DEF going away ?

[deezler]

Sorry I couldn't show all the warning lights ... Here is most of them from the manual ...

I'm not sure what the CEL is for, I'll call in the morning to see, my shop can look in the computer and see what the problem remotely ... Then decide if it's serious, and start looking for a place to get me in ... When it came on this morning, I was on a hot load to McAllen, TX, now I'm waiting to get loaded in Brownsville ...

Thanks for sharing the manual pages. Lotta unique warning lights on that sucker haha. Hopefully you never see that "emissions de-rate" one light up?

I bought this affordable scan tool for run codes on my Kioti tractor, but it should be able to pull your J1939 codes and if you wanted to keep one in the cab and scan it yourself! Because I agree, its really nice to quickly know if something is serious or not.

AutoLink AL529HD | Autel

autel.com

 

[Torvy]

600HP diesel engines are great….especially when diesel fuel is $4.39 a gallon
Easy to see you don’t own a business…

Just saw road diesel for $2.99 - 15 miles from here. Typical prices around here are $3.10-3.15.

 

[Shawn T. W.]

No, it's not. Not at all, honestly.

https://www.cummins.com/engines/x15-performance-series-2024

A Cummins X15 makes full torque at just 1,000rpm. Depending on your X15 rating, it can already be making over 400HP at 1200rpm. To pull 80,000 lbs on flat ground at highway speed, you only need 150-200 HP depending on your aerodynamic profile. So cruising along at 1200 rpm, you are normally under 50% load with lots of extra power/torque available for hills or passing. And of course, you can downshift to get to peak power as needed.

Modern HD diesel engines are a real marvel of engineering. I'm privileged to get to dyno test them daily.

Well ... I drive lots of roads that are far from "flat" ... And lots of time it's well above the 70% torque range, although it has never gone above 88%, even with the pedal on the floor, or cruise control set at governed speed, pulling a hill ... And psi boost usually 18 or higher, don't recall seeing more than 22 psi of boost ever ... If it gets it's way, it likes to shift to grab the next gear at 800 - 900 RPM, then it struggles along! If I can lick it into gear, and keep my foot on the floor, I can get it up to 1500 RPM, then unlock it, and let it shift, but sometimes it "skip shifts"!

You may know this, but others may not ... All vehicle "manufacturers" are actually "assemblers", just like the data tag on my engine says "assembled in USA" ... Just like the PACCAR engine assembly plant in Columbus, MS that I haul parts from all over into, and haul out the "assembled" engines ...

Here is a load of radiators for Kenworth in Chillicothe, OH ...

Probably 1/3 of all our freight has something to do with PACCAR ... Due to security I can't say what I have on now, but it's being paid for by PACCAR ... We haul for the Kenworth assembly plants in both Chillicothe, OH, and Mexicali, Mexico, and Peterbilt in Denton, TX ...

 

[Snobdds]

Yep, lug away. Modern internal combustion engines can run fine at any speed and load combination. We test them across the full load and speed range, in a variety of durability and endurance cycles, but also steady state mapping, including checking things like real-time oil consumption, blow-by, efficiency, internal friction and more.

Basically, it's up to the operator. Run it however you want; but ideally paying attention and listening/feeling to your engine performance. And of course performing all required maintenance on time.

Lugging an engine for efficiency is dumb. Nobody does it in real world situations. It might work in a lab, but the lab in not out there in the elements and traffic.

You know that.

 

[deezler]

Lugging an engine for efficiency is dumb. Nobody does it in real world situations. It might work in a lab, but the lab in not out there in the elements and traffic.

You know that.

I mean, I know what you are saying. But that's old school thinking, we've solved the primary issues that led to your (valid) belief structure.

All engines and transmission combos are generally programmed with "downspeeding" in mind now. My F150 has a 10-speed transmission and tries to cruise down the road at under 1500rpm at all times. It will even run at just above 1000rpm at times. I generally let it - except on the highway I occasionally block 10th gear to avoiding it going high boost to maintain uphill speed.

Here's an example in the image below: Imagine needing a set amount of power to cruise down the road. Start on the right side of the BSFC plot. Let's choose an arbitrary power level, say 30 kW. As you can see, at high engine speed like 3500rpm, your engine efficiency performance would be roughly 350 grams of fuel per kW-hour. But if you upshift and now run that same 30kW load down at 2000rpm, your efficiency improves dramatically, now just consuming under 250 grams of fuel for the same kW-hour of work. The explanation behind this is pretty obvious, engines breathe better at higher loads, and internal frictional losses go up with engine speed. Running at lower rpm's is always more efficient. You just need to make sure you don't end up at the top line of 100% load, or induce excess vibrations, etc.

