?? EnerBurn (DPF) ??

[piper1]

Piper 1, after 30 years then you should know that engine oil goes from a clear amber to black within the 1st couple of weeks after an oil change because of soot contamination. Soot is hard particles of carbon. It is abrasive and causes metals to "scrub" or wear. That is why engine oil by-pass filters are becoming so popular - they are more effective in filtering out soot particles than standard oil filters. And this extends the engine life and increases the oil change interval. Smart engine owners know this and take measures to eliminate soot accumulation in engine oil by using either EnerBurn or a by-pass oil purifier alone or in combination. They have the oil analyzed periodically instead of changing it. They drain the oil only when the oil analysis flags a sample for high wear metals, high soot, high fuel, or low viscosity. They can invest in more expensive, better quality synthetic engine oils knowing that it will stay clean for an extended oil change interval allowing them to recoup the investment or get a good ROI. Owner operators ARE business owners, thus have a different mentality when it comes to engine maintenance than most fleet managers I've encountered.

After 30 years I also know oil color has almost zero indication of contamination. Oils in the last 10 or so years in diesels built in the last 20 years, turn dark from heat and oxidation long before soot is even a remote problem

As far as your ROI statements and fleet managers goes, let me say this. A very very large fleet with orange trucks spent hundreds of thousands of dollars testing and equipping its tractors with drive wheel covers. The testing (and it was very thorough) yielded a best case scenario of a 1/4 mpg improvement and a more realistic 1/8 mpg improvement...so based on thier fleet average...this was going to be a 1 to 2% at most improvement. Based on that...they went ahead and equipped the whole fleet...because at thier scale of size...it paid...barely. They also run very extended oil drains and have for years. They are so focused on ROI they have a 6 step process to determine if something as simple and cheap as a hubcap gasket should be changed or left alone. What additives do they run? I've listened to talks given by this company's fleet manager...actually the head of vehicle engineering is his title....and he and members of his team have the degrees to back it up...and then they send thier studies to the purchasing guys...who count out to many many decimal places, to be audited.

We can debate the semantics of soot....but soot comtamination of oil is an oil problem long before it is a wear problem...causing oil thickening and sludge...both things that are easily recognized in used oil analysis...and both things that oils of the last 15 years handle with ease....at very extended intervals and can also do so without bypass filtration. In a fleet I personally managed, that oil was sampled at EVERY change...I began to be concerned about the cost of servicing the trucks that had bypass filters on them. Of the 45 trucks that had the bypass filters, we removed 5...then 10...then 20 and eventually all of them. What did we see in the oil samples? Not a dang bit of difference...and the truck lived happy fleet lives into 7 figures on the odometer. Am I saying bypass filtration is bad...no...but I did the ROI and even with running double the engine manufacturers oil service recommendation...they didn't pay...based on real testing. We tried many many fuel additives too....none could justify the 4 to 10 cents per gallon they added to the cost of fuel...and 90% of them didn't do a darn thing. When you asked for the exact studies to back up thier claims...many were based on old or obselete engines....or non highway tests.

Reading your website I see test data is based on a 3512 Cat stationary engine...and also one running Tier 2 emission controls. For those reading who may be unfamiliar...a 3512 is a large industrial engine that is no longer produced...and we are now at Tier 4 as far as emission regs are concerned. Tier 2 didn't even require a DPF.

All that said....I wish you well and I will say, based on the pricing on your website...as far as additives go your pricing is pretty good at around 8 cents per gallon of additional cost to treat the fuel...the last additive I tested had a retail cost of $300 a gallon...and a treated cost of close to 17 cents a gallon....it provided a small benefit...but nowhere near enough to justify the cost.

 

[Turtle]

So your additive fixes worn out rings?

It fixes worn out rings, keeps the oil honey pure and eliminates oil changes, eliminates engine wear, increases fuel mileage, eliminates greenhouse gas emissions, and rids you forever the heartbreak of psoriasis.

 

[betterdiesel]

No, the additive does nothing to mechanically improve ring seals. It just eliminates carbon build-up so that they seal better.

 

[betterdiesel]

Hey, at least I am trying to provide good info while maintaining a degree of professionalism. Taking stuff I say out of context is not helpful. It is destructive for readers to add their own negative interpretation to something I say. If something I contribute doesn't compute based on someone's own knowledge and experience then they can always ask for clarification.

Admittedly, I was prepared for this. As in other forums whenever someone brings a "new product" that actually appears to do some good into the discussion they get killed. I knew this going in and pat myself on the back for even taking the risk to contribute to this thread, which happens to be a specialty area of mine. It seems to be characteristic for some users to jump right into dispute mode and the opportunity for any shared value to come from the discussion gets lost. The moderator needs to ensure that these conversations stay in "debate and information sharing mode", and thus will remain positive and constructive as intended.

Nor can I explain everything in the space allowed - thus my deliberate attempts to keep the focus narrow. I understand that most folks are pretty jaded when it comes to fuel additives and the myriad other products that tout improved fleet operational efficiency and lower maintenance. I get it. Just do your homework is all I can say. (Don't discount results of rigorous testing just because it isn't on exactly the same engine you own.) Fundamentally these tests are designed to measure improvements in the engine performance, e.g., fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. Including the effect of after-exhaust treatment systems that were introduced with Tier 3 & Tier 4 would interfere with the emissions testing and mask any beneficial effects caused by use of the fuel additive alone.

I understand the intention behind cetane improvers and I agree they sound good in theory. I've just never heard anyone ever rave over their effectiveness in eliminating soot. That's it...end of story, it isn't good bad or indifferent it is just my own personal observation as a professional in the area of fuel additives. I did my search for related technical papers using Google Scholar. Wikipedia definitely can be useful, I just didn't get pulled in that direction when I did my search...I will look again.

And finally, please refrain from referring to this type of fuel additive as "ferrocene". No one out there that I know of is marketing "ferrocene" as an aftermarket fuel additive. It is like calling any product that contains a cetane booster "TNT". The proper terms are "fuel combustion catalyst" or "fuel borne catalyst"; "fuel combustion improver" also works but is less specific for the catalyst ingredient. A "fuel combustion improver" could also refer to any of a number of products that just have a cetane booster ingredient. Or just stick with the brand name of the product.

As far as the accusations of my being a cheerleader for EnerBurn or implying that anyone who doesn't use it is "not smart", frankly I think those comments are out-of-bounds. Nonetheless, I apologize for inspiring any such sentiments. My contributions were well-intended and I made an effort to stay within the context of the thread. I suppose I just need to suck it up and be a good sport when inappropriately snarky comments are hurled my way. My bad for taking taking the bait and responding in kind. It won't happen again. My hope is that something good comes of this for those who are genuinely open and interested in advancing their knowledge of fuel additives and how they play a role in today's rapidly evolving world of engine and fuel technologies.

 

[Turtle]

And finally, please refrain from referring to this type of fuel additive as "ferrocene". No one out there that I know of is marketing "ferrocene" as an aftermarket fuel additive.

No one markets any aftermarket fuel additive as whatever the ingredients are. I refer to it as ferrocene because the catalyst in Enerburn is an "organoferrometalic compound," AKA, ferrocene (or some other extremely closely related ferric sandwich compound of iron, hydrogen and carbon).

It is like calling any product that contains a cetane booster "TNT"

I suppose, but TNT is a very specific type of nitrate compound, and while all of the nitro group compounds are explosive, they are not the same, as I'm sure you know. Rather than calling any product containing a cetane booster "TNT," it would be more accurate to call the product a "nitrate," or "nitroalkane," or "nitrocarbonate," or even a peroxide, depending on the improver contained in the product. It would be appropriate and accurate to call "TNT" a "nitrite," though. I'm not aware of any cetane improver that actually uses trinitrotoluene, but if there is one, it would be entirely appropriate to refer to it as TNT.

The proper terms are "fuel combustion catalyst" or "fuel borne catalyst"; "fuel combustion improver" also works but is less specific for the catalyst ingredient.

