Tag Archives: fuel additive

UPDATED AUG 2022.

Not a week passes where we are not asked by a consumer or repair garage to recommend a solution for clogged turbo chargers, particularly variable vane equipped units on diesel engines.

While turbochargers offer enhanced performance for both petrol and diesel vehicles, they’re not without problems. One of those is maintenance and cleaning – carbon can build up over time and use, threatening the turbo’s operation and other post-combustion components in the engine.

Understanding the Situation:

Let’s address why turbochargers clog up or accumulate deposits. A turbo is essentially driven by exhaust gases. These gases are the result of the combustion process and contain particulates, hydrocarbons and even oil that have entered the system. What happens is that these particulates build up on the hot side of the turbo. The carbon can also build up on the wastegate, which creates problems for the turbo actuator in controlling the boost. The wastegate can then stick, which means the solenoid that controls the actuator is affected because it’s trying to draw more current than it’s designed for. The ECU picks up this condition and throws a warning light, putting the vehicle in limp mode.

With diesel engines, the most common issue is the accumulation of carbon on the variable vanes mechanism resulting in sticking or complete seizure. This creates either an under-boost or over-boost condition, usually resulting in an engine warning light and tripping the limp home mode, restricting the vehicle to low power and 2.5k to 3k RPM.

Why do turbochargers accumulate deposits in the first place?

1. Accumulated deposits in the fuel system and combustion area will result in a lower quality of combustion resulting in additional hydrocarbons that will deposit in the post-combustion regions such as the turbocharger.

2. Driving styles and type of journeys. Stop-start driving and short trips will take their toll as the engine cannot reach sufficient temperature to optimize combustion quality and help burn off existing carbon deposits. More hydrocarbons are produced while the engine is in its warm-up cycle.

3. Oil – this is the missing link. Many believe that post-combustion carbonaceous deposits are the result of un-combusted fuel only. This is not true. In diesel vehicles especially, the carbon is a mix of fuel AND oil. Oil bypassing the piston rings will end up in the combustion chamber, will not be fully combusted, and will end up being deposited in the post-combustion areas such as the turbo, DPF, EGR, etc. Oil recirculating from the crankcase breather system can also deposit within the intake system.

From the above, you can see that there are several contributory factors.

Turbo Carbon Removal:

If you are unfortunate enough to have a turbo diagnosed with excessive carbon build-up, then several options are available. Firstly, politely decline any suggestion that the turbo must be replaced unless the unit is proven faulty, damaged, or excessively worn. Excessive carbon does not fall into any of these categories.

It is equally important to address the cause and any remedial work or treatments. It’s pointless tackling the carbon on the turbo directly without ensuring the fuel system runs efficiently because the chances are high that the turbo will just accumulate more carbon immediately after cleaning if the fuel system isn’t clean and operating correctly. I repeatedly hear of garages replacing turbos only for the same problem to reoccur shortly after with the newly replaced unit. This may be profitable for the garage but not cost-effective or convenient for the customer.

Therefore, when looking to resolve this issue, you first need to make sure the fuel system is clean and operating correctly. There are a variety of products on the market that will achieve this.

In tank fuel cleaners:

Forget the cheap cleaners, as these rely on the principle of natural cleaning through carbon scavenging. To learn more about that, read our article “EGR cleaning and EGR Cleaners.” These products clean the fuel system and improve the quality of the combustion process, resulting in cleaner exhaust gases. These cleaner exhaust gases, combined with heat, can naturally scavenge and clean the carbon from all post-combustion areas, including the turbo. This is somewhat effective, but you achieve the same results from a high-quality fuel system cleaner.

If a fuel system cleaner doesn’t fully resolve the problem, you could try a dedicated turbo cleaner. Again, many products are available, but most share a common flaw – they are post-post-combustion catalysts that only address post-combustion carbon, leaving the fuel system alone.

The best solution is a chemistry that combines modern high-strength detergents to ensure the fuel system is clean AND fuel-borne catalyst technology to remove and burn off post-combustion carbons.

For this, we recommend the Oilsyn DPF & Turbo Dr as it uses various detergents and fuel-borne catalyst technology that survives the combustion process and is still active post combustion to provide the best chance of removing deposits. If this doesn’t work, no other fuel-based turbo cleaner will make a difference.

This approach works 8/10 times, which is the highest success rate we have seen by far. Also, remember that heat is your friend, and occasionally dropping a gear or two to increase temperatures will assist the cleaning process.

If unsuccessful, then the only option (other than cleaning the turbo in situ or removing it) is to try an aerosol-based cleaner sprayed into the air intake. The good ones contain a blend of chemicals, some of which survive the combustion process and reach the turbo. They are best used when the engine is cold as more product will reach the turbo.

