View Full Version : Lucas or Standyne?

05-02-2006, 19:32
I've used Stanadyne Power (something 'nother) for a long time but someone else highly recommended Lucas. Which is better?


More Power
05-02-2006, 22:21
Stanadyne and Racor are the only fuel treatments specifically mentioned in the GM literature as meeting their requirements for the Duramax. Of the two, Stanadyne alone contains the full spectrum of diesel fuel treatment ingredients (i.e. cetane improver, lubricity enhancer, injector cleaner, water demulsifing, and so on).

Now, there are other fuel treatments available that advertise similar or better properties. GM requires any diesel fuel treatment that deals with water to be a water demulsifier. A water-demulsifing fuel treatment will cause any free or entrained water to coalesce, where it can be drained from your fuel filter assembly. Do not use a fuel treatment containing alcohol.


05-03-2006, 05:56
FPPF is my favorite ;)

P.S. Demulsifiers are not effective. If they were we'd get water in our separator...

05-03-2006, 17:26
FPPF is my favorite ;)

P.S. Demulsifiers are not effective. If they were we'd get water in our separator...

I used stanadyne. While in the Black Hills of S.D. I filled up at a Flying J , the refinery did not filter as they were supposed to, so I got a lot of water in my system, I had used Stanadyne on all tanks including that one. So much water in the fuel pump that it froze and ruined the pump. No water in the seperaor. I use an emulsifier now. It may do everything else great, but getting the water in the seperaor isn't one of them. IMO

05-05-2006, 15:52
Doesn't an emulsifier let water pass through in very small dropletts and on to the pump and injectors? That's not good if I recall right.


05-06-2006, 07:25
There is water in all diesel.

Additives can only deal with small amounts, but used regularly promote a healthy fuel system.

We almost never find water in the filter separator, but some have seen signs (rust in can) or water having been there.

Demusilfying additives attempt to settle out the water into droplet form.

Emulsifying additives like FPPF break down and "wrap up" the water so that it is safe to pass through and burn.

It's kinda like a man vs zone defense. I'd rather have man to man coverage, especially when I know that my man can do the job.

05-07-2006, 13:09


More Power
05-07-2006, 14:46
Two questions that really need to be asked and answered:

1- Which better protects a diesel fuel system from the effects of water, a water-DEmulsifing fuel treatment or a water-Emulsifying fuel treatment?

2- Can GM void my fuel system warranty if I use a water-Emulsifying fuel treatment?



05-08-2006, 07:24
I run FPPF Total Power in all of my fuel in all of my diesels.

Back to my earlier post:

There is water in all diesel, yet none in the separator so where does it go?

I'd rather have an additive that to encapsulates the water to protect my fuel system from harm.

If the dealer asks waht you use, either tell him Nothing, or Stanadyne to make him happy...

05-08-2006, 09:08
Here's one where I have to go with the engineers...

I run Stanadyne Performance Formula in my 6.5. In this case, Stanadyne engineered both the fuel system and the additive. They should know what works best. While there have been problems with the DS4, they're largely a thing of the past.

I have no personal data, anecdotal or otherwise, to argue one way or the other. My fuel system does have close to 200,000 miles on it, though. There's a lot involved in the decision, more than can be covered by anecdotal evidence.

05-09-2006, 08:12
I look at the DS4 pump (and other Stanadyne offerings) and it's shortcomings and wonder how well Stanadyne did engineer it. Also, I don't believe that Stanadyne produces or engineers it's own additive. FPPF has it's own in Chemist and specializes in chemicals.

05-09-2006, 09:07
Well, Stanadyne does engineer their fluids...if you believe their advertising. Maybe you don't.

05-09-2006, 17:21
:eek: According to this site http://www.ezoil.com/faq.html (in FPPF's backyard)... :eek:

"FPPF - does not formulate or package"

"Stanadyne - does not formulate or package"


05-09-2006, 18:04
Of course...they want you to buy Kool-Aide, er, Diesel Aid :D by (who else?) E-ZOIL.

