Nissan Titan Cummins

[AGGIE00]

Add to that, more frequent oil changes, more oil to change, fuel filters to change on a frequent basis, and it really steals the thunder of a good diesel, much less, a weak one.

I don't understand this and the 3000 mile oil change interval for the cummins engine in 3/4 ton trucks. The cummins N14 that is in the International 9400 I used to drive some had a 14000 mile oil change interval. So why would the same, but smaller engine need oil changed every 3000? I decided to split the difference on my 07 6.7l cummins and change it every 10000. I cange my oil once to every three in a gasser.

 

[Renze]

The cummins N14 that is in the International 9400 I used to drive some had a 14000 mile oil change interval. So why would the same, but smaller engine need oil changed every 3000? I decided to split the difference on my 07 6.7l cummins and change it every 10000. I cange my oil once to every three in a gasser.

The N14 is an older engine that pre dates the EGR era. EGR makes your engine inhale its own soot farts, which ends up in the engine oil, contaminating it a couple of times quicker.
Next to that, on the N14 weight and size is less of an issue than in a pickup so the oil pan is much bigger, which maintains a more stable oil temperature, which aids oil life.

 

[AGGIE00]

The N14 is an older engine that pre dates the EGR era. EGR makes your engine inhale its own soot farts, which ends up in the engine oil, contaminating it a couple of times quicker.
Next to that, on the N14 weight and size is less of an issue than in a pickup so the oil pan is much bigger, which maintains a more stable oil temperature, which aids oil life.

What egr? What dpf? If I remember right the N14 held 15 gallons. Still, without the egr I think 3000 is excessive and am fine with 10000.

 

[ModMech]

A vehicle's OCI is dependant on load (fuel consumed) and oil capacity.

For most engines, you get something close to 550 miles per quart of oil capacity, assuming normal fuel burn of around 3500 gallons during the interval (big engine).

The N14 holds 10-11 gallons (40-44 qts), just like the S-60 and 3406, give or take a quart here or there.

550 mi/qt = 23,100 mile intervals for an N-14/S-60 which is about right unless you idle.

550 mi/qt = 6,600 mile intervals for a 7.3L or 5.9L with the 12 qt pan.

I prefer to use miles or hours, whichever comes first. 200 hrs for small diesels, 350 hrs or 6000 miles for LD engines and 550 hrs/25k for HD engines.

 

[handirifle]

Lots of good points there but the RUT (road use tax) on diesel is in most cases within a few cents of that for gasoline, there is no real savings to be had here and MOST of the fuel is burned by the "big rigs" that also do most of the wear and tear on our roads, so from my seat the tax as it is, is fair.

If the "greeines" were also intelligent, assuming of course the goal of clean air and water is noble - which I believe it to be, they would realize that DIS-incentivizing the purchase of newer and cleaner engines is a step in the WRONG direction. What "we" *should be* doing is offering incentives to trade in OLD equipment on new equipment.

But, almost 50% of the diesel sold in the USA goes to "off-road" uses. This includes the biggest single users, the Rail Roads. Guess what is not regulated or very loosely regulated? Yup, RR emissions! If you *really* want to clean up the air, regulate RR and ship emissions!

I think of this EPA BS like this.....

We HAVE an air quality problem, mostly because we use fossil fuels for transportation. About 50% of the transportation fuel is is consumed by the RRs and ship traffic and the service life on this equipment is typically 25-35 years.

The EPA is trying to clean up 100% of the air quality problem by STRICTLY REGULATING a small portion of the contributors (light, medium and heavy vehicles) which DISincentivizes investment in newer and cleaner vehicles.

If I have three people dumping oil in my well, two that dump a quart each and one that dumps two quarts I would be foolish to spend all my efforts on one of the two "one quart dumpers", but that is what the EPA is doing.

Myopic policy at best, stupid and very harmful at worst.

I agree, and good points. I wasn't aware of the percentages either. The greenies would like us to think it's the truckers and the 3/4 and 1 ton trucks that are dirtying up the air all by themselves.

Clean air is a noble goal, but there needs to be some realistic thoughts given. As long as we burn fossil fuels it will not happen, but electric cars/trucks are NOT the way out either. Too much toxic waste in batteries, especially lithium, and too much drain on already over worked (at least out here) electric power plants. AN 8hr charge will net you a 100 mile drive, IF you drive carefully, meaning pissing off about 10 people behind you as you SLOWLY take off from stop lights, and go from zero to sixty in 4 minutes. The plug it in again to watch the coal fired electric generators work. Now that is really smart.

 

[Ken]

I'm about to think there is 2 type of drivers on these posts.
The 2005 250 Ford I drive 4X4 now 250 th. miles and doesn't know the cattle trailer will come off. trips usually in the one way of 500 to 800 miles per trip. The color or preformance of truck isn't discussed. but reliabllty is the duro-max has injector problems rear end problems and sure rides nice.
The Ford just keeps running. pulling and making a living to pay the expenses.
Have a Dodge 2500 4X4 good truck same type of goose neck hook up pulling and when ever at a cattle sale or where a group of drivers are meeting never hear them talk about all the engine # just will it get the job done and is it able continue .Seldom is there a truck with engine chip to get better preformance. The main problems I hear about is brakes tires and cost of fuel.
When you travel with a load of cattle no one wants to be on side of road wondering when the tow truck is going to arrive.
If your tires never get dusty . drive with a egg under the foot feed. and travel 10 miles per hour less than posted speed limit. probally never leave the city limits. Why did you purchase a truck.
ken

 

[jinman]

But, almost 50% of the diesel sold in the USA goes to "off-road" uses. This includes the biggest single users, the Rail Roads. Guess what is not regulated or very loosely regulated? Yup, RR emissions! If you *really* want to clean up the air, regulate RR and ship emissions!

That's an interesting point and one I cannot challenge, but I would have said commercial aircraft use the most fuel. It ain't diesel, but it ain't much different. I would like to see an accurate comparison, but when you add military aircraft to that mix, I'd bet aviation is up there in use. Shipping, of course, has made many improvements and even the big tankers sit low and go slow to conserve fuel.

 

[jonyyuma]

Just a quick point, My son is in Air National guard here. That IS Diesel --in the cargo planes, that you see smoking....They buy it much cheaper than Jp-4..Jet fuel does not put out that much smoke....Railroad engine from the 50's are still running, with very few emission controls..I imagine the Tow boats here running the river , which i can hear from my home....Might have had a few updates??

 

[TractorRob]

...
But, almost 50% of the diesel sold in the USA goes to "off-road" uses. This includes the biggest single users, the Rail Roads. Guess what is not regulated or very loosely regulated?..

While not as tight as road diesels, locomotive diesel emissions ARE regulated, and the regulations are getting tighter:

EPA Locomotive Emissions Information page

 

[ModMech]

While not as tight as road diesels, locomotive diesel emissions ARE regulated, and the regulations are getting tighter:

EPA Locomotive Emissions Information page

Technically, you are correct, but as I illuded to in an earlier post the practicle application no locomotove built befroe 2008 has ANY emissions standard to meet - until it is "remanufactured" and I don't see anyone lining up to do that.

Additionally, the link you provide states in part:

"EPA finalized new requirements for nonroad diesel fuel that will decrease the allowable levels of sulfur in fuel used in locomotives by 99 percent. These fuel improvements will create immediate and significant environmental and public health benefits by reducing PM from existing engines."

That's not an emissions REGULATION but a FUEL regulation they feel will reduce emissions. One on-road operators have been living with since 1994!