Which Car To Go For Within 5.5M

[Janith Seneviratne]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Janith Seneviratne" data-cid="273001" data-time="1424837303"><p>

 <br />

Sasika,<br />

 <br />

SL's Dealership's Workmanship is something im not happy about, they dont know a crap on many thing's<br />

 <br />

in Diesels you dont have to Change the DPF, there's a process called DPF Regeneration , so you don't have to change it,<br />

And as don Mentioned Brake Pad wear Sensor it's not a Programmable thingy, its just a kind of a switch which is really simple in design,<br />

for BMW diesel's SL Dealership uses the wrong oil, for new diesel's you have to use BMW LL Oil, i know couple of people who are having way shorter service interval's(try 5000km vs the 12000 miles) because of wrong oil used by the Dealership, main reason these engines have a way to know if the oil viscosity has deteriorated or contaminated when using then tell you service interval is up.(if you see the Service interval threshold's set in a cluster of an e46 you will be pretty bummed)<br />

and for the Brake Pad's Doesn't Any car would wear out brake pad in every 40-50k KM's?<br />

 <br />

Btw Sasika, dont think im keep on coming at you, just do your research(im telling these from my experience), don't believe everything the dealer say<br />

 <br />

these new engine </p></blockquote>

No no I'm not thinking like that they use castrol (dont remember the model). I think it's the recommended as the user manual specifies that oil. I knew nothing about DPF but now I am reading thanks to you guys. Break wear maybe little high maybe cz of the way I drive. Well about the break wear sensor, what I mentioned above was regarding what the computer shows. It first showed 40k km and keeps dropping. That's why I thought it's programmed to 40k. And I don't think I will go to dealers again. They just rip us off.

We'll the Castrol Recommended in Manual is not the one they use, cz the Euro Spec Oil/ Middle Eastern Spec Oil they are different even though the Viscosity said to be same(it's the Quality), its like a tire you get same brand and type tires made in US and Made in Taiwan, looks the same but different in quality, wear sensor's purpose is to break when the pad's are worn, that's why a set of them is supplied with new brake pads

[The Don]

Sasika,

SL's Dealership's Workmanship is something im not happy about, they dont know a crap on many thing's

in Diesels you dont have to Change the DPF, there's a process called DPF Regeneration , so you don't have to change it,

And as don Mentioned Brake Pad wear Sensor it's not a Programmable thingy, its just a kind of a switch which is really simple in design,

for BMW diesel's SL Dealership uses the wrong oil, for new diesel's you have to use BMW LL Oil, i know couple of people who are having way shorter service interval's(try 5000km vs the 12000 miles) because of wrong oil used by the Dealership, main reason these engines have a way to know if the oil viscosity has deteriorated or contaminated when using then tell you service interval is up.(if you see the Service interval threshold's set in a cluster of an e46 you will be pretty bummed)

and for the Brake Pad's Doesn't Any car would wear out brake pad in every 40-50k KM's?

Btw Sasika, dont think im keep on coming at you, just do your research(im telling these from my experience), don't believe everything the dealer say

these new engine

Janith, a small correction. Newer BMWs 2005 or so onwards have adaptive servicing. So for brakes as well there is a counter within the computer that analyses the break wear and your driving style and predicts when they will be due. So on the display you can actually see when it thinks it will need new brake pads and this value changes depending on how you use the car. The wear sensor is a fairly simple device but that is not the only thing these cars consider. I like you think if you can make your brake pads last 40K on an auto vehicle in Sri Lankan traffic, you are doing well.

[sasika]

Janith, a small correction. Newer BMWs 2005 or so onwards have adaptive servicing. So for brakes as well there is a counter within the computer that analyses the break wear and your driving style and predicts when they will be due. So on the display you can actually see when it thinks it will need new brake pads and this value changes depending on how you use the car. The wear sensor is a fairly simple device but that is not the only thing these cars consider. I like you think if you can make your brake pads last 40K on an auto vehicle in Sri Lankan traffic, you are doing well.

Well mostly I drive out of Colombo. Maybe that's why they lasted

[Janith Seneviratne]

Janith, a small correction. Newer BMWs 2005 or so onwards have adaptive servicing. So for brakes as well there is a counter within the computer that analyses the break wear and your driving style and predicts when they will be due. So on the display you can actually see when it thinks it will need new brake pads and this value changes depending on how you use the car. The wear sensor is a fairly simple device but that is not the only thing these cars consider. I like you think if you can make your brake pads last 40K on an auto vehicle in Sri Lankan traffic, you are doing well.

