To "delete" or not to "delete"

Since you have access to all the data, how about you tell me us how many class 6,7 and 8 units were bought back by the OEM due to excessive warranty claims and inability to fix the issues. All I have is having watched Units come in to work on the hook to have equipment changed over to newer chassis or gliders.

I'm not trying to discredit the Data on fuelly, I'm merely stating it does not provide enough variables to sway this argument.


Whatever warning the OEs had in advance for new standards was CLEARLY not enough, if it was CAT would still be in the market.

You keep telling me to not own a diesel, but what you can't wrap that over educated brain of yours around is the fact that the cost of all this **** gets passed on to the consumer. It substantially queered the entire truck market. The trucks were just flat out problematic out of the gate and people are still scared.

I'm extremely curious to know what your actual job title and salary is.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
Look, if you don't know whats going on in the field up here in the Northeast, I can't help you understand.

Well you can't help anybody understand when you have no facts backing up what you say.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
You're obviously not willing to entertain a thought that your beloved employer and the other OEs were backed into a corner by the EPA and had to equip trucks with equipment that wasn't ready or tried and true.

Like I stated when I explained the timeline of these regulations earlier in this thread. The OE's knew what the regulations were long before they were implemented, but you wouldn't know that now would you. So if you don't know for sure then why make assumptions that aren't true?

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
But I guess CAT's inability to comply just means that they are inadequate as an engine builder?

Another assumption. Cat got out of the on road engine game because they did not want to spend the money to re-engineer another engine. Unlike Cummins who made their 2007 engine meet the 2010 spec so they did not have to spend the money re-engineer the engine yet again, Cat only made their 2007 engine to meet the 2007 spec. They would have had to spend the money to re-engineer their engine to meet the 2010 spec. They weighed the cost and the fact that the on road engine market is only a very small portion of their revenue(unlike Cummins) and decides it was not worth it just like you should have done if you didn't want these emission systems.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
I am by no means saying the systems haven't improved, but at what cost?

If you don't want the cost THEN DON'T BUY A DIESEL. I don't know how I can say that to get it through to you. I knew the added maintenance cost of owning a diesel when I bought and I decided to buy one anyways. If you didn't like the the added cost or could not handle the responsibility of the extra cost then you should have bought a 6.0L gasser in your Chevy. Also, of course the person buying the truck with these systems will bear the burden of any extra costs. What? Do you expect the person not buying a diesel to bear the extra cost of health issues, and not you? No one else should have to pay for your life choices. That should be your own burden to bare. If you don't think you can while being legal and not negatively impacting anyone else then DON'T BUY A DIESEL. How can you not get that?

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
And jus2shy is obviously well aware of the growing pains that came along with DPF systems in 2007.

Yes, and everything from a new vehicle to a new engine that comes out for the first time has growing pains. That is to be expected in engineering. How come you hold a double standard and it is acceptable for other things, but growing pains aren't acceptable for the emission devices? Maybe because you are still trying to justify you deleting your truck just so you can feel better about yourself?

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
If these systems are so **** reliable, why do emergency response vehicles get a free pass on deleting?

Yet another assumption. Gees, do you ever stop with these? Emergency vehicles DO NOT get a free pass. The only difference between them and regular trucks is that they will not go into limp mode in certain type of failures. If they run out of DEF in the 4,000-6,000 miles it takes to use it up then their truck will not de-rate telling you to fill it up like ours will. They are government mandated not to derate, but they still have the same emission devices we do.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
The fuelly data is not conclusive to the discussion we are having. You have no way of knowing if any of the trucks are deleted or tuned, and I saw more than one truck with aftermarket exhaust in the profile pics.

And the data you provided..... I mean DIDN'T provide shows this? Look at the Fuelly profiles and in the notes of each user, they usually will tell you the mods of each truck. I know mine does in the notes of the mileage when I added them.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
Further more, the more miles logged, the higher the average MPG for almost every application you look at, which again is only logical.

That is hand calculated mileage. Do you know how fuelly works? Do you have a profile? No, but that isn't stopping you from trying to discredit the data. You seem to have a track record of trying to discredit things you know nothing about. When you input a fuel mileage record in fuel, you input your mileage and how many gallons used in that tank EVERY TIME. Fuelly then does the hand calculations for your based on the inputs

ShinerBock wrote:

6.6 Oilburner wrote:


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.

No, you haven't provided any data. All you are going by is hearsay. You basically have no experience or knowledge about it yet you want to tell me, who has almost 20 years experience working with diesel and truck manufacturers, how the cow eats the cabbage.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
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.

Yes they are assumptions and false ones at that. Your very first post in this thread was false and based on assumptions when you called my post foolish for stating that the DPF on these trucks is for health reasons. I then proved how unfoolish my post was with facts. You then tried to downplay the health dangers by coming up with some bogus .005% number out of thin air. Next you began to try tell us that the pre emissions trucks get better fuel economy even though you have no way to back that up, and I inturn proved you wrong with factual hand calculated fuel mileages from Fuelly.com of pre and post emissions diesels. Now you are trying to talk about freezing DEF fluid when you don't even know how the whole system operates. It is funny that you talk so much about these systems yet you do not even know how they operate.

