| JHZR2 |
03-04-2010 11:11 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by bustedbenz
(Post 2418931)
How does something that increases lubricity cause *additional* wear, instead of less? The whole point of lubricity is to avoid wear.
At least as far as Diesel Kleen is concerned, it smells a lot like petroleum fuel just with a few chemicals added, and it's a fairly common recommendation to fill a spin on filter with the stuff straight out of the bottle so the engine gets a straight shot of the stuff for thirty seconds or so until the regular diesel starts making it into the new filter. Can't imagine somebody wouldn't have noticed some type of trouble if it causes wear.
Not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to figure out the logic. If an additive is inferior to the parent fuel, then it can only drag the parent fuel down, not improve it. Therefore... there is a "negative return" to using it in ANY proportion. I'd think...
|
Youre talking two different kinds of wear. The wear that we think about due to the removal of sulfur is in the fuel system, IP, etc. Sulfur would effectively alloy with the metals in these components, creating a soft surface that was wear resistant. The aromatic bound sulfur compounds did a good job of preventing bad effects of metal on metal contact. Take the sulfur from the fuel, some of that can occur.
However, due to incomplete combustion of some adds, you can get residues down in the rings and then down to the bearings. Thus why you can see elevated soft metal wear when too much of some types of additives are used.
Dont confuse fuel-related lubricity to lubricating the moving parts of the engine. |
