E90Post
 


GTB Performance
 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > E90 / E92 / E93 3-series Powertrain and Drivetrain Discussions > N57 / M57 Turbo Diesel Discussions - 335d > ULSD Lube additive



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      11-29-2011, 10:10 PM   #1
duramax
Private
 
Drives: 2011 335D
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Kansas City, MO

Posts: 62
iTrader: (0)

ULSD Lube additive

I have been reading a lot about the effects of ULSD fuel and its lack of lube. On older trucks before 2007, people are using 2 stroke oil to increase lube for injectors, etc. I have used both 2 stroke oil and PS diesel clean in my duramax, and would like to increase the lube in the D. On new trucks with DPF's, I think you need to be more careful what you put in the tank. What are you guys using if anything at all? In a study, PS was not very good for adding lube.
duramax is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      11-30-2011, 06:57 AM   #2
BMW1983
Private First Class
 
Drives: 2011 335d
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Houston, Texas

Posts: 155
iTrader: (0)

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/f.../Lubricity.PDF

I'm going to add 1 liter bodiesel to each fresh tank of diesel.
Above article suggests it is a great lubricant.
Our cars can take up to B7 according to my fuel cap (7% biodiesel). Fuel in my area may already have up to 5% biodiesel. Our tanks are about 60 liters capacity so 1 liter of biodiesel added to 60 liters is 1.6% --- I think it is safe. Too much biodiesel can damage motor b/c it has a higher flash point and can be left uncombusted in the exhaust phase when our motors inject at times to burn off accumulation in the PDF......or so I understand it. Unburnt biodiesel could damage our oil is my understanding.
__________________
2014 BMW F700GS
2011 335d -
Black Sapphire Metallic/ZPP/ZSP/Bilstein B12 Suspension Pro-Kit/Nav/Harman Kardon/iPodUSB/Satellite
2007 328i - retired
BMW1983 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      11-30-2011, 09:26 AM   #3
cssnms
Brigadier General
 
cssnms's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 BMW 335d
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Murland

Posts: 3,180
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by duramax View Post
I have been reading a lot about the effects of ULSD fuel and its lack of lube. On older trucks before 2007, people are using 2 stroke oil to increase lube for injectors, etc. I have used both 2 stroke oil and PS diesel clean in my duramax, and would like to increase the lube in the D. On new trucks with DPF's, I think you need to be more careful what you put in the tank. What are you guys using if anything at all? In a study, PS was not very good for adding lube.
I am not so sure that I agree with your assessment, assuming of course you are referring to the Spicer test. Power Service with Cetane booster improved the HFRR score of untreated ULSD by 61 points or from a wear scar score of 636 to a wear scar (HFRR) score of 575 microns. All commercially available ULSD fuel should meet a wear scar score of 520 microns. If you apply Power Service to treated ULSD then the wear scar score should improve by 61 points resulting in a wear scar score of 459 microns, which so happens to be within The Engine Manufacturer's Association recommended wear scar score, which also so happens to be consistent with pre ULSD fuels.

That being said, Power Service did not show the "best" improvement. That award goes to 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel which improved the wear scar score of untreated ULSD by 451 points. The 2nd best tested product was
Opti-Lube XPD multi purpose with cetane improver, which improved the HFRR 319 points. Power Service is 10 on a list of 19 products tested so it finished in the middle of the pack.

Personally I run Power Service w/Cetane boost because it is more readily available at my local auto parts store then some of the others.
cssnms is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-02-2011, 10:53 AM   #4
duramax
Private
 
Drives: 2011 335D
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Kansas City, MO

Posts: 62
iTrader: (0)

In independent tests, ULSD did not meet the required 520 or less. that is the problem and why you need a better additive than PS.

All commercially available ULSD fuel SHOULD meet a wear scar score of 520 microns.
duramax is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-02-2011, 11:08 AM   #5
cssnms
Brigadier General
 
cssnms's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 BMW 335d
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Murland

Posts: 3,180
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by duramax View Post
In independent tests, ULSD did not meet the required 520 or less. that is the problem and why you need a better additive than PS.

All commercially available ULSD fuel SHOULD meet a wear scar score of 520 microns.
Results vary from station to station and I believe that is more of the exception and not the rule. I also believe if you are buying quality fuel from a reputable station it more often than not it meets the min requirement.

