Ok so most of us would agree that two cycle oil in the fuel for the vp44 is a good thing when mixed properly ....my question is can we mix other products in as well for other benefits like the powerservice products or Lucas oil or xdp?

ah64 did i understand correctly that you no longer use 2 cycle ? and if so any particular reason you stopped

  LT smoke said:

ah64 did i understand correctly that you no longer use 2 cycle ? and if so any particular reason you stopped

I stopped because I think it was gumming up my exhaust brake. The brake wouldn't fully engage at higher rpms anymore, about 1K miles after I stopped using it the brake works normal again... I do still get the very rare stick if I engage it at high rpms, but nothing like while I was using 2 stroke. I think I need to remove and clean it to get the last of the gunk off.

correct me if i'm wrong but Michael uses an exhaust brake as well correct and I didnt see him mention anything about a sticking butterfly valve.....do the two of you have diffrent exhaust brakes or possible that it wasnt totally the 2 cycle oil giving you problems.....not trying to b mean on this by any means ..just trying to explore all possibilities and maybe help a few other ppl out ..hate to see any of use make a poor decision on something just because we didnt ask enough questions .....seems like there are a lot of benifiets to the two cycle oil as well as to haveing an exhaust brake ...seems like with the right investigation into this we should all be able to benifiet from haveing both items on our trucks

aaa...i don't think that i would use 2 cycle on a common rail.vp's need it..the cp3's don't.i used lucas in my '03 for years..no problems.

  white01 said:

aaa...i don't think that i would use 2 cycle on a common rail.vp's need it..the cp3's don't.i used lucas in my '03 for years..no problems.

Which Lucas additive do you use? Both the fuel additive and oil extender are insanely expensive.

  LT smoke said:

correct me if i'm wrong but Michael uses an exhaust brake as well correct and I didnt see him mention anything about a sticking butterfly valve.....do the two of you have diffrent exhaust brakes or possible that it wasnt totally the 2 cycle oil giving you problems.....not trying to b mean on this by any means ..just trying to explore all possibilities and maybe help a few other ppl out ..hate to see any of use make a poor decision on something just because we didnt ask enough questions .....seems like there are a lot of benifiets to the two cycle oil as well as to haveing an exhaust brake ...seems like with the right investigation into this we should all be able to benifiet from haveing both items on our trucks

Yes he does have one. We both run the Jacobs brake. The only reason I noticed my valve getting sticky was with my back-pressure gauge. Without it I would have never known. As soon as I downshift and the rpms drop with the clutch pressed the brake goes fully shut. So it may or may not be happening to others, but it takes a back-pressure gauge to see it happen.

  white01 said:

aaa...i don't think that i would use 2 cycle on a common rail.vp's need it..the cp3's don't.i used lucas in my '03 for years..no problems.

2 cycle in CR's gets mixed results. I figured I would try a light mix for a gallon of the stuff as a test. I saw no benefits, and the decrease in EB performance so I quit using it. Otherwise I have been using Amsoil Diesel Concentrate every tank since I bought the truck 48K miles ago.

Recently I was working with a customer who builds engines for truck pulls. He told me that with his special formula he achieved a 75 HP increase with just additive. My goal was to build a better and cheaper version to earn his business. With the amount of additive he used we were reluctant to have a Cetane Engine test ran, so instead we had a BTU test ran. So the sample was sent and two weeks later we received the result and then scratched our heads. The BTU content had actually gone down. (Net 128,767 Btu/gal to 127,281 Btu/ gal) What, this can't be right we improved the combustion of the fuel? What we learned was the test for BTU measures the amount of Hydro carbons which produce heat. We replaced those hydrocarbons with oygenates or Cetane Improver which the machine does't recognize thus lowering the BTU content. We then talked to our Cetane engine people and sent the samples to have cetane engines ran. We topped there machines at 74.8 Cetane numbers with both our additives. Thus showing that the correlation between better combustion and BTU content does not always correllate with one another. So all that is left for him to do is run a comparison dyno test and I will let you know the results when I get them! Lubricity - As far as lubricity the HFRR went from 520um to 530um which is above ASTM spec. Our custom blended additive reduced the HFRR number to 415um. The ASTM spec for diesel fuel is 520um and the EMA (Engine Manufacturing Association)would like to see a 460um number.(the lower the number the better)

  rwalker said:

So all that is left for him to do is run a comparison dyno test and I will let you know the results when I get them!

