I admit it--I've deleted my emissions equiptment

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by slowmover

I read recently (here?) that the exhaust/aftertreatment on a new Dodge Cummins is worth as much, retail, as an entire Hemi replacement longblock plus 545RE transmission, or, about $15k. .

That's correct. I posted about what I read in Diesel Power magazine that the aftertreatment for Cummins' "light duty" 5.0L V8 engine cost as much as Dodge's entire gasoline-based powertrain.

Originally Posted by slowmover

Now, to just get them back to early HPCR or LB-7 mpg numbers!! IMO, the stupid horsepower wars are a real part of the problem with 1T pickup mpg numbers. One will note that the 4500/5500 series medium duty trucks are running more sane power numbers.

I definitely agree that the horsepower wars are stupid. Less than 5% of the customers for the diesel pickups (including myself) need anywhere close to the about of power these things put out. The newer diesel pickups are coming out of the factory with hp rating near or over 400 hp. 450 hp ratings are typical for Class 8 trucks for crying out loud!

Originally Posted by slowmover

The biggest question is whether the days of 350k B50 life are gone (for the CTD) and whether any of them are genuinely 250k engines any more . . direct injection/turbocharged gasoline is (will) make real inroads in light duty trucks, even at the heavier end of the spectrum.

Supposedly the Cummins 6.7L engine is still advertised at a 350k miles to first overhaul engine. Even with EGR, I'd say that still possible with proper maintenance, but is probably stretching it. All the aftertreatment stuff, however, is definitely not going to last that long. Frankly, I don't see too many owners replacing all that stuff 2-3 times, even if the engine itself is purring along just fine.

Originally Posted by slowmover

Reliability is the real issue. DD's truck is, in my mind, a bit like an experimental aircraft: modified to achieve an end somewhat outside the norm, thus no type certification. If reliability is improved, (nay, maintained) then the experiment is a success. Components can always be re-fitted at the proper time, after all.

I'll take the "experimental aircraft" comment as a compliment One thing to note, however, is that in all my mods I've tried not to compromise the capability of my truck to work as it's "intended to" (i.e. heavy towing, etc.). While some things like my grille block, for example, do limit my capability, I can completely turn my truck back to full working capablity in under 30 minutes. Anything that would limit the capability has been made easily reversible.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I took my old diesel and made it run cleaner.
Not sure if it makes more or less NOx with water injection

It should make less as the water vapor keeps peak temps down a bit and spreads the heat more evenly.

The steam also helps to reduce or clean out carbon deposits in the engine, which is also good.

Now I get nearly no smoke.

No smoke on a diesel means better combustion.
If you don't use that for increased performance, you should also see an improvement in FE.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by slowmover

The biggest question is whether the days of 350k B50 life are gone (for the CTD) and whether any of them are genuinely 250k engines any more . .

On this side of the Atlantic, the passenger vehicle diesels have shed their indestructable aura long ago .

direct injection/turbocharged gasoline is (will) make real inroads in light duty trucks

But introducing particle matter issues in gas powered cars !

[powerlifter405]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

Suprising as it may sound, I'm actually not as hard on "clean diesels" as you might think. The newer ones are much more reliable than when they first came out. I recently read an article in Light & Medium Duty Truck magazine where they did a study of truck fleet reliablity. 2007 MY trucks (first year in the US) were far worse than 2006 and previous, however, by 2010 most of the manufacturers had worked out enough of the issues to statistically bring the reliablility back to pre-2007 levels. Also, the overall FC is not a large hit because of all the other bells and wistles that have been added (VG turbos, common rail fuel injection, etc.).

So, in the end, we got vehicles that are much cleaner and have about the same reliablility and fuel economy, however they do cost a lot more. Also, "deleting" is very prevalent. I put up a poll over at cumminsforum.com. 200+ people responded and 60-70% had removed the emissions equitment--even in areas with inspections. I'm not necessarily saying that's representative of the general truck-driving population, but you still have to wonder.

