Ford & IH finalize diesel divorce

[John Deere 3520]

well lets just say thats dads problem. LOL my buddy wanted to pull it off his cummins 5500 and i told him not to. so thats still leagal.

 

[DieselPower]

Pull it off a current Cummins in a medium or heavy duty truck and you will probably find it won't run anymore. Most are going to a full time monitored system to increase DPF longevity and increase the performance of the regeneration cycle. If the DPF isn't there it will initally derate the engine and then shut down because it thinks there is a major problem with the system.

 

[jgrreed]

If you are reading this and your truck has a DPF, I say this with all due respect

Mine had a DPF!!!

-Jer.

 

[jgrreed]

Secondly, do you enjoy polluting the environment?

My '08 F350 when empty now gets ~ 20 - 21 UK MPG since I took the DPF off and added my tuner. It was getting ~ 11mpg on it's best days, without pulling anything, out of the factory. Some days were as low as 8 or 9MPG. With a load on my GN, I could literally get worse mileage than a 18 wheeler!!!

In my opinion (and no, I'm not an environmental scientist) burning double the fuel as an alternative to putting out some soot from the pipe is NOT environmentally, or cost, effective.

The big 3 should be ashamed of themselves for the diesel pigs they put on the road starting in the '08 model year. Mercedes, BMW, and VW were all able to produce diesel engines that meet EPA standards and get good to excellent mileage (Mercedes ML320CDI and BMW X5d are around 30MPG, and the new Jetta TDI is 50+MPG). I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but there was a strange time link between the rise in the price of diesel and the timing of the release of the 'environmentally friendly' diesel guzzling pigs.

Also, I really resent being lied to by the salesmen that sold myself and 2 other friends the F350's. There sales pitch that 'mileage will progressively improve, as it is the computer controls the break in period'.

When's that Tundra dually coming out???

-Jer.

 

[Builder]

When's that Tundra dually coming out???

-Jer.

-Jer.,

Toyota quietly scrapped their diesel truck after much fanfare. My guess is the Hino 8L they were promising to use would have gotten just as bad fuel numbers as the 8L Hino used in Hino trucks.

I think there's a big difference between a M/B diesel used in a car than a truck because of the torque, weight & aerodynamic issues with a truck. M/B powered Freightliner medium duties don't get any better fuel economy than their IH & Cummins powered counterparts.

 

[Ductape]

In my opinion (and no, I'm not an environmental scientist) burning double the fuel as an alternative to putting out some soot from the pipe is NOT environmentally, or cost, effective.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but there was a strange time link between the rise in the price of diesel and the timing of the release of the 'environmentally friendly' diesel guzzling pigs.

I gotta say I'm with you here. Especially when you think about the hundreds of thousands of tractor trailers running across the country now struggling to get 4 mpg, when a pre-emission truck might get 6.5 or 7. Not so much just the cost of the diesel itself, but think how much more tax revenue (how many millions of gallons more fuel/year?) on all that fuel the gummit is now making. And I don't consider myself a black helicopter guy either.

 

[John Deere 3520]

My cuz has a 600hp cummins with the DPF and it gets a whopping 8mpg.

 

[Builder]

I gotta say I'm with you here. Especially when you think about the hundreds of thousands of tractor trailers running across the country now struggling to get 4 mpg, when a pre-emission truck might get 6.5 or 7. Not so much just the cost of the diesel itself, but think how much more tax revenue (how many millions of gallons more fuel/year?) on all that fuel the gummit is now making. And I don't consider myself a black helicopter guy either.

I don't think you need to be a "black helicopter guy" anymore to believe the gov't would do whatever it takes to boost revenues. Even if it means higher fuel consumption veiled through the promise of "cleaner air".

 

[Ryan03]

My persdonal reason for not removing the DPF is simple, that is if I had a new truck. If I wanted to roll around my shop floor on a creeper with a whiz wheel and a socket set to remove the DPF, and then do the same to reinstall it for warranty or recall issues, I would have gained nothing by buying a new truck, as I would still have to get dirty working on it. My Dmax, so far has been pretty good, but when I do replace it someday and spend 45k+, I don't want to do any thing besides routine maintenence to it. Spending all that money and having to spend time R&R ind the DPF would get real old real quick.

 

[Ryan03]

My cuz has a 600hp cummins with the DPF and it gets a whopping 8mpg.

It must regenerate 3 times a day.

 

[Paystar]

In my opinion (and no, I'm not an environmental scientist) burning double the fuel as an alternative to putting out some soot from the pipe is NOT environmentally, or cost, effective.

I agree! The best mileage I could get with my "emmissions friendly" Cat Acert is 5.3 mpg in my dump truck. A long way off from the 7 to 8 with the old mechanical motors. That's doing everything I can...no idling, progressive shifting, etc. Now the DPF motors will be even worse as they use almost a gallon to regen.
I too don't see how using more fuel is saving the environment. Why don't they just pull some of the grossly polluting junk off the road? And when they changed from 50ppm to 5 ppm on road fuel, why didn't they just clean up the off road and furnace oil from it's 300 parts per million? Wouldn't that have "saved the environment" just as well as ruining our new engines? There must be as much off road and furnace oil being used as on road fuel, no?

