Sign in to follow this  
DDW

Fuel polishing in Van Isle

Recommended Posts

I would like to get my tanks cleaned and fuel polished for the boat in Sidney. Two companies pop up in a google search: Optifuel and Fuelfiltration. Anybody used either of these, or an alternative, and have opinions on them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for Olivier Blazat at Optifuel. They have their act together and know boats,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel polishing is the biggest fraud in the marine diesel business. It accomplishes nothing.

If you have an inspection port, remove it and look at what's going on.

If you don't have an inspection port, install one.

If you insist on fuel polishing, just throw the money in the ocean and pretend you got a good deal. Your fuel will be the same as if you spent hours finding the best worst investment possible.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moonduster said:

Fuel polishing is the biggest fraud in the marine diesel business. It accomplishes nothing.

I pretty much agree on polishing, but don't agree at all on cleaning. Polishing accomplishes little that the normal flow of diesel through the filters doesn't (50+ gallon/hr on this engine). However cleaning, properly done, followed by polishing, can accomplish quite a lot by removing all the crap at the bottom of the tank waiting to get stirred up. There are two inspection ports on each tank, but that will give a very limited view of the 10' long tanks with several baffles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, tried both those companies. Looks like times have changed. Fuel Filtrations phone number is disconnected and Optifuel calls themselves something else now and doesn't do pleasurecraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DDW said:

OK, tried both those companies. Looks like times have changed. Fuel Filtrations phone number is disconnected and Optifuel calls themselves something else now and doesn't do pleasurecraft. 

https://www.fueltration.ca/

Had a couple boats done by these guys recently(total of 5 tanks).  They got a lot of crap out of the tanks though I was a bit surprised at the hourly rate for what is essentially a truck mounted pump and a guy poking around with a wand in your tank to get past the baffles.  You can save money by supplying an empty barrel for waste, full barrel of fuel to work from, and having the access plates removed when they arrive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, DDW said:

Their number is disconnected. 

Really?  Weird! I just had them out a few months ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe too many people agree with Moonduster for them to stay in business.  I sailed with a guy who refiltered his diesel tanks through a setup he made in the cockpit lockers with a hand pump.  Of course he was buying fuel in places that weren't too careful about keeping water, insects, animals, leaves, fish scales or other things out of their supplies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The filtering is pretty easy, and happens just by running the engine. It was the tank cleaning that I was interested mainly in, setting up high pressure pumps with sprayer nozzles on long wands or whatever is involved seemed worth paying for it that's what they had. If they don't have that equipment, I'd probably pass. 

JG, do you have a different number for Fueltration? Their website lists only an 888 number, possibly it doesn't work from down here in the Colonies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PaulK said:

Maybe too many people agree with Moonduster for them to stay in business.  I sailed with a guy who refiltered his diesel tanks through a setup he made in the cockpit lockers with a hand pump.  Of course he was buying fuel in places that weren't too careful about keeping water, insects, animals, leaves, fish scales or other things out of their supplies. 

I can appreciate Moons comments too but the big problem is the amount of bio-diesel mixed in and how long/how has it been stored in some remote places and where it is only option. Pre-filtering and bio-treating at least gives you back some control and piece of mind. Looking at the shit adhering to tanks sometimes I question if there is any magic tank cleaning bullet other mechanical scrubbing and scraping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just put 2-3 3/4" ball bearings in the tank and proceed normally. Carry extra filters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Just put 2-3 3/4" ball bearings in the tank and proceed normally.

The Ensign Pulver technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

The Ensign Pulver technique.

More like Ensign Pulverization.

I did mention carrying (a lot of) filters.

Edit: And earplugs. Hell, hire someone to drive it around Admiralty Inlet for 24 hours and change filters as needed.

Edited by Ishmael
sheer obnoxity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Just put 2-3 3/4" ball bearings in the tank and proceed normally. Carry extra filters.

Not stainless if you need magnet to remove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I spoke too soon on Fueltration. Their toll free number only works from inside Canada. From outside, its disconnected. Got the local number, will try that tomorrow. 

