Thank you for this link, which I did not know but found very interesting.
As general remark I can conclude that in value for money terms the 2-T oil is the clear winner.
Interesting is, that the ratio of adding 2-T oil with 200:1 has been equal of what is recommended by myself.
Interesting is further, that the addition of (used) motor oil (no. 13) to the diesel brings no benefit at all.
The tested additiv numbers 1-9 (no. 7 is 2-T oil) bring improvements (wear-reduction) between 415 and 162 micron. But look at the prices for such additives! The most ecconomical is the 2-T oil!
The results of the tested bio-diesel do not allow a general compliance with all bio-diesel on the market world-wide, as the results have to be limited to the feed-stock (here: soya-been) of the tested bio-diesel. Further, the used process of converting soya been into bio diesel should have been reported. Any other feed-stock such as corn, cassava, grain, coco-nut etc. will bring different results and reactions.

As a conclusion I may say that the Americans did an interesting comparison here, even though not reproducable in general. What is clearly reproducable is the performance of 2-T oil.

YF

yamaha-fan wrote:

Thank you for this link, which I did not know but found very interesting.
As general remark I can conclude that in value for money terms the 2-T oil is the clear winner.
Interesting is, that the ratio of adding 2-T oil with 200:1 has been equal of what is recommended by myself.
Interesting is further, that the addition of (used) motor oil (no. 13) to the diesel brings no benefit at all.
The tested additiv numbers 1-9 (no. 7 is 2-T oil) bring improvements (wear-reduction) between 415 and 162 micron. But look at the prices for such additives! The most ecconomical is the 2-T oil!
The results of the tested bio-diesel do not allow a general compliance with all bio-diesel on the market world-wide, as the results have to be limited to the feed-stock (here: soya-been) of the tested bio-diesel. Further, the used process of converting soya been into bio diesel should have been reported. Any other feed-stock such as corn, cassava, grain, coco-nut etc. will bring different results and reactions.

As a conclusion I may say that the Americans did an interesting comparison here, even though not reproducable in general. What is clearly reproducable is the performance of 2-T oil.

YF

2T was 162 microns, no?

Sam wrote:

2T was 162 microns, no?

Yes Sam,
My mistake....162 makes sence....
I will take my FL2 in february and have packed some 2T oil!
Regards YF!

but what about the dieselplace.com comment...

(Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems) Out with the old (2007 SE)
In with the new (2012 Dynamic with everything). Now also gone.

wildrover wrote:

but what about the dieselplace.com comment...

(Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)

One more comment from my side: the refered comparison test does not consider the production (or better: reduction) of soot in the exhaust fume. The test was aimed at wear reduction only. If soot would have been a factor, the 2-T oil would have been the hands-on winner. But this is my personal opinion and conclusion.

The other additives are at least in Germany not on the market (under those brand names).
Annother point is, that diesel fuel in Germany and Europe must comply with DIN or equivalent standards, which are not known in the USA, as diesel passenger cars or SUV are not on the market.

The remark in the test that 2007 or newer diesel engines may show a regative reaction on certain additives does not apply here in Europe. Our TD4 are considered to be 2007 and younger engines, and the plastic components for example in the diesel tank, fuel meter, fuel pump, diesel filter, fuel pipes etc. are compliant with todays modern fuel. But the car and parts manufacturer stay on the safe side by presently allowing the addition of bio diesel only up to 5%, even though internal test have shown that no negative effects have incurred with a mix of bio diesel of up to 15-20%. But long term tests are not available, and until such long term test have been conducted and completed, the bio diesel limit will be 5%. But all car manufacturers reject the addition of fuel additives in general, probably for good reasons. But 2-T oil is not considered to represent an additive (in legal terms), as its chemical structure is very similar to diesel oil. This has meanwhile been confirmed by higher courts in Germany (and I firmly believe that this may be applicable also for the EC).

