Adding 2-Stroke oil to Diesel

[KraftyPg]

Even though there is still many differing factors what I'd really like to see is someone do such a trip (like the Nullarbor) one way with oil added and the other way without and see just how much difference there is. I'm not overly interested in noise reductions or the like but short of doing the exact same trip twice and somehow managing to drive exactly the same way each time doing each way differently would give some what of a base line for the economy side of things atleast.

It's even relatively pointless trying to compare my economy over the same distance to that of FISHALOT (who is adding oil) because of the different tyres and the 2 inch lift which mine doesn't have. But none the less I'll still be interested in seeing some figures.

Also FISHALOT in case you haven't read my thread about crossing the Nullarbor a few months ago or don't already know. Avoid Mundrabilla for fuel as it's BIO and if you desperately need fuel at Eucla make sure you use the pump nozzle closest to the shop, or just travel 12 ks to Border Village, the price might be slightly higher but at least their pumps don't lie.

 

[Krankin]

I beg to differ, if i may without upsetting the pro oil users.

Some may have experience in the automotive area's to have a differing prospective than just backyard experiments.

If this forum is to be 'Educational' / Factual,
we have to be prepared to hear all sides, not just one side,
and to be able to back up statements made.

Afterall, this is not a dictatorship here is it.

 

[KraftyPg]

Afterall, this is not a dictatorship here is it.

If a dictatorship is ruled by a dictator and a kingdom is ruled by a king are we anything more than a country?

Or is that too far off topic?

 

[Dion]

Afterall, this is not a dictatorship here is it.

What Dylan says goes though? All hail Dylan!

 

[Krankin]

Hehehe..




This show is DEEP!

 

[FISHOLOT]

Thanks KraftyPg, once I top up at Balladonia my next fuel stop is Ceduna, I bypass everything in between. I will give some thought to coming back without adding 2 stroke to see what the result is, just some thought at this stage.

Cheers John

 

[Matt76]

Edit - its not worth arguing about.

 

[KraftyPg]

Thanks KraftyPg, once I top up at Balladonia my next fuel stop is Ceduna, I bypass everything in between. I will give some thought to coming back without adding 2 stroke to see what the result is, just some thought at this stage.

Cheers John

All things start with a thought, it's how they end that can make the difference. I tried quite a few different methods on my trip and there was something like a difference of 0.3LPH between west and east trips so I wouldn't expect you to see a huge difference no matter what you do, what doing a trip like that will do though is give you a huge distance to make a difference, 0.3lph doesn't really produce ground breaking figures over 100 ks but over 3000ks the same 0.3 will produce something substantial. That's my theory anyway, no point doing such tests for short periods once or twice they need to be given a chance.

For me it's Fill up at Norseman (cheaper than all Nullarbor stations), 20 litres at Caiguna (because they are usually cheaper and more polite than Balladonia and Cocklebiddy) and fill up at Border Village (cause Eucla sucks), then fill at Ceduna.

If you really want to test oil in your fuel stop at Mundrabilla they add oil to their fuel, it's more of a worry as to what sort of oil they add to the BIO rather than just the idea of adding it though.

 

[ants_oz]

Considering the prevailing wind direction is west to east in Australia, it is my considered opinion that the experiment being proposed, for the point of establishing some possible economy benefit of adding two stroke oil to diesel fuel is rather pointless...

People can claim all the benefits they want. It's a free world. Heck, they can claim they are reducing their carbon footprint and saving whales for all I care. But the original purpose for adding two stroke oil to diesel fuel was simple - reduction in sulphur content (low sulphur diesel) was allegedly having a negative affect on some older model diesel engines (specifically the fuel injection components). Seeing as though the sulphur was one of the lubricant components of the diesel fuel, someone decided to add two stroke oil as a lubricant. And here we are today.

The only way to prove power is on a dyno. One of the only ways to prove fuel economy is on a rolling road dyno (taking things like wind resistance - and importantly, prevailing wind direction on a journey of several thousand km's) out of the equation.

Do yourselves a favour fella's - stop worrying about all the BS like supposed power increases and supposed fuel economy benefits.

 

[Krankin]

Considering the prevailing wind direction is west to east in Australia, it is my considered opinion that the experiment being proposed, for the point of establishing some possible economy benefit of adding two stroke oil to diesel fuel is rather pointless...

