# Diesel fuel additives



## GangweDM (May 25, 2011)

I have a 2009 335d with 103,250 miles. I am curious about any fuel treatments. I have not used any so far. I have a little flutter in the idle. Any suggestions

Den


----------



## 3ismagic# (Mar 17, 2011)

Congrats on the high millage 335d. Have you had any major issues with it? I'd be happy to get 100k miles out of mine.


----------



## SixShotEspress0 (Jan 25, 2011)

I'd be surprised to see and major issues outta the 335d, if my 524td is any indication we should all make 100k at least. 

My 524td leaked diesel, oil, and had worn/torn seats but lasted long enough for the odometer to stop running/break @196k poor girl. I still have her looking for some kid with mechanical skills to breathe life into her. If I find the right kid I'll give her to him for a buck.


----------



## cssnms (Jan 24, 2011)

You may find this thread and the link in the first post (diesel fuel additive test) helpful.

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=549114


----------



## bimmerdiesel (Jul 9, 2010)

wow. How is d treating you so far? Did you get it brand new? I am sure diesel engine would be fine.


----------



## montr (Oct 7, 2006)

GangweDM said:


> I have a 2009 335d with 103,250 miles. I am curious about any fuel treatments. I have not used any so far. I have a little flutter in the idle. Any suggestions
> 
> Den


I have seen in my local NAPA store products from Lubro Moly (imported from Germany) that claim to clean the diesel fuel system. They have compatible products for vehicle with with emission system (low sulphur). I have not used these products but you can find info on other diesel forums (MB, VW). To find the products, got to napaonline and search:
LM2061 (for the pro line)
LM2002 (for consumer)

You can find additional info at: 
http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/...ndocument&land=DE&voilalang=e&voiladb=web.nsf


----------



## TopDog5450 (Feb 11, 2011)

*Fuel Treatments?*

You don't need fuel treatments. :tsk:

If you have access to B5 biodiesel fuel, use it. It will clean your engine as well as any expensive fuel treatment/additive.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

TopDog5450 said:


> You don't need fuel treatments. :tsk:
> 
> If you have access to B5 biodiesel fuel, use it. It will clean your engine as well as any expensive fuel treatment/additive.


Biodiesel won't "clean your engine", but it will give you plenty of lubricity to protect your HPFP internals- as will several other proven fuel additives. I think additives (that have data to back up their claims) are a good investment in the longevity of your vehicle. :thumbup:


----------



## pogopop77 (Jun 19, 2009)

GangweDM said:


> I have a 2009 335d with 103,250 miles. I am curious about any fuel treatments. I have not used any so far. I have a little flutter in the idle. Any suggestions
> 
> Den


I've used Amsoil Cetane Booster and occasionally PowerService, with good results. The only issues I've had are with the exhaust treatment system.

I figured that would end up being the problem area as it was new for the US. BMW has a lot of experience with diesel vehicles in Europe.


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

pogopop77 said:


> I've used Amsoil Cetane Booster and occasionally PowerService, with good results. The only issues I've had are with the exhaust treatment system.
> 
> I figured that would end up being the problem area as it was new for the US. BMW has a lot of experience with diesel vehicles in Europe.


I really have to take issue with that last statement. BMW does have extensive diesel experience. HOWEVER, the US BMW diesels are the first that have been equipped with the SCR system (which uses the DEF). EU requirements wrt NOx similar to US 2006 requirements don't take effect for another couple years over there.

They have had particulate filters and many have single-element catalysts, but not the three-way SCR for NOx, HC and CO. I'd be careful using any additives; it's possible that they might contaminate the catalyst elements.


----------



## cssnms (Jan 24, 2011)

I think that's what he said.


----------



## AutoUnion (Apr 11, 2005)

BMW strictly does not want any fuel additives used


----------



## GangweDM (May 25, 2011)

This car runs like a champ. No problems at all, I did purchase it new. The biggest problem have been three burned out tail lights.


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

SixShotEspress0 said:


> I'd be surprised to see and major issues outta the 335d, if my 524td is any indication we should all make 100k at least.


I have a hard time believing any modern car would see any major problems before 100k miles. My experience has been that the major issues tend to start showing up on cars more in the 125-150k range but even have had some exceptions to that. Usuaully what happens for me is automatic transmissions need rebuilding by 150k miles. But my truck(187k) and current Mercedes(205k but does need a tranny now) were both exceptions to that rule.

To the OP with the flutter in your idle, out of curiosity when was the last time the fuel filter was replaced?


----------



## Axel61 (Mar 10, 2011)

I also use the AMSOIL Cetane Booster and Diesel Additive, no problemo as of yet, the Booster must have it helps pump up the power


----------



## tonka858 (Sep 13, 2011)

Axel61 said:


> I also use the AMSOIL Cetane Booster and Diesel Additive, no problemo as of yet, the Booster must have it helps pump up the power


they do make nice products have used them in my sprinter since 06


----------



## Axel61 (Mar 10, 2011)

@TONKA i HAVE USED amsoil FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND PLAN TO USE THEIR PRODUCTS AFTER WARRANTY EXPIRES9oops sorry for high caps)


----------



## diesaroo (Sep 6, 2009)

Personally, I'm a fan of TDR-S (summer) and TDR-WDA (winter) from Amalgamated Inc. in Fort Wayne, IN. They deal with large industry so they have an extremely low mark-up on their products as compared with retail products.

