Big Bore
Active member
Anyone using these? Seen them on Daves engines youtube channel.
Golf ball pistons
- Thread starter Big Bore
- Start date
Powerstroke Cowboy
Well-known member
Speed of air Pistons? No I have not. I'd really like to see how durable they are.
Big Bore
Active member
Daves engines installed a set in a 7.3 Powerstroke engine for a ...Cummins engineer. I don't know if they have installed them in any other engines.
Powerstroke Cowboy
Well-known member
If they are as good as claimed, it would help bring the 7.3 closer to modern engines for DD and towing. Add a vgt turbo and it would be sweet.
Still trying to figure out how they would actually work
‘96 7.3- Precision Turbo 76mm, Carrillos, Colt stg2, BAMF
‘16 CCLB 350 6.7- Tyrant 230, Low-temp therm, Bilstein 5100s
'22 CCLB 350 Platinum- Star white, Snow stg 3, Lo-temp therm, fox 2.0s/dual stabilizer, air bags, S&B, 22s/37s
‘96 7.3- Precision Turbo 76mm, Carrillos, Colt stg2, BAMF
‘16 CCLB 350 6.7- Tyrant 230, Low-temp therm, Bilstein 5100s
'22 CCLB 350 Platinum- Star white, Snow stg 3, Lo-temp therm, fox 2.0s/dual stabilizer, air bags, S&B, 22s/37s
Powerstroke Cowboy
Well-known member
They have their explanation for it.
I think the biggest gain is from the coating and the gap less second ring.
Bmcgarvie
Member
They have an article where they tested those on Tim from t&a performance’s truck. It has a garret turbo with 238/80. The video looked very clean. I’ve been trying to get ahold of him but both of us have been playing phone tag. Dave also has videos with different diesels showing how much quieter they are. The idea was originally tested on cat 3516‘s and if they made those any smoother or less dirty while running I’d be impressed. I spent time around those engine on tugboats and while impressive they are not clean running nor smooth. i know I’m not providing much info but if I can get ahold of Tim I’ll post what he says.
Powerstroke Cowboy
Well-known member
I'm aware of Tim's pickup with SoA pistons. I've been following SoA for years. They tested them in the mining world.
I'd like to see them build an engine with OEM pistons. Test it on an engine dyno, do all the fuel burn rate tests as well as emissions tests. Than take the same engine and swap out the OEM pistons for the SoA pistons and do the same test again. Everything being the same just pistons swapped. Is also like to see the tests done with the OEM piston coated with the same coating as well as have the gapless second ring and see how that compares.
I'm skeptical very skeptical. They are pretty much asking us to spend 3k just for dimples. They want 4k for a complete set of pistons. Anyone that asks that for some dimples better be willing to have the necessary tests done to prove the dimples truly are what make the difference, if there's even a difference at all.
It had also better be third part verified by a well known and trusted diesel shop.
Big Bore
Active member
I had no idea they were that much, and yes, there should be a LOT of data for something that expensive, like exactly what you're saying, before and after with same same everything and some dyno charts, otherwise their brochure is just a bunch of fluff to get people to overpay for snake oil. if a set of pistons is anywhere near $4k, I'm out cause that's not even close to being economical for any alleged or perceived gain. I could spray water and a couple other things for a lot less to lower egt's with money left over for some more performance. Hell, thats almost the cost of a good short block.
Powerstroke Cowboy
Well-known member
I agree. The cost is flat out nuts.
If they could prove without a dought the dimples themselves will save 5% on fuel over the life of the engine, plus improve the engines lifespan, then yes it's worth it for a guy that makes a living from his rig. It might take 200k miles to pay it's self off. Less if all you do is tow.
But 3k just for the dimple affect is nuts!!!
BrewTown
Member
I don't think you can really say $3k for dimples. It's not really the dimples that drive the cost, it's all the engineering and testing behind the size, pattern, placement, etc... of said dimples.
Look to the medical industry, they have so many years to charge more to recoup the development costs before a generic came be made and compete to reduce price. If there was no money to be made, there'd be nothing new designed because there'd be no incentive. Communism doesn't work
That said, I agree on everything you said with testing. I think DFC Engines has been using them for a couple few years. Probably have longevity data.
