TheDieselPage.com Forums  
2014 - TDP's 19th Year
What's New: | Feature Articles: | Product Reviews: | Member's Area: | Subscribe:
Duramax 6600 Diesel Page | Advertiser's Section | Classified Ads | Photo Album | Diesel Books, GM Licensed T-shirts


Go Back   TheDieselPage.com Forums > Chevrolet & GMC 2500HD/3500 Light Trucks > Duramax Diesel Performance Shop
Register FAQ Members List Photo Album Mark Forums Read

Duramax Diesel Performance Shop What's it take to make big power? From a little to a lot, find out what it takes. Post a question or offer your advice.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-13-2010, 10:21 AM
billferg billferg is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3
Default Diesel Fuel Additives

Is there any statistical analysis to support the cost effectiveness of fuel additives for diesel engines? Thanks for your response.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-13-2010, 10:34 AM
More Power's Avatar
More Power More Power is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Big Sky Country
Posts: 9,442
Default

Yes, but that data was produced by manufacturers of the fuel treatment. There have been quite a few independent tests (magazine articles, individuals, web sites, etc.) that fall more into the category of anecdotal. It would be a big and expensive undertaking for even a magazine budget to produce a scientifically valid - statistically valid fuel treatment test that measured fuel economy.

I remember reading the results of fuel treatment tests produced by various fuel treatment manufacturers some years ago, where they evaluated fuel economy changes in fleets of diesels over many months (statistically valid) - some of the trucks ran with fuel treatment and some ran without (control group). They saw a few percent increase in fuel economy when using a fuel treatment that included a cetane improver.

Individuals have a much harder time seeing a fuel economy change because an individual just doesn't burn enough fuel over a short enough period of time. Changing conditions through the seasons and changes in vehicle operation (summer towing - winter grocery getting) question the validity of the data.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-13-2010, 03:30 PM
Mark Rinker's Avatar
Mark Rinker Mark Rinker is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,773
Default

My conclusion (based on lots of miles, and lots of different additives tested) is that if you are looking for increased mileage / fuel savings to justify the expense - save your money.

However, the cost of fuel injector replacement in most modern diesel engines is high. It seems plausible to me that a fuel treatment regimine can extend the life of fuel injectors, and in the case of certain types of injector failures, even your piston crowns. Have most definately seen additives WORK to free injectors that were sticking and decreasing power and mileage. free up, clean up exhaust, and return mileage to normal.

Most over-the-road drivers swear by the stuff. Howes, Lucas, FPPF, Diesel Kleen...who knows...makes you feel good when you add it and go down the road, that I know because I have burned all of them at one time or another.

Never found one that measurably increased mileage. Never found one that wasn't expensive. Never found one that grew new hair on the top of my head.

Personally, I like Howes. Can economize when rolling on lots of miles buying a big jug, its formulated to be added in greater quantities / gallon of #2 than some other products, and to me that equals more likely to get correct and consistant mix when treating ~34 gallons of fuel at a time. Howes looks, smells, and feels like something that should burn in a diesel. See lots of it going into the big rigs. Seems to keep my Duramax injectors happy - but again, who knows.
__________________
2005 GMC Yukon Denali 6.0L gas (hey its paid for)
  • Previous owner of two 1994 6.5L K3500s, '01, '02, and '05 6.6L K2500s, '04 C4500, '06 K3500 dually, '06 K3500 SRW, '09 K3500HD SRW
  • Total GM diesel miles to date : ~950K

Last edited by Mark Rinker; 01-13-2010 at 03:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-14-2010, 02:47 PM
JohnC's Avatar
JohnC JohnC is offline
Moderator - Enemy of the State
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New Hampshire - Live Free or Die
Posts: 4,641
Default

Mark's experience not withstanding, when I had my 6.5 I did tens of thousands of miles of comparison testing of Stanadyne additive and the conclusion I came to was that it netted a 5% mileage boost, just enough to offset the cost of the additive.

YMMV...
__________________
"Need" - Wanting to get someone else's money.
"Greed" (formerly meant what "need" means today) - wanting to keep your own.
"Compassion" - a politician's willingness to arrange the transfer.
-Joseph Sobran
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-14-2010, 07:22 PM
Kennedy Kennedy is offline
Long Distance Crew Chief for BMDMAX
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Loyal WI US
Posts: 10,180
Default

I run FPPF Total Power in all of my diesel fuel. Wouldn't have it any other way. The primary benefits are fuel system life and combustion. Minor MPG gains help offset the cost which is just pennies per gallon of fuel treated.

I buy my fuel 500 gallons at a time and store in an outside storage tank. I run Amoco Premier #2 non winterized whenever possible and treat myself with FPPF. My present batch is the afformentioned blend, but I'm getting low and will have to buy some winterized fuel by the looks of it....
__________________
Kennedy Diesel-owner
More than just a salesman-I use and test the products that I sell on a daily basis!
Superflow Lie Detector in house
2002 Chev K2500HD D/A CC Long LT 11.77@ 124mph at 7700# fuel only-e.t. needs help
2005 Chev K3500SRW D/A CC Long LT(SOLD)
2007 Chev K2500 Classic EC Short LT
2012 GMC K3500SRW D/A CC Long LTZ Happy Birthday to me! Built 1 working day after my birthday and delivered 7 days later.

Custom tuning in house using EFI Live tuning software!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-15-2010, 01:06 PM
MacDR50 MacDR50 is offline
Diesel Novice
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 116
Default

Is a cetane improver required? I have read so much about this topic I am pretty much befuddled by it all. Some point to low cetane levels in ULSD, I have been told that Ford recommends a certain cetane level that is higher than that found in most USLD. I read that cetane levels are different based on whether you buy fuel that meets Canadian versus US specs.