IIRC, it costs about $100 for a 5-gallon jug. Dosage rate (for max cetane boost) is 8oz per 25 gallons of fuel. 6+ cetane points, lubricity, etc. Fully compatible with DPF and ULSD.

http://www.amalgamatedinc.com/tdr-s.aspx
http://www.amalgamatedinc.com/tdr-wda.aspx


----------



## gulfcoastbeemer (Feb 17, 2013)

Diesel fuel quality here in the U.S., which only meets a minimum cetane rating of 40 and has marginal lubricity, is a far cry from the premium, 50+ cetane, diesel found in most of Europe. These short comings seem to support the argument for additives.

Then again, BMW's prohibition on diesel fuel additives is understandable for several reasons: 1. To endorse the use of a fuel additives would require BMW to test them and selectively endorse those it found useful -- or at least not harmful. It's just easier and safer for BMW to say they are all verboten 2. In the U.S. modern Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) is a formulation that should already include an additive package -- in part to add lubricity removed with the sulfur. 3. Modern clean diesel engines utilize a particulate filter and / or SCR exhaust treatment systems that could be harmed by the "wrong" additive. 4. It's questionable marketing to admit your product needs an additive to function properly.

My conclusion: A diesel additive designed to be compatible with modern engine emission abatement schemes, properly dosed to ULSD could only help with the cleanliness, performance and durability of a modern diesel engine -- but it's unlikely you will ever hear BMW say as much.


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

Min cetane rating here is much higher than 40. It all depends on what part of the country you live in.


----------



## gulfcoastbeemer (Feb 17, 2013)

Snipe656 said:


> Min cetane rating here is much higher than 40. It all depends on what part of the country you live in.


In an effort to decrease NOx Emissions, Texas was one of a very few states that created their own program to regulate diesel fuel (beyond the 1989 US EPA cetane 40 standard).

US EPA now calls such programs SIPs or State Improvement Programs.

While you can encounter fuels with higher cetane values in some states / locales or from certain distributors / dealers, the US Federal Minimum Cetane Number is still 40.

There has been some effort by the FEDs to develop a minimum standard for what constitutes "PREMIUM DIESEL" -- but, I don't believe it exists as yet.

The US EPA published EPA420-R-03-002 that talks to the benefits of implementing a higher cetane standard. While we fund studies, other countries have taken positive steps.

"In Europe the current standard for diesel sold in European Union, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland is set in EN 590, with a minimum cetane index of 46 and a minimum cetane number of 51. Premium diesel fuel can have a cetane number as high as 60."

If we fed our little oil-burners Euro-diesel they would be even better performers.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

Although the min cetane is 40 in the US, fuel sampling surveys have shown it closer to 45 across the country, FWIW.


----------



## gulfcoastbeemer (Feb 17, 2013)

US diesel 40-45 cetane, Euro-diesel 50-60 cetane, GTL-diesel 70+ cetane.

Gas-To-Liquid technology -- where diesel (and other products) are made from natural gas, results in diesel so pure that it is said to be odorless and possess a cetane rating of >70.

GTL-Diesel is currently being produced in Qatar and will come online at several other plants, including one in Louisiana in the near future. Even if it is not used in it's pure form, it's a natural for blending with conventionally produced diesel to enhance its properties.

There is a recent Bloomberg article, "Shale Glut Becomes $2 Diesel Using Gas-to-Liquids Plants" that talks about how GTL-Diesel could change things.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

gulfcoastbeemer said:


> Diesel fuel quality here in the U.S., which only meets a minimum cetane rating of 40 and has marginal lubricity, is a far cry from the premium, 50+ cetane, diesel found in most of Europe. These short comings seem to support the argument for additives.
> 
> Then again, BMW's prohibition on diesel fuel additives is understandable for several reasons: 1. To endorse the use of a fuel additives would require BMW to test them and selectively endorse those it found useful -- or at least not harmful. It's just easier and safer for BMW to say they are all verboten 2. In the U.S. modern Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) is a formulation that should already include an additive package -- in part to add lubricity removed with the sulfur. 3. Modern clean diesel engines utilize a particulate filter and / or SCR exhaust treatment systems that could be harmed by the "wrong" additive. 4. It's questionable marketing to admit your product needs an additive to function properly.
> 
> My conclusion: A diesel additive designed to be compatible with modern engine emission abatement schemes, properly dosed to ULSD could only help with the cleanliness, performance and durability of a modern diesel engine -- but it's unlikely you will ever hear BMW say as much.


There are plenty of examples that do not fit this theory and logic. Most manufacturers have a history of approved products, additives, and testing. BMW engineers modify the fuel system for specific markets. This topic has been rehashed on many different forums and has additive believers and non-believers.

