This is part of an article on ULSD from october 26. 2006 "the sulphur acted as a lubricant" said Vance McSpadden, executive director of the Oklahoma petroleum marketers association.

 

http://powercurve.net/

 

Well said. Additives are a waste of money. Lots of info out there to back this up.

 

http://www.lucasoil.com/products/dis...catid=2&iid=26

 

From the website of Lucas:

A powerful blend of oils and additives that contain no SOLVENTS. Designed to increase power and fuel mileage and also lower exhaust emissions through a more complete combustion.

Lucas Fuel Treatment is formulated for both gasoline and diesel engines, carbureted or fuel injected. It gives your fuel system what it really needs - a blend of super slick oils and additives with a high detergent action that allows the engine to operate at maximum efficiency. Also, it cleans and lubricates the carburetor and injectors and causes the fuel to burn more thoroughly for increased power and less fuel consumption. Lucas Fuel Treatment should definitely be used in vehicles that require leaded fuel because it actually replaces the benefits of lead in gasoline without causing harmful emissions. Use it to pass smog tests. Finally, it totally neutralizes the harmful effects of low sulfur diesel fuel.

Wow! That is some amazing stuff! After reading this distorted and highly biased description, I now think is was written by a politician. Lucas' fuel treatment is going to do everything for everybody.

Unfortunately, it's not true. I know I sound like a broken record but I just can't help myself. This is one of the biggest loads of marketing BS I can think of. "Increase power, fuel mileage, a blend of super slick oils, cleans & lubricates, gas or diesel."

As a lot of you know, I'm in the "no fuel additive" group. I think they are a waste of money and a marketing gimmick. In the Diesel Place study, Lucas scored 14th. Right below used motor oil with 5k miles on it. It scored 5mu worse than baseline which means it actually made the fuel dryer.

As with most of these fuel additives, they are long on promises and short on proof. There is however, proof that they are a waste of money. Do your research before you light a match to your money. I'm not trying to change the minds of those dedicated users. I just want those who are undecided to know the facts.

 

That study was not conducted to have a "bearing on the fuel we could buy back then, or today." It was conducted to see if various fuel additives really helped in lubing the fuel like they claimed. It had nothing to do with the fuel and everything to do with the fuel additives.

Lots of people want to discredit the study because they used untreated fuel that we could not buy at the pump. Am I missing something? Of course they used untreated fuel. When you do this kind of test, you must establish a base line. You wouldn't want to establish a fuel lube base line with fuel that was already treated. When the treatment is added and the test performed, you have a real number/score (HFRR) that indicates how much the additive helped with wear. The better the lube, the less wear.

Discrediting The Diesel Place study is ridiculous. It was a great piece of work then, and absolutely still is. These fuel additives are a waste of money but I'll go one step further. They are nothing short of a gimmick, marketed in a way to sell the public something that does nothing for them.

People should not use The Diesel Place study as the definitive answer on fuel additives. Like others have said, long haul truckers are the best source of information. If there is going to be a problem, it will show up with them first. I'm guessing there are tens of thousands of rigs on the road that never use fuel additives. These are old trucks, new trucks, different engines, different fuel systems. Lots of variables. They don't have issues with lube in the fuel or keeping their top end clean. Common sense just backs up The Diesel Place study.

 

I'll bet some of the long haulers wished they had something when DOT put the smog pole up to their stacks and said step on it... many get violations...just sayin'

 

Using a fuel additive isn't going to make or break an emissions test. If a truck has an emissions problem, there is a bigger problem than what a fuel additive will fix.

Commercial truck companies have implemented new technologies to help meet the EPA's 2010 Emission Standard. Fuel additives are not part of that technology.

 

Yes this was an excellent study if we burnt untreated fuel in our trucks. Fact is we don't. We burn treated fuel. If I conducted a study on the lubricity of oil and it's ability to lubricate the space shuttle while in orbit in 0 gravity it does not apply to lubrication on earth with gravity. In the same manner the fuel additives that are in the fuel we purchase at the pumps may make the fuel additives that are being tested react differently. Is it not possible that many of these fuel additives that were tested were indeed quite good additives if there was a specific compound present that is added in the refinery additive but was not present in the fuel used in the test. The tests must reflect the same products that we use or they are not valid.

 

I have been running power service for 120,000 miles. No injector problems.

 

Is there anything good or bad to say about Howes diesel conditioner and anti gel?

 

Well, there you go. There's your proof that additives must work! Not the additives you are adding, but the additives that are already in your fuel when you pump it. It's funny that only two companies refused to be part of that study (they were tested anyway with private funds): Amsoil and Power Service.

Seems logical to me if you are selling a product that lubes fuel, you would jump at the chance to prove your product does what you say it does. Power Service was a poor performer. It did not add enough lube to the fuel to even get it to what the experts agree is the minimum standard. Amsoil was only marginally better.

 

Has anyone run the Racor demulsifying additive? I just bought some at a marina and the I think I'm going to try it. Normally I run 5% bio-so I was going to run Racor because of its demulsifying/cetane increasing properties.

 

I agree with your post that some fuel additive could my be made so that they work with certain chemicals that are already added to our fuel and thus that work to increase lube to our fuel system and that is why it would of been best to test the diesel fuel that we can buy and use not refinery grade diesel we can't buy or use.

 

Honestly, no disrespect intended, but you do not know what you are talking about on this subject.