Milage Improvement Ideas?
#11
06-05-2013 | 03:16 PM
Banned
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 2
From: Green Bay WI.
Did someone insult your intelligence. I've been playing with fuel mileage and fuel mileage results probably longer believe in living. I know what works and what doesn't work. I have seen the results in my automobile. If you think that original air filter comes close to flowing as much As what I replaced it with, just keep thinking that. It's obvious you are close minded and boneheaded. Oh yes and I'm sorry my computer spelled Cummins wrong, next time I'll double check my computer spelling to make sure it spells everything as I transcribed it, sorry. Just by that comment alone I can see you been insulted by being proven wrong!
Last edited by RATC1956; 06-05-2013 at 03:19 PM.
#12
06-09-2013 | 10:56 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 568
From:
There is a test the shows that the K&N Air Filters do not filter well.
I put the below info in My Notes from a Member of another Forum who was a Truck Driver:
"I have done extensive record keeping about what improves the mileage on my N14 Cummins, as I am a long-haul truck driver. During the $4.50 plus days, I was going crazy trying everything to increase my mileage above 5.5 mpg. The only thing that consistently worked, was to use an upper cylinder lubricant in the correct amounts. I used a gallon of Lucas, or 1/2 gallon of 2-stroke oil for approximately 300 gals. They were the only products that consistently raised my fuel mileage and quieted the engine down. However, since 2-stroke oil doesn't have an injector cleaner, I had to put that in, either as a dedicated cleaner, or switch to the actual Lucas (or USA Lube) at least once every six fillups. ATF made no difference on my fuel mileage or quieting down the engine, but worked as an injector cleaner, in the right amounts. Unfortunately, the ultra low sulfur diesel does not perform as well on our older MBZ or heavy-duty truck engines, necessitating a regular dose of upper cylinder lubricant. However, I have noticed that Bio-diesel does quiet things down, if at least B11, but didn't make a difference in mileage, and maybe a bit less power."
The above is what the Guy Posted. However, I don't see how anyting dumped into the Tank will act as a Upper Cylinder Lubricant. That is something that could work with Gasoline Engines where the Fuel and Air Charge are inside of the Cylinder for a while.
In the case of a Diesl that mix He was speaking of would be burning as it injected into the Engine.
I put the below info in My Notes from a Member of another Forum who was a Truck Driver:
"I have done extensive record keeping about what improves the mileage on my N14 Cummins, as I am a long-haul truck driver. During the $4.50 plus days, I was going crazy trying everything to increase my mileage above 5.5 mpg. The only thing that consistently worked, was to use an upper cylinder lubricant in the correct amounts. I used a gallon of Lucas, or 1/2 gallon of 2-stroke oil for approximately 300 gals. They were the only products that consistently raised my fuel mileage and quieted the engine down. However, since 2-stroke oil doesn't have an injector cleaner, I had to put that in, either as a dedicated cleaner, or switch to the actual Lucas (or USA Lube) at least once every six fillups. ATF made no difference on my fuel mileage or quieting down the engine, but worked as an injector cleaner, in the right amounts. Unfortunately, the ultra low sulfur diesel does not perform as well on our older MBZ or heavy-duty truck engines, necessitating a regular dose of upper cylinder lubricant. However, I have noticed that Bio-diesel does quiet things down, if at least B11, but didn't make a difference in mileage, and maybe a bit less power."
The above is what the Guy Posted. However, I don't see how anyting dumped into the Tank will act as a Upper Cylinder Lubricant. That is something that could work with Gasoline Engines where the Fuel and Air Charge are inside of the Cylinder for a while.
In the case of a Diesl that mix He was speaking of would be burning as it injected into the Engine.
Last edited by Diesel9112; 06-09-2013 at 11:00 PM.
#13
06-10-2013 | 09:23 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 568
From:
Thats because there is no such thing in a diesel engine. If liquid fuel is reaching the cylinder walls your engine has some major fuel system or compression issues.
His story is an invalid anecdote. He was making a conscious attempt to improve economy and was also attempting other things at the same time. That skews his results in that he altered his driving habits while looking for a result then associated the result of his driving habits to something that cannot physically improve fuel economy.
Correct, and as noted above, he would see zero changes from it. His mixture is even more dilute than RATC1956 at 600:1!
The BTUs it adds to the fuel would account for less than a 1% increase in fuel economy.
Also,
All of that is flat out false information.
