FBC "Better Diesel" and such

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
https://betterdiesel.com/dpf-soot-filters/ Regarding the FBC ... https://betterdiesel.com/wp-content...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?
 
Last edited:

JHZR2

Staff member
Messages
44,624
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
If it were as good don't you think the majors would buy it?
Why would they buy it? To dose into their fuel, or to hide it like the 100mpg carburetor? I'd suspect that the general public doesn't know/care about dpf Regen. Since the diesel market is really heavy trucking, where there's no real alternative to diesel, wonder what their thoughts and needs are? Pulling loaded Id assume they're set up so DPF Regen isn't an issue? So do they really encounter this as much, or is it more an artifact of passenger vehicles that aren't loaded as heavily most of the time? The challenge is that it's hard to say from one 30k mike test just what is what. You need large sample sizes, and even then, the variables due to weather, load, terrain, etc. makes it really tough. But for every time someone says that everything is snake oil, there's other good results. In general I'd argue thst small businesses selling products like this are doing it because they genuinely think they're on to something. And it's likely they may be. Not because these adds give enormous oxygen addition to augment combustion, or overthrow thermodynamics, but because they help the injection, atomization, etc. in some way that is favorable, and that can be quantified easier than thermal efficiency (eg duration between regens).
 
Messages
2,099
Location
WY
I'm thinking the EA288 VW TDI's regen every 300-500 miles irrespective of soot load measured or calculated. The visible emissions from their tailpipe's are non-existent. With 36k miles on my DD the tailpipe'sinsides are shiny metal and that is after the phase 1 fix. I am using more DPF fluid, about a gallon every 1000 miles or so. About twice the pre-fix rate. I do use PS in every tank just as a precaution in case the lubricity pack is forgotten at the terminal/truck/station.
 
Messages
1,287
Location
FL
I tried it out, don't use it anymore. My overall feeling is the fuel "blend", and driving style have more impact on distance to regen than anything else. I have made it to 500 miles on my Ford 6.7 a number of times without FBC, I have also at times only make it to 200. I saw similar results with FBC but IIRC I never made it to 500, my avg went up slightly but nothing that proved to me it was worth the cost. One thing to note when I used this the iron in my UOA spiked upwards, and I believe this product has some form of iron in it. Edit: I used Enerburn, FBC's predecessor.
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,124
Location
Atlanta,GA
Originally Posted by JHZR2
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
If it were as good don't you think the majors would buy it?
Why would they buy it? To dose into their fuel, or to hide it like the 100mpg carburetor? I'd suspect that the general public doesn't know/care about dpf Regen. Since the diesel market is really heavy trucking, where there's no real alternative to diesel, wonder what their thoughts and needs are? Pulling loaded Id assume they're set up so DPF Regen isn't an issue? So do they really encounter this as much, or is it more an artifact of passenger vehicles that aren't loaded as heavily most of the time? The challenge is that it's hard to say from one 30k mike test just what is what. You need large sample sizes, and even then, the variables due to weather, load, terrain, etc. makes it really tough. But for every time someone says that everything is snake oil, there's other good results. In general I'd argue thst small businesses selling products like this are doing it because they genuinely think they're on to something. And it's likely they may be. Not because these adds give enormous oxygen addition to augment combustion, or overthrow thermodynamics, but because they help the injection, atomization, etc. in some way that is favorable, and that can be quantified easier than thermal efficiency (eg duration between regens).
Either. If a major bought the product it would be a huge coup because they would sell a ton of fuel. Think about the failed attempts by Chevron to market Techron-D at the pumps. Second, the days of diesels engines are numbered and it would be cheaper to use a better fuel rather than rely on some technology that will cause more headaches for fleet managers. btw..this isn't the first product to make such claims. There was another one back in 2010 which used a polymer and allegedly was originally a military application. With regards to this product I have not seen a MSDS so we can't be certain this just isn't some basic additive such as 2EHN.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,908
Location
missouri
This summer due to all the flooding I started getting better economy than ever before in my motorcycle. I went from 42-44 to 47-50 MPG, the sources of supply changed. This was all no alcohol premium. The motorcycle ran exactly as before, no change. But the economy went up. It was like someone flipped a switch. Now that things are better, we have gone back to the same [censored] supply and my economy is back to normal. Yes, have tested the [censored] gas for alcohol. There is very little water soluble additives in there. I did not test the good gas. So some means exists for us to get better economy. Rod
 
Messages
1,287
Location
FL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by JHZR2
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
If it were as good don't you think the majors would buy it?
Why would they buy it? To dose into their fuel, or to hide it like the 100mpg carburetor? I'd suspect that the general public doesn't know/care about dpf Regen. Since the diesel market is really heavy trucking, where there's no real alternative to diesel, wonder what their thoughts and needs are? Pulling loaded Id assume they're set up so DPF Regen isn't an issue? So do they really encounter this as much, or is it more an artifact of passenger vehicles that aren't loaded as heavily most of the time? The challenge is that it's hard to say from one 30k mike test just what is what. You need large sample sizes, and even then, the variables due to weather, load, terrain, etc. makes it really tough. But for every time someone says that everything is snake oil, there's other good results. In general I'd argue thst small businesses selling products like this are doing it because they genuinely think they're on to something. And it's likely they may be. Not because these adds give enormous oxygen addition to augment combustion, or overthrow thermodynamics, but because they help the injection, atomization, etc. in some way that is favorable, and that can be quantified easier than thermal efficiency (eg duration between regens).
Either. If a major bought the product it would be a huge coup because they would sell a ton of fuel. Think about the failed attempts by Chevron to market Techron-D at the pumps. Second, the days of diesels engines are numbered and it would be cheaper to use a better fuel rather than rely on some technology that will cause more headaches for fleet managers. btw..this isn't the first product to make such claims. There was another one back in 2010 which used a polymer and allegedly was originally a military application. With regards to this product I have not seen a MSDS so we can't be certain this just isn't some basic additive such as 2EHN.
I think ferocene is the main additive
 
Messages
2,235
Location
Lyndhurst NJ
If anyone else would want to pay for another test like what Optilube did, I would gladly kick in money for the testing and supply as many different additives as I could. RIght now I have Redline, Liqui Moly, Wurth, and Optilube on hand at the shop that I can submit samples of for testing.
 

wwillson

Staff member
Messages
3,161
Location
Naperville, IL
Originally Posted by Audios
If anyone else would want to pay for another test like what Optilube did, I would gladly kick in money for the testing and supply as many different additives as I could. RIght now I have Redline, Liqui Moly, Wurth, and Optilube on hand at the shop that I can submit samples of for testing.
Audios, How would the test be structured?
 
Messages
2,235
Location
Lyndhurst NJ
Originally Posted by wwillson
Originally Posted by Audios
If anyone else would want to pay for another test like what Optilube did, I would gladly kick in money for the testing and supply as many different additives as I could. RIght now I have Redline, Liqui Moly, Wurth, and Optilube on hand at the shop that I can submit samples of for testing.
Audios, How would the test be structured?
Not sure, I was guessing it would be a wear scar test like the Optilube one floating around. I really dont know where to start though.
 
Messages
7
Location
MN
Most of the answers to these questions are covered in the website https://betterdiesel.com/. Therein we attempt to explain the fundamental mechanism behind the catalytic approach to improving engine thermal efficiency. Independent studies over the past decade conclusively demonstrate that the use of the fuel borne catalyst technology can improve engine thermal efficiency by ~10% on average, ranging from 5% - 14% from test to test across various different engine sizes and makes. It is important to note that we controlled the measurement of error to within 2%. This was accomplished by using test methods as certified by the EPA for measuring fuel consumption in which uncontrollable variables that otherwise contribute to fuel consumption are eliminated. By design, the EPA test method ensures that fuel consumption is a direct output of only two main engine variables (inputs), those being load (torque) and speed (rpm.) Plenty of tests of soot levels from an engine exhaust before and after on-going treatment of fuel with the FBC have also been performed. Our claim of 60%-70% reduced soot from any diesel engine is well substantiated by opacity tests and emissions tests of particulate matter (PM). As a consequence of improving engine thermal efficiency with the aid of the FBC, both engine and DPF regen performance are noticeably improved. To put it mildly, heavy road transport trucks do experience substantial loss of profits due to downtime caused by DPF regen related failures and other maintenance issues caused by soot build up. We know that the on-going use of the Better Diesel FBC directly correlates to elimination of the vast majority of these issues. Thus, we have earned the loyalty of many independent transport truck owner-operators and small fleet owners as well as diesel pickup truck owners. Better Diesel FBC is sold under a private brand name called Max Mileage FBC by Pittsburgh Power. The marketing team at Pittsburgh Power have also put together a very informative page on their website https://pittsburghpower.com/pages/max-mileage. Please be sure to check out this website along with the video at the end. Once you understand the basics of how the FBC technology works, the rest all makes sense for most people. But by all means, if after reviewing these two resources you still have any questions, feel free to post them and I will do my best to respond in a timely manner.
 
