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

[TSO]

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 mpg than the 7.3 Powerstroke in most cases. Im not saying the 7.3 is a bad engine at all. It was the best engine 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 expeirence is they are underpowered, and are less feul efficient than engines without this garbage pollution crap. :2cents:

I've heard good things about the C 5.9, just personal experience with trucks pertains to Ford & Toyota. We had a 7.3 in the past and it was great. I guess if I could drop a 5.9 in this truck, consider that as well if the day ever came.

Completely agree with you about the cows ... grass fed is the way to go!

 

[motownbrowne]

I agree, cows get a bad rap because of the way they are managed. Give 'em grass and you're better off all the way around.

I like the 7.3, but I'm partial to straight sixes. The older cummins have a great reputation, too bad the trucks fall apart around them. I'd love to have a 96 or 97 F350 4x4 longbed with a 5.9 cummins and a ZF 5 or 6 Speed. That'd be a truck. Or even put a 4bt, the 4 cylinder cummins in it and add a gear vendor.

And when we say that the 7.3 was the best Ford ever made, let's not forget about the 300 six. I have one in my F250 and it's incredible. I was searching for a 7.3 when I found it, but the 300 was so cheap and in great shape so I got it instead. The mileage is almost the same (I get 14 in town and 16-20 on the highway), obviously the power isn't close, but it does the job, just slower. Also, my oil changes cost $30 not $75. Before I bought it, I looked up the motor. Wikipedia says there are accounts of people trying to wreck them who couldn't do it. For decades they powered UPS trucks. My favorite was when I got an oil change one time and the tech said I was due for a timing belt. "we can do it today if you want" he said. Yeah, right. I'll pay you to do my timing belt, but you'd better save the old one so I can inspect it. That motor has timing gears, no chain, no belt. Obviously I didn't go back there.

 

[TSO]

I agree, cows get a bad rap because of the way they are managed. Give 'em grass and you're better off all the way around.

I like the 7.3, but I'm partial to straight sixes. The older cummins have a great reputation, too bad the trucks fall apart around them. I'd love to have a 96 or 97 F350 4x4 longbed with a 5.9 cummins and a ZF 5 or 6 Speed. That'd be a truck. Or even put a 4bt, the 4 cylinder cummins in it and add a gear vendor.

And when we say that the 7.3 was the best Ford ever made, let's not forget about the 300 six. I have one in my F250 and it's incredible. I was searching for a 7.3 when I found it, but the 300 was so cheap and in great shape so I got it instead. The mileage is almost the same (I get 14 in town and 16-20 on the highway), obviously the power isn't close, but it does the job, just slower. Also, my oil changes cost $30 not $75. Before I bought it, I looked up the motor. Wikipedia says there are accounts of people trying to wreck them who couldn't do it. For decades they powered UPS trucks. My favorite was when I got an oil change one time and the tech said I was due for a timing belt. "we can do it today if you want" he said. Yeah, right. I'll pay you to do my timing belt, but you'd better save the old one so I can inspect it. That motor has timing gears, no chain, no belt. Obviously I didn't go back there.

I had the Ford straight six in my first car, my 86 F150. Decent truck. Never pulled with it but it was a good fire-trail truck. Only problems were with the leaky valve cover gaskets, rusted oil pan (same thing on the 7.3) and the distributor cap would always allow too much moisture penetration and threw my spark off.

 

[DeereMann]

Ford I-6 300 cid was a rock. Couldn't kill 'em.

Interesting posts - is EPA killing off small diesels? Are SCUT's & CUT's being forced back to gas motors? :confused3:

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

I see Cummins and Deere already have come up with engines that meet the emissions requirements and have NO DPF or EGR. So hopefully they are on to something that will become more industry wide.

I believe they went that way for Tier 4a, but Tier 4 final they are going to be moving to DEF just like everyone else.

 

[DeereMann]

I believe they went that way for Tier 4a, but Tier 4 final they are going to be moving to DEF just like everyone else.

That is correct. Cummins already did when T4f hit on-highway trucks in 2010. Now it's off-highway's turn. The SCR/DEF is needed to hit T4f ultra low NOx engine exhaust limit. Then they need DOC/DPF to hit CO & PM limit.