Looking fwd to the results.

  rwalker said:

Recently I was working with a customer who builds engines for truck pulls. He told me that with his special formula he achieved a 75 HP increase with just additive. My goal was to build a better and cheaper version to earn his business. With the amount of additive he used we were reluctant to have a Cetane Engine test ran, so instead we had a BTU test ran. So the sample was sent and two weeks later we received the result and then scratched our heads. The BTU content had actually gone down. (Net 128,767 Btu/gal to 127,281 Btu/ gal) What, this can't be right we improved the combustion of the fuel? What we learned was the test for BTU measures the amount of Hydro carbons which produce heat. We replaced those hydrocarbons with oygenates or Cetane Improver which the machine does't recognize thus lowering the BTU content. We then talked to our Cetane engine people and sent the samples to have cetane engines ran. We topped there machines at 74.8 Cetane numbers with both our additives. Thus showing that the correlation between better combustion and BTU content does not always correllate with one another. So all that is left for him to do is run a comparison dyno test and I will let you know the results when I get them! Lubricity - As far as lubricity the HFRR went from 520um to 530um which is above ASTM spec. Our custom blended additive reduced the HFRR number to 415um. The ASTM spec for diesel fuel is 520um and the EMA (Engine Manufacturing Association)would like to see a 460um number.(the lower the number the better)

Hi Randy! Thanks for dropping by and joining in the conversation! FYI, I am TFF Admin, on another forum.

  rwalker said:

Lubricity - As far as lubricity the HFRR went from 520um to 530um which is above ASTM spec. Our custom blended additive reduced the HFRR number to 415um. The ASTM spec for diesel fuel is 520um and the EMA (Engine Manufacturing Association)would like to see a 460um number.(the lower the number the better)

Rwalker I give you a tidbit more... The Bosch fuel systems are a bit more touchy than EMA want to believe... Actually Bosch suggest <400 HFRR for fuel not the common <460 HFRR the EMA suggest... I'm also curious to the test results...

If someone wants to send me a properly mixed sample of two cyle oil and fuel or give me the proper mix ratio, I will run an HFRR lubricity test to share the results.

Now that would definitely be an interesting test to see results on. I think most folks use 2 stroke oil at 128:1 or 1 ounce per gallon if I am not mistaken. Are you going to run HFRR tests on the Amalgamated TDR-S and TDR-WDA diesel fuel additive as well?

Already a step ahead of you. I just reformulated the TDR-S to improve the Lubricity. In my initial test, I lowered the HFRR from 530um to 470um and 296um with two different lubricity percentages.

  rwalker said:

Already a step ahead of you. I just reformulated the TDR-S to improve the Lubricity. In my initial test, I lowered the HFRR from 530um to 470um and 296um with two different lubricity percentages.

I bought a 5 gallon container of both TDR-S and TDR-WDA from you last July in 2009. What is the difference between the newer reformulated and the additive I have now with respect to mixing ratio's? If I mix in a little, will I obtain the reformulated specs. more or less?

I saw that you tested B2. I would like to see what B20 or even B100 runs. Also see what straight kerosene runs at. Thanks for doing all of those test!

  white01 said:

aaa...i don't think that i would use 2 cycle on a common rail.vp's need it..the cp3's don't.i used lucas in my '03 for years..no problems.

Over 4 years now and almost 90,000 miles running the stuff and not one problem in my 04.5.