I cleaned the inside of a Triumph tank once by putting a couple of pounds of BBs in there and shaking it for an hour. Worked pretty good. 

Jack, just get a stainless magnet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't see into parts of the tanks through inspection ports, there's no way some hose shoved into those inspection ports is going to do anything remotely resembling cleaning the tank. They might blast some of the crap loose, but they're going to leave a lot there, too.

I'd suggest leaving the inspection ports closed and letting them do their magic through the filler pipe, which they'll be happy to claim allows them to magically clean every nook and cranny. Then, once they're done and before they leave, open an inspection port and look at the percentage of clean tank surface and pro-rate their fee by that percentage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Boat does not have inspection ports and tank is very hard, almost impossible, to get to. Wanted to clean the tank for peace of mind so we added a lot of grotamar 82 for few days, emptied the tank and drained from the lowest point. Some sludge came out. 

I've never had problems with clogged filter so I assume the tank was reasonably clean. Found some diesel bug in the pre-filter at the end of the last season. Been adding some grotamar 82 once in a while as a preventive maintenance..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Moonduster said:

If you can't see into parts of the tanks through inspection ports, there's no way some hose shoved into those inspection ports is going to do anything remotely resembling cleaning the tank. They might blast some of the crap loose, but they're going to leave a lot there, too.

What you are saying is if they do a shitty job, I'll get a shitty result. That shouldn't be a surprise. It depends entirely on the method used. There are methods that will leave the tank clean. The reason I'm trying to contact them is to find out what their methods are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had  Diesel bug, I built my own fuel polisher, the first time I put it on I took out about a gallon of water, and used 4 filters..

Now If I'm going down to work on the boat, I always connect it up and leave it running  whilst there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that it's simply not possible to clean a tank by blindly shooting fuel around inside. They have no way of either cleaning or determining where they've cleaned. It's a bad, expensive joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are polishing to clean up bad fuel, I think it is a waste of money.  I did that once and spent way more on polishing then if I had drained the tank, flushed it with kerosene and refilled.  If diesel, the old fuel will work in a furnace as home heating oil you can use in an oil burner.  Pump the tank dry, flush with a little kerosene, then refill the tank!  Much cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Moonduster said:

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that it's simply not possible to clean a tank by blindly shooting fuel around inside. They have no way of either cleaning or determining where they've cleaned. It's a bad, expensive joke.

What you might be able to do, and what is possible for others, are two different things. Almost any tank is fully inspectable with cameras. Almost any tank is fully cleanable with the right equipment. "They" may or may not have the equipment and skill to do it, which is what I will discuss with them before money changes hands. If the boat were closer to home, I'd assemble the equipment and do it myself. 

WHK, cleaning the tanks is the goal, if diesel is used to do that then it should be polished as the sludge will be driven into suspension. In cleaning tanks myself in the past, I've discovered than methanol or ethanol works much better than diesel, kerosene, or even stoddard solvent to cut diesel sludge. It has the advantage over some other choices in that if it cannot all be drained from the tank, diesels are quite tolerant of burning it up to 10% or so mix. You do not want to leave it in the system very long, as it can attack the rubber and plastic parts. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Itsabimmerthing said:

My Boat does not have inspection ports and tank is very hard, almost impossible, to get to.

Neither of my diesel boats have had inspection ports either, but they have had fuel gauges (that use floats) to determine fuel level.  They've been over the deepest part of the tank, so I've been able to remove the float and shine a light or camera down in there to visually check gunk levels.

Once a year (when doing my fuel filter swap) I remove the gauge and draw fuel out of the bottom (using a "MityVac", which is a really useful tool to leave on the boat) to see if there is any water contamination.  I started doing that when I did find water contamination on my old boat, and I found it the hard way when the engine stopped running (thankfully with no damage).  A lot of water can live at the bottom of the tank before it will get sucked up into the fuel filter.

One hard learned lesson is to make sure that the gasket on the fuel level gauge is in good shape, or make a new gasket.  I had a tank leak there once when the boat was heeled and it was really nasty to clean up.  Thankfully there wasn't an automatic bilge pump and none went overboard.

