VW TDI Diesel Gets 120 MPG on one Gal of Diesel with CNG blend!!

With a little help from Google I found out some things. It's VERY hard to get real numbers and prices about CNG home filling stations and I now know why.

The cheapest is called Phill, the numbers:

MSRP just under $4000, installation is extra.

Fill rate of .4 GGE/hour, that's around 50 cubic feet per hour. If you drive around 100 miles/day or more it will never fill the tank up completely over night.

Power usage is 1KWH continuous with limits on no more than 10 hours per day to let it cool off. So you're looking at least using 10KWHs per day.

6000 hours between rebuilds, $2000 to rebuild by a professional only.

As my daily commute is around 150 miles/day, the Phill home CNG station is not viable.

The good commercial filling stations that fill faster, run longer between rebuilds, and are cheaper to rebuild, are a lot more money, like starting around $9000 and go higher from there.

So unless one has a commercial CNG filling station in town, the home filling stations as they are now, are not practical. This is why you see a lot of fleet usage of CNG, the numbers work in that application.

I've got two words to say about this particular installation:
Safety & Safety.
1) CNG tanks inside a vehicle = big NO NO. Certainly not MOT approved here in BC.
2) Parkades in my area do not allow Propane or CNG powered vehicles to park inside.

For me, I'd have to find another job with street parking, even if #1 was resolved.

BKmetz said:

6000 hours between rebuilds, $2000 to rebuild by a professional only.

Click to expand...

At ten hours every day, that would be once every 20 months.

But how often would it need to run 10 hours a day? Maybe once a week? That pushes it's life out to 140 months.

How many miles would you get out of that ten hours of pumping? I'm unclear on that.

I think that the life to rebuild is a strawman here.

If I understand correctly, the key to this being worthwhile is having a supply of natural gas to your home, so that you can fill up at a cost of 60 cents per gallon?

If you have to buy all your natural gas at a gas station, then this kit is not worth using?

I'm just asking because I live in a box in the sky, so home fueling wouldn't be an option. Otherwise I'd be interested.

That depends on the size of the tank and how much driving one does. As I would use up the whole tank every day, and the Phill unit has a slow refill rate, that unit would be in use at least 10 hours/day.

Well, at a fill rate of around 50 cubic feet per hour, one would get 500 cubic feet in 10 hours. That would be about 5 therms or 500,000 BTUs. 500,000 BTUs is about 4.3 GGE or about 3.8 gallons of #2 diesel.

How many miles on that 10 hours of fill time? That depends on how one drives.

whitedog said:

But how often would it need to run 10 hours a day? Maybe once a week? That pushes it's life out to 140 months.

How many miles would you get out of that ten hours of pumping? I'm unclear on that.

I think that the life to rebuild is a strawman here.

Click to expand...

BKmetz said:

With a little help from Google I found out some things. It's VERY hard to get real numbers and prices about CNG home filling stations and I now know why.

The cheapest is called Phill, the numbers:

MSRP just under $4000, installation is extra.

Fill rate of .4 GGE/hour, that's around 50 cubic feet per hour. If you drive around 100 miles/day or more it will never fill the tank up completely over night.

Power usage is 1KWH continuous with limits on no more than 10 hours per day to let it cool off. So you're looking at least using 10KWHs per day.

6000 hours between rebuilds, $2000 to rebuild by a professional only.

As my daily commute is around 150 miles/day, the Phill home CNG station is not viable.

The good commercial filling stations that fill faster, run longer between rebuilds, and are cheaper to rebuild, are a lot more money, like starting around $9000 and go higher from there.

.

Click to expand...

The Phill is junk as far as I can see. None of the pumps fill at that slow rate most are in the .75 to 1. GAL a HR. Your power usage is too high. We have Fuel makers C3 and C4 that have never been rebuild in 15 years they are sealed units. They do time out just a chip swap and they stay running for ever.



The home fueling market needs to be addressed that is what NatGasIt is trying to do.