Hi Don, i know about the adaptive servicing, that's why i mentioned as threshold, i know it consider a lot, range, temp, time(e46 has a max duration of 714 days) and some, brake pad's i cant comment on an Auto as i have never owned an Auto vehicle ,

will look into more on this ,

Thanks Don

Edited February 26, 2015 by Janith Seneviratne

[The Don]

Hi Don, i know about the adaptive servicing, that's why i mentioned as threshold, i know it consider a lot, range, temp, time(e46 has a max duration of 714 days) and some, brake pad's i cant comment on an Auto as i have never owned an Auto vehicle ,

will look into more on this ,

Thanks Don

Well when you drive an auto you tend to brake a lot more as you do not usually utilise the option of shifting down to slow down. You also spend more time on the brakes when stationary to counteract the creep up.

[sasika]

Well when you drive an auto you tend to brake a lot more as you do not usually utilise the option of shifting down to slow down. You also spend more time on the brakes when stationary to counteract the creep up.

Will shifting down to break exert an added pressure which can harm the transmission? Edited February 26, 2015 by sasika

[The Don]

Will shifting down to break exert an added pressure which can harm the transmission?

You do so gradually in a manual transmission. I've not tried this with autos or tip tronic transmissions.

Transmissions are not flimsy pieces of kit. They are already built to handle the power of the engine and the effort of moving the vehicle. Now if you go down to too low a gear like an idiot from too high a speed, you are likely to cause harm to the transmission by putting too much stress. But if you just let go of the accelorator and change down gradually, it won't be an issue.

Edited February 26, 2015 by The Don

[sasika]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="The Don" data-cid="273164" data-time="1424953077"><p>

<br />

You do so gradually in a manual transmission. I've not tried this with autos or tip tronic transmissions.<br />

<br />

Transmissions are not flimsy pieces of kit. They are already built to handle the power of the engine and the effort of moving the vehicle. Now if you go down to too low a gear like an idiot from too high a speed, you are likely to cause harm to the transmission by putting too much stress. But if you just let go of the accelorator and change down gradually, it won't be an issue.</p></blockquote>

I asked you based on the uncomfortable feeling I got when shifting down(triptronic transmission). It feels like a heavy downshift even when u change a gear down with a lift up.

[The Don]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="The Don" data-cid="273164" data-time="1424953077"><p>

<br />

You do so gradually in a manual transmission. I've not tried this with autos or tip tronic transmissions.<br />

<br />

Transmissions are not flimsy pieces of kit. They are already built to handle the power of the engine and the effort of moving the vehicle. Now if you go down to too low a gear like an idiot from too high a speed, you are likely to cause harm to the transmission by putting too much stress. But if you just let go of the accelorator and change down gradually, it won't be an issue.</p></blockquote>

I asked you based on the uncomfortable feeling I got when shifting down(triptronic transmission). It feels like a heavy downshift even when u change a gear down with a lift up.

As I said above I was talking about manual cars. I've not heard of people doing the same with autos. With a manual you can let go of the accelorator and shift down as the speed drops which will further slow the car down and only use brakes at the very end.

You can probably do the same if your car is dual clutch auto, but I'm not sure if you can effectively use this on conventional autos or CVT.

[sasika]

As I said above I was talking about manual cars. I've not heard of people doing the same with autos. With a manual you can let go of the accelorator and shift down as the speed drops which will further slow the car down and only use brakes at the very end.

You can probably do the same if your car is dual clutch auto, but I'm not sure if you can effectively use this on conventional autos or CVT.

Well the BMW streptronic system allows downshifts but feels kind of a jerkiness. Honda DCT will up shift every time I downshift if the speeds are too high (even in the sport mode). Specially that lead me think it might be bad for the transmission because the vehicle management computer rejects those moves. Thanks btw. I did that all the time in my previous K12 which was a manual

[The Don]

Well the BMW streptronic system allows downshifts but feels kind of a jerkiness. Honda DCT will up shift every time I downshift if the speeds are too high (even in the sport mode). Specially that lead me think it might be bad for the transmission because the vehicle management computer rejects those moves. Thanks btw. I did that all the time in my previous K12 which was a manual

If you speed match there will be no jerk and the computer will not reject it. If you try to go down to the first gear at 70mph of course the computer will reject it and on a manual the engine will probably stall.

Use common sense. There is no point going around in circles on this.

