Printable View
I'm a new diesel owner--2005 GMC 3500 4X4 Duramax 6600--and wish to know which fuel Conditioner/Additive is recommended/best. Saw my dealer today and it was suggested I use the 'World Blend' Lubricity Formula from Standyne--one pint/470 ml treats 470 litres of fuel. Any suggestions or recommendations would be appreciated. Thanks.
I have neither a suggestion or recommendation. I'll piggyback on your question. I use Howe's. What say you about this and others? Brett
Your dealer gave you some good advice. :) However, I might be more inclined to use the Stanadyne Performance Formula, which in addition to added lubricity, contains other ingredients such as injector cleaner, fuel stabilizer, gell protection, and cetane improver. The added cetane could help increase fuel economy just enough to pay for the cost of treating the fuel. Then, the other benefits are basically free.
Jim
Thanks to 'More Power' and 'winemaker' for your inputs. Will look for the 'Performance Formula'. Anybody got a Part # for this in Canada?
What I have to offer might seem over simplistic to some but here goes.
Toss in a pint of ATF shake well and get on with your business at hand.
Been doing this for years and its cheap and it works well.
You can buy ATF at almost any supermarket too.
The type really dont matter either, you are buying a little lubricity and some detergents is all.
I discussed this with our local pump shop and the fellow smiled and said in a hushed voice "me too but I make money selling the trick stuff so be quiet"
Just my 2 cents worth
Robyn
One can't depend on the additives used in ATF; detergents can be finely-divided barium- or calcium-ash.
I don't use it in my diesels, period.
As I've mentioned on this forum before, "Oil's cheaper than metal."
While I'll be the first to declare that when it come to lubricants, injector pump engineers ain't the brightest lights in the chandelier, but neither are they stupid. They recommend what works.
Rather than ATF, I stick with ashless (as most are ) 2-cycle oil.
While I will agree that 2 cycle oil is probably a better option, ATF didn't cause any negative effects in my '85 Blazer. It has about 250K worth of ATF miles. Same IP and injectors. I used the cheapest stuff I could find. I've used it in other Diesel engines, but the Blazer is the longest I've run it.
I have used the ATF trick in my 500 Cat for 525K now and it purs just as good now as the day I first sat in the drivers seat.
The mileage is still right at 6 on a light to moderate freeway grade at 55 mph
I have used the stuff in 6.2's as well as 6.5's
ATF is bassically a 7 Wt hydraulic oil with of course the detergent additives and it does have friction modifiers that act on the paper products in the tranny to make them work better. (yes the clutch lining in many is a paper product although some are a metalic base)
If one looks at the metal to metal contact in an auto tranny, there is a lot of it and it runs at fairly high heat too and ATF does the job of keeping it happy for many thousands of miles.
After asking the pros at the pump shop that have been through all the tech schools what they thought, the response was as I mentioned in an earlier post, sssshhhhhhhhhhh we make good $$$$$ on the trick stuff.
2 cycle oil might be a little better in some ways as it is designed to go through the combustion process BUT the stuff is spendy and not always available at the mini mart travel centers that many folks fuel up at when out and about.
As is with many patent snake oil products, if you are happy with what you are using you should stick with it.
I use STP in all my rigs and always have, many hate the stuff and trash it every chance they get. I have seen several engines that have had mega miles put on them after using it and then torn down and look like new inside.
My personal opinion is that there ARE good products on the market for just about everything and along with these go a bushell basket full of HYPE and salesmanship.
How does one really know without a track record to look at?
Maverick has had great success with ATF as have I and tooooooo many truckers that have used it for years without failure.
This speaks far louder to me than a company's hype on a product that you know they are making a huge profit on.
ATF has my vote.
Best to all
Robyn
Good Day!
The original question was from a DMax guy, but most of the replies have been from us folks with older 6.2/6/5 iron. So, I
Thanks for getting us back on track, Moondoggie. He is refering to his Duramax equipped truck.
I agree, and I do not (and would not, unless no other option is available) use ATF in my Duramax. I use the PS additive in my '01, and used Stanadyne, Howes, STP (blue bottle) and PS in my Blazer for the last 150K. I would recommend a good additive designed/marketed as an additve in these late models.
