Oh and by the way, there are two types of CR diesel car drivers:

Those who have already been stranded with a konked out CRD pump (no power) and those that are still going to encounter this nuisance.

If you don't want to belong to either group, you will be using 2sO  With kind regards
DiscoGeorge
1998 Disco1 ES 300Tdi with twin TrueTracs
2005 Disco3 TDV6 S
And some more serious stuff

alex_pescaru wrote:

Indeed, the 2T oil improves the HFRR score, no doubt about it, but still below EMA requirements. Why not using Opti-Lube Summer Blend then? Is cheaper and the HFRR score is way better, over the EMA requirements.

kaanage et al.
We should allow Alex a little slack - english is not his first language, and so we must grant some tolerance in the accuracy of his phraseology. I for one, would not be able to put into Romanian exactly - either: "way better" or "quiet a bit better".

-oo0oo-

On a completely different point:
If a Poster states that xyz is "approved by A.N.Other official body, corporation, or scientific institute etc.," then they are obliged to validate their statements of fact by providing a link to that source. If they do not then their posting is merely hearsay.

As Yamaha Fan purports to be a lawyer (Rechtsanwaltin) in Germany, then she should know that more than most and respect Alex's and others desire for supportive evidence of the case being made by her, DiscoGeorge and anyone who forwards "scientific proof" or "official endorsements". The case for enhanced lubrication remains unproven without verification and validation.

athelstan wrote:

kaanage et al.
We should allow Alex a little slack - english is not his first language, and so we must grant some tolerance in the accuracy of his phraseology. I for one, would not be able to put into Romanian exactly - either: "way better" or "quiet a bit better".

-oo0oo-

On a completely different point:
If a Poster states that xyz is "approved by A.N.Other official body, corporation, or scientific institute etc.," then they are obliged to validate their statements of fact by providing a link to that source. If they do not then their posting is merely hearsay.

As Yamaha Fan purports to be a lawyer (Rechtsanwaltin) in Germany, then she should know that more than most and respect Alex's and others desire for supportive evidence of the case being made by her, DiscoGeorge and anyone who forwards "scientific proof" or "official endorsements". The case for enhanced lubrication remains unproven without verification and validation.

Two Stroke Engines

DiscoGeorge
I know all about 2 Stroke Engines: - George Silk (Silk Engineering), and Professor Brown (Belfast University) and a group of aerospace engineers at Rolls Royce Derby worked together to design and build the twin cylinder two stroke engine that powers my SILK 700S motorbike.

Don't try and teach your Grandmother to suck eggs

ps: Alex probably will not understand my last statement - sorry Alex.

athelstan wrote:

ps: Alex probably will not understand my last statement - sorry Alex.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/118200.html

DiscoGeorge wrote:

Alex has a right to his view. I find it however a bit stretched but as they say: Different horses for different courses.

Hell Alex, if you use it then it must be true
I need no more proof than that oh knowledgeable one

I am using it but in a 1:240 ratio, not 1:200. One quarter of 2sO at every fill-up (60 liters).
But as long as I didn't see any official proof, I am very reluctant to encourage anybody to use it.
The fact that I am using it is because anyone can do whatever he/she wants/feels with his/her engine.

I've seen it used by many experienced mechanics during engines and high pressure pumps rebuild.
Even at an workshop of an renowned truck manufacturer.
And thinking and putting 2+2 together, I've also started to use it.
But many of those systems and my past cars were however pre MY2005, so before ULSD. Not the case of FL2...

Therefore this is why I am reluctant, because I didn't see and/or hear any proof that the 2sO is good for mechanical tolerances and pressures of a latest high pressure system that is designed for ULSD.
From combustion point of view it is for sure good in any system, but from lubricity point of view in an post-MY2006 system (ULSD type system) is it good or not???

To be or not to be... This is the question...
An optimist will tell you the glass is half-full; the pessimist, half-empty; and the engineer will tell you the glass is twice the size it needs to be...

I understand what you are saying Alex, of all the posters on here you come across as knowledgeable and willing to help anyone and as long as you question it for post MY2006 then I won't be persuaded to use it yet.

athelstan wrote:

Don't try and teach your Grandmother to suck eggs

A bit harsh unless DiscoGeorge already knew about your motorcycle

I'm sort of in the same boat as alex, except that I have far less experience running diesels and haven't spoken to as many diesel experts. I'd like some official verification so that I can recommend the practice to others. Just verification of the German army practice would be enough for me.

At the moment, I'm quite happy to use it in my MY2008 car as I cannot see any technical reason why 2-stroke oil would harm a ULSD engine and can only improve lubrication of the parts that rely on the fuel for this. The only part that I can think of which might be affected in my car is the catalytic converter and this study, albeit quite an old one, demonstrates only a small effect on catalytic converters when used with 2-stroke engines running at much higher oil:fuel ratios than proposed for diesels.

