I have been reading about the issue of cetane in diesel. It seems that diesels use a variety of fuels blends, from Canada to Texas and around the globe. The manufacturers have encouraged the governments to standardize the Cetane levels in diesel fuels so that the engine manufacturers can design to that fuel. The standard is 48 in North America and 51 in Europe. While it is true that RAM and Mopar sell an additive, often recommended by mechanics, you might find that the additive is designed for their older models and not yours. Mopar offers one and I'm sure there is no harm in using it, the diesel supplement recommends not using it. Who do you believe? The Cummins engineers or the mechanic or parts department clerk?
While it is true that cetane levels increase the quality of the burn, it does not increase the quality of the fuel. Increasing the quality of the burn equates to less soot and more power.
Cummins 6.7 will operate efficiently on cetane as low as 40 but is designed to operate at 48 or better. Cetane regulates the quality of combustion not the quality of fuel, turbocharging also regulates the quality of combustion. Texas requires 48 and requires certification that fuels delivered to over 150 listed counties complies with that specification.
Chevron states in a white paper that;
Aftermarket Additives;
"It would be convenient for the user if a finished diesel fuel could satisfy all of his or her requirements without the use of supplemental additives. Although this is usually the case,some users require additional additives because the low-temperature conditions in their region are more severe than those for which the fuel was designed or because of other special circumstances. Other users feel that they will benefit from using a diesel fuel with enhanced properties compared to using regular diesel. Finally, there are users who regard the cost of an additive as cheap insurance for their large investment in equipment. A large number of aftermarket additive products are available to meet these real or perceived needs. Some are aggressively marketed with testimonials and bold performance claims that seem “too good to be true.” As with any purchase, it is wise to remember the advice, caveat emptor, “let the buyer beware.” It may be helpful to regard additives as medicine for fuel. Like medicine, they should be prescribed by an expert who has made an effort to diagnose the problem, as well as the underlying causes. Additives should be used in accordance with the recommendations of the engine manufacturer, and the instructions of the additive supplier. Sometimes, in discriminantuse of additives can do more harm than good because of unexpected interactions."
Look on the table of contents for aftermarket additives on this PDF
http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/DieselFuelTechReview.pdf
Cummins says that no additive is needed and recommends against it for my 2013 on their website. My owners manual/diesel suppliment concurred. Their contention was that an increase in cetane did not increase the quality of fuel but rather the quality of combustion, as stated in the link to Chevrons white paper on the issue.
From my reading, I gather that custom fuels can assist specific fuel buyers, such as large boats, and trains and any other user that has determined a need for a custom fuels. They have custom "additive packages" added at the fuel terminal, one can only imagine the variety of industrial users that have specialized equipment and specific problems that need to be addressed by a custom fuel. Chevron is only happy to add these packages for these customers with specific needs.
I have also gathered that lubricity has been addressed in the manufacture of the diesel fuels that we use, and the manufacturer of the motors we use, have designed to the fuel spec. Since the sulfur content was reduced other lubricants have been added to provide the lubricity needed.
End the end, I have picked up that an effort to increase the efficiency of a fuel burn, by increasing the quality of the burn, by increasing the cetane levels is a worthless feel good endeavour as is increasing lubricity, for the advanced turbo diesels that we are employing in our rigs But I am left with the idea that cleansing agents will improve efficiencies over the long run, and improvements can be measured by keeping the components involved with combustion, clean and functioning properly.
I dont intend to increase the cost per gallon of my fuel by 8 cents per gallon for negligible, if any, results.
Although anecdotal, but true in free enterprise, if a manufacturer could produce a fuel better than the next competitor, they would do it and tell you about it.
As far as EGR and soot cooker deletes, I am not about to think that I can improve on the engineering of Duramax, Ford, or Cummins, on the most advanced diesel motors in the world, by tampering with their systems with after market products, forbidden by law and punishable by a $30,000 fine, for both the installer and the user. I have a high school nearby that covers a lot of farm country and when school lets out, all you can see is knuckleheads driving up the road "rolling coal." It is true that if you want to "roll coal" you need to modify your motor so that all that soot won't accumulate on your EGR. But you will never see them remove their turbos which are subject to the same abuse from soot.
Sorry so long....but I wanted to know if I should use the fuel conditioners. I researched it last night and thought you guys would like to know what I found.
