Howe's Meaner Power Kleaner

[Diesel_Dave]

I've been lokking into diesel fuel additives. Mostly I'm just looking for something that's a cleaner to use every once and a while to take care of the fuel system. I cam accross this Howe's Meaner Power Kleaner:

Howes Lubricator

Here's the catch: they say they gaurantee a 5% improvement in mileage. Now, I'm skeptical of course, but Howe's is a name that's been around since the 1920's. They claim they're the #1 one seller in truck stops. But 5% gaurenteed from a fuel additive! I can understand an "up to 5%" claim, but "5% gauranteed" is a different story.

It seems to be getting some good "reviews" on some of the other forums as well:
HOWES Meaner Power Kleaner is by far the BEST!!! - Dodge Diesel - Diesel Truck Resource Forums

I'm skeptical, but I'm thinking it might be worth a try.

[jakobnev]

A car that measures fuel use by duty cycle might falsely report improved mileage with cleaner injectors.

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by jakobnev

A car that measures fuel use by duty cycle might falsely report improved mileage with cleaner injectors.

I suppose that would be the case.

Personally I have a tough time believing anything fuel chemistry related will give you 5% better FE, aside from 5% more energy in the fuel. At least on common rail diesels. On the older pump-line-nozzle diesels, the fuel characteristics could actually change your injection timing. And your ignition delays were much longer then, so some cetane improvement could help you out. I don't think cetane matters nearly as much on common rails.

I could also see a cleaner giving you some improvement if your fuel system was dirty, but the claims are you'll get a 5% improvement regardless.

I'm thinking about taking them up on it. I need to run some cleaner anyway. If I don't get a 5% increase maybe I'll get my money back, therefore free cleaner

[slowmover]

Schaeffer's is better. Any of their formulations.

Anything found on retail shelves, with ad budgets and the rest have an overhead cost offset by the use of cheaper chemistry components.

Consider STANADYNE the default choice in all cases. Then compare.

[Diesel_Dave]

Well, just for fun I bought a bottle of the stuff and put 2/3's of it in the tank (one bottle is supposed to treat 60 gallons). I'm not too optimistic, but I needed to run some cleaner anyways. I guess I'll have an ABA test (without, with, without). Of course, that'll take me another 2 months with changing weather conditions, etc. Worst come to worst, I've wasted $8. I'll let you know the results.

[slowmover]

The way you and I are running these trucks -- low-rpm, low-load -- there will be some carbon build-up at the injector tips and in the combustion chambers. A cleaner is going to help this problem somewhat. I'd still rather run it hard to redline once a month or so, maybe in Third, but definitely in Fourth and Direct.

So, I'd say sacrifice a bit of fuel in some hard runs. Maybe: fill, run hard 50-miles (loaded, towing?), and refill. We'll none of us notice that 3-4 gallons didn't make it onto the fuel log.

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by slowmover

The way you and I are running these trucks -- low-rpm, low-load -- there will be some carbon build-up at the injector tips and in the combustion chambers. A cleaner is going to help this problem somewhat. I'd still rather run it hard to redline once a month or so, maybe in Third, but definitely in Fourth and Direct.

Yeah, I've wondered about that. The thing is I actually do run fairly high loads during my pulses in P&G. Of course, that's followed by my glide at idle. And even though the pulse should lead to some fairly high temps, it's for a fairly short period of time. So...I don't really know

You're probably right that it would be worth it to "burn it out" every so often. I know soot build up can be a problem with the VG mechanism, as well as other things. Occasionally (once a month or so) I do have to make a trip out on the interstate at 60-65 mph, but even that won't really push my engine at all when I'm unloaded and in 6th gear.

[Diesel_Dave]

And the results are in!!!

Well at least the "A-B" portion of the A-B-A testing. My previous tank (without the additive came in a 31.65 mpg. This tank (with the additive) came it at...........drumroll please.........31.65 mpg.

That's right, exactly the same. The average temperature over these two tanks was pretty similar too--38 deg F for last tank 36 deg F for this tank. The in-cab display did read just a tick higher--34.55 mpg for this tank vs. 33.96 mpg for last tank. But even that is only a 1.7% improvement.

Not that I was expecting too much, but it looks like I'm entitled to a refund.

[slowmover]

I came across a bargain on some Schaeffer's #131 and have been working my way through it at a fairly high dosage rate (not that more is better, but because of partial tank fills and wish to have the minimum dosage present). Did some short hauls with a 7k trailer and now can't find a bit of smoke/haze when winding it out in Fourth to redline.

Fuel additives may "work best" when the motor is being asked to perform, not loaf. I tend to think the better ones simply help the diesel to burn a bit better and that this shows up only under heavier fueling demand. I noticed on my old big block gasser car that this also "seemed so".

.

[Diesel_Dave]

The final A-B-A results are in!

Tank 1 (without Howe's): 31.65 mpg 29.5 avg. mph 38 deg F avg. temperature
Tank 2 (with Howe's): 31.65 mpg 30.8 avg. mph 36 deg F avg. temperature
Tank 3 (without Howe's): 32.07 mpg 30.0 avg. mph 39 deg F avg. temperature

So, on average using the Howe's corresponded to a 0.65% decrease in mileage. As you can see, the average speeds and average temperatures are pretty similar. In my opinion, all these numbers are "within the noise" so to speak, given normal fill variations.