 

[dnw64]

You may know this, but others may not ... All vehicle "manufacturers" are actually "assemblers"

I am a Porsche aficionado (have a 20 year old one - that is, old enough to be cheap, not so old as to be expensive). I/we did a tour of the museum and factory in Zuffenhausen (Stuttgart) a few years ago and was shocked - SHOCKED, I tell you! - to find that even Porsche is, OK, a bit more than just assemblers, but still "just" (not to minimize them) designers, engineers, specifiers, and assemblers. The only thing I saw at the factory that was actually made from semi-raw materials*, was the interiors/upholstery. EVERY SINGLE OTHER THING, including the body/chassis itself, was outsourced.

*they didn't, as far as I could tell, grow their own cattle and cotton. I think maybe Rolls Royce goes about that far, at least for cattle - can't have any barbed wire marks on the skins now...

 

[dnw64]

I don't recall how I worded it but what I meant to imply, and is still just clearly true, is that the emissions systems technology is robust and reliable.

...and we have the technology to put a man on the moon. Hasn't happened recently though. Can't figure out why.

To put it in simple terms, just because you CAN doesn't mean it's FEASIBLE from a cost standpoint.

I believe hydrogen was mentioned earlier in this thread. Possible? Yes. Feasible? No.

Not mentioned: nuclear FUSION. Possible? Yes. Feasible? Not even for anything but a proof of concept.

Oh, and did you hear about the perpetual motion machine that the Mayans developed before Columbus? It's really too bad the plans got buried under umpteen quadrillion tons of ash from that untimely volcano.

 

[rScotty]

I mean, I know what you are saying. But that's old school thinking, we've solved the primary issues that led to your (valid) belief structure.

All engines and transmission combos are generally programmed with "downspeeding" in mind now. My F150 has a 10-speed transmission and tries to cruise down the road at under 1500rpm at all times. It will even run at just above 1000rpm at times. I generally let it - except on the highway I occasionally block 10th gear to avoiding it going high boost to maintain uphill speed.

Here's an example in the image below: Imagine needing a set amount of power to cruise down the road. Start on the right side of the BSFC plot. Let's choose an arbitrary power level, say 30 kW. As you can see, at high engine speed like 3500rpm, your engine efficiency performance would be roughly 350 grams of fuel per kW-hour. But if you upshift and now run that same 30kW load down at 2000rpm, your efficiency improves dramatically, now just consuming under 250 grams of fuel for the same kW-hour of work. The explanation behind this is pretty obvious, engines breathe better at higher loads, and internal frictional losses go up with engine speed. Running at lower rpm's is always more efficient. You just need to make sure you don't end up at the top line of 100% load, or induce excess vibrations, etc.

View attachment 4574440

We work our old pre-emission tractors at a fast idle, usually 1000 to 1500 rpm.
It's very hard to find a utility tractor these days that is designed to run at a reasonable (low) RPM.
Most operating manuals say to run them close to full rated RPM.

 

[Shawn T. W.]

My 2021 GC 1725 MB rear 540 PTO needs 2900 RPM, redlines at 3100 RPM.

My 2005 Kubota Grand L 5030 rear 540 PTO needs 2700 RPM, redlines at 2700 RPM ... Keep them hot!

 

[Hay Dude]

I mean, I know what you are saying. But that's old school thinking, we've solved the primary issues that led to your (valid) belief structure.

All engines and transmission combos are generally programmed with "downspeeding" in mind now. My F150 has a 10-speed transmission and tries to cruise down the road at under 1500rpm at all times. It will even run at just above 1000rpm at times. I generally let it - except on the highway I occasionally block 10th gear to avoiding it going high boost to maintain uphill speed.

Here's an example in the image below: Imagine needing a set amount of power to cruise down the road. Start on the right side of the BSFC plot. Let's choose an arbitrary power level, say 30 kW. As you can see, at high engine speed like 3500rpm, your engine efficiency performance would be roughly 350 grams of fuel per kW-hour. But if you upshift and now run that same 30kW load down at 2000rpm, your efficiency improves dramatically, now just consuming under 250 grams of fuel for the same kW-hour of work. The explanation behind this is pretty obvious, engines breathe better at higher loads, and internal frictional losses go up with engine speed. Running at lower rpm's is always more efficient. You just need to make sure you don't end up at the top line of 100% load, or induce excess vibrations, etc.

View attachment 4574440

Can I have some balsamic vinaigrette with that word salad?