New tractor - any tier 4 issues (DEF, etc)?

[DeereMann]

Maybe I'm thinking of Gin... I know one of them gets syrupy.

I think of vodka as the last step to gin. :knockout:

Maybe use Everclear in the DEF tank & Rumpleminz in the freezer?

 

[tcartwri]

I think of vodka as the last step to gin. :knockout:

Maybe use Everclear in the DEF tank & Rumpleminz in the freezer?

mmmmm bad memories with everclear.... devil drink.

 

[F3506]

Well as long as everyone else is veering a little off topic, kind of....

I did a fair amount of research on these Tier IV emissions and this is what I have gathered for the most part. There is a lot of claims out there that tractors that are Tier IV are getting better fuel economy. After that the benefits stop for the most part.

Are they really getting better fuel economy, or did it come back up to where it should be after the drop in Tier 3?

In order to meet emission standards they are running with DPF filters and DEF fluid. The DPF filters aren't so much of an issue with the larger tractors except for creating excessive heat but are at least ran long enough typically for the regeneration to work. A lot of CUTS just simply are worked long enough or hard enough to have the recirculation system to work. I believe JD quotes that the Exhaust emission syst. is good for 5k hours before needing factory service but don't quote me on that.

Makes you wonder if gas engines will make a come back in the compact tractor category.

I believe the Tier emission standards to be a good thing. In the past 10 years a lot of manufactures have been able to double hp and torque with smaller engines through technology at least with Tier 1 thru Tier 3. From when the emission standards came into effect the initial pollution output of diesel engines was 500 ppm. Up to Tier 3 engine redesign and mainly fuel refinement has got that down to about 40 ppm. Now tier 4 further cuts it down to 15 ppm. Tier 4 is nominal decrease in pollution with a whole bunch of technology to make it happen.

The problem becomes, you can only go so low before further reductions get astronomically expensive.

....
The diesel engine manufacturers over the past 15 years have made remarkable advances. A Powerstroke today puts out twice the HP and torque than the 7.3 did back in the early 2000's yet is a smaller motor. You would think that todays trucks would be getting twice the fuel mileage but there is so much back pressure in the system to meet emission standards these motors are literally fighting against themselves and it sucks up the fuel economy.

I always thought fuel economy should have played into emission standards.

I'd love to bash the EPA (and democrats since it seems to ruffle a few feathers :laughing, but the reality of the situation is, that argument had some merit before the EPA allowed the manufacturers to use DEF in their engines. The 6.4 powerstroke was a great example of emissions choked power that got worse than pathetic fuel economy. The new 6.7, while plenty powerful in stock form compared to the 7.3, doesn't see any miraculous improvements in fuel economy when all the emissions stuff is removed. As a matter of fact, I know a powerstroke mechanic who ordered a brand new 6.7 and promptly removed all the emissions stuff and put a DPF delete tune on his truck. He gets about the same MPG's as my old 7.3 does. Granted his fuel economy per hp wins, but for $/mile actual cost, I'm so far ahead of him he'll never be able to catch up.

The world of politics gets more distressing the more one is exposed to it. But one has no choice but to try & fight, otherwise we will all be living in thatch huts again.

What we found is that Congress authored, and updated, the U.S. Clean Air Act that REQUIRES the EPA to act. The EPA has no choice -

Can't argue about the distressing, or depressing for that matter, part. But one could argue just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it has to be enforced. Take for example the Federal drug laws on things like marijuana. Not exactly being enforced by the federal government even thought he law would require them to do so.

 

[robstaples]

Boy, with all the EPA and vodka, I'm not sure I should comment about my new Kubota B3350 with dpf. Clearly, there are some startup issues. Mine stopped dead in its tracks in the middle of the icy road in from of my house as I was snow blowing. I towed it back to my driveway and waited. Dealer came out today and ran computer to computer diagnostics. It shut down because it thought some temperature was 800+. Mine doesn't regen. It tries but can't. Maybe, no fuel getting to the Dpf. Going back to dealer shop for more testing. Conclusion: complex system that has a few bugs. Someone on another thread mentioned his stopped. I think my issue is Software and a day-one flaw. I'll let you know what they find.
For those that didn't know, the regen cycle is air and fuel are injected into the dpf and it burns in the catylst section and gets hot to burn out the particulate. Carbon mostly. Mine has tried to regen 4 times without success. Not sure what this process does to long term fuel economy.

