cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

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

Groover
Explorer II
Explorer II
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.
55 REPLIES 55

StirCrazy
Nomad III
Nomad III
Huntindog wrote:
Groover wrote:
As StirCrazy said "There is more than the cost to measure value. Being able to increase range by 25% is worth something."

Not having to stop as often or worrying about giving out of fuel is nice. In virtually every discussion here about electric vehicles range is a key item. While it is less of an issue with diesels it is still an item.

If you are satisfied with your current range then you could carry 20% less fuel and increase your payload by 70lbs in a Superduty with the 48 gallon tank, or a 120lbs in my class A. Less time at the pump when you stop would be nice as well. Or don't use the extra weight capacity and have better performance.

A similar savings in DEF was reported. That is also worth time, weight and money. It is really amazing to me how some people blow off savings. It is almost like they are proud of how much they spend.
Oh Snap.I post something good and crazy gets the credit!
OP, huntindog.:B
"Being able to increase range by 25% is worth something."


:B I had to scroll back to see how that one came about haha
2014 F350 6.7 Platinum
2016 Cougar 330RBK
1991 Slumberqueen WS100

Cummins12V98
Explorer III
Explorer III
MFL wrote:
Grit dog wrote:
We now need to see pics of the Cummins lady….who’s with me?


I am!! If 12V's still having w-dreams after 7 years has passed, she's got to be sumptin!

My Ford dealer is also a Ram dealer, so easy for me to make the switch! I may be willing to give her a full 24 hrs to convince me.

Jerry


We need a "LIKE BUTTON" !!!!!!!!!!
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

MFL
Nomad II
Nomad II
Grit dog wrote:
We now need to see pics of the Cummins lady….who’s with me?


I am!! If 12V's still having w-dreams after 7 years has passed, she's got to be sumptin!

My Ford dealer is also a Ram dealer, so easy for me to make the switch! I may be willing to give her a full 24 hrs to convince me.

Jerry

Cummins12V98
Explorer III
Explorer III
FishOnOne wrote:
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?


Hey Cummins,
Don't tell me your still winking and blowing kisses in her ears in order to get more intel... :B


Have not seen her since 2016 but still have dreams of her.......:B
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

Grit_dog
Nomad III
Nomad III
We now need to see pics of the Cummins lady….who’s with me?
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

MFL
Nomad II
Nomad II
A man will always do whatever it takes, to get what he wants! Intel, or whatever?

FishOnOne
Explorer III
Explorer III
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?


Hey Cummins,
Don't tell me your still winking and blowing kisses in her ears in order to get more intel... :B
'12 Ford Super Duty FX4 ELD CC 6.7 PSD 400HP 800ft/lbs "270k Miles"
'16 Sprinter 319MKS "Wide Body"

Huntindog
Explorer
Explorer
Groover wrote:
As StirCrazy said "There is more than the cost to measure value. Being able to increase range by 25% is worth something."

Not having to stop as often or worrying about giving out of fuel is nice. In virtually every discussion here about electric vehicles range is a key item. While it is less of an issue with diesels it is still an item.

If you are satisfied with your current range then you could carry 20% less fuel and increase your payload by 70lbs in a Superduty with the 48 gallon tank, or a 120lbs in my class A. Less time at the pump when you stop would be nice as well. Or don't use the extra weight capacity and have better performance.

A similar savings in DEF was reported. That is also worth time, weight and money. It is really amazing to me how some people blow off savings. It is almost like they are proud of how much they spend.
Oh Snap.I post something good and crazy gets the credit!
OP, huntindog.:B
"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

JRscooby
Explorer II
Explorer II
StirCrazy wrote:
JRscooby wrote:
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.


