diesel fuel additives... efficiency? 1

[spacetruckin]

Hey Everyone I am new here but i have question for ya...

I have heard about a diesel additive that is supposed to "improve the combustion process and reduce friction, increase fuel economy while reducing emissions and engine wear".

its produced by inviro fuels or something like that.

anyone use it?

any info on it?

thnx

ST

 

[spacetruckin]

btw i aint selling this stuff. just lookin for some info.

 

[NickE]

works as good as any other snake oil

 

[ivymike]

I'm not sure that's true - properly refined snake oils could be used as biofuel to reduce your consumption of petroleum-based diesel.

 

[dickon17]

You probably mean envirofuels out of Texas. A web search will easily find them. Since fuels approached $3/gall there have been a whole host of these fuel additives suddenly making the rounds. Most of them are snake oils, but some are not. Good luck in telling the difference.

 

[TheBlacksmith]

The only diesel additive I've seen that is worthwhile is the anti-gell additives. With the increasing popularity of the bio-fuels and their higher cloud points, this may be required during cold weather if its not added by your fuel supplier.

 

[dickon17]

Fuel additives are a $$$ multi billion per year business. Most are used by the major oil companies to fix refining problems. Some are used by independents to differentiate their products. It is the automotive aftermarket which has the potential to give the whole business a bad name. This usually happens when fuel prices are high.

 

[catserveng]

Our truck service department regularly dyno tests trucks whos owners are trying one additive or another. To date we have found no "magic", and in a few rare cases we have recorded mechanical failures due to some additives.

Cetane index improvers improve combustion and reduce smoke, no real impact on fuel consumption.

We do recommend anti-microbal additives for users with large tanks, low fuel turn-around, or purchase of fuel from "discount" sources.

We do recommend and use oxidation inhibitors for standby generation fuel systems, and large storage tanks with low turn-over rates.

A large percentage of trucks we get here with fuel milage complaints have just missed the obvious. Air filters usually top the list, wrong lube oil, low tire pressure, added air restrictions, to many "extras" on board (tire chains, tools, parts, etc), missing or damaged body pieces.

A couple of fleets have shown measurable improvement by going to 100% synthetic lubes in the drive trains.

On top of price of fuel going up, new added emissions regulations have had a noticable impact on fuel consumption, and the number of companies with claims of "magic in a bottle" are definately on the rise.

Hope that helps.

 

[rmw]

spacetruckin,

Find the search button and use it. This topic has been discussed exhaustively in this forum.

rmw

 

[spacetruckin]

RMW-

I searched for envirofuels on this forum and got nothing. I looked into it further and it is the one that dickon17 says it is. This company is making millions off bnsf but the rail company stated that it seen no positive gains. did you know that bnsf used 1.2% of usa's diesel fuel last year? Has anyone specifically used Envirofuels diesel fuel catalyzer?

st

 

[drwebb]

Recent Infineum Insight had a report of work they'd done on combustion improvers for large engine (i.e. ocean shipping) 2-strokes that use a diesel cycle. These things run on bunker fuel, a much different animal than diesel fuel, but that apparently is a diesel-cycle fuel additive that has some effect.

 

[dickon17]

The Infineum product you refer to is their marine fuel additive F7450. This product removes and controls the build up of valve deposits and lacquer on the cylinder liners. The fuel saving (about 5% in the test) was an "unexpected benefit". If this is true, they probably have no idea how it works.

 

[rmw]

I searched on "diesel fuel additives" (without the parenthesis) and got two pages of results.

rmw

 

[drwebb]

So F7450 is 'snake oil'?

 

[catserveng]

Based on the experience of our European dealers with medium speed engine populations, the F7450 is a specifc purpose additive for large engines using HFO. As stated to improve combustion and reduce deposits, the fact it has improved fuel consumption is not typical of most additives, but in this particular market segment, there is lots of room for improvement. If it isn't going up the stack as black smoke, then it is probably making more power from the available fuel volume injected.

Not every additive is "snake oil", but without solid test data in a broad range of applications, most aftermarket fuel additives sold, especially in the US, don't usually live up to the claims made. Proof of performance improvement is usually difficult quantify, you may pour a bottle of magic juice into a tank and get a short term gain, or the benefits may be long term from such actions as cleaning/deposit removal. But how is it affecting the service life of components, combustion temperatures, or emissions?

When Spacetrukin started this thread, he repeated a series of claims that are basically counter to most combustion basics. If it improves fuel comsumption, it likely lowers particulates and CO, but increases NOx. How does a product that improves combustion also improve lubrication? Just about anything that reduces surface friction has poor combustion properties.

Are there additives that do what they claim? Absolutely. Are there additive marketers overstating claims on some products? Absolutely. So look at the claims, look at the available test data (if any), and make an informed decision. But right now the major engine manufacturers are facing a BIG problem, the required reductions in emissions have had a measurable negative affect on fuel consumption, so if there was a way to make emissions and fuel consumption we would be hearing about it, because no one in our business likes getting the current customer complaints. This is a ripe environment for those with claims of magic to sell a lot of product with no real possiblity of actual improvement.

Sorry to have this sound like a rant. This morning we had a group of trucking customers in discussing this very issue, and later today we will be discussing this with a group of marine engine customers. We have machinery customers required to reduce visable emissions from job sites, and the additive marketers are out in full force with lots of claims, and to date, no real solutions except in a few cases.

Hope that helps.

 

[dickon17]

Unfortunately, the fox is in charge of the chicken house. All major industrial fuel additive suppliers are naturally beholden to the large oil companies. No new technology will enter this market place unless exhaustive testing protocols have been completed. These are so expensive and time consuming that only a huge corporation (like an oil company) could justify the resources. How did these testing protocols make it into law? The oil companies wrote the protocols and lobbied the legislature to write the laws.
The technology already exists to produce cost effective fuel saving additives which also significantly reduce emissions. Will this technology ever make it into widespread use? Don’t hold your breath.

 

[ivymike]

um, what laws are you talking about?

 

[dickon17]

Fuel additives effect on fuel economy and exhaust emissions generally use the following legally acceptable testing protocols:

Light-Duty Vehicle Federal Test Procedure-75 (FTP-75)
40 CFR Part 86, Subpart B (Gasoline and Diesel fueled)

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Federal Test Procedure (FTP heavy duty) 40 CFR Part 86 Subpart N, (Diesel, Alcohol, and Gaseous-fueled)

Unfortunately, inter-agency and federal/state rivalry, together with specialty fuels for certain areas, has created a situation where there is no single test that is formally recognized by all of the critical regulatory agencies.
These tests are also incredibly expensive, typically $4 million and 18 months just to verify one specific engine family on one type of fuel for an on-road application for just one agency. To legally allow widespread use for any specific fuel additive, the testing costs would approach $512 million and take 192 years to cover all of the possible combinations.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Unfortunately, inter-agency and federal/state rivalry ...

And we thought we had "issues" here in the EU?

 

[ivymike]

Those are test protocols... but what laws regulate what additives you can sell, and what claims you can make?