Good F350 fuel economy?
 

Yeah, I know. Haven't seen anyone here raving about the fuel economy improvements on their full size, gas fueled V-8 pickup. BUT, I think there some things I've discovered that apply to just about any internal combustion powered vehicle that I haven't read much about anywhere on this site.

I bought the F350 about 7 years ago with 126,000 miles on it. Its powered by a venerable 351 Windsor that was factory rated at 245hp. When I first bought it, I got about 10mpg city and 11mpg hwy. It had an intermittent check engine light that was traced back to a faulty O2 sensor and a cracked distributor cap. After changing the oil and doing a tune up (replacing cap, rotor, wires, plugs, PCV valve, etc.), my mileage improved ever so slightly to 10city/12hwy. Not impressive and still disappointed with how bad the mileage was. I would have expected this out of a 460 powered truck but not the 351. The F350 had decent gearing for mileage (3.55:1) but the automatic 4 speed overdrive E4OD tranny isn't known to be very efficient. The F350 is also a 4x4 but its a standard cab and the weight is fairly low for a full size pickup at 5,500lbs. Highway mileage, as expected, really took a dump above 65mph and this is something I can live with. No need to cruise at 75 in my old truck. All of the checks for mechanical faults were checked and nothing appeared to be defective; no exhaust leaks upstream of the O2 sensor, engine compression was good, no vacuum leaks, fuel pressure correct, etc.

One of the first mods I made was to repair a rusted out muffler. When I removed it, I looked at the cat and found that it had been gutted (or melted itself out) and wasn't functional. I replaced the exhaust from ahead of the non-functional cat with home-made 3" system and a Flowmaster muffler. Still not much difference in the fuel mileage. The next mod came about while trying to address a erratic idle problem. Idle speed was unsteady and erratic at times. This was traced back to an EGR valve that had a worn seat inside and wouldn't close completely at times. Decided to do a little experiment and block it off completely rather than replace it. Instantly gained 1mpg city and 2mpg hwy. Hmmmm.....
This got me thinking about why. After the EGR was blocked off, I noticed that I had some slight pinging at part throttle cruise. A good thing as far as fuel economy. I checked the timing and it was spot-on so just for safety's sake, I retarded it 2 degrees. Apparently, the ECM advanced the timing considerably when the EGR is open to make up for the slowed down rate of combustion caused by the diluted air/fuel charge. By blocking off the EGR, I got the free benefit of advanced ignition timing just where I needed it..... During part-throttle cruise.

More experiments.
The next on the list was the Air Injection Pump. The pump was beginning to make some noise and I've had these fail before. The vanes inside blow apart and the pumps seize, burning up the belt and leaving you stranded. So... off to the auto parts store and put on a shorted belt that bypassed the air pump. Holy Cow!!! Mileage jumped another 3mpg on the highway! Again, I needed to understand why and about the only thing I have been able to figure out is that the air pump was doing its job of pumping air into the exhaust and creating an artificially 'lean' state as far as the O2 sensor was concerned. The ECU responded by richening up the mixture. Now I can see a reason for this as far as emissions systems are concerned. In order for the catalyst to function, there has to be some air in the exhaust and some unburned fuel. If there wasn't, the cat wouldn't come up to temperature and it wouldn't do its job of taking excess air and using it to oxidize CO and unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust. Brilliant engineering, "lets make an already fuel inefficient vehicle even worse so we can make the exhaust cleaner". Just out of curiosity, I checked the exhaust with an exhaust gas analyzer and found the CO was at 1% and hydrocarbons were around 60ppm. The exhaust was still VERY clean yet none of the emissions control devices were functional. If you take into account the fact that the F350 is burning 33% less fuel, then the real numbers of tailpipe emissions are even better that when the vehicle was new! The EPA numbers for fuel economy for my F350 were almost perfectly inline with what I was getting before I changed anything.

Well, to keep a long story short, I have since made a few other mods to the old F350; An MSD 6A ignition, a hotter thermostat, an adjustable fuel pressure regulator, a better quality fan clutch, replaced the crankshaft pulley with a smaller one (to reduce accessory drive speed), and did away with the stock cold air intake. Right now, I'm getting a consistent 14mpg in town and 17+ on the highway if I keep the speed at 65mph. And this is with 224,000 miles on the stock engine! When its due for a rebuild (I'm sure it'll go to 300,000) I'll make some other changes. More compression, regrind the crank to use smaller 351 Cleveland main bearings, low tension oil rings and gapless compression rings, and if it's in the budget a set of TFS twisted wedge heads. I'm pretty confident I can break 20mpg and also pick up another 75-100 hp.

nice job!

Talk to me about blocking the EGR and air pump.. I have 5.0 Mountaineer and I live in a location where we don't have emissions regulations. My truck currently throws an EGR code, so I need to fix it... But I'll be damned if I'm to going spend hundreds of dollars to fix something that hurts my FE?????

~C

Now that's what's up! Kuddos to you for taking what you have and making it better :thumbup:

Btw, you have increased your FE by nearly 50% :eek: Outstanding!

Auto or manual?

On older Fords ('95 and older), a simple block off plate is used in place of the EGR and the tube that goes to the exhaust manifold welded shut or a threaded plug is used to replace the exhaust tube fitting. Newer Fords (like my '97) will require the connector that's on top of the EGR valve have a few resistors spliced in to 'trick' the ECM into thinking the EGR is still in place. Otherwise, you can leave the EGR valve on and the connector plugged in and just block off the tube. On my F350, a quarter fits nicely inside the nut that holds the exhaust tube to the EGR valve and the exhaust manifold. Just removed the tube and filled the open holes inside the tube-nut with a quarter and put the nut back on the exhaust manifold and EGR valve.

