Cummins12V98
on the road
Senior Member
Joined: 06/03/2012
View Profile
 Offline
|
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... ![[emoticon]](https://forums.goodsamclub.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/scratchead.gif "scratchead")
You’re not really a pot stirrer so why now?
Are you concerned for your title??? ![[emoticon]](https://forums.goodsamclub.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/biggrin.gif "biggrin")
2015 RAM LongHorn 3500 Dually CrewCab 4X4 CUMMINS/AISIN RearAir 385HP/865TQ 4:10's
37,800# GCVWR "Towing Beast"
"HeavyWeight" B&W RVK3600
2016 MobileSuites 39TKSB3 highly "Elited" In the stable
2007.5 Mobile Suites 36 SB3 29,000# Combined SOLD
|
FishOnOne
The Great State of Texas
Senior Member
Joined: 02/12/2011
View Profile
Offline
|
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...
'12 Ford Super Duty FX4 ELD CC 6.7 PSD 400HP 800ft/lbs "270k Miles"
'16 Sprinter 319MKS "Wide Body"
|
Grit dog
Black Diamond, WA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2013
View Profile
Offline
|
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...
You’re not really a pot stirrer so why now?
Are you concerned for your title???
No way dude!
I’m not even in the running for the crown in this bunch!!
2016 Ram 2500, MotorOps.ca EFIlive tuned, 5” turbo back, 6" lift on 37s
2017 Heartland Torque T29 - Sold.
Couple of Arctic Fox TCs - Sold
|
Huntindog
Phoenix AZ
Senior Member
Joined: 04/08/2002
View Profile
|
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.
Huntindog
100% boondocking
2021 Grand Design Momentum 398M
2 bathrooms, no waiting
104 gal grey, 104 black,158 fresh
FullBodyPaint, 3,8Kaxles, DiscBrakes
17.5LRH commercial tires
1860watts solar,800 AH Battleborn batterys
2020 Silverado HighCountry CC DA 4X4 DRW
|
ktmrfs
Portland, Oregon
Senior Member
Joined: 06/22/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
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.
* This post was
edited 02/07/23 03:13pm by ktmrfs *
2011 Keystone Outback 295RE
2004 14' bikehauler with full living quarters
2015.5 Denali 4x4 CC/SB Duramax/Allison
2004.5 Silverado 4x4 CC/SB Duramax/Allison passed on to our Son!
|
|
|
joshuajim
Mojave Desert
Senior Member
Joined: 04/29/2006
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
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.
RVing since 1995.
|
Huntindog
Phoenix AZ
Senior Member
Joined: 04/08/2002
View Profile
|
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?
|
BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
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.
* This post was
edited 02/07/23 06:56pm by BCSnob *
|
StirCrazy
Kamloops, BC, Canada
Senior Member
Joined: 07/16/2003
View Profile
|
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.....
2014 F350 6.7 Platinum
2016 Cougar 330RBK
1991 Slumberqueen WS100
|
PastorCharlie
NC
Senior Member
Joined: 03/28/2004
View Profile
Offline
|
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.
|
|
|