ATF is NOT a fuel and has no place in any diesel's fuel system!
ULSD is far cleaner and better for our engines than LSD or high sulfur diesel. Sulfur is a contaminant, it has no benefit to fuel systems or engines. Mercedes even specifically states in the owners manual to reduce oil change intervals when using high sulfur fuels because it forms acid and sludge in the oil.
His story is an invalid anecdote. He was making a conscious attempt to improve economy and was also attempting other things at the same time. That skews his results in that he altered his driving habits while looking for a result then associated the result of his driving habits to something that cannot physically improve fuel economy.
Correct, and as noted above, he would see zero changes from it. His mixture is even more dilute than RATC1956 at 600:1!
The BTUs it adds to the fuel would account for less than a 1% increase in fuel economy.
Also,
All of that is flat out false information.
ATF is NOT a fuel and has no place in any diesel's fuel system!
ULSD is far cleaner and better for our engines than LSD or high sulfur diesel. Sulfur is a contaminant, it has no benefit to fuel systems or engines. Mercedes even specifically states in the owners manual to reduce oil change intervals when using high sulfur fuels because it forms acid and sludge in the oil.
Despite His conclusions about some of the stuff I don't see Him spending Money on something that actually did not produce better milage.
Not concering the Trucker; as in the 2 Stroke Oil example no one mentions that the 2 Stroke Oil cost more than the same volume of Diesel Fuel. So if you did get more MPG using 2 Stroke Oil you would be paying more for that gallon.
In the Spicer Test there was more than a few things when added to ULSD that decreased the Wear Scar.
#14
06-13-2013 | 10:22 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 568
From:
Thats likely because he did not report failures.
Nearly all devices and additives on the market claiming to increase fuel economy, don't. Things like fuel line "catalysts", magnets, intake swirlers and "HHO" generators are expensive and do nothing whatsoever. Yet, there are a great many people that swear up and down they got a significant improvement. Why? They expect results and subconsciously alter their driving habits looking for a result or attribute it to environmental factors. If you were to disable/remove the device without their knowledge their economy would not change.
But none of that matters to us.
Firstly, our injection pumps are pressure lubricated by engine oil.
Second, ULSD's lubricity is far more than adequate even for the fuel-lubricated rotary/axial injection pumps like Cummins, Navistar, Detroit and VW used. Its still fine even after significant dilution with kerosene (D1/winter diesel) which means in summer (D2 fuel) its well beyond adequate.
The exact same fears, myths and additive hype happened in the early 90's with the switch to LSD, everyone said it would destroy your injection pump from lack of lubricity. Yet more than 20 years later, Mercedes/VW/Cummins/Navistar engines of that age and older are still common despite very very few using any kind of recreational additives.
The ULSD switch occurred 7 years ago yet the injection pump failure rate has not changed. If not for the stickers on every pump scaring people afraid of change, very few people would have known there was a change.
My friend that owns a turbo and diesel injection repair shop says that most of the pump rebuilds he receives are caused by fuel contamination (water/dirty filters), oil starvation (inline pumps), incorrect fuel (WVO or accidental gasoline), sticking from sitting unused for long periods, sticking from long idle RPM periods (Semis, unit injectors) and many are just misdiagnoses (Normal minor wear, mechanics throwing a pump/injector at an engine trying to fix some problem).
I run a tank of B100 once per year to clean out the fuel system. Since diesel is a carbon fuel, it naturally leaves behind carbon and residue no matter where or who you get your fuel from. Biodiesel is a great solvent and it cleans out any of that.
B100 would be a nice thing to use year-round but at $5.xx/gallon its still not yet a practical solution.
Another issue with using biodiesel is that it has no compulsory quality or content standards. You must be very careful of who you buy from to assure you receive a quality product.
Nearly all devices and additives on the market claiming to increase fuel economy, don't. Things like fuel line "catalysts", magnets, intake swirlers and "HHO" generators are expensive and do nothing whatsoever. Yet, there are a great many people that swear up and down they got a significant improvement. Why? They expect results and subconsciously alter their driving habits looking for a result or attribute it to environmental factors. If you were to disable/remove the device without their knowledge their economy would not change.
But none of that matters to us.
Firstly, our injection pumps are pressure lubricated by engine oil.
Second, ULSD's lubricity is far more than adequate even for the fuel-lubricated rotary/axial injection pumps like Cummins, Navistar, Detroit and VW used. Its still fine even after significant dilution with kerosene (D1/winter diesel) which means in summer (D2 fuel) its well beyond adequate.
The exact same fears, myths and additive hype happened in the early 90's with the switch to LSD, everyone said it would destroy your injection pump from lack of lubricity. Yet more than 20 years later, Mercedes/VW/Cummins/Navistar engines of that age and older are still common despite very very few using any kind of recreational additives.
The ULSD switch occurred 7 years ago yet the injection pump failure rate has not changed. If not for the stickers on every pump scaring people afraid of change, very few people would have known there was a change.
My friend that owns a turbo and diesel injection repair shop says that most of the pump rebuilds he receives are caused by fuel contamination (water/dirty filters), oil starvation (inline pumps), incorrect fuel (WVO or accidental gasoline), sticking from sitting unused for long periods, sticking from long idle RPM periods (Semis, unit injectors) and many are just misdiagnoses (Normal minor wear, mechanics throwing a pump/injector at an engine trying to fix some problem).
I run a tank of B100 once per year to clean out the fuel system. Since diesel is a carbon fuel, it naturally leaves behind carbon and residue no matter where or who you get your fuel from. Biodiesel is a great solvent and it cleans out any of that.
B100 would be a nice thing to use year-round but at $5.xx/gallon its still not yet a practical solution.
Another issue with using biodiesel is that it has no compulsory quality or content standards. You must be very careful of who you buy from to assure you receive a quality product.
This is not entirely true. The Oil is pressurized up to the point where it enters the Fuel Injection Pump Sump by way of that single Hole. After that the pressure drops off and the Oil Pools in the bottom of the Fuel Injection Pump and Governor Housing.
The Oil Seal on the front of the Fuel Injection Pump prevents the Oil from leaking out of that area and the Oil rises to the cutout at the top of the Front bearing Holder/Retainer; that part where the Timing Mark is. From there the oil simply spill out and back to the Crankcase.
In the mean time the IP Camshaft and other parts exposed to the Oil are either submerged in Oil or they are lubed by the splash of Oil thrown up by the action of the Moving Parts. This is just like the older Fuel Injection Pumps that were not lubed by the Engine Oil and retain the Oil inside of the Fuel Injection Pump itself.
While the Lower part of the Element Plungers get Oil splashed onto them the Oil is extremely thick compared to Diesel Fuel and dose not work its way to the upper part of the Element Plungers where the Diesel Fuel is solely responsible for the lubrication of the Element Plunger and Barrel.
On the Mercedes the about what ever the opening pressure of the Injectors are causes that pressure to be held after Feed Port closure until the Injector opens. In the mean time that pressure is squeezing the Diesel Fuel between the Element Plungers and Barrels lubricating them. That is the area where ULSD can cause more wear than the older Diesel Fuel; in this case in Inline Fuel Injection Pumps.
In the case of the Rotary Fuel Injection Pumps that are entirely dependent on the lubricating properties of the Diesel. Even before the ULSD Diesel Fuel was out reduction in the lubricity of the Diesel Fuel was causing more wear between the Aluminum and Steel parts that moved against each other.
Since I used to rebuild these Fuel Injection Pumps (the last time was around 1988) the Cam Rings and the bore where the advance piston rides on the Stanadyne (a.k.a Roosamaster) Fuel Injection Pumps were wearing at a faster rate.
Rebuilders were having to replace the Fuel Injection Pump Housings; if the Advanced Piston Bore was worn it needed to be honed or reamed to an oversize (this had to be done more often than it did with the older Diesel Fuel).
Eventually Stanadyne came out with a non-metallic Advance Piston.
This Cam Ring wear also showed up in the Bosch VE Fuel Injection Pump on My Volvo. This Pump already had the non-metallic advance Piston.
This Fuel Injection Pump is similar to the VE Pumps on VW Rabbits and Jettas and if you go on those forums you will find the various changes to lower the Sulfur content in Diesel blamed on the rear Seal leaks of the IPs. That same thing Happened to Me less than 1 year after the Fuel Changed.
Almost all of the information I have learned about Fuel Injection Pumps comes from what I was taught in Diesel Mechanics Trade School, experience on the job for 5+ years and I have been to the what then was the Roosamaster (Stanadyne) Farcory Schoo, 1 Bosch Factory School and one Diesel Kiki Factory School that My Boss paid Me to attend.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
