Adding 2 stroke oil to fuel - Interesting reading!!

[Diesel_vert]

Sulphur has the property to grease the high pressure injection pump and the injectors. Without sulphur, the reduced greasing property of the new diesel has already shown negativ impacts on the long-term stability of the injectors and the high pressure pump.

SULPHUR AND LUBRICITY
As I understand it, lubricity isn't overly affected by the presence or absence of sulphur - it's the refining process used to remove sulphur which reduces the lubricity of diesel, as I point out using selected quotes from this SAE technical paper (PDF, 825 KB):

... To answer the question whether the inherent lubricity of untreated gas oil was lost by the decrease of sulphur and nitrogen compounds these type of compounds were added back into fuel

The addition of the three compounds to ULSD 1 shows no significant effect on the improvement of the base fuel lubricity

As can be concluded from these experiments, sulphur compounds in untreated diesel fuel are not providing lubricity protection...

Concerned by this, the FIE (Fuel Injection Equipment) Manufacturers have released a joint statement on this issue (PDF, 666 KB):

... It is essential that the lubricity of the fuel as measured by the HFRR test specified in ISO 12156-1 meets the requirement of a wear scar diameter not greater than 460 microns...

... the useful operating lifetime of any mechanical component will be adversely affected by fuel with a lubricity exceeding 460 microns.

FUEL QUALITY
So does the current diesel fuel meet this requirement? If you fill up in Europe or Australia, then yes.

Since 1999 the European Standard for diesel, EN 590:1999 (which has since been superceded by EN 590:2004 and EN 590:2009), has stipulated a maximum wear limit of 0.460 mm (460 microns) which, according to the FIE Manufacturers' statement, satisfies their requirements. Australia adopted the same requirement from 16 October 2002, as shown in the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000.

However, in the U.S. the current fuel standard for diesel (ASTM D975) allows a maximum wear limit of 0.520 mm (520 microns) which is some 13% higher than European and Australian standards. It also allows a minimum cetane index of 40, compared to 46 for Europe and Australia. This is partly why Americans are so concerned about fuel quality (sucks to be them, eh?) which is why they have people doing studies like comparing 19 additives (original thread). Type "spicer additive test" in Google to see further discussions on TDIClub and BITOG forums, etc.

(According to that study, it appears to be possible to reduce the lubricity of fuel from using certain additives, though they say "the cause for this is speculative".)



BIODIESEL
Another commonly known and effective way of increasing lubricity is to add biodiesel. Even at just 2%, biodiesel shows great reduction in wear (ranked 1st in the study, see above). Similarly, ULSD with 5% biodiesel shows the least wear compared to untreated fuels in the SAE technical paper. And as part of the EU Biofuels Directive, EN 590:2004 has permitted up to 5% biodiesel, and up to a futher 7% in EN 590:2009, with the blessing of the FIE manufacturers:

... The European diesel fuel standard EN 590:2009 includes diesel blends with up to 7 % FAME (B7). The agreed position of all FIE manufacturers undersigned is to limit release of injection equipment for admixtures up to a maximum of 7 % FAME (meeting EN 14214:2009) with the resulting blend meeting the EN 590:2009 standard.

Since 1 March 2009, Australian diesel also permits up to 5% biodiesel.



CONCLUSION
Now, since European and Australian diesel fuel must comply with regulation (either by using biodiesel, additives, or whatever it takes to get it under 460 microns), and the FIE manufacturers have reached a consensus of that being a satisfactory limit, there really shoudn't be any concern on this matter. That's not to say older equipment will be completely trouble free (I think seal compatibility might still be a concern), but modern equipment designed for 10 ppm sulphur diesel shouldn't be failing due to excessive wear from inadequate fuel lubricity.

(Keep in mind the differences in fuel standards as previously noted when reading up on lubricity, especially from American forums).

That's my take on the issue of lubricity. Precisely what other effects arise from adding 2-stroke oil to the fuel tank of a Euro 4 or Euro 5 diesel engine, I don't know (or can't be bothered to find out ). Those with particulate filters, I'd urge some degree of caution before proceeding. Many vehicle manufacturers have mandated the complusory use of the latest generation of lubricant technology (i.e. low-SAPS oils), such is the effect of traditional oils and its additives have, not just on the filter's service life, but on EGR valves as well.

[WEDEL.1]

I hope that the owners of the TDI with the DPF who read this thread will not do this experiment, because they will reduce the life of their DPF and for sure void the warranty (engine and fuel system).

YF original post;

In other words, the 2-stroke oil has a much lower ash-content as diesel, when burned. This proven fact delays the DPF (diesel particulate (soot) filter) to clogg, and the "burn free" process of the DPF will be much less.