On your Mountaineer what P code is showing up?

The Air Injection Pump can be deleted several ways. On my F350, I had to physically remove the pump because a shorter belt wouldn't fit without removing the pump. But removing the pump would change how the belt was routed and the tensioner would no longer work. This required a few other changes. First, I had to use an alternator bracket for a 302. The 302 bracket relocated the belt tensioner to the correct location. Then I had to swap out the alternator for one used on a 460 (so it was clocked correctly). And I still had to make a small bracket to secure the top of the alternator. An easier way is to just stuff short pieces of wood dowel into the rubber hoses that go the exhaust manifolds. Can't say off the top of my head what you would need to do to remove it on your 302. If your accessory drive on your 302 powered Mountaineer is the same as 302 powered Mustangs, there are ready made kits to delete the air pump.

Tranny is a E4OD 4 speed automatic with overdrive and lockup converter. 1997 was the last year Ford used the E4OD. It was replaced in 1998 by the 4R100. all of the differences were internal and the 4R100 would probably help fuel economy a small amount. The biggest difference between the E4OD and the 4R100 are the gear ratios. Most of the 4R100 parts will swap into the E4OD case.

Mines a 97, and the code is P0401 (insufficient EGR flow). It's got 288k miles on it, and I think its a safe bet that it's clogged with carbon build up... Haven't had time to really look into it yet. If that's the case I know I will see an increase in FE when I clean it out, do you feel that the increase from deletion is better? I've read a lot of back and forth on this subject... Obviously you have the added benefit from deleting the smog pump, decrease in parasitic losses. And you played with your timing, which I'm assuming also aided in FE? The more I read about it, the more confused I get hahaha

From what I understand, the 5.0 stang kit doesn't work without fabrication due to mounting points... But that was just a quick search on the explorer forum, didn't have time to read a whole lot about it last night. I'll dig deeper today.

BTW, you're getting the same mpg as I am in a truck that's only 30 less hp and 1500lbs lighter :eek: :(

~C

No need to be confused. Deleting the EGR and AIS will improve your fuel mileage. On modern vehicles, the use of EGR is because manufacturers did a cost benefit analysis and would rather use a $25 valve to control NOX instead of a $300 3-way catalyst.

AIS was used long before O2 sensors came to be and is the cheap an easy way to meet EPA rules. AIS is another useless technology where accounting prevailed over engineering. Wideband sensor technology has made AIS obsolete for a long time.

The EGR on your vehicle has a sensor on it that detects the position of the valve. I agree with you that coking of the EGR is the most likely culprit, but there is also the possibility that sensor is bad or an issue with the connector or wiring. There is a way to trick the ECM into thinking the EGR is in place and functioning by chopping off the connector and placing some resistors in its place. I know this trick works on OBDI Fords (pre 1996 EEC-IV) and on some later OBDII (EEC-IV only. Not EEC-V). I'll dig up the diagram and post it later. You would still need to make sure flow through the EGR is blocked completely. If it leaks at all during idle, you'll have issues with idle quality, rpm, hard starting, etc.

I've read a lot about EGR theory and all of the arguments for/against it. I've read a bunch of b.s. about theoretical gains in reduced pumping loss, thermodynamic improvements (?), and improved combustion and I'm pretty sure those theories don't mean anything to 99.9% of the vehicles that have an EGR. (BTW, my wife's 1999 Jeep Cherokee w/4.0 didn't have one from the factory). The truth is, EGR is only used for ONE reason: to reduce NOX (oxides of nitrogen) in the exhaust. NOX emissions are very short lived in the atmosphere and eventually are reduced to N2 and free oxygen. The problem with NOX is its decay product is nitric acid. NOX and nitric acid are also caused by lightning strikes. Nitric acid breaks down quickly in the atmosphere also. The main reason NOX is considered a pollutant is in large enough concentrations in the atmosphere it will cause the reddish brown haze you see in areas that have heavy air pollution because of the presence of nitrogen dioxide (wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide). NOX is created in an internal combustion by the presence of oxygen and nitrogen together under high pressure and high temperature. The higher the compression ration and the higher the combustion temperature, the higher the NOX content of the exhaust. NOX, as a percentage of the exhaust gas varies depending on a/f ratio and load and ranges from nearly 0 to about 2500ppm (0.0025%) under peak load at 16:1 a/f ratio. You can read about some of the (b.s.) theoretical gains with EGR here: wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Exhaust_gas_recirculation.

I don't get the logic of using EGR if it's going to cause my fuel consumption to go up. I'm not against emissions controls on my vehicle but if they are so poorly engineered just to satisfy some disconnected political machine, that opinion changes. EGR almost killed the on-road diesel market because of the technical problems of making it work well enough to satisfy the EPA. Sadly, the 'fix' for EGR's horrible reputation for unreliability and reduced performance was the introduction of 'Diesel Exhaust Fluid' and the burden forced on the consumer of having to periodically fill a tank on your new diesel powered vehicle with piss. I could go on and on about some of the stupidity of some of the garbage you are forced to pay for when you but a car (purposely injecting and burning fuel in the exhaust do 'regenerate' diesel PDF's???) but I would be hijacking my own thread.

