Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Maintenance & Repair Automotive Science or Voodoo?
113 messages, Last post on Oct 11, 2006 at 7:17 AM
You are in the Maintenance & Repair Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Dear All Many thanks to all of you who responded to my request for advice concerning this new invention. Your replies were excellent and gave me plenty to think about. I've since spoken to the marketing company and they have been able to give me more information which I would be grateful if you could let me have your further opinions on. 1. The device uses a combination of LPG (Liquid Pressurised Gas) with diesel, I know this is nothing new, however they claim the electronics optimises the firing cycle in combination with LPG. 2. They claim they have run tests with a single truck over 150k miles and the resulting diesel consumption was reduced by 37% therefore they guarantee a minimum of 20% 3. As for the price of the unit, they do not intend to sell them, rather they insist on a monthly lease over three years and wish to retain ownership of the device after the lease period and charge only a peppercorn rent thereafter. Apparently the electronic control also contains some sort of satalite vehicle location tracking program which can be software upgraded. 4. Apparently Mercedes Benze Truck division have expressed an interest to license the product but require 2 years to evaluate it within their quality system which is too long for the inventor. 5. Apparently upon emission testing, the emissions where so low that they could hardly be detected. The testers thought the emission equipment was faulty but concluded this was not the case and the emissions were simply extremely low. Does this sound more feesable or more worrying ? Thanks one again in advance for your thoughts on this Kind regards Epicentre |
|
|
|
| But I suppose I could be wrong... | |
|
Replying to: epicentre (Jun 06, 2005 12:50 pm) One other thing. They said the diesel consumption was 37% less. What was the LPG consumption? |
|
|
|
| yeah, how do you save fuel by using more fuel exactly? | |
|
Replying to: mvls1 (Mar 05, 2005 2:15 pm) |
|
|
|
What does he mean by "did a lot more"? There's really not much just dropping in an air filter can do, unless maybe you modify the whole intake system.
|
|
|
Replying to: epicentre (Jun 06, 2005 4:07 am) And IF they could show some data to back up their claims, I would have to see the approval that they have from DEQ and EPA that will attest to the fact that the engine would still maintain the EPA standards. Not likely. EPA standards must be met and maintained in order for any manufacturer to endorse or condone anything being installed on their engines. Anything that voids the manufacturer's warranty on a heavy truck is junk. Plain and simple. So now, with that said and remembering that when you talk about heavy truck fleet, that is what I do, I will address some of the things you commented on. So this may be long, so I will split it into 2 separate posts. 1. The device uses a combination of LPG (Liquid Pressurized Gas) with diesel, I know this is nothing new, however they claim the electronics optimizes the firing cycle in combination with LPG. LPG is the equivelant of Nitrous oxide to a diesel engine. While it is great for boosting power on a diesel, long term affects on the engine are controversial. I have seen several LPG boosted engines with destroyed pistons, while I have also seen many without problems. So, until someone can come up with firm, controlled data on what the long term, constant use would be for all manufacturers, LPG will never see the trucks in the fleet I work on. 2. They claim they have run tests with a single truck over 150k miles and the resulting diesel consumption was reduced by 37% therefore they guarantee a minimum of 20% As was stated, I would like to know the LPG consumption. I can run a multi-fuel engine that will run 50% less diesel, if I switch to another fuel. What engine were they running? What transmission? What gear ratios on the differentials? What year was the truck? 3. As for the price of the unit, they do not intend to sell them, rather they insist on a monthly lease over three years and wish to retain ownership of the device after the lease period and charge only a peppercorn rent thereafter. Apparently the electronic control also contains some sort of satalite vehicle location tracking program which can be software upgraded.  Ok, this is the point where the salesman would find the door in 90% of the fleets they will deal with. Very few fleets will allow much of anything to be installed on their trucks that they don't own outright. Leasing anything is a pain and if something should happen to the unit, they are out the cost. And for what reason would they have to put a location tracking program on it? |
|
|
4. Apparently Mercedes Benz Truck division have expressed an interest to license the product but require 2 years to evaluate it within their quality system which is too long for the inventor. I would like to see the copy of the letter of intent in order to believe such a claim. 5. Apparently upon emission testing, the emissions where so low that they could hardly be detected. The testers thought the emission equipment was faulty but concluded this was not the case and the emissions were simply extremely low. So let me get this straight. Caterpillar, Detroit, Navistar, Mercedes and Isuzu all had to file extensions because they couldn't meet the 2004 DEQ/EPA regulations for emissions, but all they had to do was install this device and they could exceed those standards??  Remember, when you are talking about a diesel, hardly detectable emissions isn't that achievable. Soot from diesel is there no matter what, which is why they have gone to catalytic converters on diesels, to try and cut down the amount of unburned HCs [soot]. As someone who has been dealing with diesels for over 25 years, I find this claim extremely hard to believe. Does this sound more feesable or more worrying ? From the information provided, I would have to say NO, it doesn't sound feasible. There are so many reasons why this reeks of snake oil salesmen, but it is a possibility. One thing you have to remember about anything that is claiming to improve fuel economy and emissions, is that in order for these things to be approved by DEQ and EPA, there are so many things that they have to prove, not claim. If these things cannot be proven, then the manufacturers can deny any warranty on an engine with this equipment installed and no fleet will take that chance. |
|
|
Replying to: 0patience (Mar 16, 2005 9:31 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: epicentre (Jun 06, 2005 12:50 pm) 1. A patent is required to avoid reverse engineering problems that will siphon business (it will already happen from overseas competition, but a US patent will give some protection). Get the # and expiration date. 2. What happened to the "100 trucks" fitted with the system? One truck is crap. 100 trucks with the system compared to 100 without would be legitimate statistical proof of an actual mpg improvement (a minimum of 30 trucks is needed). A large part of the mpg improvement might simply be from good engine tolerances of that specific truck. 3. Leasing the part is a complete 180 degree turn from charging $20 K and a purchase. What is with the huge change in business strategy? Now a whole new set of break-even parameters are required for a lease coupled with LPG refilling costs. 4. I think fleet managers would not give a rat's ass about emissions as long as the emissions do not EXCEED a certain maximum. Why are they harping on this aspect?
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Maintenance & Repair Automotive Science or Voodoo?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
