Pros/cons of tier 4?

[calhoun9001]

Burning 30% exhaust gas in a diesel just seems counter productive to me. Adding some pee into the exhaust and running the diesel the way they were meant to be run seems like a better idea. jmho

There's nothing counter productive about burning exhaust gas, your actually lowering combustion temps and reducing NOX. That 30% void of exhaust gas means less fuel is used for combustion. With ECU controlled direct injection the small amount of fuel used for regen and loss of HP would hardly be noticable. In the 80's uncle sam passed laws on emmisions and we ended up with a mess of pollution controls on those vehicles, took the OE years to figure out simpler ways to meet those requirements. We are in the same boat now. There will be a lot of new technology in the next 10 years.

 

[MattLynch]

With my truck I averaged 12l/100km highway and 22l/100km in regen. Went into regen for 30 min ish twice per tank of fuel. That made one **** of a difference in fuel milage. I am also sure I would loose at least 50hp, probably more. Almost burned the barn down once and lit a bale of hay on fire in the field due to hot exhaust during regen.

 

[calhoun9001]

With my truck I averaged 12l/100km highway and 22l/100km in regen. Went into regen for 30 min ish twice per tank of fuel. That made one **** of a difference in fuel milage. I am also sure I would loose at least 50hp, probably more. Almost burned the barn down once and lit a bale of hay on fire in the field due to hot exhaust during regen.

What kind of vehicle do yo have?

 

[MattLynch]

09 f250 w 6.4. Installed a spartan tuner and dp back exhaust and get about 15 percent better milage at stock power level.

 

[kuboman]

Someone please explain to me how making an engine less efficient by burning exhaust is good. It is kinda like eating ones crap!!!

 

[genesusie]

Does EPA cover DEF repair cost after warranty expires? No

With one's tractor you have the option to not replace the DEF. Some may require aftermarket parts and adaption. But road vehicles need all the emissions crap to pass the state inspections check.

 

[genesusie]

Someone please explain to me how making an engine less efficient by burning exhaust is good. It is kinda like eating ones crap!!!

It becomes more efficient at emptying your fuel tank at a faster rate in less time.......!

 

[kuboman]

It becomes more efficient at emptying your fuel tank at a faster rate in less time.......!

Oh I get it now, burning more fuel, creating more pollutants, getting less hp and spending more money. Gotcha:laughing::confused3:

 

[DeereMann]

It becomes more efficient at emptying your fuel tank at a faster rate in less time.......!

Exactly. But - that was for EPA Tier II & III. i.e. - EPA lowered the NOx only, but not the HC, CO, PM. With EPA Tier IV, they lowered all of them, such that engine manufacturers threw in the towel & went back to advance fuel injection timing to lower the HC/CO/PM, then added the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) & Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) to lower the NOx. So - the large Tier IV engine fuel efficiency has come back up, but at the expense of all the exhaust aftertreatment equipment. The Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF = urea) needed to run the SCR isn't very expensive - but the plumbing & dosing controller is.

So - to make a diesel engine near zero exhaust emissions (i.e. - purely H2O & CO2 only), it takes all of this stuff - more than a spark-ignited engine needs = $$$$$

BTW - they still have a DOC/DPF to get the HC/CO/PM all the way down to the very low Tier IV limits.

Our little engines don't need SCR because EPA Tier IV for small diesels is much higher NOx limit than larger diesels.

 

[Bob77064]

I remember back in the early 70's when the catalytic converters first starting going on the gas engines. There were lots of problems for several years, then they got much better. Hopefully the emissions controls we are seeing now on the diesels will improve too.