Well I have some immediate expenses to take care of on my truck before I play with things... Need a full rebuild on the IFS :mad: . But once I get that done, I think I will delete cats, custom exhaust, smog pump delete, and see how that works. In the mean time, I think I will try to make the EGR work since I don't have the skills or money to correct timing and tune the engine if I remove the EGR. Thanks so much for responding, and again, great job on your FE!

Also, I totally agree with the concept of making a car run more efficient instead of adding things to reduce emissions that would be lowered if you simply didn't burn as much fuel to begin with. I also hate ethanol mixes at the pump because it reduced my mpg, and there by actually causing more pollution and overall fuel usage in my particular truck (as with many others). And don't get me started with diesel regeneration :mad: , I used to constantly be late to deliveries due to stopping for regen in my box truck :eek:

~C

When you get to the point of doing the air pump delete, pick up an underdrive pulley set. Found mine on ebay for $70 (new!). It's free horsepower and I picked up 1+mpg with this mod alone. Also saves wear and tear on the water pump, alternator, and power steering pump.

As far as deleting the EGR, it's not too complicated. The pinging at part throttle was with 85 octane fuel. A switch to 87 octane cured that until I bumped the timing back. The timing is easy to do. A timing light and a 9/16 socket on a long extension are all you need. Just remember to disconnect the 'SPOUT' (usually located near the master cylinder) connector before you set the timing and replace it when you're done. Lots of resources on youtube on how to set your timing.

Loose the belt driven fan and replace it with an electric and pick up another 2mpg highway.

You have some good information mixed in with your opinions.
 

Modern vehicle systems 20 years advanced of what is found on your truck are beginning to use EGR to grab the few percent efficiency gains found in the so called "b.s. theory". And, you mix diesel theory with spark ignition operation. They are two different stories.

And the pollution mechanism for NOx also includes solar activation of NOx to Ozone - a far more long lived pollutant at ground level. That is the brown haze seen in valleys like Los Angeles and Denver. Even when not visible, the concentrations are elevated near any metropolis.

But, you are right, these topics are very broad and beyond the scope of this thread.

Agreed. I guess my point was that in 1997, the technology was available (and had been for 10 years) to manufacture a vehicle that didn't need an EGR or AIS to pass federal emissions standards, especially for a heavy-duty vehicle (which had much less stringent standards than passenger vehicles at the time). EGR and AIS are throwbacks to the early 1970's when the big 3 were struggling to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the newly created EPA. EGR was never introduced or intended to help fuel economy and any theoretical gains in the lab are irrelevant and insignificant in the real world. I also understand that the economics of manufacturing plays a big part here. Why spend the money on more advanced means on controlling emissions in 1997? Gas was around $1 a gallon and most consumers that were contemplating the purchase of a one-ton pickup most likely had fuel economy low on their list of priorities.

The comparison with what has happened with Diesel technology was just to demonstrate the economics of manufacturing something that is regulated by an institution that is so far detached from the real world (remember when the EPA wanted to regulate dust produced from dirt roads? And CO2 is now considered a pollutant.) that the manufacturers are forced to engineer technology into vehicles for emissions regulations that have nothing but negative impacts on fuel economy (the EPA's standard of 'grams per mile' is biased towards smaller cars and engines).

It's been a while since I took any college level chemistry but I'm pretty sure the 'brown cloud' is from NO2 (nitrogen dioxide). I DO remember some lab experiments with nitric acid that went very wrong and copious clouds of acrid red/brown smoke being produced. Not sure what the mechanism of reaction between NOX and ozone (O3) is but I know there are reactions between HC (unburned hydrocarbons) and ozone. BTW, ozone is not something found in internal combustion engine exhaust. Ground level ozone is mainly produced by the reaction of VOC's in the atmosphere in the presence of ultraviolet light. It is also produced by lightning and the simple reaction of UV light on oxygen.

But before I drift too far off topic, the goal with my old F350 is to match the fuel economy of my friends 2014 EcoBoost F150. I may not be able to get to 24mpg but I bet I can get close. And spend a lot less than $42,000 to do it.

Maybe there needs to be a new thread on what the impacts of emissions control technology and how to make improvements to those systems while improving fuel economy at the same time.

Just continuing the discussion a bit further.
 

Here is a link to the EPA that sketches out the importance of NOx reduction as the interaction of VOCs, NOx and sunlight result in large levels of ground level ozone.

Frequent Questions | Ground-level Ozone Standards Designations | US EPA

Your point about economics being a great part of the equation should hint to readers that early adopted emissions technology is not anywhere near being optimal in attacking the problem. And, like any technology, there are growing pains.

The officials in place at the EPA are not entirely out of step with the common man. They do have open forums to discuss possible changes and laws. I know, I have been part of some of those discussions in the past. I agree with you that CO2 being listed as a "pollutant" is an undue burden to industry, but I and others got to have our say in the matter. The problem was, the scientist and engineers such as myself, were far outnumbered by Gaia Greenies. I had brought out my cousins to voice their needs as they own trucking companies, but they were far too few. The argument that the life of the oceans and the planting of forests was of greatest importance in buffering and absorbing any increases in CO2 was seen as outside the authority of the EPA so, they control what is in their sphere of influence.

