Adding 2-Stroke oil to Diesel

[KraftyPg]

The government don't have to admit anything unless they were forced to mandate fuels like they were when it came to the leaded and unleaded war. It would take the oil companies a hell of a lot to make that sort of thing happen again but if they did the government would simply approve the new formula and the phasing out of the old stuff by a set date because it wouldn't be worded that the old stuff will kill all it touches.

As Krankin said the fuel companies already sell a wide variety of products each one guaranteeing something different to the last. They obviously would use words to the effect of making engines die quicker but that wouldn't stop them from selling two products with one claiming makes engines last longer and making a killing off them both.

 

[tweak'e]

Just like there is always a market for more expensive fuel especially those fuels they can convince people do wonders for anything from the environment to the wallet.

One of the claims often made by these oil adders is that economy is improved, how hard would it be for fuel companies to sucker people in to buying a dearer product for possible economy gains...works with higher octane fuels already.

More expensive products being unsaleable is a flawed statement.

do not forget there is only one set of diesel outlets at a gas station. most do not offer 2 types of diesel.
to sell a dearer fuel means that everyone has to buy it. while a few will certainly be happy to pay for it the vast majority buy solely on price and would never buy it. fuel co would loose big $$$.

it would be very expensive to install more tanks etc to cater for another fuel. tho it has been done with petrol tho often they will drop one of the fuel products to do it.

i remember when gull imported decent diesel. it was only a few cents dearer but it was so much better a lot of vehicle used less fuel so over all it saved you $$$. farmers here used to travel to the city and fill up drums of it.
the rest of the fuel co's switched to it not long after.

 

[Jason]

The government don't have to admit anything unless they were forced to mandate fuels like they were when it came to the leaded and unleaded war. It would take the oil companies a hell of a lot to make that sort of thing happen again but if they did the government would simply approve the new formula and the phasing out of the old stuff by a set date because it wouldn't be worded that the old stuff will kill all it touches.

As Krankin said the fuel companies already sell a wide variety of products each one guaranteeing something different to the last. They obviously would use words to the effect of making engines die quicker but that wouldn't stop them from selling two products with one claiming makes engines last longer and making a killing off them both.

There's still half a dozen countries using leaded fuel for road use, one of them is Iraq! So it's still gettable. I think the UN wants it gone by 2013?

Yes, when I said the Government would lose out there is a massive "what if" there, specifically whether or not the oil companies would make enough noise and then whether anyone would care. Perhaps if the oil companies got enough insurance claims on repairing damaged engines? There probably isn't enough to justify it.

 

[KraftyPg]

do not forget there is only one set of diesel outlets at a gas station. most do not offer 2 types of diesel.

Do not forget there used to only be leaded fuels available at the pumps yet someone invented this system that allows more than one bowser at each pumping site.

to sell a dearer fuel means that everyone has to buy it. while a few will certainly be happy to pay for it the vast majority buy solely on price and would never buy it. fuel co would loose big $$$.

Well if there was only one bowser people would have no choice, but the one bowser theory went out years ago.

it would be very expensive to install more tanks etc to cater for another fuel. tho it has been done with petrol tho often they will drop one of the fuel products to do it.

Where there is mega bucks to be made they will do what it takes and lets face it fuel companies already make billions in profits making more would not be beyond them. Chances are the cost would fall to the franchise owner anyway and it would be their choice whether they kept up with other fuel outlets or lagged behind.

i remember when gull imported decent diesel. it was only a few cents dearer but it was so much better a lot of vehicle used less fuel so over all it saved you $$$. farmers here used to travel to the city and fill up drums of it.
the rest of the fuel co's switched to it not long after.

So changing fuel or fuel mixes can and does happen even at an extra cost?

 

[Jason]

And the higher specced (and more expensive) unleaded they sell offers, guess what?