Whose got that frozen Vodka? I'm ready!!

 

[super55]

DEF does not freeze at 12 deg F. That is the temperature it starts to change state much like when you stick Vodka in the freezer. I have never seen frozen DEF even at temps below -10 F.

Do you know if they make a special cold weather DEF like they do with winter blends of diesel? The information I had found from a DEF manufacturer told me it would. I apoligize if I may have misinformed the readers. It's very possible every DEF producer is putting out different specs.

FAQ Diesel Exhaust Fluid

 

[tcartwri]

Do you know if they make a special cold weather DEF like they do with winter blends of diesel? The information I had found from a DEF manufacturer told me it would. I apoligize if I may have misinformed the readers. It's very possible every DEF producer is putting out different specs.

FAQ Diesel Exhaust Fluid

As far as I know it is a standardized product. We run it in our Passat and get refills from the dealer in what look like 1 Litre pop bottles.

 

[super55]

Super 55 said, "I believe the Tier emission standards to be a good thing. In the past 10 years a lot of manufactures have been able to double hp and torque with smaller engines through technology at least with Tier 1 thru Tier 3."

Are you trying to say that for the same compression ratio, engine displacement and turbo boost(if applicable), horspower and torque have been doubled? Can you please give examples!

They haven't quite doubled unless you go 15 years back so that is a false but have gotten pretty darn close.

Powerstroke 7.3 liter (2003) 275 hp @ 2800 RPM 525 ft/lb torque @ 1600 RPM
6.7 liter (2013) 400 HP @ 2800 RPM 880 ft/lb torque @ 1600 RPM
7.3L Power Stroke Specs

Cummins 5.9 liter (2003) 275 hp @ 2700 RPM 460 ft/lb torque @ 1700 RPM
6.7 liter (2013) 385 hp @ 2800 RPM 850 ft/lb torque @ 1700 RPM
Cummins Diesel Specs | 5.9L & 6.7L Cummins Specs & Tech

Duramax 6.6 liter (2001) 235 hp @ 2700 RPM 500 ft/lb torque @ 1600 RPM
6.6 liter (2011) 397 hp @ 3000 RPM 765 ft/lb torque @1600 RPM
Duramax Diesel Specs | 6.6L Duramax Diesel Resource

Regardless I think everyone can agree these increases in HP and torque are significant by any standards. Typically to get these kind of increases engine displacement was always increased but they have managed to make them smaller and get more power out of them through turbos, increased compression, computer assisted fuel rails, more valves etc.

These guys that go and put DPF delete kits on their trucks are even getting more hp and torque than what the manufacturers are kicking out usually resulting in fuel increases of up to 5 mpg or what what their predecessors such as the 7.3 got originally.

The big push was to initially reduce the sulfur output due to acid rain. In 2011 diesel went to 500 ppm sulfur (low sulfur) to ultra low sulfur 15 ppm. This fuel is literally a 100 times less sulfur content than what diesel was kicking out as recently as the early 2000's.

This fuel runs just almost as good in an old diesel with out the technology as a new diesel so why do we have to further increase emission standards on new engines by going after large particulates that reduce the fuel economy.

I kind of feel for the engineers. It seems no matter what they do it is not good enough.

 

[art]

Tier 4 emissions took us over the hump or should I say got some off the hump! For tier 3 many just retarded the timing of the engines to meet those standards and diesel or gas that hurts performance. With indirect injection having the plus of a cleaner burn by design there first step, least cost was for the converters and burns. With direct injection what we've seen is a big boost with the def as they were able to advance the timing giving more power. The direct injection systems with the converters still had to be left retarded to get the results required leaving a big difference in fuel economy as well as power.
Some manufactures went back and updated to the DEF after the initial release of their new models and we all know that is not cheap.