Emissions aside, what you are doing with your truck to reach your goal of 24 mpg is laudable and important as pickups make up a large percentage of some communities. Once you have exhausted the easy engine modifications, you can peruse the aerodynamic possibilities. That opens up a world of gains as our trucks come factory equipped with horrid coefficients of drag.

" Ozone - a far more long lived pollutant at ground level."

The half life of ozone at ground level is some where around 90 minutes.

Not to be argumentative but . . .
 

. . . I would like to see your basis for that conclusion.

The mechanism for ozone removal from ground level smog itself results in other irritating and damaging compounds. If the VOCs have aldehydes , these can start the conversion of ozone, but the resultant peroxyacl's are powerful irritants at parts per BILLION concentrations. The ultraviolet light band also causes the interaction of water and ozone leading to the breakup of ozone, but this also results in more peroxyacl production. Either way, the result is a product that is as damaging, if not more so, than the ozone itself. Yes, it eventually passes out of the air and into our rain water in dissolved nitrate forms, but now you are adding to the whole problem of over use of nitrate fertilizers. Add in the production of nitric acid from the direct removal of NOx by moisture and none of this is a pretty picture.

During the Bejing Olympics, transportation and industry was curtailed to reduce the heavy smog during the games. Acceptable reduction of Ozone and irritating resultants took three weeks.

So, even though ozone is not "long lived" in the sense of CO2, it and it's resultants, are very damaging to living tissue for the hours, days and weeks it can linger.

That is a good catch on your part.
 

My statement could be misleading to the reader. I would truly like to see a report or study making light of a 90 minute loiter time for ozone at ground level.

Stopping the AIP from spinning is the only viable fuel saving option. Plugging the holes does nothing but cause it to fight itself until it grenades eventually because it's constantly pushing against a dead wall and building internal pressure while the engine is running.

It probably would have been easier instead of changing all that stuff to just get yourself an idler pulley to replace the pump. You can also remove the internals of the pumps on some models, and that just leaves a couple bearings and a shaft to spin inside the housing. Still eats a little power, but it's better than pushing useless air. You can retune the EFI system to keep the cat active easily enough, too.

Wikipedia or a google search.

The parts I needed were on hand. I had them from a Bronco I had sold. As far as I know, there weren't any aftermarket AIS pump delete kits (idler conversions, etc.) that would work on my application.

The AIS pumps can be gutted quite easily. Pop the end plate off and remove the vanes and it becomes an idler. You still have to block off the hoses though. The exhaust pulses will cause some air to draft through the pump if you don't.

Even when the pump is functional, if it's not moving any air, it's consuming very little power. Because it's a positive displacement pump (and only compressing air to a very low pressure), when the flow path is blocked, any energy expended to compress the air inside the pump is released back to the engine once it has completed it's cycle through the vanes. Same physics GM relies on with their active fuel management V-8 that disable 2 or 4 cylinders (by closing the valves) during cruise. I've done the wood-plug-in-the-hoses trick before and it doesn't seem to affect the life of the pump.

Aerodynamic mods are pretty much out of the question since the vehicle has the frontal profile of a barn door to begin with and it frequently gets used off-road.

The next step will to replace the stock ECM with an ECM from a 1996 Bronco or F150 that has the same drivetrain package and California emissions equipment. Two reasons for this; Even though my F350 is a 1997 model, it isn't OBDII. OBDII didn't apply to vehicles over 7,000GVW until 1998. Switching the ECU to an OBDII compliant one will allow me to view live data. The California specific ECU is also a mass-air unit and will allow me to convert from the stock speed-density fuel injection strategy to mass-air. There are kits available with the associated piggyback wiring, ECU, MAF meter, etc. Kit cost is about $600. This change alone should net around 1-2 mpg improvements because of the improved accuracy in fuel metering.

After this, the changes will revolve around building a new engine. The stock 351w powerplant is pretty reliable and there is a HUGE aftermarket for parts. Of course, many of the parts are for improved performance/horsepower but a lot of the same mods that increase specific output can improve efficiency/FE at the same time. Here's a list of what will be changed in the rebuilt engine:

1. Swap the heads for a set of TFS Twisted Wedge heads with 190cc intake runners and 62cc combustion chambers. These are arguably the best head for the 351w from a performance standpoint but they also have a very efficient 'fast burn' combustion chamber design. They also have reduced combustion chamber volume from the stock head and will allow for a 10.5:1 compression ratio with flat-top pistons. Obviously, the impact on fuel economy will be from the ability to tune for lean-burn operation and increase efficiency from the raised compression. This head-piston combination should run just fine on 87 octane fuel and possibly be ok with 85 octane at the 4,700 ft elevation I live at. Heads will also get a set of full roller rocker arms (reduce frictional losses in the valvetrain). The heads alone will not get me to where I want without some careful prep work to the bock. The block/head combination will need to be set up with a quench clearance (sometimes called 'squish') between .040" and .060". The quench area is the space between the flat part of the cylinder head (deck) and the top of the piston when it's at TDC. The .040-.060 clearance is important to promote turbulence in the combustion chamber and to increase the engines resistance to detonation. Most stock engines have a quench clearance from .080 to .100+. Quench clearance this large has the opposite effect by making detonation more likely and allowing a portion of the flame front to be extinguished while leaving some unburned fuel in the large quench area.