What does GM say? After all they warrant the engine.
__________________
2008 2500HD Ext. 4X4
265/75R16
Reese Signature 18k slider
Montana 38.4 ft 5th wheel
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-15-2010, 02:31 PM
More Power's Avatar
More Power More Power is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Big Sky Country
Posts: 9,442
Arrow Cetane

From a piece I wrote a while back....

"Opposite to octane, a cetane rating indicates a diesel fuel’s level of combustibility. A higher cetane number is generally better – better for cold starts, less smoke, more power, a small bump in fuel economy and less combustion rattle. ASTM D-975 currently sets the minimum cetane level at 40. Bosch tested diesel fuel around the U.S. during the summer of 2002, and found a cetane range of 44 to 57, though low forties are commonly reported by others. By comparison, Bosch found European diesel fuel tested at 51 or greater during the same period.

Commercial diesel fuel additive manufacturers offer products that improve the cetane rating by up to four numbers. While they closely guard their formulas, we know the compounds amyl and hexyl nitrates have been used to improve the cetane rating in diesel fuel."

As far as GM is concerned - and to answer your question, as long as you're using ASTM certified diesel fuel (commercially available pump diesel) you're fine as far as fuel quality in general and cetane in particular are concerned.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-16-2010, 10:40 AM
Mark Rinker's Avatar
Mark Rinker Mark Rinker is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,773
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rinker View Post
My conclusion (based on lots of miles, and lots of different additives tested) is that if you are looking for increased mileage / fuel savings to justify the expense - save your money.
On re-read, I failed to make the point originally intended...that is, adding fuel injector cleaner to each tankful is unlikely to provide a sufficient increase in mileage for that tankful, to cover the cost of the additive. However - adding cleaner over time is likely to keep injectors spraying freely, and avoid situations where mileage is negatively impacted, or lifespan of injectors shortened.

Bottom line - I am a believer in (quality) fuel treatments, but its very hard to measure your ROI in a repeatable or meaningful manner.
__________________
2005 GMC Yukon Denali 6.0L gas (hey its paid for)
  • Previous owner of two 1994 6.5L K3500s, '01, '02, and '05 6.6L K2500s, '04 C4500, '06 K3500 dually, '06 K3500 SRW, '09 K3500HD SRW
  • Total GM diesel miles to date : ~950K
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-16-2010, 12:03 PM
DmaxMaverick DmaxMaverick is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 10,643
Arrow

As indicated above, short-term testing is of little value. However, in the long-term, mileage records can be very helpful to determine the usefulness of additives, from an economic point of view. I have used various additives, and combinations of additives, in the same vehicle (2001) over more than 100K miles. My conclusion is (and has been for over 10's of thousands of miles now), the additives I use do, in fact, pay for themselves, monetarily. I cannot attest to any component longevity advantage. That would require a fleet of like vehicles tracked over their lifetime with meticulous record keeping.

For a couple years now, I have been using Power Service (gray bottle) and Supertech (Walmart) TC-W3 two-cycle oil (formulated for liquid cooled engines, as opposed to hotter air cooled engines) at about 8 oz. each per tankful (20-25 gallons). I can see, feel, and hear a difference if I don't use either or both of the additives. The engine is more quiet, smoother, more responsive, and returns better mileage. Period. YMMV, but in my case, it's obvious to me.
__________________
1985 Blazer 6.2
2001 GMC 2500HD D/A
2014 Chevy Cruze Diesel
dmaxmaverick@thedieselpage.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-16-2010, 03:13 PM
Mark Rinker's Avatar
Mark Rinker Mark Rinker is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,773
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DmaxMaverick View Post
>>> I can see, feel, and hear a difference if I don't use either or both of the additives. The engine is more quiet, smoother, more responsive, and returns better mileage. Period. >>>
Here is a reasonably scientific test - for illustration's sake:

1) Take two brand new, identically equipped Duramaxes off the assembly line, one that will run treated #2, the other to run only 'plain' #2 as a control;

2) We then take 50 Duramax owners (members of TDP perhaps), have them take each truck home for a week of varied driving, cold starts, etc., and after using both trucks - record the one that they believe was running treated fuel;

Hypothesis #1: ~25 would pick truck 'A', and ~25 would pick truck 'B' +/- 5%.

Hypothesis #2: The truck running treated fuel would average slighly better MPG over the entire test period, but its total fuel + additives bill would be higher than the truck running only straight #2, when adjusted for any variance in miles driven between both trucks.

Hypothesis #3: The truck running treated fuel, if these tests were extended to include (500 drivers * 2000 miles) = 100K miles, would be less likely to develop a 'stuck' injector, or encounter injector failure, while the control truck would be more likely to encounter decreased mileage at some point, or even stuck/failed injector(s).


Again, even with a control - its easy to see that BIG variances in driving by the 50 or 500 members, temperatures, terrain, and countless other factors would make an accurate, scientific test difficult if not impossible. With only one truck, its nearly impossible for any individual to make any scientifically sound conclusions - as there is no way to test against an accurate control...
__________________
2005 GMC Yukon Denali 6.0L gas (hey its paid for)
  • Previous owner of two 1994 6.5L K3500s, '01, '02, and '05 6.6L K2500s, '04 C4500, '06 K3500 dually, '06 K3500 SRW, '09 K3500HD SRW
  • Total GM diesel miles to date : ~950K

Last edited by Mark Rinker; 01-16-2010 at 03:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1996-2014 by TheDieselPage.com - All Rights Reserved