25% better mpg from current diesels? Too good to be true?

[Groover]

Engine Builder magazine is reporting on a new piston design by Speed of Air® (SoA) Engine Technologies that claims to improve the fuel economy of the three leading pickup diesels by 25%. It obviously would be an expensive retrofit but might not cost much if offered by the OEMs.

Article

I love to see new tech like this but so much of it never gets to mass production that I have learned to be skeptical.

[frankwp]

StirCrazy wrote:

PastorCharlie wrote:
I am not concerned with how far I can go on a gallon of fuel. My concern is how much it cost to get me there.

isnt that one and the same, if you increase the range of a tank of gass it costs you less to get to your destination.

Not at all. The cost of fuel is almost trivial when you include the total cost of ownership of a truck and RV

[StirCrazy]

PastorCharlie wrote:
I am not concerned with how far I can go on a gallon of fuel. My concern is how much it cost to get me there.

isnt that one and the same, if you increase the range of a tank of gass it costs you less to get to your destination.

[PastorCharlie]

I am not concerned with how far I can go on a gallon of fuel. My concern is how much it cost to get me there.

[StirCrazy]

Huntindog wrote:

StirCrazy wrote:

mkirsch wrote:
Someone's going to say it, so it might as well be me:

Getting rid of the poorly-executed emissions equipment on these engines would accomplish the same thing without an expensive fancy piston.

actualy I don't think anyone was going to say it because it doesnt make any sence.

emissions may be a garbage set up but they do lower emiaaions, if you take them off emissions will go up so taking them off will not do anything aside from a little bit better milage as the expence of more emissions.
there has been a Canadian company testing these pistons in the engines they remanufacture for almost two years and here are there results

"During testing, DFC Diesel observed fuel consumption reductions of 25% or more with factory tuning, an average of 5% increases in torque and horsepower, NOx reductions as high as 80%, and the ability to extend oil change intervals by 50% due to decreased soot and fuel dilution. Observed benefits also include reduced regeneration cycles, DEF consumption, and visible exhaust/opacity, along with noticeably smoother and quieter operation."

Steve

There is more than the cost to measure value. Being able to increase range by 25% is worth something.

I thought that was infered by the increase in fuel milage.....

[BCSnob]

Patents

US-9303594-B2

US-8813718-B2

Speed of Air is covered, now they should publish their lab tests and real world tests (they referred to in the linked news article) in a peer reviewed journal.

[Huntindog]

joshuajim wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

StirCrazy wrote:

mkirsch wrote:
Someone's going to say it, so it might as well be me:

Getting rid of the poorly-executed emissions equipment on these engines would accomplish the same thing without an expensive fancy piston.

actualy I don't think anyone was going to say it because it doesnt make any sence.

emissions may be a garbage set up but they do lower emiaaions, if you take them off emissions will go up so taking them off will not do anything aside from a little bit better milage as the expence of more emissions.
there has been a Canadian company testing these pistons in the engines they remanufacture for almost two years and here are there results

"During testing, DFC Diesel observed fuel consumption reductions of 25% or more with factory tuning, an average of 5% increases in torque and horsepower, NOx reductions as high as 80%, and the ability to extend oil change intervals by 50% due to decreased soot and fuel dilution. Observed benefits also include reduced regeneration cycles, DEF consumption, and visible exhaust/opacity, along with noticeably smoother and quieter operation."

Steve

There is more than the cost to measure value. Being able to increase range by 25% is worth something.

If it increases pollution, it’s worth nothing.

They claim it reduces emissions.. If that is true it is worth more, right?

[joshuajim]

Huntindog wrote:

StirCrazy wrote:

mkirsch wrote:
Someone's going to say it, so it might as well be me:

Getting rid of the poorly-executed emissions equipment on these engines would accomplish the same thing without an expensive fancy piston.

actualy I don't think anyone was going to say it because it doesnt make any sence.

emissions may be a garbage set up but they do lower emiaaions, if you take them off emissions will go up so taking them off will not do anything aside from a little bit better milage as the expence of more emissions.
there has been a Canadian company testing these pistons in the engines they remanufacture for almost two years and here are there results

"During testing, DFC Diesel observed fuel consumption reductions of 25% or more with factory tuning, an average of 5% increases in torque and horsepower, NOx reductions as high as 80%, and the ability to extend oil change intervals by 50% due to decreased soot and fuel dilution. Observed benefits also include reduced regeneration cycles, DEF consumption, and visible exhaust/opacity, along with noticeably smoother and quieter operation."

