The original study can be found in post #1:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...ve-thread.html
I tried to attach it directly here but i failed,in that too.

I wouldn't use ATF as an lubricant,some people uses it to flush their engines..
Hint off 2 stroke oil or cooking oil doesn't hurt.

 

Some great information here.

 

Ok ok digging into this a little deeper. Looking at the mix ratios seems to muddy the water.

I assume the the lubricity chart shown by Opti-Lube are using MAX ratios. This throws a wrench in the cost/benefit logic and makes it difficult to get a good comparison for standard dosing.

XL ratios
Standard = 1oz : 10gal = 1280 gallons treated
Premuim = 2.5oz : 10gal = 512 total treated

Summer
Standard = 0.5oz : 10gal = 2560 treated
Premuim = 1.0oz : 10gal = 1280 total treated

So the premium Summer ratio is the same as standard XL ratio. I wonder how the lubricity looks at these same 1oz:10gal doses?
Maybe the same amount of lubricity?
According to the Optilube chart, XL adds 52.78% (assuming max dose), Summer adds 21.91%.
Correcting XL max dose to standard (guess work here) 52.78/2.5 = 21.1% lubricity improvement. Virtually the same as Summer at max dose.
Summer max dose treats the same 1280 gallons as XL standard dose and may have the same lubricity improvement.
In this regard the XL comes in cheaper than the Summer for the same lube content.

XL you’re looking at around $0.031 per gallon at standard ratio (I will not use if mixing only treats 512 gallons for the cost of the treatment). This is the $40 price for a gallon for treatment without the small bottles and pump. I would likely get the kit which is $48 and adds up to $0.038 per gallon.
Summer is around $63, so cost is $0.049 at max or $0.025 (2.5 cents/gallon) at standard ratio.
To sum up this ramble, similar lubricity improvement is basically 3 cents (XL) vs 5 cents (Summer) per gallon.

The point of all this is just to disclose that what we see in the charts isn’t as straight forward as it may seem.

Based on the ratios listed, the 3rd party chart appears to be using a standard dose for their testing of Summer but max ratio for XPD. Maybe the suggested ratios have changed since 2007?

Here’s a bunch of screenshots in the same location so they’re easier to compare.



1 gallon is 128oz, which will treat 1280 gallons at 1oz per 10 gallon of fuel.


XL mix chart


Summer mix chart


XPD mix chart


Product comparison chart from Optilube website.


Closeup of claimed lubricity changes. These appear to be based on max dose ratios. (Note they do not match the other study)


Closeup of 2007 test results.


This chart again for easy reference. You can see the mix ratios. The cost is probably pretty outdated since this study was performed in 2007.

 

ROFL... agreed, 100%! ............... Maybe that's partly why it's running so darn well and getting better fuel economy (hand calculated) than when I first got the truck over 225k miles ago.

 

I thought the dye they put in untaxed fuel was a special type that would indicate when a special dipstick was inserted in the tank.. not sure they are looking for color so much as a indicator dye reaction.. not sure, but don't think the "color" thing will fly in court.. kinda how you tell if there is water in a underground tank.. they put something on the stick to measure fuel depth and it will show water and how much is on bottom.


if found this video.. got to 3:00 to start.. shows the paste there use on the depth rod..

 

They’re looking for color. Off road diesel is literally red and can be dipped easily during a DOT inspection from saddle tanks. Heating oil, aka off road diesel does not have the road taxes like OTR diesel.

 

I'm familiar with putting something on a stick to show phase separated water on the bottom of the fuel tank, and will later demonstrate that familiarity at the end of this post.

But do you mind if we first explore how this color changing paste to detect water is not really quite that analogous, and doesn't really matter when it comes to the potential for red automatic transmission fluid in a diesel fuel tank triggering a sequence of undesirable enforcement actions that can result in stiff fines and penalties?

To do that successfully, first we must demystify what, exactly, is put into non taxed red colored off road diesel fuel.

That mystery is very easy to discover, since the identification agent put into red diesel fuel is regulated by the Department of the Treasury, and has been enforced by federal law since 1994, codified in the Code of Federal Regulations under Title 26 Chapter I Subchapter D Part 48 Subpart H Taxable Fuel § 48.4082-1, which reads:



Ok, so now we know that the mystery agent that the feds require in non taxed fuel is CI Solvent Red 164, an azo dye which makes the fuel red.