YF

yamaha-fan wrote:

But 2-T oil is not considered to represent an additive (in legal terms), as its chemical structure is very similar to diesel oil. This has meanwhile been confirmed by higher courts in Germany (and I firmly believe that this may be applicable also for the EC).

YF

I find that most 2T oils in the market are coloured red. I presume it is done so that mixed fuel for 2T engines will look different to unmixed fuel.
Would this red colouring cause suspicion of red diesel use?

ULSD means "ultra low sulphur diesel", which is very new in the USA, but which is meanwhile standard in Western Europe for some time now.
2007 and newer engines again is only valid for the USA, as only in 2007 USL-diesel has been introduced to the USA, and the diesel engines sold in the US until than may not be compliant with this fuel. So all the remarks and qualifications are only valid for the USA, as the USA is years behind modern diesel-technology.
So our TD 4 engines are compliant with ULSD, at least up to 5% addition of bio diesel.
The 2-T oil used in the dieselplace comparison is a 2-T oil developed for motor boat engines, as 2-T oil for cars, motor sawers and lawn mowers etc. is not on the market in the USA due to non-availability of such engines for air pollution reasons. This special 2-T oil is different from the 2-T oil we speak of, and it is amazing that the results are quite good, which speak for the qualities of 2-T oil in general.
My remark that 2-T oil is not considered as an oil-additive is based on a number of higher court judgements.
As those judgements comply with EC-regulations, I assume that they may be valid in the EC, if any similar case should be presented to the EC-court. The cases I refer to are guarantee obligations of car manufacturers/repair shops which have been rejected under the reason of addition of oil-additives by the car-owner. The courts have clearly decided in favour of the consumer by arguing, that the car manufacturer could not prove to the courts that the default would not have happened if such oil additive would not have been added. Similarily, the courts have decided, that the oil-recommendations of car-manufacturers are considered to be the MINIMUM-requirements. Any better product can not perform worse than the minimum.

PS. In Germany, the 2-T oils are NOT coloured read. So I cannot provide a qualified answer to your question.

YF

One more information to the interested reader when buying 2-T oil:

The "JASO" specification of 2-T oil means "Japan Automobile Standards Organisation"
JASO MA = for 4-stroke motorbike engines
JASO F = for 2-stroke motorbike engines
JASO FA = standard 2-T oil
JASO FB = low smoke
JASO FC = lowest smoke
For JASO F: the higher the letter behind the "F" the better the performance of the 2-T oil

For Europe, the equivalent of JASO is ISO:
ISO-L-EGB equals JASO F
ISO-L-EGC equals JASO FB
ISO-L-EGD equals JASO FC

YF

To Yamaha Fan
Can you update us on the results of the official researches conducted by the universitites?
Unfortunately i can't report any visible change neither in sound , nor in consumption of my 2.0 TDI-PD....

yamaha-fan wrote:

One more information to the interested reader when buying 2-T oil:

The "JASO" specification of 2-T oil means "Japan Automobile Standards Organisation"
JASO MA = for 4-stroke motorbike engines
JASO F = for 2-stroke motorbike engines
JASO FA = standard 2-T oil
JASO FB = low smoke
JASO FC = lowest smoke
For JASO F: the higher the letter behind the "F" the better the performance of the 2-T oil

For Europe, the equivalent of JASO is ISO:
ISO-L-EGB equals JASO F
ISO-L-EGC equals JASO FB
ISO-L-EGD equals JASO FC

YF

nickkuts wrote:

To Yamaha Fan
Can you update us on the results of the official researches conducted by the universitites?
Unfortunately i can't report any visible change neither in sound , nor in consumption of my 2.0 TDI-PD....

Hi Matai
very wise decision. Particularely if the diesel quality is "questionable" you increase lubrication and keeping the engine clean from unwanted deposits besides much less production of soot if you add the dosis of 2-T oil to your fuel.
And the JASO FC 2-T oil you use is the right one!

YF