One thing to consider here, the Dmax has a common rail system with electronically controlled injectors.
The rail runs at about 20,000 PSI and the squirts open and close as directed by the ECM to fuel the beast.
In theory the DMAX will need less additives other than to keep the nozzles and such clean.
The 6.2/6.5 family on the other hand has for the most part a two part system with a rotary pump with a lot of metal parts that mate with other pieces.
The injectors also have several machined parts that work together and can be affected greatly by the fuel.
The DMAX is by far a simpler system in that the injection is not done by mechanical means where as the 6.5 family uses a mechanical pumping action with the electronics to control the amount of fuel each plunger is given to pump..
The Ford system is a HEUI (Hydraulic Electric Unit Injection) and uses engine oil under high pressure to fire the injectors at the precise time and the electronics control both the firing time and the amount of fuel delivered.
As many of you know I am not a real fan of the highly advanced electronics but the DMAX gets my vote as the simplest and most likely the easiest system to keep working.
To sum this up, the addition of tranny fluid should have absolutely no negative effect on the system whatever.
This system is very similar to the CAT System other than the Cat uses the cam to run the injectors.
Having the Dmax operating without the use of the cams to run the injectors will greatly prolong the life of the overhead and all its drive train.
I would not hesitate to use ATF even in DMAX.
Now this is my personal opinion and is always subject to a poke here or there but thats how I see it.
Best to ya
Robyn
There has been quite a bit of discussion on this topic over the last several years ... For another perspective on ATF use see the post by George Morrison in the following thread ...
atf and fuel
:)
This is very interesting.
I have over 30,0000 hours on my 500 Cat now and have been running ATF regularly and never an issue.
I am wondering what sort of engine this one Morrison is refering to.
The Kitty cat seems to care less.
Mavericks 6.2 loved it.
Hmmmm I would really like to have more info on this issue just to see what actually was happening and why.
I have run ATF in my 94 6.5 and all seems well too and have done so in every one I have owned.
This is a very intriguing point and deserves more snooping.
It very well may have something to do with the particular engine and injector setup.
Another thought has crossed my mind !!!
I have been inside of too many auto trannies to think about and I have never seen any "RED STAIN" as was mentioned in the article.
Could this engine issue have been due to running high sulfur off road fuel that is dyed red.
The off road stuff will leave more deposits than the on road green stuff.
Possibly with the addition of the ATF to the red diesel there may be a connection.
The one thing that caught my eye was RED STAIN Tranny fuid does not leave a red stain that I have ever seen but off road diesel leaves a tell tale tracer behind that is easy to follow.
I get checked in the big truck regularly by IRS agents that dip the fuel tanks at the truck scales. They explained that the red fuel will leave enough tracer that even if you have fueled a couple times with the green that they can still tell if you have been cheating.
Just a thought.
Robyn
News FLASH
I am changing my position on this debate.
I spent about half an hour last night on the phone with a long time friend who works as a chemist in the oil industry.
I asked him about the ATF issue.
His reply was, " years ago the ATF worked better than most of the stuff that was out there and the truckers pretty much did well with it in the old high sulfur fuel" ( The sulfur was a good lubricant itself) Aslo it seems that the ATF adds very little in the way of lubricity.
Today with the low sulfur stuff we have, the addition of ATF actually adds sulfur and a whole host of other stuff that the oil companies have worked to get rid of.
Hmmmm Pay high prices for low sulfur fuel then go adding stuff to it that is working against the manufactures hard work. Swift !!!!!!!
I am going to rethink what I do from this point on with the ULSD especially on the Big rig.
Them suckers with the IRS can probably tell if there has been strange stuff poured into the fuel and I definately dont need any "Imperial Entanglements"
My position at this point is going to be one of using whatever the pump,engine or maker of the rig says it likes to eat.
But as usual this can all change if I find that I have been given a bunch of bogus info that is politically motivated rather than scientific.
Robyn heads off to get a case of Stanadyne pump soup.
Carry on troops
Robyn
Here's an informative post on sulfur by Dr. Lee ...
Sulfur: Good, Bad or Ugly?
:)
Very interesting reading.
The sulfuric acid I was aware of but not the other goodies in our lube oil.