Anyone curious might want a more detailed chemical description of CI Solvent 164, which is provided below in the following summary...


_____________


Second, we must figure out what, exactly, is used to make automatic transmission fluid red.

Since the 99-03 7.3L is a turn of the century domestic vehicle, we can be satisfied with turn of the century, domestic standards of ATF originally specified by Ford for the 4R100...



Turns out, the exact same agent, CI Solvent 164, that is used to dye non taxed fuel red, is likewise used to dye automatic transmission fluid red also.

So is it clear now why the water detection paste analogy is irrelevant?

It doesn't matter what the hocus pocus reactive agent is that law enforcement agents may or may not use to verify, to the most stringent rules of evidence in a court of law, the identification agent used to distinguish off road non taxed fuel.

Whether it is a visual test through a pipette, vacuum tube and bottle, a blacklight, a portable fuel analyzer, or a secure sample sent off to the Excise Forensics Laboratory, an adjunct of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, complete with fully documented chain of custody and clean room procedures in testing... the agent that they are looking for is CI Solvent 164.

And what is in Automatic Transmission Fluid to make it red? CI Solvent 164.

The same thing.

That's like getting pulled over at a random DUI roadside check on New Year's Eve, and telling the officer you only had a few strawberry daiquiris (rum mixed with larger parts of sugary syrup and lime juice) instead of straight shots of rum..

Rum is rum (some say is rum is yum), and the officer is quite likely to request further testing to determine how much alcohol is in the bloodstream, no matter if it was delivered neat, or diluted in a pseudo slurpee.

CI Solvent 164 is CI Solvent 164. It doesn't matter if the CI Solvent 164 was delivered in quarts of low viscosity mineral oil added "to improve lubricity", or was added by the fuel refinery or dispenser to identify the non taxed status of the fuel.

Since the agent the enforcement tests are looking for is the same, why introduce it into the fuel tank and take the risk of staining the fuel filter (another element of evidence that enforcement is trained to inspect when they suspect red dyed fuel is present).?

Every tincture of pink found supports reasonable suspicion and just cause to take the investigation to the next level. And the investigation can be begin before the truck is pulled over.



The lubricating base of automatic transmission fluid is simply low viscosity mineral oil. It is fortified with an extensive additive package to meet the needs of the friction elements and function of the transmission, but most guys are considering using ATF in their diesel tanks based on the "old trucker's trick" echos of an era that ended about when Smokey and the Bandit was released in theaters. ATF was 40 to 70 cents a quart back then in the '70's... some 20 years before federal regulations mandated that fuel be dyed red. Now ATF is $5.00 to $10.00 a quart. And it has within it what the feds figure to be a foul ball when they find it: CI Solvent 164.

Why not use plain, clear mineral oil? Detergent less compressor oil? Canola oil? 2 cycle oil? Or better yet, a fuel additive formulated for on road diesel fuel?

When I work out the math comparing any perceived benefit that adding ATF in diesel is rumored to provide, affording every benefit of the doubt and accepting as gospel the very best case testimonial for using ATF as a fuel additive... and compare these perceived benefits with the fine structures outlined below, by both state and federal authorities... the math doesn't pencil out. It just isn't worth the risk of being hassled by a badge on the side of the road due to some trace element of Solvent 164 in the fuel system.

Here is just one example of a State level fine structure... in the case below, North Carolina was chosen. Each state may differ.



And then the IRS comes knockin, wanting a Federal piece of a red dye runner's hide...




It would be different if the stuff that makes ATF red, and the stuff that makes off road diesel fluid red... were different. Because if they were different, then we could trust that the authorities would not find the Solvent Red 164 that they are looking for in a lab test, or as a result of introducing a reactive element, or as a result of sniffing for aryl amines identified as characteristic molecular remnants post combustion that are traceable in exhaust. But ATF uses the same stuff. Same stuff yields the same result, albeit presumably in much less concentration (depending on how much ATF is thrown in the tank). There are thresholds of minimum concentrations... but how does a truck owner test for that?