More Power
05-09-2006, 21:40
A writer friend of mine did a series a dyno tests a few years ago using a 6.2L TD with/without fuel treatment. I kinda remember the gist of his findings, but I'll see if he'll share the results with us again. IIRC there were a few HP to be found in fuel treatments - particularly in cetane improvers. :)

What we (someone) needs to do is set up a bench experiment using a current Duramax fuel filter. Heat the fuel to approximate actual running temps, vibrate the filter to simulate engine vibrations, then pump diesel fuel and an occasional slug of water through it to discover whether the filter will catch the water.

The GM diesel fuel systems utilize a sock in the tank, which is the first line of defense against water (due to surface tension characteristics), and the fuel filter itself. The fuel filter media is supposed to present more of a barrier to water than to diesel fuel.... I really don't understand how drops of water can find its way into the fuel injection system without any being found in the filter.


05-11-2006, 07:27
Anybody at the pits after the drags at Weekend On The Edge saw Brandon's truck missing terribly on #8 cylinder and smoking. The next day after adding a bottle (super treat) of Total Power it cleared itself and ran quite smoothly. This issue has resurfaced a couple of times and each time a healthy dose clears it up.

I just recently had a customer with a 6.5 starting hard, white smoke, sluggish. New plugs, timing, more glow, nothing helped. At startup it would set SES light for solenoid closure. Once it fought it's way through this storm it would run fine. A heavy dose of Total Power and the next day it started clean.

Now I'm not saying other additives would not have done same/similar, but I know what works.

P.S. FPPF does not package their product. No big deal, but they have Chemically Engineered all of their flagship products...

The Dmax does not have a sock. It does have a perforated plastic screen, but leter models have 4ea 3/16" square holes added also. I remove the screens altogether when I go to the billet pickup.

05-11-2006, 18:29
When I got all the water in my system, the refinery paid all of my costs, they said they did not filter the water as is normally done. Someone goofed. I did not take the filter off, the chevy dealer did, (truck would not run, fuel shot out of the pump like a garden hose,) I had a LOT of water but, the WIF light never came on. with that much water I should have had enough to set the WIF. Stanadyne should have sent it to the filter to be drained.(not sure what the total cost to the refinery was but it had to be huge, there was a lot of trucks big and small getting worked on the same time mine was)

05-12-2006, 07:37
Going back many moons to my time in Coast Guard HC-130H's, we used to pull fuel samples EVERY morning from the low point in each tank to check for water settling out of the fuel.

Rather than wait for the fuel filter to pool that water (it won't) why doesn't one of our vendors come up with a decent TANK drain valve (like the Fumoto drain for your oil pan) where we could pull a sample every now and again to check for contamination?

Until that happens (anyone?) I will continue to use the FPPF because, given the previous discussions on the board on this topic, it seems better to send a molecule of water through the injectors RATHER than a slug of the stuff all at once.

And after someone markets the tank drain, I will probably STILL use the FPPF.

05-13-2006, 06:22
A tank drain is a neat idea, but would make a hell of a mess if someone messed with it or it failed/fell open.

I have a ball valve drain on my storage tank and intend to put a plug on the discharge to make good and darn sure that it does not leak...

05-13-2006, 07:03
Going back many moons to my time in Coast Guard HC-130H's, we used to pull fuel samples EVERY morning from the low point in each tank to check for water settling out of the fuel.

T56 Series III's...

The practice you describe is standard for all aircraft. My uncle owned two planes: a Piper Cherokee 180 and a Cessna 206. Both had quick release valves on the undersides of the wings (where the fuel tanks were). The sample collecter was a small glass cup with a steel rod sticking up out of the center. You simply pushed the rod in through a small hole, which activated the valve to allow a sample of fuel to fill the cup. It should actually be quite easy to adapt those valves to our fuel tanks... Hmmm...

As I've always said in my aerospace career...there's no place to pull over and park in an airplane...so these things become much more important.