I wonder about stuff like Amzoil???
First off, sulfur is a very good lubricant, so its presence in ATF is of minor concern (though I'm totally surprised it would show up in that product). Reports (see the links) of carbonaceous deposits on injector tips are not a bit surprising, as most ATF uses paraffinic base stock, and that's the usual result.
Robyn's chemist friend was a bit off-base - ATF does add some lubricity. BTW, in the oil industry, "lubricity" is frequently thrown around, but it really has no definition! As far as her positive experiences with Cats and ATF, I'm not surprised - Caterpillar engines are far above comparison with the GM 6.2/6.5L diesels. And their designs are made with harsh operating conditions in mind.
And robyn's absolutely right about friction modifiers - in the old days, the slip-stick differential for Type A (evolved into Dexron) and Type F (M2C33 - evolved into Mercon) had opposite slip-stick differentials, which is why misapplication would result in AT failures. The Type A
had friction modifiers that caused the friction to decrease as the parts reached the same speed, so the shift was smooth. Type F modifiers' friction increased as the parts reached the same speed, so a crisper shift occurred.
In any event, to go back to my prior post, although Stanadyne is unlikely to employ lube geniuses, the engineers aren't dumb, and they've figured out what works, so I'll stick with that.
BTW, Dr. Lee's posts on additives are accurate and useful. What he didn't elaborate on is that STP's VI improver, which unless the formula has been radically changed, is polyisobutylene, a molecule of which at low temps is coiled up (acting like a low-vis isomer), but at higher temps, uncoils and acts like a higher-vis isomer. The problem is that polyisobutylene at higher temps is so large that it is physically fractured in shear, and the fragments show up as carbonaceous deposits - in ringbelts and on valves. So his observations recommending the use of products with less VI improver and more ZDP is spot-on. Unfortunately, one can't depend on the makers of additives to notify consumers when altering a product formula.
To robyn's query about Amsoil, being a reformed lube engineer, I'm suspect of any product that doesn't provide formulation data or at least a chart of standard ASTM or SAE test results; anything less is hype, IMHO. Testimonials are nice, but are generally unsupported by rigorous test conditions or testers knowlegeable enough to control specifics. Few accounts of testimonials are likely to include negative reports. They are, however, better than nothing.
Here's one for ya.
When I pulled down my 94 Burb that had been run on Amsoil since new (240,000 miles) I found pistons, bearings, crank, cam and lifters that looked like new. The cylinders had so little wear that even with a touch up hone job they were still within spec with almost no taper or out of round.
There was zero ridge at the top of the cylinders, just a little carbon build up between where the top ring stops and the deck
Also the engine was very clean on the inside with almost no sludge.
I will say this, the engine is now running Delo 400 15-40 or Rotella T 15-40 as I dont like not being able to buy the Amsoil just everywhere when traveling.
The regular oil is available at any truck stop
I have seen 6.5's with less than half the miles with far more wear showing.
I dont know much about all the chemical makeup of the different oils but I have seen several passenger car type engines that have displayed the high miles with low wear after using Amsoil.
The synthetic may be the key, possibly any of the synth oils will yield the same results.
The synthetic lube I started using in my 18 speed box on the big truck is reported to yield far better life expectancy than regular mineral oil.
It does run a lot cooler and shifts better too.
I got 490,000 out of the first box with 50wt mineral oil so we will see.
Good Day!
How come no one asked this question: "So, moondoggie, you found that at least for you Stanadyne Performance Formula didn't increase your mpg at all, a failed promise. Why then do you think their Lubricity Formula is doing what they say it will?" Guess what - can't answer that one.
Blessings!(signature in previous post)
I pretty much hold all advertising in contempt. Nuff said
How about this info I cam across today? Nano technology. They have quite the claims. Today another driver handed me some info and said he has started using this additive in his big truck and can't believe the power and fuel milage increase! Here are two sites he gave me to check out. www.nanotsunami.com and www.h2oil.com. Anybody heard of this technology?
