Project Overview
To take a major trucking company that central fuels and determine what type of fleet savings could be accomplished with the utilization of a diesel fuel catalyst and a by-pass oil filter system over a long period of usage.
Summary
Early in the project we determined tat the best products for his trial were a diesel fuel catalyst called CleanBoostTM (CB) that had been extensively tested and had ATA approval through the J-1321 test procedure which was conducted by Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, and a one micron by-pass filtration system from FiltakleenTM (FK) which had numerous tests conducted, numerous field use and was believed to be the best 
filter for our application. We started with the CB as we thought we could see immediate results and then moved into the FK program which is slightly more sophisticated but produces actually higher savings due to decreased engine wear. As explained below, there were some trial and error experiences but in the end, the company has documented over 8% in direct fuel savings due to the use of CB, 1.6% in indirect fuel savings due to the use of the FK and significant reductions in all wear metals within the engines due to both products. The testing has been considered a resounding success, resulting in this author and the Director of Transportation jointly receiving the Smithfield Corporation Presidential Award for Exemplary Compliance which is a very highly tested, outside independently evaluated and coveted award.
Introduction
The purpose of this white paper is not to divulge technical information on the actual products themselves. This information is available from various sources and the manufacturers of the products. We wanted to verify the claims made in such material and to document the steps and miss-steps one might encounter in the actual implementation of these products into a large fleet. The author was brought in by Smithfield Foods Director of Transportation, to be a consultant. At that time, the author had no direct financial interest in either product but was employed by a firm that sold a by-pass filter that ultimately did not perform as advertised so it was not used. We jointly decided to start with the CB catalyst first, as there was the promise of more immediate results and management would be pleased and allow our testing to continue. Also, the CB required minimal initial capital outlay to implement.
Author’s Credentials
More detailed references are available but at this point it may help to point out the multi-faceted knowledge of the author. I have a degree in Microbiology from The Ohio State University, am an ICML Certified Tribologist (lubrication specialist), FAA licensed Airframe and Power plant (A&P) Mechanic, held a FAA Master Repairman’s Certification for avionics, instruments, accessories and specialized services, current Commercial aircraft pilot, actively working 200 ton Master Coast Guard licensed Merchant Marine Captain, owner of the FAA Type Certificate for the Myers 200D and Interceptor 400 series aircraft, aircraft designer and engine re-builder and have owned an aviation Fixed Base Operation (FBO) where I personally managed several fuel farms selling Jet A and Avgas for years. I have rebuilt race motors, diesel engines and basically been around engines and fuels for all my life. The author is uniquely qualified to pursue this type of research from both the scientific and practical levels and to coordinate efforts between engineering and maintenance.
The tentative first steps
All large fleet directors have tried almost every “additive” product and know they simply do not work. Results are not forthcoming and there are few good ways to actually test for any results. Only one pure additive has ever been tested by the EPA and it was shown to be a failure both in testing and in actual use. Several criteria must be in lace before one should recommend and testing and Smithfield had all in place and had been using them successfully. The most important is a good oil analysis program with trend monitoring. It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into the various test programs available, but suffice it to say that the “free” oil testing some oil manufacturers provide is designed more to show their oil qualities than engine wear and condition. The old axiom, “One doesn’t always get what on pays for but one always pas for what on gets” certainly applies in this area. Smithfield had a reasonably good program in place. They were using computers to track their PM schedules and record fleet fuel usage on a truck by truck basis. One has to establish a good baseline before starting testing or there is simply no way to know what results you were getting.
Gary decided to pick three trucks with drivers he knew could be trusted to dose the product accurately. We dosed at the 1-3000 ratio suggested or 1 oz to 23 gallons. The drivers carried bottles of CB with them and would simply estimate their gallons to fill the tank then pour the CB into the tanks and fill up. They were all Class 8 trucks powered by Cat C-12 engines. Proper dosing is the most critical and most fleet managers will not even try a program unless they are centrally fueled so they can control the dosing. But we had to start somewhere.
