All posts by FTE

Using Fuel Additives at Higher Dosages – Overdosing

March 13, 2015 FTE 14 Comments

I am regularly asked whether fuel additives can be added at a higher dose or added to less fuel to make a more potent concentrate and whether this is more beneficial.

The answer in most cases is no. This is because detergents, cetane improvers, dispersants, lubricants, etc., are designed to work with a specific amount of fuel. This ensures that any deposits are removed and dispersed in a controlled manner and aren’t purged through the system too quickly. It also reduces the risk of overloading the fuel with too much cetane improver or other functions that risk negating the benefits they set out to achieve.

For example, amine and Polyetheramine-based fuel cleaners work much better when used with the correct amount of fuel and gradually allow the chemistry to remove deposits in a controlled way. If you add a cleaner designed for sixty litres of fuel to ten litres of fuel, you run the risk of removing deposits too quickly and lose the benefit of the extended duration that sixty litres will provide.

Another reason for this is that fuel cleaners are designed to work with fuel flow where the actual act of removing deposits requires the fuel to be in motion. Deposits are removed layer by layer as the fuel moves through the system. The stronger the concentrate – and the less fuel that is treated – the lesser the amount of total motion that occurs. Amines dissolve and disperse deposits and prevent them from accumulating in the fuel system.

Therefore, do not be tempted to treat with a much higher concentration except when professionally instructed to do so and when, for example, a heavily-contaminated fuel injector requires urgent attention. In this instance, some cleaners can be safely added directly to the fuel rail or fuel filter. However, this procedure should be carried out by a professional and is not relevant to in-the-tank fuel cleaners.

Another question we are regularly asked is why some additives require a large amount of product, whereas others require such a small amount.

Higher-strength cleaners contain more chemistry and are designed to deliver the maximum amount of cleaning power and functions in a single bottle. Treat rates typically vary from 100:1 to 200:1. Regular use fuel conditioners are designed to deliver a modest amount of cleaning power and functions and are safe for continuous use. Treat rates vary from 500:1 to 10,000:1

Also, note that different chemistries work in different ways. High-strength cleaners, in particular, generally require a much larger volume of chemistry, pibsa, amine, polyetheramine, etc. Such cleaning power requires volume.

With a regular use 1,000:1 fuel conditioner, noticeable improvements might take a few tanks, whereas a higher strength single-tank cleaner will work within a single tank of fuel. The challenge is to deliver as many benefits as possible with the smallest amount of product.

Engine Oils

Garages & Repair Centers Using Cheap Oil

March 13, 2015 FTE 3 Comments

There is a “cheap oil” endemic, and I am concerned for the consumer.

As suppliers of various lubricants, one of our tasks is to demonstrate to automatic transmission and gearbox rebuild specialists the benefits of using OE (original equipment) oils or at least lubricants that meet the required manufacturer’s specifications. This is much more difficult than you might think.

I am concerned about the percentage of repair shops that choose to use low-quality, or in many cases, the cheapest oils available. A customer can easily spend £1500, £3000, or even £5000+ on more complex automatic gearbox overhauls, and yet, the garage performing the work will use oil that costs them around £1.50 to £2.00 per liter. And their response when they are asked why they choose such cheap oil? Their answer is generally this: “As long as it lasts the twelve-month warranty period, it is fine.”

This raises an interesting concern, not just in the transmission rebuilding market but also with engine oil changes. I believe that as a consumer, you are perfectly within your rights to question and challenge the oil being installed in your vehicle, whether it’s the transmission fluid, engine oil, or any other fluid.

In virtually all cases, franchised dealers will use OE oils. That’s what your money is paying for and how they justify their excessive prices. While not always the best value or the highest quality, at least you receive an accepted and approved level of quality.

Our greatest concern is with some independent garages and repair centers. Too many garages still insist on “cheapest” and, in some cases oils that simply do not meet the specifications for your vehicle. For example, they use mid or high SAPS (sulfated ash, phosphorus, sulfur, etc.) oil with engines that are only designed to run on low SAPS oils. This is concerning because of the potential harm to the emission control components, such as the DPFs (Diesel Particulate Filter) and so on. There have even been instances of an oil distributor selling recycled oil to their dealers, only for the dealers to discover that the engines were starting to burn and consume more oil! The base stock and additive pack were not good enough, and the oil deteriorated very quickly to the degree that the oil bypassed the piston rings and the engines began to consume it.

If you are paying for a service, repair work, or a complete overhaul of the transmission or engine in your vehicle, you are quite in your right to enquire about the fluids being used and request high-quality ones. When paying substantial money for a repair, it makes sense to use OE quality as an absolute minimum. If your vehicle is modified and the engine produces more horsepower, then it is advisable to use oils that exceed the manufacturer’s specifications or at least change them more regularly.

Carbon Cleaning

Fuel & Carbon Cleaners – What Happens to the Carbon?

March 10, 2015 FTE 7 Comments

Frequently we are asked about fuel-based carbon cleaners. Specifically, what happens to carbon deposits that are removed through the use of fuel cleaners, and can these cleaners damage an engine?

Let’s begin by discussing the first part of that question.

Within the fuel system, you’ll seldom find carbon itself. You will likely discover sludge, gum, varnish, debris, and similar deposits. The fuel filter captures the larger deposits. These and other deposits that have found their way through the fuel system usually are dissolved and dispersed in a controlled and manageable way using dispersal-based detergents. That’s why it is important to use additives at the recommended dosage so that deposit removal is completed in a controlled manner. High-strength fuel system cleaners that carry out this process typically contain a lubricant to ensure the entire system is lubricated during the cleaning procedure. This too, minimizes the risk of any issues.

Most actual carbon formation occurs in the combustion chamber and post-combustion areas. This includes the turbo’s hot side, intake, inlet valves, EGR, catalytic convertor, DPF, and the remainder of the exhaust tract. The reason why carbon remains is that there is insufficient heat to burn it off. Chemically, a liquid hydrocarbon fuel – such as gasoline or diesel – is very similar to the solidified fuel (carbon) it creates. The difference is that a higher temperature must be reached to ignite and burn solid carbons because the flash point has changed.

High-quality fuel detergents, combined with fuel catalyst technology, reduce the threshold temperature at which the carbons can burn, enabling natural engine processes and inherent heat to gradually “burn off” the deposits. This is undoubtedly the case for combustion chamber deposits.

Sometimes there also is a degree of active cleaning from any cleaning chemistry that can survive the combustion process and thus is still active post combustion. However, as described above, most carbon is removed by reducing the temperature at which it can burn.

It is important to note that there also is a natural cleaning mechanism. When the combustion process is of sufficient quality – generally through an efficient fuel system (no injector deposits), good fuel quality (more often than not, only achieved with fuel conditioners), and an engine that is up to full operating temperature – engines are designed to self-manage carbon build-up. The clean(ish) gases will naturally remove carbons to maintain a respectable level.

