runamuk

Thanks for the info guys I've gotta go drain mine now!

roadranger

Don't trust your DC oil pressure gauge, either. They are known to be bad, too.

Lightman

Ahh where to start? First of all I can see you've done some limited research and have some understanding of how these things work. I used to share some of the same viewpoints and concerns when I was first learning about additives. There are just a few key flaws that I'll try to illustrate.

Emuslifiers/solubizers do not increase the overall amount of water that passes through your system. Let me explain why. The stock water separators do not stop any 'suspended water' that is present in normal fuel. The stock separators are only effective at stopping huge slugs of 'free water', which is water that has fallen out of suspension. Most diesel fuel will hold up to around 115-120ppm of water before it falls out. I have personally had labs test fuel samples before and after various fuel filter/water separator setups as part of some testing I did a few years back. For suspended water they are just about worthless. Ok, now with the understanding that all of the suspended water is going to inevitably pass through your system, would you choose to clump it together as a demulsifier would, or emulsify/solubize the water into the smallest least harmful form possible?

As you post earlier - if it's passing through, what do you want the emulsifier to do? Well what it does is break the water down into much much smaller particles, or in the case of a solubizer, 'dissolves' it (for lack of lengthy posting) into the fuel. What does that all mean? It means that the water is passing through in a safer manner. .

As far as your statements on amoco premier and other fuels that contain demulsifiers: I've done research into this area as well. The reason that manufacturers put demulsifiers in fuels is so that the water will settle to the bottom of their fuel tanks, to be drained. Here's the key. The reason they do this, and the reason it works well, is because the tanks are in a static environment- they don't move. In this situation, a demulsifier is ideal, because it can do what it chooses. Manufacturers want the fuel to fall out just to before the point of dispensing. Many truck stops drain 'bottom water' daily.

Now when you move the situation to a vehicle's fuel tank, we are talking about a dynamic environment with a lot of sloshing around. Vibration and sloshing counteract what the demulsifer is trying to do, and the water (again, we're talking about normal or slightly elevated levels, not a 'bad tank' with huge slugs of water) goes back into suspension. Also, the additization levels from the manufacturers of demulsifiers are much lower than you would see in your personal vehicle witih additives. In speaking with a lube engineer friend of mine recently we discussed this, and his testing, as well as Redline and Primrose's have all shown that when the emulsifying additives are thrown in the tank, they take over completely.

As for ALL manufactuers of vehicles only having water separators and supporting water separating additives, this is simply not the case. I happen to own a mercedes benz diesel, and it has NO water separator. Mercedes Benz also endorses Redline fuel additives, which solubize water.

Folks lets not forget that the most popular additive, Powerservice Diesel Fuel Supplement also solubizes water, it is not a a demulsifier.

I must say that when I first started looking into additives, I started using Stanadyne because I read their site and really bought into what they were saying. They have great marketing and demulsification is a believable concept. I can tell you that in one instance of testing on my VW TDI, I ran a Stanadyne Fuel Manager 100 model 2 micron fuel filter/water separator, and did fuel analysis test before and after the fuel had passed through the filter, using stanadyne performance formula. Before was 72ppm and after was like 69ppm - virtually no difference, and certainly nowhere near the 97% reduction claims that these filter manufacturers make. I don't doubt they'll reduce that much FREE water, but again, there isn't typically any free water in diesel.

In conclusion, on an every day basis, an emulsifier/solubizer is the way to go. In the event that you have a truly bad tank of diesel that is full of water, no additive is going to make much of a difference, you will likely want to drain the tank. Demulsifiers OR emulsifiers only disperse their weight in water. CP I hope you read this because this was mostly for your benefit, seeing that you've done some research into the area and care about water dispersal.

Geico266

Lightman

Sorry Geico

cp

Lightman, I read your post. I didn't figure I would change the way you think; you didn't change mine. I hope our discussion opens the minds of the unconvinced to research the subject on their own and form their own conclusions base on their own research, and not simply what you or I say.

If what you were saying is true, the engine manufacturer's would quickly figure it out as well and quit putting water separators on diesels. It seems, though, they have figured out quite the opposite. I will quote you passages from section eight of the Cummins Service Bulletin titled "Fuel for Cummins Engines."

Effective September 1, 1991, Cummins Engine Company requires a fuel-water separator or fuel filter and water separator combination be installed in the fuel supply system. This requirement applies to all 1991 automotive certified B,C,L and N series and all future B, C, L, and N series automotive engines. In addition to this requirement, Cummins Engine Company recommends that a fuel-water separator be installed in the fuel supply system on all Cummins engines regardless of application.

Further on in the same section:
...Cummins Engine Company has set standards for free water and emulsified water removal. The fuel-water separator or fuel filter and water separator combination must remove a minimum of 94% of free water (per SAE J1839) and 90% of emulsified water (per SAE J1488). Fuel-water separator filters produced by Fleetguard and most other major filter manufacturers meet or exceed these requirements.

Cummins research has proven that water separators work. If you have one, use a demulsifier. If you use an emulsifier, you will defeat the water separator.

If you have no water separator (such as your Mercedes) then I agree--using an emulsifer may indeed be a good idea.

Lightman

I'm sorry you haven't seen the light CP. You simply haven't done enough research yet. The stuff I'm posting is fact. Water separators are a good idea and are installed by manufacturers ONLY for the instance of a BAD TANK. They are effective at removing free water, but again, they are NOT effective at removing suspended water. Ever wonder why you never get any water in the glass when you drain your fuel filter housing?? Fuel analysis testing doesn't lie - before and after the filter. You can go on blindly believing in the demulsifying concept CP if you like, and to each their own. I'm just telling you it's not realistic.