Very true in several ways. The 5.9 has always been a reliable powerplant, the 7.3 was solid and it only took GM/Izuzu just a year or so to work the bugs out of the 6.6. The 6.0 has issues and I'm happy w/ the 6.4 so far as the CR and factory twins have made it a good setup powerwise but the emissions, for all of them killed mileage.

I could never understand the logic of going clean, which in turn increases fuel consumption, which still puts more matter out the tail pipe.

I would love to see figures of pollutants of 100 miles through an older honda civic lean burn and 100 miles on a new honda. The older models at 50-54mpg will burn 2 gallons whereas the newer honda may burn almost 3 1/3 gallons.

Is there that much of a pollutant differential between the two to offset the extra fuel burned by the cleaner/newer car? Plus, make that 100,000 miles of fuel and pollutant.
In theory that's 2000 gallons of fuel for the older hondas vs 3333 gallons of fuel.

The newer car needs 60% more fuel to go the same distance.

Does the newer car cut pollutants that much to not only make up the difference for pollutants, how about the OVERALL cost to get that fuel to the states?
What about to pull that oil out of the ground and actually make it?, etc, etc...

Looking at only whats coming out of the tailpipe is what the EPA and tree-huggers, are doing. Did I offend, probably, but its time to stop being PC. We have to look at the overall picture.

I'd really love to see, in hard data, how much benefits hybrids provide VS the land, resources, child-labor, etc.. it takes to make one due to the large battery system.

The materials to make Ni-metal hydride are just like oil, ARE NON-RENEWABLE. This wrecks the earth just as much as digging for oil.
There will always be a need for fuel, energy etc.. but as a whole, finding ways to be more efficient should be a common goal.
I think if we are burning less fuel in the long run, that is less cr@p out the tailpipe

Sorry for the rant, congrats in getting some better mpg out of the new Cummins. I've been trying to do the same for my 6.4.

[slowmover]

Is there that much of a pollutant differential between the two to offset the extra fuel burned by the cleaner/newer car? Plus, make that 100,000 miles of fuel and pollutant.

We tend to live in metro areas. And drive short distances. And idle. The local concentrations of air/water pollutants are the "killer". If we banned non-electric cars from metro areas (so to speak) then IC engines could be re-configured for those best able to use them.


Also, almost all my driving is in small towns and semi-rural areas

Same for Interstate highways . . a warmed-up vehicle well spec'd for its operation isn't "polluting" all that much (there will always be some . . . . ) Put freight back on trains (and electric trolley trucks for big regions), put passengers back on regional/national trains, etc, and further reduce the users needing IC vehicles.

.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by slowmover

. ) Put freight back on trains (and electric trolley trucks for big regions), put passengers back on regional/national trains, etc, and further reduce the users needing IC vehicles.

.

Agree there, roads wouldn't have to be fixed every year if we could get most of the semis off the road, why we move freight via semi from CA to NY makes no sense to me.

Not to mention why all freight must get delivered instantly, perhaps time to nick that bad habit in the but and pace our lives a little slower now that unemployment is so high.

[powerlifter405]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Is there that much of a pollutant differential between the two to offset the extra fuel burned by the cleaner/newer car? Plus, make that 100,000 miles of fuel and pollutant.

We tend to live in metro areas. And drive short distances. And idle. The local concentrations of air/water pollutants are the "killer". If we banned non-electric cars from metro areas (so to speak) then IC engines could be re-configured for those best able to use them.
.

My "arguement" if you will, is there that much of a reduction to live w/ the fact that you now have to burn 30% more fuel, for my given example? And what does that extra fuel requirement do to the environment? I think through increased efficiency that pollutants can be reduced but car makers aren't necessarily making them more efficient, just cleaner for the given amount of fuel they burn, thus increasing the amount of fuel that is burned, thus still increasing the output of pollutants.