15 hours ago, DDW said:

The filtering is pretty easy, and happens just by running the engine.

I was surprised to learn that my Yanmar GM engines (both of my boats have had them) send very little fuel back to the tank.  Maybe 10ml per 15 minute of runtime.  I was debugging some fuel system issues recently and had a bottle hooked up to the return line rather than running it back to the engine.  I asked my mechanic and did some searching online and both said that this is normal.

Most of my diesel experience comes from VW TDI engines (in cars) where the return flow is very strong, maybe 50% of the forward flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Anomaly was custom built, I was able to design the fuel tanks myself. They have a definite low point, and a small sump at the low point that is lower than the bottom of the tank. This gives a place for water and sediment to collect as it all tends to go downhill. There is a large plug directly over this, allowing inserting a dip tube and sucking the contents of the sump with a vacuum oil change pump. The dip tube serving the engine ends at the bottom of the tank also over the sump, insuring that the tank can be completely used (except for about a pint in the sump), without sucking the nastiest bits which are in the sump. That added very little to the price of the tanks - just another place where a very slight effort up front can make life so much easier down the road. 

The power boat has large, long, flat bottomed tanks: no low point, no sump, no way to remove without destroying either the tanks or boat or both. I think the Volvo in the sailboat returns a small volume of spill fuel from the injectors. The 380 hp Cummins on the other hand is common rail, the specs say it pumps 50 gallons an hour and at full chat uses 19 of those....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My truck uses the non-marinized version of your Cummins QSB 5.9 and all that return flow is shot at the pickup screen in the tank to keep it clear of debris, of which there's generally very little because the return flow has been polished by the fuel filter(s). It's a good system that works well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I got a quote that suggests the rate is $275/hr. Seems kinda high, even if it is play (Canadian) money. I think I'll have a poke around inside before I commit to much of that. 

I could do the shade tree thing: transfer all the fuel to one tank, leaving the other empty. Put some solvent like methanol in it. Drive the boat across the Rosario or Haro a couple of times on a nice wind against the tide day. Drain. Rinse and repeat on the other side. It'd probably clean my stomach too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does seem High, but do they charge just for the time onsite or Charge for travel to your boat separately?

 

My tank has no inspection hatches and no low point drain (illegal here on inland waterways) as  if it's left open or a pipe connected splits you have dump all the fuel in the bilge and they don't want that pumped into the rivers. It's also impossible to remove unless you take the cockpit floor out.

This is why I went for my own fuel polishing equipment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DDW, when you say

What you might be able to do, and what is possible for others, are two different things.

You're absolutely right.

That notwithstanding, what these companies claim is that they can vacuum every corner of every closet of your three story house by standing on the roof and shoving the vacuum hose down the chimney. The absurdity cannot be mitigated with a little skill and an endoscope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Moonduster said:

That notwithstanding, what these companies claim is that they can vacuum every corner of every closet of your three story house by standing on the roof and shoving the vacuum hose down the chimney. 

The absurdity cannot be mitigated with a little skill and an endoscope.

I'm thinking there are greater forces at play. Like how does Santa gets all those toys into individual stockings down below when he can't even fit down the chimney?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moonduster said:

That notwithstanding, what these companies claim is that they can vacuum every corner of every closet of your three story house by standing on the roof and shoving the vacuum hose down the chimney. The absurdity cannot be mitigated with a little skill and an endoscope.

With proper equipment - and it would be elaborate and expensive equipment - even that absurd example is possible. But of course a tank with 3 baffles isn't nearly as challenging. Now I believe these companies present what they do in the best possible terms, like most companies selling a service, and like most companies, probably fall somewhere short of the pitch in a large number of cases. So instead, should the sludge be allowed to build up until the boat sinks, or the tank capacity is reduced to zero? Just curious as to your approach. 

It is quite possible to clean a tank from the inspection port. I know because I have done it. I know I have done it because I have cut the tank apart afterwards and looked. In another case inspected every corner with a remote camera. If you are looking for an existence proof, there it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Q said:

That does seem High, but do they charge just for the time onsite or Charge for travel to your boat separately?

