Synthetic Oil

[Burla]

No that isn't what I was saying, I said it turns particles into combustion byproducts. Actually this process does put out less particulates then PI ice engines by a little, with the caveat when everything is in pristine condition when they test them. If there was never an issue with low pressure PI systems, why chose this mess instead? GPF is basically a smokeless burn barrel, just cause you cant see the smoke doesn't mean something is happening.

 

[Burla]

When you listen to the engineers at Ram or Dodge, they have one main concern and that is it, increase HP we will figure the rest out. They say they main factor in emissions is HP, if you increase the HP you maximize the "emissions potential" of an engine. So lets take the number of cylinders out of it as common sense, so their argument is if you take a 4 banger and add a turbo with HP fuel rail, you increased the emissions potential of that 4 cylinder. Everything else that happens is irrelevant to their goal, just problems that need to be solved. So a 160 HP pi ice engine doesn't have the potential of the same engine with di turbo, despite any facts other then total compliance with this premise. Whatever proof you have against this premise, will be counterpointed or tossed away, as in what if we have to build vehicles twice as often to compensate for the rigors of keeping current di running? Again, that is a problem they think they can fix, "eventually". Rainbow stew, gotta love it. Solve these problems first and then sell us on these ideas has zero part of their behavior. Everything is 1 step forward and two steps back. The reason why it is so successful? Because it is something different and that is it and that is all. If it is "different" it has to be better is imprisoning a generation of all western countries.

.

 

[HEMIMANN]

No that isn't what I was saying, I said it turns particles into combustion byproducts. Actually this process does put out less particulates then PI ice engines by a little, with the caveat when everything is in pristine condition when they test them. If there was never an issue with low pressure PI systems, why chose this mess instead? GPF is basically a smokeless burn barrel, just cause you cant see the smoke doesn't mean something is happening.

Well, this is the same architecture as diesels with DOC, plus regenerative DPF, right (sans SCR)?

So the operating guideline is that the regeneration of the DPF is done correctly, such that the burning of the particulates produces less particulates than otherwise would have been without a filter trap. For diesel, they've done everything they know to reduce combustion particulates - ultra high pressure fuel injection to maximize fuel surface area exposed to oxygen, multi-injection electro piezo injectors for more of this, and feedback control injection timing. Also ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (sulfur promotes formation of particulates during combustion).

That's why diesels had to go to a particulate filter trap to get as close to zero particulates as possible, because all the things the industry has done to decrease particulate VOLUME has decreased particulate SIZE that penetrates lung tissue more easily, so their goal now is zero particulates. Ok, brief history of diesel emissions reductions there.

So, as we discussed, Mitsubishi launched GDI single injector in the 90's touting 20% increase in fuel economy from their LAB tests. IRL, it turned out to be only 5% because their rich burn mode (engine under load) used MORE fuel than a port injector because there's less time to volatize the gasoline during the compression stroke than there is for port injection during the intake stroke AND compression stroke. So, it's like running the engine with the choke on in the old carburetor days.

Therefore, for only a +5% improvement in fuel economy, they dumped a whole bunch of unburned pollutants into the exhaust stream and the engine oil. Nice, huh? Instead of balancing fuel economy against exhaust emissions, they worshiped a single performance criteria (mileage), realized what they'd done, and are now trying to bandaid the exhaust pollution with a DPF.

Obviously, the better solution that should have been done in the 1st place was dual injection: direct during lean burn only, and intake port during rich burn only. Or just left it alone as sequential port injection.

The reason diesels can do BOTH rich and lean burn with a single direct injector is the ultra high pressure that diesel fuel can be injected, they're pushing near 40,000 psi today. Gasoline is limited to <60 psi. Why? It's explosive...the flashpoint is -40 degrees (C or F). Diesel Fuel flash point is +125 F. Gasoline CAN NOT be injected at high enough pressure to volatize the fuel to small enough particles to combust cleanly.

<end rant - for now>

 

[Yardbird]

Also, large diesel engines run at appx 1600-1800 RPM. This gives time for atomization. You have to add in the cost of DPF fluid, and the fact the DPF level sensors go out on a regular basis because of the caustic DPF fluid.

The last truck I drove was a Kenworth with an MX 13, 12.9 liter engine. I fueled it myself, and added DEF fluid myself from the company tanks that were well kept. It had less than 5k miles when I got it. Every so many months it was back at KW for a DEF level sensor.

Around two thousand dollars every time it went out.

Granted, the exhaust was clean and clear. No caked black soot in the pipe, but when the check engine light came on, it was just a short time before derating, which if you were a good distance from the shop, you might make it.

One trip I topped the hill at the KW dealer at 10 MPH, and coasted down into their parking lot.

This was with a dump truck doing local work.

Technology got the trucks efficient and long lasting, then over technology ruined the reliability.

 

[Burla]

I guess if you buy into "their" position, why not hang a GPF on a PI? All problems solved at once, ten times better exhaust emissions no matter what and low displacement engines wont miss a beat, an ice engine 140 HP versus a 160 HP what difference in actual fuel mileage everything else apples to apples? The fact is PI is old and DI is new, so DI has to be better.

Nevermind the details, you can sell new technology as being better even though it is necessarily the case is the main function of PR theory. Bernays is the best example, the father of PR. Funny the facts since then go every which way but loose, but he sold a nation on the idea that bacons and eggs is a healthy breakfast. The facts have gone back and forth since, as in prior cereal was most healthy, then his idea ran supreme, then the greenies said a bowl of fruit was best, and no we have keto, but the absolute truth was Bernays had no idea about health. The fact is he structured the message mis using information to not only sell bacon and eggs, but also pancakes and biscuits and everything to make it a "large" breakfast. Which we now know has led to decades of Americans becoming obese. You can eat the same amount, but if you eat a small breakfast and 5 meals instead of 3, you body will be less obese.

We are at an unimaginable PR crisis, none of the old rules apply. People in power simple tell us what to do and they at least try and attempt to sell us on "different", but the fact is just like Bernays the father of PR they could care less about any outcomes. Bernays cared about making a lucrative contract, but sold everyone down the river to do so, and is absolutely famous in PR rooms and Einstein is in science rooms. And Bernays uses his version of Einstein to complete his goals, because even science can be bent for those who wish to do so. Different is only better when it is proven to be better, not because of words. Eating 5 times a day is better then 3 large meals assuming the same exact food source, that is an example of better. DI Turbo's have created an incredible amount of problems that need to be solved before we can even think in this case different is better.

 

[Yardbird]

 

[Burla]

Sigmond Freuds Nephew... Everything has been propaganda since, including this notion that anything is better then low displacement pi engines. It is much harder then just taking the CA out of oil. Yes they have made gains by adding both di/pi, but they never asked or answered the question if we are going to hang a GPF on everything anyway, why not hang it on a PI?

.

 

[tjfdesmo]

... Rainbow stew, gotta love it.

The Hag', oh yeah

 

[Burla]

Old country songs are biblical, they got everything right.

 

[HEMIMANN]

Also, large diesel engines run at appx 1600-1800 RPM. This gives time for atomization. You have to add in the cost of DPF fluid, and the fact the DPF level sensors go out on a regular basis because of the caustic DPF fluid.

The last truck I drove was a Kenworth with an MX 13, 12.9 liter engine. I fueled it myself, and added DEF fluid myself from the company tanks that were well kept. It had less than 5k miles when I got it. Every so many months it was back at KW for a DEF level sensor.

Around two thousand dollars every time it went out.

Granted, the exhaust was clean and clear. No caked black soot in the pipe, but when the check engine light came on, it was just a short time before derating, which if you were a good distance from the shop, you might make it.

One trip I topped the hill at the KW dealer at 10 MPH, and coasted down into their parking lot.

This was with a dump truck doing local work.

Technology got the trucks efficient and long lasting, then over technology ruined the reliability.

"caustic DPF fluid" = urea (aka horse pi$$)

 

[HEMIMANN]

I guess if you buy into "their" position, why not hang a GPF on a PI? All problems solved at once, ten times better exhaust emissions no matter what and low displacement engines wont miss a beat, an ice engine 140 HP versus a 160 HP what difference in actual fuel mileage everything else apples to apples? The fact is PI is old and DI is new, so DI has to be better.

Nevermind the details, you can sell new technology as being better even though it is necessarily the case is the main function of PR theory. Bernays is the best example, the father of PR. Funny the facts since then go every which way but loose, but he sold a nation on the idea that bacons and eggs is a healthy breakfast. The facts have gone back and forth since, as in prior cereal was most healthy, then his idea ran supreme, then the greenies said a bowl of fruit was best, and no we have keto, but the absolute truth was Bernays had no idea about health. The fact is he structured the message mis using information to not only sell bacon and eggs, but also pancakes and biscuits and everything to make it a "large" breakfast. Which we now know has led to decades of Americans becoming obese. You can eat the same amount, but if you eat a small breakfast and 5 meals instead of 3, you body will be less obese.