I suppose, and i'm probably wrong, take the current pollutant output of a new 30mpg honda civic, and multiple that by 33%.

Now take a late 80's early 90's 50 mpg honda civic and see what the pollutant #'s are.

For the given rate of collection/sampling, either time or distance, is the new car at least 33% cleaner, for the life of the car? And I'm also trying to say, take into consideration the additional pollutants, oil spills, etc.. of producing, transporting and storing 33% more oil and fuel.

I know thats not a perfect answer or arguement but I'm just trying to think outside the box. I know some cities are cleaner and some older cars did put out a lot of cr@p into the air but if Honda could make a 50 mpg civic almost 30 years ago, wtf can't car makers get close now?? I don't understand it, maybe i'm being a conspiracy theorist

Also, almost all my driving is in small towns and semi-rural areas

Same for Interstate highways . . a warmed-up vehicle well spec'd for its operation isn't "polluting" all that much (there will always be some . . . . ) Put freight back on trains (and electric trolley trucks for big regions), put passengers back on regional/national trains, etc, and further reduce the users needing IC vehicles.

.

No doubt a warmed up vehicle is the way to go but even if we use block heaters all the time, there is still a fuel source, somewhere being burned up, to make the electricity.
True, we probably do under utilize trains for delivering goods but I doubt the masses would be willing to modify their daily schedule as much as it may be required.

I have been a bus passenger before and I had to go back to driving. It cost me over 2 hours of time out of my day, plus when i shop, i do purchase for the week or several weeks when possible. I currently live 1/2 mile from the fencing to the airport, however it still takes me nearly 45 min/1 hr to get home from the airport using the rail due to the time scheduling. If my flight gets in at 10 and I have no luggage, I'm still not home till 1 am due to the extended time delay.

Mass transit for some it may be doable but the masses no. I don't know a single mom or dad for that matter, who'd be willing to get their kids up hours earlier so she could get them on the rail, to school and get her self to work. Its just not feasible. Not everyone wants to have a 12-13 hour day. And before someone says take the school bus, it depends where you live. When I was in school I lived to close, 8 miles...... so I biked to school.

I've also had the luxury of traveling to some 3rd world countries and the subway system in Beijing is set up well but it takes me 7 bucks to get from the airport to city-center and 45 mins to do so in late morning w/ light foot traffic. Transportation in other countries is interesting, brazil, budapest, etc.. we have it good here. Fuel is cheap and our cars run extremely well compared to what i've seen around the world.

In a perfect world we'd work from home, teleport to places but it's just not gonna happen.
The next time someone who works for a living and they have a family says take the bus or rail. Try it and see if it is something you'd be willing to do it for a week, hell try a month. As I'd rather spend some extra $$ on fuel and spend more time w/ my family. In some regards it's a catch-22.

[powerlifter405]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Agree there, roads wouldn't have to be fixed every year if we could get most of the semis off the road, why we move freight via semi from CA to NY makes no sense to me.

Not to mention why all freight must get delivered instantly, perhaps time to nick that bad habit in the but and pace our lives a little slower now that unemployment is so high.

Unions and man power. At one point it was cheaper to drive (A friend of ours was a conductor/engineer and those guys were making 100k+ back in the 1990s vs 45K year for drivers (my dad was a local driver) plus the tree-huggers didn't like the smoke older diesel trains produced so many were taken off line. Lines became unusable and there were less trains to work.

As far as roads are concerned, It has to be a "mid-western" thing as the roads in TX, Kansas, etc. are AWESOME, florida, georgia good to go The extreme cold, moisture and winters up here cause the issues. It gets hella cold, heaving occurs and that tears up the roads not to mention that wonderful sodium/magnesium chloride mix great for paint jobs too.

Brazil nor did El Salvador have a lot of semis on the roads but their roads suck!
Truck traffic does take its toll but the trucking industry would take a massive hit w/ "get most of the semis off the road". It won't happen, never will.
1) Union is too strong.
2) The loss of driving jobs would cripple the economy horribly.
3) There are too many dock workers and truck drivers that couldn't pass the security clearances some rails require. I hear it's hard to get in.

