Fine control of oil to reduce CO2

SilverGhost

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Location
Back in So Flo - St Lucie
TDI
'05 Golf - totaled :(, wife's '13 Beetle - buy back, TDIless
So found this article about a company that is selling to OEMs. Their product aims to stabilize the oil condition and supply so OEMs can engineer their cars to run closer to the edge with smaller bearings, less weight, lower friction.

Here is link to story.

Jason
 

Ol'Rattler

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Location
PNA
TDI
2006 BRM Jetta
Interesting idea. Let's do the math. The average car produces 20 pounds of CO2 per mile which is 9072 Grams per mile. This new idea claims that it will reduce CO2 by 2 Grams per Kilometer. Using some generous math that would be approximately 3 to 4 Grams per mile.

Really? That would be spending a ton of money for close to zero effect. IMNSHO, Pretty Loony Bin stuff. I'm not going to argue politics or Global Warming etc, but please do read the link. Really something to think about.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...d-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

More thought provoking reading:
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/nat-geographic-admits-wrong-famous-climate-change-polar-bear-pic/
 
Last edited:

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
At this stage of the game, EVERYTHING is tiny increments. That is all that is left. Close to zero, is not zero. This is why things like start-stop, grill shudders, ATF warmers, etc. are all actual real things on cars right now. By themselves, they do very little. But collectively, it all adds up.

Since there is not going to be any silver bullet left for internal combustion engines, certainly nothing with the strides that EFI and catalysts and feedback loops, then....
 

GoFaster

Moderator at Large
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Location
Brampton, Ontario, Canada
TDI
2006 Jetta TDI
Ol'Rattler your math is off by a large factor. The European market based on actual sales numbers but the old test procedure was 118 g/km (in your units, about 200 grams per mile) - order of magnitude "half" a pound, not 20, which is not even remotely plausible ... The CO2 is coming from the fuel and the air going into the engine and isn't magically appearing out of nothing. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_en

So in this case, the proposed gain is nearly 2%, which in this day and age is quite a substantial number.

This company is not at the point of selling to OEM's, though. I foresee some pretty significant hurdles, not the least of which is finding space for this, which appears to amount to a remote oil tank that slowly does an "oil change" continuously instead of all in one shot every several thousand km as is the usual practice. It also means that the vehicle will be carrying several litres of extra engine oil on board all the time, which adds weight, which counteracts the claimed benefits. Bottom line ... I have my doubts that this is going to be commercially viable ...
 

Ol'Rattler

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Location
PNA
TDI
2006 BRM Jetta
I will admit, my number were not really accurate apparently. Just some numbers someone made up to make some kind of point. 2% of a reduction although small does sound like an actual benefit.

I think the concept is a lot like the dry sump systems used on aircraft and race cars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_sump

The biggest difference is that the oil is in a separate tank instead of a sump. and as the link shows, there are some advantages to a dry sump. The idea of having the filter built int the tank is brilliant. Remove the tank module and just replace it with a freshly filled tank with a renewed filter.

And really, wet sump systems hold 4 to 5 quarts of oil, you would just be moving that oil to a tank/filter module. Because a dry sump is more efficient at controlling temp you could get by with less total oil in the system.
 

SilverGhost

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Location
Back in So Flo - St Lucie
TDI
'05 Golf - totaled :(, wife's '13 Beetle - buy back, TDIless
The selling point of the device is the cost per CO2 reduction is comparable to other technologies currently being put in cars. IE: cylinder deactivation, start/stop, micro hybridization, etc.

Some of the ideas suggested in the article include reducing the volume of oil in the crankcase to shorten warm up time. Faster to operating temp = less CO2.

Another idea is engineers have to put larger tolerances to account for oil breaking down as it ages. So this tank has fresh oil (with full additive package) that can be added to engine as needed.

Article says there is a control module in the unit that communicates with ECM. Not as many details at this point. Probably want to get their intellectual property protected before letting everyone else see inside the box.

But this much I take away from the article - not just a fancy dry sump setup, thou OEMs could treat it like a dry sump to some extent. Article does not say whether any oil is ever pumped into the box, only says pumped out of box.

Jason
 

Ol'Rattler

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Location
PNA
TDI
2006 BRM Jetta
Well ya, of course the oil circulates through it. From what I read about the system it is an enhanced version of a dry sump system like what is used on gas turbine (jet engine) powered aircraft.

The electronics would monitor oil pressure, oil temperature and oil condition. No more oil changes strictly by miles. :cool: Oh, and 90 second oil changes. :cool::cool:

Pretty clever actually. To change oil you would slide out the tank/filter module and slide in a freshly serviced tank/filter module. It would be very similar to how you replace a rack mounted black box on an aircraft.

