rwalker

A very possible answer to your fuel problem is that a #1 fuel will only lower the CFPP by 3 degrees per 10% blend, so in a 50% #1 mix you are only lowering the CFPP by 15 to 20 degrees at the most. So if the base CFPP of the fuel is a +10 degrees and you only lowered your CFPP by 15 degrees that means your fuel would only be good to -5 degrees.

Last year in MN where a 5% biodeisel blend is mandated in all diesel fuel, they had bio falling out of 95% #1 fuel.

As a rule for each 10% of #1 fuel you add to diesel fuel you will only lower the cfpp by 2 to 3 degrees. So if you had a fuel that started with a +5 cloud point and added 40 percent #1 you would gain 8 to 12 degrees. The problem with that is your fuel economy will go down and you still need to add additive depending on how cold it gets. You should look for a product in the market that will lower your cfpp by 20 degrees without the need for blending #1 and that has lubricity, an L10 detergency and enough cetane that you actually notice a difference in the way your vehicle runs.

Hello everybody this is Randy from Indiana, sorry it took so long to get these results but our labs busy season had started and i had to slip it in when I could. So i tested a Kendall GT-1 two cylce oil bought from Hires auto parts and compared it to our TDR-S product. The results are as follows: I treated the fuel with one once of two-cycle oil per ten gallons of diesel fuel or 700ppm's per gallon. The base fuel had a HFRR of 520um which is ASTM spec The fuel with the two-cycle oil had HFRR of 470um. The fuel treated with the TDR-S had a HFRR of 425umSo the answer to some of your questions is yes the two-cycle oil does lubricate your engines, but if you were to put any cetane in to the fuel it would negatively affect the lubricity. I am also concerned with newer diesel engines coming on to the market that the tolerances for the new injectors are going to have smaller openings so any added carbon build-up will cause issues. In fact our company was invited to attend a meeting in California from ASTM to discuss injector carbon build-up issues.

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.

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.

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)