2 Stroke Oil as Fuel Additive? - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

piccolovic · #46 02-01-2012, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whunter

You fail to understand:

The garbage sold as fuel in the US is frequently that bad and worse!!

I am getting daily reports from south east Michigan (local) customers, fill the fuel tank and vehicle looses power within three miles.

Dump a pint (473 milliliter) cetane booster in the tank and the power comes back again.

There are several local stations I avoid = their fuel in my 300SD gets 18 MPG.

My normal station the 300SD gets 24 MPG on straight diesel and 28-29 MPG with 2 stroke oil, spindle oil, cetane boost, etc.
Note: From one pint to one quart per full fuel tank, depending on how much power you want and smoke you can handle.

I suggest you stop denying the reality of lousy fuel cetane-quality, there are too many members with real world proof it is needed, and justified by better performance + a lower fuel bill.

.

Also, Bill, when you posted the cetene ratings for diesel based on brand name, the truck stops that dispense fuel had the lowest ratings, at 40.

and, there was a blind test aspect to my Dallas trips, . . . when I had a student/co-driver with me. She never put in the additive and we immediately saw the difference, . . . enough that she was convinced also. Now for trips with mixed conditions, i.e., uphill, and lot of down and upshifting, or a heavy load, that would certainly break down the numbers, also. The Dallas trip was always a light load (18K lbs) on flat ground for 1200 miles.

Also, I had noticed, even empty, it was impossible to break 5.8 mpg to 6.1 (I never got over 6.1) without additives.

Unfortunately, the classic looking Pete, is like driving a billboard broadside through a windstorm . . . . as far as it's aerodynamics, consequently, getting the worst mileage of all the N-14 applications.

piccolovic · #47 02-01-2012, 02:33 AM

I also tested it by putting in a full gallon of 2-stroke motor oil. There was no change from 1/2 gal to a full gallon, so why waste it? Whereas it took 3/4 gal of Lucas to get the same effect. And, up to a gal, there was no noticeable smoke. And, actually, they call them 150-gal tanks, but they are actually about 140 because of the neck, so the total capacity would actually be about 280 gals, unless one wanted to stand all day at the pumps to drip in the last bit to the top.

piccolovic · #48 02-01-2012, 02:52 AM

Also, I forgot to mention . . . the owner of the company I worked for noticed the difference, via the fuel credit card. The software they used on the QualComm kept track of the mileage I was getting. He called me one day to ask what I was doing different from when I started driving for the company, as he had noticed at least 1 mpg increase after a certain date. This was also during the time that fuel prices were as high as $5.50/gal in places like California, and he had me bring in my books where I kept track of mileage and additives. As a fleet owner, he was pulling his hair out trying to figure out how to increase mileage on his own fleet. A tenth of mpg increase across his fleet would have been a savings of thousands of dollars per month. He agreed that using Lucas or 2-stroke motor oil was known to increase mileage, even significantly, but his dilemma was how to get all the company drivers to use the stuff on a regular basis.

Diesel911 · #49 11-27-2012, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnt49

You'll notice that the ratio of 2 stroke oil in that study was 200:1 instead of the recommended 1 oz per gallon 128:1. That would surely put it much closer to the top of the list. I've been using it for years & am convinced it works.

Is this 128:1 the recommendation for 2-Cycle Oil use in Gasoline or in Diesel Fuel?
I am not saying it is not a good thing to use it but I am trying to figure out whay there would be a recommended amount specification of 2-Cycle Oil that is for use in Diesel Fuel when it is not made for that.

bmwpowere36m3 · #50 11-27-2012, 12:43 PM

Small 2-stroke gas engines can take down to 32:1... so even 128:1 in a diesel is nothing and it'll burn it just fine. Diesel is a less refined fuel anyway (more oily), but I've had better success with B100. I add about 1/2 gal for every half tank of fuel (~B5).

odie · #51 11-28-2012, 02:01 PM

FWIT...i recently noted some posts on some motorcycle forums...seems 2 stroke oil is viewed favorably in 4 stroke bikes too...mainly it seems due to all the ethanol in the gas. I started using it in my Kawasaki and will see how that goes.

I still have a huge supply of power services and other diesel addetive products to use up (got a killer deal) before I switch to 2 stroke oil and AFT.