One needs real field data to prove or disprove theoretical conclusions. As engineering teaches, all decisions are a compromise. Marketing by fuel additive manufacturers has never included such data for a reason: there isn't any that supports preventive use.

There are no mass market failures of diesel components related to fuel quality standards, in spite of recent isolated models such as the investigation of VW/Bosch HPFP failures of 2009-2010 Jetta/Golf (designs like Passat with urea injection don't seem to be affected) which has more proof of fuel contamination or a defective fuel pump design, and no indication on how additives would help.

PL


----------



## gulfcoastbeemer (Feb 17, 2013)

Pierre Louis said:


> One needs real field data to prove or disprove theoretical conclusions.


I'm not a genius with additives, like Clark Griswold or yourself, but empirical data of my own, collected in the form of 10-years of fuel receipts for five different diesel engine vehicles, suggests fuel economy does vary with fuel source / "quality". Everyone of my diesel vehicles has regularly exceeded the EPA mileage estimates published for them. Darn if I know why.

I'm going to attribute it to the power of positive thinking -- we know it can't be a fuel additive.


----------



## Penguin (Aug 31, 2003)

gulfcoastbeemer said:


> Everyone of my diesel vehicles has regularly exceeded the EPA mileage estimates published for them. Darn if I know why. I'm going to attribute it to the power of positive thinking


Or good driving habits.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

gulfcoastbeemer said:


> I'm not a genius with additives, like Clark Griswold or yourself, but empirical data of my own, collected in the form of 10-years of fuel receipts for five different diesel engine vehicles, suggests fuel economy does vary with fuel source / "quality". Everyone of my diesel vehicles has regularly exceeded the EPA mileage estimates published for them. Darn if I know why.
> 
> I'm going to attribute it to the power of positive thinking -- we know it can't be a fuel additive.


I agree, but without additives. The same car as you too - a Mercedes E320 CDI that exceeded the EPA estimates. I would get 43 mpg at 65 mph on flat land for a car rated at 37 highway in the more optimistic era before they made the "correction" on the newer models.

PL


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

I always wondered if our vehicle programming could take advantage of higher Cetane fuel (~50 ish)

Sent from my MB525 using Bimmer App


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> I always wondered if our vehicle programming could take advantage of higher Cetane fuel (~50 ish)
> 
> Sent from my MB525 using Bimmer App


I know it is supposed to change for lower cetane. I remember reading about it within the BMW provided information back when I was researching fuels and cetane. That was 3ish years ago so I do not remember where I read that but I do know it was from BMW.


----------



## gulfcoastbeemer (Feb 17, 2013)

Pierre Louis said:


> I agree, but without additives. The same car as you too - a Mercedes E320 CDI that exceeded the EPA estimates. I would get 43 mpg at 65 mph on flat land for a car rated at 37 highway in the more optimistic era before they made the "correction" on the newer models.
> 
> PL


Pierre, does the attached photo look familiar?

That photo of the MPG display was taken during a trip last summer in my '06 M-B E320 CDI. See, I am an over-achiever.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

gulfcoastbeemer said:


> Pierre, does the attached photo look familiar?
> 
> That photo of the MPG display was taken during a trip last summer in my '06 M-B E320 CDI. See, I am an over-achiever.


Whoa, that is good! May be that cetane improver working!?!

PL


----------



## gulfcoastbeemer (Feb 17, 2013)

Pierre Louis said:


> Whoa, that is good! May be that cetane improver working!?!
> 
> PL


Stanadyne Performance Formula 4 oz / 15 gal. -- that or, I was driving downhill for the last 135 miles.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

gulfcoastbeemer said:


> Stanadyne Performance Formula 4 oz / 15 gal. -- that or, I was driving downhill for the last 135 miles.


Stanadyne may be one of the few good additives, but you may have had a tail wind!:thumbup:

PL


----------



## TactilE70 (Jul 1, 2014)

Stanadyne diesel additive is safe to use for my 2011 x5 35D?


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

TactilE70 said:


> Stanadyne diesel additive is safe to use for my 2011 x5 35D?


All Stanadyne products are good to go with ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel)


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

TactilE70 said:


> Stanadyne diesel additive is safe to use for my 2011 x5 35D?


Just about any well known diesel additive will probably not do any harm. I only say that based off the sheer numbers of people who use these well known products.

If a product was causing problems in significant numbers i'd like to think we would have heard about it.


----------



## TactilE70 (Jul 1, 2014)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> Just about any well known diesel additive will probably not do any harm. I only say that based off the sheer numbers of people who use these well known products.
> 
> If a product was causing problems in significant numbers i'd like to think we would have heard about it.


Great thanks to all for insight.


----------



## TactilE70 (Jul 1, 2014)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> Just about any well known diesel additive will probably not do any harm. I only say that based off the sheer numbers of people who use these well known products.
> 
> If a product was causing problems in significant numbers i'd like to think we would have heard about it.


Great thanks to all for the insight.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> Just about any well known diesel additive will probably not do any harm. I only say that based off the sheer numbers of people who use these well known products.
> 
> If a product was causing problems in significant numbers i'd like to think we would have heard about it.


This isn't really true is it. We never see if any of the people with real problems used preventive additives. Perhaps they didn't but I don't know if they would readily admit it.

There really is no data on their use, positive or negative, just anecdotes. The companies that sell them for a profit certainly don't publish field data that would show a significant advantage.

The best users can say, from my experience, is that the ingredients are the "same" as what is in the diesel additive package used already (plus 99% plain diesel fuel, BTW).

PL


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

I would recommend a name brand diesel additive if I had a 328d. The reason being is that this same HPFP has been in use since 2009 in Audi/VW diesels sold here in N Am and there have been a number of HPFP failures in that time. The root cause for these failures is unknown to the public. Bosch has revised the pump over that time, but VW has been mute on the subject so it is unknown what changes were made.

When the first modern BMW diesels were introduced to this market in 2009, the pump that was used had special internal coatings to deal with the lower quality diesel found over here. I have not heard of any HPFP failures in these 6 cyl diesels to date. Perhaps BMW spec'd this same coating on the Bosch pump used on the 4 cyl diesel used in the 328d and X3. One thing to note is that the pump used on these engines and the Passat tdi are slightly lower pressure than the ones used on Audi/VW- I think because these use solenoid injectors instead of piezo-electric injectors. There have been very few Passat HPFP failures reported on tdiclub.com compared to the Jetta and Golf that use the higher pressure pump.

A quality additive like Power Service or Stanadyne will improve fuel lubricity. This can only help the pump if it is a marginal design.


----------



## sirbikes (Aug 17, 2012)

I don't think there's any biodiesel in the fuel where I live. There's no label or anything indicating any bio. Now, if I drive a couple hours west into Raleigh then I start seeing labels (Hess stations for example) that read "may contain 5 - 20% biodiesel". Wow, that's a big range. So I try to avoid those.


----------



## MotoWPK (Oct 5, 2012)

sirbikes said:


> I don't think there's any biodiesel in the fuel where I live. There's no label or anything indicating any bio. Now, if I drive a couple hours west into Raleigh then I start seeing labels (Hess stations for example) that read "may contain 5 - 20% biodiesel". Wow, that's a big range. So I try to avoid those.


Federal regulations do not require labeling of bio content if it is less than 5%, so the lack of bio labeling only means the fuel may have up to 5%, not that it doesn't contain some bio diesel.

Many states have mandates requiring some bio content and bio is a relatively inexpensive way for fuel suppliers to meet the lubricity requirements of ASTM D975, so it's not uncommon for many diesel owners to be using fuel with a few percent of bio diesel without being aware of it.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

MotoWPK said:


> Federal regulations do not require labeling of bio content if it is less than 5%, so the lack of bio labeling only means the fuel may have up to 5%, not that it doesn't contain some bio diesel.
> 
> Many states have mandates requiring some bio content and bio is a relatively inexpensive way for fuel suppliers to meet the lubricity requirements of ASTM D975, so it's not uncommon for many diesel owners to be using fuel with a few percent of bio diesel without being aware of it.


I agree, but some states do have labeling requirements for any biodiesel content. That is the case here in TX. Don't know about NC.


----------



## Thomv (Jan 27, 2012)

When I read the label, they also state they increase centane. Which one is the best centane booster.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

Thomv said:


> When I read the label, they also state they increase centane. *Which one is the best centane booste*r.


I am wondering about that as well. So many competing claims&#8230;.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

Thomv said:


> When I read the label, they also state they increase centane. Which one is the best centane booster.


I've read a lot about cetane boosters and based off of my research I can tell you that it's hard to say which is the "best".

Why?

Well apparently all diesel is slightly different and these differences dictate how well it will "respond" do a cetane booster. Response would be represented as the increase in the cetane rating. 45 to 50 for example.

Also there's a law of diminishing returns with a cetane improver. It takes more product to move the number the higher you go. Ex. 6 Oz moves 40-46, and 6 more Oz moves 46-48. So if your fuel is already at 46 your product may only move the needle 2 points.

Packaging is another issue. Per unit of volume there will be less booster if the product also addresses water and lubricity vs a product that only contains a booster.

Now the most well known booster is 2EHN. There are plants overseas that only make this product. I will also echo what I was told. The industry accepted response curve for cetane boosters is based off 2EHN.

There are a lot of chemicals that boost cetane: 2EHN, Amyl Nitrate, Isopropyl Nitrate, Hexyl Nitrate, Cyclohexyl Nitrate, Octyl Nitrate, di- tertiary butyl peroxide, etc.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

To the best of my knowledge, Chevron/Texaco diesel is in the 49-52 cetane range already, should have all the necessary detergents added, and if its a busy well-maintained station should have fresh diesel unblemished by water, gasoline, or algae.