If you can go twice as far on a gallon, but each gallon costs twice as much, fuel costs per mile is the same. The extra money you spend for the engine to use the more expensive fuel is a loss.
But for most people that buy a new pickup every few years to claim to worry about cost to get there is silly, IMHO.


you lost me. why did the fuel jump to twice the price all of a sudden. and why are we talking bout different engines... this is all about the efficiency of these pistons, which realy is a cheep process to do, might add 500 bucks to the cost of building an engine if that..

this whole thread was about highlighting new technology which looks pretty cool and is showing some remarkable results through real world testing. and the post you replied to was just stating if a 25% reduction of fuel usage for the same distance reduces the costs of driving that same distance..

as for the buying new pickups every year, I don't personaly but I am almost done paying my truck off and I can tell you my diesel per month if I only ude the truck is higher than the loan payment, and that was when diesel and gas were the same price, laitly diesel has been 0.15 higher, normaly its 0.10 lower than gas but it seams to cycle up here.. so getting a 25% reduction in fuel uasge would be a huge chunk of change for people who actualy use there truck for more than hauling there camper once or twice a year.

Steve



Let's look at the statement you questioned;

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.

If, just using numbers I can work in my head, a pickup with spark motor can take the load 10 miles on a gallon of gas, and the gas costs $3.00 and the diesel pickup can take the load 15 miles on a gallon of fuel, but the fuel costs $4.50 a gallon. Just counting fuel cost, how much do you save driving 300 miles?
For many RVers, and PastorCharlie might be one, don't drive enough miles in the life of pickup to save fuel cost compared to price increase when buying the diesel powered truck.

Now, about the piston design. There is no doubt in my mind saving 25% on fuel, without major power or durability loss, would be a game changer. And in fact, starting about '08 when a small fleet operator I sometimes hauled for bought half dozen trucks with emission controlled diesels I have said the manufactures need to jump to cleaning the combustion, skip trying to clean the exhaust.

Groover
Explorer II
Explorer II
As StirCrazy said "There is more than the cost to measure value. Being able to increase range by 25% is worth something."

Not having to stop as often or worrying about giving out of fuel is nice. In virtually every discussion here about electric vehicles range is a key item. While it is less of an issue with diesels it is still an item.

If you are satisfied with your current range then you could carry 20% less fuel and increase your payload by 70lbs in a Superduty with the 48 gallon tank, or a 120lbs in my class A. Less time at the pump when you stop would be nice as well. Or don't use the extra weight capacity and have better performance.

A similar savings in DEF was reported. That is also worth time, weight and money. It is really amazing to me how some people blow off savings. It is almost like they are proud of how much they spend.

Grit_dog
Nomad III
Nomad III
What Scooby said has nothing to do with pistons. Not even remotely.
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

StirCrazy
Nomad III
Nomad III
JRscooby wrote:
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.


If you can go twice as far on a gallon, but each gallon costs twice as much, fuel costs per mile is the same. The extra money you spend for the engine to use the more expensive fuel is a loss.
But for most people that buy a new pickup every few years to claim to worry about cost to get there is silly, IMHO.


you lost me. why did the fuel jump to twice the price all of a sudden. and why are we talking bout different engines... this is all about the efficiency of these pistons, which realy is a cheep process to do, might add 500 bucks to the cost of building an engine if that..

this whole thread was about highlighting new technology which looks pretty cool and is showing some remarkable results through real world testing. and the post you replied to was just stating if a 25% reduction of fuel usage for the same distance reduces the costs of driving that same distance..

as for the buying new pickups every year, I don't personaly but I am almost done paying my truck off and I can tell you my diesel per month if I only ude the truck is higher than the loan payment, and that was when diesel and gas were the same price, laitly diesel has been 0.15 higher, normaly its 0.10 lower than gas but it seams to cycle up here.. so getting a 25% reduction in fuel uasge would be a huge chunk of change for people who actualy use there truck for more than hauling there camper once or twice a year.

Steve
2014 F350 6.7 Platinum
2016 Cougar 330RBK
1991 Slumberqueen WS100

Grit_dog
Nomad III
Nomad III
Y’all are getting delirious here….time to step away. Lol
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

JRscooby
Explorer II
Explorer II
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.


If you can go twice as far on a gallon, but each gallon costs twice as much, fuel costs per mile is the same. The extra money you spend for the engine to use the more expensive fuel is a loss.
But for most people that buy a new pickup every few years to claim to worry about cost to get there is silly, IMHO.