I’ll definitely look into that. I’ve watched some of his stuff on YouTube, and he’s much much smarter than me when it comes to this stuff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Golf ball pistons
- Thread starter Big Bore
- Start date
I’ll definitely look into that. I’ve watched some of his stuff on YouTube, and he’s much much smarter than me when it comes to this stuff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BrewTown
Member
Okay. I'm not sure why you are saying Strawman, but I'm probably overlooking what you were thinking.
For the record, I never tried to attack or discredit anyone, I was simply giving my take. If you are an individual or company that spends big sums of money to create something, only to get no payback, that's what I was referring to as communism. Now it could be a shit idea or poor quality and the lack of profit is justified, but everything in a free market is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. I'm not saying this is literal communism, just not profiting for investment and good products resembles communism.
I agree with everything you say here except the spray water remark. They are not saying lower EGTs are the only benefit. That's one, but also fuel economy, cleaner oil (more complete combustion with less soot in the oil), cleaner emissions, quieter and more HP and TQ. Adding water or water meth on pulls isn't getting you all of that so it really isn't a replacement. However, that's their claims and not independently proven so maybe this point is moot.
Any way we look at it, we'd all like to see an A to B test, same engine, same weather.
Just in case anyone hasn't, their website has some testing done with mining equipment. If it's true what they say, it works. Is it true is the question.
So in doing some reading on their website, i feel it reiterates the point of an a and b engine, everything the same, aside from pistons. I’m wondering if x claim was made after testing on a wore the f out motor, that needed a rebuild, and now all of the sudden with their pistons it’s x amount cleaner, etc, etc. Not many people throw a set of pistons in an engine just to do it, and therein lies the problem. I get they’ve got their test trucks and whatnot, but with the cost of yanking an engine, installing a set of pistons, and reinstalling and then testing, it tough on a company to do. For example, my boss says that an employee at $30 an hour, really costs around $100, once you factor in insurance, and all that other shit. So a typical rebuild book time on a powerstroke is around 40 hours, most guys can get it done quicker, but even if you figure 25ish hours, plus around $1000 for gaskets, fluids, misc stuff, and then the cost of the pistons, which obviously isn’t costing them 3-4K, but you’re talking all in probably around 5-6k. That’s a lot for a perfectly fresh engine that doesn’t really need anything. But sometimes it is the cost of doing business, I get that. An engine dyno would make it a lot easier, but it seemed their videos were mostly trucks on the dyno.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BrewTown
Member
I guess I should revisit the site. I thought they had 2 machines, same mine, that they rebuilt the engines at the same time. Only difference was the pistons and any variable like how close they held tolerance, but essentially the same. I thought after something like 12k? hours run time, typically engines were plain wore out. When they tested stock piston version and SOA version, the stock was again wore out at 12k, but they said the SOA version had a lot of life yet. I thought fuel consumption, emissions and wear were all reduced. I'm reaching from memory here, maybe I can find the write up and post a link?
If I remember right, data is on one site and you can buy the pistons on another. Like SOA Pistons and SOA Engineering or something like that.
Okay, I looked for that link. This article covers a few, but I didn't see the straight mining write up. Either my memory isn't there, or this is it...
Can These Pistons Stop Emissions In Diesel Engines Moving Forward?
SOA pioneers new piston treatment to combat stringent emissions standards by providing better performance and fuel mileage.
I guess I should revisit the site. I thought they had 2 machines, same mine, that they rebuilt the engines at the same time. Only difference was the pistons and any variable like how close they held tolerance, but essentially the same. I thought after something like 12k? hours run time, typically engines were plain wore out. When they tested stock piston version and SOA version, the stock was again wore out at 12k, but they said the SOA version had a lot of life yet. I thought fuel consumption, emissions and wear were all reduced. I'm reaching from memory here, maybe I can find the write up and post a link?
If I remember right, data is on one site and you can buy the pistons on another. Like SOA Pistons and SOA Engineering or something like that.
Okay, I looked for that link. This article covers a few, but I didn't see the straight mining write up. Either my memory isn't there, or this is it...
Can These Pistons Stop Emissions In Diesel Engines Moving Forward?
SOA pioneers new piston treatment to combat stringent emissions standards by providing better performance and fuel mileage.www.dieselarmy.com
Ok, I must’ve missed the part on their website about 2 engines at the same time. I saw the 13000 hour number and the 18000 hour number, and assumed I guess.
However, in what you posted, their numbers on the 7.3 truck are not impressive. It also doesn’t have before and after testing with it. We’ve got a Dually at the shop with almost 600k on the original motor making 570 on the same injectors, stock cam, and a similarly sized turbo to the 38r, which is what I’m guessing they used in that test, as they said “Garrett” turbo. Granted, technology has come a long way in even the past 5 years, and we’ve never hooked our 5 gas machine to the Dually to see what it does, but I believe we’re making closer to 1500 lb/ft and they’re at 1300. Now is this in the tune to be cleaner on the sniffer? Just a technology jump? Pistons? I don’t know. However I can tell you, on my 6.0, I have an emissions tune that limits fueling for the opacity test and sets the rev limiter, as that’s all we test in Arizona, and it passes at 7ish percent opacity on a neutral rev with 330/150s. Can also say that in testing our turbos with multiple tuners with the 5 gas on, a tune that passes emissions, and dynos well, drives like garbage. One that may not dyno quite as well, and maybe be 15-20% over stock emissions (carb allows 10% to certify) drives great.
Again, this is a good conversation to actually have something we’re talking about on the forum, and I’m also not trying to piss in anyone’s cheerios or something.
But I do feel that it reiterates the point of a couple of shops need to build 2 identical engines and test the pistons. Hell, gale the god banks himself you’d think would be jumping on this if it is as emissions friendly as it’s claimed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Powerstroke Cowboy
Well-known member
No, I don't. But, just because your software is expensive and your training level is as well the price should be 3k for dimples on a piston. Without true real world testing and comparisons.
They aren't the only ones selling dimpled pistons for diesels. There is another group doing it as well. I believe theirs are about half price of SOA pistons.
If they truly are as good as claimed, I would try a set.
Powerstroke Cowboy
Well-known member
Here's some of the engine mods to the 7.3 that's been tested with SOA pistons. Not all the supporting mods are listed. Like exhaust, intake, CAC pipes, I don't now about the CAC itself.
Copy and pasted.
"In addition to installing SOA-modified pistons, Anderson used a mild camshaft, and a single Garrett T4 turbocharger with a turbine speed sensor and Turbosmart HyperGate45 wastegate. He also upgraded the injectors from 120cc to 238cc, single-shot, 80%-over nozzles. The exhaust manifolds and turbine housings were modified and coated with a thermal barrier and heat dispersants from SOA as well."
More claims.
"Extensive testing indicates that on average, an F-250 Ford Super Duty typically gets a combined fuel consumption (both street and highway) of 13 mpg. Anderson’s truck achieved 22-24 mpg at freeway speeds. A Ford F-350, also fitted with SOA components and coatings, reported as much as 24 mpg or even more.""
Link to the article.
www.enginebuildermag.com
Copy and pasted.
"In addition to installing SOA-modified pistons, Anderson used a mild camshaft, and a single Garrett T4 turbocharger with a turbine speed sensor and Turbosmart HyperGate45 wastegate. He also upgraded the injectors from 120cc to 238cc, single-shot, 80%-over nozzles. The exhaust manifolds and turbine housings were modified and coated with a thermal barrier and heat dispersants from SOA as well."
More claims.
"Extensive testing indicates that on average, an F-250 Ford Super Duty typically gets a combined fuel consumption (both street and highway) of 13 mpg. Anderson’s truck achieved 22-24 mpg at freeway speeds. A Ford F-350, also fitted with SOA components and coatings, reported as much as 24 mpg or even more.""
Link to the article.
Speed of Air Engine Technology
Speed of Air's patented technology can easily and effectively optimize combustion to deliver a significant increase in power.
www.enginebuildermag.com
BrewTown
Member
Man, your life sounds awesome! I would love to be able to play with trucks, a dyno, etc...
I know that's the glory stuff and work needs to be put in, but on the surface that sounds dreamy!
This brings up a couple points and questions. I'm almost positive they live tuned it on sight for emissions and opacity. I do wonder how it drives?
That brings up the cam question also. I haven't seen it, but I've read that going back to the stock cam has made more power for some. I'd love to see a Richard Holdener/Engine Masters type cam test where that's the only change, then the tune is optimized. Brian Gray cam included.
That's impressive for 330/150s. Is HP the most versatile for 6.0s?
I'd really like to hear more about this 570/1500 Dually. Is this new unreleased turbo testing? Is it a ZF6 to get that big tq number? Sounds fantastic, but I'd be worried about windowing a block in my daily...
BrewTown
Member
Great, now we need 4 engines. Stock, stock with coatings and ring, SOA pistons and this other company... With stock everything including tuning, and modified injectors, turbo and tuning.
Yeah it’s fun for the most part. lol. Swapping turbos up on the dyno on a hot as balls truck is rough, but the perks here outweigh the cons.
Hp on the 6.0, is very versatile as you e got control of the FICM as well. Biggest thing about it in our opinion, is being able to tune out the quirks, that sometimes take months with emailed tunes. Driving, getting a few catalogs, sending them to the tuner, waiting on them to make the changes and email you the tune, then installing the tune and starting all over is a pain in the ass. As long as you e got a decent handle on how the engine operates with vgt, ebp, pulse width, icp, and timing, it’s fairly easy. And then if something isn’t right, takes 20 minutes to change it, load the tune, drive it and figure out if it’s better or not.
The Dually is one of our turbo builders trucks, it’s got 238/80s, currently a stage 2 turbo, a drop in walboro pump, a cnc fab stage 2 hpop, and a 6.0 intercooler. It’s also got a warren trans after he blew up the stocker. As far as turbo goes, we’re testing the stage 2 ball bearings currently, while working on final designs of them, and this thing has had about 100 turbos thrown at it. lol. As much as I’m not a huge fan of the 7.3, his truck does impress me. I’ll probably get flamed for saying that, but whatever.
.He did make almost 600, I want to say it was like 596 or 597 with a stage 3, but was out of fuel. We’re definitely out of air with the stage 2, but our next plan is 250/100s and stage 3 testing. At which point I’m sure a rod is gonna peek its head out and say hi.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As you'd expect with any marketing article, there are a lot of technical gaps regarding the 3516 testing.
1) Caterpillar released a cuffed liner design 13 years ago to address the carbon build-up issue (which resulted in liner polishing). Which design was used in the sister engine test, cuffed or non-cuffed?
2) If there was even a 1% proven reduction in fuel consumption, the entire mining industry would have switched to this piston. They have not. Neither has any other industry. A 3516C-HD burns around 150 gph @ 100% load factor. 1% is 1.5 gallons per hour x 8,736 hours per year = 13,104 gallons per year x $2.50 per gallon = $32,760 per truck per year in fuel savings. Say the mine has 40 trucks, that's $1.31MM per year for the fleet in fuel cost savings. Real world data shows most trucks run around 60% average load factor, so $1.31MM x 0.6 = $786k reduction in annual OpEx. This would be the easiest sell in the world.
3) I see no EPA approvals for these pistons, which makes them a liability for operators in commercial applications.
4) There is zero data to back up the claims of lower NOx, terrible liner pictures, no stack test data, no fuel consumption data (which if measured using the engine ECM alone can have up to a 15% variability because it's a calculated number).
5) The main and rod bearings on the 3516 mining truck engine were replaced 16 months following engine swing, or roughly 10,000 hours into the test. So it's not really surprising that the bearings had ~50% life left when the engine was swung at 18,000.
6) Parkhurst was at Cashman for 4 years, not sure I'd call 4 years at any company and especially at a Cat dealer "a noteworthy stint" ... Cashman no longer exists, they were acquired by Empire in 2022.
From SOA's website:
We have successfully demonstrated the ability to take non-compliant tier III engines and bring them into EPA Tier IV standards without the use of any additional after gas treatment.
- This is misleading. There is a significant difference in the eyes of the EPA between compliant and certified. I'm assuming this was a test performed on a natural gas engine.
Speed of Air technology reduces fuel burn which directly impacts your business’ bottom line. Fuel savings vary with engine type and use, but we have demonstrated fuel burn reductions approaching 50% in some constant speed applications.
- 50% reduction in fuel consumption? If this is factual, they would have been offered tens of millions of dollars for a patent buyout from Mahle, etc.
Extension of service intervals and engine life. In Speed of Air’s most recent CAT 3516 mine haul truck engine application, oil change intervals were nearly doubled compared to our truck’s running mate.
- Did the truck have ORS (oil renewal system)? Who's SOS lab was used to determine the validity of extension of oil change intervals? Who's wear tables were used? None of this information is published. If it was the Caterpillar lab, I'll buy into it. If not, means nothing.
-------------
TLDR: Caterpillar had $4.3 billion in cash at the end of Q2. If this was a real-world solution and claims were scientifically proven, Speed of Air wouldn't be even slightly concerned with selling pistons for a 7.3.
There may some viability in the performance / aftermarket world to this design, but lack of market acceptance in the commercial space after 20 years should tell you about everything you need to know.
1) Caterpillar released a cuffed liner design 13 years ago to address the carbon build-up issue (which resulted in liner polishing). Which design was used in the sister engine test, cuffed or non-cuffed?
2) If there was even a 1% proven reduction in fuel consumption, the entire mining industry would have switched to this piston. They have not. Neither has any other industry. A 3516C-HD burns around 150 gph @ 100% load factor. 1% is 1.5 gallons per hour x 8,736 hours per year = 13,104 gallons per year x $2.50 per gallon = $32,760 per truck per year in fuel savings. Say the mine has 40 trucks, that's $1.31MM per year for the fleet in fuel cost savings. Real world data shows most trucks run around 60% average load factor, so $1.31MM x 0.6 = $786k reduction in annual OpEx. This would be the easiest sell in the world.
3) I see no EPA approvals for these pistons, which makes them a liability for operators in commercial applications.
4) There is zero data to back up the claims of lower NOx, terrible liner pictures, no stack test data, no fuel consumption data (which if measured using the engine ECM alone can have up to a 15% variability because it's a calculated number).
5) The main and rod bearings on the 3516 mining truck engine were replaced 16 months following engine swing, or roughly 10,000 hours into the test. So it's not really surprising that the bearings had ~50% life left when the engine was swung at 18,000.
6) Parkhurst was at Cashman for 4 years, not sure I'd call 4 years at any company and especially at a Cat dealer "a noteworthy stint" ... Cashman no longer exists, they were acquired by Empire in 2022.
From SOA's website:
We have successfully demonstrated the ability to take non-compliant tier III engines and bring them into EPA Tier IV standards without the use of any additional after gas treatment.
- This is misleading. There is a significant difference in the eyes of the EPA between compliant and certified. I'm assuming this was a test performed on a natural gas engine.
Speed of Air technology reduces fuel burn which directly impacts your business’ bottom line. Fuel savings vary with engine type and use, but we have demonstrated fuel burn reductions approaching 50% in some constant speed applications.
- 50% reduction in fuel consumption? If this is factual, they would have been offered tens of millions of dollars for a patent buyout from Mahle, etc.
Extension of service intervals and engine life. In Speed of Air’s most recent CAT 3516 mine haul truck engine application, oil change intervals were nearly doubled compared to our truck’s running mate.
- Did the truck have ORS (oil renewal system)? Who's SOS lab was used to determine the validity of extension of oil change intervals? Who's wear tables were used? None of this information is published. If it was the Caterpillar lab, I'll buy into it. If not, means nothing.
-------------
TLDR: Caterpillar had $4.3 billion in cash at the end of Q2. If this was a real-world solution and claims were scientifically proven, Speed of Air wouldn't be even slightly concerned with selling pistons for a 7.3.
There may some viability in the performance / aftermarket world to this design, but lack of market acceptance in the commercial space after 20 years should tell you about everything you need to know.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2020
- Messages
- 298
- Reaction score
- 63
Very well written,
I always go to, if it were true someone would have bought the technology by now argument as well.
Fuel additives was a big one for a while. If you can guarantee me .5mpg someone would have bought the technology, or we would hear of large trucking fleets running it.
sootie
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2012
- Messages
- 11,849
- Reaction score
- 36
But then again, someone has to be first, right? You don't know what you don't know?
Agree; I'm discrediting the claims, not technology.
TANDAPERFORMANCE
New member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
This is one are shop trucks
T&A Performance LLc
https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2021/10/speed-of-air-engine-technology/
T&A Performance
114 Megabyte Dr
Sparks Nv 89434
tandperformance.com