[Magnum]

The original brake pads for a E90 is about £220 for front and back. You don't need to change them every 40K as it depends on how you drive. There are just as good alternatives from brands like Pagid for hell of a lot less if you don't want originals. You do have to change discs after a while (you have to in Jap cars but nobody cares and ignores this) which is again about £200. These are things any mechanic can do but some will chose to get it done at the dealers. In the UK its £165 to change rears which include new wear sensor and labour and £195 to change front with the same.

A run flat tyre is about £100 a piece. There are multiple brands available. In SL you will have to add a premium because of duty but its not 55K. I believe they are like 30K a piece. Else you can opt for a tyre change kit (the older kit from the E46 works, you just need an extra spare) and go for normal but the E90 does not have a bay for the spare wheel so it takes up luggage space. The other option is to have a flat tyre repair kit.

And the Cabin filter is advised to be changed every service but the cost is neglibible.

The Diesel Particulate Filter, you might never have to change in your cars life time if its maintained properly. Diesel cars are not for people who do only short runs, and cars equiped with DPF (irrespective of Japanese or Euro) requires an "Italian tune up" once in a while.

Also generally speaking Diesel engines are hardier and develop less issues compared to petrol due to their simpler construction and the fact they live in the lower rpm range for most of their life. But they do tend to be run a lot more hence it might seem as if they need more maintenance. But maintenance is based on mileage not age.

Also before talking about servicing costs, check with Stafford their costs for a Vezel.

Please do not make misleading comments about things you obviously don't know about.

I thought diesel engines last longer cuz they are built heavier/beefier with stronger materials to accommodate the higher compression ratio

[Supra_Natural]

I thought diesel engines last longer cuz they are built heavier/beefier with stronger materials to accommodate the higher compression ratio

They are built stronger to accommodate the higher compression and higher stresses but that doesn't mean they aren't subject to wear and tear, the plain fact is that they wear out after much lower KMs than comparable petrol motors nowadays.

For example, that 3.0L turbo in your "dope" Hiace; you'll be lucky if it lasts 150,000KM before needing a rebuild. The smaller 2.5s are a bit more durable but not by much.

[The Don]

They are built stronger to accommodate the higher compression and higher stresses but that doesn't mean they aren't subject to wear and tear, the plain fact is that they wear out after much lower KMs than comparable petrol motors nowadays.

For example, that 3.0L turbo in your "dope" Hiace; you'll be lucky if it lasts 150,000KM before needing a rebuild. The smaller 2.5s are a bit more durable but not by much.

I don't think thats right Supra_Natural. On average Diesel engines last longer than petrol under the same circumstances if they were properly maintained.

I think what we experience in SL is a combination of clocking (so vehicles show wrong mileage on their clocks) shoddy maintenance, low quality high sulphur fuel and people who don't know how to drive Diesels (over revving etc and driving like idiots).

For a like for like comparison Petrols seem to start to burn oil as they approach the 200k mark while as you can get more than 100K more on average on Diesels (the London taxi engine for example gets to about 350K miles before a rebuild is needed and thats now a VW engine. The TD 27 apparently managed even more when they were used.)

[Supra_Natural]

I don't think thats right Supra_Natural. On average Diesel engines last longer than petrol under the same circumstances if they were properly maintained.

I think what we experience in SL is a combination of clocking (so vehicles show wrong mileage on their clocks) shoddy maintenance, low quality high sulphur fuel and people who don't know how to drive Diesels (over revving etc and driving like idiots).

For a like for like comparison Petrols seem to start to burn oil as they approach the 200k mark while as you can get more than 100K more on average on Diesels (the London taxi engine for example gets to about 350K miles before a rebuild is needed and thats now a VW engine. The TD 27 apparently managed even more when they were used.)

In a Sri Lankan context modern petrol engines last longer machan. All of the newer diesels need rebuilding by 150-200k at most even when properly maintained. (yes even those made by Toyota) as opposed to the old tech ones like the TD 27s or the 3L Toyotas that could go on for 3-400k if maintained well.

[The Don]

In a Sri Lankan context modern petrol engines last longer machan. All of the newer diesels need rebuilding by 150-200k at most even when properly maintained. (yes even those made by Toyota) as opposed to the old tech ones like the TD 27s or the 3L Toyotas that could go on for 3-400k if maintained well.

I wonder if this is because of the migration to lighter alloys from cast iron in Diesel engines. Must be the fuel or of course the way they are used.

There is no reason why an engine who spends most of its time at less than 2500 rpm should wear off faster than engines which gets revved way past that. The only thing that can make them wear faster is contaminated oil.

[Magnum]

They are built stronger to accommodate the higher compression and higher stresses but that doesn't mean they aren't subject to wear and tear, the plain fact is that they wear out after much lower KMs than comparable petrol motors nowadays.

For example, that 3.0L turbo in your "dope" Hiace; you'll be lucky if it lasts 150,000KM before needing a rebuild. The smaller 2.5s are a bit more durable but not by much.

The 1KD engine lasts up to 300,000kms in Japan and i dont know what you're refering to as 'new' diesel engines, my cousin had a Hiace Super Custom which came with a 1KZ engine, he used only Toyota Lanka recommended oils and filters, that van is still doing fine at 180,000km

[Supra_Natural]

The 1KD engine lasts up to 300,000kms in Japan and i dont know what you're refering to as 'new' diesel engines, my cousin had a Hiace Super Custom which came with a 1KZ engine, he used only Toyota Lanka recommended oils and filters, that van is still doing fine at 180,000km

Lol, lasting 300,000KM in Japan does not mean it's going to last 300k here, Prados with the 1KD are requiring rebuilds by the 150k mark at best so yeah, the "Dope" Hiace will also likely be needing one by then. By new I mean the 1KD and similar common rail diesels whether they are Jap, Euro, Korean or whatever.

A 1KZ is very much an old tech motor and their durability is on a whole other level to the KD. My dad's '95 77 Series Land Cruiser (with a non EFI 1 KZ-T) has 380k on it as at date without ever being rebuilt and is only now feeling like it could do with one.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Supra_Natural

[The Don]

There are chaps using 2 Stroke oil in Common rail Diesels and claim it helps vehicles perform better and last longer. It will certainly keep the top end better lubricated. Apparently it does not affect the DPF either.

Now the source of this info is BMW forums and the chaps who are doing it does not sounds like chaps trying to save money or penny pinching and there is a lot of feedback.

Has anybody tried this in SL?

Just reflecting on the newer common rail wear issues in SL.

[knightowl]

I have been using 2T in my hilux invincible. Engine certainly runs smoother. So far no issues. I use the usual cheap 2T since its mineral.

[killercruise]

How long can a petrol engine run with out a full engine repair? By the way I have a diesel mitsubishi delica (nisssn vanette lion face model), I did a full engine repair when the mileage was 250K. The engine is a R2 made by mazda.

[The Don]

How long can a petrol engine run with out a full engine repair? By the way I have a diesel mitsubishi delica (nisssn vanette lion face model), I did a full engine repair when the mileage was 250K. The engine is a R2 made by mazda.

Read the thread before you respond. The answers are all there..........

[Jor-el]

Interesting read.... Copy pasted

i found these results of a test of different varieties of diesel additives on a yank forum called diesel place. [original thread here]

cut'n'paste job below, for those of you who cannae be bothered clicking on links.

and for those of you who cannae be bothered reading all the way through, i've highlighted where 2-stroke finished up in the test result rankings and marked out which additives improved, had no effect, or worsened the 'lubricity' of diesel.

as i said, it's american research, so brand names are probably unknown here, but interesting nonetheless. what's also interesting is that soya-based biodiesel came out on top. so maybe the fact that supermarkets are adding biodiesel to their pumps is actually a good thing and is restoring some of the lubricating properties removed by the removal of sulpher from today's diesel? of course this test only loooked at whether any of these diesel additives were likely to lubricate your engine better. they didnae do any testing as to whether they're likely to block up your injectors which half a pound of gunk in the process. so as ever, YMMV:

The following are the preliminary results of a research study on diesel fuel Lubricity Additives. There is likely to be further commentary and explanation added at a future time.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this research was to determine the ability of multiple diesel fuel additives to replace the vital lubricity component in ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel) fuel.

HISTORY:

ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road diesel engines. This fuel burns cleaner and is less polluting than its predecessor, called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel. Low sulfer fuel contained less than 500 ppm of sulfer. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less.