Some truck owners, particularly those in Europe, where fuel costs have always been much higher than what we have enjoyed in the US... have figured out various ways to launder red dye fuel, as non taxed fuel is dyed red across the pond as well.

Various techniques are used to cleanse the red dye out of the fuel, including filtering it through charcoal. That's one way to roll coal!

I mention this not to promote illegal activities.... but rather as segue to bring up a very recently introduced fuel identification agent that might actually be a bit more analogous to the "paste testing for water on a stick" metaphor that this post is in response to.

The European Commission JUST this month, on April 7, 2022, approved this new identification agent, that was developed by Dow Chemical. It will still take another 2 years for the transition to take place, but the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland got a head start, as they introduced this new fuel marker, called ACCUTRACE™, back in January of 2022.

Dow Chemical touts that ACCUTRACE™ fuel marker products are:

• Cost effective solution for tax and brand ID programs – part per million level treat rates
• Comprised of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen – elements commonly already found in petroleum and petroleum derivatives
• Unique, with molecular structures not naturally occurring in fuels and lubricants and are not fuel additives

"ACCUTRACE ™ Fuel Marker enables petroleum product identification with molecular marking technology highly resistant to known removal techniques.
Principal uses include brand authentication, fuel laundering prevention, petroleum product tracking and legislative marker."



It is inevitable that something like ACCUTRACE will end up in use in the US... although it may require a change in regulation first, which is a process fraught enough to buy some time for anyone who doesn't like the idea of their fuel being molecularly molested or marked. But for now, the regulation requires non taxed fuel be colored with Solvent 164... which begs the question: Is it prudent to put something in the tank that is likewise colored with Solvent 164? That is up to the reader to decide.

In the meantime, as promised at the beginning of this post, I took a few photos that demonstrate water reactive paste for detecting the presence of phase separated (not necessarily emulsified) water in the bottom of fuel tanks. Water is heavier then fuel, so the "rain" of condensation that forms on the inside of the tank ceiling and walls eventually works it's way through the fuel and pools on the bottom of the tank. Applying water reactive paste on the end of a dip stick will reveal the water, if present, by rapidly changing color to something vivid and fluorescent... like the pink in the video, or the bright green in my photos below, taken of a test I performed today on a 100 gallon fuel tank.













.

 

Ok gotcha! Same red, all bad in fuel.

Except that middle part, got some details to clarify that?

 

Yeah, no ATF for me.

 

That’s a very thorough good read into the colorant added to off road fuels. An every day driver of a diesel most likely would never get inspected. However there is much more of a chance of getting pulled over and inspected if you’re hauling a trailer. Especially if you have a DOT number. Let the buyer beware…..

 

I've been called when a fuel delivery truck deposited 500 gallons of red dye diesel into the yard tank, and another several hundred gallons into all the Class 8 trucks parked in the yard.

I insisted that the fuel company go back to the yard that very night and pump out all the fuel they pumped in, and then go follow the Class 8 truck routes the next day and pump out those tanks as well. Plus provide paperwork documenting the error.

It's just not worth tangling with the gummint.

 

That’s the problem with an all powerful ubiquitous government. No recourse, guilty until proven innocent. My company insisted on running our 1 Meg generators on taxed diesel instead of #2 since the generator could be pulled to another facility over the road. Just so there is not even a hint of wrongdoing. 1600 gallons of fuel in the day tank is a bunch of coin.

 

The problem with being accused of wrongdoing, even if proven to be innocent beyond even a scant scintilla of a doubt, is that the now 40 plus year old internet can find the original accusation.

When doing business with customers and clients, who do their own due diligence in researching a company's background before entering into a contractual relationship... the presence of a mere accusation of deceitfulness or lack of adherence to law and regulation is enough to give pause and consider another bid or candidate, in order to reduce the "known or should have known" liability from forming an engagement with a party suspected of moral turpitude, carelessness, or lawlessness.

It just isn't worth it. Reputation is vital for longevity.

 

Yep, it’s sick and getting sicker. If someone wants to find dirt on any person or company, they will. The internet is too vast a market to hide this sort of information. There are many corporate initiatives to sway public opinion. Some work, some fail drastically. Survival of the fittest PR.