With the arrival of low sulfur diesel fuel a number of questions surfaced concerning the need for additional lubrication.  At this time, there has still not been an official lubrication standard or even a sanctioned method at which to test for lubrication.  There have been a number of different tests considered with the two candidates discussed later. 

  HOW IS A TEST CHOSEN:

   The method used to choose a suitable test is quite complicated and there are many things to look for when deciding if a test is going to be accurate.  One thing is that when a test is done in different, but properly equipped and trained laboratories each lab must produce very similar or identical results when analyzing the same product. 

   To see if a test can be accurately reproduced a number of labs, together, perform what is called a Round Robin.  A Round Robin is when each lab gets the exact same samples of a number of products to be tested on a chosen device; each lab may get 100 samples.  Each sample is then tested several times on the same type of apparatus.  When all the analyses have been completed, they compare test results with all other participating labs. If some or all of the labs get different results with the same samples, the test obviously cannot be accurately reproduced.  If a test does prove to be accurate, this meets only the first criteria, because the test also has to be accurate with the results achieved in actual field use. 

   Simply because a test works in the lab does not mean that it directly applies to the results you will achieve in your vehicle. In order to evaluate tests accuracy in the field, several of these labs will also do a full-scale equipment test. Using the same samples, tests are performed using actual equipment.  This testing is done to see if the lab results correlate accurately with the results you will obtain in your equipment.  Add to this long process, the fact that all testing facilities involved, such as ASTM or ISO, must also agree that the tests are accurate and trustworthy.  Of course this process can take a tremendous amount of time and money. 

Order Online Here

Information Center

Directory

More About Us

Welcome

New Xtreme Marine

Articles & Info

Frequent Questions

 

Fuel Tools

Store Locations

What tests are legitimate? 

   Although there have been many tests developed trying to accurately test a fuels lubrication only two are currently being seriously considered.  One is the HFRR (High Frequency Reciprocating Rig) and the other is the BOCLE (Ball-on-Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator). The BOCLE was designed for the testing of jet fuel and has a couple of modifications for diesel fuel; one is referred to as the U.S. Army Scuffing BOCLE.  This test consists of a 1\2 inch diameter ball that is placed on a rotating cylinder. A load is applied in grams of weight, and after each successful test the ball is replaced with a new one with more load being applied. This continues until a ball is scuffed or scored, it is then considered a fail.

   Another type of BOCLE is called the Lubrizol Scuffing BOCLE. This test is similar to the aforementioned  test, but instead it applies a steady 7 kilograms of weight and is run for a period of 2 minutes. After the time has elapsed the ball will have been scared.  The Mean Wear Scar Diameter is then calculated and the larger the scar, the worse the result.  This test does take humidity into account.  The test is run at 50% relative humidity, which according to Lubrizol is very important. In talkes with two of the Associations who are working to have an official standard, both favor the U.S. Army Scuffing BOCLE over the Lubrizol method.  This does not eliminate this test as a candidate for the official standard, but, in my opinion, it appeared to be the second choice.  ISO however performed a Decision Analysis Worksheet, which included a comparison of these two tets, and in this case the results seemed to favor the Lubrizol method.   Only time will tell.

   The HFRR test consists of a ball that is placed on a flat surface.  The ball is then rapidly vibrated back and forth with a stroke distance of one millimeter while 200 grams of weight is applied. After a given time the flat spot that has been worn into the ball is measured, the size of the spot gives the lubrication qualities of the fuel being tested. 

   The HFRR has been accepted by ISO and SAE and was developed in Europe for testing diesel fuel lubrication.  The drawback to this test is that there are currently only a few of these testing machines in the country.  The BOCLE has been used for some time and there are several of these machines in labs throughout the country.  The HFRR test is being forwarded at by some as the test of choice, but others would also like to include the Scuffing BOCLE because it appears to have good correlation to the HFRR and BOCLE equipment is widely available.

  As with any new testing procedure it will take some time to rigorously test and verify the accurate results of the procedures when analyzing any fuel or additive.  These tests may possibly have some quirks that need to be resolved.  Regardless, they appear to be our best hope and both tests may become acceptable.

WHO CAN I TRUST:

    Because of the concern for additional lubrication in diesel fuel there has been the usual preying upon the consumer.  Most people do not have access to good information concerning such things and this makes them vulnerable to those trying to take advantage of a situation.                     

   One thing to look for when purchasing a lubricant is to make sure the product has been tested, and I don't mean in somebody's basement.  Many products claim an increase in lubrication. Some may even volunteer to show you how well their product works using one of the so called friction testing machines or some home-built contraption.  Unfortunately this is not possible.  As I stated earlier, the methods and equipment used to evaluate diesel fuel lubrication are extremely complicated and expensive. Only qualified labs with the proper equipment can test a fuel's lubrication or the lubricating benefits of an additive.  Also legitimate tests that apply weight during the test apply the weight in 100-gram increments and since it takes over 454 grams just to equal one pound you can see how delicate the tests are.  A person trying to show that a product lubricates with the use of a friction machine that applies weight or torque apply much higher pressures on the samples. This is not only hocus-pocus but angerous.  The agent used make a product look good on friction machine is an EP  (Extreme Pressure) agent or chlorine.  EP agents are not only not needed in diesel fuel but they are very corrosive.  EP agents or chlorine can cause problems when improperly used in your engine oil but they can be deadly when used in your fuel system. 

   Lubricants can be corrosive. Quality diesel fuel lubricants, can cause problems if over used. Too much of a good thing is not good.  This is only part of the friction machine myth. There is so much more to the accurate testing of a lubricant that hasn't been discussed and proper analysis just cannot be done on a friction machine. Anybody who would refute these points obviously hasn't talked with anyone who knows what they're doing. 

   Some additive companies have had their products tested for lubrication.  This may have been done for the right reasons but some were unfortunately done with the wrong tests.   It is not impossible to create a product with a quality lubricant, but the proper testing must be conducted to prove its quality.  Be careful not to believe everything in a company’s literature. Figures can be twisted to make things look differently than they really are. Ask to see the actual test results so that you can determine an additives effectiveness. In many cases products that claim lubrication may show little or none when properly tested. PFS Diesel Conditioners showed a 10% increase in lubrication using the US Armies Scuffing BOCLE with their test fuel using 1 oz. of PFS per 10 gallons.  When you inquire about an additive be sure to ask the question what dose ratio of the additive was used for the tests?  Some products claim that you need to use more of their product only during cold weather.  However when they have their products tested they use the maximum dose ratio, to show the best results possible.  They can then claim the results without explaining that they tested their product using more of the product than they say you need.  If a product is supposed to work for you at a given rate then it should be tested as such. 

   Any quality additive supplier should be delighted to show you the actual test results of their product using the proper methods.  If not, beware. Some products claim to meet the lubricity requirements of rotary fuel injection systems. I can't say it enough, just because something is in print does not mean it's true. There are quality lubrication additives, and when used properly they can be extremely hepful in increasing the life of you fuel system and be cost effective too.   

    Anytime you're working with fuels there are going to be variables.  Some fuels naturally have more lubrication than others depending on the crude used to make the fuel and the refining techniques.  If you blend your fuel you also have reduced the lubrication. This is why making the claim that you can meet lubrication requirement by using a simple product is not necessarily true.  Most people think that winter is the only time a blended fuel is used; unfortunately this is not always true. In the summer, No. 1 fuel that doesn't have a home may be added to No. 2 fuel in order to get rid of it.  You don't always know what you’re getting. Buy from a reliable fuel dealer, be as consistent as possible, and be informed when purchasing your additives. Saving a penny now may cost you a dime later.