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.

 

[DeereMann]

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.

Yes, but those were/are passive catalysts. The diesel are active catalysts - they require constant dosing with Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF = urea) to operate. That requires feedback sensor & control, plumbing, computer, etc.

 

[kuboman]

There are no few sensors or computers on an egr engine. It just looks simpler thats all. And the looks here are very deceiving.

 

[calhoun9001]

I guess a better explaination would have been because we have no choice. The requirement are we meet a certain level of emmision, with that being said, the egr found its place. It is the most effecient way of acheving the end result. The end result being cost. The DEF system is much more expensive. I totally understand the lost of effeciency, but we have to meet emmisions. DEF system still use EGR so now I have to deal with EGR, plus DEF fluid wheres the gain? 1 gallon of DEF fluid for every 20 gallons of diesel? A hole another tank and injection system to worry about, plus a coulpe more sensors in the exhaust. Trust me I hate all of them.

 

[calhoun9001]

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

There's good reason Ford only made that engine 3 years. I've had the pleasure of working on this engine, I think engineers took a little of every technology and stuck it on this engine. Sorry to hear about your problems.

 

[DeereMann]

I hate it too. They took the most thermally efficient internal combustion engine there is & wrecked it in the name of "zero emissions". Yet diesels produced much less CO2 (greenhouse gas) than the spark-ignited engines, and used significantly less fuel (before fuel injection retarding schemes).

So once again, EPA is overzealous & not weighing total tradeoffs between all costs & all benefits of reducing ALL harmful emissions against other alternative engines & fuel consumption.

:hissyfit:

We have the best government that money can buy off (or be sued by puritanical environmental extremists).

 

[kuboman]

I guess a better explaination would have been because we have no choice. The requirement are we meet a certain level of emmision, with that being said, the egr found its place. It is the most effecient way of acheving the end result. The end result being cost. The DEF system is much more expensive. I totally understand the lost of effeciency, but we have to meet emmisions. DEF system still use EGR so now I have to deal with EGR, plus DEF fluid wheres the gain? 1 gallon of DEF fluid for every 20 gallons of diesel? A hole another tank and injection system to worry about, plus a coulpe more sensors in the exhaust. Trust me I hate all of them.

You are partially correct but the larger high hp diesels on many machines only use DEF except deere and Cat who will be using both systems. We are stuck with it for the time being but what goes around comes around and the EPA has gone way over the top and when all this equipment starts costing the economy billions in repairs I predict the present crap we have will disappear.

 

[genesusie]

I hate it too. They took the most thermally efficient internal combustion engine there is & wrecked it in the name of "zero emissions". Yet diesels produced much less CO2 (greenhouse gas) than the spark-ignited engines, and used significantly less fuel (before fuel injection retarding schemes).

So once again, EPA is overzealous & not weighing total tradeoffs between all costs & all benefits of reducing ALL harmful emissions against other alternative engines & fuel consumption.

:hissyfit:

We have the best government that money can buy off (or be sued by puritanical environmental extremists).

Let the aftermarket take over here. The vehicles reset up by such companies as "bully dog" have made tremendous power in Dodge & Chevy trucks. Some of the same applications can be applied to diesel tractors. Where ever there is a market to make money products will become available. It took a long time since the 70's and 80's till vehicles became reliable and were not gas guzzlers. The DEF system with fluid having to be filled $$$$$$$ sucks. Also sounds like DEF system is short lived. Hopefully tractors and diesel equipment will not take as long to evolve as gas engines did.

 

[Gator6x4]

Now I really really wish I coulda gotten a 1026r before they came out with the smog controlled 1025 ******** !!!

Some have said the only difference in the engine is the model year and horsepower badge. Last year 26 horsepower, this year 24 horsepower.

 

[Gator6x4]

If the DPF and other tweaks raise questions, one may consider looking at Mahindra. Some have said Mahindra redesigned there engines and do not use emission "Add On's" to get in compliance.

 

[kuboman]

If the DPF and other tweaks raise questions, one may consider looking at Mahindra. Some have said Mahindra redesigned there engines and do not use emission "Add On's" to get in compliance.

I like the sound of that if it is true.
I am convinced that we are being sold a bill of goods with this emission crap.