Aircraft black box quick change rack mount tray:
 
Last edited:

SilverGhost

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Location
Back in So Flo - St Lucie
TDI
'05 Golf - totaled :(, wife's '13 Beetle - buy back, TDIless
OK, but how does this address the reduced oil volume to aid engine warm up. Not too knowledgeable on dry sump systems so this may seem like a stupid question.

Jason
 

Ol'Rattler

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Location
PNA
TDI
2006 BRM Jetta
Basically your crankshaft is not immersed in a bath of oil and splash lubricating the cylinder walls. The sump(s) are continually drained of oil and returned to the oil tank by scavenge pumps so the total amount of oil being used by the oil system is less.

This also makes controlling oil temperature very easy with a thermostatically controlled oil cooler. Also, oil is de-foamed at the tank so that you always have foam free oil available to the pressure pump.

A very simple dry sump system:


A more complex turbine engine variable pressure oil system:
 
Last edited:

SilverGhost

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Location
Back in So Flo - St Lucie
TDI
'05 Golf - totaled :(, wife's '13 Beetle - buy back, TDIless
So I have been doing some more reading on this. The engine stays a wet sump design, but the NEXCEL unit can pump more oil in or extract oil out of the sump as needed by the engine.

So you start with just enough oil to get started and warm up the engine, say 2.5 quarts. As soon as you reach operating temperature the ECM can request additional oil be added for safety margin, say additional 2 quarts slowly added so as to not cool off engine. Oil life monitor in the engine works with oil cell and replaces some oil to replenish used additives. When oil cell and ECM both recognize oil life is used up, its time to swap a oil cell - at which time the oil cell pulls all the oil out of engine sump and into oil cell.

Most of what I have found is marketing material, but it appears to be a bit more than just a dry sump set up.

Jason
 

Ol'Rattler

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Location
PNA
TDI
2006 BRM Jetta
Sure. But the implementation of a"dry sump" makes the concept workable. The concept of a "dry sump" is sort of a misnomer. In reality you have several bearing chambers (sumps) that the scavenge pumps evacuate.

It's all about control of volume, pressure and temperature which digital control with sensors allows you to do. I really like the concept. At oil change time, you just replace the tank/filter module (oil cell?) and drive on. Less than 90 seconds for an oil/filter change and so simple my cat could almost do it? What's not to love?
 
Last edited:

Matt-98AHU

Loose Nut Behind the Wheel Vendor
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Location
Gresham, OR
TDI
2001 Golf TDI, 2005 Passat wagon, 2004 Touareg V10.
At this stage of the game, EVERYTHING is tiny increments. That is all that is left. Close to zero, is not zero. This is why things like start-stop, grill shudders, ATF warmers, etc. are all actual real things on cars right now. By themselves, they do very little. But collectively, it all adds up.
Since there is not going to be any silver bullet left for internal combustion engines, certainly nothing with the strides that EFI and catalysts and feedback loops, then....
Well, the last part is arguable (just to be a know it all internet warrior). Direct injection was a pretty noticeable step in the right direction. And in racing, the next step has been in constant development for the last 4 years.

Formula 1 has been using something called turbulent jet ignition. Mahle has a quick blurb about it here

Another here

And adding this article just for the quote about the internal combustion engine itself (not including the hybrid systems F1 engines have these days, including the electrified motor-generator turbocharger) thermal efficiency. 45%, which is right in diesel territory.

And then you have Mazda's "spark started" "compression ignition" gas engine Skyactive-X engine. Basically there's a trend to diesel-ify gasoline engines and work towards some odd hybrid of compression ignition and spark ignition.

The trend I'm seeing, we will in fact see a huge jump in internal combustion GASOLINE engine efficiency in the near future thanks to the development of these technologies and the continued hybridization.

Unfortunately, that would also put the final nail in the coffin of diesel passenger cars and trucks most likely. Especially now that ships are going to be required to either burn cleaner fuel than bunker oil or add expensive scrubbers to continue to use the cheap fuel, we will see a further price hike in ULSD prices. Especially since there is no physical way of retrofitting a majority of ships with scrubbers by 2020. Bare minimum, we will see a several year long spike in diesel prices thanks to this move.

I hate to say it, but diesel's future is looking pretty bleak right now, and that's not even putting electrification into consideration.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
But Matt I still do not think you are going see the giant leaps forward that we had between say 1970 and 1990. I know that is a pretty broad area, but I had to be broad to be more inclusive as not all manufacturers embraced the same technologies at the same time. They sort of leap frogged back and forth, with the Germans in most every sense leading the way aside from OBD which was clearly pioneered by GM more than anyone else.

