doubleclutchinweasel

I use Opti-Lube XPD. Read this... Here's the link, too. http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/76-speciality-forums/64-maintenance-fluids/177728-lubricity-additive-study-results.html The following are the preliminary results of a research study on diesel fuel Lubricity Additives. There is likely to be further commentary and explanation added at a future time. PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to determine the ability of multiple diesel fuel additives to replace the vital lubricity component in ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel) fuel. HISTORY: ULSD fuel is the fuel currently mandated for use in all on road diesel engines. This fuel burns cleaner and is less polluting than it’s predecessor, called Low Sulfer Diesel Fuel. Low sulfer fuel contained less than 500 ppm of sulfer. ULSD contains 15 ppm or less. As diesel fuel is further refined to remove the polluting sulfer, it is inadvertently stripped of its lubricating properties. This vital lubrication is a necessary component of the diesel fuel as it prevents wear in the fuel delivery system. Specifically, it lubricates pumps, high pressure pumps and injectors. Traditional Low sulfer diesel fuel typically contained enough lubricating ability to suffice the needs of these vital components. ULSD fuel, on the other hand, is considered to be very “dry” and incapable of lubricating vital fuel delivery components. As a result, these components are at risk of premature and even catastrophic failure when ULSD fuel is introduced to the system. As a result, all oil companies producing ULSD fuel must replace the lost lubricity with additives. All ULSD fuel purchased at retail fuel stations SHOULD be adequately treated with additives to replace this lost lubricity. The potential result of using inadequately treated fuel, as indicated above, can be catastrophic. There have been many documented cases of randomly tested samples of diesel fuel. These tests prove that often times the fuel we purchase is not adequately treated and may therefore contribute to accelerated wear of our fuel delivery systems. For this reason it may be prudent to use an after market diesel fuel additive to ENSURE adequate lubrication of the fuel delivery system. Additionally, many additives can offer added benefits such as cetane improver, and water separators or emulsifiers. CONTENT: In this study we will test multiple diesel fuel additives designed to replace lost lubricity. The primary component of this study is a side-by-side laboratory analysis of each additive’s ability to replace this vital lubricity. Additionally, claims of improving cetane, water separation or emulsification, bio-diesel compatibility and alcohol content will be noted. These notes were derived from information that was readily available to consumers (via the label and internet information) and none of this information has been evaluated for validity and/or performance. Cetane information has only been noted if the word “cetane” was used in the advertising information. The words “improves power” has not been translated to mean “improves cetane” in this evaluation. Information on alcohol content is provided by indicating “contains no alcohol”. Omission of the words “contains no alcohol” does not imply that it does contain alcohol. This information was simply missing in the information available to a consumer. However, the possibility of a form of alcohol in these products is possible. Additionally, information on dosages and cost per tankful are included for comparison purposes. How Diesel Fuel Is Evaluated For Lubricating Ability: Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a device called a “High Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR. The HFRR is currently the Internationally accepted, standardized method to evaluate fluids for lubricating ability. It uses a ball bearing that reciprocates or moves back and forth on a metal surface at a very high frequency for a duration of 90 minutes. The machine does this while the ball bearing and metal surface are immersed in the test fluid (in this case, treated diesel fuel). At the end of the test the ball bearing is examined under a microscope and the “wear scar” on the ball bearing is measured in microns. The larger the wear scar, the poorer the lubricating ability of the fluid. Southwest Research runs every sample twice and averages the size of the wear scar. The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a commercially available diesel fuel should produce a wear scar of no greater than 520 microns. The Engine Manufacturers Association had requested a standard of a wear scar no greater than 460 microns, typical of the pre-ULSD fuels. Most experts agree that a 520 micron standard is adequate, but also that the lower the wear scar the better. METHOD: An independent research firm in Texas was hired to do the laboratory work. The cost of the research was paid for voluntarily by the participating additive manufacturers. Declining to participate and pay for the research were the following companies: Amsoil and Power Service. Because these are popular products it was determined that they needed to be included in the study. These products were tested using funds collected by diesel enthusiasts at “dieselplace.com”. Additionally, unconventional additives such as 2-cycle oil and used motor oil were tested for their abilities to aid in diesel fuel lubricity. These were also paid for by members of “dieselplace.com”. The study was conducted in the following manner: -The Research firm obtained a quantity of “untreated” ULSD fuel from a supplier. This fuel was basic ULSD fuel intended for use in diesel engines. However, this sample was acquired PRIOR to any attempt to additize the fuel for the purpose of replacing lost lubricity. In other words, it was a “worst case scenario, very dry diesel fuel” that would likely cause damage to any fuel delivery system. This fuel was tested using the HFRR at the Southwest Research Laboratory. This fuel was determined to have a very high HFRR score of 636 microns, typical of an untreated ULSD fuel. It was determined that this batch of fuel would be utilized as the baseline fuel for testing all of the additives. The baseline fuel HFRR score of 636 would be used as the control sample. All additives tested would be evaluated on their ability to replace lost lubricity to the fuel by comparing their scores to the control sample. Any score under 636 shows improvement to the fuels ability to lubricate the fuel delivery system of a diesel engine. BLIND STUDY: In order to ensure a completely unbiased approach to the study, the following steps were taken: Each additive tested was obtained independently via internet or over the counter purchases. The only exceptions were Opti-Lube XPD and the bio-diesel sample. The reason for this is