| Author |
Message |
motorcoach1
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 12:36 pm: | |
heres something i ran across in my research i thought i'd share it with you folks , it kind of interesting Diesel MPG
A review of our Gasoline MPG page will provide a good picture on the potential of our Dynamic Cam™ technology for improving fuel efficiency. In our gasoline fueled engines, we observed that the greatest improvement was based on our initial Sprockey™ product development. When the DynaCam™ camshaft was added, the improvement was only another 10 percent and the Leanjector™ fuel injectors only added another 20 percent (approximately).
With diesel engines, it is significantly different. When we installed our Sprockey™ product, we achieved a 20 to 31 percent improvement in fuel efficiency. As an example, in 2001 we installed it on a 1999 GM-National Coach Bus with a Detroit Diesel Series 60 diesel engine. This bus travels between Juarez and Mexico City,1,114 miles each way or 2,228 miles round trip, seven or eight times a month. The round trip fuel cost for this bus was $595 (in US Dollars) at that time.
After installing our Sprockey™ product, the round trip cost was reduced to $411. That is a fuel operating cost saving of $184 or a 30.9% reduction. Multiply this fuel cost saving by 7 or 8 to arrive at the monthly reduction in operating costs, $1,288 or $1,472, with just our Sprockey™ device.
By 2003, we had expanded our diesel product offerings with the DynaCam™ camshafts and the Leanjector™ fuel injectors. When we installed all three products in a 1979 Mercedes-Benz 240D (a 5 cylinder diesel) car with 390,000 miles, the mileage jumped from 21.7 to 53.2 MPG. That's a 145 percent improvement. From limited testing, it appears that our DynaCam™ diesel camshaft is much more effective on diesel engines. Our diesel Leanjector™ products, like our gasoline Leanjectors™, can be expected to provide a 20 percent improvement.
About Us How? Products Engine Emissions More Power EPA/TCET Grant |
truthhunter@shaw.ca
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 2:50 pm: | |
Good illustration about worn "beyond spec" cam set, way out of time at 390,000 miles and a way out of tune engine with leaky over-sized injectors can promote such poor performance and yet still operate. That is more reason to spend the money when it is rebuild time and do a complete job if you can afford it and hope for a long service life. Perhaps this is the part of the reliability/economy equation some fleets like Greyhound would calculate when deciding to do complete rebuilds before there older two strokes were completely worn out.
(Not saying that replacing good "in-spec" parts in a "good" engine will produce anything near 145 percent improvement with these aftermarket parts or that leaning out a engine beyond O.E.M design doesn't have it's drawbacks) |
motorcoach1
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 3:37 pm: | |
i agree leaning out is chancy , but the cam and a good vortex exhaust might improve the mileage in some engines. I'm like most folks , i wouldn't want to tear up a 20k engine experimenting for someone that clams to improve mileage. |
t gojenola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 5:58 pm: | |
Amazing advancements are being made today in fuel efficiency, but I don't know if this represents one of them. Their claims appear outrageous - a common trait associated with startup organizations. You can read them all at their web-site at:
http://www.sprockey.com/
Make your own judgement, but in my opinion, the presence of known inaccuracies in any such claim is, in itself, cause for skepticism. The last MB 240D I drove only had 4 cylinders, and it would consistently exceed 40 mpg in highway driving.
tg |
niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:37 am: | |
If you totally lean out the mill it will certainly get good MPG ...... just before it siezes
P.S. Think Ian has BB envy? Wassup Bossnut |
David (Davidinwilmnc)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 2:26 pm: | |
Exactly TG. A '79 240D has a 4-cylinder engine. The 300D is the 5-cylinder version. At interstate speeds (around 75 mph), my '84 300D turbo gets around 28 mpg (with the car loaded and the A/C on). Granted, my car only has 85,000 miles, but the inaccuracies make me wonder.
David |
Casper4104
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 3:06 pm: | |
'83 - 240D with 4 speed manual. 205K miles, pretty well maintained. I get 32-34mpg in regular use, and a little better on the highway.
Great car, best $1500 I ever spent.
I'm with TG. Real killer pros would know exactly how many cylinders the test mule had, and they'd be sure to proofread their press release.
Kinda like Lasik surgery,,, I'll let everybody else take the chances as unpaid "Beta testers". If it looks good long term maybe I'll get in later.
Casper |
|