has been some progress.
As low sulfur diesel fuel continues to be sold in the United States without any requirement for lubricity, there continues to exist the potential for wear problems especially in engines with the rotary distributor fuel injection pumps. The consumer is led to believe that all is well as fuel producers would not market a “low lubricity or lubricity deficient” fuel that could promote wear. That however may or may not be the case since there is “no measuring stick” presently being used. Without the enforcement of a lubricity standard, neither consumers nor fuel distributors can be certain as to whether the fuel has adequate lubricity.
As soon as the industry standard for diesel fuel D975 incorporates a lubricity standard, the potential for wear problems will become a distant memory. This standard will most certainly be needed prior to the next planned reduction of sulfur in 2006.
==============
Want MORE? I'm sure I can dig some up if ya like... ;D ;D
Well gee, it sorta DOES, when one is the OWNER of a Bosch authorized service agency, and the other 2 are long-term direct workers on those pumps, and see the innards of more injector pumps in a DAY than MOST of us will see in a lifetime! ;D ;D ;D
And yeah, *I* will take THEIR version of "expertise" over that of the random fella chatting at the gas pumps of the local Texaco ANY day!
Here's a post, and a pointer from another thread on the subject, pointing to what Bosch OFFICIALLY has presented on the subject quite recently:
=======
...as presented in a recent Bosch workshop held in Sacramento Ca... Note that *80%* of California diesel fuels sampled fell OUTSIDE the recommended levels of proper lubricity for Bosch injector pumps!
This is a PDF file... Page 15 deals specifically with the VP-44 - but it's ALL excellent stuff!
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cbg/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf
Good reading for anyone SERIOUSLY interested in their VP-44 injector pumps - and my reason for posting in THIS group...
======
Another related article? SUUUuure, why not!
;D ;D====
Low Sulfur and Diesel Fuel Lubricity - The Continuing Saga
July 24, 2000
by
Maurice E. LePera
LePera and Associates
In October 1993, EPA limited sulfur in diesel fuel for “on-road” vehicles to a maximum of 0.05% or 500 parts per million (PPM). This created many fuel related problems that resulted from the poor lubricating quality of the low sulfur diesel fuel. Since the maximum limit for sulfur in diesel fuel prior to October 1993 had been 0.50% or 5000 PPM, the refinery processing not only lowered the sulfur content but also removed trace amounts of certain polar impurities. Both organo-sulfur compounds and these polar impurities were the ingredients that gave diesel fuel its needed natural lubricating qualities.
From this new low sulfur limit for all “on-road” vehicles, several laboratory testing procedures were developed in the mid 1990’s that measured the lubricity of diesel fuel. Chevron’s Technical Review of Diesel Fuels publication defines lubricity as “the ability to reduce friction between solid surfaces in relative motion, the lubrication mechanism being a combination of hydrodynamic lubrication and boundary lubrication.” More simply stated, lubricity is that quality that prevents wear when two moving metal parts come in contact with each other. Three methods were developed which are now available for measuring fuel lubricity; namely, the Scuffing Load Ball on Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator (SLBOCLE), the High Frequency Reciprocating Wear Rig (HFRR), and the Ball on Three Seats Method (BOTS).
EPA proposed new regulations in May of this year that will further reduce sulfur for “on-road” diesel fuel to a maximum of 0.0015% or 15 PPM. The proposed regulation is to go into effect June 1, 2006. This reduction in sulfur is fully supported by engine manufactures who contend their new exhaust catalyst systems needed to meet the enacted emission standards will not work if sulfur exceed 15 PPM. However, the proposed legislation is not supported by the refining industries and oil companies who are recommending the limit be set at 0.0050% or 50 PPM. They explain that attempting to meet the anticipated demand for diesel fuel having sulfur at 15 PPM or less will be extremely difficult and very costly for consumers.
We first have to understand why lubricity is important for diesel fuel. There are several types of diesel fuel injection systems being used by engine manufactures which depend on fuel lubricity in varying degrees. Of all systems being used, the rotary distributor injection pump is the one most dependent on lubricity because the fuel provides 100% lubrication to the internal parts of the injection pump. As the rotary distributor injection pump is highly susceptible to boundary lubrication wear (i.e., when heavy metal-to-metal contact occurs with the fuel providing little or no lubrication), this potential wear becomes more severe with increasing ambient temperature and increasing loading on the engine. Any significant wear will lead to under run and/or stalling annoyances, and eventually premature pump failure. The remaining other types of fuel injection systems are not as highly dependent on the fuel for lubrication and therefore, are not as sensitive to low lubricity diesel fuel, sometimes referred to as “dry diesel fuel.”