So, why do you discount this? I'm not trying to cause an argument, but you are saying no without a reason.

I would think that if a warranty was refused, they (VW) would have to prove that this traement was the cause of a problem. If they cannot prove this, they must accept your claim.

How can you tell if your VW has a DPF? I don't know if my 2008 1.9 TDI has one or not. I have never seen a picture of one so I don't know if the Golf has one or not.The manual with the car is as helpfull as SA Police. The only this I saw was someone wrote;

If you can see exhaust smoke, you don't have DPF. On that basis, I don't have one.

Maris

[Transporter]

YF original post;

In other words, the 2-stroke oil has a much lower ash-content as diesel, when burned. This proven fact delays the DPF (diesel particulate (soot) filter) to clogg, and the "burn free" process of the DPF will be much less.

So, why do you discount this? I'm not trying to cause an argument, but you are saying no without a reason.

I would think that if a warranty was refused, they (VW) would have to prove that this traement was the cause of a problem. If they cannot prove this, they must accept your claim.

How can you tell if your VW has a DPF? I don't know if my 2008 1.9 TDI has one or not. I have never seen a picture of one so I don't know if the Golf has one or not.The manual with the car is as helpfull as SA Police. The only this I saw was someone wrote;

If you can see exhaust smoke, you don't have DPF. On that basis, I don't have one.

Maris

As Diesel_vert said in the quote bellow

That's my take on the issue of lubricity. Precisely what other effects arise from adding 2-stroke oil to the fuel tank of a Euro 4 or Euro 5 diesel engine, I don't know (or can't be bothered to find out ). Those with particulate filters, I'd urge some degree of caution before proceeding. Many vehicle manufacturers have mandated the complusory use of the latest generation of lubricant technology (i.e. low-SAPS oils), such is the effect of traditional oils and its additives have, not just on the filter's service life, but on EGR valves as well.

I can only add to that, those who have the DPF use special engine oil with very low sulphur content, so when the engine burns clean diesel fuel in the cylinder the residue of that very low sulphur engine oil that also burns in the cylinder and goes through the DPF and exhaust system will greatly contribute to the total amount sooth particles trapped in the DPF. When you put 2 stroke engine oil in the fuel your ULS diesel fuel will have more sulphur in it than is allowed, plus you will also burn in the cylinder additives from that 2 stroke oil.

Of course, if you don't have the DPF and EGR in your system, your engine will burn it without fuss, but still I wouldn't put 2 stroke oil in the fuel, it was newer designed as the diesel additive. Just use the diesel additive and you have one less thing to worry about when the things go south. Just imagine that you have a problem with your engine, related to the fuel and you would say to your mechanic or to VW workshop "I used the 2 stroke oil as an additive as I red on the internet". It's just not worth it.

You know that you have the DPF when you have yellow light in the instruments.

[kaanage]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Last edited by benno; 07-08-2009 at 02:04 AM. Reason: leaving the forum due to draconian rules and excessive moderation

I now see that the original source for the thread was the same Freelander link that I found from Signbloke's links but had been removed by the OP. Funny how the same topic has reared it's head after all this time.

I'll be trying it with the PD engine for sure but will hold off (for now) with the CR

WEDEL.1, your 1.9 PD won't have a DPF

[WEDEL.1]

That's right it doesn't. Checked the manual last night to see what the light looks like, then turned the ignition on, the light is not there. Still, I'd use the 2T oil even if I did have a DPF.

With a google search, there are many forums running this story (Briskoda, nissanpatrol, 4X4). I have yet to see anyone have a problem through using 2T.

Maris

[Highlander]

Lubricity

Anyone ever wondered why Caltex buy biodiesel and what they do with it?

[Transporter]

Anyone ever wondered why Caltex buy biodiesel and what they do with it?

It is a bit different when they mix the biodiesel into ULSD. The biodiesel contains zero Sulphur, they can add up to 5% into the diesel before they have to label it. Just 2% of biodiesel will return the original lubricity to the diesel.

[Transporter]

With a google search, there are many forums running this story (Briskoda, nissanpatrol, 4X4). I have yet to see anyone have a problem through using 2T.

Maris

Here is some not so positive comment(s). http://www.daihatsu-drivers.co.uk/no...#comment-23966

[Diesel_vert]

In other words, the 2-stroke oil has a much lower ash-content as diesel, when burned. This proven fact delays the DPF (diesel particulate (soot) filter) to clog, and the "burn free" process of the DPF will be much less.

I don't know whether that's a "proven fact", but for argument's sake let's assume that's true.