Build low cost home fueling stations to be added to homes with NG.

Convert cars to a Bi-Fuel system

So the consumers can buy fuel based on price.
Design and build ANG tanks so the user can carry more fuel per tank.
If ANG tank technology can be build at a low cost and work over a few year window.
It will drive the cost of the Home Fueling pumps down to the $2000 window.
Europe has been doing CNG BI-Fuel conversion for 20+ years.
Brazil the last 10+ years
Iran is converting 30,000 cars a month and selling every drop of oil to us witch funds there nuclear program .
And it is not just about cost it runs cleaner than Diesel and Gasoline and NG is Domestic grown.
Correct me if I am wrong don’t you work in a power plant? What does it run on Coal, NG, oil,?
Bob Mann

CNGVW said:

If I do the math right here on an average a TDI gets 45 MPG at $4 a GAL that is 11.2 cents costs per mile traveled.

Click to expand...

Not to be overly critical but 45mpg @ $4/gallon isn't 11.2 cents per mile, it's 8.9 cents per mile. Just saying.

Here's some fuel for thought:

Now we're getting somewhere.

At my usual 35,000 miles per year, and local Nat gas rates (~30 cents per cubic meter incl delivery and all local charges and taxes), CNG would cost me about $1 per GGE, where D2 costs me about $4.20 per GGE.

At my 2011 fuel usage, that means that the $3600 I spent in fuel would have cost me about $900 - $2700 saved per year. If the Phill costs $4k, with another $1k install, another $1k for the kit, tank and install it would take 2.5 years to break even, but then you have to add another $2k for the rebuild which pushes it out to 3.5 years (which puts you into another rebuild )

So, for me, simple breakeven would be in about 3.5-4 years. Not worth it for me, as I do not know where NG rates are going to be in that timeframe, given the industrial push to CNG which may or may not increase demand and prices.

It's a neat concept, but the ROI has to be sooner.

I guess I'm seeing things a little differently....I think the majority of people on this board, like myself are mechanics, mechanically inclined or DIYers. What goes with that is generally not paying MSRP for anything, scraping stuff together or picking up used parts. So to really figure out what this will cost YOU, check out what these pumps realistically sell for. There is no install, pay a plumber to run a gas line? If you can't wire 220 then look on youtube or just hang yourself. Maybe you would end up paying someone for the install of the kit in the car, but from what I've seen it can't be that bad. I'm still looking around and gathering info, but to me still looks way worth it. Even if I was breaking even, I'd rather fill up at my house rather than have to make the extra stop. I'm waiting on the total mileage on one tank for diesel mix to make my final decision.

CNGVW said:

VW TDI Diesel Gets 120 MPG on one Gal of Diesel with CNG blend!!

<<snip>>

60 Miles round trip used .51 Gal of Diesel and 1.2 GAL (GGE) of CNG yes I have the slips.

Click to expand...

I'm sure someone has addresses this already, but how is total fuel usage of 1.71 gallons (.51 Diesel + 1.2 CNG) equal to 120 MPG? That is equal to approximately 35.08 miles per gallon of fuel used, of which approximately 1/3 was Diesel and 2/3 CNG.

120 miles per gallon of total fuel usage would be amazing, but that isn't what you are describing.

35.08 miles per gallon of total fuel usage is a loss of fuel efficiency for most people on this forum, although reduced cost for CNG could represent a cost per mile benefit, assuming the kit was inexpensive enough to recoup install costs through fuel savings before the expected end of service life of the kit and/or vehicle.

As Robert Heinlein said: TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). Your kit went 60 miles and used 1.71 gallons of fuel. I can do that without modifying my car at all. All I have to do is slow down and not drive with my lead foot on the accelerator.

No offense intended, just wanting to clarify the claim so there are no misunderstandings.

Woodrobin said:

I'm sure someone has addresses this already, but how is total fuel usage of 1.71 gallons (.51 Diesel + 1.2 CNG) equal to 120 MPG? That is equal to approximately 35.08 miles per gallon of fuel used, of which approximately 1/3 was Diesel and 2/3 CNG.