While regional distribution of base product is often the same in each geographic area, the additives are not.

Cetane boost has its allure, but messing with the chemistry of the brand name isn't my thing. I also wouldn't do additives for gasoline cars except perhaps an occasional Gumout bottle.

Cheers.

PL


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

Pierre Louis said:


> To the best of my knowledge, Chevron/Texaco diesel is in the 49-52 cetane range already...
> PL


Where did you get that info?


----------



## totitan (May 11, 2013)

Pierre Louis said:


> To the best of my knowledge, Chevron/Texaco diesel is in the 49-52 cetane range already, should have all the necessary detergents added, and if its a busy well-maintained station should have fresh diesel unblemished by water, gasoline, or algae.
> 
> While regional distribution of base product is often the same in each geographic area, the additives are not.
> 
> ...


ChevronTexaco diesel is still lacking, by a wide margin, the lubricity of the European spec diesel that our cars were designed to use. This is why I use a lubricity additive to mitigate this issue.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

totitan said:


> ChevronTexaco diesel is still lacking, by a wide margin, the lubricity of the European spec diesel that our cars were designed to use. This is why I use a lubricity additive to mitigate this issue.


Interesting. Where is the data on this?

From: The Service Technician's Guide to Compression Ignition Fuel Quality



> Q: What over-the-counter additives should I add to my diesel fuel?
> A: Refiners add any necessary additives based on extensive fuel test results. It is not necessary to add over-the-counter additives. In the case of biodiesel blends, certain additives such as biocides or antioxidants may be recommended, but this normally applies to product in the retail storage tank ***8211; not the vehicle tank.


I'm familiar with all the anecdotal arguments, but real data of late that I've seen shows minimal risk for finding fuel of substandard lubricity. Of course, biodiesel blends seem to be believed to have good lubricity. Also, I'd look at real world data, not standards, to make my argument. Its commonly thought at ASTM that their standards are minimal and that most retailers would have product that exceeds the standards to prevent any fines or other problems.

See page 10 for a good example of good lubricity in winterized diesel fuel: INFINEUM WORLDWIDE WINTER DIESEL FUEL QUALITY SURVEY 2012

Cheers

PL


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

Pierre Louis said:


> ...
> I'm familiar with all the anecdotal arguments, but real data of late that I've seen shows minimal risk for finding fuel of substandard lubricity. Of course, biodiesel blends seem to be believed to have good lubricity. Also, I'd look at real world data, not standards, to make my argument. Its commonly thought at ASTM that their standards are minimal and that most retailers would have product that exceeds the standards to prevent any fines or other problems.
> 
> See page 10 for a good example of good lubricity in winterized diesel fuel: INFINEUM WORLDWIDE WINTER DIESEL FUEL QUALITY SURVEY 2012
> ...


As you know, the ASTM lubricity measurement (max allowed wear scar diameter in micron) is 520, whereas the standard adopted in the rest of the world is 460. You may also know that the ASTM spec also allows measurements of up to 560 micron pass in certain situations.

The data you linked above has a few samples well above the 460 micron mark that still would meet the ASTM spec. This wear scar rating has been directly correlated to pump component service life by Bosch. Therefore I agree with totitan that lubricity additive is prudent.


----------



## totitan (May 11, 2013)

Thank you dgeek. You saved me from having to interrupt my binge-watching of Game of Thrones on HBO Go :thumbup:


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

d geek said:


> As you know, the ASTM lubricity measurement (max allowed wear scar diameter in micron) is 520, whereas the standard adopted in the rest of the world is 460. You may also know that the ASTM spec also allows measurements of up to 560 micron pass in certain situations.
> 
> The data you linked above has a few samples well above the 460 micron mark that still would meet the ASTM spec. This wear scar rating has been directly correlated to pump component service life by Bosch. Therefore I agree with totitan that lubricity additive is prudent.


There is no field data to support this, although Bosch and other pump manufacturers certainly had incentive to push for better lubricity. Making a cheaper fuel pump would save them money. And they have and got burned from people and stations having gasoline in their diesels ruin one type of Bosch pump. There was no indication that lubricity had anything to do with it. The testing procedures themselves have a variability in how the standards apply in real life, as mentioned in technical articles relating HFRR to bench testing to field data, so we really don't know when it comes to such borderline issues.

Fuel additive manufacturers have published no data to the percentage which a consumer can expect lubricity or anything else to improve, especially when it comes to "preventive" maintenance. This makes sense because of variability in diesel fuel and the traditional role of aftermarket additives to "fix" specific problems. It is well known that advertising claims are defensible if there is only .001% improvement, so buyer beware.

For those of us who take vitamins daily, put additives in the tank, pray for world peace, etc. all is fine, but please don't think any of this is scientifically proven.