2. Regrind the crank to use 351c main bearings instead of the stock 351w bearings. The 351w main bearings are 3.000 inches in diameter. 351c mains are 2.750. Clevite makes swap bearings for this change. This is an old trick used by engine builders to pick up some free power and also has the benefit of reducing the oil flow necessary to lube the bottom end. Several benefits here: Reduced frictional loss, lower burden on the oil pump allowing the use of very light weigh lubricating oil, and less windage loss inside the crankcase because of the reduced oil flow. A windage tray will also be used to further reduce windage loss.

3. Use gapless compression rings, low tension oil rings, and flat-top hypereutectic pistons. The gapless compression rings can add from 1-3% in efficiency alone. The low tension oil rings can reduce rotational torque by 40%. The hypereutectic pistons have a lower coefficient of expansion than forged pistons and are stronger that stock cast pistons.

Still doing a lot of research on cam profiles and I haven't made a decision if I'm going to use something 'off the shelf' or go with a custom grind.

The transmission is still up in the air too. I'm not too fond of the ZF 5-speed manual tranny that Ford used and there are some expensive swap issues if I want to go to a NVG 4500 (5-speed) or NVG 5600 (6-speed). I may stick with the E4OD 4-speed automatic that's in it and use an improved torque converter. There is also the possibility that I can figure out if I can build the E4OD to use the newest specification Mercon LV transmission fluid. Mercon LV spec tranny fluid is very light viscosity fluid and should be good for some significant improvements in the efficiency of the transmission.

Once the engine/transmission assembly is ready to swap, I can begin the process of refining the ECU programming for the new combination. That will be the biggest mental challenge and also the most fun part of this project!

The information the EPA has here seems somewhat misleading. From what I remember about my chemistry, N20 (nitrous oxide) is a powerful reducer of ozone and is considered an 'ozone depleting chemical' similar to R-12. Of course we have to make the distinction about 'good ozone' and 'bad ozone' here. 'Good ozone' being the ozone found high up in the atmosphere that blocks UVB, and 'bad ozone' found at ground level (and is considered a pollutant). One could argue that the presence of N2O at ground level has a beneficial effect with its respect towards its interaction with ozone at ground level. NO (nitric oxide) is a free radical and has a very short half life most likely ending up as NO2 (the red gas, nitrogen dioxide). And NO2 reacts with water in the atmosphere to make nitric acid (HNO3). Which most likely ends up in the soil (from rain), and again could arguably be considered a benefit to plant life by fixing nitrogen to the soil.

Not that I'm arguing for [I]increased[I] emissions of NOX. I grew up in Southern California in the 1960's and '70's and remember the brown cloud and the sore throats and tight chests from it. It's no fun using your lungs as a nitric acid factory. Just bringing up the point that there are always two sides to every argument but logic doesn't always dictate the winner.

The driving public and consumer are just low lying fruit with respect to how the EPA imposes its rules and regulations. If you look at the big picture, ocean shipping probably contributes more to global air pollution in one day than all automobiles driven in the United States in an entire year. Typical ocean transports are virtually unregulated with respect towards exhaust emissions and they use the worst fuel imaginable for propelling their loads of freight from mainland china to your local Wal Mart. Most of the ships fire their boilers with 'bunker oil'. The bottom of the refining tree residue that unusable for anything else because of sulphur content, mercury, etc. Burning tires probably pollutes less than burning 'bunker oil'.

Wow, I've never seen someone break down the 351 like you just did. It sounds like you would be very close to the 24mpg goal you have set for yourself... Assuming you can keep your right foot out of it :cool:

I wish I was 1/2 as knowledgeable about my 5.0 as you are with your 351 :o

~C

If I get the tuning right (a lot of trial and error I'm sure), I should still be able to manage 15+mpg while hauling my little camp trailer and a couple of motorcycles in the back.

I had a 1981 VW Rabbit pickup about 15 years ago. Put a turbodiesel engine out of a Jetta in it. I loved that truck. It got 45mpg and it had enough power to stay above 50mph over the top of Vail Pass (10,300 ft. elevation) with a passenger and two motorcycles in the back. Traded it for another motorcycle. Should have kept the truck.

You have things a bit backwards.
 

Even though the EPA Link was simplified for public understanding, it made it clear that the problem was a photochemical interaction of hydrocarbons and NOx to produce ozone. The ozone comes from the Nox.

With the much smaller population of people and vehicles in the 60s and 70s you should have first hand knowledge of what happens on a sunny day in the AQMD (Air Quality Management District - the Los Angeles Basin) region seeing how you lived here. There is now over double the population of people and vehicles and the air is far better. I don't know how you continue to knock emissions efforts when the AQMD basin is a prime example of success.

And a little goes a long way. And it is cumulative. Each person in a small way contributes. Our business has been impacted not just in the vehicles we operate, but in the paints that we use, the cutting fluids the CNC machines use, down to the lighter fluids "forced" on us during company picnics. Southern California is just a microcosm of the rest of the world - too many people in too small of a place.

The Earth is soon to be in the same situation with the pollution contributions of over 7 billion sources great and small overwhelming the ability to absorb the output. The ground level pollution created in China is now detectable on the United States western shores. Our pollution ends up in western Europe and theirs goes . . . well you get the picture.

EPA is not perfect, but it has had tremendous success within it's jurisdiction and thus has set an example that is to be followed by other countries. The implementation of strict Euro6 standards are just an example. The Chinese governmental efforts are looking to the EPA for guidelines. Even the container ships you mention are coming under scrutiny as the Low Hanging Fruit is picked and more pollution cutbacks are sought. But, that is a question that is as much international politics as it is simple technology.