I'm still holding off with my newer DPF equipped diesel, though, even though the reasoning for it's safe use with DPFs seems sound

athelstan wrote:

Two Stroke Engines

DiscoGeorge
I know all about 2 Stroke Engines: - George Silk (Silk Engineering), and Professor Brown (Belfast University) and a group of aerospace engineers at Rolls Royce Derby worked together to design and build the twin cylinder two stroke engine that powers my SILK 700S motorbike.

Don't try and teach your Grandmother to suck eggs

ps: Alex probably will not understand my last statement - sorry Alex.

Hi Athelstan

then YOU will understand that this harping about the lubrication properties of 2sO is a lot of bull. Maybe you can get your contacts at Belfast University to share with us some of their findings they must have investigated during the Silk project. It would definitely shed some official light on the topic and would be a benefit to those who so desperately want "official" proof.  With kind regards
DiscoGeorge
1998 Disco1 ES 300Tdi with twin TrueTracs
2005 Disco3 TDV6 S
And some more serious stuff

alex_pescaru wrote:

I am using it but in a 1:240 ratio, not 1:200. One quarter of 2sO at every fill-up (60 liters).
But as long as I didn't see any official proof, I am very reluctant to encourage anybody to use it.
The fact that I am using it is because anyone can do whatever he/she wants/feels with his/her engine.

I've seen it used by many experienced mechanics during engines and high pressure pumps rebuild.
Even at an workshop of an renowned truck manufacturer.
And thinking and putting 2+2 together, I've also started to use it.
But many of those systems and my past cars were however pre MY2005, so before ULSD. Not the case of FL2...

Therefore this is why I am reluctant, because I didn't see and/or hear any proof that the 2sO is good for mechanical tolerances and pressures of a latest high pressure system that is designed for ULSD.
From combustion point of view it is for sure good in any system, but from lubricity point of view in an post-MY2006 system (ULSD type system) is it good or not???

To be or not to be... This is the question...
An optimist will tell you the glass is half-full; the pessimist, half-empty; and the engineer will tell you the glass is twice the size it needs to be...

Hi Alex

I read your last post with interest. As far as the CRD pumps are concerned, it is not the metal friction surfaces, that get damaged, it is the high pressure seals that get damaged due to a lack of lubricity in the diesel. Once I have the pictures, you will then be able to see exactly where the problems lie.

Concerning the DPF's the more complete the combustion of the diesel air mixture, the less unburnt particles will enter the DPF. In this specific regard the JASO-FC is the best option, because of its very low ash content and its properties to increase the combustibility of diesel.

Here in SA we run a 1:200 ratio for two reasons:

1. Better lubrication of injection components

2. Increase in combustibility of the diesel. SA diesel has a cetane rating of 47.

It is mainly because of point 2 above, that with the addition of 2sO the motor has more oomph . Point 1 is purely for the increase in redundancy.

A ratio of even 1:300 is ok but with a drop off in power gains. At 1;240 you still get the required lubricity gains. With kind regards
DiscoGeorge
1998 Disco1 ES 300Tdi with twin TrueTracs
2005 Disco3 TDV6 S
And some more serious stuff

Knowing that I am a lawer you will please understand that I work under strict secrecy-agreements with/for my clients. Working mainly for the automobil and oil-industry I see and hear things which are not to be published or distributed otherwise. The information I offer to you is selected by me under above professional oath, nevertheless correct and true. If the interested reader requires more information and proof, the internet platform offers sufficient back-up on themes of general interest. Especially on the addition of 2-T oil to the diesel you will find dozends of pages - but maybe not in English. In German I recommend "Ralfis Mercedes Forum.de" (Sterndoctor) or "motor-talk.de". Highly professional sites in which I do also participate.

YF

Sorry for saying this, but typical lawyer answer...
Could you please then explain to me what do you mean by "officially" in your selected offered information bellow?

... Some German car manufacturers such as VW, Audi and MB now officially recommend the addition of 2-T Oil for "diesel fuel of unknown origin" ...

The cars are used by the people, right?
So how can this information be put in use and reach the VW, Audi or MB customers, when the info is, as you said, not to be published or distributed?

Sorry for being so blunt, but, again, could you give me/us a link to the official above recommendation?
Yes or No?

Alex you are absolutely right. YH's post is obfuscation.

If YH, it is officially approved by those esteemed automotive manufacturers then that endorsement/statement/recommendation would hardly be kept a secret or be deemed as "within the realms of information of a proprietary nature".

And, we do not know you are a lawyer, we only have your word for it on this forum - so that in itself is just a piece of hearsay evidential knowledge in the same manner as the above supposed manufacturer's 2sO to Diesel ratification. [/i]