Nice chart!
 

2 items on the chart caught my eye: 1- Is how high Marvel Mystery Oil scored (my Boss back around 1975 used to recommed it to his customers), 2- Only 2% Biodiesel tested? Why not test some higher Biodiesel percentiles also? Seems like someone did not want to know how a higher % of Biodiesel might preform.

The 2 stroke oil is made to burn (and with luck keep the spark plug from fowling) while the oil for the crankcase may have additives to help keep it from burning and detergent.

In addition
 

Some one had suggested why bother with 2 stroke oil just dump in som 30 wt.
As I am reading I see that the word "additives" has become a dirty word with some people and can not resist sturing the pot a little more.

The same fuel companies that are supposed put the additives in the fuel before we get it also make great claims about the additives that they sell in those little bottles.
"We make great fuel but we also make great fuel additives for our fuel?"

I partially agree with your comments regarding the development of the standard. If you talk to anyone who has worked on any technical standards committee, you will find that some (probably all) of the stakeholders will not be completely happy with the results, that's just how the process works. These standards are developed as compromises and the engine folks are always going to want higher standards than the fuel folks, it's a negotiation. At the end of the day everyone has to agree with the final result, even if they didn't get everything they wanted.

However, that is not the same thing as saying the the current standard does not meet the requirements of the engine manufacturers. If it didn't, these manufacturers would not have voted to accept the standard and it would have gone back to the committee for more work. In other words, the engine manufacturers have decided they can live with the results. It is also not the same as claiming the minimum requirements have been reduced (which they have not). In reality, lubricity was not much of an issue for the fuel suppliers until the ULSD process created the need (and additional expense) of additives. Now the fuel supplies would like to minimize the cost while the engine manufacturers would like to maximize the lubricity, that's why they both have representatives on the committees. These same engine manufacturers are now selling engines (with warrantees) for use with this fuel, and they are not requiring (or recommending) the use of additives in either their new or old engines.

With regard to the use of additional additives (at the pump), it probably will not hurt anything and it might even provide a slight advantage in some cases. No one is claiming that pump fuel is as good as it could possible be; you can always spend more money for the next slight increment of lubricity or cetane, that's obvious. The real question (answered by the standards committee) is whether or not it is cost effective and/or necessary to do any more. IMHO, the use of additional additives is not necessary and is certainly not cost effective under most conditions. There may be exceptions, I will occasionally use cetane boosters in very cold temperatures to help start my 400K+ mile engine, that does not mean 40 cetane is inadequate but that 45 cetane is better when it's -5F outside. I do not personally think the use of additives on a routine basis is necessary or particularly beneficial. If you think they are worthwhile, it's you money.

I partially agree with your comments regarding the development of the standard. If you talk to anyone who has worked on any technical standards committee, you will find that some (probably all) of the stakeholders will not be completely happy with the results, that's just how the process works. These standards are developed as compromises and the engine folks are always going to want higher standards than the fuel folks, it's a negotiation. At the end of the day everyone has to agree with the final result, even if they didn't get everything they wanted.

However, that is not the same thing as saying the the current standard does not meet the requirements of the engine manufacturers. If it didn't, these manufacturers would not have voted to accept the standard and it would have gone back to the committee for more work. In other words, the engine manufacturers have decided they can live with the results. It is also not the same as claiming the minimum requirements have been reduced (which they have not). In reality, lubricity was not much of an issue for the fuel suppliers until the ULSD process created the need (and additional expense) of additives. Now the fuel supplies would like to minimize the cost while the engine manufacturers would like to maximize the lubricity, that's why they both have representatives on the committees. These same engine manufacturers are now selling engines (with warrantees) for use with this fuel, and they are not requiring (or recommending) the use of additives in either their new or old engines.

With regard to the use of additional additives (at the pump), it probably will not hurt anything and it might even provide a slight advantage in some cases. No one is claiming that pump fuel is as good as it could possible be; you can always spend more money for the next slight increment of lubricity or cetane, that's obvious. The real question (answered by the standards committee) is whether or not it is cost effective and/or necessary to do any more. IMHO, the use of additional additives is not necessary and is certainly not cost effective under most conditions. There may be exceptions, I will occasionally use cetane boosters in very cold temperatures to help start my 400K+ mile engine, that does not mean 40 cetane is inadequate but that 45 cetane is better when it's -5F outside. I do not personally think the use of additives on a routine basis is necessary or particularly beneficial. If you think they are worthwhile, it's your money.

Keep in mind that on this chart the lower numbers are better. It sounds to me like you understood it the other way. B2 scored the best and there was no need to test higher concentrations because it was already the best. Also higher concentrations would score only a little better as 2% is the point of diminishing returns.

Craig, I mostly agree with what you said, but to me cetane boosters and lubricity enhancers are worth the few extra dollars.

THANKS I sure did not read it correctly. I've got it now the higher the bar on the chart the bigger the scar.

This thread was useful if for no other reason then it solved a problem that I had of what to do with the quart of 2 stroke oil that has been in my garage for 2 years. It has been leftover since I converted to all electric garden tools. I already put 8 ounces into my tank (I am too cheap to throw it or give it away). If it helps my fuel injection system last longer so much the better.

Just finished a tank with a 50:1 mix of 2-stroke oil. 27.26mpg, no better than Power Service (gray bottle) which got me 27.28mpg.

How much of an increase in mileage is that over your base mileage
without any additives ?

26.6mpg is what I got w/o any additives and 26.06mpg is my current average for 2008.

So, ForcedInduction, by your posted numbers you saw a mpg improvement of 3/4 to almost 1-1/4 mpg (26.06/26.6 to 27.26/27.28) and by the wear scar chart PowerService or 2 stroke oil give a reduction of between 9% and 25% (60 to 160 microns) over baseline #2 diesel.

Surely you don't still believe "its all in your head"...

Thanks to DieselAddict for the chart. I had always read/heard that B5 provided all the lubricity the pump and injectors need, even without any other addatives. This chart clearly confirms it.

It is all in your head. 3/4 to 1-1/4mpg is WELL within the variable range and not even remotely close to the 10% improvement that some have claimed using 2-stroke oil.

I don't know where you are pulling that out of. The small MPG gain from the 2-stroke oil is nowhere near enough to offset the $1.50/8oz cost of the oil and it does nothing to reduce wear.

.

Yea, that is pretty close but not quite statistically significant.

Maybe if you repeated the test, in different ways.

If there was a way to do it where the driver did not know if they were
running on fuel with an additive or not would help to take out the
human factor of variability in driving.

just thoughts.

Have Fun !
RichC
:jester:

.

Thats the one thing that always changes in driving. Unless you are running on a closed track it will always be a little different each time.

Even in a daily grind of nothing but a straight commute to and from work, .75-1.25mpg difference per tank is within the variable range.