Look to the medical industry, they have so many years to charge more to recoup the development costs before a generic came be made and compete to reduce price. If there was no money to be made, there'd be nothing new designed because there'd be no incentive. Communism doesn't work
That said, I agree on everything you said with testing. I think DFC Engines has been using them for a couple few years. Probably have longevity data.
Powerstroke Cowboy
Well-known member
I hear and understand what your trying to say. My understand is most of the development is done through computer software. The computer does the work. You just have to test what it says works.I don't think you can really say $3k for dimples. It's not really the dimples that drive the cost, it's all the engineering and testing behind the size, pattern, placement, etc... of said dimples.
Look to the medical industry, they have so many years to charge more to recoup the development costs before a generic came be made and compete to reduce price. If there was no money to be made, there'd be nothing new designed because there'd be no incentive. Communism doesn't work
That said, I agree on everything you said with testing. I think DFC Engines has been using them for a couple few years. Probably have longevity data.
I've yet to see any real definitive tests. They generally look for folks to buy the pistons to test them for them.
I'm all for new ideas if they work and are truly proven to work.
Big Bore
Active member
I'm confused how we got to communism?I don't think you can really say $3k for dimples. It's not really the dimples that drive the cost, it's all the engineering and testing behind the size, pattern, placement, etc... of said dimples.
Look to the medical industry, they have so many years to charge more to recoup the development costs before a generic came be made and compete to reduce price. If there was no money to be made, there'd be nothing new designed because there'd be no incentive. Communism doesn't work
That said, I agree on everything you said with testing. I think DFC Engines has been using them for a couple few years. Probably have longevity data.
BrewTown
Member
I can see how that wasn't clear.
In a communist society there's no incentive to excel at anything. You can't work your way up a ladder, increase pay, invent something new and retire on the idea etc... If they had no avenue to reap the benefits of their engineering and problem solving, they simple wouldn't create it.
So they are charging for proprietary tech they created.
I think they have done quite a bit of testing, just not any that fit the unbiased requirement.
You do bring up another question though, do they get the design right on the first try? FEA is only as good as the info you put in right? I wonder how many designs they test before they get an approval?
No, I'm not affiliated with them, nor do I have them. I do however hope they work as advertised. And I'd like to see the tests you outlined, that'd really answer some questions. Probably not in their best interest though, as if you can get 50% of the benefits from the ring and coatings, then many would probably stop there and they'd lose business. It'd need to be an independent tester. I definitely don't have the pockets to do it...
PDT1081
Well-known member
Are you aware of what that software costs? Along with the training and education required to make it work correctly?
I was just talking about this with a marketing guy at the shop today. He had seen a YouTube video on it in a 6.7 and it allegedly quieted the engine down by x amount. However, while watching it, I noticed the stock engine went to an engine with a piping kit installed and heat wrapped, and it sounded almost like the fan was on in the first reading, and not in the second. It was just a quick video so it didn’t get into any driving or testing or anything. This also goes along with the 6.3 liter 6.0 that’s being made by one of the big name engine companies, can’t remember who. They’re putting a 6.4 crank in a 6.0. They have dyno graphs showing they gained like 200 horsepower and 3-400 ft/lbs if I remember right. However, knowing what these trucks do on the dyno, the original dyno was definitely stock. It made somewhere in the neighborhood of 260ish hp and 500 or something ft/lbs, definitely a stock truck. Then they put a “tune for the extra displacement” on. It made hot race tune numbers, 425ish and 875ish. The torque number is about 50 ft/lbs high, but it’s not apples to apples, same with this guy on YouTube with the dimpled pistons.
However, my personal feeling, is that if there is a fuel mileage gain, the over the road truck guys would be doing it. If dimpled pistons gained even .2mpg, they would pay out the ass for it, as it would probably save a shit ton of money a year in fuel only. If it was an emissions or noise thing, the oems with their billions of dollars of equipment, would do it to lower the emissions slightly, so they could run the truck slightly harder to maintain the dick swinging contest of the new diesel truck horsepower wars. Think of the marketing they’d do with x brand makes 525hp stock, while y brand only makes 425, etc. Personally I don’t think the performance world is big enough in the diesel side to switch to it, but when I was going to school, had a teacher put it this way when someone asked about some of the new technology spark plugs. He said if they were worth anything, top fuel would run them. They run standard plugs, because there is no horsepower gain. These are guys that’ll spend half a million dollars on engines in a weekend to win, if it meant even 1 extra horsepower, they would do it because it may be the difference between winning and losing. Now, knowing the piston design is much different, I would still think if there was anything to be had with dimples, top fuel would do it.
My personal feeling, the dimples are disrupting the flame front to cause multiple little fires, instead of one large one. But honestly, my opinion don’t mean shit, so if there is legitimate backed up independent testing, I would read it and base my opinion off their results.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
However, my personal feeling, is that if there is a fuel mileage gain, the over the road truck guys would be doing it. If dimpled pistons gained even .2mpg, they would pay out the ass for it, as it would probably save a shit ton of money a year in fuel only. If it was an emissions or noise thing, the oems with their billions of dollars of equipment, would do it to lower the emissions slightly, so they could run the truck slightly harder to maintain the dick swinging contest of the new diesel truck horsepower wars. Think of the marketing they’d do with x brand makes 525hp stock, while y brand only makes 425, etc. Personally I don’t think the performance world is big enough in the diesel side to switch to it, but when I was going to school, had a teacher put it this way when someone asked about some of the new technology spark plugs. He said if they were worth anything, top fuel would run them. They run standard plugs, because there is no horsepower gain. These are guys that’ll spend half a million dollars on engines in a weekend to win, if it meant even 1 extra horsepower, they would do it because it may be the difference between winning and losing. Now, knowing the piston design is much different, I would still think if there was anything to be had with dimples, top fuel would do it.
My personal feeling, the dimples are disrupting the flame front to cause multiple little fires, instead of one large one. But honestly, my opinion don’t mean shit, so if there is legitimate backed up independent testing, I would read it and base my opinion off their results.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BrewTown
Member
I'll have to look for that 6.7 vid. Did SOA put it out? Or was it someone else?
That 6.3 is always an engine I had question about. Seems like a lot of money and work to go through to put a 6.4 crank in. And I don't think it's even for the reason most probably think. 6.0 and 6.4 have the same stroke, so they must be offset grinding the 6.4 crank (larger rod journals) to get a little more stroke. Now physics says more displacement makes more torque and moves the RPM band down, because an engine is just an air pump. But you are spot on that it's really misleading pitting stock vs. slight stroker and hot tune.
I'm not sure if I agree with if it made a difference in emissions or noise the OEMs would do it. That would require 2 things, little to zero cost increase, zero time increase. If they could reliably and consistently cast them, and there wasn't extra machining, I could see it. Ford was famous 40 years ago for making the wiring harnesses barely long enough to save cents on each harness. Bottom line it saved a shit ton of cash.
If you read up on SOA website, I believe they claim this tech has been around for a very long time. Which I believe it has, race teams have been experimenting with dimples in intakes and heads for decades, with slight improvement. They claim no one could get the piston design correct where it made a difference. Now with the expensive modeling and FEA software available, there's tools to see what's going on.
Your top fuel comment got me thinking, I wonder if the dimples on the pistons have a diminishing effect as RPM increases. That concept makes sense to me, as there's less time for the fuel to fall from suspension and stick to any of the surfaces. The air is moving so fast in those top fuel engines at that high RPM, and they have soooooo much fuel!
I think the principal this is supposed to work by may be in question. Think of the dimples as breaking surface tension. That's why golf balls can fly as far as they do, and MythBusters has a show on it with wind resistance/fuel economy of a car. In cylinder the fuel falls from suspension and sticks to every surface, piston, cylinder walls, everything not too hot to start combustion. The more volatile the air is, meaning the air touching the piston surface, the more it moves that fuel from the surface. You may be amazed at how wet an intake manifold and runner are on a carbureted engine while at low rpm.
I don't want you to take this as I'm attacking anyone, but I don't think the spark plug in top fuel theory holds water. Spark plug design is for longevity. Copper works great, for a while. Platinum, Iridium, unobtainium last longer between changes, not necessarily make any more power when fresh.
Good discussion here.
That 6.3 is always an engine I had question about. Seems like a lot of money and work to go through to put a 6.4 crank in. And I don't think it's even for the reason most probably think. 6.0 and 6.4 have the same stroke, so they must be offset grinding the 6.4 crank (larger rod journals) to get a little more stroke. Now physics says more displacement makes more torque and moves the RPM band down, because an engine is just an air pump. But you are spot on that it's really misleading pitting stock vs. slight stroker and hot tune.
I'm not sure if I agree with if it made a difference in emissions or noise the OEMs would do it. That would require 2 things, little to zero cost increase, zero time increase. If they could reliably and consistently cast them, and there wasn't extra machining, I could see it. Ford was famous 40 years ago for making the wiring harnesses barely long enough to save cents on each harness. Bottom line it saved a shit ton of cash.
If you read up on SOA website, I believe they claim this tech has been around for a very long time. Which I believe it has, race teams have been experimenting with dimples in intakes and heads for decades, with slight improvement. They claim no one could get the piston design correct where it made a difference. Now with the expensive modeling and FEA software available, there's tools to see what's going on.
Your top fuel comment got me thinking, I wonder if the dimples on the pistons have a diminishing effect as RPM increases. That concept makes sense to me, as there's less time for the fuel to fall from suspension and stick to any of the surfaces. The air is moving so fast in those top fuel engines at that high RPM, and they have soooooo much fuel!
I think the principal this is supposed to work by may be in question. Think of the dimples as breaking surface tension. That's why golf balls can fly as far as they do, and MythBusters has a show on it with wind resistance/fuel economy of a car. In cylinder the fuel falls from suspension and sticks to every surface, piston, cylinder walls, everything not too hot to start combustion. The more volatile the air is, meaning the air touching the piston surface, the more it moves that fuel from the surface. You may be amazed at how wet an intake manifold and runner are on a carbureted engine while at low rpm.
I don't want you to take this as I'm attacking anyone, but I don't think the spark plug in top fuel theory holds water. Spark plug design is for longevity. Copper works great, for a while. Platinum, Iridium, unobtainium last longer between changes, not necessarily make any more power when fresh.
Good discussion here.
Hers the short I saw.
No personal attack felt, and I’ll admit I haven’t dug too much into this.
The breaking surface tension thing makes sense, in a non direct injected engine. The same reason that polishing intake runners doesn’t work, in that they need turbulent air to mix the fuel and air together to get a better mixture and not have wet spots. However, my personal feeling, again, backed by zero science or testing, is that with direct injection, especially at the pressures fuel is being injected, be it gas or diesel, you already have a fine must as long as the nozzles are working properly. Obviously if you have a drippy injector or a nozzle hole that’s too big or something, and aren’t getting a proper spray pattern, the dimples could mask it. But with diesels, you’re injecting at 5000 psi at idle on a common rail, probably somewhere in that ballpark on a heui depending on injector size(hybrid injection pressure is lower than conventionals), and around 30k at wot. And with the diesels starting combustion based on start of injection, having multiple flame fronts isn’t the greatest. Oe tuning for heui has pilot injection, which is basically the same idea, but that shuts off at basically above idle, so you have a more solid controllable burn.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BrewTown
Member
If you want a deep dive check out the Polyquad Cylinder Head design. David Vizard was one designer of it. The idea is to create swirl in cylinder for better mixture and distribution.
Don't get hung up thinking the air in a cylinder is just hanging out. There's a lot happening at a high rate of speed! The more you can control the path the air flows, and eliminate low movement areas, the better the combustion event, and better the flame front travels. I'm not qualified to go too deep on it, but those are some surface principals.
Don't get hung up thinking the air in a cylinder is just hanging out. There's a lot happening at a high rate of speed! The more you can control the path the air flows, and eliminate low movement areas, the better the combustion event, and better the flame front travels. I'm not qualified to go too deep on it, but those are some surface principals.
Big Bore
Active member
Yea, I still don't see how you got there regarding my comments since I never advocated against any of those things. I believe the correct term is straw man. My view was there is no economic benefit for me to use their burdensomely expensive unproven product, and there are much more economical alternatives to get the alleged results. Again, how is any of that communism? I'll help you out, it's not.