because Opti-Lube XPD additive was considered “experimental” at the time of test enrollment and was not yet on the market. It was sent directly from Opti-Lube company. The bio-diesel sample was sponsored by Renewable Energy Group. One of their suppliers, E.H. Wolf and Sons in Slinger, Wisconsin supplied us with a sample of 100% soybean based bio-diesel. This sample was used to blend with the baseline fuel to create a 2% bio-diesel for testing. Each additive was bottled separately in identical glass containers. The bottles were labeled only with a number. This number corresponded to the additive contained in the bottle. The order of numbering was done randomly by drawing names out of a hat. Only Spicer Research held the key to the additives in each bottle. The additive samples were then sent in a box to An independent research firm. The only information given them was the ratio of fuel to be added to each additive sample. For example, bottle “A” needs to be mixed at a ratio of “480-1”. The ratio used for each additive was the “prescribed dosage” found on the bottle label for that product. Used motor oil and 2-cycle oil were tested at a rationally chosen ratio of 200:1. The Research Laboratory mixed the proper ratio of each “bottled fluid” into a separate container containing the baseline fuel. The data, therefore, is meaningful because every additive is tested in the same way using the same fuel. A side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness of each additive is now obtainable. THE RESULTS: These results are listed in the order of performance in the HFRR test. The baseline fuel used in every test started at an HFRR score of 636. The score shown is the tested HFRR score of the baseline fuel/additive blend. Also included is the wear scar improvement provided by the additive as well as other claimed benefits of the additive. Each additive is also categorized as a Multi-purpose additive, Multi-purpose + anti-gel, Lubricity only, non-conventional, or as an additive capable of treating both gasoline and diesel fuel. As a convenience to the reader there is also information on price per treated tank of diesel fuel (using a 26 gallon tank), and dosage per 26 gallon tank provided as “ounces of additive per 26 gallon tank”. In Order Of Performance: 1) 2% REG SoyPower biodiesel HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement. 50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% biodiesel 66.56 oz. of 100% biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel Price: market value 2)Opti-Lube XPD Multi-purpose + anti-gel cetane improver, demulsifier HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement. 256:1 ratio 13 oz/tank $4.35/tank 3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment Gas and Diesel cetane improver, emulsifier HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement 640:1 ratio 5.2 oz/tank $2.60/tank 4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend Multi-purpose demulsifier HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement 3000:1 ratio 1.11 oz/tank $0.68/tank 5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend Muti-purpose + anti-gel cetane improver HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement 512:1 ratio 6.5 oz/tank $3.65/tank 6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000 Multi-purpose + anti-gel cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement 1000:1 ratio 3.32 oz/tank $1.87/tank 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 $1.09/tank 8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula Lubricity Only demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement 1000:1 ratio 3.32 oz/tank $1.00/tank 9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate Multi-purpose demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement 640:1 ratio 5.2 oz/tank $2.16/tank 10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost Multi-purpose Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement 400:1 ratio 8.32 oz/tank $1.58/tank 11)Howe’s Meaner Power Kleaner Multi-purpose Alcohol free HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement 1000:1 ratio 3.32 oz/tank $1.36/tank 12)Stanadyne Performance Formula Multi-purpose + anti-gel cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement 480:1 ratio 6.9 oz/tank $4.35/tank 13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000 miles used. Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems) HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement 200:1 ratio 16.64 oz/tank price: market value 14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant Gas or diesel HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change) 427:1 ratio 7.8 oz/tank $2.65/tank 15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change) 1000:1 ratio 3.32 oz/tank $2.67/tank 16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power Multi-purpose + anti-gel Emulsifier, alcohol free HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel 1000:1 ratio 3.32 oz/tank $1.12/tank 17)Marvel Mystery Oil Gas, oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 and newer systems) HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel. 320:1 ratio 10.4 oz/tank $3.22/tank 18)ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive Multi-purpose Cetane improver, emulsifier, alcohol free HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel 1000:1 ratio 3.32 oz/tank $2.38/tank 19)Primrose Power Blend 2003 Multi-purpose Cetane boost, bio-diesel compatible, emulsifier HFRR 711, 75 microns worse than baseline 1066:1 ratio 3.12 oz/tank $1.39/tank CONCLUSIONS: Products 1 through 4 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 460 or better. This meets the most strict requirements requested by the Engine Manufacturers Association. Products 1 through 9 were able to improve the unadditized fuel to an HFRR score of 520 or better, meeting the U.S. diesel fuel requirements for maximum wear scar in a commercially available diesel fuel. Products 16 through 19 were found to cause the fuel/additive blend to perform worse than the baseline fuel. The cause for this is speculative. This is not unprecedented in HFRR testing and can be caused by alcohol or other components in the additives. Further investigation into the possibilities behind these poor results will investigated. Any additive testing within +/- 20 microns of the baseline fuel could be considered to have no significant change. The repeatability of this test allows for a +/- 20 micron variability to be considered insignificant. CREDITS: This study would not have been possible without the participation of all companies involved and dieselplace.com. A special Thank You to all of the dieselplace.com members who generously donated toward this study and waited longer than they should have for the results. You folks are the best. Arlen Spicer, organizer.

