Dodge Cummins Diesel Forum banner

21 - 30 of 30 Posts

Registered
Joined
17,222 Posts
Well if you have any experience with other older NON P700 pump diesels running a million miles. With no additives Please post it up.
I Have ran GM 6.2 and 6.5 diesels for over 20 years and beieve me. They do need lubricity fuel additives to keep the pumps happy. Unless you like replacing expensive IPs.
Go to the Diesel place in the 6.5 or 6.2 forums and post up what you just said. You will be laughed out of the place.
The P700 is a tough pump. The thing is huge compaired to a Stanadyne used in GM and older Fords. And is is a completely different design and operation. You cant compare them. Other pumps are not as tolerant of ULSD and all the contaminates it contains. Than the P700 monster. That will eat most anything. That is why I like it.
Altho this link is for storage tanks. And is explained in very simple terms. It does tell about how crappy ULSD without additives is for your fuel system.Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD): the Good, the Bad, and the Rusty What comes out of those tanks goes thru your engine.
Talking out both sides of the mouth, that's what I love about additive "experts". It seems to be the go to for additive lovers to claim the p7100 is exempt from lubricity requirements. The fact remains that the P-pump wasn't designed for ULSD, period. I'd love to see something scientific to back up your claim that GM 6.2 and 6.5 diesels need lubricity fuel additives to prevent having to replace expensive IPs. You can't provide it because it doesn't exist. You are only repeating a anecdote that has it's origins in the ATF is a good diesel additive arena.

Your little article doesn't impress me and has no reference material to back up it's statements. Yes, removing sulfur removes natural lubricity compounds. At least the writer didn't claim that sulfur is a lubricant. That one cracks me up. Nowhere is it noted that lubricity additives are added prior to being sold commercially. That is called lying by omission. Since they lied about that, what else in the article is a lie?

Bottom line is 12 valves have p-pumps. This is a 12 valve forum. What you dump into the fuel tanks of your old GMs doesn't interest me.
 

Premium Member
Joined
495 Posts
I'd love to see something scientific to back up your claim that GM 6.2 and 6.5 diesels need lubricity fuel additives to prevent having to replace expensive IPs. You can't provide it because it doesn't exist. You are only repeating a anecdote that has it's origins in the ATF is a good diesel additive arena.
While generally I agree with you, there are LOTS of examples of things we know to be true, that don't have "anything scientific" to back it up.

Just in the automotive world there are examples like how much boost / power the bottom end of engine "X" can take in stock form (like it is generally accepted that a stock LS gasser can take 15 psi of boost before issues happen), even our beloved 12 valve cummins has such things (like how much piston to wall clearance and ring end gap is required at certain power levels, how much timing/ boost the stock head gasket can take, how much HP/ torque the stock transmissions can hold before issues arise, and the list goes on).

There was no "true" scientific methods used to determine those things, it was trial and error for the most part. Someone boosted a stock LS block to 25 psi and it blew up, so we learned not to do that, someone put 700hp to a 12 valve on fresh rebuilt with OEM piston to wall clearance and ring gap and scuffed the pistons/ broke rings lands, so we learned not to do that either.

Owners of other diesels learned similar things along the way as well. Things like the owners that add lubricity to their fuel have fewer IP issues than those that don't. Nothing scientific there, but there is enough evidence that's its known to be true. Likewise, there is enough evidence to show that the p7100 does not need any added lubricity.

To get right down to it, we as humanity don't KNOW how gravity works, we have a couple theories, but we don't KNOW for sure how it works. (the LHC is suppose to confirm the leading theory). But I am fairly confident that the majority of humanity knows that gravity does work.
.
.
.
 

Registered
Joined
17,222 Posts
However, there is a method to determine if those old IPs require more lubricity than pump fuel provides. If they, or any other IP, required more lubricity the evidence would be easy to find. That evidence would be more than the anecdotal evidence that is spouted on the interweb. Anyone can say their IP lasted longer using 2SO, but without a tear down analysis it is just hyperbole.
 

Registered
Joined
42 Posts
If additives are just snake oil as you claim. Why does Cummins, after extensive research in their own labs, recommend and endorse them?
Cummins Inc. Officially Recommends Power Service Diesel Kleen +Cetane and Diesel Fuel Supplement +Cetane Boost For Optimized Engine Performance | Cummins Inc.
"In recent years diesel fuel quality has become increasingly important as engines evolve and the diesel fuel manufacturing processes change,鈥 said Roger England, director of Technical Quality and Materials Engineering for Cummins. 鈥淭he Power Service Diesel Kleen and Diesel Fuel Supplement additives provide easily accessible solutions with proven technology to customers in the field when they encounter challenges with their fuel such as poor lubricity, low cetane numbers, low temperature operability issues, injector deposits, etc. Cummins is in a unique position in that we design not only the engine but also the turbochargers, fuel system, and after treatment systems, which enables us to fully leverage the Power Service diesel fuel additive technology."
 

Registered
Joined
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
Is additives are just snake oil as you claim. Why does Cummins recommend and endorse them?
Cummins Inc. Officially Recommends Power Service Diesel Kleen +Cetane and Diesel Fuel Supplement +Cetane Boost For Optimized Engine Performance | Cummins Inc.
"In recent years diesel fuel quality has become increasingly important as engines evolve and the diesel fuel manufacturing processes change,鈥 said Roger England, director of Technical Quality and Materials Engineering for Cummins. 鈥淭he Power Service Diesel Kleen and Diesel Fuel Supplement additives provide easily accessible solutions with proven technology to customers in the field when they encounter challenges with their fuel such as poor lubricity, low cetane numbers, low temperature operability issues, injector deposits, etc. Cummins is in a unique position in that we design not only the engine but also the turbochargers, fuel system, and after treatment systems, which enables us to fully leverage the Power Service diesel fuel additive technology."
I'd say that had something to do with Power Service giving Cummins a large chunk of change to publicly endorse them. But I could be wrong, they may actually believe that Power Service should be run in their motors. But based on how your quote was worded, it sounds like somebody got paid to say that.
 

Registered
Joined
17,222 Posts
I agree with 94CumminsRed. If it wasn't a money thing they would recommend and endorse the product owned by Bosch.......Stanadyne. Think about it. If additives are needed for pump fuel the result would be more failures and more sales of replacement parts. They aren't getting those sales, so why not endorse something that doesn't do harm. It only adds to the cost of ownership. And it wouldn't be just failures of Cummins/Bosch components, it would be across the board. Detroit, Caterpiller, Mercedes, John Deere, VW, etc, etc. Why is it that only pickup owners feel the need to dump something into the tank besides diesel fuel?
 

Premium Member
Joined
495 Posts
I agree with 94CumminsRed. If it wasn't a money thing they would recommend and endorse the product owned by Bosch.......Stanadyne. Think about it. If additives are needed for pump fuel the result would be more failures and more sales of replacement parts. They aren't getting those sales, so why not endorse something that doesn't do harm. It only adds to the cost of ownership. And it wouldn't be just failures of Cummins/Bosch components, it would be across the board. Detroit, Caterpiller, Mercedes, John Deere, VW, etc, etc. Why is it that only pickup owners feel the need to dump something into the tank besides diesel fuel?

I agree the endorsement was likely more of a business deal made by the MBA's, rather than an engineering decision made by the engineers. However its not just pickup owners that feel the need to add extra stuff to their diesel fuel. Small (non-commercial) tractor owners are all about it too. I'd image if you own a small diesel tractor , you probably also own a diesel pickup too, so that could explain some of the cross over.




.
.
.
 

Registered
Joined
17,222 Posts
Unfortunately it isn't only diesel pickup owners who are subject to internet myths. At least there are guys on those forums with better sense.
 

Registered
Joined
42 Posts
I agree with 94CumminsRed. If it wasn't a money thing they would recommend and endorse the product owned by Bosch.......Stanadyne. Think about it. If additives are needed for pump fuel the result would be more failures and more sales of replacement parts. They aren't getting those sales, so why not endorse something that doesn't do harm. It only adds to the cost of ownership. And it wouldn't be just failures of Cummins/Bosch components, it would be across the board. Detroit, Caterpiller, Mercedes, John Deere, VW, etc, etc. Why is it that only pickup owners feel the need to dump something into the tank besides diesel fuel?
Give me a break. Power service is not a large world wide company like Bosch with deep pockets.
I highly doubt a small family owned private company paid Cummins a large chunk of change to endorse their product. Cummins and Power Service came together because Cummins had a problem with older engines and engines that sat a long time like in power generators. They needed something to mitigate the bad effects of USLD. Like the fact it is dry and absorbes water out of the air. which causes tank bugs. corrosion, gelling and other nasty stuff.
If you run your truck all the time and are constantly filling up with fresh fuel those issues are not as revelant for you. But I don't drive my trucks that much. My Ram may go 2 months without a fill up. USLD needs help in that kind of environment. I use additives like Power Service simply because they work for me. It is no " internet myth"" to me. I have been using them long before there was an internet. I use then simply because they work for me. My trucks run better with additive than without. I have proven it to myself both with my Butt Dyno and GPS for fuel mileage checks. I run and maintain a fleet of 5 vehicles. All run well. 4 of them are over 20 years old.
 

Registered
Joined
17,222 Posts
Give me a break. Power service is not a large world wide company like Bosch with deep pockets.
I highly doubt a small family owned private company paid Cummins a large chunk of change to endorse their product. Cummins and Power Service came together because Cummins had a problem with older engines and engines that sat a long time like in power generators. They needed something to mitigate the bad effects of USLD. Like the fact it is dry and absorbes water out of the air. which causes tank bugs. corrosion, gelling and other nasty stuff.
If you run your truck all the time and are constantly filling up with fresh fuel those issues are not as revelant for you. But I don't drive my trucks that much. My Ram may go 2 months without a fill up. USLD needs help in that kind of environment. I use additives like Power Service simply because they work for me. It is no " internet myth"" to me. I have been using them long before there was an internet. I use then simply because they work for me. My trucks run better with additive than without. I have proven it to myself both with my Butt Dyno and GPS for fuel mileage checks. I run and maintain a fleet of 5 vehicles. All run well. 4 of them are over 20 years old.
Give you a break using that argument? Not hardly. Power service has a huge advertising budget. Linking with Cummins is a business arrangement, nothing more.

I once entered a friendly wager with a additive believer who made wild claims about mileage improvements. So I did a comparison trip using his stuff from central TX, into Canada and back. My mileage not only wasn't better, it fell about .1 mpg. There isn't a believer anywhere who can document long range mileage improvements. It's always, I got 2 mpg better with my last tank (why not 1 or 3?) I track my fuel mileage for thousands of miles at a time, not hundreds. If there was any chance I could cut costs using an additive I would do it in a heartbeat.

Believe what you want, pour your money into your tanks as you see fit. I was responding to the OP about mileage gains, and what I told him is fact. "Two stroke oil is an internet myth. Real diesel additives MIGHT increase mileage, but so little that it will make your cost per mile increase." Since you drive your vehicles so little you don't know what kind of mileage improvement, if any, you get because you have no basis of comparison. And since you always use it the "butt dyno" doesn't hold water for the same reason. Additive companies lust after guys like you.
 
21 - 30 of 30 Posts
Top