Dodge Cummins Diesel Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just rebuilt a large majority of my p pump and the injectors. I started using stanadyne recently but I keep reading about the lubricity benefits of running two stroke ashless. I was thinking about mixing the two to get the benefits of stanadyne with the lubricity of two stroke. Does anyone run an additive/two stroke mix? If so how much of each
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
There are pages and pages of this question when you search for it.

Lots of people run 2 stroke oil with lots of mixed results, some swear by it, some say no way, it seems to reduce engine noise slightly and it may have given me a slight(.5-1mpg) boost in the 3 tanks I've been using it.

Best bet with questions like this is to search, there's a TON of info on this sight already, I'm new to diesels pickups and I've had most of my questions answered by searching.

Also, The 2nd gen 24v has a whole section devoted to guys with ppumped 24 valve trucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thanks appreciate the report. I know there's a ton of discussion on what additive is best and more specifically on two stroke oil. But actually after spending hours on those 110 pg additive threads, I've only come across two or three guys running oil and additive mixed. And they said they used 8 oz stanadyne and 16 oz two stroke Wally World super tech per tank. Just seems like a bit much to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,376 Posts
The VP44 injection pump *might* benefit from the added lubricity that 2 stroke oil would bring. The reason is largely because it is lubricated by the diesel fuel itself.

The P7100 injection pump is oil lubricated. It is a completely different animal.

GAmes on here has over 1 million miles on his truck. His injection pump still has the original parts except for a deal that went bad. Seals can die just because they get old. GAmes never used any additives, why should anyone else?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
My 2 cents...
I've seen and read some of the "additive" threads...
Some swear at others swear by....
I didn't see/find any hard data to sway me. I tend to follow/believe the older/senior members like GAmes, Illflem and JoeG (because they were part of Rudolph Diesel's design team)...
None of them use it, I've seen their comments in several threads also...
There indeed may be data out there, I've just not seen it here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Put at least a quart of 2 stroke in every tank if I can...diesel fuel isn't what it used to be. They tooken all the goodies out of it an now its mega super low sulphur clean diesel with biodiesel. The diesel engine was originally designed to run on peanut oil, the only reason fossil fuel became so popular is because of the low cost(back in the day) but now ppl are addicted. Met a guy in salmon arm that runs his 12 valve on French fry oil,,, so I say the more oil the better
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Buddy owns a transmission shop actually and runs his truck on straight, strained, filtered used tranny oil. Heard a few times that the 2 stroke oil is an old farmer trick n will keep the old diesels running for ever. Gonna switch mine over to WVO soon as I have the extra 500.00.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,328 Posts
Put at least a quart of 2 stroke in every tank if I can...diesel fuel isn't what it used to be. They tooken all the goodies out of it an now its mega super low sulphur clean diesel with biodiesel. The diesel engine was originally designed to run on peanut oil, the only reason fossil fuel became so popular is because of the low cost(back in the day) but now ppl are addicted. Met a guy in salmon arm that runs his 12 valve on French fry oil,,, so I say the more oil the better
Where to start? Our grandchildren will definitely benefit because "diesel fuel isn't what it used to be".

First, the only thing removed is sulfur which is a corrosive in the fuel system and a poison in the air when burned. That's a "goody"?

The first diesel engine was developed to run on coal dust.

People have been running diesel engines on french fry oil for decades. Restaurants used to give it away until they found out there is a market for it. In the short term just about any combustible liquid can be used as fuel. In the long run, the only result will be shortened engine life.

On a $200 to charity challenge I did a Stanadyne test. A Stanadyne dealer claimed greatly improved mileage and also put up $200. I used a gallon over a 3500 mile route from TX into Saskatchewan and back into Montana. The weather ranged from mild (in the sixties) to being holed up in a motel in BC during a blizzard. About half the miles were towing a loaded enclosed cargo trailer. There was no gain in mileage, actually a slight decline. Stanadyne costs roughly 1 cent per mile, which doesn't sound like much until you do the math and find it comes to over $100 per 10,000 miles of driving. To me, that money is much better spent on beer.

I wish I could pinpoint the 2 cycle oil myth about it's benefits. I doubt it will hurt anything other than a bank account balance. There isn't any way it can improve mileage since it's BTU content is lower than #2. For the price of a qt of oil you can buy a gallon of diesel, so dollar for dollar, the price of driving goes up.

Bottom line, using either or a mixture of both only costs money and gives no gain. The misinformation about fuel lubricity was started by additive manufacturers and has never been authenticated by an independent test facility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
In addition to all the other reasons, just go to any truck stop. Do you see any pile of the dozens of gallon bottles of additive that would need to be put in the big truck tanks? Nope. You'll also noticed there's not trucks blown up all over the roads from diesel problems. Good enough for me. Only thing I try not to do is fill up while they are filling the station and stirring junk up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GAmes

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,328 Posts
In addition to all the other reasons, just go to any truck stop. Do you see any pile of the dozens of gallon bottles of additive that would need to be put in the big truck tanks? Nope. You'll also noticed there's not trucks blown up all over the roads from diesel problems. Good enough for me. Only thing I try not to do is fill up while they are filling the station and stirring junk up.
Exactly. If professional drivers don't waste their money on additives, why would a amateur?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
The two articles at the top of this page provide some "scientific insight" into fuel lubrication.

The military manual is a case study of a rotary pump on jet fuel. Their conclusion was adding oil didn't help much. They also noted low lubrication from the jet fuel caused damage, but wasn't the only contributing factor.

The other article is a study thedieselstop.com did on lubrication additives (including 2 stoke oil). They added it to "pure" diesel not pump diesel though so I would think the boost in lubrication wouldn't be as much when the diesel already has the additives pump diesel gets.

» Stanadyne DB2 Fuel Injection Pump &raquo Motor Mayhem
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,328 Posts
The two articles at the top of this page provide some "scientific insight" into fuel lubrication.

The other article is a study thedieselstop.com did on lubrication additives (including 2 stoke oil). They added it to "pure" diesel not pump diesel though so I would think the boost in lubrication wouldn't be as much when the diesel already has the additives pump diesel gets.
I knew that eventually someone would post the bogus "study" from The Diesel Place. It is far from "scientific insight". When the additive company that sponsored it used The Diesel Place as it's conduit I wasn't surprised. To believe the BS that GM owners spouted about the D-Max/Ally in 2007 a person had to be naive and gullible, a perfect place to post their "study".

Anyone who paid attention in 10th grade science class would know the writer wasn't conforming with standard scientific study protocol by the time they read the fourth paragraph.

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.

That is what additive companies want you to believe, and have used the internet to spread the myth much faster than old mechanics spread the myth about using ATF to clean injectors. In a REAL scientific study that blurb would be followed by a reference to a paper or publication that had verified the information as fact. THERE ISN'T ONE!!! So, one should wonder, since there isn't any publication to support the hypothesis why didn't the writer develop the evidence? Supposedly he had the gizmo that was capable of measuring lubricity in fuel. Why didn't he use that gizmo to test samples of pump fuel to show it wasn't up to par?

The two cycle oil insertion is a red herring to divert a sucker from noticing three of the top five rated additives are Opti-Lube products. The "study" is a sham, plain and simple.

I was in the military flying helicopters when the military study was conducted. We only used Jet A when we refueled at civilian airports, and a product called Prist had to be added when we refueled. Prist is an anti-fungus product. JP-4 was the standard military fuel for aircraft at that time and ground equipment used #2 diesel. ULSD wasn't on the market in May 1991, and wasn't on anyone's radar. In the years following the military converted all diesel applications and aircraft to JP-8, which made life for the fuel handlers a lot simpler. Although an interesting read, it really has nothing to do with ULSD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
I knew that eventually someone would post the bogus "study" from The Diesel Place. It is far from "scientific insight". When the additive company that sponsored it used The Diesel Place as it's conduit I wasn't surprised. To believe the BS that GM owners spouted about the D-Max/Ally in 2007 a person had to be naive and gullible, a perfect place to post their "study".

Anyone who paid attention in 10th grade science class would know the writer wasn't conforming with standard scientific study protocol by the time they read the fourth paragraph.

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.

That is what additive companies want you to believe, and have used the internet to spread the myth much faster than old mechanics spread the myth about using ATF to clean injectors. In a REAL scientific study that blurb would be followed by a reference to a paper or publication that had verified the information as fact. THERE ISN'T ONE!!! So, one should wonder, since there isn't any publication to support the hypothesis why didn't the writer develop the evidence? Supposedly he had the gizmo that was capable of measuring lubricity in fuel. Why didn't he use that gizmo to test samples of pump fuel to show it wasn't up to par?

The two cycle oil insertion is a red herring to divert a sucker from noticing three of the top five rated additives are Opti-Lube products. The "study" is a sham, plain and simple.

I was in the military flying helicopters when the military study was conducted. We only used Jet A when we refueled at civilian airports, and a product called Prist had to be added when we refueled. Prist is an anti-fungus product. JP-4 was the standard military fuel for aircraft at that time and ground equipment used #2 diesel. ULSD wasn't on the market in May 1991, and wasn't on anyone's radar. In the years following the military converted all diesel applications and aircraft to JP-8, which made life for the fuel handlers a lot simpler. Although an interesting read, it really has nothing to do with ULSD.
That's why I put "scientific" in quotes. The diesel stop study didn't use pump diesel so they're is not way to see how an additive increases lubricicity on diesel that is ready to sell at a station so yes the actual numbers are useless, but the article gives (maybe a somewhat biased) comparative result of what additives increase lubricicity (2 stroke oil is as good if not better than a decent number of additives). But again, although the additives increased the lubrication of dry diesel you can't assume it would lower the lubrication values of diesel ready for the pump by the same degree. The two articles give a slightly more thought out insight than "I added X and drove 300k". The only useful part of the military study is their conclusion that pump wear was not significantly reduced by added lubricants which does have some merit since they noted Jet A leads to pump failure faster than #2 (not ulsd) and that wasn't helped by additives so one could could conclude additives would be of little benifit when used with ULSD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,328 Posts
That's why I put "scientific" in quotes. The diesel stop study didn't use pump diesel so they're is not way to see how an additive increases lubricicity on diesel that is ready to sell at a station so yes the actual numbers are useless, but the article gives (maybe a somewhat biased) comparative result of what additives increase lubricicity (2 stroke oil is as good if not better than a decent number of additives). But again, although the additives increased the lubrication of dry diesel you can't assume it would lower the lubrication values of diesel ready for the pump by the same degree. The two articles give a slightly more thought out insight than "I added X and drove 300k". The only useful part of the military study is their conclusion that pump wear was not significantly reduced by added lubricants which does have some merit since they noted Jet A leads to pump failure faster than #2 (not ulsd) and that wasn't helped by additives so one could could conclude additives would be of little benifit when used with ULSD.
I was assuming we were in agreement of the validity of The Diesel Place "study", but I'm doubtful any actual tests were conducted. For instance a gas/diesel additive was #3? Really?????????????? Stanadyne was #8? The only product Bosch recommends (and yes, I am aware they own the company). However, I have heard through reliable sources that the military uses Stanadyne in their ground equipment diesel engines.

Will a designed for diesel engine additive harm an engine? I doubt it, but is one necessary? Only for gelling.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top