Yeah. That's how I do it too. Like I said above, first thing I'm gonna do is check the spacer, cause the inside tire is running straight. I think this one tire (or the wheel it is on) is the problem. I'm thinking it's the tire. Looked at it again last night, and it almost looks like the cap is not true on the carcass. When the sidewall runs straight, the tread wobbles. May just be a bad recap. Will know more when I get it apart. Just ran out of daylight (and energy!) last night.

Not gonna happen!

I've still got a pretty bad wobble. Think I found it. The right-front drivers were doing the rock & roll hoochie-coo. Pulled the rims off and cleaned everything. Put them back on. Did this about 3 times. Finally got the inside wheel/tire running nice & straight. But, the outer one is wobbling like crazy. Think I'll try pulling it down Saturday morning & check the spacer band. May swap out that outside wheel/tire. It looks like the tire itself may be out of whack. Could be the wheel, too. The other 3 sets went on nice & straight the first time. This one is being contrary. Hopefully, I can match up a tire or two from my stash, and get that corner rolling smooth like the others. It's always something...

I looked around on here, and saw that this had been discussed, but there did not seem to be a clear-cut answer. I am considering changing the oil-bath air filter on my R611 to a dry-element type. I know this has been done! The R611 I drove when I was a young-un had been converted. The outside of the cannister looked the same. In fact, that truck still had the oil-bath cap on the bottom of the filter. It still had the "oil fill line" marked on it. But, when you dropped the cap, there was a big-ass paper filter stuffed up into the housing. You'd hold the new one up there, put the cap on the end of it, and push it into place. Then, you could tighten the clamp band, just like normal, and you were done. I don't know what modifications were done to the inside of the cannister. Nor can I find any info on Watts that lists a conversion "kit". Has anybody ever actually done this?

Been a while. But, I was looking through my old content, and re-read all the information everybody had contributed regarding "old" and "new" R-model doors on an earlier post of mine. I believe the info everybody submitted was right on, regarding the function of old parts in newer doors. Everything looks like it will interchange fine...except for the outside lock. To someone's point about why the inside lock will not function without the correct outside lock, I BELIEVE the actuating lever from the door handle acts on the outside lock to actuate the actual locking sequence. So, if the lock is missing, or will not function, I don't think the inside locking system will function either. I should know this, since I had mine apart a while back, and understood it perfectly at that time! But, I have slept since then, and now I can't remember exactly what I saw! I seem to remember, though, that I saw why my inside lock could not work without the outside lock...which was missing. Also, Mack lists the "new" door as going into service in "approximately October of 1979". I would assume that this is when the latch system changed, and the lock location changed with it. I am currently on the trail of a possible good, used RH door shell for my truck. Hope it will pan out. Of course, If I get that door, it just makes the rest of it look rattier! To start another discussion, let's talk about the window mechanisms. Like the latch mechanisms, it LOOKS like the entire door panel/window assembly is also interchangeable between the "old" and "new" door shells, as long as you use the whole assembly. Anybody got any direct, first-hand experience with that piece of it?

R773 would have been an 8V-71N Detroit originally, right guys? Send that VIN to the guys at the Mack museum, and they can send you the build sheet for the truck. And, yes...the "ST" meant it was a tandem (six-wheel) tractor when it left the factory. Nice thing about these old trucks; not that complicated to work on. You should have no trouble getting the lighting to work. Good Luck!

Good old "Orscheln Lever" hand brake! They still make those in the same old style, as well as some newer, fancier styles...