Think about it, a station would have to sell diesel fuel with a wear scar score of 581 for Power Service not to be effective and bring the HFRR within acceptable limits. A 61 point improvement should provide more than enough lubricity for any deviation unless of course you happen to fill up at that freak station selling diesel fuel with no lubricity additives. From my perspective Power Service provides more than enough benefit.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion regarding the benefits of Power Service, but from my perspective it is certainly good enough and better than nothing. If you want a product that provides even more lubricity buy Opti-lube.

Last edited by cssnms; 12-02-2011 at 11:16 AM.
cssnms is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-02-2011, 12:51 PM   #6
TotalPower
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2011 335is Vert AW
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego

Posts: 468
iTrader: (0)

i wouldn't add power service... you don't need an uncombustible oil inside your fuel system. you're better off adding 5w to your fuel than adding power service or optilube or uncle ted's lube
TotalPower is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-02-2011, 01:32 PM   #7
hotrod2448
grand poobah
 
hotrod2448's Avatar
 
Drives: E70 X5 SG, F10 535i
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC

Posts: 2,015
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2011 335d  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssnms View Post
I am not so sure that I agree with your assessment, assuming of course you are referring to the Spicer test. Power Service with Cetane booster improved the HFRR score of untreated ULSD by 61 points or from a wear scar score of 636 to a wear scar (HFRR) score of 575 microns. All commercially available ULSD fuel should meet a wear scar score of 520 microns. If you apply Power Service to treated ULSD then the wear scar score should improve by 61 points resulting in a wear scar score of 459 microns, which so happens to be within The Engine Manufacturer's Association recommended wear scar score, which also so happens to be consistent with pre ULSD fuels.

That being said, Power Service did not show the "best" improvement. That award goes to 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel which improved the wear scar score of untreated ULSD by 451 points. The 2nd best tested product was
Opti-Lube XPD multi purpose with cetane improver, which improved the HFRR 319 points. Power Service is 10 on a list of 19 products tested so it finished in the middle of the pack.

Personally I run Power Service w/Cetane boost because it is more readily available at my local auto parts store then some of the others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssnms View Post
Results vary from station to station and I believe that is more of the exception and not the rule. I also believe if you are buying quality fuel from a reputable station it more often than not it meets the min requirement.

Think about it, a station would have to sell diesel fuel with a wear scar score of 581 for Power Service not to be effective and bring the HFRR within acceptable limits. A 61 point improvement should provide more than enough lubricity for any deviation unless of course you happen to fill up at that freak station selling diesel fuel with no lubricity additives. From my perspective Power Service provides more than enough benefit.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion regarding the benefits of Power Service, but from my perspective it is certainly good enough and better than nothing. If you want a product that provides even more lubricity buy Opti-lube.
I don't believe you can look at the wear scar improvement from untreated and assume that it will have that same improvement on a higher quality fuel that already has a higher lubricity rating. As the fuel lubricity increases the effect an additive would have probably doesn't stay linear. Think along the lines of you can't take 93 octane, add 100 octane and have 193 octane.
hotrod2448 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-02-2011, 02:20 PM   #8
cssnms
Brigadier General
 
cssnms's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 BMW 335d
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Murland

Posts: 3,180
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrod2448 View Post
I don't believe you can look at the wear scar improvement from untreated and assume that it will have that same improvement on a higher quality fuel that already has a higher lubricity rating. As the fuel lubricity increases the effect an additive would have probably doesn't stay linear. Think along the lines of you can't take 93 octane, add 100 octane and have 193 octane.
Sure I can unless testing proves otherwise. What basis is there to suggest that the benefit or ability to reduce the wear scar score of a supplemental lubricating additive would be diminished after being added to treated fuel or otherwise not have a linear relationship? I also don't think the relationship between an octane rating and lubricity is a fair or accurate comparison. What you are proposing is that the combination of preexisting additives and a supplemental lubricating additive would have a negative effect on the lubricating properties of the supplemental additive. Perhaps?