 

[Jerry/MT]

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.

Your mixing apples and oranges here. The engine cycles have changed, in some instances displacement has changed, boost has changed, some even have dual turbo's. In some instances part of the changes are due to rpm increases.

Engine manuafacturers can always build a derated engine and then, after getting some experience with it, increase the fuel and boost the power a certain ammount making certain component changes that allow for increased loads and temperatures. Certainly they can increase the boost, improve the volumetric efficiency with multiple valves, etc

I might also point out hat 6+ liter engines are not necessarily "small engines".
I'm not negating the improvemnets you speak off but they are not due to large advances in "engine technology" but rather incremental improvement brought about with improved manufacturing technoloy and system integration.

 

[calhoun9001]

I have been working as a mechanic in the auto industry for 20 years. Over that time I have seen the end of the carburetor all the way to today's direct injected gasoline engines and hybrid's. I started working on diesel pickups when the 7.3 first came out. Over the years I've seen many advances in the diesel engine. With out a doubt today's diesel are far superior to the old Diesel engines I stared with. Just like with the gasoline motor, computer controlled engine are far more efficient then any mechanically controlled motor. Just like the computers we use every day that our outdated every 6 moths because of new faster processors. The same thing happens with Diesel engines. Every new tier that we go through you end up with a processor that is much faster then it's predecessor. You also end up with improved filtration at the oil and air end.
Take the old 7.3 PS and the new ford, Chevy or dodge and start them all when it 10 below out. I guarantee the 7.3 won't hit a lick unless it's plugged in. The new ones will start up and actually have power to drive them. I'm not a huge fan of any of the emission stuff, I think it's a joke on tractors. But from it has come some major improvements in the Diesel engine. It's also help me make a very good living.

 

[nspec]

Very well said.

 

[MHarryE]

I am not very familiar with diesel truck engines except to have learned from their mistakes. My product line in 1993 had a 4.4 liter engine that topped out at 107 net HP. Dirty, not very efficient, relatively low pressure injection compared to today. With Tier 3 that engine did get strengthened, improved induction, and up to 139 HP net. Now with Tier 4 interim it has common rail, multiple injections per power stroke, we use it to replace the 6 cylinders we had because it is now up to 175 HP, significantly better efficiency (better injection, burns all the fuel instead of creating smoke with the larger droplets lat don't fully burn), is also more efficient because of the reduced friction of 4 pistons sliding instead of 6, passive regeneration so unless you let it idle for a week you never need a regen. Mechanical engine noise reduced 60%. Starts unaided down to -25 instead of +10. Reduced oil consumption due to improved pistons and rings - allowing oil into the combustion chambers is a super polluter. The only thing that will hurt it is running high sulfur fuel. Sulfur reduction is not to reduce acid rain - sulfur coats DPF and SCR screwing up the whole system. With Tier 4 we replaced 6 cylinder engines on our larger machines so they are actually less expensive to build than the Tier 3, but we used the savings to upgrade other parts so they do not come at a reduced cost.

Now if you really love pollution so much move to China. The International School where our ISE's (International Service Employees) work is all enclosed under a dome so the pollution can be filtered out and the children can play like back in America. None of this wearing a respirator (even as little as the white mask) just to keep from coughing your lungs out. But even the Chinese are changing their ways and adding pollution control requirements because the people demand it.

I admit to have become a whimp as far as polluted air. I have no problem when I get off a plane in the emissions controlled countries like Western Europe, Japan, and North America. My first trip to Mexico, however, was enlightening. Step out of the terminal and I found myself gasping for breath in the taxi area. They were as bad or worse than riding heavily used snowmobile trails in America, something I had to give up several years ago because my lungs said, "No More!"

Poor engineers? We like a challenge. But we also screw up, especially when beat to death by bean counters. Still I remember my dad coming in at night after running our TD-6 International all day - soot curls covering his clothes, face black with soot. Low pressure injection, poor fuel burn, but farming was our living. I feel glad I can help make it so people today don't have to go through the surgeries my dad did - a non-smoker who was told to get out of farming and find a new occupation at age 56 because he had the lungs and other problems of a heavy smoker although he never smoked.