Not much is needed - note that some 2-cycle engines run on 110:1 or 50:1.

OK I might need a math lesson, but we have several BRILLIANT minds here willing to help my simple mind. One ounce at 128 to 1 would be ounce per gallon?? So would 100 gallons need be 100 ounces at 128 to 1?

---

I still run 32 to 1 in all my stone age 2 stroke engines. I do this because my 2 strokes all have cast cylinders and aluminum pistons. Just a note on 32 to 1. I am not trying to create thread drift.

---

---

Bottom line here is: Our older diesels NEED some kind of LUBRICATION. 2 stroke oil lubricates my Aluminum cast friction. Hopefully it will give my diesel fuel injection pump enough lubrication to keep on spitting diesel fuel into my engine to keep my BaRTH rolling.

---

How much do we actually need??

Thanks TED for starting this conversation.

I will ask again: are we adding a lubricant to the diesel fuel; or a detergent to keep it from creating gum deposits, sludge, or something? All these additives extole all the virtues but what is the common chemical? Are we raising or lowering viscosity? Are we adding something to boost octane? (If that matters in diesel fuel). I add Diesel Kleen only because the engine builder I trust says we need an additive and his experience with Cat 3208t in boats and heavy equipment is they are clean when he is doing overhauls. Since Ford is not a refiner they certainly have someone else make their products. Is there a right answer? Are we buying snake oil?
Thanks for the help so far.

2-cycle oil has only modest mounts of additive - nearly minuscule compared to 4-cycle oils.

I have seen some reports claiming zinc is an additive in 2-cycle oil that is harmful to injectors. Odd, because Zn (as zinc dithiophosphate) is an additive to prevent cam and follower wear...there would be no need for the expense of an unneeded additive, although it's a mild detergent. Detergents are unnecessary in diesel fuel, as cleanliness is accomplished for effectively by other additives, and diesel fuel itself is a pretty effective solvent.

I use Diesel Clean and 2-cycle oil together. Engine manufacturers are always researching ways to preserve performance and longevity. Those of us with Barths aren't faced with the same fueling issues endured by owners of newer engines that are trying to conform to emissions rules.

When I started with Shell (late '60s), the only thing OTR diesels enjoyed was the Rinkelman Test, which measured soot (opacity) in the exhaust. In those days, off-road very heavy equipment (large dozers, trucks, scrapers, draglines, etc.) as well as diesel locomotives, diesel motorships, and some tugboats used #4 diesel. Steamships burned basically #6 (Bunker C).

The Cummins 225, then the 250 and the RoadRanger 13 tranny were the most common in line haul tractors. Now, one of Nick's sons recently left a fuels hauler - 450 HP with a 13 speed auto.

Serious impending thread drift, sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin:
"Benefits of adding other lubricant(s) to the Diesel fuel since the EPA has us thinking Sulfur causes Global Warming or I mean Climate Change. The Environmental protection problematic assholes agency, has us believing we are the problem on earth. So EPA took away SULFUR.

You need to do more research. Sulfur, (and CFC's) are not potent greenhouse gases and have little to do with global warming. Sulfur oxides are the #1 cause of ACID RAIN, which has killed millions of trees and plant life all over the world. Take a look at Sudbury, Ontario where the nickel refineries made the land look like the moon. Bad in China, too. 90% of sulfur emissions are MAN MADE from coal combustion (number one source of airborne mercury, too.) This is not conjecture it is REAL damage.

CFC's are entirely MAN MADE and are potent catalytic killers of ozone in the stratosphere. Ozone helps block harmful UV rays from reaching us at the surface. Jury is out on the actual damage but we are 100% responsible for these compound emissions. Not a warming issue, though.

GOOD NEWS: We have accepted that we are the major players in these cycles and ALL countries are striving to reduce/ban their release.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT. Of course it is, we here in the Midwest were a mile deep in ice 50,000 yrs ago! Obviously it has warmed since then. The question is all about the RATE and WHO is affecting it.

The RATE of temperature rising has risen drastically since the 1700's when the industrial revolution started, the same time humans began burning million year old sequestered carbon and releasing it back into the air, FACT. Since carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, it is considered a contributing factor in global heat balance. Coal is over 95% carbon, it is the worst of the fossil fuels. (The rest is sulfur, at least hydrocarbons have some hydrogen along with the carbon.)

It is estimated that humans produce about 10% of the world's carbon dioxide. Here lies the controversy, is only 10% enough to cause global imbalance/change? No proof yet. There are several other normal greenhouse gases like methane at play as well.

Apparently, because no one can "prove" we caused harm, some feel comfortable continuing the emissions. Reminds of the "science" presented for years by the tobacco companies...

I believe that we have 3 strong arguments against coal (CO2, sulfur and strip mining) I also believe that ALL industries should be responsible for their impact in every way: soil, water and air. Why take a chance when you can do it right? Just like Mom said: scrub it out, clean up your mess, leave it like you found it.

We can do better than risk our children's world to save a few pennies on fuel, especially when the pennies go to fat cat energy magnates who tell us what we should do, science be damned. Trash the rivers, strip mine the land, pollute the air and make a buck...

In all things, reason and moderation should prevail. So ends the rant.

More on Global Warming or Climate Change for members to consider.

I use #7 - occasionally mixed with Diesel Kleen.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
I use #7 - occasionally mixed with Diesel Kleen.

Ditto RUSTY! My antique Barth does will with this combination.

---

---

No one has a Barth newer than 2007. The old Barth did good up over the mountain leaving Hendersonville North Carolina. I hope my Barth continues to perform this well for the next 25 years.

My IP is a later model, upgraded for ULSD - but the vendor still recommends the 2-cycle oil.

quote:

IP

Internet Provider?

Injection pump.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
I use #7 - occasionally mixed with Diesel Kleen.

"7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank"

---

Tank equals 26 gallons. That would be pretty close to a quart per 50 gallons of fuel. Quart in 50 gallons is what I have been using for almost five years now.

---

Thank you Rusty and Steve.

Just read an interesting article suggesting that, "Cummins Endorses Two Additives"
https://www.truckinginfo.com/1...s-two-fuel-additives

Thought you might be interested.

Walt R.

I have used Diesel Kleen for a while.
Used to be 80 oz for 250 gal, now they have 64 oz size. Also good for 250 gal.
I got the 64 oz from Cummins for $11.83. If you buy 3 the shipping is free.

https://shop.cummins.com/CSSNA...4oz-0306406?store=US

Hi All,

I've owned the infamous 6.0 power stroke diesel for 12 years in our rollback. The 6.0's are extremely finicky concerning their fuel. The 5.9 Cummins in our Breakaway is an absolute dream in comparison. That said, the power stroke community has a very good write-up on fuel additives. Sorry I don't have a link as I have not devoted much time to computer or digital savvy, but if you google "Power Stroke. Org fuel additive/lubricity additive study results" done in 2010, it makes interesting reading.

Good Luck,

John