Just think of what a 1977 Rabbit would have been like compared to a 1967 Beetle. I've driven both, and owned good examples of both. A decade... a mere blink of an eye... showed HUGE strides. But now? Nothing today is that head and shoulders above what was around in 2009. And one could argue the fragile nature of some of the newest stuff means people will be wanting to dump stuff sooner (a regression in automotive terms, in my opinion).
 

Matt-98AHU

Loose Nut Behind the Wheel Vendor
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Location
Gresham, OR
TDI
2001 Golf TDI, 2005 Passat wagon, 2004 Touareg V10.
And one could argue the fragile nature of some of the newest stuff means people will be wanting to dump stuff sooner (a regression in automotive terms, in my opinion).
Now that last part I can whole-heartedly agree with. The latest and greatest with internal combustion has absolutely gotten very complicated to the point of being difficult to diagnose and fix leading to expensive repairs and downtime, thus faster depreciation and people in general wanting to throw cars away a lot sooner than they used to.

Except for the one type of vehicle I think Mr. Perkins is hinting at. Electric.

Of course that doesn't work for everyone either as some of us like/need the longer range an efficient vehicle with a large fuel tank offers. But, there is a compelling case to be made there. There is longevity with minimal maintenance and even more minimal per mile "fuel" costs.

Once technology has progressed to fix the range issue and there is adequate infrastructure in place for the increased demand, there will be little holding back electric from taking over. But those are two very big mountains to climb and quite a lot of investing in the electric grid will also be necessary. So, not quite ready for primetime yet, but I can certainly see a scenario where they take over. But how long will that be for the technology to develop and for us to implement adequate infrastructure? 15-20 years?

Back to the original argument, I still say taking current gas engine technology to the next step with this new jet fire ignition pre-chamber thing and other technologies that are playing with various forms of homogenous charge designs will in fact be a larger leap forward than you think.

Just think of taking a current 2.0 TSI GTI that does maybe 30 MPG real world highway. Now with a homogenous charge lean burn setup that is more efficient and cleaner at cruising speeds, it will be right in TDI territory of real world low to mid 40s MPG.

That is not an unsubstantial improvement. And until we have the range, infrastructure and beefed up electrical grid, we'll need such technologies to reduce our consumption in the interim.
 

Matt-98AHU

Loose Nut Behind the Wheel Vendor
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Location
Gresham, OR
TDI
2001 Golf TDI, 2005 Passat wagon, 2004 Touareg V10.
I will amend the above to say that the leap I'm speaking of is not yet in production. So yes, you are correct, nothing on the market *today* (in internal combustion, anyway) is leaps and bounds above what we had in 2009.

But in the next 5 years I have full confidence that will change and change rapidly.
 
Last edited:

bhtooefr

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
Newark, OH
TDI
None
There's also, if you're willing to take the weight, packaging, and cost penalty of a modern emissions compliant diesel at about ~42-43% thermal efficiency for the best current car ones...

...you can have a ~40-41% thermally efficient spark-ignited late intake valve closing engine (I own the 40% one, it's even port injected), and a hybrid system that gives you regenerative braking, smooth start-stop (that's a big deal, seeing how so many start-stop systems aren't smooth), and keeps the engine as close to that 40-41% peak as it can get it (charging the battery when power demand is low, discharging it when power demand is high).

Admittedly, I have better aero in my Prius than my Mk4 Golf, but I get better MPG on the highway than I did in my Mk4, and that's with 13% less energy per gallon. Then, most of my driving is shorter trips, where it blows my Mk4 out of the water.

Range isn't as good - depending on how deep into the tank I want to push, and how efficiently I'm driving, I get 450-600 miles to a tank, whereas the Golf was more like 600-750. But, the tank's also a lot smaller (11.3 gallons vs. nearly 17 vented).

Of course, you're stuck buying a Prius, Camry, Avalon/Lexus ES, in Japan a Toyota Crown, or a crossover to get those engines. But it is an option, and Toyota did copy the Mk5+ independent rear suspension on the FWD-based ones from that list (the Crown being RWD).
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
But in the next 5 years I have full confidence that will change and change rapidly.
Unless consumer demand changes, I doubt it. People [here] are not trending towards fuel efficiency now (not by a long shot), and as we've already seen most advancements get eaten up in this department by heavier weight and more powerful engines.