Best

PL


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

Pierre Louis said:


> There is no field data to support this, although Bosch and other pump manufacturers certainly had incentive to push for better lubricity. Making a cheaper fuel pump would save them money. And they have and got burned from people and stations having gasoline in their diesels ruin one type of Bosch pump. There was no indication that lubricity had anything to do with it. The testing procedures themselves have a variability in how the standards apply in real life, as mentioned in technical articles relating HFRR to bench testing to field data, so we really don't know when it comes to such borderline issues.
> 
> Fuel additive manufacturers have published no data to the percentage which a consumer can expect lubricity or anything else to improve, especially when it comes to "preventive" maintenance. This makes sense because of variability in diesel fuel and the traditional role of aftermarket additives to "fix" specific problems. It is well known that advertising claims are defensible if there is only .001% improvement, so buyer beware.
> 
> ...


I disagree with your assessment of the information provided by Bosch. Their presentation shows actual fuel injection system components subjected to substandard lubricity (>460 micron) and correlates this wear to component service life.
You are also mistaken about additive suppliers providing data on their products. OptiLube has recently shared lubricity improvement data here. Power Service has also provided this type of data.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

Pierre Louis said:


> To the best of my knowledge, Chevron/Texaco diesel is in the 49-52 cetane range already...
> 
> PL





d geek said:


> Where did you get that info?


Did you miss my question?


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

d geek said:


> I disagree with your assessment of the information provided by Bosch. Their presentation shows actual fuel injection system components subjected to substandard lubricity (>460 micron) and correlates this wear to component service life.
> You are also mistaken about additive suppliers providing data on their products. OptiLube has recently shared lubricity improvement data here. Power Service has also provided this type of data.


One sample in the first reference, a few more in the second. This is called anecdotes, not data. You avoid the obvious variability inherent to HFRR testing, but this is not surprising.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

> Originally Posted by Pierre Louis View Post
> To the best of my knowledge, Chevron/Texaco diesel is in the 49-52 cetane range already...
> 
> PL





> Originally Posted by d geek
> Where did you get that info?





d geek said:


> Did you miss my question?


Some guy on the Internet, like you....


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

Here is a reference that says the average cetane rating for Chevron is 45, more closer to 50 in California.

PL


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

Pierre Louis said:


> One sample in the first reference, a few more in the second. This is called anecdotes, not data. You avoid the obvious variability inherent to HFRR testing, but this is not surprising.


Actually, I specifically mentioned the variability of HFRR testing in an earlier post.
I really wish we could count on lubricity shown in the most of the Infineum survey, but since the allowable wear scar is so much higher, I don't like the risk. :dunno:


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

Here is a rumor that Chevron cetane is more like 49-51

PL


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

d geek said:


> Actually, I specifically mentioned the variability of HFRR testing in an earlier post.
> I really wish we could count on lubricity shown in the most of the Infineum survey, but since the allowable wear scar is so much higher, I don't like the risk. :dunno:


The variability doesn't seem to matter, as you don't have any statistically valid arguments anyway, but if you don't take risks, that is your prerogative. Unfortunately, there is no data showing risk to favor or decline the use of aftermarket additives, only published parameters. How these are interpreted and put to use is in itself a personal choice and depends on circumstances. If I knew the quality of diesel was generally poor, I might not even drive a diesel, but understand why someone would choose to use additive. The new ULSD requirements were meant to make available retail diesel higher in quality and more uniform than in the past. There is little evidence that this is not so.

PL


----------



## totitan (May 11, 2013)

Pierre Louis you are wrong. Thousands of VW tdi owners who, like you, have trusted big oil to sell them high quality fuel, have suffered HPFP failures due to lack of lubricity. Amazingly, among those of us tdi owners who have religiously used Optilube XPD to increase the lubricity of the fuel we use, there has not been any documented cases of HPFP failure. Now, before you come back at me and shout "meaningless circumstantial evidence", I'll say it for you.....CIRCUMSTANCIAL!!! 

However having been born in and lived half my life in Alaska, I understand big oil companies better than most. My wife and I both worked for them for many years, and we still receive quartly dividends from BP. 
You can believe me when I say they do whatever it takes to cut costs and increase dividends to shareholders. They produce fuels that meet the minimum standards, and no more......period.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

Pierre Louis said:


> Here is a rumor that Chevron cetane is more like 49-51
> 
> PL


Chevron used to market a Techron-D, but they only sell it overseas.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

totitan said:


> Pierre Louis you are wrong. Thousands of VW tdi owners who, like you, have trusted big oil to sell them high quality fuel, have suffered HPFP failures due to lack of lubricity. Amazingly, among those of us tdi owners who have religiously used Optilube XPD to increase the lubricity of the fuel we use, there has not been any documented cases of HPFP failure. Now, before you come back at me and shout "meaningless circumstantial evidence", I'll say it for you.....CIRCUMSTANCIAL!!!
> 
> However having been born in and lived half my life in Alaska, I understand big oil companies better than most. My wife and I both worked for them for many years, and we still receive quartly dividends from BP.
> You can believe me when I say they do whatever it takes to cut costs and increase dividends to shareholders. They produce fuels that meet the minimum standards, and no more......period.


Actually, the TDI data (as presented by Volkswagen to the NHTSA) shows that gasoline contamination is more likely the culprit as fuel samples did not show as much low lubricity.