 

My tank has no inspection hatches and no low point drain (illegal here on inland waterways) as  if it's left open or a pipe connected splits you have dump all the fuel in the bilge and they don't want that pumped into the rivers. It's also impossible to remove unless you take the cockpit floor out.

This is why I went for my own fuel polishing equipment

Don't know how they charge their time, as I said the quote suggests that rate. It was an estimate for the job along with an estimate of time required. They are based in Nanaimo, so a bit of a drive to Sidney. 

Not that hard to put together a pump and some sprayers, but the filtration stuff is bulky and hard to store. I'd have to store it on the boat as the boat is far from home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rasputin22 said:

Butterworth

$3.99 a pound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do they get it to play the catchy tune while it spins?

That is the sort of thing you need to do what Moon says is impossible. Needs a fair amount of pressure to work well, but its not complicated and can be snaked though fairly small opening in baffles. Company I was talking too has similar equipment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only worked on about 20 baffled tanks. Most were welded stainless, a few welded monel and the rest carbon.

In all cases, the tanks were in the 200-400 liter size and the baffles divided the tanks into 3-4 smaller sections. The baffled completely filled the cross section of the tank and had 2-4 openings in the top and the bottom of the tank that were approximately the size of half a quarter, with the flat side against the top or bottom of the tank, respectively. These tanks were built in different decades by different companies; they were each nearly identical.

There is no way you can clean a tank into even the first baffled-off section, never mind two or three sections further away when the only access is a a semi-circular opening the size of a quarter. It's just impossible.

Now perhaps your baffles have some other profile, who knows. But the general idea of the baffle is that the prevent sloshing and so we can certainly agree that the smaller the holes the more effective the baffle. Even if the baffle plate looked like a colander, there's no possible way to clean through the baffle. And if the holes are sufficiently large to pass some device like shown in the video, then the baffle isn't very effective at preventing sloshing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right that if there is no access, there is no access. The baffles I've seen have the corners cut off, leaving a triangle in each corner that was plenty big enough to get a nozzle through. You aren't trying to prevent transfer between sections, only sloshing, and that allows pretty large openings. You can have very large openings at the top of the tank with no effect on sloshing. I don't know what these tanks look like till I get inside, a picture of a sistership shows the baffle welds stopping at least 6" short of the corners. 

I'll stipulate that if the tanks were made with no thought at all, there's a chance they made them very difficult to clean. Best external evidence of this would be no clean out access ports (these have two each). But certainly a tank can be made that is easy to clean, and it requires only the slightest bit of common sense. If I had 20 tanks open that looked like that, first thing I would do is fix them by drilling a 3" hole at the top of each baffle in a line and inline with the access port. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they were all made with inspection ports in each baffled section explicitly for cleaning.

Go figure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there was no reason for larger holes in the baffles. Common sense after all.

Tanks in a power boat are a lot less likely to allow this, tanks are much bigger and located where ports would have no access. Common sense then dictates larger holes in the baffles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DDW said:

Then there was no reason for larger holes in the baffles. Common sense after all.

Tanks in a power boat are a lot less likely to allow this, tanks are much bigger and located where ports would have no access. Common sense then dictates larger holes in the baffles. 

There's the flaw in your reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 6:34 PM, DDW said:

Well I got a quote that suggests the rate is $275/hr. Seems kinda high, even if it is play (Canadian) money. I think I'll have a poke around inside before I commit to much of that. 

I could do the shade tree thing: transfer all the fuel to one tank, leaving the other empty. Put some solvent like methanol in it. Drive the boat across the Rosario or Haro a couple of times on a nice wind against the tide day. Drain. Rinse and repeat on the other side. It'd probably clean my stomach too. 

