2008 F350 pull over safely message

[Gary Fowler]

That is some more of the high cost of ownership of a diesel that has to be figured in. SOME folks still think that they cost nearly the same to maintain as a gasoline engine which might be almost true of oil changes but the comparison ends there. A few pounds more in torque isn't worth the hassle of extra cost to buy, maintain and fuel over a good gasoline engine that will get nearly as good MPG as a diesel. I can pull my 20 foot carhauler with my almost 10,000 # tractor at freeway speeds with my 5.3L Z71 Chevy and get 10-11 MPG and 19 MPG highway with just the truck. It has plenty of power to pull up hills etc albeit downshifting to second gear when pulling steep hills but I think a diesel would also downshift. It would take a million miles or more to justify the cost difference for a diesel.

 

[Soundguy]

compairing a slightly older diesel changes that though gary. My 99 7.3psd ford has no dpf.. and no dpf problems...

 

[HappyOne]

And you wonder why so many people delete the DPF. I hear people say it will extend engine life on the 6.4's too. I have a job 3 2008. I drive very conservative to get better mileage. I am rewarded by the occasional Exhaust Filter Cleaning and the mileage goes down the tube.

 

[Buppies]

We got the same message with our F-450 turns out bad sensor but to replace got a new DPF filter now truck is fine

 

[Renze]

Wait untill these diesels get some mileage and start using some oil... Then DPF's are a nightmare. Various manufacturers such as FPT (Iveco), JCB, Mercedes, made a definate choice to avoid DPFs on their TIER 4 offroad engines.

 

[JasG]

Wait untill these diesels get some mileage and start using some oil... Then DPF's are a nightmare. Various manufacturers such as FPT (Iveco), JCB, Mercedes, made a definate choice to avoid DPFs on their TIER 4 offroad engines.

I believe what they avoided was EGR to control NOx, which causes increase in soot. In doing so they were able to create engines that only needed NOx after treatment, which is great for them.

Our EPA and CARB are to thank for the mess the US emissions are. Until 2009 EGR was mandated and then in 2009 they said they would allow SCR/DEF to be used. Until that point NOx had to be controlled with EGR. The changing rules and what not cause Caterpillar to drop on road engines all together. This has just about killed Navistar who was making engines for Ford until a couple years ago. Navistar is currently paying fines on engines using tech that the EPA developed to show that EGR could work.

 

[nc redneck]

I have a 2001 Chevy 3500 with switchable 50 HP to 250 HP custom programmer in it just hitting 55,000 miles. Also have 2013 3500 with about 2000 miles on it. The 01 will out run and out pull new one by far. The 13 has much better brakes and takes the weight of my 40 foot Toy Hauler much better, also sun roof and a lot of other stuff. I was disappointed to spend 60K plus on new truck to go slower, but stability and handling is far superior. If I was hauling around 8 thousand pounds I think I would go gas. Toy Hauler weighs 16,500 with golf cart and loaded for 2 weeks at the beach.
Hope this helps.

 

[Renze]

I believe what they avoided was EGR to control NOx, which causes increase in soot. In doing so they were able to create engines that only needed NOx after treatment, which is great for them.

JCB and Mercedes/MTU DO use EGR, but in lower amounts. They try to reach the optimum in which EGR reduces a great deal of NoX so little AdBlue (or DEF) has to be used, while reducing the increase of soot caused by EGR. only FPT has no EGR, which is penalized by a slightly higher DEF consumption. FPT has patented their SCR system, which will reach an efficiency of up to 95% where others struggle to achieve 80%

Our EPA and CARB are to thank for the mess the US emissions are. Until 2009 EGR was mandated and then in 2009 they said they would allow SCR/DEF to be used. Until that point NOx had to be controlled with EGR.

Is it really that EPA mandated the TECHNOLOGY of how to meet the emission target, or was it an industry consensus because DEF wasnt readily available at every gas station in the US ?

The changing rules and what not cause Caterpillar to drop on road engines all together. This has just about killed Navistar who was making engines for Ford until a couple years ago. Navistar is currently paying fines on engines using tech that the EPA developed to show that EGR could work.

I know about the Navistar debacle, but CEO Dan Ustian wanted to drive on his own views despite that his engineers said it couldnt be done. Thats why they replaced him, and immediately started adopting SCR technology from Cummins emissions technology, scrapped the biggest MaxxForce 15 project (road legislated version of a CAT C15 longblock) to replace it by a cummins.

If your engineers say it cant be done and even the EPA acknowledges that, why would a CEO run after a ghost ? Ustians fault, EPA just created the conditions for it to happen.

 

[jagyzf]

JCB and Mercedes/MTU DO use EGR, but in lower amounts. They try to reach the optimum in which EGR reduces a great deal of NoX so little AdBlue (or DEF) has to be used, while reducing the increase of soot caused by EGR. only FPT has no EGR, which is penalized by a slightly higher DEF consumption. FPT has patented their SCR system, which will reach an efficiency of up to 95% where others struggle to achieve 80%


Is it really that EPA mandated the TECHNOLOGY of how to meet the emission target, or was it an industry consensus because DEF wasnt readily available at every gas station in the US ?



I know about the Navistar debacle, but CEO Dan Ustian wanted to drive on his own views despite that his engineers said it couldnt be done. Thats why they replaced him, and immediately started adopting SCR technology from Cummins emissions technology, scrapped the biggest MaxxForce 15 project (road legislated version of a CAT C15 longblock) to replace it by a cummins.

If your engineers say it cant be done and even the EPA acknowledges that, why would a CEO run after a ghost ? Ustians fault, EPA just created the conditions for it to happen.

I think he is correct on it being madated, I remember Cat and a few others trying to get SCR back in the late 1990's but the EPA would only certify EGR. Or it would seem very strange to me that Cat drops over the road engines in 2009, and Navistar, Cat and Deere all have been using the EGR all this time. 3 of the largest engine builders all decide to go one way, without it being made to happen just seems strange.

Keep in mind the companies that switched right away including Cummins all have ties with companies already useing SCR.

 

[jagyzf]

Here is one story I found quickly about Navistar using EPA developed stuff to meet emissions.

Navistar Fined by EPA Over Technology Built With Agency - Bloomberg