As I have said before, testing the lubricity properties of a supplemental fuel additive using untreated fuel is the only way to establish a true baseline. That being said, I do agree further testing to support "my" or "your" theory would be warranted. Until further testing is conducted I stand by my theory and firm to the position that using a product like Power Service, Opti xd etc is better than using nothing at all.

Last edited by cssnms; 12-02-2011 at 03:24 PM.
cssnms is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-02-2011, 03:30 PM   #9
hotrod2448
grand poobah
 
hotrod2448's Avatar
 
Drives: E70 X5 SG, F10 535i
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC

Posts: 2,015
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2011 335d  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssnms View Post
Sure I can unless testing proves otherwise. What basis is there to suggest that the benefit or ability to reduce the wear scar score of a supplemental lubricating additive would be diminished after being added to treated fuel or otherwise not have a linear relationship? I also don't think the relationship between an octane rating and lubricity is a fair or accurate comparison. What you are proposing is that the combination of preexisting additives and a supplemental lubricating additive would have a negative effect on the lubricating properties of the supplemental additive.

As I have said before, testing the lubricity properties of a supplemental fuel additive using untreated fuel is the only way there is to establish a baseline. That being said, I do agree further testing to support "my" or "your" theory would be warranted. Until further testing is conducted I stand by my theory and firm to the position that using a product like Power Service, Opti xd etc is better than using nothing at all.
I'm not saying it wouldn't still have some benefit. I'm saying that just because it provides a delta of 65 improvement in the lowest quality fuel that you shouldn't automatically assume you would see an improvement of 65 when using it with the highest quality fuel.

I'm theorizing that the additive has a maximum lubricity value and adding it to a low grade fuel with a lower lubricity will result in a larger delta than adding it to a fuel that already has a lubricity closer to that of the additive. While you might get a delta of 65 with low lubricity fuel it may only be 45 with a fuel with higher lubricity. Much like mixing octanes. If you mix 50/50 87 and 100 octane you will get a larger delta than you would mixing 97 and 100 while still ultimately ending up with a higher octane than the 87/100 mix.

Last edited by hotrod2448; 12-02-2011 at 04:19 PM.
hotrod2448 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-02-2011, 04:12 PM   #10
Socom
BMWCCA since '03
 
Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Atl.

Posts: 5,267
iTrader: (0)

There is no best. All additives do not have the same results with different types of diesel fuel since not all diesel uses uses the same addtitives to reach the min spec with regards to lubricity. Powerservice is generally considered adequate to get the wear scar rating under 520 when used with retail sourced ULSD (Email them and they'll send you test results from various suppliers such as Shell, Chevron, etc). Generally speaking all the additives which contain a lubricity enhancer should get you below 520 um.

Biodiesel however is considered king for lubricity and you only need to fill your tank with concentrations no higher than 5 percent (B5).
Socom is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-02-2011, 04:16 PM   #11
Concentric190
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 335d
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Willowbrook, IL

Posts: 262
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
1997 BMW M3  [0.00]
2009 BMW 335d  [0.00]
1995 BMW M3  [0.00]
"lube" heh
__________________
///Andres
09 335d evolve tuned - 327whp / 490wtq -- 13.0@105
95 M3 Turbo - Built 3.0l s52, PTE74GTQ, AEM EMS & CDI
97 M3 NASA TTB build for 2014!
Concentric190 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-02-2011, 04:46 PM   #12
cssnms
Brigadier General
 
cssnms's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 BMW 335d
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Murland

Posts: 3,180
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrod2448 View Post
I'm not saying it wouldn't still have some benefit. I'm saying that just because it provides a delta of 65 improvement in the lowest quality fuel that you shouldn't automatically assume get an improvement of 65 when using it with the highest quality fuel.