I dont see that cummins has proven anything to the effect water separators work. The fact is they don't work on suspended water. Even the guys at airdog emailed me, saying that their fancy air separating water separator would NOT be effective on water smaller than 115ppm.

Who do you think has done more research on fuel additives and water dispersal? Some guys at Cummins or the engineeers at Powerservice, Redline, Primrose, FPPF, etc. This is all these guys do and I guarantee they know more about additization than anyone at Cummins.

TDIwyse

I'm one of those on the fence people. I personally use Power Service which is not a demulsifier. My questions concern the effectiveness of the water seperator. I've seen reports of the before and after water content of fuel passing through seperators, such as Lightman has reported. But my problem with all the data I've looked at is the water contents are within the region of what diesel can hold in saturation (the 69-71 ppm could all be completely saturated, no emulsified or free water), and non of the water seperator manufacturers claim to stop saturated water, and the differences in the pre and post seperator are within the margin of error of the test (I'm assuming you used the Karl-Fischer method, which reports total water - free, emulsified and saturated). So with these factors in consideration, I am not yet convinced the data I've seen presented actually show the water seperators ineffectiveness at stopping free and emulsified water. It does show they do not reduce saturated water, but the manufacturers don't claim that benefit. If anyone has more data I'ld be happy to consider it :-)

Lightman

TDIWYSE, for the purpose of this discussion I was calling what you call saturated water 'suspended/emulsified/solubized'. I didn't want to get into too great of detail in the separation of those three for the sake of all the 's that might ensue What I'm stressing here is that consistent use of fuel additives should be used to disperse the water that is present and un-removable by water separators - saturated/suspended water. As I mentioned above, once the water is big enough to be free, the water separator will catch it, and/or it's going to be a big problem/tank drain. The only thing separators will catch is free water, which is typically never present in diesel fuel - only a bad tank.

TDIWyse - since you realize that the separators will not stop saturated water, and that most diesel only contains saturated water- less than 115ppm, I can see why you chose powerservice. Powerservice is a solubizer, which helps any suspended/emulsified water 'solubize' or dissolve back into the fuel as saturated water, which is by far safer than passing it through the system in clumps, or having it pool at the bottom of your tank. The problem with demulsifiers and saturated water in fuel is that even though the demulsifiers clump the water together, there isn't enough water in normal diesel to clump into a large enough size to fall out and be caught by the separator.


Yes the tests I did were Karl-Fischer method, I was working with George Morrison from Avlube if you are familiar.

cp

Where did you come up with this? As stated above, Cummins requires a fuel water separator on its engines, regardless of application. Where did the "bad tank" notion come from, unless you can conclude that Cummins considers all tanks bad.

Again, Cummins, among others say they are effective and REQUIRE their use. I HAVE gotten water out of water separators, many times (remember...I don't use an emulsifier), so please don't tell me they don't work. Considering that there are SAE standards that address water removal, and Cummins says the Fleetguard separators meet those standards, what is that? A total fabrication on the part of Cummins?

Again, see SAE J1839 and J1488 and the statement by Cummins that Fleetguard separators meet those standards.

I will venture that the engineers at Cummins et al and Amoco et al have analyzed the water-in-fuel situation in FAR greater depth than some miracle additive company who depends upon a lack of knowledge to sell their product. What the guys at the additive companies know is how to do is make a case to sell their product. What the guys at Cummins know is what is harmful to the injection system and what is not.

Why would Cummins require a water separator if it doesn't work?

Why wouldn't Cummins recommend an emulsifier if it is shown to be beneficial to the injection system?

Thanks for the replies. This has been a good discussion and I hope a lot of people get some good out of it.

AaronT

I am with you CP and also Lightman a little.
Dehazers are added at the ethically correct refineries to aid in dropping/seperating suspended water and surfactant carryover before it gets to us the customer. Typically 5 to 20 ppm dehazer is used to meet spec. Next, tank farms have to be managed correctly to draw off the BS&W and filtering before shipping.

The suspended particulates are becoming more of a problem everyday due to more processing of heavy crude and some of the methods being used, or attempted to reduce sulphur levels. Some off the wall attempts were, maybe still are steam injection, which creates a suspended water content increase.

The answer is to stop the water before it leaves the refineries or the service stations. We as customers should not have to worry about what some cost cutting, poor quality fuel production refinery is doing. The standards need to be enforced.

That being said, then we the customer can play around with our additives/improvers for the fine tuning (real or imagined).

The diesel fuel today really is a can of worms with the targets to be achieved for ULSD, NOX, PAH reductions, etc. Much research is being done and we are stuck in the middle so to speak.

Lightman

CP after you said the words 'miracle additive company' I've given up on you To each their own, and good luck with your highly effective water separator

bigblock2stroke

I agree with AaronT.

Fuel standards will start to be enforced in 2006 for the 2007MY emissions equipment that will be required

Mark Thomas

Here is a good question, Can the entire filter housing be taken off for cleaning and inspection easily or is that another one of those don't bother things?

bigblock2stroke

Yeah, it would be relatively easy. 2 screws to the block, banjo fitting, a couple electrical connections. Although, you could probably just clean it out with the top off just as good without all the work.