120 miles per gallon of total fuel usage would be amazing, but that isn't what you are describing.

35.08 miles per gallon of total fuel usage is a loss of fuel efficiency for most people on this forum, although reduced cost for CNG could represent a cost per mile benefit, assuming the kit was inexpensive enough to recoup install costs through fuel savings before the expected end of service life of the kit and/or vehicle.

As Robert Heinlein said: TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). Your kit went 60 miles and used 1.71 gallons of fuel. I can do that without modifying my car at all. All I have to do is slow down and not drive with my lead foot on the accelerator.

No offense intended, just wanting to clarify the claim so there are no misunderstandings.

Click to expand...

I guss you can't read I went 120 miles on one GAL of Diesel by using a CNG Blend do the math and stop jerking around. I do not see were the 35.8 MPG comes from. The point is it cost $6.00 on Diesel to go 60 miles
with CNG Blend at $ 1.00 a Gal it cost $3.20 to go 60 miles Cleaner, Home grown and will never spike (cost) like oil products will.
If you can do better step up.
Bob Mann

CNGVW said:

I guss you can't read I went 120 miles on one GAL of Diesel by using a CNG Blend do the math and stop jerking around. I do not see were the 35.8 MPG comes from. The point is it cost $6.00 on Diesel to go 60 miles
with CNG Blend at $ 1.00 a Gal it cost $3.20 to go 60 miles Cleaner, Home grown and will never spike (cost) like oil products will.
If you can do better step up.
Bob Mann

Click to expand...

He's trying to say that your claim of 120 mpg is misleading - including the CNG consumed, the car is nowhere near 120mpg.

If you are trying to state that the car got 120 mpg on the DIESEL consumed, but also consumed a specific amount of CNG during the same distance, you should state the MPG for diesel used for the trip, the MPG for the CNG used during the same trip, and then the combined MPG.

Only showing one side of the equation is misleading at best.

CNGVW said:

I guss you can't read I went 120 miles on one GAL of Diesel by using a CNG Blend do the math and stop jerking around. I do not see were the 35.8 MPG comes from. The point is it cost $6.00 on Diesel to go 60 miles
with CNG Blend at $ 1.00 a Gal it cost $3.20 to go 60 miles Cleaner, Home grown and will never spike (cost) like oil products will.
If you can do better step up.
Bob Mann

Click to expand...

You went 120 miles on 1 gallon of diesel, plus another 2.4 gallons of CNG.

That's where he is getting the math -

120 miles/2.4 (CNG)+1.0 (D2) = 35.3mpg

So saying you got 120mpg is a bit misleading. That's all he was stating. Yes, it is cheaper than going 120 miles on straight diesel if you just look at CNG/D2 prices alone. I do not think anyone is denying that.

this conversion seems to be rather bothersome and possibly having a negative impact on ROI.

CNGVW said:

I guss you can't read I went 120 miles on one GAL of Diesel by using a CNG Blend do the math and stop jerking around. I do not see were the 35.8 MPG comes from. The point is it cost $6.00 on Diesel to go 60 miles
with CNG Blend at $ 1.00 a Gal it cost $3.20 to go 60 miles Cleaner, Home grown and will never spike (cost) like oil products will.
If you can do better step up.
Bob Mann

Click to expand...

I find your response rather amusing.

Quite frankly Bob, you have yet to provide a financial model of the overall cost of operating a vehicle with your CNG system. I think you are the one that needs to step up with a speadsheet model showing the economics including a home filling station with actual product installed costs. You have simply neglected the capital and ongoing operating costs associated with fueling a TDI with CNG. You are the supposed expert not us.