Shell Premium Unleaded is designed to ensure your engine operates at maximum performance and efficiency and also contains our exclusive fuel economy formula, designed to clean deposits within the engine. A clean engine means your vehicle will be working at its optimum performance and with reduced emissions.

http://www.shell.com.au/home/conten...es/on_the_road/fuels/shell_unleaded/overview/

I just picked Shell as an example.

 

[KraftyPg]

There's still half a dozen countries using leaded fuel for road use, one of them is Iraq! So it's still gettable.

Never said it wasn't but the war was fought on this soil and leaded lost out because the people were able to prove the positives outweighed the negatives. If 2 stoke laced diesel was able to be proven in the same way why wouldn't the same thing happen, either there is a lack of proof or those with the ability to make it happen don't believe it.

 

[Krankin]

And the higher specced (and more expensive) unleaded they sell offers, guess what?



http://www.shell.com.au/home/conten...es/on_the_road/fuels/shell_unleaded/overview/

I just picked Shell as an example.

My, we are learning.....and it sells,
just like the 2TD blend i made up before would.

 

[Jason]

Never said it wasn't but the war was fought on this soil and leaded lost out because the people were able to prove the positives outweighed the negatives. If 2 stoke laced diesel was able to be proven in the same way why wouldn't the same thing happen, either there is a lack of proof or those with the ability to make it happen don't believe it.

It happened in Australia because we followed Europe's/the UN's lead. Like we do on most emissions laws. And the same phase out will be done from unleaded to ethanol enriched.

Apparently the US is offering "nitrogen enriched" unleaded?

 

[Jason]

My, we are learning.....and it sells,
just like the 2TD blend i made up before would.

Quite a few manufacturers specify it for their vehicles, claiming loss of warranty if a specific octane level fuel isn't used. Has it got any advantage for cars that are designed to run on standard unleaded? Whole nuther thread.

 

[Krankin]

Life was much more easier back in the day of just "Standard", "Super", and "Distillate".

 

[KraftyPg]

It happened in Australia because we followed Europe's/the UN's lead.

And our fuel pricing is locked into the Singapore market, doesn't mean our fuel companies wont go it alone if they see benefits. However by that example it means if the European arms of these companies were convinced of the benefits of 2 stroke we'd have no choice but to follow them. Obviously they aren't convinced either.

 

[tweak'e]

Do not forget there used to only be leaded fuels available at the pumps yet someone invented this system that allows more than one bowser at each pumping site.

but that was because half the vehicle fleet required a different fuel. it was a necessity rather than a marketing choice.

adding another pump etc just for a small number of vehicles would not make them any profit. which is why they don't have pumps for leaded despite the old cars still on the road.

but as the gull example showed, if the customers find that there is a big benefit they will pay extra. but as 2T does not make a vehicle instantly cheaper to run and the benefits are mostly long term, the bulk of people would not pay the extra.

 

[KraftyPg]

Life was much more easier back in the day of just "Standard", "Super", and "Distillate".

It can still be simple Krankin, just believe the truth and you'll find that filling up with that terrible crap in the diesel pump is more than adequate for your life to keep on going.

 

[Krankin]

Quite a few manufacturers specify it for their vehicles, claiming loss of warranty if a specific octane level fuel isn't used. Has it got any advantage for cars that are designed to run on standard unleaded? Whole nuther thread.

1/ thats because their HP/HComp engines are made for and demand it (high RON)

2/for the standard ulp car, its claims are all the other gains in its add

 

[Jason]

And our fuel pricing is locked into the Singapore market, doesn't mean our fuel companies wont go it alone if they see benefits.

They'll never go it alone. They need to remain competitive (on both price and performance) with the over 40% of imported diesel that comes into this country.

There's no doubt that the refiners haven't taken up the 2T additive, unless there is some instant savings in cost or emissions (which would make the take up quick and easy by the consumer/governments), I doubt they would.

 

[KraftyPg]

adding another pump etc just for a small number of vehicles would not make them any profit. which is why they don't have pumps for leaded despite the old cars still on the road.

Dunno what it's like down there but the number of diesel cars on the roads here is quite substantial, added to this the number of trucks and heavy machinery who would all supposedly benefit from the "super diesel" and the potential to make money is massive. It would far strip the cost of making servo owners add an extra pump which could be done either as a stand alone pump anywhere on the premises as they did in some servos with LPG or added to the existing 3 and 4 pump bowser.

but as the gull example showed, if the customers find that there is a big benefit they will pay extra. but as 2T does not make a vehicle instantly cheaper to run and the benefits are mostly long term, the bulk of people would not pay the extra.

What makes you think the fuel companies care what the consumer thinks. Fuel companies are constantly being blamed for collusion by the media and the public alike, if this is the case then whats to stop them forcing us to change to the dearer fuel by simply cutting off the other product which apparently causes premature death on engines.

What's to stop them introducing the product 10 cents cheaper than ordinary crap because it's such a good thing then when people are suckered in they stop making the old stuff and increase the price of the laced stuff? Fuel companies are supposedly a law unto themselves if you believe the media today, if they thought they could hoodwink people into something that costs very little extra to make but they could charge a lot more for why wouldn't they do it?

If all this evidence of laced fuel was proven then surely the fuel companies would be adding the stuff to their own product to ensure they weren't liable for all those prematurely dead engines, after all they've knowingly sold bad fuel to consumers all around the world for years...and they knew how to fix the problem.

 

[KraftyPg]

There's no doubt that the refiners haven't taken up the 2T additive, unless there is some savings in cost or emissions I doubt they would.

Shell (for example) wouldn't just do it so they could say "our fuel makes diesels quieter and makes them run longer than Mobil fuels" They already do that kind of thing it's called marketing, and any dollar they can get off the opposition is good for them. If any one of them was convinced of the benefits of laced diesel they would be trying all they could to gain that upper hand, and if one did they would all follow, the fact none of them are doing it doesn't make the whole theory dead but it certainly doesn't add any depth too it.

 

[Jason]

Average diesel profit to oil companies over the last 10 years is 1.8c per litre, adding 2T would cost them how much? It may be one of the reason's they haven't done it?

 

[tweak'e]

Dunno what it's like down there but the number of diesel cars on the roads here is quite substantial, added to this the number of trucks and heavy machinery who would all supposedly benefit from the "super diesel" and the potential to make money is massive. It would far strip the cost of making servo owners add an extra pump which could be done either as a stand alone pump anywhere on the premises as they did in some servos with LPG or added to the existing 3 and 4 pump bowser.

petrol cars still dominate the consumer market.
once common rail engines dominate the diesel market they may change the fuel to suit them more.
i think OZ diesel is still 40-45 cetane while all CR and most ecu diesels require 50 cetane.

no idea why the commercial sector doesn't push for better diesel. they are not worried by cost as it all gets past on to their customers. mind you there is always someone wanting cheaper fuel so they can under cut the opposition.
also big buyers get discounted fuel anyway.

What makes you think the fuel companies care what the consumer thinks.

they care about what drives sales. they are not going to run at $1b loss just to force a new fuel onto the market. they will only put new fuel on if they think they can get customers to buy it.

sometimes thats done to provided a difference over their opposition so they can get more customers.
if theres enough diesel cars (not trucks as they have different pricing) and they can make a fuel that saves you $$$ they probably would sell it because that will bring them customers.


over here all the different brands fuel is all off the same tanker. what changes is the additives they put in it. no doubt they put in the cheapest and a little as possible to get it to minimum specs.
theres no advantage to fuel co's in making it better as mot people buy solely on price.

 

[KraftyPg]

Yeah just like servos only make 3 cents off every litre they sell and they rely on the sale of over priced Mars bars to pay their staff a minimum wage.

Considering the oil they'd use is a product of their own making the cost would be far less than any cost you or I could estimate anyway.