If I understand you correctly, you advocate the use of an oil additive in both synthetic and petroleum based oils. Do you have a position regarding the choice between synthetic or petroleum oil? It's my understanding that sythetic oil inherently possesses many of the advantages you mention (things like stable viscosity, metal affinity, contaminant dispersion, etc.).
With regards to fuel additives, I've seen here and other other threads that you advocate both Lucas and Power Clean. For purposes of lubricity, there is a report floating around that rates "Opti-Lube XPD Diesel Improver" at the top of the heap (actually, the report rates biodiesel at the top for lubricity, but you'd still need a separate additive for cetane, etc.). Any opinion on that product?
Also, you mention biologic contamination. I assume you're referring to the use of biocide in diesel fuel -- but isn't that a separate product? (In other words, Lucas and Power Clean don't contain a biocide, do they)?
The Power Service brand Diesel Kleen product has a lubricity booster and comes in two formulas, one is a cetane booster the other is just to polish the fuel and clean the system. Power Service brand Bio Kleen is the biocide product they sell, it works very well in conjunction with the other products. The Lucas is what I prefer for the oil, and I have used it for many years. I have used Slick 50, which has the teflon additive in it years ago, but I am not even sure it is still on the market, and while it did everything it was said to do, I just did not really think it was needed most of the time.
I have not tested or used the Opti-Lube product, and have not gotten any service bulletins or notes on it, so I really cannot say anything about it. I will say that Power Service is what I recommend because it is available world wide and is not too pricey. I highly recommend against any use of bio-diesel products in any form in any engine, and can tell you that the stuff is acidic, toxic to motors like you would not believe, and should be banned completely as a fraud and scam. It costs less right now because of subsidies, take them away and it is going to be much more costly than petro diesel. The decrease in fuel mileage already makes it more costly over the long term, add in the injector and cylinder damage and it is highly costly to operate.
On oil, I recommend rotella from shell for diesel engines, the reason being is that synthetics are not as available when cruising, and the life of the oil is not that much greater. In our commercial semi trucks we go 40k miles between oil changes with a filter change at 20k miles, or 30k miles with no filter change. A typical engine lasts about 1 million miles with no rebuild and indefinitely with the rebuilds on our road tractors. The use of synthetics showed us no increase or decrease, the key is routine regular maintenance, good maintenance will give a life of service that will outlast the platform the engine is in, whether it is a truck or a boat.
I do recommend synthetic oils in differentials, transmissions, and other non combustion units. It performs well and has an extended change interval that is markedly longer. Although the synthetic oil manufacturers have said that the change interval in engines can be extended, the cost is not good enough to justify it when you factor in the multiple filter changes that are required when you run extended service periods in a truck engine, which is one of the many reasons I would not run it in my engines.
The science of lubrication has come a long way, but there is a lot of room for improvement, and I would very much like to see EPA made to chunk out the whole urea additive program and reburner setups and be able to go to a much more efficient engine in a two stroke that would reduce particulate by gallon of fuel more than the current methods. The two cycle diesels got twice the fuel mileage at the same horsepower ratings, and could have been improved even more. The four cycle diesels were headed to a point where fuel efficiency was going to be a lot higher too, until the corn growers and others got involved and EPA made us go to the new setups that use urea or a reburner system, and those both dropped fuel economy per gallon by as much as 30%, so in overall per gallon burned particulates you actually see a drop, but in particulates per mile you see an increase of as much as 20% or more due to fuel economy. When you burn more fuel you produce more pollution, it is simple to see, but EPA are simpletons and cannot see it.