Air&Road · #52 11-28-2012, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 86-300sdl

Think I've read where a couple of ounces of 2 stroke oil may be a good idea when running ultra low sulpher fuel.

I run my now 340,000 mile 86 300 SDL (603.) from San Diego to Tucson & Phoenix & back twice monthly which is pretty much 1,000 miles of 70 to 80 mph for hours at a time. Been doing it for several years trying different fuel additives without much performance change.

Today I tried 2 -3 ounces of 2 Stroke oil with a full tank. Shot out to Phx stopping a couple of times to "look & listen". The damn thing now runs like is a young buck! Motor is as quiet as I can remember (10+ years and 200,000 miles). Idles smooth as I'd ever imagine. Same good power through all rpms..well a little pokey in the low pre turbo spool as usual. Also "seems" like I have better mpg by eyeballing the gauge. I'll find out after a fill up in the morning.

Anyone else tried 2 Stroke Oil as an additive to lube the IP etc. Just a little worried that when it runs so smooth something may break if ya know what I mean...i.e. no free lunches

Thoughts / experiences /downsides please before I fill up again and add a few more ounces of 2 Stroke Oil for the Tucson leg in the morning.

Thanks

If you're looking for lubricity, all you need is to dump in a few ounces of clean, cheap motor oil of most any weight before filling the tank.

compress ignite · #53 11-29-2012, 03:39 PM

GSA,

Call ANY Bosch Diesel Injection Service on Planet Earth and ask if the Manufacturers (Of ALL Diesel Injection Equipment)
have CHANGED any Processes due to ULSD...

The Answer will Be,NO.

[They (the Manufacturers) produce for a "World Market" and having to
make allowances for the Substandard Cetane Quantity and Lack of
Lubricity of "Domestic" (in CONUS) ULSD IS NOT Financially Viable.]

ANY engine System that uses Compression Fuel will benefit,
from the addition of SYNTHETIC TWO STROKE OIL to the Fuel,
to CORRECT THE LACK OF ULSD's Lubricity.

Domestic Diesel is Such CRAP,CETANE Improvers can Double the Lifespan
of Diesel ENGINES.

Air & Road,

1.Regular Motor Oil is NOT MANUFACTURED TO BURN.
2.Synthetic Two Stroke Oil IS MANUFACTURED (SPECIFICALLY) to Be BURNED.

[I can't believe I have to point this out to YOU,of all people?]

Air&Road · #54 11-29-2012, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by compress ignite

GSA,

Call ANY Bosch Diesel Injection Service on Planet Earth and ask if the Manufacturers (Of ALL Diesel Injection Equipment)
have CHANGED any Processes due to ULSD...

The Answer will Be,NO.

[They (the Manufacturers) produce for a "World Market" and having to
make allowances for the Substandard Cetane Quantity and Lack of
Lubricity of "Domestic" (in CONUS) ULSD IS NOT Financially Viable.]

ANY engine System that uses Compression Fuel will benefit,
from the addition of SYNTHETIC TWO STROKE OIL to the Fuel,
to CORRECT THE LACK OF ULSD's Lubricity.

Domestic Diesel is Such CRAP,CETANE Improvers can Double the Lifespan
of Diesel ENGINES.

Air & Road,

1.Regular Motor Oil is NOT MANUFACTURED TO BURN.
2.Synthetic Two Stroke Oil IS MANUFACTURED (SPECIFICALLY) to Be BURNED.

[I can't believe I have to point this out to YOU,of all people?]

compress ignite · #55 11-29-2012, 07:15 PM

(Here We GO...)

Schlagen ein totes Pferd numerare un

To Wit:

ULSD NRC Findings [ALERT this is a RePost] [All Ostriches to conceal craniums]
Please SEE "REPLYS" #22 through #27 for the NRC white Paper

Schlagen ein totes Pferd numerare un

Credit to "Gunship Pilot"
of Rawalpindi,Lahore,Pakistan

gentlemen ! here is a study which scientifically proves that whether the oil should be added or not......I think this will clarify many of the doubts which we have.......

Study
The following are the preliminary results of a research study on diesel fuel Lubricity Additives. There is likely to be further commentary and explanation added at a future time.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this research was to determine the ability of multiple diesel fuel additives to replace the vital lubricity component in ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel) fuel.