That is my point.
 

Our trucks are so poor aerodynamically, that simple and small changes can be gratifyingly effective. The Ford EcoBoost is not just all about the engine. The lighter frame helps. And the small aero tweeks help too. I am just pointing out how small changes such as a chin spoiler, an aero bed cap and active engine cooling shutters could put you well over your target.

I don't disagree with the original principles of the EPA. It's my opinion that what has happened over the years is that the EPA has been turned into a political tool and doesn't have the best interests of the country as one of its core values. I agree that there is some success' but recently it's gone overboard in some areas. My complaint don't entirely center on the EPA itself but also the rules it creates and leave up to the states to define or enforce or the unreasonable burdens placed on manufacturers and even the general consumer. Here are a few examples (albeit not related to the original intent of this post);
In California (I know, NOT the Federal EPA, but the policies started here many times find their way into EPA rules), Because of the concerns over VOC's, windshield washer solvent for your windshield containing ANY amount of methanol (or other type of alcohol) is banned UNLESS you live in a county where average wintertime low temperatures are below freezing. Another rule that originated in California and had been adopted by the EPA are the new emissions stands for small engines (i.e., lawn mowers, etc.) I honestly believe that rulemaking like this is an irresponsible waste of (administrative) resources and only serve as a distraction from other bigger sources of air pollution that are protected by political influence. I understand what you mean about improvements in small degrees but there are still a lot of gross polluters out there that have been getting a free pass for MUCH too long. I have a set of RR tracks not far from my house. I see Union Pacific locomotives several times a day with untreated exhaust. I have a small rail yard behind my house and I talk with the RR employees. Even the locomotives that are brand new don't have any emissions controls. Manufactured by General Electric (one of the big players in trying to have coal fired power shut down so they can sell more natural gas fired generation equipment), and EMD (Electro Motive Diesel, owned by GM). And then the railroads owned by Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet). Why are they still allowed produce prolific amounts of NOX? Why is the EPA concerning itself with my lawn mower and not the freight trains behind my house? Pretty sure the 10 trains a day that pass through my county do more to pollute the air here than all of the lawn mowers in the county produce in a year. The EPA is more about image and perception any more than doing any meaningful work towards keeping the environment clean. Another example of an unnecessary burden is the forced use DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid) on Diesel powered vehicles. It's only good in the sense that it has allowed manufacturers to eliminate or reduce EGR and the maintenance problems associated with it and return some lost performance and fuel economy, but with one painful catch.....if your DEF tank runs out or the level sensor malfunctions, your vehicle shuts down. Your catalytic converter fails? Your car keeps running. Your EGR valve stuck shut? Your car keeps running. Your evaporative emissions purge valve sticks open? Your car keeps running. All of these emissions subsystems can and do fail and when they do, the driver is simply informed with a check engine light. This asinine requirement that your vehicle is disables if the DEF tank run dry was a mandatory requirement by the EPA to the manufacturers as a condition of letting them use DEF/SCR catalysts. The only other option to DEF/SCR is NOX absorber technology and it still hasn't matured enough to be viable in the heavy duty truck industry. The amount of EGR alone required to satisfy EPA rules makes the vehicles unusable and unable to meet the mandatory EPA emissions system warranty at best. Same things goes for DPF and the associated regeneration process that purposely burns fuel in the exhaust producing NO usable power for motivation. And again, the de facto (solely because the manufactures are forced to do this to protect the emissions warranty on the hardware) mandatory requirement by the EPA to cause a vehicle to become disabled because of a failed emissions device. Technology like DPF and DEF/SCR are forced on the public because there is no better alternative. And the reason for this is because the EPA creates the rules with no regard to the viability of existing technology. The philosophy of the EPA is 'Make the rules and the technology will follow'. There needs to be a better approach. If you look at the evolution of emissions systems beginning from the early 1970's on, you can see what the result of this has been. For the first 15 years they were horrible, subject to drivability problems and most of the time disabled by the owners and (illegally) by repair shops out of necessity. So what was the net effect of forcing the auto manufacturers to adopt immature technology? 15 years of horribly engineered automobiles that polluted nearly as much as their predecessors. It wasn't until the widespread adoption of feedback fuel injection systems in the late 1980's that any real impact on exhaust emissions affected air quality were made. So now, with respect to diesel vehicles built since 2007, we are going through the same thing all over again. Owners disappointed with dealing with the headaches of DEF/SCR and DPF are simply disabling these systems at great cost. I don't have the answer but there has to be a better way. I don't do the things I do to my vehicle because of a sense of rebellion against the government or EPA. I do it solely for economic reasons and in the eyes of some people, that makes me a criminal no different than a bank robber.

Typically def systems restrict after warnings and going down through stages. The alternitve would be not allowing the engines at all, or implementing emmision inspections now, or after everyone is swimming in smog. Where there is emmision testing, the check engine light will indirectly stop you, it just takes up to a year. Who knows, in a few years manufacturers may have to start shutting down gas engines with emmision faults as well

That's why you pull the DPF, disable or remove the EGR and reprogram the computer to run like an actual diesel engine once the warranty is up or nearly up.
Every one who has deleted this garbage is reporting over 50% higher fuel economy.

If you don't live in or visit a smog problem area then there is no reason to have your vehicle armed with fuel economy murdering extreme NOx eradication equipment.