Important is, that those 2T-oils should comply with JASO "FC" or ISO L-E "GC" or "GD", which should be written on the bottle. All 2T-oils as per these norms burn with an ash content of less than 0,05%.

Really?


ASH CONTENT
The actual limits for sulphated ash for various JASO specifications (PDF, 272 KB) are as follows:

JASO FB = 0.25%
JASO FC = 0.25%
JASO FD = 0.18%

The European and Australian standard for diesel (see my previous post for links) also specify ash limits:

EN 590:1999 = 0.01%
Australia = 100 ppm (or 0.01%)

Please note that soot is not equal to ash!!! Soot can be burned, ash not.

Indeed.

Now the JASO limits are very high when compared to diesel fuel, but as the OP points out later in the thread, you can indeed find two-stroke lubricants that have less ash content than the maximum allowed values, it's just a matter of referring to the Product Data Sheet and selecting one with the lowest content.

But that is not the end of the story.



LUBRICANT ADDITIVES
Most lubricants contain metal-based additives (which function as anti-wear, anti-oxidants, dispersants, detergents, etc.) and they are mostly added to the base oil by lubricant engineers. Look at any oil analysis for road vehicles and you'll see a whole list of metal additives present in oil, and notice how they stay there throughout the drain interval - it'd be a pretty useless oil otherwise!

The main problem is, like ash, these aren't burnt off during combustion, so they either end up in the catalyst or the DPF, decreasing both their service life. And I believe it isn't something you'd notice straight away, so it would be difficult to judge what sort of impact two-stroke oil will have (or otherwise) within a short time frame.

It's also concerning because, like many lubricants on the market, there are no limits for these additives in the JASO specifications (see page 14). After all, their main function is to protect the engine, not the catalyst or particulate filter.

My recommendation: always do your own research!

With a google search, there are many forums running this story (Briskoda, nissanpatrol, 4X4). I have yet to see anyone have a problem through using 2T.

I wouldn't expect to see much problems either (except for catalyst/DPF issues, and the possiblity of increased EGR valve clogging rates) but then again I'm no engineer.

You should take into account the age and type of diesel engines, whether or not any emissions devices are present, and how long or consistently they've been using it for when reading up people's experiences on forums.

Anyone ever wondered why Caltex buy biodiesel and what they do with it?

Caltex appear to be selling B2, but only on the Central Coast and Northern NSW at the moment, unfortunately. They also sell B5 and B20, but only to commercial customers.

[kaanage]

LUBRICANT ADDITIVES
Most lubricants contain metal-based additives (which function as anti-wear, anti-oxidants, dispersants, detergents, etc.) and they are mostly added to the base oil by lubricant engineers. Look at any oil analysis for road vehicles and you'll see a whole list of metal additives present in oil, and notice how they stay there throughout the drain interval - it'd be a pretty useless oil otherwise!

The main problem is, like ash, these aren't burnt off during combustion, so they either end up in the catalyst or the DPF, decreasing both their service life. And I believe it isn't something you'd notice straight away, so it would be difficult to judge what sort of impact two-stroke oil will have (or otherwise) within a short time frame.

It's also concerning because, like many lubricants on the market, there are no limits for these additives in the JASO specifications (see page 14). After all, their main function is to protect the engine, not the catalyst or particulate filter.

From the Freelander site:

2-stroke oil will increase the OZ-value (Oktan) of diesel oil by 3 to 5 points (OZ=x*OZ("2-T oil) + (1-x)* OZ (diesel fuel)). 2-stroke oil does not contain any Zinc-components, and metal-organic additives are virtually absent. This is the main reason why 2-stroke oil burnes cleaner than diesel oil.

I wouldn't expect to see much problems either (except for catalyst/DPF issues, and the possiblity of increased EGR valve clogging rates) but then again I'm no engineer.

Catalyst? I doubt it since chemicals that will poison a catalytic converter basically metals and carbon, phosporous and sulfur (see Three-Way Catalysts: Aging, Causes of Failure and Deactivation - none of which are used in the non-fully synthetic oils recommended to any significant extent. Here is the abstract of a study done in 1998 on 2-stroke motors and catalytic converters and 2-stroke oils have not gone backwards since then.

DPF? That's the question on everyone's lips and where all the FUD is in this forum.

EGR?? How is that? The amount of 2-stroke oil that will get into the sump oil (via blowby) will be miniscule.

The really odd thing that I find in this thread is how no one comments on the posts in the other forums where people have said that none of the diesel additives that they have tried have had any effect, nor on the study where most diesel additives were found to have very little positive effect on lubricity and some made things worse (and where the single 2-stroke oil tested did reasonably well). Of course it's all hearsay, I guess...