Steve

There is more than the cost to measure value. Being able to increase range by 25% is worth something.

If it increases pollution, it’s worth nothing.

[ktmrfs]

If the article report fuel consumption correctly, the mileage improvement is NOT 25% more like 33%. They say it REDUCES fuel consumption by 25%. That translates into a mpg improvement of 33%.

As an example suppose it takes 10 gallons to go 100 miles=10mpg. Now reduce the fuel consumption by 25%. So it then takes 7.5 gallons to go 100 miles=13.3 mpg, a 33% improvement.

Either way if the claims come anything close to what can be achieved over life cycle it's significant.

However, given all the work on engine design, something that claims to offer the improvement they claim, I'd like to see independent verification. Seems like these kinds of claims keep coming up and usually don't pan out.

[Huntindog]

StirCrazy wrote:

mkirsch wrote:
Someone's going to say it, so it might as well be me:

Getting rid of the poorly-executed emissions equipment on these engines would accomplish the same thing without an expensive fancy piston.

actualy I don't think anyone was going to say it because it doesnt make any sence.

emissions may be a garbage set up but they do lower emiaaions, if you take them off emissions will go up so taking them off will not do anything aside from a little bit better milage as the expence of more emissions.
there has been a Canadian company testing these pistons in the engines they remanufacture for almost two years and here are there results

"During testing, DFC Diesel observed fuel consumption reductions of 25% or more with factory tuning, an average of 5% increases in torque and horsepower, NOx reductions as high as 80%, and the ability to extend oil change intervals by 50% due to decreased soot and fuel dilution. Observed benefits also include reduced regeneration cycles, DEF consumption, and visible exhaust/opacity, along with noticeably smoother and quieter operation."

Steve

There is more than the cost to measure value. Being able to increase range by 25% is worth something.

[Grit_dog]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

Grit dog wrote:

Desert Captain wrote:
With diesel being about 25 percent higher in cost than regular gas where is the net savings?
Just saying/asking... :h

You’re not really a pot stirrer so why now?

Are you concerned for your title??? :B

No way dude!
I’m not even in the running for the crown in this bunch!!

[FishOnOne]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Diesel's are due for a major break thru in technology that reduces the need or better yet eliminates the band-aid emissions equipment.

You mean like the Lady at Cummins that spoke of them working on such a system?

Precisely...

[Cummins12V98]

Grit dog wrote:

Desert Captain wrote:
With diesel being about 25 percent higher in cost than regular gas where is the net savings?
Just saying/asking... :h

You’re not really a pot stirrer so why now?

Are you concerned for your title??? :B

[Cummins12V98]

FishOnOne wrote:
Diesel's are due for a major break thru in technology that reduces the need or better yet eliminates the band-aid emissions equipment.

You mean like the Lady at Cummins that spoke of them working on such a system?

[JRscooby]

Desert Captain wrote:


Not trying to stir any pots but some folks here are playing fast and loose with the math...

"If" diesels get 10 to 15 percent better mileage and diesel fuel costs 25+ percent more than gas then once you add in the cost of these wonder pistons {I doubt they are free to buy much less install} there doesn't appear to me much of net savings {assuming they actually work as represented here}.

I like the power and reliability of a diesel, had one in my last boat {a 40' trawler} for 5 years but now, like many I simply have no use for that motor.

There are three kinds of people on this planet... those that can do math and those that can't.

:B

And many people that can point out errors in arithmetic, but can't grasp the logic.
If a engine is getting 16 MPG on diesel, is modified, now gets 20 MPG on diesel the price of gasoline does not amount to a pinch of snot.
I have been saying for decade and half the diesel engine industry should be working to clean the combustion instead of cleaning the exhaust.

[ppine]

Desert Captain wrote:
With diesel being about 25 percent higher in cost than regular gas where is the net savings?
Just saying/asking... :h

Depends on location. On the West Coast diesel is often cheaper than gas. Diesel engines last much longer, they get better mileage, they pull better, and they are worth a lot more when they age.

There are gross savings, net savings and fuel savings.