Who knows? I'll wait until there really is some data, thanks.

PL


----------



## totitan (May 11, 2013)

Pierre Louis said:


> Actually, the TDI data (as presented by Volkswagen to the NHTSA) shows that gasoline contamination is more likely the culprit as fuel samples did not show as much low lubricity.
> 
> Who knows? I'll wait until there really is some data, thanks.
> 
> PL


Actually, do you really think that VW would admit to the NHTSA that they have sold hundreds of thousands of diesels with fuel pumps that are incompatible with our fuel?

Do you really believe that the thousands of tdi owners who have had HPFP failures have all misfueled their cars?

Can you enlighten us as to why this only became a problem with the current generation of VW diesels but was not an issue on the previous 30 years of VW diesels?

Is it even remotely possible that no VW diesel owners misfueled their cars and suffered HPFP failure from 1980 until 2009?


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

totitan said:


> Actually, do you really think that VW would admit to the NHTSA that they have sold hundreds of thousands of diesels with fuel pumps that are incompatible with our fuel?
> 
> Do you really believe that the thousands of tdi owners who have had HPFP failures have all misfueled their cars?
> 
> ...


The current system is the CP4 and was installed on the latest VW Jetta's. The previous Gen (CP3) is what our cars use. PL is right. Lubricity wasn't an issue, but it was poor design and misfueling. There are people on the TDI forums that used additives and still had the newer HPFP fail.


----------



## totitan (May 11, 2013)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> The current system is the CP4 and was installed on the latest VW Jetta's. The previous Gen (CP3) is what our cars use. PL is right. Lubricity wasn't an issue, but it was poor design and misfueling. There are people on the TDI forums that used additives and still had the newer HPFP fail.


PL in not right. Misfueling is not the issue.

The poor design of the CP4 makes it extremely sensitive to lubricity or the lack thereof.

I did not state that there had been no failures in VW tdi's that had used additives in general. Some popular additives do almost nothing to increase lubricity. I did state that there has not been any documented HPFP failures in VW tdi's that had regularly used Optilube XPD, which is indeed true.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

Pierre Louis said:


> ... Unfortunately, there is no data showing risk to favor or decline the use of aftermarket additives, only published parameters. How these are interpreted and put to use is in itself a personal choice and depends on circumstances...


Huh? 
In the previous link I provided (here it is again), you can plainly see that pump diesel was at 510 micron wear scar, which was reduced from 380 down to 240 micron using Optilube's products. 510 is well above the 400 micron desired level (per the Worldwide Fuel Charter).



Pierre Louis said:


> ......The new ULSD requirements were meant to make available retail diesel higher in quality and more uniform than in the past. There is little evidence that this is not so.
> 
> PL


ULSD was not meant to improve fuel quality. It is simply lower sulfur. Lowering sulfur decreases the natural lubricity of the fuel, so they needed to implement a lubricity standard before bringing ULSD on line in the US.

As far as evidence that the fuel has suspect quality, see the Infineum survey you previously linked to see that randomly chosen pumps had high wear scar numbers. I don't need anything else to tell me that lubricity isn't what it should be.

I am relieved that BMW had the internals of the e70 & e90 HPFP coated to deal with the substandard fuel for the diesels they introduced over here in 2009. I'm hoping they continued that approach on their latest diesel offerings here in the US. Especially since they've had the opportunity to observe VWs diesel HPFP fiasco. :tsk:


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> The current system is the CP4 and was installed on the latest VW Jetta's. The previous Gen (CP3) is what our cars use. PL is right. Lubricity wasn't an issue, but it was poor design and misfueling. There are people on the TDI forums that used additives and still had the newer HPFP fail.


Note that the HPFP used in the 328d and X3 diesels is a CP4.
Not sure what they are using on the F10 "535d" and the X5 d brought here to the US this year.


----------



## rmorin49 (Jan 7, 2007)

Threads like make one question why technology isn't keeping up with the demands brought on by "over-regulation"? This should start a nice debate.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

Pierre Louis said:


> Here is a reference that says the average cetane rating for Chevron is 45, more closer to 50 in California.
> 
> PL





Pierre Louis said:


> Here is a rumor that Chevron cetane is more like 49-51
> 
> PL


Are you really going to mock the lubricity info I post as anecdotal and then base your assumptions on random posts from other forums and internet rumors? Really? How hypocritical of you. :thumbdwn:

Show us correspondence from Chevron on their company letterhead stating that they guarantee a cetane of 49-52 at any of their retail outlets. Good luck with that...

I'm fine with you not using additives, can't you be OK with others recommending additives based on differing opinions? You can disagree without coming across so arrogantly...


----------



## totitan (May 11, 2013)

d geek said:


> Are you really going to mock the lubricity info I post as anecdotal and then base your assumptions on random posts from other forums and internet rumors? Really? How hypocritical of you. :thumbdwn:
> 
> Show us correspondence from Chevron on their company letterhead stating that they guarantee a cetane of 49-52 at any of their retail outlets. Good luck with that...
> 
> I'm fine with you not using additives, can't you be OK with others recommending additives based on differing opinions? You can disagree without coming across so arrogantly...