Only turbos severely seized with a combination of solidified fuel and oil-based carbonaceous deposits may not respond to these treatments. If unsuccessful, the only solution is to remove the turbo for manual cleaning.

Remove turbo for cleaning:

As a last resort, the turbo will need to be removed and professionally cleaned using the correct detergents.

Prevention and Maintenance:

Carrying out the below will provide the best possible chance of preventing deposit build-up and potential malfunction of the turbocharger.

1. Keep the fuel system and combustion area running efficiently by using a regular high-quality fuel conditioner such as Oilsyn Diesel Power/Race DNA or Archoil AR6900-D MAX. These will improve combustion quality and reduce the amount of recirculating hydrocarbons, even when the engine is cold!

2. Use the best quality oil possible or at the very least fortify it with an additive such as Archoil AR9200 or AR9400. Not only will this protect the turbo against wear, but it will keep the crankcase clean, maintain engine compression (this reduces oil bypassing the piston rings), and help prevent adhesion within the intake system, turbo, and EGR even if it does bypass the rings or crankcase breather system.

3. If you suspect a reduction of cylinder compression, use a professional engine flush or advanced cleaner such as Oilsyn ReleaseTech Power Flush or Power Cleaner, followed by an oil change. It is often postulated that compression loss results from engine (piston/rings/cylinder) wear. This is not always the case. Most compression loss conditions result from deposit build-up on the piston rings and skirts. The build-up then forces the rings from the bore and thus reduces engine compression. A professional flush will resolve this quickly and effectively. A high-quality oil and additive pack such as AR9200 or AR9400 will prevent any future deposit build-up or compression loss.

4. Occasionally drop down a gear or two to increase the revs and thus increase the temperature. Heat is your best friend when it comes to removing carbon. This is also important when using any fuel additives as it will enhance the efficacy of the cleaning chemistry.

Many oils, costly fully synthetic oils with low SAP or ash content designed for DPF-equipped vehicles, do not have sufficient quality or enough additive strength to keep the turbo well lubricated for the extended oil drain cycles that we now see. Some are supposedly designed to last up to and beyond 20,000 miles. However, from our experience and oil analysis, we find that these oils begin to struggle long before that mileage is reached.

I would recommend researching your engine and vehicle to understand the susceptibility of the turbocharger to failure or deposit accumulation. If there are documented cases of either of these, we advise that you use the appropriate lubricants and additives to ensure your vehicle does not encounter the same problems. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you need further advice on this matter.

Carbon Cleaners, Fuel Addtives, Fuel System Cleaning

Using Fuel Additives at Higher Dosages – Overdosing

March 13, 2015 Andy 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.

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 lot 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.

Carbon Cleaners, Fuel Addtives, Fuel System Cleaning

Fuel & Carbon Cleaners – What Happens to the Carbon?

March 10, 2015 Andy 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 added fuel-borne catalyst. They are proven safe processes when used correctly and responsibly.

Fleet & Commercial Solutions, Fuel Addtives, Fuel Saving

MPG – Negative vs Positive Gain ™

February 12, 2015 Andy 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 sceptics 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 who is 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 the mechanical condition of an engine 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 apply 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 being equal and that 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 the physical modification of 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 have a profound effect on 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.

Yours,

Andy Archer

Managing Director

Energy and Maintenance Saving Consultant

Cetane Boosters

Cetane Booster – What is the Best?

May 2, 2014 Andy 17 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 and 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 Archoil AR6900-D

Either of the above work 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 Andy 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, then congratulations, please go to the top of the class of automatons because you are the perfect consumer to many of these companies; you are a marketing department’s dream. This is said with all due respect, and I mean that sincerely. That said, I will provide you with some food for thought, and hopefully, it will shed some well overdue light on this subject.

I’ll address the last quote first.

Putting it bluntly, 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, offered fuel system protection, handled water contamination, etc. But the MPG gains were such that the distributor would lose money, even with the extra money charged for the premium fuel. Oh, a conspiracy!? No, and you will hear this mentioned a great deal in this article – IT IS BASIC ECONOMICS. The release of innovative technology is often balanced against strict economic criteria, targets, and other similar constraints.

Do you see the difference? There was genuine intent on providing a better product, but it has to fit in with an agreed financial model. This has nothing to do with conspiracy.

It is the same reason companies that PURCHASE energy or maintenance express an interest in fuel- and maintenance-saving technologies while 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 are the devil’s work, and will cause damage, etc. 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 fortified 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 could 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 amount of double clutch transmissions that are failing much earlier is staggering. But hey, as long as it survives the warranty period, right? My apologies for the sarcasm here.