From when I had them do a boat I believe the rate was for work time only, I would ask for that in writing though.  I thought the rate was way high as well, considering it's roughly 4x my shop rate, but I needed the job done and couldn't find anyone else who would get around to it in a reasonable time frame, that rate included one guy on the truck manning the pump and changing filter bags, the other guy running the gear on the boat, consumables(excluding fuel).    They came in well under original quote for me, and said that it was because we had EVERYTHING ready to go, two boats, 5 tanks(2 gas 3 diesel), 1 day.    Barrel of clean fuel for each, two empty barrels, all tanks pumped as empty as possible, fuel fill hoses off, all access plates or senders where access plates were not possible to get at out.   No boat crap anywhere in sight,  removable hatches on deck removed, opening hatches opened and secured, ladders in place, absorballs in the bilge ETC.   Their truck mounted pumping system is big, the filtration bags are big, it moves a lot of fuel and they had a variety of nozzles and adaptors.  Before I had them out I was thinking of using it as a chance to copy their equipment and start offering that service.  Afterwards I decided I have zero interest in doing that.  I did the alcohol wash first on one tank as an experiment, it removed a lot, I thought that tank would get a quick wash and done, surprisingly they still got a lot of crap out.   With enough access plates you can make it work though.     You can watch them work, not happy with it, tell them to go away part way through the job.  They were quite fast on the bigger tanks, and slow on one very badly contaminated tank with no access plate except the sender. 


If you want to go the alcohol wash route, talk to Industrial Plastics about ordering multiple 5 gallon barrels of alcohol. They have pretty good pricing relatively speaking for around here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DDW said:

Then there was no reason for larger holes in the baffles. Common sense after all.

Tanks in a power boat are a lot less likely to allow this, tanks are much bigger and located where ports would have no access. Common sense then dictates larger holes in the baffles. 

Common sense and boat fuel tanks are not on speaking terms.

We had a pair of very large tanks out of a boat and added access plates to clean them, since there was no way to get past the baffles at all.  First access plate we cut near the pickup and we found a nice leather welding glove complete with name still on it floating in there from when the tank was built a decade earlier.  Showed the owner and he mentioned consistently having had fuel starvation issues for many years when the tank got low...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additives that emulsify water and other contaminants used to work on mechanically injected diesels. Not a great idea on common rail diesels as it allows them to pass through the water separation filters and into the 30,000 psi common rail system where they can do significant damage.That is why most of the owners manuals have admonitions against those additives.  I'd try that on someone else's engine first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DDW said:

Additives that emulsify water and other contaminants used to work on mechanically injected diesels. Not a great idea on common rail diesels......That is why most of the owners manuals have admonitions against those additives.

DDW it appears this is a very contentious subject. There are some who say this is nonsence and a engine manufacturers response to them being hit with issues associated with today's fuels. I have been told that some manufacturers are making some fuel related components exempt from or difficult to chase warranty claims. I'm not sure how they do that.

There is no argument today’s distillate fuels are different through environmental laws, additions of bio fuel and the base product refined being arguably inferior etc. Whether it's different enough to lead to accelerated engine problems I don't know. 

Some insist with today's fuels the super fine tolerances and high pressures with common rail injection systems make additives a must now not an option. However they do warn about avoiding lesser quality/unproven products.

Not having a lot to do with common rail engines I have not gone down this burrow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's water in the common rail systems that is bad for them. And getting worse. Many of the larger common rail engines use the Bosch CP4 pump, and have Bosch piezo injectors. In the US, all three major truck brands sell millions of these, engines manufactured by 3 different companies, but all using the same basic pumps and injectors. All of them having problems. The low sulfur fuel has low lubricity, so additives that improve lubricity are good (biodiesel is one such). But additives that emulsify fuel so that it passes through the filters designed to stop water will void your warrantee on these engines. Boat engines are a bit behind in technology, I think the one in my powerboat still uses the CP3 pump, this was less sensitive to water issues but still had some. On my Ford truck (Ford built Scorpion 6.7L) there have been fuel system failures, basically either the pump grenades and showers the system with metal shavings, or the injectors pack up. Ford will test the fuel they find in the system before allowing warrantee repair. Any water, emulsifying, or dispersing agents and they disallow. The repair cost is about $12K, replace the whole fuel system. It's common enough that there is a Ford pn for the kit of parts to do it. 