I look at the only rapid changes that *could* happen will be EVs, but unless substantial amounts of consumers actually buy them, they'll remain on the fringe. And really I do not see any quantum leaps there either, just a cost scaling of the technology to make them cheaper but by the time this is really, truly, a viable option for more people the used ones (with their subsequent tanked value) will be out there too. I mean there is already little incentive to by a new one since used ones are plentiful in comparison and once the tax incentives start to go away then the new purchase incentives will vanish. The local Chevrolet dealer has already been discounting the few Volts they got, which were more than they actually wanted but GM forced them to take them or they could not get all the Silverados and Tahoes they want, which sell as fast as the paint dries. And GM has actually been pissed about them trying to discount the Bolt (and to a lesser extent the Volt) because they NEED these cars sold to offset the CAFE stuff.

When you have to push things on consumers to try and sell them when the consumers otherwise would not/do not want to buy them, that means those products are a dud. When it takes piles of tax incentives and discounts and free car washes and all the other stuff despite there being a seemingly obvious advantage to something then those products are a dud. Keep in mind this is not necessarily a reflection of my own mindset. Just consumerism in general at large. I'd take a Bolt over a Silverado, even if they do cost the same. :p OK, maybe not.

I just recall the time I was at the local auto show when the Prius first came out. They only had one there, and it was not at dealers yet. But being part of the dealer staff, we get to go a day early where only dealer associates and press can get in, so we had the whole place to ourselves... only a few hundred people in the whole place. I talked to rep from Toyota for over an hour about the Prius, as I was genuinely interested in the car, the technology, etc. Despite its homely dorky looks (something Toyota has somehow worsened and I did not even think that was possible) it was a neat little package, essentially a hybrid version of the Echo but with some neat features. She (the Toyota rep) said they (Toyota) would have a hybrid version of every car they make within 10 years, and withing 20 years, EVERY car they make would be a hybrid... it was the way of the future, and it would be "normal" and that you wouldn't even see "hybrid" badges on things, the same way we do not see "Overdrive" or "Fuel Injection" badges on things anymore. Well, that was 2000. Prius came out later that year as a 2001. In 2011, Toyota had only added TWO hybrids to their lineup, the Camry and the Highlander. In the same time period they made the Tundra much bigger, and added an even bigger V8 engine option. Same for the Sequoia. Sienna got substantially bigger, and its engine grew another half liter. Camry got bigger, and its standard engine grew in size.

2021 is right around the corner. They have recently added a hybrid version of the Avalon and the RAV4, as well as a couple more new Prius models, each more hideous than the last. Aside from the Priuses, a non-hybrid version of the others is still available, and still outsells the hybrid versions by wide margins. And they are selling every V8 Tundra they can build, in addition to the relatively giant Tacoma that has long since exited the compact truck category. Oh, and if you live in California you can buy the Prius' eccentric cousin, the Mirai (which is a fuel cell powerplant). So despite Toyota's best intentions, consumerism won out. The dream of selling hybrids exclusively was a dream that they never could realize because Americans just won't buy them in numbers that would allow the company to remain profitable.

And Ford just recently gave up on the C-max, which is a FAR nicer car to drive than the Prius. Of course, Ford giving it a name that reminds consumers of feminine hygiene products probably didn't help. Nor did plastering silly leaves all over the instrument cluster display or the barf inducing "thanks for driving a hybrid" text that splashes across it when you turn the car off. :rolleyes:
 

Matt-98AHU

Loose Nut Behind the Wheel Vendor
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Location
Gresham, OR
TDI
2001 Golf TDI, 2005 Passat wagon, 2004 Touareg V10.
All fair points, and you're absolutely right on the mindset of consumers. They want big and don't much care for efficiency. However, if they can get big, powerful and with extra efficiency I'm sure no one would complain, which is exactly what the quasi-compression ignition gasoline engine designs would accomplish. Still retain excellent power output while greatly increasing efficiency and still maintaining the convenience factor of a liquid fueled internal combustion setup.

And if CAFE standards were to stay on track with what they originally were outlined for, we'd likely see it sooner rather than later. Not saying that's necessarily a good thing as again it may only increase the complexity and maintenance costs and thus making them even more throwaway than what we already have (which has definitely gotten noticeably worse in recent years), but that's the way we were heading. And since many automakers have already sunk a massive amount of R&D into the tech, I suspect we will see it in production soon enough anyway.