These trucks had between 150,000 and 250,000 miles on them and were well broken in. Gary had data that shows these large Class 8 engines usually all gain in fuel economy during the first 100,000 miles or so, then stabilize and will start to drop down about mid-life, which is what we knew from experience with other fleets. Using engines already at their peak was a good test for the product and should show what CB really does. The engines were actually too small for their routs and weights but that is what management purchased so we worked with it. The C-14 would have been better. The smaller C-12’s were working pretty hard and were running at peak temperatures and pressures a lot of the time. Smithfield was procession in the mid 30,000 hogs a day and just the Tar Heel facility, so they were running pretty hard.
Initial Planning and Expectations
We talked about what to expect during the start of the testing. The CB works in several key areas, all of which need to be understood beforehand. Gary was very good understanding this. First, the CB uses a metallic catalyst which modifies the burn to give more of a push and less of a bang so the operating temperatures in the upper cylinder area will decrease by as much as 75 deg C. The CB increases the BTU’s of the fuel, shown by testing, without increasing Cezanne, which would raise the engine temperatures, produce more upper cylinder wear and increase Knox output. This will ultimately show up in significantly less iron in the oil analysis demonstrating less upper cylinder and ring wear. But this won’t show up at first.
Secondly, the solvents in the CB will slowly start to clean out the carbon buildup that occurs in all diesel engines. Engines that are torn down for inspection after using CB for some time show almost no carbon deposits and are extremely clean. But again, initially this carbon has to go somewhere, so it is picked up in the oil and the first oil change after starting to use CB will show a higher viscosity and more soot than normal. During this clean-up period, we didn’t expect to see any significant increase in fuel mileage.
Then the lubricity agents in the CB will start to work. This won’t be noticed during the cleanup, but will ultimately be seen in greatly reduced wear metals such as chromium, copper, tin and lead. Expect the first oil change to be dirtier and have a higher viscosity and soot and even slightly more wear metals. This is normal and should be expected. We have known for years that the sulfur was going to be removed in stages from the fuel and the sulfur, being a soft metal, provided some catalytic burn action as well as a lot of lubricity. Gary knew he had to get the handle on the lubricity issue before the mandatory switch to ULSD (15ppm) fuel that would take place in January of 2007.
Gary agreed and he knew to keep on using the CB after the first oil change and the analysis will start to show these results. By the third oil change, soot levels were cut by 50%, viscosity was perfectly stabilized, wear metals were extremely low and the engines were running smoother. There was visibly less smoke coming out of the exhaust stacks. The PMs at this time were done at 30,000 miles and the iron levels fell to around 30 ppm which is extremely low and showed decreased ring and liner wear.
A slight twist
But then, about three months into the program, he called and said he really didn’t see much of a fuel mileage improvement.
I asked him to talk with the drivers and get their reaction.
These drivers ran pretty much the same routes and knew the hills and performance of their rigs well. They all told Gary that they were loving life and their trucks were running better that they had before. They used to be “lane drivers” up several hills, staying in the right hand lane to let everyone pass them, but now they could get out in the left lane and go on up the hills with ease. Right in the middle of this conversation the lights turned on for us both. If one gives a driver more power, they will use it and it may not show up in increased fuel economy but will be used up in better performance. We both started laughing. This author stated, “Gary, there goes your fuel mileage.” Now it was decision time.
Dosing the Fleet
We now both knew it was time to make the big leap. We had to dose the entire fleet without telling any of the drivers what was going on and see what happened. Maybe this way we could get some good numbers on the actual mileage increase.
In both locations, Smithfield was using about one drop (7,500 gallons) per day. At a 1-3000 ratio, that comes out to be exactly 2.5 gallons of CB per drop. The CB comes in metal, 205 liter (54.25 gal) drums as it is blended in Canada and that is their fill rate. But outside of metal, due to our strong solvents, one has to use level 5 fluorinated plastic or the solvents will leach out through the plastic, especially in hot weather.
We procured air operated drum mixers, automatic air oilers, drum tilt stands, spigots and 6 2.5 gallon Jerry Cans treated to level 5 for each location. We then taught key personnel at both locations how to run the drum mixers for 15 minutes on Monday morning, use the tilt stands to turn the drums on their sides and fill all 6 Jerry Cans with CB. Then, every day when the drop arrived, they would simply grad a Jerry Can, hand agitate it for about a minute and pour it into the storage tank prior to the actual drop of fuel. Now, every piece of equipment coming through the fuel dock got treated fuel without anyone knowing what they had. Also, the mules and reefer units started running on treated fuel.
Proof of Lubricity Enhancement
Gary was extremely concerned about the engines in his reefer units and Smithfield has a lot of them. He had gotten some ULSD and had been running a side test on some of them to see the effects of 15 ppm fuel. They were starting to have injection pump problems and injector failures. Gary showed this author a small stack of fuel pump cam plates that had to be replaced during this test and they were all purple from the excess heat due to the lack of lubricity in the USLD fuel. Gary stopped this testing and allowed everything to use the CB dosed fuel as per usual. Since then, and continuing through the present, he has not had a single fuel system failure due to lack of lubricity as long as they were dosing with CB (We’ll get to a fork in the road on this issue later).
Fuel usage decrease
We were able to operate with the CB for over a year. During that time, even the mules started running better with less smoke and smoother operation. Gary had accurate information on each unite and was able to track them through the changing seasons. The bottom line was astounding to both of us. During the hot months the fleet averaged a 10% decrease in fuel consumption and during the cold months a 7.5% decrease for a total facility decrease in fuel consumption of 8.5%. Gary stated this to me in emails and showed me the oil analysis reports. He even gave me his password to the oil analysis site so that I could look at all the trucks and see the trends for myself. Needless to say, we both were very impressed and the savings in dollars were tremendous.
Stopped but with serendipity
Smithfield continued to use the product with the same results all through the dramatic fuel price increases that occurred through 2006 and into 2007. At one point, they were paying $4.50 a gallon and even considered purchasing their own refinery located at the Colonial Pipeline but was blocked by anti-trust issues. Then, totally out of the blue, Gary sent me an e-mail saying they had to stop buying CB. Gary explained that this directive had come down through high accounting levels that saw the expense for a fuel “additive” and didn’t know why they needed to have one so they stopped the purchasing. Gary thought they had made a very bad decision but was powerless to reverse the decision at that time. This is when we decided to start our trials with the FiltaKleen units. As it will be revealed below, the whole situation really worked in our favor.
New Trucks
Smithfield needed to replace some of the older units in the Tar Heel fleet and purchased about 100 post 2007 (actually 2009 trucks) rigs with the Cummins ISX engines that had cooled EGR and Diesel Particulate filters (DPF’s). Gary was seeing the fleet fuel mileage drop dramatically during the few months after the stop purchasing order and now was faced with engines that were even less fuel efficient plus the recommended Cummins PMs were 15,000 miles due to high soot levels. Gary told me these new trucks were down almost 1 mpg to around 5.33 mpg and now they had to do oil changes every 15,000 miles instead of the 30,000 as before. He could get funds for a few filters, though, so we started the FK testing without running any CB.
We decided to install extra large units (988s) to see just how long we could go until it was time to change the FK element. These were installed on 3 rigs and we decided on 20,000 miles as a good element change point and to get the rig into the shop for other work needed at a normal PM. The trucks all had about 20,000 miles on them when we installed the filters. The first change interval came and Gary changed the FK element and all engine spin-on filters and did an oil analysis. The oil looked in great shape, wear metals were low, and soot was about .2% so we left the oil in and kept going. At 40,000 miles on the oil he did the same thing and still the oil looked great, everything staying about the same as at 20,000 miles.
Gary was very pleased. He had the answer to getting back to more than the 30,000 mile change interval plus his soot was under control as shown by the low wear metals. The author then made an audacious suggestion. Why change the main engine filters when they only filter down to about 25 microns and you are already filtering down to 1 micron with the FK unit? So at 60,000 miles, only the FK element was changed and the oil was still great, soot at about .5%. Gary left in the original oil and went to 80,000 miles, changed the FK element and the oil was still in great shape, especially with the wear metals being low. Gary decided to keep going.
The Double Whammy
The author is uncertain, but somewhere around 60,000 miles two things occurred. First, Gary noticed a slight but definite fuel decrease in the 3 rigs with the FK unites installed. He really started watching this and documented a 4-5% decrease in fuel consumption which can only be attributed to the cleaner oil. Gary was so impressed by this time that he decided to document his oil testing and submit the project for another President’s Award. We are both waiting to see how this turns out as the ceremony won’t be until after the first of the year in 2010.