Tier four tractor engines run clean, so clean that if in NYC the air going in is dirtier then coming out! Don't get any ideas of plowing our wonderful city under now!

 

[TSO]

They haven't quite doubled unless you go 15 years back so that is a false but have gotten pretty darn close.

Powerstroke 7.3 liter (2003) 275 hp @ 2800 RPM 525 ft/lb torque @ 1600 RPM
6.7 liter (2013) 400 HP @ 2800 RPM 880 ft/lb torque @ 1600 RPM
7.3L Power Stroke Specs

Cummins 5.9 liter (2003) 275 hp @ 2700 RPM 460 ft/lb torque @ 1700 RPM
6.7 liter (2013) 385 hp @ 2800 RPM 850 ft/lb torque @ 1700 RPM
Cummins Diesel Specs | 5.9L & 6.7L Cummins Specs & Tech

Duramax 6.6 liter (2001) 235 hp @ 2700 RPM 500 ft/lb torque @ 1600 RPM
6.6 liter (2011) 397 hp @ 3000 RPM 765 ft/lb torque @1600 RPM
Duramax Diesel Specs | 6.6L Duramax Diesel Resource

Regardless I think everyone can agree these increases in HP and torque are significant by any standards. Typically to get these kind of increases engine displacement was always increased but they have managed to make them smaller and get more power out of them through turbos, increased compression, computer assisted fuel rails, more valves etc.

These guys that go and put DPF delete kits on their trucks are even getting more hp and torque than what the manufacturers are kicking out usually resulting in fuel increases of up to 5 mpg or what what their predecessors such as the 7.3 got originally.

The big push was to initially reduce the sulfur output due to acid rain. In 2011 diesel went to 500 ppm sulfur (low sulfur) to ultra low sulfur 15 ppm. This fuel is literally a 100 times less sulfur content than what diesel was kicking out as recently as the early 2000's.

This fuel runs just almost as good in an old diesel with out the technology as a new diesel so why do we have to further increase emission standards on new engines by going after large particulates that reduce the fuel economy.

I kind of feel for the engineers. It seems no matter what they do it is not good enough.

How many of us would still prefer that reliable, powerful, efficient old 7.3 tho? I know I would, in a heartbeat!

I'm waiting for my 6.8L v10 gasser to die (though it's running perfect at 159k) ... and if that day comes, I might look into dropping in a crate 7.3 if that's possible. Really like my v10 and it has plenty of power, but the MPGs are awful, especially compared to that 7.3.

I feel that the new Tier 4 emissions standards are yet another knee jerk remain by impulsive energy zealots, and the cost to benefit ratio is definitely not in our favor.

Commercial Livestock production pollutes the air just as much, if not more ... someone needs to stick a tier 4 then canister I the rear of a cow and see if that helps

 

[Green Power]

How many of us would still prefer that reliable, powerful, efficient old 7.3 tho? I know I would, in a heartbeat!

I'm waiting for my 6.8L v10 gasser to die (though it's running perfect at 159k) ... and if that day comes, I might look into dropping in a crate 7.3 if that's possible. Really like my v10 and it has plenty of power, but the MPGs are awful, especially compared to that 7.3.

I feel that the new Tier 4 emissions standards are yet another knee jerk remain by impulsive energy zealots, and the cost to benefit ratio is definitely not in our favor.

Commercial Livestock production pollutes the air just as much, if not more ... someone needs to stick a tier 4 then canister I the rear of a cow and see if that helps

What is so bad about a 5.9 Cummins? Everyone seems to think they run better. And it seems that in most cases that the 5.9 Cummins gets better fuel economy than the 7.3 Powerstroke. I"m not saying the 7.3 is a bad engine at all. It was the best engine diesel Ford ever made.

On the topic of the cows. Why don't we give the cows 15-20 acres each and let them eat grass instead of feeding them corn and spreading ecoli, and creating i putrid reek. Done with my cow rant.


On tier 4 engines my personal experience is they are underpowered, and are less fuel efficient than engines without this garbage pollution crap. :2cents: