To "delete" or not to "delete"

spoon059 wrote:
Perhaps I missed it. Perhaps the DEF thaws fast enough for the truck to use it. Perhaps the trucks are smart enough to know to delay DEF usage until the engine is warmed up. I don't know how it works... but I haven't read anything about this problem in real life.

I can see what he's saying. If the DEF is stored in a manner that allows it to freeze there would be no way to refill the DEF tank in the truck.

Maybe they haven't figured out that it can be brought inside for a bit before it's needed???

No, frozen drinking water leaves you dead from dehydration or hypothermia (eating snow, etc).

If you can thaw water you should be able to thaw DEF.

What spin? We are talking about people who knowingly and willingly put more pollutants into the air and think they're justified because it's "only a little."

I've been guilty of similar thinking. Heck, I used to pour used engine oil on the ground around the fence to control weeds. I reamed the filler neck of my '75 F-100 out to accept the regular nozzle so I could save a few cents a gallon on gas.

I suppose I've just grown up and become more responsible these days.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
Nice spin. Frozen potable water doesn't typically leave someone in limp mode doing 5 mph.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, just some perspective. My engine bay heats up pretty quickly. Anything that was frozen in the engine bay will start thawing out pretty quick. I have researched diesel trucks in anticipation of purchasing my current truck... I have never seen one person who had his DEF tank frozen solid, had the truck call for DEF and put the truck into limp mode.

Perhaps I missed it. Perhaps the DEF thaws fast enough for the truck to use it. Perhaps the trucks are smart enough to know to delay DEF usage until the engine is warmed up. I don't know how it works... but I haven't read anything about this problem in real life.

Sport45 wrote:

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
I realize forward progress must be made, and it has and continues to move forward. Things are cleaner now than ever before. And At one point I did flat out say as far as deletes are concerned, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

But honestly, I'm not surprised I'm getting **** for telling it like I have seen it. The age old battle of an engineer with little to no hands on experience or common sense vs the mechanic who keeps things moving in the field.



All this back and forth aside here are some facts about Deleting.

Deleting emissions equipment can in many cases substantially increase fuel economy
True, but at the expense of producing more NOX per mile driven.

1,2,3 systems disabled on your vehicle is that many less potential failure points
True again, but also at the expense of extra emissions

Emissions equipment has a service life that can vary greatly by application
True, but everything else has a service life too. What's the point?

Cases of frozen DEF tanks on pickup trucks are not uncommon in colder climates
Can't argue there. But I suppose potable water has the same issue and nobody's complaining about not being able to get water.

deleting your emissions equipment can have a negative effect on your warranty, keep in mind that it does not completely void your vehicles warranty
True that.

It is illegal as per federal standards, however local legality and enforcement vary greatly in different areas.
True.

So in a nutshell, deleting is good for the deleter (if he saves enough fuel to pay for the work). He just has to be willing to accept that he's knowingly breaking federal law and risking powertrain warranties. He also has to have a certain lack of concern for the environment and a willingness to emit more NOX and particulates than necessary.

This could be the same guy that thinks the world is his ashtray tossing cigarette butts everywhere. Or the guy who couldn't care less that his campfire is smoking you out. So hey, if it feels good do it. Right?

Nice spin. Frozen potable water doesn't typically leave someone in limp mode doing 5 mph.

ShinerBock wrote:

6.6 Oilburner wrote:


You're going to have to explain this insistence that I'm wrong about DEF freezing.

Explain it to you? I thought you knew everything there is to know about these emissions systems? If you don't then how can you say the things you do?

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
You keep pointing at Fuelly.com, well thats great but the statistics say nothing about what may or may not be done to any of the trucks, and from pictures posted by users some of the trucks getting higher mileage appear to have exhaust on them. No way of knowing if these guys are actually hand calculating or going by the dash.

I find it funny that you have not provided any data to back up your assumptions yet you question any data provided. If you knew anything about Fuelly.com, you can only input hand calculated mileage. Go into each profile and it will show their mileage and how many gallons used. hey are not going by a lie-o-meter computer like you are. Look at the pre-emission trucks and the ones of today. Hmmmm, not only is there more power, but their is also better fuel mileage. Kind of shuts down your whole theory and assumptions.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
You are basically using fancy vernacular to discredit the fact that I talk to people in this industry on a daily basis and every person who has cried the blues about emissions woes or had vehicles bought back by the OEM.