People can claim all the benefits they want. It's a free world. Heck, they can claim they are reducing their carbon footprint and saving whales for all I care. But the original purpose for adding two stroke oil to diesel fuel was simple - reduction in sulphur content (low sulphur diesel) was allegedly having a negative affect on some older model diesel engines (specifically the fuel injection components). Seeing as though the sulphur was one of the lubricant components of the diesel fuel, someone decided to add two stroke oil as a lubricant. And here we are today.

The only way to prove power is on a dyno. One of the only ways to prove fuel economy is on a rolling road dyno (taking things like wind resistance - and importantly, prevailing wind direction on a journey of several thousand km's) out of the equation.

Do yourselves a favour fella's - stop worrying about all the BS like supposed power increases and supposed fuel economy benefits.

Geezuz,

the Establisment wont stand for this.
Lets see if you get told to tone it down.






and might i add,

Why was the Sulphur content reduced in fuel?

 

[Dave]

Can we cut the bullshit in this thread that is hear say ?

Dave.

 

[ants_oz]

From what I understand, sulphur was reduced in diesel for a similar reason lead was removed from petrol - emissions reductions. I don't claim to understand the chemistry involved - it would take people educated in vastly different fields - however the tailpipe chemistry that resulted from the removal of a fair whack of sulphur, introduction of catalysers etc - I believe that diesel tailpipe emissions went down substantially. My (limited) understanding is that adding two stroke oil does not negatively impact the tailpipe emissions. I did some research on that subject before starting to add the oil as I didn't want to be too much of an environmental ogre... Just wanted to (hopefully) do something kind by my engine.

 

[Krankin]

My (limited) understanding is that adding two stroke oil does not negatively impact the tailpipe emissions. .

That could be confirmed only via a exhaust test,
such as an EPA test facility/lab.

Would engine oil burnt in the chamber as a result of defective oil control rings, worn valve guides etc,
alter the emissions composition at the tailpipe?
I think you'll find it would.

So, by adding extra oil to the fuel, would not this have a similar outcome?

Also as users of Victa oil additive, are all using the same oil?,
some using normal sulphur content, some using low sulphur content,
nevertheless ADDING MORE SULPHUR to the engine,
which brings me to the point of, by Gov/EPA laws it illegal.

 

[KraftyPg]

Considering the prevailing wind direction is west to east in Australia, it is my considered opinion that the experiment being proposed, for the point of establishing some possible economy benefit of adding two stroke oil to diesel fuel is rather pointless...

People can claim all the benefits they want. It's a free world. Heck, they can claim they are reducing their carbon footprint and saving whales for all I care. But the original purpose for adding two stroke oil to diesel fuel was simple - reduction in sulphur content (low sulphur diesel) was allegedly having a negative affect on some older model diesel engines (specifically the fuel injection components). Seeing as though the sulphur was one of the lubricant components of the diesel fuel, someone decided to add two stroke oil as a lubricant. And here we are today.

The only way to prove power is on a dyno. One of the only ways to prove fuel economy is on a rolling road dyno (taking things like wind resistance - and importantly, prevailing wind direction on a journey of several thousand km's) out of the equation.

Do yourselves a favour fella's - stop worrying about all the BS like supposed power increases and supposed fuel economy benefits.

I believe it was suggested early on in this thread that getting a dyno was about the only way any benefit could be proven or disproven but as yet no one has had the ability or the tools to provide such details (on this or any other forum) and even if they do it someone will still be able to dispute something, thats what makes this a discussion that may never be fully proven rather than a purely factual document.

I don't consider any of the claims here to be complete BS whether they are claims of power increases, lube increases or economy but lets face it all those claims have been made at one point or another so why should power and economy figures be passed off immediately as BS, alteast economy figures are something the average Joe can test for themselves.

I agree that even doing the same trip twice will always produce different figures no matter what additives are used or not used but at least doing such a test over long distances is something of a base line that can be achieved while ideal figures aren't available so to say such a test is pointless is just not true. For some of us such a test might be all the convincing needed, after all some people have made their mind up with just words on a web page so if someone's happy to do such a test and post the figures I'm more than happy to consider them, damn had I been more convinced of the idea before my last trip I'd have done it myself and posted the figures here to be nit picked but right now my trips just aren't long enough to get decent figures.

I myself aren't overly interested in the noise reductions or power increases because I'm satisfied with those aspects of my Nav but I'm always happy to consider fuel saving options if they are proven, as well as any average Joe can do it, and in the absence of some dyno figures. So please fellow Nav drivers bring on the average Joe figures and when I win lotto* I'll buy you all a dyno and you can all do real testing until your heart is content.






*disclaimer, since I don't gamble chances of actually winning lotto are slim so don't anyone get their dyno hopes up.