We are at an unimaginable PR crisis, none of the old rules apply. People in power simple tell us what to do and they at least try and attempt to sell us on "different", but the fact is just like Bernays the father of PR they could care less about any outcomes. Bernays cared about making a lucrative contract, but sold everyone down the river to do so, and is absolutely famous in PR rooms and Einstein is in science rooms. And Bernays uses his version of Einstein to complete his goals, because even science can be bent for those who wish to do so. Different is only better when it is proven to be better, not because of words. Eating 5 times a day is better then 3 large meals assuming the same exact food source, that is an example of better. DI Turbo's have created an incredible amount of problems that need to be solved before we can even think in this case different is better.

Because EPA is only capable of focusing on a single parameter at a time instead of doing a performance tradeoff matrix.

i.e. - run by a bunch of one-dimenstional, a*n*a*l-ytical scientists instead of an experienced Chief Engineer and cross-functional program manager.

Now ask me how I know all of this. Wait - don't...it's been suppressed for a long time.

Epilogue - we had a huge Oscar Mayer bacon and wiener plant in my home town of Madison, WI!

 

[Burla]

They took an old premise as in "more HP usually makes less MPG", and then took the opposite position and sold it as fact. New premise, more HP is needed for fuel efficiency.

 

[Burla]

In the 90's you could get an inline 6, 5.0 v8. or 5.8 v8 in f150. As HP increased, you would get less MPG. Even Broncos had 2 options the 5.0 or 5.8, almost everyone wanted the 5.8. but nowadays maybe would love the 5.0 302 if they could.

 

[Burla]

So per Kyle, a full year at Amsoil is only 16 bucks. so That is somehow news to me, those memberships are starting to make sense, first order likely pays you back.

Especially with cvt's, their cvt oil looks good? Plus of course SG gear bags.

 

[Burla]

Another look at Amsoil EOT 0w30, 3.5 hths and a 12.3 cSt, pour point -56F with an index 185. Moly is near zero, boron 186, everything about this oil screams perfection but for moly which with biotech is an easy fix. The viscosity numbers just prove it is in the same class as our favorites. Preferred price Amsoil = 11 bucks a qrt. Where are all the Amsoil guys? This is the one you should have looked at. Porsche 30 spec!

 

[Burla]

Looks near identical viscosity wise to HPL (pdf) SC 0w30.

 

[HEMIMANN]

Another look at Amsoil EOT 0w30, 3.5 hths and a 12.3 cSt, pour point -56F with an index 185. Moly is near zero, boron 186, everything about this oil screams perfection but for moly which with biotech is an easy fix. The viscosity numbers just prove it is in the same class as our favorites. Preferred price Amsoil = 11 bucks a qrt. Where are all the Amsoil guys? This is the one you should have looked at. Porsche 30 spec!

I'm using their Severe Gear in my other drivetrains and also their chainsaw oils.

But I'm spooked for Hemi Engine Oil. Either Red Line or HPL SC for me. And now Travis has thrown Mobil 1 ESP 0W-30 into the mix.

 

[HEMIMANN]

Sigmond Freuds Nephew... Everything has been propaganda since, including this notion that anything is better then low displacement pi engines. It is much harder then just taking the CA out of oil. Yes they have made gains by adding both di/pi, but they never asked or answered the question if we are going to hang a GPF on everything anyway, why not hang it on a PI?

.

Didn't we agree PI didn't need GPF? i.e. - the spray into the intake stroke provides plenty of vaporization to produce near zero particulates?

 

[Burla]

But you can see that eot is simply not like SS 5w30, it is built like those top choices. Amsoil moved towards CAFE goals, but not all their oils like eot. I think even Pennzoil was similar, now I have to look...

check this out, Pennzoil took down their viscosity information?

 

[Burla]

Didn't we agree PI didn't need GPF? i.e. - the spray into the intake stroke provides plenty of vaporization to produce near zero particulates?

I know, it doesn't, but if they are hanging them on everything as a rule, then hanging it on a PI will still be better outcome then hanging them on di. Forgive me but generally speaking, GPF on di 99% better, pi alone 2% worse, di with no GPF 40 times worse, all about emissions, di GPF is slightly better the pi no GPF. They just never thought to hang one on a PI, which would have like zero particulates. No I'm not advocating this, I just suggest increasing particulates by a 1,000 percent to increase HP was irresponsible.