You can use any green you like, with each one implying slightly different things. I would use the term "fuel performance catalyst," since the ferrocene catalyst literally improves the performance of the fuel. Fuel combustion takes place with our without an added catalyst, so I'm not sure how accurate a "combustion catalyst" would be. Fuel borne catalyst would be accurate for any catalyst introduced via fuel, so that works. "Fuel combustion improver" is also accurate, since that's what the product does.

I prefer ferrocene, as it's easier to type than "organoferrometalic compound" or any of those "proper terms," and while it isn't 100% completely accurate, it's more precise.

Granted it's not as precise as using your preferred gender pronoun <giggle> of Enerburn, but there are other branded ferrocene catalysts on the market. Just like there are plenty of branded cetane improvers on the market.

As I have said in this thread more than once, ferrocene additives such as Enerburn work as advertised (stretched claims by some marketers notwithstanding), and I know how it works. My only issue with it, and the reason I don't personally use it (other than the obvious of not having a DPF filter and a cetane improver works for my purposes and is what the manufacturer recommends) or personally recommend it, is the cost per dose, which, depending on the quantity purchased, is between about $2.75 to $3.20 per dose (so, ballpark $3). Each dose treats 20 gallons, if I recall correctly. So you're looking at about 15 cents a gallon. Because I don't have a DPF I haven't done a full cost analysis, but it would appear that the cost of using Enerburn and the cost of having the DPF cleaned is about a wash, even if 50+ cetane fuel is used.

 

[betterdiesel]

Not claiming that EnerBurn fixes worn out rings. Only that the ring seal can be improved when carbon deposits are eliminated on rings that are still mechanically sound.
Not poo pooing cetane as a fundamental aspect of fuel chemistry, nor cetane number as an important indicator of fuel combustion characteristics. Just trying to distinguish it from cetane improver additives that are an entirely different class of chemical compounds not inherent to fuel. I have heard of cetane improver additives as a class referred to as "detonators", Wikipedia has a similar term, "explososphores". I have spoken with a couple of folks who are very happy as long-term users of cetane improver additives manufactured by Primrose. It appears that cetane improvers are something of a specialty for Primrose; they've been at it for a long time.

 

[betterdiesel]

The actual cost of fuel treated with EnerBurn is ~$0.08/gallon, or ~ $0.015/mile for the long-distance trucker. Initial "clean-out and conditioning" dose is 1 ounce per 20 gallons. I recommend reducing to 1 ounce per 25 gallons for maintaining results over the long-term.

 

[betterdiesel]

Most end-users of products that are effective at eliminating soot and carbon deposits are looking to keep the engine out of the shop due to premature failure of exhaust-side components caused by soot build-up. In addition to the DPF these include the exhaust turbo-charger, the EGR, the EGR cooler, the DPF doser valve, pressure and temperature sensors, and the DOC.
Let's do the math. Take 100K miles per year, divide by a ballpark MPG of 6, to get 17,000 gallons of diesel consumed per year. At 1:3000 this is equivalent to 5.5 gallons of EnerBurn which costs ~$1,500.
The cost of a DPF clean each year can be at low as $300 for a simple blow-out. Add the bake-out and it goes up to ~$500 plus overnight service time. If the DPF cannot be restored or is damaged then it is ~$4K to replace, plus additional downtime. If other components go bad (and they do) then you are looking at more expense for trouble-shooting and diagnostics and component replacement. The total in parts and labor alone often runs into $8K to $12K before all is said and done. Exhaust turbos are $4,500, EGR/EGR-coolers are about the same. A new DOC/DPF combined is >$10K for Detroit model engines. Not to mention the lost revenue from all of the accrued downtime and running the risk of a mechanic really messing things up that have to be dealt with down the road. I hear these stories everyday. All figures are ballpark. Component pricing varies. Hope this is useful info.

 

[Treadmill]

Most end-users of products that are effective at eliminating soot and carbon deposits are looking to keep the engine out of the shop due to premature failure of exhaust-side components caused by soot build-up. In addition to the DPF these include the exhaust turbo-charger, the EGR, the EGR cooler, the DPF doser valve, pressure and temperature sensors, and the DOC.
Let's do the math. Take 100K miles per year, divide by a ballpark MPG of 6, to get 17,000 gallons of diesel consumed per year. At 1:3000 this is equivalent to 5.5 gallons of EnerBurn which costs ~$1,500.
The cost of a DPF clean each year can be at low as $300 for a simple blow-out. Add the bake-out and it goes up to ~$500 plus overnight service time. If the DPF cannot be restored or is damaged then it is ~$4K to replace, plus additional downtime. If other components go bad (and they do) then you are looking at more expense for trouble-shooting and diagnostics and component replacement. The total in parts and labor alone often runs into $8K to $12K before all is said and done. Exhaust turbos are $4,500, EGR/EGR-coolers are about the same. A new DOC/DPF combined is >$10K for Detroit model engines. Not to mention the lost revenue from all of the accrued downtime and running the risk of a mechanic really messing things up that have to be dealt with down the road. I hear these stories everyday. All figures are ballpark. Component pricing varies. Hope this is useful info.

Or one could eliminate the dpf altogether with a dpf tune and save mucho bucks.

 

[piper1]

Just do your homework is all I can say. (Don't discount results of rigorous testing just because it isn't on exactly the same engine you own.) Fundamentally these tests are designed to measure improvements in the engine performance, e.g., fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. Including the effect of after-exhaust treatment systems that were introduced with Tier 3 & Tier 4 would interfere with the emissions testing and mask any beneficial effects caused by use of the fuel additive alone.

I won't discount the tests because it isn't just like my engine...but come on...a 51 liter stationary constant low rpm engine that has no external emission controls is a looong way off from the 3 to 15 liter high speed variable load DPF equipped engines people on here use. Also...if the Tier 3 and 4 emission control systems "mask" any beneficial results..then how are we (as truckers with emission systems more complex than tier 4) supposed to see these benefits then?

Bottom line,

If I am going to spend $1500 a year on your additive...how much longer will my DPF last? A real quantifiable test based number. Where is that test so I can do the math?

 

[betterdiesel]

These are all valid questions. Let's start with the comparison of results from large engines under controlled conditions versus smaller diesel engines operated under "real-world" variable conditions of load, rpm, wind, etc.

The additive product has the same effect regardless of engine size. We know from experience over the years that the smaller the engine displacement, the sooner the effect of soot burn-off and improved combustion efficiency will kick in. So, in that sense, that the controlled engine performance tests were conducted on much larger engines and showed significant improvements time and time again represents something of a worst case scenario compared to the majority of my customers who have 7-15 liter diesel engines. I just had a new customer today tell me he experienced a dramatic improvement on the first tank treated for his 2012 reefer box truck with a 7-liter engine. This customer reports that the DPF/DEF had been a problem since "day one". This is a pretty typical scenario that the worse the symptoms for baseline operation the more contrast there is with initial use of EnerBurn as the benefits kick in. In this case, the driver could smell the old build-up soot burning off, the driver of his other truck running behind him could see the extra smoke coming off the exhaust. Then folks often report, as this customer did, indicators of more engine power, e.g., pulling hills at a higher gear, having "more throttle" remaining at the same speed or going up steep inclines, and the like.

"How do you know there are beneficial results?" For more quantitative indicators you can download the ECM report. This will have details related to DPF regeneration performance. A simple before versus after EneBurn comparison will tell the tale provided that the system is in good working order. I have fleet customers use this approach; since they are using hired drivers and cannot experience any improvement first hand. Any owner-operator can do the same (download the ECM report). If the results of improved DPF regen performance can not be directly observed then the ECM report comparison is the next approach I recommend. If you are in California, the the CARB smoke test can be used. Most DPF cleaning and service shops also perform smoke tests using a portable opacity meter, calibrated and certified for CARB compliance. The soot levels measured before and after 30-45 minutes of driving with the first tank treated with EnerBurn typically will show a dramatic decrease. I am waiting on some actual reports - will be happy to post when and if I get them from the DPF service technician. (Of course this is measured on exhaust straight out of the engine, upstream of the DPF).

There are newer Ford F350 6.7L engines with more advanced ECM diagnostics that, when combined with extra read-out equipment called the "Edge CTS" monitor that work really well in showing how DPF regeneration in the passive mode is enhanced with EnerBurn. Apparently the CTS reports on DPF soot levels, the soot build-up and burn-off rate , and the EGT (exhaust gas temps). The drivers are reporting that they can correlate decreases in DPF soot loads and burn-off rates as the EGT while driving gets higher than ~700 degrees. This is direct evidence of the effect the fuel borne catalyst ingredient has in lowering the ignition temperature of soot. At any rate, their see the soot levels drop to nil and stay there as long as driving conditions (under heavy loads, in hills, etc.) produce an EGT higher than ~700 according to the CTS monitor. I guess you have to have the Ford dealer connect the inputs to the Edge CTS device....

There are no hard and fast numbers that I know of for how long a DPF is supposed to last, just the OEM recommended cleaning intervals for "ash" removal. You should check with your dealer what that is for your particular truck/DPF.

As for the pay-back on avoiding repairs, component replacement and downtime from DPF, EGR, and exhaust turbo-charger failures that are caused by soot build-up; I suggest you use your own numbers to estimate the one year ROI - the ones I quoted earlier are ball park estimates based on what my customers tell me that their costs have been for these types of repairs BEFORE they started using EnerBurn. Please note that these costs are in addition to on-going costs associated with routine cleaning and maintenance for the DPF itself, whether it is a periodic shop bake and clean or a DPF swap-out for a clean unit at a fixed interval as part of a DPF maintenance plan.

My goal is to keep customers who have class 6,7, & 8 trucks equipped with DPF systems on the road and trouble-free for at least the nominal 200K-300K miles between each DPF cleaning operation as generally recommended by engine OEM's, and every 150K miles for after-market DPFs. Prevention through elimination of soot production by the engine is the key. EnerBurn takes care of the soot, a shop clean is still needed to remove the non-combustible "ash". Eventually all of these parts wear out and will need to be replaced, including the DPF. The goal here is to avoid pre-mature failures that are well short of the predicted "engineering lifetime" of these components and, of course, the associated financial losses.

 

[piper1]

I wish you hood luck with your additive...it sounds like most of the additives for sale as far as claimed benefits.

While I disagree, I'm leaving this alone...we're just going in circles. People can make up there own minds.

But....

Just a suggestion....don't suggest an opacity test in a DPF equipped vehicle as any kind of proof. Unless the DPF has a hole or seruous cracking in it...any DPF equipped on road truck will have the same opacity number...100% of the light will make it through...0% will get blocked. Opacity tests...CARB or otherwise are for trucks without a DPF that emit particulates during normal operation. If your selling to those fleet folks....they'll pick up on that.

 

[betterdiesel]

Yes, the smoke test is performed by trained professionals (not me) and they know how and where to sample of the exhaust stream upstream of the DPF, or they remove the DPF before performing the test. I thought I made this clear - at least I tried to. In short, they know not to "shoot themselves in the foot".

Forgot to mention the most obvious observable effect of EnerBurn is fewer regens, extended intervals between regens, and shorter active and/or parked regens as reported by almost all (90%) of my customer. Anyone who does their own driving can try the product and check it out for themselves.

Correction, EnerBurn is not my additive. It was developed in a joint venture between Exxon Chemical and Nalco. The manufacturer, EnerTeck Chemical Corp, owns the IP and the registered trademark and they carry the general liability insurance policy that protects all end-users from damages. Good luck to you.

 

[betterdiesel]

For those who are interested, here are a couple of tips from users of The Edge CTS monitor. These are customers of mine who also belong to the Ford Truck Enthusiasts internet forum. The thread can probably be found by searching keywords either "EnerBurn" or "Edge CTS", has title: "Any experience with EnerBurn?"
"The Edge, and any digital tuner or monitor for that matter, gets connected to the truck by plugging into the OBD2 port under the dash under the steering the wheel. They all come with a cable to do so. Any one can do it."

"Just to bring you up to date on my experience, my truck's behavior is very different now in regards to soot management. I am fortunate to have an Edge CTS monitor to observe soot behavior that isn't seen by most. DPF Load and Soot GPL (grams per liter) parameters while towing stay at rock bottom. If you can get the dealer to turn it on, you can have a dash gauge for %DPF Full. That can, under normal circumstances, give a good indication of DPF status. However, it is also tied to the mandatory 500 mile regeneration programming so it lies when soot isn't building.