The issue arises when this equilibrium is broken, and more carbons are deposited than can be naturally removed. This could be due to a flawed engine design, poor fuel quality, fuel system deposits, driving style, failure to let the engine reach the proper temperature, etc., or a combination of these.

This is why catalyst technology is so vital in carbon cleaning and for keeping a system clean. When a catalyst is added to the fuel, it improves the combustion quality to such a degree that it reduces the amount of hydrocarbons created, particularly when the engine is cold. These cleaner gases then work together with the active work the catalyst is doing to reduce the temperature at which these deposits can burn and be removed.

Essentially, a high-end fuel cleaner and carbon remover provide an environment where the combustion quality is much better, and the exhaust gasses are much cleaner. The cleaner exhaust gasses will naturally scavenge and remove carbons from the combustion and the post-combustion areas. The caveat is that this process requires heat. The catalyst will reduce the temperature at which the carbons can be removed and burned off, but it also needs heat.

This is why it is tough for such chemistries to clean the EGR system. The problem is that an EGR and intake are designed to cool recirculating exhaust gasses. Doing so reduces the efficacy of any post-combustion cleaner or chemistry. Unfortunately, this also applies to the rear of the intake valves of direct poor injection engines. Those two areas are challenging to clean because the gasses going through are cooled.

Also, it is difficult to remove existing deposits in these areas. However, by using a high-quality conditioner with the fuel catalyst in both diesel and petrol applications, you’ll at least give the engine and emission control components a much easier life. This is because the engine and emissions systems will have fewer carbons to manage. This results in fewer deposits and hopefully removes the need to use high-strength cleaners or invasive measures to remove carbons manually.

What about the safety of cleaners and the risk of the fuel system or engine damage?

Providing products are used as per the instructions, the risk of any damage is incredibly low. The few rare cases of alleged damage we have witnessed weren’t caused by a product. The product just revealed or exacerbated an underlying mechanical issue with the fuel system. Still, this is incredibly rare.

Furthermore, manufacturers err on the side of caution, so even if a product is used aggressively or improperly, it is still likely to be safe to use up until a certain point.

To summarise, fuel system deposits are generally dissolved, dispersed, and combusted naturally. Carbon is usually combusted through heat and an added fuel-borne catalyst. These processes are proven safe when used correctly and responsibly.

Fleet & Commercial Solutions, Fuel Addtives, Fuel Saving

MPG – Negative vs Positive Gain ™

February 12, 2015 FTE 4 Comments

When examining the field of products, services, and techniques that promise to increase MPG, you find a confusing minefield, at best. There are chronic skeptics on one side, loyal devotees on the other, and indifferent observers in between. Unfortunately, this has come from a long history of ignorance and misleading advertising. The dilemma for most is “who is right and wrong?”

Two other main questions also might come to mind:

1. How do you know if the advertised MPG increase will be achieved?

2. Why are there such inconsistencies regarding product results, ranging from spectacular to absolute zero? Why such a significant variance?

When we service fleets, we combine our knowledge and experience to simplify the process for operators. Firstly, let us explain the type of gains available and the results you can expect to achieve. To best explain this, we would like to introduce you to the concept of Negative versus Positive MPG gain.

Negative Gain is the process of restoring engine economy and efficiency back to factory levels, or more accurately, how it was when it left the manufacturer, except with an engine that is now run-in. These are not the factory-published figures regarding performance, but moreover, the actual performance that is possible from an engine that is run-in, deposit-free, and operating at full efficiency in real-life conditions. This is engine efficiency restoration.

Positive Gain is the process of improving the standard MPG or performance of an engine that is deposit-free and running efficiently on standard pump fuel and lubricants, as recommended by the manufacturer. This is engine efficiency enhancement.

Virtually all fuel and engine additives suppliers claiming 10%, 15%, or 20%-plus improvements in MPG rely heavily on the Negative Gain factor. The increased economy claims are based on the assumption that the fuel system has accumulated deposits and that the engine is experiencing a reduction in fuel economy and performance as a result.

This is very important. The reason for such inconsistency is that there are many variables in play. One vehicle may have a considerable reduction in fuel economy or performance (due to fuel system or engine deposits), while another has virtually none. Also, different engine designs respond to deposits in varying ways. It is really that simple. The majority of gain you tend to see, however great or small, is negative gain or performance and efficiency restoration. Unfortunately, negative gain or efficiency restoration potential is challenging to predict.

This part of fuel and oil additive marketing is particularly troubling, as it can lead to unrealistic customer expectations. We believe it is misleading to make claims about MPG increases on the assumption that the fuel system and/or engine have accumulated substantial deposits. Of course, such claims are always caveated with increases “up to” a certain amount.

So, how does the negative and positive gain theory work?

Negative Gain (Economy & Performance Restoration)

Assuming that an engine’s mechanical condition is good and that all its electrical components and respective sensors are operating correctly, there are three ways to restore lost MPG.

1. Fuel system cleaning. This involves using a professional cleaner to remove any benign or debilitating deposits from the fuel system. It also includes any remedial work to remove biological or non-biological contamination within the fuel or fuel system. This restores the correct fuel flow and atomization of fuel into the combustion chamber.

2. Carbon Removal. This is the process of using professional cleaners and combustion modification technology to remove carbon build-up from the combustion and post-combustion areas of the engine. These include emission control components like the exhaust gas recirculation system (EGR), diesel particulate filter (DPF), etc.

3. Compression restoration. This is the process of restoring any lost engine compression by using a professional engine oil flush or lubricant-based cleanser to remove deposits from the pistons, piston rings, and cylinder bores.

Depending on which of the above applies and assuming the correct products and processes are employed, virtually any engine can be restored to optimum efficiency and performance. The only notable exceptions are when an engine or any of its periphery parts are mechanically worn, degraded, or failed. Even then, various technologies and processes exist to restore minor wear.

Positive Gain (Economy & Performance Enhancement)

Again, assuming all is equal and an engine is in good working order, there are five ways to increase efficiency and performance above the standard factory figures.

1. Friction reduction. This involves using specialist products and techniques to reduce friction to levels lower than that available from conventional oils and lubricants. Other benefits can include greater protection against reduced component wear and lower maintenance costs. This can be applied to engines, transmissions, differentials, wheel bearings, and so on.

2. Fuel combustion modification. This includes the continuous use of professional chemistries to improve the combustion efficiency of the fuel, resulting in greater fuel economy, performance, and a reduction in exhaust emissions. Such products can also prevent fuel degradation, protect the fuel system, and control deposit build-up, thus removing any future need to use products to restore lost performance.

3. Engine retuning (software). This is the process of altering the engine control unit (ECU) or how the ECU manages fuel injection, ignition timing, and other engine control parameters. This can provide more efficient power and torque delivery throughout the rev range, reducing fuel usage.

4. Engine retuning (physical). This includes physically modifying engine components such as adjusting intake manifold air-flow dynamics, altering the exhaust system or DPF, and so on.