HISTORY:

ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road diesel engines. This fuel burns cleaner and is less polluting than it’s predecessor, called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel. Low sulfer fuel contained less than 500 ppm of sulfer. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.
As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfer, it is inadvertently stripped of its lubricating properties. This vital lubrication is a necessary component of the diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high pressure pumps and injectors. Traditional Low sulfer diesel fuel typically contained enough lubricating ability to suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD fuel, on the other hand, is considered to be very “dry” and incapable of lubricating vital fuel delivery components. As a result, these components are at risk of premature and even catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is introduced to the system. As a result, all oil companies producing ULSD fuel must replace the lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel purchased at retail fuel stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace this lost lubricity. The potential result of using inadequately treated fuel, as indicated above, can be catastrophic. There have been many documented cases of randomly tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests prove that often times the fuel we purchase is not adequately treated and may therefore contribute to accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems. For this reason it may be prudent to use an after market diesel fuel additive to ENSURE adequate lubrication of the fuel delivery system. Additionally, many additives can offer added benefits such as cetane improver, and water separators or emulsifiers.

CONTENT:

In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity. The primary component of this study is a side-by-side laboratory analysis of each additive’s ability to replace this vital lubricity. Additionally, claims of improving cetane, water separation or emulsification, bio-diesel compatibility and alcohol content will be noted. These notes were derived from information that was readily available to consumers (via the label and internet information) and none of this information has been evaluated for validity and/or performance. Cetane information has only been noted if the word “cetane” was used in the advertising information. The words “improves power” has not been translated to mean “improves cetane” in this evaluation. Information on alcohol content is provided by indicating “contains no alcohol”. Omission of the words “contains no alcohol” does not imply that it does contain alcohol. This information was simply missing in the information available to a consumer. However, the possibility of a form of alcohol in these products is possible. Additionally, information on dosages and cost per tankful are included for comparison purposes.

How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating Ability:

Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a device called a “High Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR. The HFRR is currently the Internationally accepted, standardized method to evaluate fluids for lubricating ability. It uses a ball bearing that reciprocates or moves back and forth on a metal surface at a very high frequency for a duration of 90 minutes. The machine does this while the ball bearing and metal surface are immersed in the test fluid (in this case, treated diesel fuel). At the end of the test the ball bearing is examined under a microscope and the “wear scar” on the ball bearing is measured in microns. The larger the wear scar, the poorer the lubricating ability of the fluid. Southwest Research runs every sample twice and averages the size of the wear scar.
The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a commercially available diesel fuel should produce a wear scar of no greater than 520 microns. The Engine Manufacturers Association had requested a standard of a wear scar no greater than 460 microns, typical of the pre-ULSD fuels. Most experts agree that a 520 micron standard is adequate, but also that the lower the wear scar the better.

compress ignite · #56 11-29-2012, 07:17 PM

Ya!

Schlagen ein totes Pferd il numero due
Credit to "Gunship Pilot"
of Rawalpindi,Lahore,Pakistan

METHOD:

An independent research firm in Texas was hired to do the laboratory work. The cost of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive manufacturers. Declining to participate and pay for the research were the following companies: Amsoil and Power Service. Because these are popular products it was determined that they needed to be included in the study. These products were tested using funds collected by diesel enthusiasts at “dieselplace.com”. Additionally, unconventional additives such as 2-cycle oil and used motor oil were tested for their abilities to aid in diesel fuel lubricity. These were also paid for by members of “dieselplace.com”.
The study was conducted in the following manner:
-The Research firm obtained a quantity of “untreated” ULSD fuel from a supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel engines. However, this sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the fuel for the purpose of replacing lost lubricity. In other words, it was a “worst case scenario, very dry diesel fuel” that would likely cause damage to any fuel delivery system. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at the Southwest Research Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel. It was determined that this batch of fuel would be utilized as the baseline fuel for testing all of the additives. The baseline fuel HFRR score of 636 would be used as the control sample. All additives tested would be evaluated on their ability to replace lost lubricity to the fuel by comparing their scores to the control sample. Any score under 636 shows improvement to the fuels ability to lubricate the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine.