These rotary distributor injection pumps, typically found on small to medium size engines, are widely used, and are manufactured by Stanadyne Automotive Corporation,, DENSO Corporation, Robert Bosch GmbH, and Delphi Diesel Systems. These types of fuel injection pumps are typically found in most US and foreign manufactured light duty vehicles and a wide variety of equipment systems.
Since the introduction of low sulfur diesel fuel in 1993, there has been a considerable amount of effort by the automotive industry, users, and the petroleum industry to incorporate a “lubricity requirement” in commercial diesel fuel; namely, ASTM D975. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened due to a combination of politics and other factors. However, there had been in Europe a greater awareness and acceptance for specifying a lubricity requirement. The European Union ‘s Diesel Fuel Standard EN590 now requires all low sulfur diesel fuel sold in Europe to meet a lubricity standard that uses the HFRR procedure.
In the United States, the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) published their “Recommended Guideline on Premium Diesel Fuel” in 1997. This document, identified as EMA FQP-1A, did include a lubricity requirement for both grades of low sulfur diesel fuel. Additionally, the World-Wide Fuel Charter published by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) in January 2000 also specified a lubricity requirement for all four of their diesel fuel categories. More recently, the Diesel Fuel Injection Equipment Manufacturers (FIE) issued a “Common Position Statement on Fuel for Diesel Engines.” in June 2000. Contained within this statement was a strong recommendation for including the same lubricity requirement as in the EN590 standard. So there has been some progress.
As low sulfur diesel fuel continues to be sold in the United States without any requirement for lubricity, there continues to exist the potential for wear problems especially in engines with the rotary distributor fuel injection pumps. The consumer is led to believe that all is well as fuel producers would not market a “low lubricity or lubricity deficient” fuel that could promote wear. That however may or may not be the case since there is “no measuring stick” presently being used. Without the enforcement of a lubricity standard, neither consumers nor fuel distributors can be certain as to whether the fuel has adequate lubricity.
As soon as the industry standard for diesel fuel D975 incorporates a lubricity standard, the potential for wear problems will become a distant memory. This standard will most certainly be needed prior to the next planned reduction of sulfur in 2006.
==============
Want MORE? I'm sure I can dig some up if ya like...
;D ;D
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,239
Likes: 0
From: Eastern & Western Merryland
Re:fuel additive for the '03
[quote author=shaft link=board=20;threadid=16570;start=0#155373 date=1057067801]<br>Does fuel additive really help?[/quote]<br>Thats a loaded question. Help with what? Mileage, longevity, reliability, emissions? Lightening your wallet?<br><br>According to Cummins, fuel or oil additives are not necessary on the 24-valve engine, provided factory recommended oil and fuel specifications are followed. Consult your owner's manual for proper guidelines. <br><br>I've got 12k on my truck, and have used a few of the fuel additives over the last 8 months I've owned it and didn't notice any difference. I've kept pretty good records on mileage and its been pretty consistent with or without. Sub zero temp starting and operation seemed the same with or without.<br><br>Keep in mind that producers of anything will try an entice you to purchase their product using whatever means they choose. Will additives harm your engine? I think its unlikely. Will it really help? I dunno. This all reminds me of the 3000 mile oil change to prevent the wiping your bearings mild hysteria/paranoia that we've all seen. <br><br>My thoughts are that low lubricity fuels have been around for a long time (jet fuel comes to mind) and industrial manufacturers know how to deal with the thier use. Its in their interest (profit $$) to know.<br><br>Clear as mud, I know. Go try some and let us know what you think.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re:fuel additive for the '03
"According to Cummins, fuel or oil additives are not necessary on the 24-valve engine, provided factory recommended oil and fuel specifications are followed. Consult your owner's manual for proper guidelines."
I hate to keep harping on a theme, but that is EXACTLY the basic point, according to the Bosch seminar pointed to above:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cbg/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf
And, this forms the basis for the difference of viewpoint between guys like me, and guys like "CP" up above - CP apparenty feels that current diesel fuels are fine, and meet all required standards of lubricity for our engines - the material I have supplied directly refutes that opinion, and rather clearly states that today's diesel fuels do NOT meet minimum standards, and that, indeed, those lubricity standards really do not exist as of the time that material was presented (early this year for the Bosch presentation), and lubricity specs vary all over the map based on actual Bosch tests!
MOST fuel supplies they tested did NOT meet minimum lubricity specs for their fuel delivery! Now, that MIGHT not be as important on the latest trucks due to a different fuel delivery system - but is STILL a valid concern for the REST of the engine that also benefits from the lubricity of the fuel it consumes! If current diesel fuels do NOT meet minimum lubricity specs for the fuel systems in some trucks, WHAT does that lack present to the engine itself?