Secondly, due to the tremendous increase in fuel purchases, finally noticed by accounting, Gary was able to start using CB again at both facilities. Within two months, the 8.5% increase in economy returned to the entire fleet. Thus, through the initial usage, the stop and then the re-start, there can be no doubt that the decrease in fuel consumption came from the CB and nothing else. Gary has stated to this author that they will never be without CB again and are going to expand the use of CB into their other operations and Ag Divisions.
A Double Effect on the Post 2007 Engines
The author has believed it is always better to keep emotion out of a “White Paper” but both Gary and the author were getting very excited at this point. We had documented 80,000 miles on the same oil where the manufacturer had recommended 15,000 miles, proven a major decrease in fuel consumption with super filtered, clean oil and returned the fleet back to CB conditions, including better mileage, low wear metals and improved lubricity.
Things got even better. The post 2007 engines were still on the same oil but were now getting the extra benefit of the CB. Now less soot was being produced, less wear metals and 1 micron FK filtration. At 100,000 miles the oil was still in great shape! Gary changed just the FK element and kept on going. At 120,000 miles the oil was still good but the soot was getting slightly above Gary’s comfort level, yet still way below the Cummins allowance, which is 3%. Gary gets uncomfortable above 1% which this author agrees with. Gary has decided to use 120,000 as the main change interval where all oil, engine filters and the FK element will be changed but he may test farther.
Here is the body of an actual email sent from Gary to the author on 9-29-2009. The email speaks for itself.
Randy / Paul–Oil bypass filtration, see the attached oil analysis and the ECM download reports. We installed the filtration system on 8-20-08, 27,776 miles. Each time we changed the bypass filer we pulled an oil sample – 25-30k miles. Engine – 2009 Cummins ISX. The engine oil has 122,072 miles since last drain Fuel economy – driving 7.59, overall 7.56
Although the soot is higher than I normally like to see I am planning on running the oil an additional 8,000 miles. At that time I will pull and oil sample to see if the soot is abating. The bypass filter was changed so odds are than soot level will drop. If the soot abates I will run the oil to the next interval, at that point I will change filters, OE and bypass. This will require me to add an additional 2 gallons of oil which will add back some of the additives that may have been depleted.
Fuel economy – there is also a positive affect by keeping the oil clean, 4 to 5% increase. Combine this with CleanBoost – 11 to 13% increase. CleanBoost is also assisting with controlling soot levels.
If the soot refuses to retreat, I am still astonished. We have taken a post 07 engine and extended the oil life beyond 100k miles. I have spoken with a lot of folks within the industry; no one has come close to pulling this off.
If you have any thoughts please share them. I did not accomplish this alone, without your support and input I would have not pulled this off.
Yet Another Benefit
Since the date of the above email, yet another benefit has surfaced. The post 2007 engines computer tracks each time the DPF goes into cleaning burn cycle. Gary has documented that the engines, now on CB again, do this about 1/3 less that they did before re-starting CB. This will most certainly extend the life of the DPF’s, how long still remains to be determined.
In Conclusion
The three years of Smithfield testing with the starting and stopping of CB have conclusively proven benefits well beyond out initial expectations. The synergy of using both the CB and the FK products has shown remarkable results, proven by thorough computer analysis and comprehensive oil analysis. Any company wishing to enjoy these benefits should take this testing as a standard and just implement these programs without hesitation.
RMS Consulting Services Paul M. Whetstone December 2009
Contact Restore Solutions, Inc. to order any of the products featured in this article or for additional information.
RESTORE SOLUTIONS, Inc. 3198 Royal Lane, Suite 207 Dallas, Texas 75229 214-366-2711 chuck@restoresolutionsinc.com
During the past two plus years our work in fuel efficiency has focused on combustion in diesel fuel. Recently that has come to include Engine protection and oil filtration. The benefits received from one amplifies the benefits received the others.
The table shows the losses for a typical combination tractor-trailer. These losses will vary depending on the weight, shape, and size of the truck, and the type of driving (the truck’s duty cycle). On the Interstate highway, aerodynamics plays a much larger role in truck energy losses than in city driving. Loss of inertia due to braking and energy losses due to auxiliary loads are greater in city driving than on the highway.
Loading ...