Prior to Enerburn, regens almost always started at DPF Full. Now I get regeneration starting from 85 to 95% full on a long towing trip. It will be interesting to see what happens with normal driving with shorter trips and less heat. I still expect slower soot build than without Enerburn."

I guess there are other types of monitors out there, here is a post from a new EnerBurn user with a Forscan monitor:
"Being a skeptic of most engine and fuel additives, I did some research on Enerburn. The effect is actually well researched....I'm still skeptical. But I put some in the last two tank fulls and it does seem to behave differently. On the second tank full the dash meter climbed about like always but the DPF load and other indicators reported by Forscan were much lower. Usually the %DPF load on Forscan is higher than the dash gauge, it will hit about 135% when the dash gauge gets to 100%. I'm also somewhat further than my historical regen average and the dash gauge is only showing 75% (Forscan showing 35%), half way through the second tank. Need to run a few more tanks of fuel to see."

 

[Turtle]

For those who are interested, here are a couple of tips from users of The Edge CTS monitor. These are customers of mine who also belong to the Ford Truck Enthusiasts internet forum.

Golly, some unsolicited anecdotal testimonials from the Interewebs praising EnerBurn. How original.

And by "original" I mean droll, and lame, and bread & butter advertisement-esque spammy.

Earlier in this thread I posted the following...

If someone (here in these forums, not some random unnamed source) has a question about Enerburn, feel free to answer, with as much detail as you see fit. But just in case I haven't been clear enough, no more Enerburn commercials.

You've squandered an awesome opportunity for some great pseudo back door advertising by virtue of your mere presence here in these forums in honestly answering any questions our members may have about the product. As a result of your most recent post above, rather than take the most drastic of measures, I've simply set your account to have all of your posts Moderated and your posts will now be looked at and then Approved, Edited or Denied by a Moderator before they go live to the forums.

 

[Treadmill]

For those who are interested, here are a couple of tips from users of The Edge CTS monitor. These are customers of mine who also belong to the Ford Truck Enthusiasts internet forum.

Golly, some unsolicited anecdotal testimonials from the Interewebs praising EnerBurn. How original.

And by "original" I mean droll, and lame, and bread & butter advertisement-esque spammy.

Earlier in this thread I posted the following...

If someone (here in these forums, not some random unnamed source) has a question about Enerburn, feel free to answer, with as much detail as you see fit. But just in case I haven't been clear enough, no more Enerburn commercials.

You've squandered an awesome opportunity for some great pseudo back door advertising by virtue of your mere presence here in these forums in honestly answering any questions our members may have about the product. As a result of your most recent post above, rather than take the most drastic of measures, I've simply set your account to have all of your posts Moderated and your posts will now be looked at and then Approved, Edited or Denied by a Moderator before they go live to the forums.

Thank you.

 

[betterdiesel]

Turtle,
Respectfully, I recommend that you delete the entire thread starting with your first response in which you cite an extremely old and technically outdated journal paper from a University of MN lab study that was not on the same par as the certified testing used to qualify the current formula of Enerburn.
You should especially delete all of your posts that include references to "ferrocene". They are not technically accurate and therefore are potentially misleading. They do not address the original question posed by the forum member any more than my subsequent attempts to set the technical record straight. By all means, please delete all references in my posts that you feel do not address the forum member questions directly.
I will check back in a few days to see if you have followed through with this request to either substantially moderate or delete the thread in it's entirety.
With any luck, someone may try the product and report their end-user experience to the Expediters Forum, thus effectively resetting both the content and the tone of the posts for the benefit of all.
Many thanks in advance.

-

 

[Turtle]

Your request has been considered, and is denied. We rarely delete threads or posts at the request of someone, unless those threads or posts violate the Code of Conduct in a manner which warrants deletion, or in some other way meets a rather high bar of extreme circumstances. Even more rarely do we make edits in a thread because the thread evolved into something that doesn't meet the marketing narrative standards of a product maker, industry supplier, fleet owner or carrier. This is true for both site advertisers and spammers alike.