Keep in mind that one of the basic differences between gasoline and diesel fuel, is that gasoline is a SOLVENT, while diesel fuel has traditionally been a LUBRICANT - due to the difference in levels and methods of refining employed to obtain the final product. The lubricating qualities of past diesel fuels was a major contributing point to the long life of injector pumps, and the engines in general!
THAT difference has been the basic cornerstone of the much longer lifespan of diesel engines as opposed to gasoline engines - and certainly a characteristic worth protecting and promoting. As stated above, regardless of the type of fuel delivery used, the engine itself can benefit from additional lubricity in areas such as ring/cylinder wear, and valve stems and guides.
How MUCH difference will be obtained with practical addition of a decent lubricity additive? I dunno - but will agree with the fella back up above, it sure won't HURT, and for some of the more vulnerable fuel systems such as the VP-44, MIGHT make a critical difference over the long haul or extreme applications!
Sure, you MIGHT get lotsa miles outta yer Cummins using Wesson Oil as a engine lubricant - you might NEVER really need or use yer spare tire - and do you REALLY need to pay all that $$$ for life insurance? ;D ;D
These debates over the use of lubricity additives are much like the debates over synthetic oils vs dino oils - no one really denies that the synthetics aren't better, we only question how MUCH better they will protect over the long haul for what they add to the cost of maintenance - but SOME things are so relatively inexpensive, when compared to what they might/will protect us against, it hardly makes sense to NOT take advantage of their use... 
I hate to keep harping on a theme, but that is EXACTLY the basic point, according to the Bosch seminar pointed to above:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cbg/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf
And, this forms the basis for the difference of viewpoint between guys like me, and guys like "CP" up above - CP apparenty feels that current diesel fuels are fine, and meet all required standards of lubricity for our engines - the material I have supplied directly refutes that opinion, and rather clearly states that today's diesel fuels do NOT meet minimum standards, and that, indeed, those lubricity standards really do not exist as of the time that material was presented (early this year for the Bosch presentation), and lubricity specs vary all over the map based on actual Bosch tests!
MOST fuel supplies they tested did NOT meet minimum lubricity specs for their fuel delivery! Now, that MIGHT not be as important on the latest trucks due to a different fuel delivery system - but is STILL a valid concern for the REST of the engine that also benefits from the lubricity of the fuel it consumes! If current diesel fuels do NOT meet minimum lubricity specs for the fuel systems in some trucks, WHAT does that lack present to the engine itself?
Keep in mind that one of the basic differences between gasoline and diesel fuel, is that gasoline is a SOLVENT, while diesel fuel has traditionally been a LUBRICANT - due to the difference in levels and methods of refining employed to obtain the final product. The lubricating qualities of past diesel fuels was a major contributing point to the long life of injector pumps, and the engines in general!
THAT difference has been the basic cornerstone of the much longer lifespan of diesel engines as opposed to gasoline engines - and certainly a characteristic worth protecting and promoting. As stated above, regardless of the type of fuel delivery used, the engine itself can benefit from additional lubricity in areas such as ring/cylinder wear, and valve stems and guides.
How MUCH difference will be obtained with practical addition of a decent lubricity additive? I dunno - but will agree with the fella back up above, it sure won't HURT, and for some of the more vulnerable fuel systems such as the VP-44, MIGHT make a critical difference over the long haul or extreme applications!
Sure, you MIGHT get lotsa miles outta yer Cummins using Wesson Oil as a engine lubricant - you might NEVER really need or use yer spare tire - and do you REALLY need to pay all that $$$ for life insurance?
;D ;DThese debates over the use of lubricity additives are much like the debates over synthetic oils vs dino oils - no one really denies that the synthetics aren't better, we only question how MUCH better they will protect over the long haul for what they add to the cost of maintenance - but SOME things are so relatively inexpensive, when compared to what they might/will protect us against, it hardly makes sense to NOT take advantage of their use...
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,239
Likes: 0
From: Eastern & Western Merryland
Re:fuel additive for the '03
whew.... talk about thread hijacking. What was the original question? Fuel additives for an '03?<br><br>Look here at this service bulletin: http://www.fleetguard.com/pdfs/servi...3379001-07.pdf<br><br>At least it doesn't appear to be marketing propoganda like the other Bosch/Stanadyne et al pitch. And yes, it does discuss where additives can prove to be beneficial if using contingency fuels.<br><br>What's CARB? Maybe they'll be flipping burgers at mickey dee's in a month or two.