Diesel emissions

chim · Nov 30, 2018

For Kubota, I'm pretty certain the models identified as XX60 were the first to have DPF and regen. I had been looking for a slightly larger replacement for a B7500 and bought my L3200 in 2012 to avoid the Final Tier IV stuff.

rScotty · Nov 30, 2018

So is your L3200 an EGR type? EGR is less complex than DPF...less stuff to go wrong and less expensive. But also arguably not as good for engine longevity.

Both systems would seem to be fairly easy to disconnect.

So if you don't like emission controls and it really does seem to be a bother for some folks, then why not just disconnect the EGR and DPF systems? I understand that the air belongs to us all, but really....what's the difference between doing that and allowing them to buy an older machine with a pre-emissions control engine?
rScotty

ruffdog · Nov 30, 2018

Here is a very good site explaining the Tier 1-4 timeline for different products:

Emission Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines

Milo · Nov 30, 2018

rScotty said:
......So you have to go back at least 10 years to get to a place where engine efficiency was more important than emission control.
If that is your goal, look for something without EGR as well as without DPF. But you may not like the fumes very much.
luck,
rScotty

And I would think the fact those engines were not designed to run on today's ultra low sulphur fuel could also be a negative.

Oldoak · Nov 30, 2018

Getting back to the original question:

chim said:
For Kubota, I'm pretty certain the models identified as XX60 were the first to have DPF and regen. I had been looking for a slightly larger replacement for a B7500 and bought my L3200 in 2012 to avoid the Final Tier IV stuff.

I believe you are correct. The Kubota XX60 series appeared on the market in 2015.

Only time will tell if the emissions system will be problematic on my new Kubota L5060 GST which I purchased just this past Spring.

[Both systems would seem to be fairly easy to disconnect.

So if you don't like emission controls and it really does seem to be a bother for some folks, then why not just disconnect the EGR and DPF systems?/QUOTE]

I don't think it is quite as simple as that.

Jstpssng · Nov 30, 2018

Milo said:
And I would think the fact those engines were not designed to run on today's ultra low sulphur fuel could also be a negative.

I never found that to be a problem, and my 1984 L275 certainly had no emmision controls. What I did notice was that it smoked a lot less with the new low sulfur fuel. As for fuel economy, my old tractor burned just two quarts of diesel per operating hour. My Tier 4 2015 L3301 with 6 more hp also burns just the same amount.

Corkpuller · Nov 30, 2018

Ahh yeah, the ole EGR valve.
They could be a pain in the butt on the vehicles when they first came if I remember right.

All good info, thanks fellers!

rScotty · Nov 30, 2018

Milo said:
And I would think the fact those engines were not designed to run on today's ultra low sulphur fuel could also be a negative.

I would have thought so too. But So far that is turning out to not to be the problem it was initially thought to be. If there are changes in the engine construction or alloys the knowledge hasn't reached the tech literature - or at least I haven't seen it....which makes me think that any engine alloy changes were minor if at all. And yet there doesn't seem to be a lubricity problem with the ULSD fuel.

My guess is that the diesel refiners are adding lubricity back into the fuel to replace that inadvertently removed when the sulphur is extracted to make the fuel ULSD. They would almost have to do so to protect their fuel market share with the big users like truckers and heavy equipment.
Either that, or else it may be that everyone is adding some lubericant additive themselves. Most of the tractor and pickup guys I know use additives at least part of the time.
rScotty