CNGVW said:

I guss you can't read I went 120 miles on one GAL of Diesel by using a CNG Blend do the math and stop jerking around. I do not see were the 35.8 MPG comes from. The point is it cost $6.00 on Diesel to go 60 miles
with CNG Blend at $ 1.00 a Gal it cost $3.20 to go 60 miles Cleaner, Home grown and will never spike (cost) like oil products will.
If you can do better step up.
Bob Mann

Click to expand...

Mr. Mann,

I am not 'jerking around.' I am reading what you wrote and trying to understand the claims you are making, based on the information you provided. It's called applying common sense and asking appropriate questions.

As Windex and T.J.K. stated, I was pointing out that according to your own statement:

1. You went 60 miles round trip.
2. You consumed 0.51 gallons of Diesel and 1.2 gallons of CNG during that trip.
3. You stated that you got 120 mpg of Diesel consumption.

The last part is a misleading claim. You would have, if you drove another 60 mile round trip under the same conditions, presumably used another 0.51 gallons, for 120 miles using 1.02 gallons of Diesel, which is 117 miles per gallon of Diesel consumed (close enough for round figures). Leaving it at that could be read as implying that you would have traveled 120 miles on that 1.02 gallons of Diesel alone.

The problem is that you would have also used 2.4 gallons of CNG, meaning total fuel consumed in 120 miles would have been 1.02 gallons Diesel + 2.4 gallons CNG = 3.26 gallons total. That equals ~36.8 miles per gallon of fuel consumed. That's where I got the numbers -- from your own words, in your own post.

I agreed that CNG is cheaper than Diesel, and said so in my post. I agreed that, assuming the conversion was inexpensive enough, there could be a cost benefit in blending CNG with Diesel, all else being equal.

Let's assume the following:

1. The blend is 2/5 Diesel and 3/5 CNG (approximately what you used on the 60 mile trip).
2. Diesel costs an average of $5.00 per gallon over the life of the modification (erring on the side of pessimism).
3. CNG costs an average of $1.00 per gallon during the same period (using your price).
4. The driver gets 40 mpg of total fuel consumed (rounding your mileage up a bit).
5. The driver travels 10,000 miles per year.

10,000/40 = 250 gallons per year.

Without mod = 250 x 5.00 = $1250.00 per year.
With mod = (100 x 5.00) + (150 x 1.00) = $500.00 + $150.00 = $650.00 per year.
Total savings = $600.00 per year.

So if the mod costs $600.00, the driver breaks even in a year. At $1200, two years, at $1800, three years, and so on. This assumes the following:

1. That no additional costs other than the mod are required to use CNG (i.e. no extra miles driven to acquire CNG, no need for home storage or pumping, etc.).
2. That using CNG will not increase wear and tear on components or otherwise increase maintenance costs of the vehicle.
3. That the mod will not experience any needed maintenance or repairs during the period the driver is moving toward breaking even on costs.

As to "home grown," obviously natural gas can be home sourced in the United States, but it is just as non-renewable as petroleum. There is so much of it, then it's all gone.

Is CNG cleaner burning when mixed with Diesel and burned in a TDI engine than Diesel alone? It may well be; I haven't seen it tested in that application. I could take your word for it, and assume that you had tested the emissions in this application and knew you were making a clear and accurate statement of facts. It seems logical that it might be, at any rate.

You say, "If you can do better step up." Do I have to be better at building an engine modification than you are to point out that your figures don't seem to add up or that your claims seem to be either confusing or misstated? Of course not. I never said your modification doesn't work. I said it didn't do what you seemed to claim it did in the way you seemed to be claiming it did it. I thank you for clearing part of that up in your response.

Would you please post the return on investment of you installing a upgrade turbo kit $2000+ and witch way did the MPG go down ??
It is all was the same story here a hand full that think they know something but will not get off their ass to do something and show use what they have done. That is what the internet has made you lazy. In the old days it was called bench racing and you did it face to face if you had balls. Ripping apart a concept is good it pulls all the flaws out to the surface. Not one asked why it works. Or stepped up to make it work a bit better. With 3000 views in 5 days shows it is a hot topic.
Bob Mann

This is a hot topic as it presents a possibility for alternative fuel use in our tdi offering a cheaper cost to operate but is negated by the cost of the alternative fuel and cost to operate(upkeep). Perhaps used as a performance increase and not an economy enhancer would be better suited for this one.