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 manufactures actually 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 brands of oil. I guarantee that only a small percentage of these are genuine manufacturers. So much oil is actually 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 AR9100 or AR9200, 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.

In a future article I will delve into what oils and fuels I would recommend and why.

If you require any advice or help then 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 Saving, Fuel System Cleaning, Heating Oil Additives

Do Fuel and Oil Additives Really Work?

May 30, 2013 Andy 19 Comments

Firstly, we need to understand what is meant by “work” as there are conflicting ideas and interpretations. Some would consider “work” to improve performance or increase mpg, whereas others would consider “work” to clean the fuel system, restore fuel injector efficiency or reduce friction. Others would consider a product to have “worked” if it resolved an underlying problem, such as resolving engine hesitation, restoring lost performance, or reducing excessive emissions.

So which is correct? Firstly you need to understand how additives work and what they really do:

Fuel additives directly deliver one or more of the following:

1. Clean the fuel system and restore injector efficiency
2. Remove combustion deposits
3. Help clean emissions control system components
4. Lubricate the fuel system and combustion area
5. Protect against chemical or biological contamination
6. Preserve fuel and offer cold weather protection
7. Improve the quality of combustion (catalyst)
8. And so on.

The above direct actions then may or may not result in:
1. Increase in power and torque
2. Increase in fuel economy
3. Smoother running engine
4. Smoother idle
5. Reduced exhaust emissions
6. Less mechanical vibration or noise
7. And so on.

Can you see the difference? The point I am making here is that an increase in performance or mpg is typically the resultant benefit of cleaning a fuel system, engine or reducing friction. They should not always be considered as the direct aims of fuel or oil additives. The usual goal of additives is to rid the fuel system and combustion area of deposits and, thus, from these actions, restore any lost performance or MPG. Further combustion modification (catalysts) can then improve MPG further.

We often see the expectations with additives mismanaged. If a vehicle were achieving an expected and realistic 50 mpg, one would then be disappointed to discover when they purchased and used a fuel cleaner that the MPG didn’t improve if they had purchased the cleaner to improve MPG. There has to be a degradation of fuel economy in the first place. To improve MPG up and above what the engine is designed to deliver on standard pump fuel, you need to use additives designed to improve combustion and thus maximize the energy output of the base fuel, not a cleaner.

Therefore, to resolve any confusion, most fuel additive cleaners do not directly increase economy or performance. Modern detergents remove debilitating deposits and thus restore fuel system and combustion efficiency. This may or may not increase fuel economy or engine performance. It depends on what you started with. Highly quality additives with effective fuel catalyst technology can then marginally increase MPG over standard figures, depending on the quality of base fuel being used.

Symptoms can also be mechanically related. A user may inadvertently use a cleaner or additive to resolve what is, in fact a mechanical or electrical issue. This is not necessarily bad as additives can be used as a low-cost process of elimination. However, when using additives to resolve problems, it is important to understand the symptoms and, thus the probability of these symptoms being resolved through “chemical” means. Additives are not mechanics in a can.

Furthermore, a successful cleaning cycle does not automatically result in a smoother, more performant, or more economical engine. Different engine designs respond to deposits in different ways.

Many cleaners (not all) work by restoring performance and MPG. Time and time again, we see customers purchasing one-shot cleaners to improve MPG on an engine running well and achieving the expected MPG with the hope that it would magically improve fuel economy. Now, if you purchased the cleaner to maintain a clean system, then this is valid. Still, we see the expectations of many customers mismanaged when it comes to what they were expecting versus what they should reasonably expect versus what products really do and how this translates into discernible improvements to their vehicle.

The best advice we can give is for you to understand your requirements and goals concerning fuel, fuel additives, and lubricants. Don’t purchase additives on a whim or hope they may fortuitously effect some change, as this is a surefire way to disappointment. Work out what you are trying to achieve: rectify a running issue, protect the fuel system or engine, maintain a clean running system to prevent future problems, reduce wear, increase power, improve fuel economy, improve fuel quality, or many of these combined, etc. Then complete your own research or consult with a professional to match the correct products for your needs with an understanding of what the products actually do and how this translates into measurable results for you.

To summarise, there are legitimate circumstances when additives offer genuine benefits (when chosen correctly and matched to actual requirements) and other times when they become a waste of money. They become a waste of money when users misunderstand what they are actually buying versus what they are trying to achieve.

