Diesel Innovation
- Thread starter dervdave
- Start date
- Status
sounds a little too good to be true....but awesome if it is!
For on road vehicles, packaging constrains would be the deal killer. Soot is well controlled with current DPF systems. Time will tell.
Lets hope they keep improving on diesel and keep it around. I always wondered if we had the same amount of money and innovation that went into gas engines, into diesel, where diesel would be today.
Indirect injection diesel engines have been around since the beginning. There is no question that certain well designed IDI configurations produce little soot and smoke, as the violent mixing of the fuel air as it exits into the chamber does the trick.
The Lister CS (cold start) engines are an early example of this. The injector itself simply squirts a stream of fuel into the pre-chamber. Where it ignites and ejects itself into the main combustion chamber. The result is an engine that runs on nearly any fuel, and does so cleanly. But it only has one injector. IDI designs with multiple injection points can be both reasonably efficient and clean. We've known this forever.
But it's good to realize that nothing beats a well designed direct injection system for ultimate efficiency.
Opposed piston diesel engines, operating on a two stroke cycle, and utilizing multiple direct injectors seem to be the efficiency kings. With no energetic heat lost to a combustion chamber, and no friction producing wasted exhaust/intake stroke.
My point is this, the greater the exposed area in a combustion chamber, the greater the heat loss. Driving efficiency down. Sometimes substantially.
The Lister CS (cold start) engines are an early example of this. The injector itself simply squirts a stream of fuel into the pre-chamber. Where it ignites and ejects itself into the main combustion chamber. The result is an engine that runs on nearly any fuel, and does so cleanly. But it only has one injector. IDI designs with multiple injection points can be both reasonably efficient and clean. We've known this forever.
But it's good to realize that nothing beats a well designed direct injection system for ultimate efficiency.
Opposed piston diesel engines, operating on a two stroke cycle, and utilizing multiple direct injectors seem to be the efficiency kings. With no energetic heat lost to a combustion chamber, and no friction producing wasted exhaust/intake stroke.
My point is this, the greater the exposed area in a combustion chamber, the greater the heat loss. Driving efficiency down. Sometimes substantially.
Last edited:
2 to 10X more fuel than needed. Can you imagine my 2006 Duramax getting 34 MPG in town as a worst case scenario?
Does sound interesting. Preventing soot generation while also keeping NOx low would be quite a step forward. The only aspect to that would be they still hold onto the EGR thing. That is a level of complexity all its own and still keeps emissions controls on the engine and taxing the cooling system. The chance of an EGR cooler leaking coolant into the combustion chambers is still at risk. I would rather they take this concept and still retain SCR/DEF to take care of any NOx. At least that is downstream of the motor.
Kestas
Staff member
Originally Posted by Audios
Lets hope they keep improving on diesel and keep it around. I always wondered if we had the same amount of money and innovation that went into gas engines, into diesel, where diesel would be today.
Chrysler heavily invested in diesel engines back in the early 80s. I was involved in many of the programs. They projected 25% diesel engines in passenger vehicles by the end of the decade. Back then, diesel was markedly cheaper per gallon than gasoline. What killed it was the class action suit for Oldsmobile diesel engines, which soured the public on diesels. Plus the price of gasoline dropped, easing the concern on fuel costs. And diesel engines cost more up front. The public still has the perception of diesels being noisy, stinky, and slow. In recent decades the EPA has made it difficult to develop diesel engines. It's still an uphill battle to offer diesel engines in passenger vehicles.
Lets hope they keep improving on diesel and keep it around. I always wondered if we had the same amount of money and innovation that went into gas engines, into diesel, where diesel would be today.
Chrysler heavily invested in diesel engines back in the early 80s. I was involved in many of the programs. They projected 25% diesel engines in passenger vehicles by the end of the decade. Back then, diesel was markedly cheaper per gallon than gasoline. What killed it was the class action suit for Oldsmobile diesel engines, which soured the public on diesels. Plus the price of gasoline dropped, easing the concern on fuel costs. And diesel engines cost more up front. The public still has the perception of diesels being noisy, stinky, and slow. In recent decades the EPA has made it difficult to develop diesel engines. It's still an uphill battle to offer diesel engines in passenger vehicles.
I hope it is true because of the growing trend to demonise diesels in parts of Europe and especially the UK because of the `damage to the air quality` and `cancerous particulates` they are reported to cause in favour of efficient petrol and electric cars.
Originally Posted by Kestas
Chrysler heavily invested in diesel engines back in the early 80s. I was involved in many of the programs. They projected 25% diesel engines in passenger vehicles by the end of the decade. Back then, diesel was markedly cheaper per gallon than gasoline. What killed it was the class action suit for Oldsmobile diesel engines, which soured the public on diesels. Plus the price of gasoline dropped, easing the concern on fuel costs. And diesel engines cost more up front. The public still has the perception of diesels being noisy, stinky, and slow. In recent decades the EPA has made it difficult to develop diesel engines. It's still an uphill battle to offer diesel engines in passenger vehicles.
4BT or agricultural diesel swaps can get insane mileage with mechanical injection. There's a reason diesel passenger vehicles and light trucks were/are ubiquitous everywhere in the world except for NA and it has nothing to do with public perceptions.
Just like dieselgate where VW was vilified, but then in the years proceeding it turns out that many manufacturers game emissions tests so they can claim better MPG for marketing reasons. Why was the manufacturer that produces the most well known diesel cars in NA targeted and everyone else was let off the hook? Even when Toyota floor mats and GM ignition switches actually killed people?
Chrysler heavily invested in diesel engines back in the early 80s. I was involved in many of the programs. They projected 25% diesel engines in passenger vehicles by the end of the decade. Back then, diesel was markedly cheaper per gallon than gasoline. What killed it was the class action suit for Oldsmobile diesel engines, which soured the public on diesels. Plus the price of gasoline dropped, easing the concern on fuel costs. And diesel engines cost more up front. The public still has the perception of diesels being noisy, stinky, and slow. In recent decades the EPA has made it difficult to develop diesel engines. It's still an uphill battle to offer diesel engines in passenger vehicles.
4BT or agricultural diesel swaps can get insane mileage with mechanical injection. There's a reason diesel passenger vehicles and light trucks were/are ubiquitous everywhere in the world except for NA and it has nothing to do with public perceptions.
Just like dieselgate where VW was vilified, but then in the years proceeding it turns out that many manufacturers game emissions tests so they can claim better MPG for marketing reasons. Why was the manufacturer that produces the most well known diesel cars in NA targeted and everyone else was let off the hook? Even when Toyota floor mats and GM ignition switches actually killed people?
Kestas
Staff member
The reason diesels are ubiquitous everywhere else is because of the tax structure elsewhere. Diesel fuel is taxed far less than gasoline in Europe. There is plenty of incentive to own a diesel in Europe.
The public perception thing is well documented and covered by many automotive journalists over the years. It was ever present even before dieselgate.
The public perception thing is well documented and covered by many automotive journalists over the years. It was ever present even before dieselgate.
I always liked diesels, and own Ram 3500 2005 diesel DRW. This idea was known about back in 2017, it is the political process that has made the ducted fuel injector of greater manufacturing interest. Spewing soot is due to partially burned fuel so it is going to help emissions and fuel usage, hopefully the additional cost burdens on consumers wont be too high. You can have good tech, but it can be priced out of the market.
- Status
Similar threads