As far as EGR on gas engines, it usually helps improve fuel economy. But as with most things vehicle related, there are few if any one size fits all, or any one mod that will return the same result on everything.

They could ban diesel engines. Then tractor trailers would be getting like 2 or 3mpg.
Fuel consumption on hard working heavy movers would go from barely reasonable with diesel to catastrophic with gasoline.

...which is why they went with the def option

Wow good luck OP!

I work in the industry of emission controls.
 

Some of what you say is true, and some of it is just opinion and much if it is just wrong. But, your discussion is thoughtful and fruitful and is worth the time to read and digest. The readership hits attest to that, so please do not see my answers as being derogatory or undermining. I think you will agree we want the same thing - economical trucks that are clean and simply fun to drive. You approach the emissions problem from your point of view, whereas I see it as an opportunity for a business model that is growing beyond the AQMD region.

I will start with the rail industry. It has been discussed on this and other forums as to how efficient it is to move goods via rail. 450 Ton miles per gallon are just a starting point. No ship, plane or truck even comes close. Thus, it was not seen as one of the "low hanging fruit" targets. But, now it is. In the next few years, you will see fewer heavy polluting engines as the new and rebuilt engines will have increasingly stringent emission controls. The funny thing is, with almost 30 million people in the affected zone, the millions of tiny lawn mowers and weed whackers which have disproportionate emissions output for their size roughly equal the emissions output of the large rail heads which pass through Southern California. Due to the longevity of some of these devices and also the fact that there is no reasonable way to "test" for compliance, all the EPA can do is require all new devices to comply with the simple strictures of sealed fuel systems and tighter factory tuning for less emissions and allow , via attrition, the reduction of emissions from this source over a couple decade span! The emission improvements the rail companies will employ between 2015 and 2025 will see emissions output from rail engines drop below that of small motor sources in all criteria pollutants other than the controversial CO2. The increasing use of battery electric motors to replace the internal combustion engines that dominate the small engine industry may help alleviate the problem as long as Ecomodders leave some batteries for the lawn care guys.


And heavy duty trucks such as yours and mine and all the way up to Class 8 tractors were outnumbered roughly 100 to 1 by light duty vehicles, thus they were left alone for decades. By the mid 90's, cars were so clean that the output of one heavy duty truck roughly equaled the emissions from 200 cars. As light cars have become cleaner, this disparity has grown, and so heavy trucks came under scrutiny.

Emission controls for diesels is in its infancy.

Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) work and they work well. However, some problems with light duty drive cycles have given them a bad name. We have a 2008 Dodge Cummins 6.7 L diesel which has a DPF as a company truck. It has never needed a DPF cleanout as it's sole use is to tow a 20,000 pound trailer. The DPF constantly runs hot enough to purge itself without the purge cycle light going on. A lady on YouTube has the same vehicle and is getting names for a class action suit against Dodge and Cummins for selling a faulty vehicle. She is a soccer mom who never does any heavy towing. Her DPF is constantly running cool and cannot even initiate a purge cycle so the DPF clogs up and she is constantly at the dealer getting cleanouts. So, are DPF's faulty? Well, as Oil Pan 4 pointed out in another post, drive cycles has a lot to do with system effectiveness.

As to EGR ( Exhaust Gas Recirculation ) in diesel engines, the technology is mature, but the use by several manufacturers of EGR only diesel engines gave it a bad name. Again, our Dodge Cummins uses cooled EGR and a DPF to control particulates and NOx. As I pointed out above, if the DPF is run consistently hot enough, you can get 100-200K miles from it before clean out or replacement. Our truck is at 249K miles and is only down because an experimental engine is going into it - and it has never needed a DPF service. Much of it has to do with over all service of the truck. The injectors are inspected once a year as a precaution during top end adjustments. Drippy injectors cause poor economy and clog a DPF quickly. While that is done, we also have the EGR and turbo cleaned up and tested. Poor boost causes over fueling conditions and smokey engine output which quickly clogs the DPF. Now, the problem becomes the EGR. EGR causes an increase in particulates under certain load conditions even though it reduces NOx. This increase in particulates results in a loss of efficiency and power. There is no other way to say it, but "it bites".

Bring in Diesel Emissions Fluid (DEF) which is nothing more than anhydrous ammonia. It does not work by itself. It works in conjunction with a NOx trap. Nitrogen oxides are held by the trap's matrix until it is purged by conversion (reduction) of the NOx via decomposition of the ammonia into N2 and hydrogen and the hydrogen's reduction of the NOx to N2 and water. The inclusion of this system to a diesel engine allows you to now tune your engine for higher efficiency with less EGR along with a reduction in particulates. This means fewer purge cycles for the DPF and better fuel economy. However, you now have to deal with the costs and bother of another fluid.

So where can we go from here? Old Mechanic has repeatedly brought up the work of Transonic Combustion and their advanced injection system. Such a system will allow diesel combustion with little to no particulate production as well as such rapid combustion that NOx formation is minimized. All of this results in cleaner exhaust before any after-treatment is needed as well as improved power and economy.

As I have said, I don't fear emission controls, I relish it. Emissions tell me my engine is wasting energy in producing pollutants. By building an engine that minimizes pollutants internally, I can have an engine that is both more powerful and economical.

I like that!

