Cummins Diesel Forum banner

Adding lube to your fuel

29K views 165 replies 42 participants last post by  7492 
#1 ·
STICKY: This thread is for people who use, add, and believe in it's use as a benefit for there trucks. If you are a non believer or nonuser with negative comments you will be deleted.
 
#85 ·
#86 ·
Here's one for you, take it for what it's worth.

For the past 7 or 8 years I have been using a centrifuge to clean WMO and burn it in my pickups as well as older mechanical tractors. The centrifuge has easily paid for itself time and time again in fuel savings and I have never seen my filter life shortened. In fact, I still have the same filters coming out of my clean storage tank as when I built the setup.

Anyways, I have never been brave enough to run it in anything newer or more expensive (I.E. common rail or HEUI).

For the past 3 or 4 years, our Deere swather with a 6.8 common rail engine has developed a rough idle when cold and intermittent miss and black smoke when warm. We have put over $5K into it trying to fix the problem with new injectors and a myriad of new sensors. Had a Deere tech come out and try more new injectors and even a new ECM to no avail. Talked to a few other owners of the same model swather and have found a couple that have the same problems.

Thinking it must be a lubricity issue, we tried every additive under the sun. Our Co-op sell fuel with a built in additive that we have always run for the past 10 years. We added Howes, and then added some more, and even a little more. Dumped a full gallon of Lucas into 100 gallons of diesel to no avail. Tried a similar concentration of 2 stroke oil with no change. Local Schaffer salesman donated some of his fancy treat to the cause to no avail at 3 or 4 times the recommended rate.

Since I had it left over, I dumped the rest of the 2 1/2 gallon jug of Schaffer's into about 75 gallons of diesel since I didn't have anything else to do with it. Much to our surprise, the rough idle completely disappeared.

Ran another tank of diesel through it and the symptoms came right back. By this point, my brother (who has never touched used oil in any of his personal engines) decides that there is merit to used engine oil and dumped 10 gallons of WMO in the 120 gallon tank and discovers that the rough idle and miss again disappear.

Just to make sure, we run another tank of diesel through it and the symptoms come back. It now gets a steady diet of nice black diesel/oil blend.

Long story short, we have been skeptical of additives (and still are) but know that ULSD needs added lubricity and are now 100% on board with running a little WMO in all our diesel engines (except for the semi's, still gun shy about the DOT and passing a fuel dip).

Additives are a nice idea, but with the trace amounts most people run, they are too diluted to make a noticeable difference, in my opinion.

Oh, and my 6.0 powerjoke now starts noticeably better with a blend of WMO.
 
#87 ·
Nice story, but one thing confuses me. If you can clean used motor oil enough to get all the contaminates out, why don't you put it back into crankcases? Diesel costs around $3, less in some parts of the country. Crankcase oil costs $10 and more. So why would you pour good oil into the fuel tank? Another question. Have you ever sent any of the centrifuge oil to an oil sample lab to see exactly how much of the wear metals and silicon (dirt) has been removed? For that matter, have you ever sent any of the drained oil to a lab to see what the condition of the engines, and the oil, is?
 
#94 ·
#95 ·
There you go, ruining a good argument, by introducing fact and logic :grin2: Its simple... the process or removing the sulfur (hydrodesulfurization) also removed some of the components (nitrogen and oxygen) that gave the fuel its lubricity. This is a scientific fact, and was proved yet again in the linked article.

If you dont feel hydrodesulfurization lowered the lubricity enough to warrant replacing it with an additive, then dont use one. If you do feel hydrodesulfurization lowered the lubricity enough to warrant replacing it manually, then run an additive to help lubricate the moving parts. Neither view changes the fact that ULSD has less lubricity than the previous versions of diesel. What you choose to do, is up to you :wink2:

Here’s a study that dies not promote any additive vs and us not done by an additive company:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610215013879

Does anybody else think that ULSD has the same lubricity as LSD?
 
#101 ·
#103 · (Edited)
Okay, I'm in.
I add 1 quart of Dexron ATF to my tank every time I fuel up because my first generation diesel was not designed to run ULSD.
Here is a "scientific article for esminbritt who doesn't "think added lubricity is NEEDED."

Goto https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/low-sulphur-diesel
and you can read about the lack of lubrication is diesel fuel.

(I had posted a quote from the article with the above link for credit, but decided against showing the quote since I am not a lawyer and don't fully understand copyright laws)

My $0.02, but hey I have only been running diesels since the mid '80s. Long before owning a diesel was popular. In fact in the early 80s GM put out out their trash conversion diesel that turned many Americans off diesel engines.
 
#104 ·
Okay, I'm in.
I add 1 quart of Dexron ATF to my tank every time I fuel up.

My $0.02, but hey I have only been running diesels since the mid '80s. Long before owning a diesel was popular. In fact in the early 80s GM put out out their trash conversion diesel that turned many Americans off diesel engines.
Your point is ? I've been running diesels since the late 70's. That and a dollar can get you a sweet at McDonalds. ATF is not a good lube oil by the way. It used to be said to run ATF because of detergents to clean the fuel system by the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GAmes and Jimmy N.
#107 ·
Not only that, MiB, I ran a lot of filtered waste oil in my '86 GM diesel. No wonder it died an early death.