 

[Krankin]

As much as my beliefs on the matter,
(have no interest whatsoever in the mileage, perf part of the discussion)

FACTUAL researched

findings on engine longevity whilist using such additives MAY change my mind.

 

[Jason]

Lubricity Additive Study Results - Diesel Place

Lubricity Additive Study Discussion - Diesel Place

 

[ants_oz]

My overly simplistic thoughts on noise reduction were not in regard to improving the level of "civility" of the vehicle, for want of a better description - merely as a possible indication of reduced mechanical clatter in the injection system. Reduction in clatter, possible reduction in mechanical wear. Very simple. But then I'm an old school mechanic too and I have some old school ideas - many of those ideas proven though generations of mechanics before me, and of which I don't claim to be the originator - just an exponent of what I understand to be known (and reliable) lore. "Mechanical common sense" if you like. That is the kind of logic I am applying.

Fuel economy improvements....power improvements.....reduced noise.....only my opinion of course, but if those are the reasons someone is adding two stroke oil to their diesel fuel then perhaps their may be better ways of achieving better results. Improving the longevity of various components of the injection system....that's what I'm targeting, and from what I understand - was the sole - the single - the one and only reason for the original trials of adding two stroke oil to diesel fuel back a few years ago now.

 

[ants_oz]

That could be confirmed only via a exhaust test,
such as an EPA test facility/lab.

Would engine oil burnt in the chamber as a result of defective oil control rings, worn valve guides etc,
alter the emissions composition at the tailpipe?
I think you'll find it would.

So, by adding extra oil to the fuel, would not this have a similar outcome?

Also as users of Victa oil additive, are all using the same oil?,
some using normal sulphur content, some using low sulphur content,
nevertheless ADDING MORE SULPHUR to the engine,
which brings me to the point of, by Gov/EPA laws it illegal.

We don't have an "EPA" in Australia so I'm not sure which Govt Agency you are referring to.

Engine lubricating oils are not designed for combustion - combustion oils are. There are quite a number of technical differences, but you would need to be a MUCH smarter man than me to understand, let alone explain the differences. If two stroke oils could not "burn" cleanly, then two stroke engines such as the Evinrude ETEC and Mercury OPTIMAX would not have US CARB approval for sale and use in some of the markets they do. There is some research out there showing them (two strokes - burning oil) to have cleaner tailpipe emissions than four stroke outboards... But back to the point...

Oils are not oils. I can't speak for what anyone else is burning - nor do I claim to. Never have, never will.

I'm interested in your claim though, that "by Gov/EPA laws it illegal".

This kind of thing is legislated at a federal level - you'll have to take my word for that. But as already stated, Australia doesn't have an Agency called the "EPA" - so which agency is it you are referring to, and please - point me to the relevant legislation, policy or statement which backs up your claim (relevant to Australia please).

 

[KraftyPg]

I'm interested in your claim though, that "by Gov/EPA laws it illegal".

I think he meant to ask "Is it Legal?" But I say no more

 

[Krankin]

Lubricity Additive Study Results - Diesel Place

Lubricity Additive Study Discussion - Diesel Place

Interesting read Jason.

Though the research is only in regards to fuel additives for the purpose of

adding extra lubricity to the ULSD's of today for the sole purpose of lubing

the fuel delivery components, and that some are proven lubricity improvers.


While it gives me some good stats on fuel additives, some with extra's like

cetane improvers and emulsifiers,

(which brings about the other debate re: water in the fuel)

youll notice that three in particular are 'oils' and it is shown these to have

adverse affects on 2007 onwards vehicles,


moreover, none of the tested 'improvers' are infact 'Victa oils' as we are

testing amongst ourselves,

so I find this research irelevent for the actual effects on the engine itself

{disregarding pumps etc},

although the piece is informative.

Now, while I will agree totally that by adding oil to our fuel, it will be

positive to lubing the fuel delivery system adequetly, as with adding oil to

anything mechanical that 'squeeks',

I cannot advocate the addition of a foreign source of oil to the combustion process.

Again as i have mentioned early on in this thread, through experiences

mine and by elders and first hand I've seen the results of too much oil in

the chamber and will not at this time use it.


Probably I would be more prone to use some of the additives mentioned in

the article for the purpose of extra fuel delivery system longevity as most

are not using 'oils', but mineral/chemical compounds to gain lubricity

without having the burden of oil polluting the combustion process afterwards,

if infact our own diesel fuels here are proven to be 'Dry'.