BLIND STUDY:

In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the following steps were taken:
Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-diesel sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered “experimental” at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market. It was sent directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel sample was sponsored by Renewable Energy Group. One of their suppliers, E.H. Wolf and Sons in Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of 100% soybean based bio-diesel. This sample was used to blend with the baseline fuel to create a 2% bio-diesel for testing.
Each additive was bottled separately in identical glass containers. The bottles were labeled only with a number. This number corresponded to the additive contained in the bottle. The order of numbering was done randomly by drawing names out of a hat. Only Spicer Research held the key to the additives in each bottle.
The additive samples were then sent in a box to An independent research firm. The only information given them was the ratio of fuel to be added to each additive sample. For example, bottle “A” needs to be mixed at a ratio of “480-1”. The ratio used for each additive was the “prescribed dosage” found on the bottle label for that product. Used motor oil and 2-cycle oil were tested at a rationally chosen ratio of 200:1.
The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio of each “bottled fluid” into a separate container containing the baseline fuel. The data, therefore, is meaningful because every additive is tested in the same way using the same fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness of each additive is now obtainable.

THE RESULTS:

These results are listed in the order of performance in the HFRR test. The baseline fuel used in every test started at an HFRR score of 636. The score shown is the tested HFRR score of the baseline fuel/additive blend.
Also included is the wear scar improvement provided by the additive as well as other claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive is also categorized as a Multi-purpose additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity only, non-conventional, or as an additive capable of treating both gasoline and diesel fuel.
As a convenience to the reader there is also information on price per treated tank of diesel fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per 26 gallon tank provided as “ounces of additive per 26 gallon tank”.

In Order Of Performance:

1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel
HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.
50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel
66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel
Price: market value

2)Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier
HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio
13 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment
Gas and Diesel
cetane improver, emulsifier
HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.60/tank

4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend
Multi-purpose
demulsifier
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
$0.68/tank

5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/tank
$3.65/tank

6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible
HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.87/tank

7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
$1.09/tank

8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.00/tank

9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Multi-purpose
demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.16/tank

10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
$1.58/tank

11)Howe’s Meaner Power Kleaner
Multi-purpose
Alcohol free
HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.36/tank

12)Stanadyne Performance Formula
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement
480:1 ratio
6.9 oz/tank
$4.35/tank

13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000 miles used.
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems)
HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
price: market value

14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant
Gas or diesel
HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
427:1 ratio
7.8 oz/tank
$2.65/tank

15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech
Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive
HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.67/tank

16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.12/tank

17)Marvel Mystery Oil
Gas, oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 and newer systems)
HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel.
320:1 ratio
10.4 oz/tank
$3.22/tank

18)ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.38/tank

19)Primrose Power Blend 2003
Multi-purpose
Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, emulsifier
HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline
1066:1 ratio
3.12 oz/tank
$1.39/tank

CONCLUSIONS:

Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 460 or better. This meets the most strict requirements requested by the Engine Manufacturers Association.
Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 520 or better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel requirements for maximum wear scar in a commercially available diesel fuel.
Products 16 through 19 were found to cause the fuel/additive blend to perform worse than the baseline fuel. The cause for this is speculative. This is not unprecedented in HFRR testing and can be caused by alcohol or other components in the additives. Further investigation into the possibilities behind these poor results will investigated.
Any additive testing within +/- 20 microns of the baseline fuel could be considered to have no significant change. The repeatability of this test allows for a +/- 20 micron variability to be considered insignificant.

CREDITS:

This study would not have been possible without the participation of all companies involved and dieselplace.com. A special Thank You to all of the dieselplace.com members who generously donated toward this study and waited longer than they should have for the results. You folks are the best. Arlen Spicer, organizer. Flying is my passion.

Replied on January 16, 2009
__________________

Doktor Bert · #57 11-29-2012, 07:51 PM

Here is my Uber-technical opinion:

SYNOPSIS:

ULSD sucks. Acts more like a solvent than a fuel.

TESTING:

Pour on ground and fuel evaporates away completely

SOLUTION:

Add 32 ounces 2 stroke pre-mix to 14 gallons of ULSD

RESULT:

Bang-Bang not so loud, Feels Better to Seat-Of-Pants.

Air&Road · #58 11-30-2012, 08:46 AM

Yes we have been known to beat dead horses on this forum.

oldsinner111 · #59 11-30-2012, 08:52 AM

they should have tested wmo at 25%

Doktor Bert · #60 11-30-2012, 10:02 AM

By the way, for true technical purposes, I run a mix of 55:1 in my 300SD. Through testing, that is the least amount that gives the greatest noise reduction...FWIW