I'm theorizing that the additive has a maximum lubricity value and adding it to a low grade fuel with a lower lubricity will result in a larger delta than adding it to a fuel that already has a lubricity closer to that of the additive. While you might get a delta of 65 with low lubricity fuel it may only be 45 with a fuel with higher lubricity. Much like mixing octanes. If you mix 50/50 87 and 100 octane you will get a larger delta than you would mixing 97 and 100 while still ultimately ending up with a higher octane than the 87/100 mix.
Who knows you might be right at the end of the day. I didn't automatically assume anything. I simply have a theory; that by increasing the lubricant levels through a supplemental additive and despite the higher quantity of pre existing additive that the relationship will be more linear than not. Again, I also do not see the correlation between measuring/increasing octane and lubricating particles and thus viscosity. However, it is quite possible that the detergents, stabalizers etc that are added to the fuel along with the lubricating additive may have an adverse effect on the benefits of the supplemental lubricating additive and as such may cause viscosity variations from one manufacturer to the next. I would very much be interested in seeing an ASTM blending table to see the effects the other additves might have on the product's effectiveness. Until such time, it's my theory and I am sticking to it and to using Power Service or Opti-lube.
cssnms is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-02-2011, 04:56 PM   #13
cssnms
Brigadier General
 
cssnms's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 BMW 335d
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Murland

Posts: 3,180
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concentric190 View Post
"lube" heh
cssnms is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2012, 01:27 PM   #14
FormerRotor
Major
 
FormerRotor's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 335d, M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: MD

Posts: 1,462
iTrader: (4)

Where has the emulsifier/demulsifier argument fallen with the d crowd? I know this is almost as heavily debated as "to additive or not to additive", but I would think this would be an important point as I do not believe the d has any water separation in its filtration process.

I would love to stand corrected on the latter and hear the group's thoughts on the former.
FormerRotor is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2012, 03:06 PM   #15
DieselDiner
Lieutenant Colonel
 
DieselDiner's Avatar
 
Drives: 335d
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Home

Posts: 1,514
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerRotor View Post
Where has the emulsifier/demulsifier argument fallen with the d crowd? I know this is almost as heavily debated as "to additive or not to additive", but I would think this would be an important point as I do not believe the d has any water separation in its filtration process.

I would love to stand corrected on the latter and hear the group's thoughts on the former.
As far as I have been able to determine, the d has no water separator, so you are correct.

There hasn't been much discussion in d circles regarding emulsifier vs. demulsifier, but as you know, there is exhaustive conversation on other boards like the tdiforum.

I *think* the preponderance of opinion for a situation like we have (no water separator) favors an emulsifier, since the demulsifier causes the water to fall out of suspension, and our cars have nowhere for the water to fall.

Having said that, I really don't know, since whichever side of the equation you choose, you will have several hungry hounds from the opposite to pounce on you immediately to tell you how wrong you are. LOL
__________________
DieselDiner is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-26-2012, 08:28 AM   #16
FormerRotor
Major
 
FormerRotor's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 335d, M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: MD

Posts: 1,462
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DieselDiner View Post
Having said that, I really don't know, since whichever side of the equation you choose, you will have several hungry hounds from the opposite to pounce on you immediately to tell you how wrong you are. LOL
This is, by and large, the most definitively accurate statement with regards to the additive debate that I have seen yet.

I came fom rotory engines and there we had the ongoing war of "to premix or not to premix". Fortunately we also had engine-specific experts (not of the self-proclaimed variety) and winning GT race teams looking at the same engine specs and hashing through the list of pros & cons.

Thanks for the input DieselDiner!
FormerRotor is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-26-2012, 11:34 AM   #17
DnA Diesel
Major
 
Drives: 09 335d Sport SGrey/Blk/Blk
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Posts: 1,101
iTrader: (0)

I don't run anything in my D as Canadian diesel spec is for a minimum of 460Ám wear scar, vice 520 in the US. Yes, there will likely be variations in fuel that may exceed 460Ám, but probably rare. If I was worried about lubricity, I'd look to add certified (QA-wise) bio to equate to the 2% level that Spicer noted was the best augmentation.

If I were to use something to address water, it would be an emulsifier for the same reason the DieselDiner stated. Unlike under the hood of my TDI, there is not enough room for a Cat 2Ám filter and a water separator, but I run through a lot of fuel (~40,000km/yr) and always keep the tank topped up to minimize condensation.

Given the Bosch CP3.2+ pump is a proven workhorse, I'm not worried at all about the reduced lubricity with ULSD...unlike the poor VW TDI folks and the 09-11 CRs with Bosch CP4.1 pumps experiencing major pump failures.

Cheers
D.
__________________
2009 335d Sport - Space Grey, Gloss Black on Black Leather (pics)

DnA Diesel is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 PM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST