Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RascalMafia, post: 1567258, member: 10194"] 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. [/QUOTE]