Regarding the FBC ... https://betterdiesel.com/wp-content... betterdiesel.com/ dpf-soot-filters/ rochure-with-case-study_revised_2019.pdf
Makes one wonder, if it's as good as it claims, then why isn't this additive part of the national fuel supply in general? If the FBC product can reduce regens (which means there are fewer particulate events overall), then why isn't a mandated component of the general fuel supply chain? The EPA already mandates all manner of stuff into gasoline to improve the emissions of vehicles, so why not mandate a FBC in the diesel fuels??? The deterrent can't be cost; the EPA clearly does not care what the consumer pays for cleaning the air (hence ULSD, DPF and SCR, etc; all of which add cost to the fuel, maintenance and the vehicles themselves). The only thing I can think of is that the output (tailpipe emissions) is unaffected by this product. The FBC might affect the input to the DPF with fewer regen events, but the output (total particulate matter) from the exhaust tip probably changes little, if any.
Regarding the fuel economy gains ... I wonder how much of that is attributed directly to the reduction of regens? IOW, some MPG gain might be attributed to an increase of efficiency in the cylinder burn process, and some of the MPG gain is attributed to the lower consumption of fuel via fewer regen events. The net result (less fuel consumed) is certainly desirable, but I would have liked to know how many regens happens prior to the FBC use; they don't state that. There were 6 regens during their 30k miles of on-road testing, but they didn't say how many regens happen during the equivalent 30k miles of untreated driving.
And overall, how is this product different than other big market players such as PowerService and Stanadyne? The PS and Stanadyne don't make claims about regens, where the BD product does. What's unique in the BD product that makes it so much more effective at reducing regens?