The emissions era started with US auto manufacturers trying to add components to control emissions, like air injection, egr, pcv, and catalysts. In 1973 the driveability issues were soo bad they caused a lot of accidents with cars stalling and hesitating instead of accelerating. It was soo bad at the Chevy dealership, where I worked, we just let the car run for 3 minutes before even trying to put in gear and pull it into the shop, and those were brand new cars, not yet sold to retail customers.

3 months after the Chevy Vega was introduced our shop was replacing 40 engines a month. GM tried to blame it on prestone antifreeze. How many people drain the coolant out of a one month old car and add prestone antifreeze? The original small block introduced in 1955 burned so much oil (like a quart in 200 miles) that GM told their dealerships to "pour bon ami down the carburetor with the engine running to accelerate ring to bore wear". My grandmothers 1961 Olds, with chrome moly rings took 20k miles for the rings to properly seat when it stopped burning oil. Only us old farts remember that.

In the mid 70s Honda came out with their cvcc engine and Datsun (Nissan) came out with fuel injection in the 1975 Z cars (others before that), The 55 Mercedes Gullwing was direct injection as well as the DB 601 engine in the ME 109, dating back before WW2. Neither the Honda or Nissan had a catalyst and the 75-6 Z cars did not have egr, one of the first applications of DFCO even though the injection system, built under license from Bosch, was simulatneous, not sequential. I truly despised the emission controls of that era with the exception of Hondas and Nissans solutions.

As emission controls got tighter year after year it came to the point where true innovation like Hondas lean burn system could not pass NOX regulations, even though their CO2 emissions were at the same levels as modern hybrids. I never understood the rationale that allowed a 9 MPG gas hog to pass emissions while a VX was forced from the market due to the slightly too high NOX, which could have been cured if development had not been stifled by regulations that simply made no sense to me.

Today emission controls are fairly thoroughly integrated into the basic design of engines, but there are still significant improvements, of which transonic is one (my opinion), that hold the promise for finally building a "clean" engine that is clean by design and not by adding a bunch of crap to treat combustion by products. It only took 40 years, but recently the EPA actually revealed that air pollution in the eastern US has been significantly reduced, and the prevailing winds mean emissions from across the US eventually reach the east coast.

The issue was no really conscientous collaboration between unions, manufacturers and govt regulators and the cost was astronomical.

regards
mech

Not to mention scooters and to a lesser extent motorcycles. Can't understand why you can still buy a scooter that smells like a lawnmower.

If you like nanoparticles that bypass your lungs and go straight into your blood stream. At least with black smoke you can turn the a/c to recycle or hold your breath.

The problem is that if you want/ need a certain type of vehicle, nowadays you're being forced to buy diesel and diesel usually means a DPF. Most SUV's are turning to diesel only as are small pickups and all vans. My van is used only in the city, there isn't even a road that I can drive on fast enough to complete a regen on. One time I ended up doing 200km one night just to complete a regen. Overall I drove about an extra 5% just doing regens every 250km or so. Since discovering DPF cleaner actually works, which I need to add to every other tank, the problem is solved, but if you just buy DPF cleaner at the parts store (rather than the truck sized 5L bottle), it's awfully expensive. More over, the handbook for any DPF car I've ever seen makes no mention of DPF cleaner (except of course PSA which come with an onboard DPF cleaner tank), only to 'pull onto a motorway and drive the car at 2000rpm until the light goes out' (about 20mins)! How wasteful is that? Especially if you need to do that every 250kms, and I did my best to keep EGT's up where possible.

I fully expected DPF issues buying my TDi, but nobody makes a midsize petrol van anymore, excepting Toyota's archaic Hi-ace.

Also, as cars get more aerodynamic and get taller gears, legal highways speeds are no longer enough to keep DPFs hot enough to do passive regens in the latest euro diesel sedans.

Kenworth continued making petrol engined tractors into the 60's I believe, in mountain states these were preferred to diesels for their superior performance. No idea what the economy was like though :confused:

Back then the diesels were mostly non turbo and suffered horribly at higher elevation, couple that with extreme cold starts and gas would have been the better option.
With cold thin air I bet fuel economy could approach 2mpg.

My strongest complaint against the way the EPA monitors emissions is that it's based on emissions per volume, instead of emissions per mile.

Presumably, most people don't let their car idle through an entire tank of fuel, and further, they're more than likely going to be driving at least for the heavy majority of their fuel use... ergo, it makes more sense to determine a vehicle's emissions per mile figure, rather than strictly monitoring it's emissions under no load while idling and revving in a closed environment.

Further to that, while I do understand that the particular focus in on very few emissions types, I do /not/ understand why it's acceptable to waste fuel in order to reduce certain types of emissions... this just increases the other levels of emissions as well as overall consumption, part of what's helping to increase prices on fuel at the pump.

Fundamentally, fuel economy should always be the first and foremost among the battles. The less fuel you are using, the less emissions you have [although some levels of certain emissions may be higher than a vehicle using more fuel]. This, to me, says that we're going about the emissions battle incorrectly... cars that clearly are /capable/ of achieving 30-35 MPG are currently getting 20's... the difference between the two sets of mileage numbers, I'm sure would offset any additional emissions over the course of distance traveled, whereas at least part of the reason for the vehicle to currently get less than optimal mileage is because the test system is based on emissions per volume of spent exhaust, regardless of how far the vehicle might have traveled to produce that volume.

I too fail to understand the illogic behind it being ok to burn more, for drill, pump, transport, refine and transport 25% to 50% more fuel.

I guess it only makes sense if you are on the selling and tax collection end of the deal.