I remember reading about a fuel economy test several years ago that was generated by a fleet operator who ran lots of trucks, and who developed fuel economy tracking data over a long enough period of time to make the case for treated fuel. Individuals have a harder time seeing the increase due to a much smaller sampling and changes in driving conditions throughout the year.Quote:
How come no one asked this question: "So, moondoggie, you found that at least for you Stanadyne Performance Formula didn't increase your mpg at all, a failed promise. Why then do you think their Lubricity Formula is doing what they say it will?" Guess what - can't answer that one.
Writer Jim Allen performed a series of dyno tests a few years ago, using a 6.2L turbodiesel, that measured the effect of Stanadyne Performance Formula on power. He saw an increase in power. He also measured the effect on performance when changing injection timing. I'll have to ask him to put that information into a format we can use here.
Jim
Good Day!
THAT would be very cool - the more hard numbers, the better.
I have a test devised where I could with reasonable accuracy determine mpg change vs. additive % that could be done in a very short timeframe, but it would take time & equipment that I'll never have available. Sure would be fun... I MUCH prefer dealing with hard facts. Like I said in my post, my data doesn't say I got worse mpg, it simply doesn' make a hard case for improved mpg.
Blessings!(signature in previous post)
I'm a former fuels and lube engineer. There is no way an additive in 1:500 or 1:1000 proportions can have any effect on fuel economy.
Fuel economy will depend on the specific gravity of the fuel (oddly enough, the smaller the number, the higher the specific gravity). Heavier fuels have more energy per gallon. Period. This is one reason why "winter-blend" diesel fuel, containing lighter ends for easier starting, provide lower fuel mileage - the lesser energy content is not overcome by the higher efficiency of the engine at lower ambient temps.
All right gang, here is a major twist in the additive mix. A good friend of mine was telling me the other day that he is experimenting with waste engine oil as a fuel source. He found a product at a trade show that's called "oil cat" and it filters waste engine oil and allows you to burn it mixed in with your diesel. My friend started experimenting and talking to other truckers and sourcing info on the different forums. Note, the company that makes the oil cleaning machine is pretty conservative and uses a ratio of about 7% waste oil to diesel. My friend has a mid 80's 6.2 Blazer with a Banks Turbo setup. He is now up to 50% waste oil to diesel!!! I had him repeat the ratio and he said "yup, 50%". I asked if his truck runs good and he said it doesn't just run good, it runs freaking great. He felt that it may take just a touch longer to start, but thats the only downfall so far. He is in a very mild part of California, so I don't know how this would work in the colder climates. I asked him if it's smoking and he said not enought to notice any real difference. He said the info he's gathered is they will really start to smoke if you have too much oil. Hmmm.
So everyone is probably wondering how do you run dirty waste oil in the fuel and not ruin the injectors, IP, etc. My friend set up a bypass oil filter that uses rolls of toilet paper as the filter media. He then gravity feeds about 5 gallons of waste oil through it in his garage. It takes about 4 to 5 hours of time, but it seems to work. My concern was with the dirty oil but my friend claims the filtering process gets it down in micron size that this has not been an issue. The biggest issue he said is the actual additives in the waste engine oil causing deposits in the combustion chamber, valves, etc. He hasn't had any issues yet, but he was cautious of this as one of the potential problems listed by others doing this. He claimed that since many of the logging trucks actually have a very short lifespan, those guys weren't even filtering the waste oil as much as he as. He felt if there was an oil with no additives, this would be the perfect mixing oil. I guess if you could find base stock cheaper than diesel, it would be perfect for those wishing to "fuel blend".
OK, what about mileage?? He claims that his mileage has improved substantially and he is doing further testing to get more accurate numbers. At this point, 15-20% increase was what he felt, probably due to the increased BTU's in oil vs diesel.
He didn't think anyone should try this in the newer diesel motors with the high pressure fuel rails, etc. Just to much of an unknown without doing some real trials.
Regarding ATF, my friend claims that ATS Diesel has a twin turbo 5.9 Cummins that they use as their transmission dyno powerplant. He told me that ATS runs ATF at about 75% and motor oil at 25% as it's fuel. This is a 500 hp beast. Can this be possible?? I figure if they are doing this, they are just getting rid of the ATF from trannies they test, dyno runs, etc. I was shocked to hear you could run this mixture and the motor would run.