Thank you d geek I couldn't have said it better myself. Regarding PL, it's obvious that his mind is made up. He has made it perfectly clear that any opinions/information/evidence other than his own will be summarily dismissed and considered irrelevant.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

You guys get a D in English and Science. Sorry that I don't agree with your misrepresentations or belief systems.

If I had anything other than rumors, I would have said it differently, and implied "some guy on the Internet" correctly.

VW + CP4.1 + US drivers/fuel = pump failure There are no other pump failures of this scale, except perhaps the e90 335i fuel pumps. In both cases, this is a real problem and that is important. I don't believe owners who use or don't use additives commonly even mention this, so it cannot be concluded that it makes any difference on statistical grounds.

And yes, the ASTM standards logically predict improved diesel fuel with the ULSD parameters. Read it yourselves.

The data, if you actually go through it, does not show poor lubricity as a main cause, as in fact about 30% (if memory serves) of HPFP failures were with normal lubricity, normal diesel content, and nothing was found wrong with the pump. And should VW had known? Well, engineering is a compromise, but that would be a different lecture....

PL


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

Pierre Louis said:


> ...the ASTM standards logically predict improved diesel fuel with the ULSD parameters. Read it yourselves....


Read what standard? Better yet, just tell us what parameters you think have been improved.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

d geek said:


> Read what standard? Better yet, just tell us what parameters you think have been improved.


The ASTM guidelines for ULSD as published stated that the quality of ULSD should surpass that of LSD and be more uniform. That is what they wrote/said.

PL


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

Pierre Louis said:


> The ASTM guidelines for ULSD as published stated that the quality of ULSD should surpass that of LSD and be more uniform. That is what they wrote/said.
> 
> PL


Which attributes of the fuel? I am only aware of sulfur reduction and the resultant need for lubricity increase.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

d geek said:


> Which attributes of the fuel? I am only aware of sulfur reduction and the resultant need for lubricity increase.


I believe it was regarding the HFRR lubricity standard that ASTM said (I am looking for the reference) that making the standard 560 microns improved the overall lubricity of diesel fuel compared to LSD.

Attached is a reference where some early arguments at ASTM about lubricity are documented. One argument was that five times the additive would be needed to comply with European lubricity standards and that this had potential ill effects.



> Citing several recent Society of Automotive Engineers papers, as well as Infineum's world-wide diesel fuel survey, task force chair Nikanjam pointed out that North American diesel equipment apparently isn't suffering failures from diesel fuels above 460 microns on HFRR. One of the cited SAE studies shows that 550 microns is sufficient for the typical heavy-duty diesel applications found in North America.
> Another SAE paper (2000-01-1917) indicates that HFRR at 560 microns shows a much better correlation to pump-rig test data -- far better than the correlation for HFRR at 460 microns, Nikanjam said. The same SAE paper also shows better correlation between SLBOCLE at 2,800 grams and pump-rig test data.
> On the other hand, if 460-microns HFRR were the ASTM standard, five times as much lubricity additive would be required to correlate with lubricity at 3,000 grams SLBOCLE, another study shows.
> "We should not use several times as much additive (at times 10 to 20 times) as the amount that is required by the injection equipment" because of potential for negative consequences, he said. These can include fuel filter plugging, in-line pump failure, and negative interactions with polar compounds in fuel/lube additives, according to recent studies.


That and the more problematic correlation of HFRR data vs. bench testing or long term testing gave enough doubt that ASTM came up with the higher number 560. I don't necessarily agree with this but am not an engineer. And I do realize there is room for interpretation, especially when automotive diesel applications are involved.

PL

View attachment ASTM lubricity standard.pdf

View attachment Diesel Lubricity Requirements of Future Fuel Injection Equipment.pdf

View attachment VW letter to NHTSA re cause of HPFP failures.pdf


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

These issues were discussed perhaps more thoroughly in many other threads. Here is one that is palatable: http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=697358&highlight=378380

Cheers

PL


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

Infineum came out with information about the HFRR favoring this over other test methods:

https://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/dec-2013/testing-the-test

Also of interest is that some types of cetane improvers may worsen lubricity.

PL


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

Back to cetane: here is an article that implies: higher cetane => higher combustion temperature => higher NOx production => higher use of DEF



> CETANE CAUTION
> 
> Chevron's Parsons points to still another set of additives that are designed to boost diesel's cetane rating. Basically, these additives act as combustion improvers to enhance the combustion properties of diesel, which improves cold starts, fuel economy, and reduces smoke.
> 
> ...


This may be the reason my 335d, which gets almost exclusively Texaco diesel at one station, uses DEF like its going out of style: my tank has been near empty twice after about 7,000 miles. Sort of an indirect way of showing Texaco may be feeding me higher cetane. Dunno if this is true but interesting.

PL


----------