There it is!

Aaaaaarrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

Have to see the Vin, I guess. Not sure if that air intake setup gives someone a clue...

Awesome! And it's a steel-dash truck, to boot!

I seem to remember seeing a picture of that.

Vinny, You wouldn't be nearly as much fun if you had a B61 or R600!

Yes. Yes it is!

Come on guys! That was a joke!

LMSW-M or LMSW-L are 2 models I remember. I think, with that type radiator, it might be the LMSW-L. But, please don't hold me to that! Suppose that .."SW".. nomenclature is where the "sidewinder" nickname came from???

Accomplishes the same thing, doesn't it? Move the driver off to one side and the passenger to the other, and let the "dog house" intrude into the middle. Hey, I know what we could do! Make the cab full-width, raise it up, and put the engine directly under the floor. Do away with the hood altogether. Might have to make the dog house bigger, separating the two seats into 2 "pods". We could even think up something clever to call it...something that sort of described the shape...like, maybe COE, for Cab Over Engine. We could even abbreviate that, and call it a "cabover" for short! Wait...has that already been done?

I believe y'all are all over it with the BBC thing. Not a "new" concept! Look up a B67 with Contour Cab. Shorter nose/fenders AND the concave cab. Lets you put the trailer right up against you. Lots of stuff they did back then had to do with getting a longer trailer behind them, and still staying within somebody's overall length limit. The U-models accomplished that without a great deal of re-engineering, and kept the majority of components "common" between several models. Coming from a manufacturing background, I can tell you the importance of sharing components across as many models as possible, as it severely impacts cost. Even on a U- or DM-model, when not used as a tractor, the shorter cab/hood made room for a longer dump bed or a larger mixer, while keeping the length more manageable. Then, in later years, the length restrictions relaxed. But, a shorter cab/hood still made sense in tight areas. And, once the marketing people got hold of it, the offset cab became "for better visibility while backing". They turned it into a "feature". I have driven a "sidewinder" before. And, yes, the view out the driver's side window while backing is great. But, as someone else pointed out, you practically lose the passenger's side of the truck! Most of the off-road dumps I have driven (Euclid, Terex, etc...) had the little "chicken coop" cab offset to the left as well. Same deal, I suppose. It did make visibility better out that window. And, again, the RH side was a looonnng way over there! Personally, though, I believe they just made the offset cabs to give us more ammunition to pick on Vinny! Falling over...kickstands...whatever. If we didn't have that, we might have to actually be nice to him! Sorry Vin! Remember; I kid because I care!!!

Nah. Just another problem! Always reads there. Tried swapping the gage wires, thinking they had not been done when it was switched from pos to neg ground. But, it didn't work at all that way. I have a precision visual fuel level indicator under the seat!!!

Okay. Put on a new 88" PAI cable (FCC-2975-088) & a new Stewart-Warner 0.5:1 ratio tach (82689). It's nice to know how fast the old Dog is turning! It's also nice to know that, whenever I need a speedo, S-W has one that matches this tach. In fact, they have a whole series.

Yeah, I believe you are correct. It was the dual-disc that had the shims.See if you can read this...

Went through this on my R. It had a mixture of 20 (tube-type) and 22.5 (tubeless) rims on it. Some were 7.5, others were 8.0, and still others were 8.25. Took them all off, and put on 22.5 X 8.25s. Used same spacers, hence same clamps.

When all the air is bled, the shutters should spring open. If something is preventing them form working correctly, you can always temporarily block off the air to the system while they are open, and run with them open. Not ideal, but will keep you from cooking something until you can isolate the problem. Alternately, you can disable the shutters by blocking off the air, and change to a hotter thermostat. Usually, a shutter-equipped unit will have a 160-165 degree thermostat, which will be open after the truck heats up. Then, the shutters will regulate the water temp at 170-185. But, if you disable the shutters, and put in a 170-185 degree thermostat, you can accomplish essentially the same thing. But, it might take a bit longer to warm up. Remember, not all of 'em came with shutters anyway. Just a different perspective for you...

There is a procedure in the Mack manual I have regarding the initial adjustment of the pressure plate after assembly. Don't remember any of the deatils. Some of these single-disc clutches also used the "wear shims" to space the pressure plate out when new, and which could be removed to compensate when the disc worn down some. Don't know if yours used them or not. But, if it does, it would probably be a good idea to put them in there. There is also a procedure for setting the cam on the mechanical clutch linkage on the old B models, if I recall correctly. There seemed to be a couple of different settings for the cam, based on exactly which clutch was in there. Again, don't know what clutch or linkage you have. I'll try to find some of this info, take pictures of the text, and post them here. Maybe it will help...maybe not.