A turbo kit is meant for more power and not better fuel economy but sometimes it doesnt hurt the economy.

As for your attitude towards the tdi community, it is rather dissapointing and non-respectable as you brought your idea here and many members here found flaws in it of which you are not taking kindly to... please have some respect and decency when marketing a product or potential idea. Your thread even had to be Re-titled due to your misleading slander.

CNGVW said:

Would you please post the return on investment of you installing a upgrade turbo kit $2000+ and witch way did the MPG go down ??
It is all was the same story here a hand full that think they know something but will not get off their ass to do something and show use what they have done. That is what the internet has made you lazy. In the old days it was called bench racing and you did it face to face if you had balls. Ripping apart a concept is good it pulls all the flaws out to the surface. Not one asked why it works. Or stepped up to make it work a bit better. With 3000 views in 5 days shows it is a hot topic.
Bob Mann

Click to expand...

Makes me laugh even more. Evidently, you can't provide the data but you can get very defensive. Your concept is appears to be good. But if you want people to buy in, you need to take your concept to the next step (which I believe is marketing your product to TDI owners). That requires you to provide economic and performance data so people can then make informed decisions.

I didn't buy solar panels because I wanted to save the earth (although some may). I bought them because it made economic sense (3 year payback, ROI of 32% per year) with spreadsheet to show it. I won't buy a CNG conversion without the same type of analysis. I don't believe turbo upgrades are done for economic reason (poor comparison).

If you are going to use ROI us it for every thing. And as I said if you can do better please do show it. and for a spread sheet any one can make up that.I work in real world testing. For a 3 year return on a solar panel please post were and what brand
with meter reading. the norm is like ten years??
Bob Mann

I am very interested in seeing where this NG/diesel development is headed. NG prices are at record lows and IMO will remain that way for a long time to come. Keep us updated and pay no attention to the naysayers who like to feel important by dissecting every little detail of somebody else's idea. There may be a few things to be worked out but that is what R & D is for. Keep up the good work Bob and keep the numbers coming. I want to see how many miles you get out of that tank of fuel/NG

CNGVW said:

Would you please post the return on investment of you installing a upgrade turbo kit $2000+ and witch way did the MPG go down ??
It is all was the same story here a hand full that think they know something but will not get off their ass to do something and show use what they have done. That is what the internet has made you lazy. In the old days it was called bench racing and you did it face to face if you had balls. Ripping apart a concept is good it pulls all the flaws out to the surface. Not one asked why it works. Or stepped up to make it work a bit better. With 3000 views in 5 days shows it is a hot topic.
Bob Mann

Click to expand...

What I always enjoy are the sale pitches (marketing aspects of your argument). It is similar to the pitch "that if you complete a few signups for our sponsor's products, you get something free and expensive"! When you figure out how much those "signups" actually cost, you realize you paid more then that "free and expensive" product would have cost to start with. What I am saying is that I think you are stuck on the "I got it too work, yea me" without consideration of the "practicalities" of it working versus a conventional fuel. Getting it too work, by itself, is fine for this section of the forum (alternative fuels). To make it a game changer (as your title infers), I believe you need more and I think that is what is being asked of you in these response postings.

I think most commentators in this thread are focused on the practicalities (ie refueling, use on roadway/parking areas, long term impact on the car's engine, price to obtain components and refueling). Rather then berating them, may I suggest that you step back and walk us through these "practicalities" to the extent that you can.

As far as the 3000 hits are concerned, I would direct you to the superlative claim set forth in the title of this thread and suggest that the hits are primarily a consequence of your claim similar to if I put up a big sign up advertsing "FREE BEER". I would be flooded with customers. Sadly, if those customers get nickled and dimed by the technicalities costing them more then the beer would otherwise cost, it won't last long.