 

[Ryan03]

I agree with you 100%

 

[Builder]

In my opinion (and no, I'm not an environmental scientist) burning double the fuel as an alternative to putting out some soot from the pipe is NOT environmentally, or cost, effective.

I agree! The best mileage I could get with my "emmissions friendly" Cat Acert is 5.3 mpg in my dump truck. A long way off from the 7 to 8 with the old mechanical motors. That's doing everything I can...no idling, progressive shifting, etc. Now the DPF motors will be even worse as they use almost a gallon to regen.
I too don't see how using more fuel is saving the environment. Why don't they just pull some of the grossly polluting junk off the road? And when they changed from 50ppm to 5 ppm on road fuel, why didn't they just clean up the off road and furnace oil from it's 300 parts per million? Wouldn't that have "saved the environment" just as well as ruining our new engines? There must be as much off road and furnace oil being used as on road fuel, no?

It's all BS created by people who haven't a clue what it takes to survive in the world.

 

[John Deere 3520]

It must regenerate 3 times a day.

Not sure 8mpg is at its best when its being babied, cat is really fallen behind with the new motors its pretty sad.When my cuz ordered his KW he wanted a 625hp cat, but the dealer told him it had way to many problems so he got the 600hp cummins and he likes it.

 

[WilliamBos]

DPF but it was so easy to take off so why not..

Because warranties are nice things to have. Why is it the 6L in the Navistar trucks worked fine,but the on ford got did not? Because ford wanted it done there way, like usual they pretend to know more than the guys who built it.

My fav IH truck motor, the DT466, what an awesome motor. My fav IH PERIOD is the 66 series.

 

[Builder]

Because warranties are nice things to have. Why is it the 6L in the Navistar trucks worked fine,but the on ford got did not? Because ford wanted it done there way, like usual they pretend to know more than the guys who built it.

My fav IH truck motor, the DT466, what an awesome motor. My fav IH PERIOD is the 66 series.

I think one of the biggest problems with the 6L was that Ford needed to rush it to market because it was losing market share to GM's new diesel. It wasn't tested long enough at Ford, so Ford decided to test it on their buyers.

Yes, I can attest that the DT466 is a great little diesel. Reliable as they get. Not a huge powerhouse, but runs like a top. Mine starts with no starting aid when it's 10 degrees.

Ask me how I know.

 

[WilliamBos]

I think one of the biggest problems with the 6L was that Ford needed to rush it to market because it was losing market share to GM's new diesel. It wasn't tested long enough at Ford, so Ford decided to test it on their buyers.

Yes, I can attest that the DT466 is a great little diesel. Reliable as they get. Not a huge powerhouse, but runs like a top. Mine starts with no starting aid when it's 10 degrees.

Ask me how I know.

We did the same with my Dad's old work truck. It was colder than that, -20F (-29C), was not plugged in, no can, it turned and started.

 

[Diamondpilot]

I have a buddy who delivers diesel fuel to truck stops for a living. He is a independent contractor and owns his tractor and leases the trailer. Anyway he ran out in 07 and bought a "dirty" Volvo something or other. Not sure really but its a full size semi with a sleeper. Anyway his buddy like his so much and bought the next years "clean" version. He told me driving the same route he used 80 gallons while his buddy used 100 gallons. If you were to do that 5 days a week it would cost his buddy $15,000 more per year for fuel. Being contractors that comes right out of the wallet of the owner operator.

The guys driving semi's are just like us 1 ton diesel guys. They don't want it on there. Its killing the bottom line.

Chris

 

[WilliamBos]

I have a buddy who delivers diesel fuel to truck stops for a living. He is a independent contractor and owns his tractor and leases the trailer. Anyway he ran out in 07 and bought a "dirty" Volvo something or other. Not sure really but its a full size semi with a sleeper. Anyway his buddy like his so much and bought the next years "clean" version. He told me driving the same route he used 80 gallons while his buddy used 100 gallons. If you were to do that 5 days a week it would cost his buddy $15,000 more per year for fuel. Being contractors that comes right out of the wallet of the owner operator.

The guys driving semi's are just like us 1 ton diesel guys. They don't want it on there. Its killing the bottom line .

Chris

The logic of the EPA kills me. Use more to run cleaner?? I will never get that one.

 

[jgrreed]

My persdonal reason for not removing the DPF is simple, that is if I had a new truck. If I wanted to roll around my shop floor on a creeper with a whiz wheel and a socket set to remove the DPF, and then do the same to reinstall it for warranty or recall issues, I would have gained nothing by buying a new truck, as I would still have to get dirty working on it. My Dmax, so far has been pretty good, but when I do replace it someday and spend 45k+, I don't want to do any thing besides routine maintenence to it. Spending all that money and having to spend time R&R ind the DPF would get real old real quick.

I understand your sentiment completely, I just couldn't stand the disgusting mileage anymore. It took me and a buddy ~2 hours and a few swears to get my DPF off. I don't hide my tuner, and the dealers have been great so far. The deal is that if something goes wrong because of my tuner, it's out of my pocket. If the problem is unrelated to that, they'll warranty it.

If you're happy with your DMax, KEEP IT!!! I would've, but my F350 was my first diesel, and I was under the impression that I was buying one of these new-fangled 'clean, environmentally friendly' diesels.........

-Jer.