No, wait, it was still running great when I sold it. And still does, as far as I know.
Maybe that ULSD made up for the needless lubricity I added?
 
#116 ·
MIB,
Can't say for sure. A technician from a diesel service that rebuilds pumps recommended adding ATF for lube. I haven't had any trouble with deposits in my engines from burning it. So I can't believe it harms the engine.
 
#117 ·
Sulphur is not the lubricant in fuel. The process by which sulphur is removed from fuel causes the loss of lube. That is then corrected by lubricant being added back into the fuel. All done before the fuel enters your tank.
It's not deposits that I'd be worried about but any added wear caused by the detergents in the atf. If I were to add lube I'd add something designed to be added into the fuel. But seeing as how so many trucks go hundreds of thousands of miles with no added lube, I think its snake oil. But to each their own. I also run a modern diesel designed well after the current fuel was rolled out. To much lube is rarely a bad thing though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GAmes
#121 ·
So much technical conversing...but without any reference to the design age of the system in use.
If someone wants to use a fuel lubricity additive to a diesel built within the last decade then its likely a waste of money since the fuel system was designed with the current type of fuel in mind. But an older diesel was not and therefore it may be worth the effort to reintroduce more lubricity... There's plenty of older diesels which have had trouble with ULSD and Bio. (Bio more for its corrosive properties) Not sure why some on this thread are pretending like those stories dont exist.
 
#125 ·
I use PS Diesel Kleen which is also supposed to increase cetane. Does higher cetane give Minor fuel mileage?
 
#126 ·
. Does higher cetane give Minor fuel mileage?
I was hoping you could tell me. I don't believe it will, but I have never had the inclination to try it. A truck fleet owner did extensive testing of additives and found they did give slight boosts to mileage, but the cost was in excess of the benefit. IOW, cost per mile driven increased. Remember that OTR trucks measure mileage in tenths, i.e. 6.1, 7.3, 4.6, etc. In addition, so many factors influence mileage that a comprehensive test requires thousands of miles being driven over the same routes, by the same drivers in the same trucks. I, for one, do not pull the same trailers over the same routes day after day. My annual averages fall within tenths, but a monthly average could be less than 12 or more than 15, it all depends on what I am pulling and where.
 
#131 ·
Been doing some research on this. I find a lot of bad information. I could not find any testing showing the lubricant quality of ulsd vs lsd. I did find ulsd has about 1% less energy value but that's a different discussion.

All I could find is that lubricant is added back into the ulsd after the sulphur removal process. Most common seems to be biodiesel. So in my mind the is no proof that ulsd is any better or worse at lubricating pumps than lsd was.

Now depending where you read(mostly marketing for additives) you find a lot of the bad info. Number one being that the sulphur is the lubricant so ulsd has less sulphur therefore less lube. Which is not true.

Point being if running additives makes you happy do it. I could find no proof showing ulsd actually lacked lubrication value for the pumps. Just be mindful on newer diesel engine not to run stuff that shouldnt be in the tank. Just because you read it on the internet or tons of guys do it doesnt make it a good idea or necessary.


If anyone can find any 3rd party testing of the lube values of ulsd and lsd please post a link.
 
#134 ·
It's a use them or don't. It's your money and there isn't any apparent harm to the engine using real additives. There are also no proven benefits. You won't get any "insurance" money back. ATF and WMO? A little common sense goes a long way there. What do you think?
 
#141 ·
  • Like
Reactions: Electrojake
#143 ·
Welcome to the world wide web of speaking your mind without the uncomfortable conflict of anyone around you.
 
#144 ·
How do you determine which side is the common sense side? Fuel already has lube added to it by the manufacturer. If you feel the need to add more that's fine but saying common sense dictates more lube is needed is a bit much.
 
#145 ·
I'd say there's probably a correlation between the HFRR 520 in USA and the lower failure rates that coincide with the lower HFRR 460 in Europe.

But I'm also of the mind set that to each is own... Its your truck, do as you want. I will continue to put a fuel lubrication product in my older diesel. :thumbup:
 
#146 ·
What I question is, who enforces the lubrication addition to fuel. If it's required by law, there most likely is a minimum, and you know most manufactures will only do the minimum, whether enough or not.

So now the next question is who has the best lubed fuel?
 
#150 ·
Interesting point. I'm sure there is a minimum and likely always has been. I doubt the minimum went down when ulsd was released due to the huge number of older diesels on the road. If anything I'd guess the minimum went up due to tighter tolerances of new fuel systems. So youd think the fuel is just as good or better for older pumps than lsd. Of course that's all speculation. I'm also going to guess pumps started having issues around the time ulsd was released. Folks needed a reason why their 10+ year old mechanical pumps were failing so they blame ulsd.

I wish I could find some data that showed this somewhere.
 
#148 ·
Ever go to an auto parts store and look in the fuel additives section???
Hundreds of products and hundreds of promises with "lab results" to back-up their claims.

To hell with reading labels, I come here to Cumminsforum.com to get the scoop.
For example; I was fascinated to learn that many a Cummins owner adds ATF to their fuel tank.

Funny thing is that "doing nothing" seems to be the most dangerous thing you can do. :confused013:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top