Good old mechanical injection, sure just add some alcohol to dissolve the water into the fuel and burn it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DDW said:

Additives that emulsify water and other contaminants used to work on mechanically injected diesels. Not a great idea on common rail diesels as it allows them to pass through the water separation filters and into the 30,000 psi common rail system where they can do significant damage.That is why most of the owners manuals have admonitions against those additives.  I'd try that on someone else's engine first. 

That reminds me of a guy with a volvo motor that stopped working... Just needed a tune up, he knew it would be cheap.   Except it turned out he put water in the diesel tank.  Then he sucked most of it out and threw in some additives to get it finished.  The racor stopped it, so he popped the emergency bypass holes.  The the engine mounted filter stopped it so he punched holes in that with a screw driver.  Then the engine started running rough so he ran the fuck out of it at high rpm since it wouldn't idle.  Finally the injectors did stop him.  He was outraged and shocked at the bill and how the engine could have been so poorly designed...

What's your preferred additive?  I use Howes in pretty much everything.   No real science behind why, it was what I learned to use for engine service from an old diesel mechanic and never thought to change it or look into different additives for now.  The reasons he gave were it doesn't do anything to move the water along, has good lubricity, it's cheap and it smells good plus the bottles are easy to pour.  When changing a fuel filter fill the housing with neat howes, then pump it back to the tank when priming the system.  Saves a lot of mess, makes the job faster and painless.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my inspection port is the only port where the fuel float sits and I can pretty much eyeball the 30 gallon tank when I open it, usually clean.

We've had to pump out water from the bottom corner w/ pretty much what an oil pump would look like. Not too much of a problem and have only done it once in a while (every many years once)based on the colour of the exhaust in late (condensation) season. 

I have zero comment on the deep, baffled tanks that seem like a definite challenge.

I'm also enjoying this thread for some godawful reason.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DDW said:

It's water in the common rail systems that is bad for them....The low sulfur fuel has low lubricity, so additives that improve lubricity are good (biodiesel is one such).

This appears to me to be the Catch 22 of today's fuels. Biodiesel added for lubrication readily absorbs moisture from the air. Water then gives rise to both bug microbes and reduces lubrication.

An additive to emulsify water in mechanical injectors is OK, though removing it mechanically via filtration and or reducing the source via limiting condensation with full tanks etc a better approach.

However as you say emulsified diesel in a common rail is another box of monkeys which I gather can become super heated and cause catastrophic failure at the tip of the injector etc. I take it those that promote additives for common rail are products that do all things except emulsify water or maybe not from what you say?

That really only leaves for common rail doing things to remove the water mechanically and or address its source.

There is a quantity of biodiesel in all distalates however the above problem is magnified when that proportion increases, even for mechanical injectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, biodiesel is a mixed bag. Great lubricity, great water absorption. 

There are some additives which claim to be de-emulsifiers, essentially breaking any existing emulsion which drops the water out of suspension (or at least makes the droplets bigger) so that filters can more readily remove it. 

The problem with most fuel additives, is that they are proprietary mixes and you don't know what's in them. You can guess from the MSDS but even then, if not a chemist, you'll often be in the dark. The only additive I put in the truck is called Enerburn, if you read the literature it reads like snake oil or patent medicine (most of these pitches do) but there is some science behind the curtain. It is supposed to reduce soot production, which increases the time between Diesel Particulate Filter burn outs. We've not got this in boats yet but I'm sure it's coming eventually: the DPF traps the particulates but eventually clogs, the computer then dumps a whole bunch of fuel in the exhaust and lights it on fire. That gets the DPF up to about 1200 degrees or so, and burns the particulates to ash. My truck would do this about every 200 miles, with the Enerburn additive, it will go 400 miles or even to the 500 mile enforced limit before doing a "regeneration" as it is called. Fuel milage drops from about 20 mpg (on a one ton dual wheel truck) to 13 while it is happening. I'm thinking of trying it in the boat, as it would reduce soot buildup in the exhaust and turbo. 