In the follow-up article, we are going to break this down further by revealing why results can be so inconsistent when using additives so that you can make an informed decision as to whether your vehicle will benefit or not from their use. We will also reveal some pitfalls, the concept of Negative versus Positive Gain, and testing protocols so that you, a consumer, mechanic or fleet operator, etc., can accurately measure your MPG improvements.

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

Fuel Addtives, Fuel System Cleaning

Should Fuel Additives be Added to an Empty Tank?

May 20, 2013 Andy 6 Comments

I am often asked how and when fuel additives should be added. With an empty or full tank of fuel? Should I wait until it’s down to a quarter of a tank? Etc.

The reality is that it doesn’t matter how much fuel is currently in the tank. The key is to ensure that regardless of the current fuel level, whether nearly empty or three-quarters full when you administer the additive, fill up on top immediately afterward.

Doing so will ensure that none of the fuel additive becomes trapped in the filler neck. Filling up on top afterward will ensure that the entire additive is washed down into the tank. Furthermore, most additives require diluting with a full tank of fuel hence filling up immediately afterward is necessary.

Some feel uncomfortable with the inconvenience of using additives at the gas station. For this, we suggest filling up with fuel and a 5-liter jerry can. Drive home, put in the additive, and then top up with fuel from the jerry can. If you live close to the gas station, don’t entirely fill the tank to the top; leave a little for the additive and fuel from the jerry can.

Contrary to popular belief, additives do not need to be added before filling up with fuel to mix. This is only necessary with fuel storage tanks. Most additives mix instantly anyway, and a moving vehicle provides sufficient agitation to complete this process.

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

Carbon Cleaners, Fuel Addtives, Fuel System Cleaning

Are Fuel Additives Safe?

March 10, 2010 Andy 102 Comments

Due to an increasing number of inquiries concerning fuel additive safety and vehicle manufacturers’ propaganda, I updated this article. Below is V2.0.

Are fuel system cleaners and fuel additives safe for my engine?

This is a question I am asked all too often, and I would like to put your mind at rest from the outset. From all my experience and testing, I have yet to find a commercial fuel-based engine cleaning product that has resulted in any form of short, medium, or long-term damage to a fuel system or engine when used per the manufacturer’s instructions. Sure, many products are poor quality or don’t deliver as promised, but the main commercial ones I have tested are at least safe to use. This includes engines with superchargers, turbochargers, the latest particulate filters, and high-pressure fuel systems. There are rare stories of failures or issues, but in all cases I have examined, they resulted from an underlying problem unrelated to additive use.

Please note that this is not a license for you to put any rubbish in your fuel tank! I only recommend cleaners using effective and proven ingredients. Providing the recommended dosages are not seriously abused, the cleaners I recommend are no more dangerous than the fuel itself. Some forget how corrosive gasoline is!

So why do Bill, Joe, and Agnes on ABC automotive forum advise against the use of additives? Why do my main dealer and car manual insist on no fuel additives? Why is there a warning sticker near the filler cap?

Very simple:

Firstly, ignorance. In any life endeavor, knowledge is power; it always has been and always will be. Combine this with the fact that people feel compelled to help and contribute regardless if the help or contribution is good or poor. When knowledge is lacking the void is generally filled with incorrect (usually a reiteration of someone else’s opinion/beliefs) or fabricated information (nothing more than guessing). Thus, poor quality help or contribution then follows.

In this modern age, the internet forum has become the perfect platform for all to contribute, feel needed, take on the role of “expert,” and help others. Some advice is good, and some are poor. Unfortunately with fuel additives, some are falling for the negative PR, parroting what someone else has misunderstood/misquoted or just second guessing.

Please note that this article is about the safety of additive use, not efficacy. I’m sure many are aggrieved with some additives’ performance and spurious claims, but that is a different conversation for another day.

Let’s look at this in more detail and help fill that void. Do you know the difference between standard and premium pump diesel fuels? Additional detergent package (usually DW-10 tested) and 2- Ethylhexyl Nitrate (2-EHN) cetane booster – that’s all. 2-EHN is the worldwide standard for raising cetane. DW-10 is the primary injector dirty-up and clean-up test procedure for measuring the performance of diesel fuel detergent packages in Europe.

Now let’s examine a diesel conditioner I routinely recommend for some diesel applications – AR6900-D MAX

It contains:

Latest DW-10 proven detergent package
2-EHN
Ester diesel fuel system lubricant
Combustion catalyst
Water handling, dispersant, demulsifier, stabiliser and anti-corrosion pack.

All proven and tested functions.

