|
Two year old information with seemingly contradictory claims. 7% improvement in fuel economy, 30% reduction in emissions and 96% reduction in wear.
Let's assume 7% is a real number. Let's use easy math and say the propulsive efficiency jumps from 20% to 27%. That's a huge change, which draws the 7% claim into question, and it's nearly 30%, which is where I suspect the 30% emissions number comes from, but we're still only only utilizing 27% of the heat energy burned vs. 80% with regular oil.
So, if the 7% claim is true, the 30% claim is false. If the 7% claim is true and the 30% is revised to indicate "increase in overall efficiency," we can say those numbers are consistent; however, emissions are directly proportional to fuel burned, so if we're burning 7% less fuel, we're producing 7% less emissions.
Lastly... 96% reduction in wear. Actually, given the massive increase in overall efficiency, this would almost have to be true... a near elimination of mechanical friction within the engine's moving parts... however...
Increased temp lowers the viscosity of the oil, which does indeed make it flow easier; however, it decreases the oil's ability to adhere to components, which generally decreases lubricity and increases friction of moving parts... contrary to the 96% wear claim.
Given the age of the information and the lack of follow-up testing or reporting, I am very dubious of these claims.
Subsequent googleage shows these claims are as old as late 2011 with little newer than 2012. However, there was a presentation to SAE of Japan in 2013, and the summary links efficiency and emissions at 7-12% improvement. If it weren't for this and some seemingly significant recognition by legitimate organizations, I would dismiss this as snake oil.
|