Why put up with this in a diesel truck? Well, it doesn't smoke or smell the slightest bit like diesel. You can wipe your finger inside the tailpipe and it will be clean, not black. At idle, it is only slightly louder than a gasser, and at freeway speeds you cannot hear it. And yet it will pull 7% freeway grades in 6th gear without slowing, fully loaded with 6000 lbs, even at 7000 ft. The truck it replaced was identical, except 16 years older with the first of the common rail engines. It had 250 hp and 500 ft lbs torque. This one has 440 hp and 860 ft lbs torque, is quiet, doesn't stink, and gets the same fuel economy. Still, it is buried under emission equipment, I'd hate to have all that on a boat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

donot forget to add tank cleaner bio-side

btw the tank cleaner is exactly the same stuff as the bug killer additives by starbrite  but the tank cleaner is way cheaper in the big bottles per oz

I never had a boat problem with bugs in diesel using the bug killer every refueling

BUT  my M-B 5 banger car sure did when I first got it it was so bad you had to swap the little line filters every 10 minutes running  as it sat too long before I got the car cheap

so I got a small fuel pump and fuel filter rig and ran a 90/10 mix of diesel and tank cleaner to do my own tank cleaning [it sure needed it ]

after that the car ran to Chicago and back to miami no problems to pick up hobie 18 hulls 3 of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nota said:

 

 

Edited by nota
double

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why on earth put anything in a diesel tank other than diesel? 

On the diesel-hydraulic race boats I deal with, we run about 2000 engine hours per year. Common rail, 3 liter, 200kw engines. Standard Racor fuel filtration. Water separators checked before every start with very occasional water found. Maintenance schedules are a bit aggressive, belts and impellers pre-regatta. Oil and filters pre-delivery.

These engines operate 80% at idle and 10% full throttle and relatively high loads. The last 10% is motoring hours. No signs of degradation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because many diesels in yachts are lucky if they run 20 hours a year, the fuel in the tank stagnates, if you have less than a full tank, then the heating and cooling of the day, will draw in humid air through the breather, and this condensates on the inside of the tank. You gradually get a layer of water on the bottom of the tank and diesel bug, you need the chemicals to stop this..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diesel does not stagnate. It undergoes no chemical change across am extremely wide range of temperature for 100s of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stagnate is the wrong word. It does collect water over time in an open tank, and the water grows things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condensates is also the wrong word - moisture in the air condenses inside a tank.

It has then become a condensate.

I seen it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Condensates is also the wrong word - moisture in the air condenses inside a tank.

It has then become a condensate

"Condensate" is strictly speaking the wrong word.

"Condensation" and "condensate" can be both nouns describing the same thing or in the case of "condensation" also describing a "physical process". "Condensate" is a singular noun and "condensation' a plural noun. "Condensate" also more properly identifies a "compound" has been produced by in this case a physical change and where the plural noun or collection of compounds is "condensates".

So instead of saying you have a "mouse" in your fuel tank, it more accurate to say you have "mice" or more specifically "condensation" or "condensates".   :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well excuuuuuse me Mr. Picky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2018 at 8:04 AM, jack_sparrow said:

DDW it appears this is a very contentious subject. There are some who say this is nonsence and a engine manufacturers response to them being hit with issues associated with today's fuels. I have been told that some manufacturers are making some fuel related components exempt from or difficult to chase warranty claims. I'm not sure how they do that.

There is no argument today’s distillate fuels are different through environmental laws, additions of bio fuel and the base product refined being arguably inferior etc. Whether it's different enough to lead to accelerated engine problems I don't know. 

Some insist with today's fuels the super fine tolerances and high pressures with common rail injection systems make additives a must now not an option. However they do warn about avoiding lesser quality/unproven products.

Not having a lot to do with common rail engines I have not gone down this burrow. 

yes, its the removal of sulphur from the fuel which the industry then learnt was a lubricant. Cummins started to make fuel filters with some kind of lubricant in them as many engines had issues with seizing injectors and older ones with injection pumps

Was an issue on lots of various high, medium and low speed engines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Well excuuuuuse me Mr. Picky.

Sloop I think maybe next step up.. Mr Finicky Pickity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this