And you are simply posting your assumptions and theories without any way to back them up even after multiple posters have proven you wrong with FACTUAL DATA. Please show some data backing up these assumptions of yours. Either put up or shut up.


I can give you factual data proving what I say. Why cant you?

I have provided just as much Data as you, the difference is you are leaning on Data you say exists,(which I'm sure it does) and I am point blank telling you I have not kept a journal of every conversation I have had with customers. You call them assumptions, thats false, I'm not assuming anything. I'm sharing the experiences of people I deal with on a daily basis.

You are LITERALLY the only person I have ever heard even hint at the fact that emissions standards were anything but a heavy blow to the entire transportation industry.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
I realize forward progress must be made, and it has and continues to move forward. Things are cleaner now than ever before. And At one point I did flat out say as far as deletes are concerned, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

But honestly, I'm not surprised I'm getting **** for telling it like I have seen it. The age old battle of an engineer with little to no hands on experience or common sense vs the mechanic who keeps things moving in the field.



All this back and forth aside here are some facts about Deleting.

Deleting emissions equipment can in many cases substantially increase fuel economy
True, but at the expense of producing more NOX per mile driven.

1,2,3 systems disabled on your vehicle is that many less potential failure points
True again, but also at the expense of extra emissions

Emissions equipment has a service life that can vary greatly by application
True, but everything else has a service life too. What's the point?

Cases of frozen DEF tanks on pickup trucks are not uncommon in colder climates
Can't argue there. But I suppose potable water has the same issue and nobody's complaining about not being able to get water.

deleting your emissions equipment can have a negative effect on your warranty, keep in mind that it does not completely void your vehicles warranty
True that.

It is illegal as per federal standards, however local legality and enforcement vary greatly in different areas.
True.

So in a nutshell, deleting is good for the deleter (if he saves enough fuel to pay for the work). He just has to be willing to accept that he's knowingly breaking federal law and risking powertrain warranties. He also has to have a certain lack of concern for the environment and a willingness to emit more NOX and particulates than necessary.

This could be the same guy that thinks the world is his ashtray tossing cigarette butts everywhere. Or the guy who couldn't care less that his campfire is smoking you out. So hey, if it feels good do it. Right?

6.6 Oilburner wrote:


You're going to have to explain this insistence that I'm wrong about DEF freezing.

Explain it to you? I thought you knew everything there is to know about these emissions systems? If you don't then how can you say the things you do?

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
You keep pointing at Fuelly.com, well thats great but the statistics say nothing about what may or may not be done to any of the trucks, and from pictures posted by users some of the trucks getting higher mileage appear to have exhaust on them. No way of knowing if these guys are actually hand calculating or going by the dash.

I find it funny that you have not provided any data to back up your assumptions yet you question any data provided. If you knew anything about Fuelly.com, you can only input hand calculated mileage. Go into each profile and it will show their mileage and how many gallons used. hey are not going by a lie-o-meter computer like you are. Look at the pre-emission trucks and the ones of today. Hmmmm, not only is there more power, but their is also better fuel mileage. Kind of shuts down your whole theory and assumptions.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
You are basically using fancy vernacular to discredit the fact that I talk to people in this industry on a daily basis and every person who has cried the blues about emissions woes or had vehicles bought back by the OEM.

And you are simply posting your assumptions and theories without any way to back them up even after multiple posters have proven you wrong with FACTUAL DATA. Please show some data backing up these assumptions of yours. Either put up or shut up.


I can give you factual data proving what I say. Why cant you?

Sport45 wrote:
Where do you suppose we would be now without the government imposed emission regulations? Sure they cost us money. But in the long run we're better off. It's been a long time since one of our rivers caught on fire and we can actually breathe the air in our major cities. Acid rain isn't ruining our pretty paint jobs and our municipal water supplies are safe to drink. Do you really think any of that would have been possible if pollution control was voluntary?