One last thing, apparently you can burn your own waste oil if it was produced by your vehicle. I'll have to find the federal info on that, but I guess it's not different that having oil blow past your rings to the combustion chamber. I could have sworn I've seen a product that meters waste oil to your fuel system in some truckers magazine. I'd guess thats how they get away with it.
My friend is a writer for a national automotive magazine and asked me not to mention his name at this point until he gets further with his testing. You'll see this article out in about 4 to 5 months, plus he'll have even more hard data on how the truck is running with even more miles on the odometer.
Rustyk, have you ever heard of anyone running waste motor oil mixed in with diesel???...any potential downfalls with this setup (assuming that the waste oil is filtered "clean") that you can see from your past experience? What about being able to run ATF mixed with motor oil as your fuel source? Does this sound possible or is there some mis-information here?
Cheers,
George Carousos
I get a Bazanga Meter reading of about 9.83 on those claims. First, filtering oil through toilet paper - what is the micron filtration rating (BTW, back in the '70s we went through this TP oil filter craze) - more importantly, does he use new or used toilet paper :D?
Secondly, injectors are designed and set to use a narrow band of viscosities, unless preheated, motor oil ain't even close (and preheating would have to be extreme - not to mention viscosity can only be reduced so much). If your friend is to be believed, then I have some prime Florida watertop property to sell...
In theory, better mileage would be obtained from motor oil, since it is a heavier stock than diesel. But unmodified diesel engines won't tolerate it for very long. I don't have any idea what he was talking about "diesels with high pressure fuel rails shouldn't use it"...some engines feed the injectors with low-pressure fuel and the injector pressurizes it; in others, the IP pressurizes the fuel. I can't think of any distinction that would make it possible to burn such a mixture with either system. But you're friend is talking about a 6.2 - with HP from the IP.
The final problem is that one can't filter "clean" any contemporary capable diesel motor oil. First, there are metallic ash fines (tiny little solid particles of metallic ash) that will pass though any usual filter - they're designed to; when they react with a contaminant, the resulting particle will be filtered out because it's much larger. Secondly, metallic ash detergent-dispersants (as above) are only one constituent in the additive package - ashless detergents (liquids) are also present, and don't get filtered out.
As for the claim there's a Cummins diesel running on MO and ATF, that's not beyond possibility, but the fuel system would have to be specially designed to make it feasible.
Marine and large stationary diesels (we're talking in the 10,000 HP and up range, here) can burn stuff barely removed from asphalt. But they also have fuel-processing systems costing upwards of $100,000, and AFAIK, none of those systems could even be hauled by any truck on this forum.
All that said, some Cummins engines have a system for dripping motor oil from the crankcase into the fuel system, the idea being that makeup oil to replenish that burned will juice up the additive level. But Cummins crankcases hold large amounts (25+ quarts) compared to the 7-8 qts of our engines.
Bottom line: I know a bit about the subject. I also paid for my engine with my own money. To keep it running well, I'll do what I know works, and leave the fringe "science" to others - and their money.
I agree that the motor oil and other concoctions is definately not the way to fly.
I have changed my mind about ATF as an additive even though I have used it for years with no trouble.
I am still suspect of the prepackaged additives and the claims they make.
However if your using the juice the manufacture is pushing and the IP has an issue the manufacture is going to stand behind the product as long as the thing is under warranty.
I have personally seen folks runing filtered veggie oil after heating it and it seems to work ok.
I am of the personal opinion that there is not going to be any real MPG gains from a bottle of additive, the mix is toooooo lean to do much.
As has been mentioned the more BTU's per pound of fuel there exists the possibility of more mileage ( As long as the engine is in good enough condition to extract it)
All this said Im going to fill my rigs with whatever is at my Pride station pump, Bitch about the cost and go on about my business.
Best to ya
Robyn
i think i have a headache......
does GM/Duramax have anything to say about this topic?
GM says that Stanadyne and Racor diesel fuel additives have been approved for use in their diesel engines. This is partly because these fuel additives are a water demulsifying variety, meaning they work to allow free water to coalesce and be drained away. Many other fuel treatments emulsify the water, allowing it to pass through the fuel filters and fuel injection system. There is quite some debate about which is better, but.... GM provides the warranty. :)
Jim