If you can maintain or increase power levels all while making a big jump in efficiency, I don't see why they wouldn't. It's also still largely allowing automakers to continue using a fairly standard long block design, just with modifications to the head and higher compression ratios. That alone will help keep production costs down.
 

tikal

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2001
Location
Southeast Texas
TDI
2004 Passat Wagon (chainless + 5 MT + GDE tune)
I think sometimes we get carried away with how much the US has been in the forefront of innovation when it comes to IT technology and electronics (smartphones, tablets, etc.) and we translate that to the US will be in the forefront of transportation technology innovation and efficiency. I do not think one translates into the other unfortunately. As long as the cost of fuel is so low here in comparison to Western Europe, East Asia, etc. then the cost/benefit equation does not resolve favorably for the average American consumer when it comes to spacious efficient vehicles than can achieve at least in the mid-thirties MPG or better.

How well is the Toyota RAV4 hybrid is selling vs. its gasoline counterpart? And that vehicle cannot even average 35 MPG day in and day out :-(
 

Ol'Rattler

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Location
PNA
TDI
2006 BRM Jetta
2 grams x 40 trillion miles a year(globally) kinda adds up.
Seriously, we have real morons thinking this stuff. If they actually wanted to do anything about climate change, global warming etc they would bring these guys on board. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/armine-sahakyan/the-grim-pollution-pictur_b_9266764.html

We in the U.S. could have a zero carbon footprint and until the rest of the world catches up we are doing absolutely nothing. Spending thousands of dollars on emission equipment for your car is only cleaning out your wallet.

When most Americans can't even understand that a 1/3 pound McD burger is bigger than a 1/4 pound McD burger we are going to throw a lot of bad money into a problem that most people don't understand.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/76144/why-no-one-wanted-aws-third-pound-burger
 
Last edited:

bobgolf2004

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Location
Madison, Wisconsin USA
TDI
2018 Camry Hybrid LE
Interesting concept.


I recently sold my 2015 Passat back to VW and bought a 2018 Camry Hybrid LE. Very similar cars in terms of room, trunk space, and range. (I have got 755 miles on a tank in the Camry, even though it holds only 13.5 gallons). Averaged 50 mpg overall in the Passat, and am averaging 60 MPG (no winter driving yet) in the Camry with 87 gasoline. The Camry uses 0w-16 oil. It can also cruise at 60 MPH on the battery alone. Not to mention it accelerates quite well in "sport mode" when you need it. All without a turbo charger, particulate filter and a NOX converter and DEF.



If Toyota can bring solid state hybrid battery to market, like it has suggested (although others do not agree that solid state batteries can be ready in the near future as Toyota has suggested) a hybrid could yet make another jump in fuel efficiency by allowing higher battery capacity, faster charging rates (allowing the engine run closer to its minimum BSFC when it operates) and allowing higher discharge rates to cruise at even higher speeds on the battery alone. Barring a leap in engine operating efficiency, the only way to lower fuel consumption (aside from changing driver behavior) is to increase the time the engine does operate as efficiently as it is able to.



The interesting thing about the article is how the product relates well to a hybrid, where the engine operates periodically, and could to help minimize oil temperature fluctuations and manage lower viscosity oils.
 

tikal

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2001
Location
Southeast Texas
TDI
2004 Passat Wagon (chainless + 5 MT + GDE tune)
Bring the wagon version of the Camry hybrid and now you have vehicle with SUV size cargo capacity capable of averaging in the mid 40's MPG in 50/50 hwy/City driving.

The best size/efficiency optimization yet but Americans will not buy it in large enough numbers :(

Interesting concept.


I recently sold my 2015 Passat back to VW and bought a 2018 Camry Hybrid LE. Very similar cars in terms of room, trunk space, and range. (I have got 755 miles on a tank in the Camry, even though it holds only 13.5 gallons). Averaged 50 mpg overall in the Passat, and am averaging 60 MPG (no winter driving yet) in the Camry with 87 gasoline. The Camry uses 0w-16 oil. It can also cruise at 60 MPH on the battery alone. Not to mention it accelerates quite well in "sport mode" when you need it. All without a turbo charger, particulate filter and a NOX converter and DEF.



If Toyota can bring solid state hybrid battery to market, like it has suggested (although others do not agree that solid state batteries can be ready in the near future as Toyota has suggested) a hybrid could yet make another jump in fuel efficiency by allowing higher battery capacity, faster charging rates (allowing the engine run closer to its minimum BSFC when it operates) and allowing higher discharge rates to cruise at even higher speeds on the battery alone. Barring a leap in engine operating efficiency, the only way to lower fuel consumption (aside from changing driver behavior) is to increase the time the engine does operate as efficiently as it is able to.



The interesting thing about the article is how the product relates well to a hybrid, where the engine operates periodically, and could to help minimize oil temperature fluctuations and manage lower viscosity oils.
 
Top