Particulate filter delete

[aczlan]

Nice. Thanks for the pics. I love how some say there are no restrictions or back pressure caused by these. The picture says it all!

Note that the poster that was talking about that earlier said that there was no difference in horsepower output with versus without the DPF. Not there was no restriction.
That said, going from a 1.5" exhaust pipe to a 6" DPF filter with a 5fpm flowrate means that you're going from exhaust pipe that is capable of flowing 220CFH to a filter (the shell of which is capable of flowing 3,534CFH).
Let's say that 50% of the filter is blocked by media, that leaves you with a flowrate of 1767CFH for a tractor that is restricted to 220CFM by the exhaust, so the DPF can flow 8x what the exhaust pipe can.


Aaron Z

 

[tomt574]

Note that the poster that was talking about that earlier said that there was no difference in horsepower output with versus without the DPF. Not there was no restriction.
That said, going from a 1.5" exhaust pipe to a 6" DPF filter with a 5fpm flowrate means that you're going from exhaust pipe that is capable of flowing 220CFH to a filter (the shell of which is capable of flowing 3,534CFH).
Let's say that 50% of the filter is blocked by media, that leaves you with a flowrate of 1767CFH for a tractor that is restricted to 220CFM by the exhaust, so the DPF can flow 8x what the exhaust pipe can.


Aaron Z

All those figures look and sound great on paper but in the real world they don't add up. Maybe when it is brand new before anything flows through it and gets burned of. Each time particulates are burned off in the filter a residue builds up and those holes gets smaller and smaller. The particulates don't just disappear they leave behind residue. Slowly causing more restriction. You seem to be a huge advocate of the DPF system. If the DPF flows 8x the rate of a normal exhaust then why even have it in place. It is amazing that it can select those little particulates with all that added flow rate. I give up. Sorry I'm not drinking the "COOL AID" We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[tomt574]

View attachment 645215







Good thing the DPF has 8x more flow than what the regular exhaust pipe does

 

[Hay Dude]

I kind of feel like when the DPF system was introduced in 08 trucks, they thought it would last maybe 100k miles (depending on driving habits) and then be replaced, kind of like an expensive muffler. Then DEF systems took over and left them as a red haired step child. It's amazing the reputation the 2008-2012 Fords have with the DPF. With a newer DPF, they run fine. It’s the unreliability the DPF and it’s sensors create that have left me with trucks that have less resale value than they should.
Nobody wants to drop 2-3 grand on a DPF for a 10-12 year old truck. Mine look and work excellent, but sometimes it’s hard to pen a check for that kind of money to replace a DPF system when it could go into a newer truck.

 

[tomt574]

View attachment 645220

 

[aczlan]

All those figures look and sound great on paper but in the real world they don't add up. Maybe when it is brand new before anything flows through it and gets burned of. Each time particulates are burned off in the filter a residue builds up and those holes gets smaller and smaller. The particulates don't just disappear they leave behind residue. Slowly causing more restriction. You seem to be a huge advocate of the DPF system. If the DPF flows 8x the rate of a normal exhaust then why even have it in place. It is amazing that it can select those little particulates with all that added flow rate. I give up. Sorry I'm not drinking the "COOL AID" We will have to agree to disagree.

You have it backwards, because the available area expands 8x, the gases will slow down to 1/8 the speed.
Will that get worse over time? Yes, but how long that will take will depend on you you use the tractor. The big thing is to not have it sit idling, when its on work it hard so that the DPF stays hot and doesnt need to regen as often.
We have a tractor at work with DPF that uses DEF, so far, so good with it, nothing at home that has a DPF.
I would prefer to avoid DPF just because less complications is more better, but thats not to say that it cant work well.


Aaron Z

 

[tomt574]

You have it backwards, because the available area expands 8x, the gases will slow down to 1/8 the speed.
Will that get worse over time? Yes, but how long that will take will depend on you you use the tractor. The big thing is to not have it sit idling, when its on work it hard so that the DPF stays hot and doesnt need to regen as often.
We have a tractor at work with DPF that uses DEF, so far, so good with it, nothing at home that has a DPF.
I would prefer to avoid DPF just because less complications is more better, but thats not to say that it cant work well.


Aaron Z

Yes definitely want to keep the rpm up will help with the regen. I think the tractors are much less problematic than trucks. On my TYM 574 Kukje it does not use DEF and i'm thinking it will be easy just to remove the filter all together. Maybe one of these days I will be able to get back home to the USA and get to use it if this **** Corona-virus crap will blow over.

 

[Paystar]

It's not the RPM, it's the load. High RPM with low load creates more pm. You can operate low RPM but you want to keep load on engine. In other words keep it working hard.

 

[tomt574]

It's not the RPM, it's the load. High RPM with low load creates more pm. You can operate low RPM but you want to keep load on engine. In other words keep it working hard.

That is what I am referring to. Load at low RPM. Had someone I know was having issues running low rpm while operating backhoe. Have to keep the RPM up while operating

 

[Hay Dude]

On my 6.4’s, regens are more “dramatic” when running unloaded. Throw a 25k load behind the truck and you barely notice the regens. Also, DPFs get cracks in them. When they do, it creates a real heavy smoke problem during regen. Seems like the material/honeycomb inside the DPF is too brittle?