CNGVW said:

If you are going to use ROI us it for every thing. And as I said if you can do better please do show it. and for a spread sheet any one can make up that.I work in real world testing. For a 3 year return on a solar panel please post were and what brand
with meter reading. the norm is like ten years??
Bob Mann

Click to expand...

You asking other people to provide info but YOU fail to back up you claims.
Many members have asked you to provide, cost of installation, cost of hardware, repair cost. Just tell us HOW MUCH it costed you to install the system, including purchase of ALL components plus hours labour, plus cost of diesel. Just give us OVERALL figure and the mileage so far and everyone could make their mind, is it worth it or not.
You want to play fair, come on down, give us the numbers, otherwise I call you a SCAM.
Come one, prove me wrong or go away.

an60an said:

You asking other people to provide info but YOU fail to back up you claims.
Many members have asked you to provide, cost of installation, cost of hardware, repair cost. Just tell us HOW MUCH it costed you to install the system, including purchase of ALL components plus hours labour, plus cost of diesel. Just give us OVERALL figure and the mileage so far and everyone could make their mind, is it worth it or not.
You want to play fair, come on down, give us the numbers, otherwise I call you a SCAM.
Come one, prove me wrong or go away.

Click to expand...

Patiently sitting here waiting on another post that tip toes around the subject but never explains......

Ok you want real numbers here is an official MA emission test for Diesel tail pipe particle mater. It looks like a 400% deduction.

Below tail pipe test a 2000 RPM on Deisel

Below test on CNG blend at 2000 RPM it is a 400% drop in tail pipe particle mater.

Bob Mann

And voila....

^^^^^ Hey, can you read English?
I don't want to see your emission test, tell me HOW MUCH IS THE COST OF THE WHOLE INSTALATION PLUS THE COST OF THE KIT PLUS HOURS LABOUR
You got that??

CNGVW said:

Ok you want real numbers here is an official MA emission test for Diesel tail pipe particle mater. It looks like a 400% deduction.

Below tail pipe test a 2000 RPM on Deisel

Below test on CNG blend at 2000 RPM it is a 400% drop in tail pipe particle mater.

Bob Mann

Click to expand...

Mr. Mann,

I was going to thank you for posting data on whether CNG was in fact cleaner burning than Diesel, which seemed to be elaborating on your earlier claim. However, there are three problems with this post:

1. Those are tiny thumbnail images. The resolution is too low to read any of the text, even when zooming in on the image, other than the number 88 and the words "Diagnostic Test Report" on the first image. Did you mean to post images that purport to give information but actually do not? I would like to assume this was a simple mistake. Could you post the full-resolution versions of these images, or a link to them?

2. Reduction in particle emissions is good, and interesting, but is also to be expected, and not fully probative. Of course compressed natural gas is not going to be a source of particulate residue. But that doesn't mean it isn't producing any pollutants at all. To use a metaphor: I can label a bag of sugar "FAT FREE!" and tell the truth, without proving it is any way non-fattening if consumed.

3. Because the numbers can't be read, I can't determine where you're getting "400%" from. A reduction in emissions from 100 to 0 would be 100 per cent. Per cent means "of 100." For it to be 400% reduction, there would have to be an existing reduction you were comparing it to, and it would have to reduce emissions 4 times as much as the compared reduction, and you would have to want to call 4 times 400% in order to make it sound more impressive. You are comparing Diesel emissions to Diesel and CNG mix emissions. A 400% reduction in that comparison could only be factually accurate if burning CNG was particulate free, and also pulled 3 times as much particulate matter out of the air as Diesel produced. Obviously, you're not claiming that, so the use of "400%" is just confusing, at best.

Bob, those emission tests are valid information, but they are too small to be readable.

You are taking these valid questions as an attack, but I believe most all of them are not intended that way. However, the more defensive you get, the harder time you will have convincing.