Even then, freight still has to get moved locally. Can one even imagine how large the rail yards would have to increase if they just took 50% of the load? The man power wouldn't increase exponentially as there is a lot of automation but the room to store all the goods until it can be loaded onto a truck and the volume of truck traffic through the city centers where most are located

In all seriousness, Goggle rail yards in major cities and think if those folks want a 50% increase of trucks in and 50% out just through the limited roadways that are available. AND even w/ more roadways, you being from WI nows how long construction projects take. Hell, I've been here 5 years and the 62 hwy/I-35 interchange just is finished and it was several years in the making before that. The 494/169 interchange is 3 years in the making.
In El Paso, TX they finished a 23 mile stretch in under 7 years, 3 lanes wide in several places. Amarillo TX I-40 interchange through city center, 4 lanes n/s 3-4 lanes E-W, less than 2 years IIRC. San Antonio did a double decker in under 4 years through down town

Point being road work up here is very slow even when the weather is good.

OP sorry for being off topic.

[user removed]

Transonic Combustion | Ultra-high Efficiency Fuel Injection Systems

In the early 1970s when emission controls started to really kill power and performance, I always wondered why the engineers kept hanging crap on engines to make them run cleaner, instead of designing them to run clean without all the crap.

The supercritical direct injection seems to be the solution at this point in time. Maybe the finish line in the pursuit of homogenous ignition of the fuel air mix at exactly the same millisecond throughout the combustion chamber.

Assuming this is that scenario, then you need to make some other changes in the vehicle to allow for elimination of any idling whatsoever, as well as limiting engine operation to only the peak efficiency regardless of vehicle load. This calls for capacitive storage of short term energy surpluses, lower RPM high load operation, with a system that autmoatically compensates, without any loss in efficiency, for any aerodymanic improvements, or any other improvement that reduces average power requirements.

In 10 years we will see a vehicle with IC power that converts 60% of the energy content of the fuel into useful work.

regards
Mech

[powerlifter405]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Transonic Combustion | Ultra-high Efficiency Fuel Injection Systems

In the early 1970s when emission controls started to really kill power and performance, I always wondered why the engineers kept hanging crap on engines to make them run cleaner, instead of designing them to run clean without all the crap.

The supercritical direct injection seems to be the solution at this point in time. Maybe the finish line in the pursuit of homogenous ignition of the fuel air mix at exactly the same millisecond throughout the combustion chamber.

Assuming this is that scenario, then you need to make some other changes in the vehicle to allow for elimination of any idling whatsoever, as well as limiting engine operation to only the peak efficiency regardless of vehicle load. This calls for capacitive storage of short term energy surpluses, lower RPM high load operation, with a system that autmoatically compensates, without any loss in efficiency, for any aerodymanic improvements, or any other improvement that reduces average power requirements.

In 10 years we will see a vehicle with IC power that converts 60% of the energy content of the fuel into useful work.

regards
Badger

So true! Lets add misc cr@p to scrub away the stuff we don't want, lower hp and efficiency in the process so even more fuel is burned :doh:
DI in a CR setup is the next wave/current for diesels. On the stored energy systems, Cummins was working w/ the military for a hybrid diesel back in 05ish IIRC but nothing came of it. Also there is another system that uses the transmission and when slowing a coupler engages and begins storing energy, kind of like a rubber band (simplest analogy I could come up w/) and when the vehicle accelerates again, it releases the stored energy. Inner city test buses saw something like a 20% increase in economy. Theres ideas out there, lets hope they are practical and doable. I know I can't afford 50K or more for some of these fancy vehicles. In 2000 a 7.3 PSD loaded was 25-29MSRP now its 55K. We paid 10k for our 1989 F150 4x4, NIB out the door! Imagine the cost 10 years from now.