An future end to DPF Diesels?

BrokenTrack · Mar 30, 2020

The Diesel Engine could be converted to a 6 stroke, and that would do the same thing as DEF, BUT give the engine an extra power stroke for free. (Well almost free)

RalphVa · Mar 30, 2020

Let's hope it works in actual application. Should be some news of some outfit using this technology soon.

Loved the VW TDI's performance and non diesel-like sounds and all but hated the stink from the burn off, almost worse than pre DPF, untreated diesel vehicles.

Ralph

Gale Hawkins · Mar 30, 2020

sd455dan said:
Thread Bump

and new tech for Gas engines that uses "jet" injection Somewhat like but different than the old Honda CVCC (Compound Vortex Combustion Chamber) design. 20 % fuel economy and 95% reduction in NOx

From MAHLE the auto parts/tech company

Want +20% MPG? Bam, Here You Go - Autoline Exclusives - YouTube

Sounds like your thought is on target.

Gradual switch from diesel to gas and electricity - FutureFarming

RalphVa · Mar 31, 2020

Mazda is coming out with a sparkplug-less gas engine with even higher CR than their current 14/1 that is supposed to give even better fuel mileage. Right now on the current Skyactiv (new one will be Skyactiv X), they are about 20% above diesel consumption of a TURBO diesel without turbo.

Ralph

LOWTECH · Mar 31, 2020

Why not forget the fossil fuels and their additives and go electric? Solectrac.com

pmsmechanic · Mar 31, 2020

LOWTECH said:
Why not forget the fossil fuels and their additives and go electric? Solectrac.com

There are several reasons off hand that I can think of. I'm not saying these are insurmountable but we aren't going to get there with present day technology. If you put 100 barrels of oil in a long pipeline you end up with 85 at the end. The other 15 are used up to move the oil down the pipeline. If you generate 100 megawatts of electricity you end up with about 33 to sell to the customer. Again on a long transmission link. The other 66 megawatts get burned up in what's called line loss.

Further more if everyone on a city block buys an electric car the whole infrastructure for supplying electricity to that city block is going to need upgrading. Presently there can be only approximately 4 Tesla's per city block. This is all information that I've been told. Your research might come up with different facts. I haven't double checked it.

Very few people talk about how much range you lose in cold weather. Cold battery's don't have the same capacity as warm ones. In the city this isn't so serious but for rural people you basically end up needing a second car for longer distances.

Another issue that is seldom mentioned is the amount of carbon produced to generate electricity. If the generation is coal there is no carbon advantage to an electric vehicle. I essentially consider wind and solar to be expensive experiments. You would have to cover the surface of the earth to generate enough electricity to meet current demands, plus in this day and age you still need conventional generation for when solar and wind are idle. Solar and wind are idle far more often than we are led to believe.

It would do far more for reducing carbon to require automotive manufacturers to build at least 1-2 million miles of reliability into vehicles with the ability to upgrade to more efficient engines as technology advances. If you think of the energy used to produce a vehicle vs the energy used to propel it through out it's lifetime this makes sense.

Lastly if governments were really serious about reducing carbon, planting trees makes tons more sense than carbon taxes.

jaydee325 · Mar 31, 2020

The February issue of Diesel Progress Magazine (a trade publication) had an article titled Proposing Cleaner Truck Engines. This article outlined the next step the EPA is considering to further lower diesel truck emissions. I've provided a link to the EPA website location where the EPA is requesting public comment on these proposed new rules.

The magazine is accessible via subscription only which is why I can't provide a direct link to the article. Subscriptions are free, however you have to fill out a survey. Here is a link to the magazine for those who may want to subscribe. I've been reading this magazine for several years now and recommend it for anyone wanting to keep up on new developments in the trade.

LOWTECH · Mar 31, 2020

pmsmechanic said:
There are several reasons off hand that I can think of. I'm not saying these are insurmountable but we aren't going to get there with present day technology. If you put 100 barrels of oil in a long pipeline you end up with 85 at the end. The other 15 are used up to move the oil down the pipeline. If you generate 100 megawatts of electricity you end up with about 33 to sell to the customer. Again on a long transmission link. The other 66 megawatts get burned up in what's called line loss.

Further more if everyone on a city block buys an electric car the whole infrastructure for supplying electricity to that city block is going to need upgrading. Presently there can be only approximately 4 Tesla's per city block. This is all information that I've been told. Your research might come up with different facts. I haven't double checked it.

Very few people talk about how much range you lose in cold weather. Cold battery's don't have the same capacity as warm ones. In the city this isn't so serious but for rural people you basically end up needing a second car for longer distances.

Another issue that is seldom mentioned is the amount of carbon produced to generate electricity. If the generation is coal there is no carbon advantage to an electric vehicle. I essentially consider wind and solar to be expensive experiments. You would have to cover the surface of the earth to generate enough electricity to meet current demands, plus in this day and age you still need conventional generation for when solar and wind are idle. Solar and wind are idle far more often than we are led to believe.

It would do far more for reducing carbon to require automotive manufacturers to build at least 1-2 million miles of reliability into vehicles with the ability to upgrade to more efficient engines as technology advances. If you think of the energy used to produce a vehicle vs the energy used to propel it through out it's lifetime this makes sense.

Lastly if governments were really serious about reducing carbon, planting trees makes tons more sense than carbon taxes.

I did not know this! Thanks - I do 100% agree with the tree idea and maybe more importantly keeping our agricultural land covered with crops during the full growing season. Currently we are only harvesting about 40% of the available photosynthesis and we could easily bring that number up to between 80 and 100% with a change in cropping practices. It will take some government incentives to make the change but once we have the infrastructure in place the payback will be significant - not just in terms of carbon sequestered but in terms of economic benefits to our local communities.

EddieWalker · Mar 31, 2020

As long as the Government is providing incentives to solar and wind companies to produce a product that is inefficient, then they will continue to do so. Eventually, both will replace fossil fuel, but not until the technology improves dramatically. Currently, we are just wasting money and making a few people very rich while creating garbage that will cost more money to remove once tax dollars stop supplementing their existence.