Shell engine teardown of experimental low-viscosit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Forgot, it gets around 25% better mpg than the commercial semi truck industry average of around 6 mpg. About on par with what the newer, more fuel efficient engines are getting nowadays. I got 220K miles out of the steer rubber. They still had 8-10/32nd, but I got $150 each for the casings and discount on new rubber. Couldn't pas up the deal. The drive rubber is still original that came on the truck. 335K miles on them. Measured at 320K and still had 14-16/32nd tread. Probably figure they will get replaced next fall at around 450K.

Truck is a definate keeper. Engine uses about 1/2 gallon oil (out of 9.5 gallon sump capacity) in 25K miles / 500 hrs. Not bad, as that is 66% over the OEM recommended drain internal of 15K miles / 300 hrs. Samples look very good.
Seems you have the maintenance and cost per mile down to a science and I guess you have to if you want to make a living!
 
Yeah, you have to almost tweak things down to the fraction of a penny to find what you need to cut or do differently to keep profit margin maxed. A simple 1/10th loss in mpg costs $800 to $1000 in lost net on the truck in a year. A full mpg average loss, that is almost nightmarish to contemplate. And the reverse is true, small increases net pretty substantial rewards. And the reduced expense of not having all that emissions stuff, along with the significantly higher maintenance costs associated with keeping it working, really makes a killer difference in things. For once, it is nice to be able to take advantage of the "loopholes" in the regulations.

Got some pics but not sure how to upload on this message board.
 
"This new 15W30 is, in my mind, and I'll posit same, a demonstration that SAE30 was the correct lubricant for the OTR diesels of the day, and that modern VIIS, PPDs, and whatever can now give you the operational protection that an SAE30 did back in the bad old days, without requiring artificially high KV100s to counteract the temprary and permanent shear that the 15W40s had to combat"

"IMO, 15W30, in a modern fay formulation is going to be as solid as SAE30 was "back in the day""


Exactly.

I still have not found the new Delo 400 SD SAE 15W-30.
 
Last edited:
Wonder what it would take for Amsoil to move their 10w30/30w ACD oil into today's classifications. They still have it at CI-4+ which is not recommended for DPF/SCR equipped diesels. That supposedly is a straight 30w with no VI at all, but the PAO makeup and associated cold flow makes it quality as a 10w30. That would seem to be a great alternative if only they would move the add pack to CJ-4.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Wonder what it would take for Amsoil to move their 10w30/30w ACD oil into today's classifications. They still have it at CI-4+ which is not recommended for DPF/SCR equipped diesels. That supposedly is a straight 30w with no VI at all, but the PAO makeup and associated cold flow makes it quality as a 10w30. That would seem to be a great alternative if only they would move the add pack to CJ-4.
Probably the competition would almost be the Chevron 15w-30.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Forgot, it gets around 25% better mpg than the commercial semi truck industry average of around 6 mpg. About on par with what the newer, more fuel efficient engines are getting nowadays. I got 220K miles out of the steer rubber. They still had 8-10/32nd, but I got $150 each for the casings and discount on new rubber. Couldn't pas up the deal. The drive rubber is still original that came on the truck. 335K miles on them. Measured at 320K and still had 14-16/32nd tread. Probably figure they will get replaced next fall at around 450K.

Truck is a definate keeper. Engine uses about 1/2 gallon oil (out of 9.5 gallon sump capacity) in 25K miles / 500 hrs. Not bad, as that is 66% over the OEM recommended drain internal of 15K miles / 300 hrs. Samples look very good.


So because you get better fuel economy that has to off-set at least a bit in regards to pollution right.

Here's my thought.
Sure you've got less pollution controls however you burn less fuel,hense less pollution right.
It's like the old Honda lean burn engines. They put out too much nox or something so it was eliminated,even though while in lean burn mileage shot up significantly.
So even though there was more supposed acid rain making chemicals being put into the atmosphere the truth of it was the engines actually emitted less per gallon of fuel burned.
I'm not sure I'm explaining this right but I'm hoping most get the picture.
 
Well, the latest diesel emission controls seem to almost require the exhaust to be cleaner than the air that went into the engine in the first place. The fuel economy with my older pre-emission Detroit is on par with the latest emission laden heavy diesels. They have come a long way in improving mpg. But the fact still remains.... the emissions junk on those semi trucks adds roughly 1200 lb to the weight of the vehicle, and in trucking, that is lost money. And those systems require considerable expense and downtime to keep them running right. Again, lost revenue and higher cost of operation. Sure, this pre-egr engine is putting out substantially more NOx than the newer engines. Particulates as well. But compared to what? China or Mexico? But since many fleets don't have the people in the cubicles that can figure out this can be done, those of us that use older factory rebuilt engines in new equipment are but a small fraction of the entire trucking industry. This is the kind of stuff they don't teach in college. At least no prof had a clue about it when I was in college. You bring the topic up around many major fleet execs, and they have never heard of being able to use older pre-emission engines in brand new trucks. If they have, they think it is illegal.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Forgot, it gets around 25% better mpg than the commercial semi truck industry average of around 6 mpg. About on par with what the newer, more fuel efficient engines are getting nowadays. I got 220K miles out of the steer rubber. They still had 8-10/32nd, but I got $150 each for the casings and discount on new rubber. Couldn't pas up the deal. The drive rubber is still original that came on the truck. 335K miles on them. Measured at 320K and still had 14-16/32nd tread. Probably figure they will get replaced next fall at around 450K.

Truck is a definate keeper. Engine uses about 1/2 gallon oil (out of 9.5 gallon sump capacity) in 25K miles / 500 hrs. Not bad, as that is 66% over the OEM recommended drain internal of 15K miles / 300 hrs. Samples look very good.


So because you get better fuel economy that has to off-set at least a bit in regards to pollution right.

Here's my thought.
Sure you've got less pollution controls however you burn less fuel,hense less pollution right.
It's like the old Honda lean burn engines. They put out too much nox or something so it was eliminated,even though while in lean burn mileage shot up significantly.
So even though there was more supposed acid rain making chemicals being put into the atmosphere the truth of it was the engines actually emitted less per gallon of fuel burned.
I'm not sure I'm explaining this right but I'm hoping most get the picture.

The EPA tested cars in grams of NOx per mile. That is why those cars would burn less fuel yet create significantly more NOx.
 
What I find interesting, is the EPA seems so worried about NOx, and to be fair, it does creates some issues, but since nitrogen is the heavy hitter when it comes to what makes up the atmosphere, this almost seems like an over concern on NOx being some form of environmental destroying substance. Only in strategic locations like L.A., Denver, and other places that have a geography that lends itself to NOx "pooling up" and leading to detrimental ozone issues does it seem to need addressed. Hauling freight from Nebraska to Indiana, like I regularly do, NOx is barely a blip on the radar, and never was even in the "bad old days" of no emission controls on vehicles.

They have a problem with a vehicle emitting NOx, but the emission devices to counteract it in turn cause less fuel efficiency. Now there is environmental issues with getting and refining even more fuel, that seems to be defeating the whole purpose of reducing NOx coming out of vehicles. It is like the dog chasing its tail. But then, governments like to perpetuate problems to justify their existence and get larger budgets. Thereby leading to more hot air coming out of D.C. and causing global climate change. To listen to these bureaucrats, you would think that pollution is being created more than ever. They seem to forget the old coal smokestacks of the early industrial revolution days, or that the Cuyahoga river caught on fire in 1969. We don't hold a candle to the days gone by, but the government sure tries to make us think so.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
What I find interesting, is the EPA seems so worried about NOx, and to be fair, it does creates some issues, but since nitrogen is the heavy hitter when it comes to what makes up the atmosphere, this almost seems like an over concern on NOx being some form of environmental destroying substance. Only in strategic locations like L.A., Denver, and other places that have a geography that lends itself to NOx "pooling up" and leading to detrimental ozone issues does it seem to need addressed. Hauling freight from Nebraska to Indiana, like I regularly do, NOx is barely a blip on the radar, and never was even in the "bad old days" of no emission controls on vehicles.

They have a problem with a vehicle emitting NOx, but the emission devices to counteract it in turn cause less fuel efficiency. Now there is environmental issues with getting and refining even more fuel, that seems to be defeating the whole purpose of reducing NOx coming out of vehicles. It is like the dog chasing its tail. But then, governments like to perpetuate problems to justify their existence and get larger budgets. Thereby leading to more hot air coming out of D.C. and causing global climate change. To listen to these bureaucrats, you would think that pollution is being created more than ever. They seem to forget the old coal smokestacks of the early industrial revolution days, or that the Cuyahoga river caught on fire in 1969. We don't hold a candle to the days gone by, but the government sure tries to make us think so.


Well said. Thats why I always have to chuckle at 8 MPG v8 SUVs being labeled partial zero emissions vehicles, while 48 MPG small diesels are gross polluters.

By being constrained the way we are, we end up wasting more fuel and making more dumb decisions. Of course if we focused on total tonnage (effectively CO2), then some other faction will gripe about that.
 
Oz got ADR27A (Australian Design Rule)...it forced lower compression, open chamber heads (open chamber heads they had to lower the compression), no vaccum advance until top gear, EGR onto the carbed engines of the day.

It had the effect of making engine displacement power wise worth about 70% of what it used to be, and used 25-30% more fuel.

One of my cars that I modded, they failed me initially, as with the exhaust system I couldn't get some of the stuff to work again...ended up agreeing that I was putting out less per km, just a few more PPM, and I got a roadworthy.

(Those were the days, now it's zero tolerance (zero though process is what THAT means)
 
Inefficient bureaucracies also exist in large corporations as explained daily in the Dilbert comic strip.
Where I worked for 39 years there was a department who's sole purpose was to invent
more restrictive operating rules in the name of safety.

Now add human resources, marketing and sales, nobody moves, and nobody gets hurt.
The place ended up a money losing comedy and it took a massive dose of reality
to turn the place around.

Could a massive dose of reality ever happen at the Government level?
 
Originally Posted By: Brent_G
Newer diesel (mainly heavy duty) need to work on reliability way before fuel economy. We work on an ISX atleast once a week with EGR/DEF/DPF issues usually not over 500k miles. Our current over the road truck is a 3406E with 1.4 million on it pulling a heavy haul. The truck has 430hp and runs close to 65,000lb empty...loaded it is close to 150,000lb and only thing major that I have had to replace is the rear ends.


The new emmisions are killing them. I have a 2011 Pete wth a 550 ISX in my shop now at 380k with a DEF problem. Truck is in limp and had to be towed due to the DEF pump and plugged exhaust filter($2500) Never saw that in pre-emissions engines.

The current repair bill on that truck? $3500... and we still have not fixed the EGR problem that caused the problem. The filter alone is $2200 pre markup.



Newer trucks are just ridiculous to work on....luckily a lot of them are covered under warranty for a period of time but my god there's a lot of dough being thrown around with the hassles of all the emissions garbage.
 
Originally Posted By: used_0il
Inefficient bureaucracies also exist in large corporations as explained daily in the Dilbert comic strip.
Where I worked for 39 years there was a department who's sole purpose was to invent
more restrictive operating rules in the name of safety.

Now add human resources, marketing and sales, nobody moves, and nobody gets hurt.
The place ended up a money losing comedy and it took a massive dose of reality
to turn the place around.

Could a massive dose of reality ever happen at the Government level?




Could a massive dose of reality ever happen to an organization with a guaranteed income, complete ability to blame the "other hand" for screwing up, and zero motivation to do anything correctly?
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: used_0il
Inefficient bureaucracies also exist in large corporations as explained daily in the Dilbert comic strip.
Where I worked for 39 years there was a department who's sole purpose was to invent
more restrictive operating rules in the name of safety.

Now add human resources, marketing and sales, nobody moves, and nobody gets hurt.
The place ended up a money losing comedy and it took a massive dose of reality
to turn the place around.

Could a massive dose of reality ever happen at the Government level?




Could a massive dose of reality ever happen to an organization with a guaranteed income, complete ability to blame the "other hand" for screwing up, and zero motivation to do anything correctly?
Was that a no?
smirk.gif
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Kinda hard to imagine that. The fuel for the DPF, at least on heavy diesels, it at the DPF itself downstream. Some early versions dosed at the engine, but dilution was somewhat of an issue, but the inefficiency of the fuel / burn ratio was bigger.. Crawl under a current production semi truck and you can see the fuel line to the DPF.

I'm not familiar with the emissions setup on heavy duty diesels, but I understand how it worked on my 2007 Dodge with the 6.7L Cummins, prior to me hitting that big pothole that caused all the emissions equipment to fall off.
wink.gif


Wouldn't the fuel have to be injected upstream of the diesel oxidation catalyst, which is upstream from the DPF? If you injected fuel into the DPF I don't see how it would burn to regenerate the DPF. Or is it a completely different system than what came with my light duty 6.7L Cummins?
 
Well, I have to be honest in saying I am not totally sure of how it does its thing on the heavy diesels. And each OEM seems to go at it differently. I have just seen the setups and seen injectors changed out. I cheated by getting a brand new 2013 Freightliner, without an engine, and dropping in a factory rebuilt pre-emission Detroit in it. My only experience was with EGR on a 2006 ISX, and I didn't want to deal with just that again. I invented new swear words over that setup. Now with the SCR and DPF, forget it. As long as it is legal to do what I did, putting pre-emission engine in a new truck, I will do it again. Less cost, less maintenance, less headaches.

I am sure some idiot in gooberment will wake up from surfing porn on his office computer and realize that some of us are "sidestepping" the emissions thing and instigate some regulatory changes down the road. The regs are such, that the EPA ties the emissions to the year the engine was made, not the vehicle. So, we get away with dropping in pre-emission engines in brand new trucks. The car and pickup OEM's could do the very same thing, but it would require the customer to order a complete truck without the engine and transmission thru normal parts channels. The heavy truck OEM's have this all figured out. Just like ordering a new, regular production truck.
 
That seems like the perfect answer to the ridiculous emissions rules; putting an older, rebuilt diesel engine into a new truck body. Somebody is making a lot of money rebuilding engines!
 
The term for a chassis w/o engine & trans is a "Slider". Unfortunately, the government is well aware of the practice and because of it,International sliders are now delivered with a DPF mounted to the chassis... Bast@rds!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top