What is meant by “proven”? Is it guaranteed to perform? No, guaranteed to perform AND safe to use. By proven, it means that it is ALSO no-harms tested! Reputable fuel conditioners use no-harms tested ingredients. These ingredients and functions go through rigorous tests to ensure they are safe for the intended application.

As demonstrated above, some of what you find in diesel conditioners are already in premium fuels, except with additives; you pay less and get much more for your money. Every premium pump diesel uses 2-EHN for cetane index increase. Most diesel fuel conditioners use 2-EHN, too, as the primary ingredient!

Many diesel conditioners, AR6900-D MAX, included were blended for and comply with EN 590 specification diesel fuel. In other words, EN 590 pump diesel + AR6900-D MAX is still EN 590 compliant. You are still using fuel the vehicle manufacturer has stipulated you must use for that engine. This makes it much more difficult for manufacturers to blame additive use as the cause of a running or mechanical issue, although some still do, given a chance.

They are many other products too: Wynns, STP, Millers Ecomax, Redex, Cataclean, Liqui moly, Forte, BG and so on. Although they vary in efficacy, none of them will harm the engine.

I accept that I am in the business of selling fuel additives and need to make a living. However, before you question my motives, please understand this. I spend many hours in any given week helping others, mainly over the telephone, to resolve vehicle performance or running difficulties. Some calls can easily last 15-30 minutes for a product on which my company may make £3. Furthermore, less than 50% of calls result in a sale because I make it very clear to the customer when I think an additive will not help or is of no value.

Sometimes there is a lot of negativity with additives because of a misunderstanding of the ACTUAL functions and benefits or the overt misselling compounded by ridiculous claims. There are correct circumstances for additive use and times when they are simply unnecessary. Again, this is a different subject for another day (See the do additives work article).

There is also the risk of not using additives. Ask one of the thousands of satisfied customers, not just ours) that have used quality cleaners to resolve running issues, warning lights, power loss, engine cutouts, etc. Ask them which is safer, fuel cleaner, or engine jumping into a limp-home mode during an overtake maneuver. A bit dramatic, I accept, but still valid.

There are now a good proportion of fuel systems and engines that are MORE at risk from not using a quality regular use fuel conditioner (or periodic system clean) or at least using premium fuel to help give the fuel system and emission control systems a fighting chance.

Not a single day goes by where I don’t receive a request for help from someone that doesn’t use additives, and now the fuel system, engine, turbo, EGR, DPF, or a combination of these are causing running difficulties. Not a single day.

So what about the Main Dealers?

This too, is very simple – draconian thinking and revenue protection. Unlike in the US and other parts of the world, manufacturers (fronted through their main dealers) have a vested interest in maintaining a “replace with new policy.” For example, suppose the main dealer plugs in their diagnostics computer and registers a faulty diesel fuel pump or faulty injectors. In that case, they must advise the customer that they require a new pump or injectors.

I have seen a bill for almost £3000 to supply and fit four new diesel injectors from one of our customers! The fact that injectors and pumps can be reconditioned or that a good quality cleaner will resolve the problem 80% of the time is irrelevant. Main dealers have little choice, and they risk falling out of favor with the manufacturer or worse, losing their franchise if they deviate from the “replace with new” policy. If you accidentally put a stain on the carpet, would you replace it without trying to clean it first?

Another reason is risk mitigation. Manufacturers and dealers are simply protecting themselves from customers that may foolishly put a harmful substance in the fuel tank, i.e., bleach (and I’m not joking) or putting fuel additives in with the oil or visa-versa. Hence, a straightforward “no additives” policy.

Last but not least, you’ll be surprised to learn that many manufacturers already use additives. That’s right, but only when it suits them. For example, a prominent European petrochemical company provided an aggressive fuel system cleaner to a well know European vehicle manufacturer because they were facing hundreds of thousands of potential warranty claims from carbon build-up on diesel fuel injectors. The additive was administered to all affected engines on a recall or during the next scheduled service, and customers were none the wiser.

So why is it different in other countries? Unlike in the UK, the US main dealers have a strong influence over the manufacturers. In many cases, the main dealer will call the shots. Unfortunately, the UK and the EU, in general, are a bit behind.

Fortunately, the law is on our side (one of the few advantages of being in the EU), and we are starting to witness a change with manufacturers and franchised dealers. It is doubtful that a dealer would even know you were using an additive unless you told them as it takes serious equipment to detect additives. You are at greater risk of a dealer refusing a warranty claim due to using contaminated (untreated) fuel than using an additive to fortify the fuel or clean the system.

I hope this helps clear up the matter for our customers. If you require any advice or help, please don’t hesitate to contact me, and a member of my team or I will be pleased to help.

Andy Archer

Contact us

Find us on: