# 2 stroke as diesel addative?



## TT51 (Feb 28, 2009)

I've been reading a thread on the T5 forum which seems to have some very positive results from doing this. Basically adding 250-300ml 2 stroke per tank (85l) diesel and within a very short time less engine/fuel pump noise, smoother and more sprightly running and seemingly better mpg. Also better morning starting and less smoke. Its being suggested that it will lengthen engine life.

A litre of cheap stuff can be had for £3 so its only working out at about 75p per tank of fuel. Some are also saying you only need to add it every other fill up.

The diesel in the pumps is low sulpher, sulpher lubricates the high pressure pump and injectors, so adding 2 stroke does the job and very well apparently. It also burns cleaner so supposed to reduce emissions.

The advice seems to be any diesel engine without a dpf can use cheapo mineral 2 stroke. Engines with dpf semi-synthetic needs to be used.

The obvious suggestion is if it works so well why don't the fuel giants use it, most probably as at £3 a litre for even the cheap stuff its not cost effective.

Anyone got any thoughts on it, or even tried it, particularly keen to know if it will actually lengthen the life of the engine.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

From what I've read, the Sulpher lubricating thing is a bit of a misunderstanding. Back when they first started reducing the Sulpher content of diesel, the process they used had the side-effect of also removing some of the lubricants but Sulpher itself doesn't have any lubricating properties - these processes have been improved over the years and diesel these days shouldn't have any reduction in lubrication just because it's missing most of the Sulpher.

Also, the reduced emissions would depend on your point of view. If it is burning cleaner then you would reduce some emissions, but Sulpher is not burned as part of the combustion and is released as Sulpher dioxide, which is a particularly nasty chemical (and was the reason for reducing Sulpher in diesel in the first place). Don't know if it would fail an emissions test (they may not actually test for Sulpher) but if you wanted to be nice to the environment, you might not want to be pumping out that stuff.

I've not seen anything that completely confirms the other claims, although there's a lot of anecdotal evidence (the placebo effect is a powerful thing though, especially when it comes to changes in car performance). Diesel engines (non-DPF ones, at least) aren't overly fussy about what they burn though, and a little bit of oil isn't going to cause it any issues, so I guess it's worth trying to see if you see a difference yourself.


----------



## TT51 (Feb 28, 2009)

Yeah definitely with you on the placebo effect, I don't really do lots of miles so mpg isn't really a major issue. Performance, I'm going to get it remapped as its only a baby at 85.

But, I have read so many positives about it I bit the bullet and shoved some cheap stuff in today. And, within about 10 miles the engine note is quieter and smoother/crisper response. I wouldn't say any more power but feels about 100K miles younger.

It will be intersting to see how tomorrow's cold start goes, if its any smoother and less smokier. As I said, if its not going to harm anything and could potentially increase the life of the engine/fuel pump etc and makes things quieter then it can't be a bad thing.

As for emissions, might take it up there some time just to see what is coming out the back.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

People turn to placebos, faith and irrational beliefs at times of economic hardship :wink:
Avoid emotional bias. Evaluate scientifically.


----------



## TT51 (Feb 28, 2009)

Lol John

If you are bothered in any way have a read of this little lot I found posted on Brickyard. I've just cut and pasted this guys own cut and pasting :lol:

"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 colour-highlighted the salient facts in the blurb and also 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 it's 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 additive's 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)Howe's 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.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Well at least that attempts to be a controlled objective test. It just seems to be discussing lubricity though and not combustion efficiency. I'm also a little wary of industry sponsored testing as you can't consider it independent of motive to favour addatives in general or certain industry groups etc. I'd also question the baseline i.e. when was the test done and have fuels improved in lubricity since the tests were made. Also are UK fuels different in this respect? Would you therefore be achieving an improvement in lubricity by using an addative with a current UK fuel? If you can get some confidence about the baseline comparison and presuming the test was done honestly, then you could decide whether the wear rate would be improved I suppose. As for combustion - that's a different question.


----------



## Camyam (Mar 20, 2009)

Just wondering if anyone has taken this up? I have tried this for 3 fills of diesel since before christmas in our Mini One D 75bhp and straight away mpg rose by 2 mpg, couldn't believe it. Now after over a thousand miles the exhaust is steadily getting cleaner when accelerating hard (and this happens a lot with 75bhp!) also feels slightly more sprightly, not much but it is noticeable. I am using 100ml of stihl two stroke in 35/40 litres, quite a weak ratio, but results can be felt. Wonder how others have found it?