5. Other modifications. Making other pragmatic modifications that are widely known, such as optimising tyre pressures, improving aerodynamics, reducing unwanted weight, altering driving style, etc., can also improve efficiency.

Positive gain can manifest itself as additional performance (as measured in horsepower and torque), an increase in fuel efficiency, or a combination of both.

Testing Protocols:

We specialise in the development of bespoke MPG testing protocols. With any test, whether a single consumer vehicle or a fleet of heavy goods vehicles, it is important to set objectives and correctly plan how to achieve and measure them.

Below are some contributory risks and variables that must be considered when developing a comprehensive test plan. Please note that we were advised against revealing this information as it would undoubtedly be copied and reused by other companies selling fuel-saving additives or devices. However, if it helps to restore some integrity to the field of MPG testing, then we believe this benefits us all. Whether you sell fuel-saving technology or are looking to test and buy fuel-saving technology, let’s please restore some integrity to this field.

	Risk	Mitigation / Containment
1	Length of the test is too short.	It goes without saying that the more test data available, the easier it is to discern positive, neutral, or negative results.
2	Lack of availability of historical test data and seasonal differences.	It is of paramount importance that historic baseline data is available. If not, this should be captured first. Also, take into consideration the seasonal variations. For example, if you are conducting a three-month test between April and June, it would be advantageous to have baseline data for the same months in the previous year and the months of January to March immediately before the test. You would be surprised with the variance of data between seasons.
3	Inaccurate MPG monitoring techniques.	The most common are on-board monitoring and manual calculations. Where possible, use both monitoring techniques. Telematics that includes average speed is also extremely valuable as it will help validate or invalidate MPG figures. If the average speed for a vehicle increases during a particular month, then the MPG would be expected to increase by default and vice versa.
4	Varying climatic conditions.	Weather can profoundly affect results, and not just temperatures. Wind can affect drag, rain can affect grip, etc. A combination of controlled and real-life tests can mitigate this.
5	Varying traffic, routes, and loads.	Variances in routes, traffic, and loads can affect results. Choosing the most consistent routes with consistent loads in low traffic periods and a combination of controlled and real-life testing is the best bet, albeit not always possible.
6	Driver inconsistency.	Where possible, the same driver should be used. Otherwise any change of driver must be factored into the test results.
7	Varying vehicle history and condition.	Even vehicles of the same type and engine are different and can respond differently. Pick both a poor performing and good performing vehicle. It is important to understand that results are only applicable and valid to that particular vehicle/engine combination.
8	Fuel inconsistency.	Different brands and types of fuel (including seasonable blends) can affect results. Where possible, the exact same fuel should be used throughout the test and during any pretesting.
9	Poor accuracy with administering treatments.	How treatments are administered is important. For example, treating the fuel at bunkered storage mitigates the risk of incorrectly applied ratios when testing fuel additives. Automated dispensing systems are also an alternative.
10	Driver awareness affects results.	Blind testing always provides the most accurate results unless trust in the driver is assured. If the driver is aware, then also make them aware during the pretesting (baseline) stage. This can ensure that the driver will not significantly change the driving style during testing.
11	Fuel or additives theft.	Unfortunately, this does occur. There are ways to identify and mitigate this risk. However, it would not be appropriate to list them here.
12	Lack of test data.	What to test (mpg, power, torque, emissions, oil quality, wear, etc.) is fundamental to understanding the benefits of any given product(s). Simply, the more data, the greater the confidence in the decision-making process.

There are other minor factors that we won‘t go into as they apply more to controlled testing, such as the effects of ambient temperature on fuel density and so on. However, the above twelve points will serve you well.

We make our clients fully aware of the common pitfalls and underhand techniques that some companies use. For example, a common tactic is to advise the client to notify the driver that a test is being conducted. The driver is then aware that his driving is likely to be scrutinised and, as a result, drives more cautiously and ” efficiently. ” The client then witnesses a tangible increase that has little to do with the prescribed treatments but is instead from an improvement in driving style by the driver.

Another tactic is to convince the client to pick their worst-performing vehicle for testing. This, of course, increases the probability of more outstanding results. The client then becomes blinded by negative gain results that cannot be reproduced on their other, better-performing vehicles. Ideally, you should test average-performing vehicles or the worst and best-performing ones in the fleet.

The key is to produce a test protocol that mitigates or eliminates as many variables as possible. This will help ensure accurate test data, which, in turn, enables the client to make informed decisions as to the actual ROI on particular treatments or processes.

If you require more information or a no-obligation consultation on MPG reduction or engine cleaning, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Andy Archer

Energy and Maintenance Saving Consultant

Misfuelling Devices

Factory Misfuelling Protection Devices

February 12, 2015 FTE Leave a comment

Some diesel vehicles, particularly Ford’s and BMW’s, come equipped with misfuelling prevention devices. The purpose is straightforward – to prevent the user from accidentally adding petrol to a diesel fuel tank.

Most devices work through a mechanism that only permits the exact diameter of a standard diesel pump nozzle to penetrate the filler neck. Any smaller diameter nozzle, such as that of a petrol pump nozzle, filler funnel or similar, will not enable the mechanism to open the filler flap.

The problem is that the user is then unable to administer fuel additives or fill up from a jerry can in the unfortunate event that they run out of fuel. Well, no need to panic. Most vehicles with anti-petrol filler mechanisms usually have a funnel or insert stored in the boot, usually near the spare wheel. If not, then a suitable funnel/filler insert can be obtained online or from your local dealer.

Carbon Cleaning, Fuel System Cleaning

Engine & Fuel System Cleaning Machines – A Review

November 14, 2014 FTE 12 Comments

I am regularly asked to comment on a particular engine (fuel system) cleaning system once featured on a popular automotive TV show.

Does the product work? Well, actually, yes, it does. It will clean the fuel system and help remove combustion (carbon) deposits. However, I am not convinced it is anything new or innovative except how it has been presented and released to the market. The product design, presentation, and choice of celebrity endorsement are pure genius. I don’t think they could have done it better or chosen a more suitable candidate to endorse the product. I am a fan of the unsaid celebrity, by the way.

Cleaning equipment that you connect directly to fuel systems of both petrol and diesel engines has been around for more than two decades. It was popular in the 1990s and at the start of this century. But its popularity declined for the simple reason that in-tank fuel cleaning technology had improved to the degree that such apparatus was no longer necessary, except under certain circumstances (i.e., engine running very poorly). Even rapid carbon removal (combustion and post-combustion, DPF, etc.) is now achievable through fuel-based chemistry. Patented fuel-borne catalyst technology for removing post-combustion carbon has been in use for some time and is very successful. As a result, this type of fuel system servicing became an unnecessary gimmick, in my opinion. The creators of this cleaning device made it sexy and credible again, and to a degree, a little more affordable, with a clean costing around £80, rather than the £100+ that was charged more than a decade ago.

In my view, the type and quality of cleaning chemistry are significantly more important than the method of administration. Adding a product directly to the fuel system—no matter who the manufacturer—might look impressive, but in most cases, it is not necessary.

And this is my point; adding a high-end fuel cleaning product to the fuel system can clean just as well.

Arguably, a high-end fuel cleaning product can, in some cases, work even better if you consider that it can clean the entire fuel system from the tank onwards, including the fuel filter. It is often the case that companies offering both types of cleaning products use the same chemistry, except that the direct-to-fuel rail method product is already mixed in with a base fuel.

Where rapid cleaning is required, many professional garages will add a full-strength fuel cleaner to an almost empty tank (i.e. 10 litres) and then let the engine idle for 15-30 minutes. This can provide an intense and rapid clean with minimal risk because the engine is not under any load.

Of course, supporters of these products will point out that there are plenty of good reviews of these systems. That is very true. But similarly, there are many good reviews for high-end, in-tank fuel system cleaning products, too. I could bore you all day with the many hundreds we have accumulated, with some customers reporting a profound change in engine running and performance. And they aren’t wrong. If there are fuel system and carbon deposits, both methods will produce tangible results that the customer will feel. If there are no discernible deposits, then neither method will make a difference.

Another question is, “Will this device remove deposits from the rear of intake valves on direct injection engines, such as those in BMWs, Audis, Minis, etc.?” No, but neither will in-tank cleaners. Both methods might remove a few of these deposits, but not enough to consider them successful. This is the new challenge manufacturers and aftermarket solution providers face – creating effective intake valve cleaning by administering detergents directly through the air inlet. But this is a conversation for another day.

Conclusion: It works, but are you getting more for your money than you would with a much less costly, high-strength professional in-tank cleaner? My short answer? No.

Waterless Engine Coolant

Potential Issues with Waterless Engine Coolants

August 1, 2014 FTE 6 Comments

Below is an interesting US-based article I received a short while ago. This is not intended to bash any particular manufacturer of waterless coolants; it is just a challenge to the technology used.

“Many concerns have been raised to us in recent months regarding the effectiveness of Waterless coolants and the inherent dangers they may possess. We have spent some time researching the product and would like to make all our customers aware of our findings.

Waterless products are 100% glycol, some are 100% propylene glycol, and others are a mix of propylene glycol and ethylene glycol. They are slippery when spilled or leaked onto the tarmac. Assuming a baseline friction co-efficient reference of 1.00 for dry pavement, the friction coefficient of water is 0.65. The friction coefficient of Waterless products is 0.16, four times less than water. Some race circuits in America are now prohibiting the use of engine coolant that contains ANY glycol due to this fact.

The other and more pressing reason that Waterless products are prohibited at race circuits is that they are flammable. With flash points in the range of 110-130°C if the Waterless coolant were released at or above the flash point, it could ignite. Coolant temperatures can be observed in this range during actual operating conditions, making this a real risk. Reports have also been made of damage caused by glycol coolant fuelled fires, in some instances, destroying whole cars and resulting in thousands of pounds worth of damage.

The NHRA rule change regarding glycol coolants was the result of a terrible fire where the competitor was using Waterless coolant in his car. The engine pushed a head gasket and the coolant caught fire which came under the seat resulting in a cockpit fire. Glycol coolants are now prohibited in the NHRA. In another case the Motorsport South Africa ASN prohibited the use of glycol on safety grounds “In the case of both cars and motorcycles, the use of glycol-based coolant additives is prohibited.”

In addition, the operational downside is the decreased ability to transfer heat compared to water based coolants. Waterless coolant should never be advised in applications where heat issues are apparent, Waterless coolants will only compound this problem as they lack the necessary heat transfer properties to provide a solution.

Although the product is a very good corrosion inhibitor, it will not adequately protect an engine when overheating. The Waterless coolants cannot transfer heat as efficiently as water, thus causing an engine to run hotter. The engine will continue to run hot until a critical component fails as the boiling point is so high.

To summarize:

Engines can run 45-60°C hotter (at the cylinder heads) with Waterless products.

Stabilized coolant temps are increased by 15-25°C.

Specific heat capacity of Waterless products ranges from 0.64 to 0.68, or about half that of water.

Engine octane requirement is increased by 5-7 numbers reducing engine horsepower by 4-5%.

Viscosity is 3-4 times higher than what OEM water pumps are rated to accommodate.

Coolant flow rate through radiator tubes is reduced by 20-25% due to the higher viscosity.

Race circuits are starting to prohibit waterless products because they are flammable and cause a slippery surface hazard when leaked.

When speaking to a classic car specialist recently the subject of Waterless coolants was brought up.A Waterless coolant manufacturer had given them product sponsorship ahead of classic Le Mans 2012, in FP1 the car stopped on track with smoke billowing out of bonnet. On closer inspection the coolant had plasticized and warped the head, the coolant then passed through the head gasket hydraulic locking cylinder one. The damaged cause was very costly and ended the team’s weekend early, it is not a product they would recommend or use again.”

We sold a waterless coolant for a short while but stopped over a year ago. We never encountered any issues although it sounds like potential issues are more “race” related. However, I thought we would be remiss if we did not share this information with you as it opens a valuable debate into the safety and efficacy of such technologies versus conventional water based cooling products.

As FuelTechExperts is promoted as an unbiased source of information it is only fair that Evans have the opportunity to respond.

Response from Evans below:

“Thank you for the opportunity to relay our side of the debate here.

Glycol is slippery. As I said to the technical director in the American Flat Track Series, any fluid is slippery on the track. What’s important is keeping the fluid off the track in the first place. Our coolant does not build vapor pressure, so it doesn’t boil out when it gets hot like antifreeze or water. Our coolant is legal in flat track and some road race motorcycles series. I road raced motorcycles with waterless coolant for 15 years without incident. I wouldn’t ask anyone to do something that I haven’t done myself.

All glycol based coolants are combustible, this includes water-based antifreeze. The “flash point” is the same for waterless and water-based coolants, go ahead and google “gylycol fire”. Flash point does not mean that it will spontaneously ignite, there must be a flame source present. The auto-ignition temperature is significantly higher, somewhere up above 700F. Again, this behavior is common with water-based antifreeze as well.

The heat transfer of waterless coolant is a little less than with water-based antifreeze just as water is a better conductor of heat than antifreeze. A cooling system is “air side limited”, however, which means that the heat transfer between metal and liquid is insignificant compared to the heat transfer between metal and air at the radiator. The radiator efficiency is based on the temperature difference between the radiator metal and the air temperature. The greater that temperature difference, the better the transfer efficiency. Runaway temperatures are a problem with water-based antifreeze, not waterless coolant because when the water boils to vapor inside the engine virtually all cooling capacity is lost. The metal temperatures will spike by hundreds of degrees creating the detonation-causing hot spots and head warping that is associated with overheating. If our coolant temperatures rise above normal, it doesn’t vaporize and the liquid to metal contact is not lost. With a higher coolant temperature, the radiator efficiency improves because of the larger difference between metal and air temperatures; the system will reach equilibrium rather than spiking.

Octane is needed to delay detonation of the fuel mixture. A lower octane can actually be used with our coolant because hot spots are not formed.

The viscosity of our coolant at operating temperature is very close to that of antifreeze, again, not an issue.

Like radial tires and disc brakes, not everybody will accept a new technology at the start; we are offering an advancement in engine cooling and everyone needs to make their own decisions.

John Light -Evans Powersports Coolant Director”

TFSI Direct Injection Carbon

Turbo Fuel Stratified Injection (TFSI) & Direct Port Injection Carbon Build-up Problem

July 17, 2014 FTE 22 Comments

The Problem of Turbo Fuel Stratified Injection (TFSI) & Direct Port Injection Carbon Buildup

The problem with carbon buildup on the back face and stem area of intake valves in direct fuel injection petrol engines is not news. Fortunately, a significant breakthrough has occurred recently on the buildup issue, and the exact cause of the problem has been isolated.

Carbon buildup in direct fuel injection engines running on petrol became prominent in 2007 and 2008 when the engine warning codes and Malfunction Indicator Lights (MIL) began to light up in many vehicles with direct injection engines, including the BMW Mini, and those made by Audi and Volkswagen.

The presence of excessive carbon buildup has generally been attributed to the direct port injection design. This design enables a more complete and efficient combustion process because fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber rather than behind the inlet valve, which is where it is injected in conventional port injection designs. However, with this design any cleaning capability of the fuel — or more importantly, the fuel additives — is non-existent in the inlet tract because the liquid fuel never comes into contact with the back of the intake valves. The cleaning effect on the front of the valves on the combustion chamber side, on the combustion chamber surfaces, and the exhaust valves is easily achieved as a consequence of the clean-burning characteristics of high-quality fuel and/or additives. But the downstream surfaces of the inlet valves are left untouched, and therefore accumulate deposits. The volume of these deposits eventually alters the air-flow dynamics within the inlet tract, which in turn inhibits airflow and ultimately reduces volumetric efficiency considerably.

The impact of this is more noticeable on normally aspirated engines as they are less able to overcome air-flow restrictions, whereas forced induction engines can overcome minor restrictions as air is “forced” into the combustion chamber under pressure.

The images below illustrate the direct fuel injection and port fuel injection design. You will notice on the port injection design that fuel is injected behind the inlet valve, and the mixture of fuel and air is then drawn into the combustion chamber as the valve opens. This is not as efficient as a direct injection design but helps prevent deposit buildup on the intake valves.

So what has changed?

A major breakthrough recently on the buildup issue has led to the exact cause of the problem being isolated. The port injection design is actually not the cause but merely the reason why the issue cannot be controlled and managed through normal fuel-derived cleaning processes.

It is now understood why even the most advanced post-combustion cleaning fuel additives or solvent-based cleaning through the fuel /air intake tract have had little effect. Furthermore, it also is understood why rerouting the byproduct from the crankcase breather into segregated catch cans or using water/methanol injection are of limited value when it comes to reducing carbonaceous buildup in the inlet port and inlet valve surfaces.

Post combustion cleaning additives, solvent-based intake cleaning, and water/methanol injection are not effective because the carbon species responsible for the buildup are predominantly from lube oil and produce active but very dense layers of carbons. In some cases even grit blasting techniques have failed to remove the buildup because of the integrity, toughness, and adherence of the deposits. In contrast to these deposits from lube oil, ones resulting from the decomposition of fuel tend to produce a satin black buildup that can be scraped off easily with a finger nail. This type of deposit can be removed with fuel-borne additive technology. However, the deposits formed from the decomposition of lubricating oils during engine operation have been found far more difficult to remove. This deposition and growth of carbonaceous debris has been demonstrated on a test engine with inspection ports positioned in the inlet tract.

In the pictures below you will notice the solidity of the lube-based buildup on the inlet valve of an Audi RS4 (4.2 V8 TFSI) versus the fuel-only carbon buildup on an EGR valve in a different vehicle. The carbon on the latter is easily removed either manually or via fuel additive technology that is still active post combustion.

Audi RS4 Inlet Valve Carbon Buildup

EGR Valve Part Cleaned

Oil on valve stems – It should be noted that the presence of lubricating oil in this location is normal. Having a controlled amount of oil there keeps the valve stems lubricated. One reason why NA engines tend to suffer more from inlet-valve deposits is simply that in the created vacuum, the oil from the valve stems is more difficult to “control” because it is sucked through by the pressure differential existing between inlet manifold and the atmosphere. In comparison, forced-induction engines (turbo or supercharged) generally operate with the intake manifold under positive pressure so less oil is pulled through the seals.

So if the small amount of oil bypassing the valve stem seals is normal, and indeed required, then why is there an excessive buildup of deposits on the valves? One hypothesis is that:

The oil is being broken down by the catalytic (reacting) action of the materials used to manufacture or coat the valve stems. In particular, nickel and chrome alloys. This pyrolytic decomposition is widely recognised in the industrial power generation sector where hydrocarbons are in contact with superalloys used in the construction of combustors, nozzle guide vanes, and exhaust components.

In layman’s terms, this means the materials used to manufacture and harden the valves are reacting with the lubricating oil and creating an aggressive bond between the lube and the valves!

Although this hypothesis seeks to explain the mechanism behind the formation of these carbonaceous deposits, there are still many challenges ahead. As carbon is the constituent part of all lubricating oils and fuels and each of these is fundamentally required by engines in their present form, a method of reducing or eliminating carbon buildup must be sought.

Once oil has initially decomposed and formed a bonded carbon deposit with the valves, it remains chemically active. This allows further carbons — whether from engine oil or recirculating fuel emissions – to adhere to the existing mass with ease.

Some manufactures have incorporated a more complicated fuel system with a combined port/direct port engine design to retain the benefits of direct port injection whilst injecting some fuel behind the valves to help keep them clean. However, for existing direct port engine designs there are few viable options. One can change the valve material and/or use a coating that doesn’t catalyse with carbons or enable the adherence of carbon, or introduce an additive pack that can inhibit carbon formation.

Valves have to work very hard and current valve materials are chosen for their toughness and durability. Any replacement material and/or coating would have to at least share or improve upon these properties. There are proposals in the area of material and surface coating choice but we are not at liberty to share them at this stage.

Other theories consider that at certain engine operating conditions there is a small amount of backwash as the early injection of fuel occurs whilst the inlet valve is still open. The contribution of EGR also needs to be considered. For compression-ignition engines – diesels – the heavy contamination of inlet tracts with a dense, but greasy, carbon-based deposit is well known. There are many EGR deletion methods that focus on the prevention of this deposit buildup, which as in the case of their petrol-fuelled counterparts, can seriously impede the flow of inlet air to the combustion chamber.

Operating temperatures of engines have tended to increase with commensurate increases in combustion chamber parts. And heat soaking on shutdown, as well as extensive idling periods, have been shown to affect the amount of buildup on upper cylinder parts and valve gear.

Regardless, the issue of removing existing deposits does not go away. The use of more advanced polar solvents will be investigated but this process is still constrained by the hardness of the carbon buildup, as well as the risk of unmanageable chunks of carbon being dislodged and damaging valves or cylinder bores during engine operation. Managing the gradual fluidising of deposits so that they can be safely consumed during combustion is a significant challenge.

There is some data to suggest that the use of certain oil additives or group IV and above base stock oils (pure PAO, esters, etc.) reduces the speed of buildup. However, this is not fully substantiated as back-to-back tests were not conducted on the exact same vehicle. The tests show visual buildup compared to other similar vehicles of similar mileage that are not using additives or group IV and above engine oils. Furthermore, some of the PAO-derived oils are more readily broken down by catalytic action and tend to have better high-temperature resistance to degradation, thus keeping a fluid film on the valve stems where decomposition may occur. One area of interest is the use of mineral oils containing carbon fluidising additives as found in many two-stroke engine oils; however these compositions generally do not meet the lubrication specifications required by modern engines.

Archoil® has been using proprietary esters and fluidising technology for some time and we have initiated further tests relating to this technology and direct port engines. We will keep you posted as soon as we have more information.

UPDATE MAY 2017

Archoil has released a fuel conditioner (AR6900-P MAX) that specifically addresses this issue. By delivering a regular dose of polyetheramine and proprietary combustion catalyst, much of the carbon matter from engine oil or that created through the combustion process is neutralised.

Due to the concerns raised in the article – 1. Stubborn composition of the existing carbon build-up and 2. Minimal effect of detergent and fuel borne catalyst technologies in areas of insufficient heat, AR6900-P MAX will be limited in its ability to remove existing build-up. However, it will help neutralise and inhibit further deposit build-up.

UPDATE JAN 2024

Oilsyn has released Petrol Power DNA, using their PEATech cleaning technology. This is a combination of cleaning functions, amines, polyetheramines, and more. An independent titration test showed that a single dose (50ml per 50L of fuel) tested at over 90 points!

This is the highest-strength cleaner on the market by some margin. At 90 points, a single 50ml dose from the 1L bottle is actually stronger than most single-use cleaning treatments. Therefore, 1L of Petrol Power DNA is the equivalent of 20+ single-use cleaners.

If Petrol Power DNA doesn’t help neutralize carbon deposits then nothing will.

Cetane Boosters & 2-EHN

Cetane Booster – What is the Best?

May 2, 2014 FTE 19 Comments

The overall quality of diesel fuel is dependent on several factors. These include BTU value, viscosity, pour flow point, aromatic and paraffinic content, and resistance to contaminant buildup such as water and bacteria. A diesel fuel’s quality also is very dependent on its cetane number.

The cetane number (CN) is an index of the ignition point or combustion quality of diesel fuel and is measured using an ASTM D613 test. Standard European BS EN590 diesel from the pump typically has a minimum cetane number of around 51, with premium pump diesel a little higher. Depending on engine design, driving conditions, and so on, the optimum cetane value for most vehicles is around the mid to high 50s. Any value greater than 60 will not achieve any additional benefits and, in most cases, will alter ignition timing to the degree that power is lost.

Matching cetane to the engine is essential to maximize the engine’s performance. Biodiesel fuels in particular, especially homemade brews, usually start with a much lower cetane number, so cetane improvement for these fuels is essential.

A fuel with too low of a cetane number for a particular engine will result in reduced cold-start ability, rough running, excess engine noise/vibration, and reduced combustion quality. This leads to reduced performance, excess emissions, and carbon buildup throughout the engine and emission system components (intake, EGR, DPF, etc.)

A higher cetane fuel that is a proper match for the engine will reduce ignition delay, improve overall combustion quality, liberate more BTU (energy) from the fuel, and improve performance and MPG. It also will reduce engine noise, deposit buildup, and exhaust emissions.

What should I look for in a cetane booster?

Contrary to some propaganda, alkyl nitrates still offer the most significant improvement in cetane number, with measured increases of up to eight points. When it comes to alkyl nitrates, 2-Ethylhexyl nitrate (2-EHN) is the most popular and most respected. It offers a more consistent ignition quality while reducing unwanted and adverse combustion conditions.

Fuel additive manufacturers recognize the benefits of boosting the cetane number and using 2-EHN so much now that most offer cetane improvers. The question in this case is, what are you getting for your money?

From a close examination, it appears many cetane boosters contain useless fillers. Most manufacturers still insist on the single bottle per tank philosophy to maximize profits. Some 200-300ml bottles that treat a single tank of fuel have as little as 20% active ingredients. This is lucrative for the manufacturer but not a good value for the consumer. Therefore, it is important to understand what you are getting for your money.

The optimum amount of 2-EHN is around 20-100ml per tank of fuel, depending on the engine and base cetane level. As 2-EHN can reduce lubricity, a lubricant must be blended in. To ensure you are getting the best value, ensure the product contains 2-EHN as its base, and a reasonable proportion of the remainder contains beneficial ingredients, such as lubricant, detergent, etc.

UPDATED AUG 2022 – So what do we recommend and why?

Active cetane improvers are essentially a form of fuel modification, or more accurately, combustion modification. However, when combined with the correct fuel catalyst technology and lubricity additives, they can turn the most mediocre pump fuels and biodiesels into super diesel that will outperform the best premium pump fuels.

Two products to note:

Oilsyn® Diesel Race DNA, Diesel Power DNA or Archoil® AR6900-D MAX. Rather than introduce another diluted cetane booster, they released a concentrated chemistry product containing 100% active ingredients. They deliver optimum increases in cetane while being able to treat multiple tanks of fuel rather than just one.

Diesel Race DNA contains the highest levels of 2-EHN of any compound diesel conditioner and the highest performing diesel lubricant on the market at this time, with an HFRR test of below 180! AR6900-D is a careful balance of cetane improver, detergent, lubricant and combustion catalyst. Both protect the entire fuel system against the harmful effects of low lubricity and low sulphur fuels. This results in an optimum combustion condition, comprehensive fuel system protection and cleaning, increased performance, and reduction in harmful exhaust emissions.

Summary:

For the ultimate performance and protection – use Oilsyn Diesel Race DNA.

For an all-around product that increases cetane, cleans and protects – use Oilsyn Diesel Power DNA or Archoil AR6900-D

Either of the above works out cheaper per tank than upgrading to premium diesel at the pump.

Engine Oils

Oil & Manufacturing – Conspiracy? No, it’s Basic Economics

March 13, 2014 FTE 13 Comments

I feel it’s about time I aired an ongoing concern that has been boiling away inside me for a very long time. Those who have benefited from my consultations already might have heard it. It is about a collection of paraphrased quotes that make my eyes roll whenever I read or listen to them. As soon as I do, I want to walk away because it can be tiring listening to such levels of ignorance, especially if the ignorance is compounded with an underlying antagonism or unwillingness to evaluate the evidence without bias.

Here are some of the quotes to which I am referring:

“Why would you want to use an oil additive when oil manufacturers spend many millions on R&D getting it perfect?”

“There is no need to modify that X part on my Y vehicle because manufacturers spend millions on R&D and testing to get it perfect, etcetera, etcetera.”

“If that fuel additive were any good, it already would be in use in our fuels.”

If you subscribe to any of the above, you are the perfect consumer of many of these companies; you are a marketing department’s dream. This is said with all due respect, and I mean that sincerely. I will provide you with some food for thought though, and hopefully, it will shed some well-overdue light on this subject.

I’ll address the last quote first.

If fuel companies already use the latest and greatest technologies, then why do most of them sell premium versions of their own fuel?

Last year, a fuel additive dealer that we know very well lost a contract to provide a complete fuel additive package to a fuel distributor in the Netherlands. The distributor was looking to provide premium diesel fuel to its customers. The deal was lost to a competitor with a lower-performing product.

So what was the issue? From the limited feedback, it is understood that the fuel economy gained from the catalyst in the product was too high at around 5% and around twice that of the competitor product. They both provided cleaning, protected fuel systems, handled water contamination, etc. However, the MPG gains meant the distributor would lose money, even with the extra money charged for the premium fuel. The release of innovative technology is often balanced against strict economic criteria, targets, and other similar constraints.

There was genuine intent to provide a better product, but it had to fit in with an agreed-upon financial model. It is the same reason companies that PURCHASE energy or maintenance are interested in fuel and maintenance-saving technologies. At the same time, companies that SELL energy or maintenance (or parts) can’t wait to kick you out of the door. That is if you manage to get through it in the first place.

Two years ago, an extremely, VERY well-known manufacturer of diesel fuel system parts, injectors, high-pressure fuel pumps, and so on sent a memorandum to all of its dealers and garages outlining the risks of fuel additives and indirectly prohibiting their use. This manufacturer said fuel additives will cause damage. Granted, some additives don’t deliver results as stated on the tin, but I have yet to see fuel system parts damaged from their use. Unsurprisingly, there are many reports of injector and pump damage from using poor quality fuels, contaminated fuels, and hence fuels that are not treated with high-quality additives.

Let’s look at the second quote.

It is an interesting one, to say the least, and often parroted on automotive forums/discussion boards across the globe. I believe it is only partly accurate, so I will attempt to correct it.

“Vehicle manufacturers spend millions in R&D and testing to make vehicles the best they can be, WITHIN A DEFINED CRITERIA AND STRICT BUDGET.”

Of course, vast sums of money are spent on vehicle technology and development, but manufacturing quality and component durability are constrained by budget.

Firstly, technologies already exist to make a standard family car last for 20+ years, 500,000+ miles, and without any major failure. The problem is that a basic family car would cost Ferrari money to buy. Who would pay £100,000+ for an uber-reliable family hatchback?

Secondly, the marketing departments know very well that 99% of their customers have no intention of keeping their cars for five or even ten years, hence there is no market for such a car. Consumer tastes change, and people like to update their vehicles.

This keeps vehicles at “affordable” prices. To produce a car that no one wants or can afford would be commercial suicide.

Then there is the servicing and repairs, from where the actual revenue comes. If a vehicle needed few or no repairs, the initial purchase price of a car would jump even further because manufacturers and franchised dealers would have to make up for that lost revenue stream. The use of additives and modified parts interferes with this business model. Again, this has nothing to do with conspiracy – it is basic economics.

Let’s look at automatic transmission manufacturers as another example. Now, I am not suggesting they deliberately engineer transmissions to fail at 100,000 miles, but they certainly don’t engineer them to last hundreds of thousands of miles. Why? Because they couldn’t afford to buy them within the budget that had been set. Car manufacturer ‘A’ is not going to go to transmission manufacturer ‘B’ with a requirement for a transmission that is robust for say, 250k miles, when most vehicles will never reach anywhere near that mileage anyway. Most manufacturers provide a standard three-year, 60,000-mile warranty for a reason. It is common in the trade that a conventional auto gearbox (with torque converter), on original lifetime oil is a ticking time bomb once it hits the 100,000-mile mark. The number of double clutch transmissions that fail much earlier is staggering.

There are exceptions to this rule. An example would be the Bugatti Veyron. When the CEO set out the criteria for that car, the designers and engineers were liberated from the usual financial restrictions. The primary criterion was to design and build a 1000-horsepower car using the best technology available regardless of cost. And what was the result? They created a car that, despite its tremendous power output and complexity, will probably go on for years without fault. And what was the result for Bugatti (or Volkswagen if we wish to be pedantic)? A car that sells for around £1,000,000 yet costs almost £5,000,000 to make. Clearly, this is not a sustainable business model for a mainstream manufacturer. But you get the idea.

Now, onto the first quote. Obtain the best or most expensive off-the-shelf oil you can find and I will improve that oil’s lubricity and extreme pressure rating within minutes by fortifying the additive pack. I can even reduce wear metals considerably over and above the best oil you can lay your hands on. I am not talking about the high-end branded £50 gallon of “fully synthetic” oils, but the specialist £25-30 per litre genuine, fully-synthetic (actual PAO/Ester based) oils. How can this be?

Firstly, oil manufacturers do not have a monopoly on the latest technologies. Many of the patents in this arena are owned by smaller private companies.

Secondly, a high-end £50 gallon of “synthetic” oil probably contains less than £5 worth of raw ingredients. When you factor in the sales margin of the manufacturer, master distributors, distributors, and retailers, £5 turns into £50 when it reaches the shop shelf. There is nothing unusual about this.

Now look at the cost of base stocks. We buy genuine, fully-synthetic Ester and PAO base stocks by the drum loads and the trade price is around £4-£6 per litre. Include the additive pack, blending process, packaging, and other factors and you will end up with oil that costs £10+ to make. Pro-rata, that equates to over £100 on the shop shelf. But who is going to pay that price?

The same principles that applied previously also apply here in that the same budget constraints exist with the manufacturing of engine oil.

Thirdly, most major oil manufacturers buy the ingredients and additive packs rather than make their own. There are two major suppliers in the world that supply the majority of additive packs to mainstream oil brands. You might have heard me mention this before in other articles, but I will repeat it again here for those who haven’t. If you visit the largest automotive shows or mechanic-orientated shows in the world, you will find hundreds of different oil brands. I guarantee that only a small percentage of these are genuine manufacturers. So much oil is rebranded, and if you care to look closely, you will discover that the oil market is just one huge marketing competition. Some of these marketing budgets make R&D budgets look like a petty cash pot.

Finally, and this is an important one. The various oil standards can actually restrict what you can and cannot do with oil. This can result in consumer lubricants that are inferior by design. For example, consider low SAP (sulphated ash) oils. Many of the good properties in these oils have been removed and replaced with more expensive yet inferior alternatives. When you are in the business and actually speak to the “right” people within the mainstream oil companies, some will openly admit to using cheaper technologies. The two main justifications are as follows: A. The market is not ready for the latest and greatest nano technologies and B. We must keep costs down in order to be COMPETITIVE. Please understand that many oils are designed to meet specifications created by certain institutions (that I care not to mention in public), rather than designed to be the best, performance-wise. There is a difference!

Did you know that if you committed to a minimum order quantity, you could go to a variety of companies and order virtually any current spec oil you wished with your own brand design, and it would be on your doorstep within weeks? But try asking them to blend a new, innovative and superior technology into the oil and you are politely shown the door.

It does concern me when I can take a pure 20W PAO base stock combined with a high quality oil additive like AR9200 or Velosyn, no polymers so a fixed 20 weight hot or cold, no additional HTHS additives or dispersants, and so forth, and create an oil that complies with virtually none of the strict specifications, and yet it outperforms some of the best synthetic oils available, per regular metal spectrographic and TAN/TBN tests.

Welcome to oil economics.

If you require any advice or help then please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Fuel Quality

Premium Diesel Versus Standard Diesel Fuel

February 6, 2014 FTE 4 Comments

In our work, we are frequently asked whether premium diesel fuel is superior to standard diesel fuel. And our short answer is always a resounding, “Yes.” But more explanation is needed when it comes to the other big question regarding premium diesel fuel – such as whether it is worth its higher price.

Premium diesel from the pump contains more detergent and additives than standard diesel fuel, which helps to improve an engine’s combustion performance. Depending on engine design, using a premium diesel usually results in an increase in performance and MPG, as well as reduced engine emissions and similar benefits.

So yes, premium diesel is better than standard diesel. But is it worth its higher price tag?

On that matter, we are not so sure. The main issue is that premium diesel fuels could be much better considering the significant extra cost per litre. The additional detergent currently included is barely enough to retain a clean engine on most fuel systems and engine types and fails to actively remove existing deposits. Unfortunately, we find that diesel vehicles solely using premium diesel fuels continue accumulating deposits. Not so much in the fuel system, but in the combustion area, emission components (EGR, DPF), intake manifold, intake valves, etc. Using a premium diesel will undoubtedly delay the formation of carbon deposits in these areas. But don’t expect miracles in regards to cleaning performance. The increased bio-diesel percentage contributes to an increase in fuel system contamination, biological degradation, and carbon build-up. Unfortunately, current fuels do not do enough to address these issues.

Please note, in the manufacturers’ defense, there are regulatory considerations, such as the outdated BS EN590 specification, that control what additives can be included in fuel. But those regulations are irrelevant to whether premium diesel, as it is made today, is a good value for the price you pay at the pump.

So if premium fuel isn’t worth the extra cost and standard diesel is lacking, what should you do? We suggest adding a high-quality diesel fuel conditioner with combustion catalyst technology to standard diesel fuel. Doing this will generally create a fuel that will outperform a premium diesel and be more cost-effective per tank. We have substantial testimony, as well as research data, that supports this. More complete fuel conditioners contain effective technologies to proactively clean and remove existing deposits, lubricate the diesel pump, remove water, prevent fuel degradation or contamination, lower emissions, improve performance, increase MPG, and so on.

It is simply a case of weighing the benefits of premium diesel versus the additional benefits of a fuel conditioner while also considering convenience and cost.

Another issue to consider in this debate is consistency. It is not uncommon to encounter variances in quality with fuel from the same gas station. From what we understand, distribution agreements between the fuel retailers and refineries call for gas stations to sell fuel from the nearest refinery in the area, regardless of the brand. Additive packs are added at the refinery or directly into the station fuel tanks.

The same variance applies to petrol. Regular octane tests will reveal startling differences in fuel octane. One week it tests at 95.6, the next at 96.8, and so forth. As you can imagine, this makes testing octane boosters extremely difficult because base fuels can be inconsistent.

Some advice we will add is to “know” your petrol station. When possible, purchase fuels from stations you know have a high fuel turnover. Try to avoid filling your vehicle from tanks running low and those that have just been filled, as this can agitate deposits and moisture. If you see a tanker, come back later. A fuel conditioner should protect against fuel’s inherent issues and inconsistencies.

If you require any advice or help, please don’t hesitate to contact us and either I or a member of my team will be pleased to assist you.

Fuel Addtives

Fuel Catalysts & Archoil’s AR6900-D MAX and AR6900-P MAX

January 24, 2014 FTE 60 Comments

We regularly receive questions regarding fuel catalyst technologies and how they work. In particular, we receive many questions about Archoil AR6900-D and AR6900-P MAX. The existing definition of “burn rate modifier” and the phrase “lowers burn rate by up to 400 degrees” has caused confusion.

In simple terms, a catalyst facilitates a better fuel burn. Each fuel type will have a flash point and auto-ignition point, which are determined by temperature and other factors. However, these are different from the burn rate.

Both petrol and diesel are composed of carbons, and these carbons, or carbon chains, require up to 1200ºF to burn thoroughly. This has nothing to do with the flash point. The flash point is the temperature at which the fuel vapor will ignite with the help of an ignition source. The auto-ignition point is the temperature at which the fuel vapor will ignite without an ignition source.

Once the fuel has ignited, it creates an exothermic reaction (heat). This rapid increase in heat burns the fuel (carbons) and establishes the explosion in the combustion chamber, thus resulting in a massive release of energy. This forces the piston downwards and causes the crankshaft to rotate.

If you can reduce the temperature at which carbons burn, say by up to 400ºF in the case of AR6900, you can improve the burn. This is achieved by increasing the surface area of fuel droplets and starting the burn rate of hydrocarbons at a lower temperature to yield more available BTUs from the combustion process. The fuel becomes more aromatic (a sign of increased chemical stability), and a longer residual burn occurs. This reduces unburned hydrocarbons and wasted energy in the form of black smoke or emissions.

Altering the burn rate in this way does not directly increase horsepower. It increases the energy released through the explosion, which raises torque output. Burning the fuel more fully will also increase torque and lower emissions, as proven by a carbon mass balance test. This is the same process with all hydrocarbon fuels such as petrol, diesel, ethanol, heating oil, heavy fuel oil, etc.

Now, you might wonder, will AR6900-P affect petrol’s octane rating? Yes, but only marginally. The catalyst amount is significantly lower than in octane booster products.

AR6900-D and AR6900-P only affect the temperature at which the carbons will burn once the fuel has ignited. It does not directly alter the flash or auto-ignition point. However, tests have shown that improving combustion quality and stability means that the propensity of pre-ignition is reduced with AR690-P. And this can have the effect of “raising” the octane.

When fuel is not entirely burned, pockets of fuel can subsequently ignite a second time, again causing engine knock. The improvement in combustion quality from using AR6900-P helps eliminate this because fuel carbons are burned more thoroughly the first time. AR6900-P does not alter the fuel’s auto-ignition point but instead corrects another inherent source of engine knock—remaining unburned fuel.

We hope this helps and if you require any advice, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Contact us

Find us on:

Newsletter