Remember the early 70's when the automotive industry was going through the same thing with gasoline engines? People cried about how pollution control was wasting gas and crippling power. Fast forward a few years and we're getting more power and better economy from smaller engines and the emissions are almost non-existent.

I realize forward progress must be made, and it has and continues to move forward. Things are cleaner now than ever before. And At one point I did flat out say as far as deletes are concerned, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

But honestly, I'm not surprised I'm getting **** for telling it like I have seen it. The age old battle of an engineer with little to no hands on experience or common sense vs the mechanic who keeps things moving in the field.



All this back and forth aside here are some facts about Deleting.

• Deleting emissions equipment can in many cases substantially increase fuel economy
• 1,2,3 systems disabled on your vehicle is that many less potential failure points
• Emissions equipment has a service life that can vary greatly by application
• Cases of frozen DEF tanks on pickup trucks are not uncommon in colder climates
• deleting your emissions equipment can have a negative effect on your warranty, keep in mind that it does not completely void your vehicles warranty
• It is illegal as per federal standards, however local legality and enforcement vary greatly in different areas.
  

Where do you suppose we would be now without the government imposed emission regulations? Sure they cost us money. But in the long run we're better off. It's been a long time since one of our rivers caught on fire and we can actually breathe the air in our major cities. Acid rain isn't ruining our pretty paint jobs and our municipal water supplies are safe to drink. Do you really think any of that would have been possible if pollution control was voluntary?

Remember the early 70's when the automotive industry was going through the same thing with gasoline engines? People cried about how pollution control was wasting gas and crippling power. Fast forward a few years and we're getting more power and better economy from smaller engines and the emissions are almost non-existent.

ShinerBock wrote:

6.6 Oilburner wrote:



I give up, you are right. The fleet managers, Owner operators, independent techs, OE techs and drivers I talk to are all confused about what their vehicles are doing. The 08 IH that came in on the hook at work today isn't really getting all its equipment swapped onto a new KW chassis because said fleet is sick of a truck that is consistently down.

Tell them to maintain their equipment better. Although seeing how you have been far from factual about other things, I will hold this statement with any factual regard.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
I haven't first hand seen deleted pickups owned by friends and customers go from 16mpg to 21mpg.

Proof? Like I said Fuelly, review sites, and out own internal testing states that you are wrong.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
Oh, and silly me, the DEF delivery truck we built at work didn't need all that insulation and a heater in the meter box to prevent the metering equipment and piping from freezing.

LOL! Again, it is comments like these that is giving your ignorance about these systems away. As I said before, if you knew these systems like you say you do then you would know the errors in this statement.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
I'm sorry I have no hard Data on paper, and considering the consensus of every last person I have had this conversation with in the industry in my area, I am BEYOND flabbergasted that you continue to praise how this equipment works and claim it poses no hardships on the end user.

Again, I will not hold your statement as factual since you have already gained a reputation of not stating facts.

Also, you bought the diesel knowing that these emissions devices are on them and are legally meant to be on them for other people's health. If you did want them then you should not have bought a diesel in the first place. I bought a diesel knowing that I would have to pay more for it up front. I bought a diesel knowing that I would have to pay a lot for fuel filters. I bought a diesel knowing that there are emission devices on it and they have to be maintained just like the rest of the vehicle. It is MY responsibility to bear because it was MY choice to get a diesel, not anyone else's. Again, if you are not willing to live with the emission devises then you should NOT have gotten a diesel. Nobody else around you should have to live with an increased health risk just because you are not grown up enough to deal with the consequences of your choices. Get a gasser if you cannot take on the full responsibility that comes with owning a diesel.

You're going to have to explain this insistence that I'm wrong about DEF freezing.

You keep pointing at Fuelly.com, well thats great but the statistics say nothing about what may or may not be done to any of the trucks, and from pictures posted by users some of the trucks getting higher mileage appear to have exhaust on them. No way of knowing if these guys are actually hand calculating or going by the dash.

The numbers also in many cases point to more miles tracked = More MPG, which is just common sense.
You are basically using fancy vernacular to discredit the fact that I talk to people in this industry on a daily basis and every person who has cried the blues about emissions woes or had vehicles bought back by the OEM.