----------



## TT51 (Feb 28, 2009)

Yes I'm still using it in mine but 200/1 ratio thats 100ml per 20l. As you say once it gets through the system properly with a few miles of driving you definitely notice how smooth it pulls and is quieter. Seems to be less exhaust smoke as well, don't seem to get as big a guff out the back when starting from cold.


----------



## TTMBTT (Jul 22, 2010)

Just tried this, put the required amount into the tank of our 1.3 CDTI Corsa. After about
two miles an almost instant change in what up to now has been the most rattly engine
we have had, now smooth, quite, unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!! Will monitor m.p.g over the 
next month or so. Thanks for the heads up OP. 

N.B. Forgot to mention that it's a "58" plate with 28k on clock, just in case anyone
else is wary regards newer cars being adversly affected if it goes wrong.


----------



## TT51 (Feb 28, 2009)

One thing worth noting is which two stroke to use. In a diesel car without a DPF then from what I've read any cheap mineral two stroke oil is ok. But if the car has a DPF then use a low ash semi-synthetic two stroke oil which will be kinder to the DPF but is going to be a bit more expensive than the mineral type.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Is anyone going to try stop using it to see if the noticed change reverses? Even better, don't tell the driver and see if they notice when a change is made. If this is such a noticable difference you wonder why it's not in the fuel already?


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Doesn't seem to make the S run any better

Sent from my Nokia 5146
using Tapatalk


----------



## TT51 (Feb 28, 2009)

John-H said:


> Is anyone going to try stop using it to see if the noticed change reverses? Even better, don't tell the driver and see if they notice when a change is made. If this is such a noticable difference you wonder why it's not in the fuel already?


Someone on the T5 forum tried just that, he put some in a friends car, a lady, and she didn't know he had done it. I never saw the outcome but guess as it was a lady driver she might not notice the differnce anyway :roll: Worth trying if anyone has a diesel car that the better half uses regularly.

I think the main reason this isn't already in diesel is the cost, half a litre of cheap two stroke costs about £3.


----------



## Hardrhino (Apr 30, 2009)

Evening Neil,

Forgive me if you've mentioned but.... Which oil you using?

Gonna try this in the Tranny tomo.

Then maybe the Passat (130 pd).

Nick


----------



## TT51 (Feb 28, 2009)

Hey Nick give it a try mate, I'm using the one Morrisons sell which is Carlube two stroke oil. Just looked it up and think it may even be the semi synthetic type as its low ash, even though I could just be using regular cheapo mineral two stroke as my van doesn't have a DPF.

Transits will love the stuff 

http://www.carlube.co.uk/index.cfm?product=77


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

TT51 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Is anyone going to try stop using it to see if the noticed change reverses? Even better, don't tell the driver and see if they notice when a change is made. If this is such a noticable difference you wonder why it's not in the fuel already?
> ...


If you believe the explanations given on the net, the reason it's not in the fuel already are because it was removed in order to meet emissions regulations. As reasons go, that's pretty believable, but there are some holes in the overall argument - although everyone does seem to get good results by doing it.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

If it's a 200:1 addition at £3 per half litre, that would add about 3p per litre, or about 2% extra cost. But a reported 3mpg extra gives about 7% extra. There certainly seems no economic reason if the reports are correct. How does it compare with V-Power?


----------



## TT51 (Feb 28, 2009)

John-H said:


> How does it compare with V-Power?


A lot cheaper :wink:

Seriously though I haven't tried the V-power diesel, I will have a look on the T5 forum to see if there is any info relating to it and the two stroke debate.


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

I was talking to a bloke last week who's the haulage business run's his lorry on old chip fat!
After converting it it costs him about 80p a litre


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Yes, there are quite a few people running old chip fat but long term there may be issues with acid erosion from polutants. There was a spate of people buying bulk cooking oil too - at least that's cleaner.


----------



## Hardrhino (Apr 30, 2009)

TT51 said:


> Hey Nick give it a try mate, I'm using the one Morrisons sell which is Carlube two stroke oil. Just looked it up and think it may even be the semi synthetic type as its low ash, even though I could just be using regular cheapo mineral two stroke as my van doesn't have a DPF.
> 
> Transits will love the stuff
> 
> http://www.carlube.co.uk/index.cfm?product=77


You feckin genius....


----------



## Hardrhino (Apr 30, 2009)

Quieter on start up.....

Quieter running.....

Better fuel consumption.....

Didn't fix the noisy thrust bearing, but hey ho nothing's perfick! Lol....

A really good tip here Neil.....


----------



## TT51 (Feb 28, 2009)

Nice one Nick

How many miles have you done with it. Mine seemed to notice to an extent quite quickly but got even better with a few hundred miles of driving


----------