As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfer, it is inadvertently stripped of its lubricating properties. This vital lubrication is a necessary component of the diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high pressure pumps and injectors. Traditional Low sulfer diesel fuel typically contained enough lubricating ability to suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD fuel, on the other hand, is considered to be very dry and incapable of lubricating vital fuel delivery components. As a result, these components are at risk of premature and even catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is introduced to the system. As a result, all oil companies producing ULSD fuel must replace the lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel purchased at retail fuel stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace this lost lubricity. The potential result of using inadequately treated fuel, as indicated above, can be catastrophic. There have been many documented cases of randomly tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests prove that often times the fuel we purchase is not adequately treated and may therefore contribute to accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems. For this reason it may be prudent to use an after market diesel fuel additive to ENSURE adequate lubrication of the fuel delivery system. Additionally, many additives can offer added benefits such as cetane improver, and water separators or emulsifiers.

CONTENT:

In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity. The primary component of this study is a side-by-side laboratory analysis of each additives ability to replace this vital lubricity. Additionally, claims of improving cetane, water separation or emulsification, bio-diesel compatibility and alcohol content will be noted. These notes were derived from information that was readily available to consumers (via the label and internet information) and none of this information has been evaluated for validity and/or performance. Cetane information has only been noted if the word cetane was used in the advertising information. The words improves power has not been translated to mean improves cetane in this evaluation. Information on alcohol content is provided by indicating contains no alcohol. Omission of the words contains no alcohol does not imply that it does contain alcohol. This information was simply missing in the information available to a consumer. However, the possibility of a form of alcohol in these products is possible. Additionally, information on dosages and cost per tankful are included for comparison purposes.

How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating Ability:

Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a device called a High Frequency Reciprocating Rig or HFRR. The HFRR is currently the Internationally accepted, standardized method to evaluate fluids for lubricating ability. It uses a ball bearing that reciprocates or moves back and forth on a metal surface at a very high frequency for a duration of 90 minutes. The machine does this while the ball bearing and metal surface are immersed in the test fluid (in this case, treated diesel fuel). At the end of the test the ball bearing is examined under a microscope and the wear scar on the ball bearing is measured in microns. The larger the wear scar, the poorer the lubricating ability of the fluid. Southwest Research runs every sample twice and averages the size of the wear scar.

The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a commercially available diesel fuel should produce a wear scar of no greater than 520 microns. The Engine Manufacturers Association had requested a standard of a wear scar no greater than 460 microns, typical of the pre-ULSD fuels. Most experts agree that a 520 micron standard is adequate, but also that the lower the wear scar the better.

METHOD:

An independent research firm in Texas was hired to do the laboratory work. The cost of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive manufacturers. Declining to participate and pay for the research were the following companies: Amsoil and Power Service. Because these are popular products it was determined that they needed to be included in the study. These products were tested using funds collected by diesel enthusiasts at dieselplace.com. Additionally, unconventional additives such as 2-cycle oil and used motor oil were tested for their abilities to aid in diesel fuel lubricity. These were also paid for by members of dieselplace.com.

The study was conducted in the following manner:

-The Research firm obtained a quantity of untreated ULSD fuel from a supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel engines. However, this sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the fuel for the purpose of replacing lost lubricity. In other words, it was a worst case scenario, very dry diesel fuel that would likely cause damage to any fuel delivery system. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at the Southwest Research Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel. It was determined that this batch of fuel would be utilized as the baseline fuel for testing all of the additives. The baseline fuel HFRR score of 636 would be used as the control sample. All additives tested would be evaluated on their ability to replace lost lubricity to the fuel by comparing their scores to the control sample. Any score under 636 shows improvement to the fuels ability to lubricate the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine.

BLIND STUDY:

In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the following steps were taken:

Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-diesel sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered experimental at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market. It was sent directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel sample was sponsored by Renewable Energy Group. One of their suppliers, E.H. Wolf and Sons in Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of 100% soybean based bio-diesel. This sample was used to blend with the baseline fuel to create a 2% bio-diesel for testing.

Each additive was bottled separately in identical glass containers. The bottles were labeled only with a number. This number corresponded to the additive contained in the bottle. The order of numbering was done randomly by drawing names out of a hat. Only Spicer Research held the key to the additives in each bottle.

The additive samples were then sent in a box to An independent research firm. The only information given them was the ratio of fuel to be added to each additive sample. For example, bottle A needs to be mixed at a ratio of 480-1. The ratio used for each additive was the prescribed dosage found on the bottle label for that product. Used motor oil and 2-cycle oil were tested at a rationally chosen ratio of 200:1.

The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio of each bottled fluid into a separate container containing the baseline fuel. The data, therefore, is meaningful because every additive is tested in the same way using the same fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness of each additive is now obtainable.