Here is some not so positive comment(s). http://www.daihatsu-drivers.co.uk/no...#comment-23966

There is exactly one person (assassin) posting negative comments in that thread and he/she is just as unhelpful as Yamaha-Fan in providing evidence to corroborate his/her position, plus he/she posted before the recent pictures posted in the Freelander thread. There a couple of others latching on to his/her comments but they aren't making any statements as such.

[Diesel_vert]

2-stroke oil will increase the OZ-value (Oktan) of diesel oil by 3 to 5 points (OZ=x*OZ("2-T oil) + (1-x)* OZ (diesel fuel)). 2-stroke oil does not contain any Zinc-components, and metal-organic additives are virtually absent. This is the main reason why 2-stroke oil burnes cleaner than diesel oil.

Octane? Surely the OP meant to say cetane...

But anyway, how can the OP make such a statement about two stroke oil with any certainty, considering that there are no limits specified in the JASO specifications? I don't know much about two stroke oil - is it common practice for lubricant manufacturers not to add these additives in two stroke oil?

Catalyst? I doubt it since chemicals that will poison a catalytic converter basically metals and carbon, phosporous and sulfur (see Three-Way Catalysts: Aging, Causes of Failure and Deactivation - none of which are used in the non-fully synthetic oils recommended to any significant extent. Here is the abstract of a study done in 1998 on 2-stroke motors and catalytic converters and 2-stroke oils have not gone backwards since then.

At the end of the 20,000 km field test, the catalysts were found not to be chemically poisoned, so that bodes well for two stroke oils. However, also note that Euro 4 regulations state that these emissions devices must last for 5 years/100,000 km, and for Euro 5 vehicles up to 5 years/160,000 km. But then again, who's checking?

My argument (so far) is based on two factors. Firstly, that our diesel meets the 460 micron limit which satisfies the FIE Manufacturers from a lubricity point-of-view, and secondly, that the presence of certain additives can hinder the operation of emissions devices. Now if all two-stroke oils really contain nothing that can damage the catalyst or DPF, then I can't see why you shouldn't use it, but that might be rather difficult to prove - unless you start asking the lubricant manufacturers what the chemical composition of their oils are.

DPF? That's the question on everyone's lips and where all the FUD is in this forum.

I don't think it's FUD, it's more like healthy scepticism, considering the OP tends to make statements while providing little (if any) references, or claiming that they're confidential or not for public viewing.

EGR?? How is that? The amount of 2-stroke oil that will get into the sump oil (via blowby) will be miniscule.

According to Lubrizol, the use of high SAPS oils can lead to increased blockage of the EGR valve (see link within link). It may be possible that two stroke oil would have a similar impact, but then again, if it's as clean as they say it is, maybe not.

The really odd thing that I find in this thread is how no one comments on the posts in the other forums where people have said that none of the diesel additives that they have tried have had any effect, nor on the study where most diesel additives were found to have very little positive effect on lubricity and some made things worse (and where the single 2-stroke oil tested did reasonably well). Of course it's all hearsay, I guess...

Are you referring to Spicer's additive test? I made a brief comment on page 5, and provided a link to the original thread.

Two stroke oil came in 7th with a result of 474 microns, a 162 micron improvement, though it still wasn't enough to get their (U.S.) fuel down to European/Australian standards.

Hopefully, soon we won't have to use any additives, as the NSW government continues to push its Biofuel Mandate (see link).

[Greg Roles]

MKV GT TDI or 125TDI Passat are the only VW diesels with the SiC DPF. ALL MK6 Diesels have a DPF now. I can't comment on Skoda, but as they were CR in 2008 I would guess they come DPF equipped from then too. As the DPF is deemed disposable, and is "supposed" to last 150k, at the $4300 odd VW want for one, I'd be very very hesitant to go experimenting with backyard additives.

I would only think about it if I had a MK6, as it seems the chance of HPFP ( high pressure fuel pump ) failure is greater than DPF blockage, and some extra lube couldn't hurt, although what I am reading on TDI club is starting so say even more lubricity in fuels won't stop the problem. That said, it may be a US model only thing, but BMW are having heaps of problem with their HPFP too, so it's a common theme sadly.

I see no upside reason to run it in a 125kw DPF equipped MKV.

103 kw or 1.9 MKV - go nuts!

[kaanage]

Octane? Surely the OP meant to say cetane...

Dunno. Does it matter in the context of this thread?

But as for the universal recommendation of increased cetane rating in this forum, there are other forums where they state that cetane ratings higher than required cause increased engine wear (due to more rapid pressure build up) so are additives that boost cetane really good for our cars? Maybe our ECUs are good enough to retard the injection timing in this case so this is not an issue - can anyone comment?

But anyway, how can the OP make such a statement about two stroke oil with any certainty, considering that there are no limits specified in the JASO specifications? I don't know much about two stroke oil - is it common practice for lubricant manufacturers not to add these additives in two stroke oil?

Those additives aren't needed in 2 stroke oils since the oil doesn't need to resist mechanical breakdown over prolonged use so why should they add something that is of no benefit?

At the end of the 20,000 km field test, the catalysts were found not to be chemically poisoned, so that bodes well for two stroke oils. However, also note that Euro 4 regulations state that these emissions devices must last for 5 years/100,000 km, and for Euro 5 vehicles up to 5 years/160,000 km. But then again, who's checking?

Since 2 strokes run at far higher concentrations of oil that the 200:1 discussed here and given that petrol on its own burns cleaner than diesel on it's own, this study would extrapolate well. We seem to accept a lot of other things that might poison or cloak cats without thinking about it (eg ECU tunes that radically increase fuelling, hence depositing more soot into the cat).

My argument (so far) is based on two factors. Firstly, that our diesel meets the 460 micron limit which satisfies the FIE Manufacturers from a lubricity point-of-view

I think just about everyone here is concerned that this is very much a minimum requirement specification. Otherwise, why do almost all diesel fuel additives shout out about increased lubrication as one of the benefits. Sure, if you lease a car for 3 years and return it, then you wouldn't care but many of us intend to keep out cars longer than that and may have bought a diesel with that in mind - I know I did.

, and secondly, that the presence of certain additives can hinder the operation of emissions devices. Now if all two-stroke oils really contain nothing that can damage the catalyst or DPF, then I can't see why you shouldn't use it, but that might be rather difficult to prove - unless you start asking the lubricant manufacturers what the chemical composition of their oils are.

I could level the same doubt towards diesel fuel additives. How many of them explicitly state that they will not clog DPFs? Some do, some don't.

I don't think it's FUD, it's more like healthy scepticism, considering the OP tends to make statements while providing little (if any) references, or claiming that they're confidential or not for public viewing.

The DPF debate is a reasonable one. But to bring in doubts about catalytic converters and EGRs is FUD

According to Lubrizol, the use of high SAPS oils can lead to increased blockage of the EGR valve (see link within link). It may be possible that two stroke oil would have a similar impact, but then again, if it's as clean as they say it is, maybe not.

It has already been stated that 2 stroke oils are low SAPS so why bring this in again? If 2 stroke oils were high SAPS, then there would be no question at all about them being unsuitable for DPFs as they would definitely clog them in short order (and poison catalytic converters).

Are you referring to Spicer's additive test? I made a brief comment on page 5, and provided a link to the original thread.

Two stroke oil came in 7th with a result of 474 microns, a 162 micron improvement, though it still wasn't enough to get their (U.S.) fuel down to European/Australian standards.

My apologies - so you did. But you didn't comment on the poorer performance of many diesel fuel additives (which was my observation).
And to say that 2 stroke oil came 7th is a pretty selective statement - from 3rd to 9th, the difference was 49 ( 197 - 148 ) microns with 10th being WAY lower (61 microns) and 19 additives in total being tested so in that light, the 2 stroke oil did pretty well.
Plus the fuel tested had an HFRR score of 636 microns while US requires 520 microns (to our 460 microns). So the 2 stroke oil would have gotten US Spec fuel down to European/Australian standards.

[kaanage]

I would only think about it if I had a MK6, as it seems the chance of HPFP ( high pressure fuel pump ) failure is greater than DPF blockage, and some extra lube couldn't hurt, although what I am reading on TDI club is starting so say even more lubricity in fuels won't stop the problem. That said, it may be a US model only thing, but BMW are having heaps of problem with their HPFP too, so it's a common theme sadly.

Yes, the basic design seems to be the problem and no amount of lubrication would save the pump if the piston rotated.
But I'm still very interested in how the pictures that DiscoGeorge has promised in the Freelander thread for demonstrating "a visible reduction in the wear and tear on shaft seals on the CRD high pressure pumps" with 2 stroke oil.

I see no upside reason to run it in a 125kw DPF equipped MKV.

Not even for the injectors?

[Greg Roles]

Nope. The current belief on failure mode is the insulation around the pizeo actuator / wires in the loom break down under oil/heat and earth out, causing injector and thus engine shutdown. Has nothing to do with the injector part per say, and is not anywhere near fuel. Needs beefed up insulation for the wire sin the loom, and revised insulation in the pizeo module, but no-one is sure outside Siemens themsleves I'd say.