Messages
43,638
Location
'Stralia
Have used allsorts of fuel catalysts over the years, and NEVER seen the improvements claimed...although one DID turn the tailpipe somewhat red,as advertised. Have used it in power station start-up fuel (under direction, when back to back tested forparticulate emissions, I got it canned),and explored the varous catalysts for coal combustion over the years.
 
Messages
1,287
Location
FL
Originally Posted by BetterDieselFBC
Most of the answers to these questions are covered in the website https://betterdiesel.com/. Therein we attempt to explain the fundamental mechanism behind the catalytic approach to improving engine thermal efficiency. Independent studies over the past decade conclusively demonstrate that the use of the fuel borne catalyst technology can improve engine thermal efficiency by ~10% on average, ranging from 5% - 14% from test to test across various different engine sizes and makes. It is important to note that we controlled the measurement of error to within 2%. This was accomplished by using test methods as certified by the EPA for measuring fuel consumption in which uncontrollable variables that otherwise contribute to fuel consumption are eliminated. By design, the EPA test method ensures that fuel consumption is a direct output of only two main engine variables (inputs), those being load (torque) and speed (rpm.) Plenty of tests of soot levels from an engine exhaust before and after on-going treatment of fuel with the FBC have also been performed. Our claim of 60%-70% reduced soot from any diesel engine is well substantiated by opacity tests and emissions tests of particulate matter (PM). As a consequence of improving engine thermal efficiency with the aid of the FBC, both engine and DPF regen performance are noticeably improved. To put it mildly, heavy road transport trucks do experience substantial loss of profits due to downtime caused by DPF regen related failures and other maintenance issues caused by soot build up. We know that the on-going use of the Better Diesel FBC directly correlates to elimination of the vast majority of these issues. Thus, we have earned the loyalty of many independent transport truck owner-operators and small fleet owners as well as diesel pickup truck owners. Better Diesel FBC is sold under a private brand name called Max Mileage FBC by Pittsburgh Power. The marketing team at Pittsburgh Power have also put together a very informative page on their website https://pittsburghpower.com/pages/max-mileage. Please be sure to check out this website along with the video at the end. Once you understand the basics of how the FBC technology works, the rest all makes sense for most people. But by all means, if after reviewing these two resources you still have any questions, feel free to post them and I will do my best to respond in a timely manner.
Do you have any studies showing the performance of this product in the light diesel market? Talking F350 size and under. Studies showing both laden and unladen performance would be even better.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Messages
44,624
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted by BetterDieselFBC
Most of the answers to these questions are covered in the website https://betterdiesel.com/. Therein we attempt to explain the fundamental mechanism behind the catalytic approach to improving engine thermal efficiency. Independent studies over the past decade conclusively demonstrate that the use of the fuel borne catalyst technology can improve engine thermal efficiency by ~10% on average, ranging from 5% - 14% from test to test across various different engine sizes and makes. It is important to note that we controlled the measurement of error to within 2%. This was accomplished by using test methods as certified by the EPA for measuring fuel consumption in which uncontrollable variables that otherwise contribute to fuel consumption are eliminated. By design, the EPA test method ensures that fuel consumption is a direct output of only two main engine variables (inputs), those being load (torque) and speed (rpm.) Plenty of tests of soot levels from an engine exhaust before and after on-going treatment of fuel with the FBC have also been performed. Our claim of 60%-70% reduced soot from any diesel engine is well substantiated by opacity tests and emissions tests of particulate matter (PM). As a consequence of improving engine thermal efficiency with the aid of the FBC, both engine and DPF regen performance are noticeably improved. To put it mildly, heavy road transport trucks do experience substantial loss of profits due to downtime caused by DPF regen related failures and other maintenance issues caused by soot build up. We know that the on-going use of the Better Diesel FBC directly correlates to elimination of the vast majority of these issues. Thus, we have earned the loyalty of many independent transport truck owner-operators and small fleet owners as well as diesel pickup truck owners. Better Diesel FBC is sold under a private brand name called Max Mileage FBC by Pittsburgh Power. The marketing team at Pittsburgh Power have also put together a very informative page on their website https://pittsburghpower.com/pages/max-mileage. Please be sure to check out this website along with the video at the end. Once you understand the basics of how the FBC technology works, the rest all makes sense for most people. But by all means, if after reviewing these two resources you still have any questions, feel free to post them and I will do my best to respond in a timely manner.
I am curious of the ability for this product to improve combustion in IDI engines. Your site says it is suitable for "pre-emissions" applications. Certainly these older engines, especially before the early 1990s, are known for their increased soot production. There are multiple elements intrinsic to the design of the prechamber and mechanical injection design that can be part of the cause. Is there any evidence to the efficacy of these catalysts in IDI engines for reducing soot and improving combustion?
 
Top