THE RESULTS:

These results are listed in the order of performance in the HFRR test. The baseline fuel used in every test started at an HFRR score of 636. The score shown is the tested HFRR score of the baseline fuel/additive blend.

Also included is the wear scar improvement provided by the additive as well as other claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive is also categorized as a Multi-purpose additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity only, non-conventional, or as an additive capable of treating both gasoline and diesel fuel.

As a convenience to the reader there is also information on price per treated tank of diesel fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per 26 gallon tank provided as ounces of additive per 26 gallon tank.

In Order Of Performance:

---- IMPROVED LUBRICATING QUALITIES OF DIESEL ----

1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel

HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.

50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel

66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel

Price: market value

2)Opti-Lube XPD

Multi-purpose + anti-gel

cetane improver, demulsifier

HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.

256:1 ratio

13 oz/tank

$4.35/tank

3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment

Gas and Diesel

cetane improver, emulsifier

HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement

640:1 ratio

5.2 oz/tank

$2.60/tank

4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend

Multi-purpose

demulsifier

HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement

3000:1 ratio

1.11 oz/tank

$0.68/tank

5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend

Muti-purpose + anti-gel

cetane improver

HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement

512:1 ratio

6.5 oz/tank

$3.65/tank

6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000

Multi-purpose + anti-gel

cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible

HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement

1000:1 ratio

3.32 oz/tank

$1.87/tank

*******************************************************

7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil

Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)

HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement

200:1 ratio

16.64 oz/tank

$1.09/tank

********************************************************

8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula

Lubricity Only

demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free

HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement

1000:1 ratio

3.32 oz/tank

$1.00/tank

9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate

Multi-purpose

demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free

HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement

640:1 ratio

5.2 oz/tank

$2.16/tank

10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost

Multi-purpose

Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free

HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement

400:1 ratio

8.32 oz/tank

$1.58/tank

11)Howes Meaner Power Kleaner

Multi-purpose

Alcohol free

HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement

1000:1 ratio

3.32 oz/tank

$1.36/tank

12)Stanadyne Performance Formula

Multi-purpose + anti-gel

cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free

HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement

480:1 ratio

6.9 oz/tank

$4.35/tank

---- HAD NEGLIGIBLE EFFECT ON LUBRICATING QUALITIES OF DIESEL ----

13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000 miles used.

Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems)

HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement

200:1 ratio

16.64 oz/tank

price: market value

14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant

Gas or diesel

HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)

427:1 ratio

7.8 oz/tank

$2.65/tank

15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech

Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive

HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)

1000:1 ratio

3.32 oz/tank

$2.67/tank

---- WORSENED LUBRICATING QUALITIES OF DIESEL ----

16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power

Multi-purpose + anti-gel

Emulsifier, alcohol free

HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel

1000:1 ratio

3.32 oz/tank

$1.12/tank

17)Marvel Mystery Oil

Gas, oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 and newer systems)

HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel.

320:1 ratio

10.4 oz/tank

$3.22/tank

18)ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive

Multi-purpose

Cetane improver, emulsifier, alcohol free

HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel

1000:1 ratio

3.32 oz/tank

$2.38/tank

19)Primrose Power Blend 2003

Multi-purpose

Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, emulsifier

HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline

1066:1 ratio

3.12 oz/tank

$1.39/tank

CONCLUSIONS:

Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 460 or better. This meets the most strict requirements requested by the Engine Manufacturers Association.

Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 520 or better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel requirements for maximum wear scar in a commercially available diesel fuel.

Products 16 through 19 were found to cause the fuel/additive blend to perform worse than the baseline fuel. The cause for this is speculative. This is not unprecedented in HFRR testing and can be caused by alcohol or other components in the additives. Further investigation into the possibilities behind these poor results will investigated.

Any additive testing within +/- 20 microns of the baseline fuel could be considered to have no significant change. The repeatability of this test allows for a +/- 20 micron variability to be considered insignificant.

[The Don]

You know what, that explains it. Super Diesel is killing Diesels

I was about to comment, maybe its the introduction of low sulphur Diesels as I had heard from somewhere that Sulphur does have some lubricating qualities, but could not find my source.

But that does not explain why in Sri Lanka, because in Europe we still get better mileage out of the same Diesel engines.

Edited March 4, 2015 by The Don

[Jor-el]

So "podi malli and chooti malli" were lying about ceypetco 4 star diesel when they said "waahane kaalayak pawathinawa, leda na, wada witharai"!

We shall sue them...