Also, I thought you said you were out of here a few pages back. What happened?

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
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.

I am "literally" the only person? How about jus2shy who works with refuse trucks and told you flat out that you over dramatization of all these "issues' you claim these truck have is a bunch of baloney. Or Sport45 and the others who are also telling you that deleting is irresponsible.


Fact is, if you did not like these emission devices in the first place then you SHOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT A DIESEL TRUCK WITH THEM. No one else should have to pay for your own decisions, just like I don't think I should have to pay someones welfare after they just spent $3,000 on a set of rims. You purposely went out and bought a diesel truck with these devices and you purposely increased those around you health risk by deleting those devices. Those around you that have a greater health risk did not make the decision for you to buy a diesel and they sure as hell did not make the decision for you to purposely make it pollute the air they breathe so why should they have to pay for it or be affected by it? If you think these emissions systems are just a bunch of bull then why don't you do as I said and run your exhaust to your cab and put your A/C on recirculate. According to you that will only increase your health risk by .005%.

Look, if you don't know whats going on in the field up here in the Northeast, I can't help you understand. You're obviously not willing to entertain a thought that your beloved employer and the other OEs were backed into a corner by the EPA and had to equip trucks with equipment that wasn't ready or tried and true. But I guess CAT's inability to comply just means that they are inadequate as an engine builder?

I am by no means saying the systems haven't improved, but at what cost? And jus2shy is obviously well aware of the growing pains that came along with DPF systems in 2007.

If these systems are so **** reliable, why do emergency response vehicles get a free pass on deleting?


The fuelly data is not conclusive to the discussion we are having. You have no way of knowing if any of the trucks are deleted or tuned, and I saw more than one truck with aftermarket exhaust in the profile pics. Further more, the more miles logged, the higher the average MPG for almost every application you look at, which again is only logical.

Powerdude wrote:

While it is true that in the 1980's and earlier you could not see some of the mountains in the LA basin from the bottom of the valleys, the smog was due to the trapping of ALL vehicle emissions by an inversion layer.

It was not proven to actually be due to the vehicles themselves, but more due to the atmospheric effect. An inversion layer forms when hot air just sits above a colder layer of air next to the ground, and traps all polluted air.

So, which set of vehicles caused the pollution. Gas cars, diesel trucks, or was it local industry, or was it just dust?

Nobody really knows the answer to that question. It did get better, was it vehicle standards, general air quality standards and restrictions on industrial emissions? Changing plane flight patterns (planes put out emissions also), or was it the reduction in cow methane put out by decreasing farm land usage?

Nobody really knows the answer to these questions still. It could have been a cumulative effect of many factors.

As for Beijing, most of the pollution is actually wind driven dust from the northwest winds bringing fine dust particles from the Gobi desert, which scatters light. There is some pollution from motor vehicles, but there are also lax industrial emissions standards as well.

There is no single cause, there are no easy answers. I did my thesis on some of this stuff and studied it for many years.

I think a large amount of it is vehicles. I remember in the 2008 summer Olympics, China basically banned driving in Beijing for 2 weeks before and during the games to clear up the air. Amazingly, it worked. It is true that they have laxed pollution standards compared to North America and Europe, but I posted the picture to stir some nostalgia for pollution in the PNW. I know that LA Basin has quite a few inversion layer days (we get a few up here as well), but Portland and Seattle rarely have inversion layers form. But back in the 60's to 70's, smog as depicted in Beijing was a common sight.

jus2shy wrote:
Just wanted to add... this is what happens if we just let everyone delete. This is normal pollution levels in Beijing. I've seen pictures of Portland, Seattle, Tacoma, and all other places in the PNW from the 60's and 70's, and they looked just the same.

Reuters

While it is true that in the 1980's and earlier you could not see some of the mountains in the LA basin from the bottom of the valleys, the smog was due to the trapping of ALL vehicle emissions by an inversion layer.

It was not proven to actually be due to the vehicles themselves, but more due to the atmospheric effect. An inversion layer forms when hot air just sits above a colder layer of air next to the ground, and traps all polluted air.

So, which set of vehicles caused the pollution. Gas cars, diesel trucks, or was it local industry, or was it just dust?

Nobody really knows the answer to that question. It did get better, was it vehicle standards, general air quality standards and restrictions on industrial emissions? Changing plane flight patterns (planes put out emissions also), or was it the reduction in cow methane put out by decreasing farm land usage?

Nobody really knows the answer to these questions still. It could have been a cumulative effect of many factors.

As for Beijing, most of the pollution is actually wind driven dust from the northwest winds bringing fine dust particles from the Gobi desert, which scatters light. There is some pollution from motor vehicles, but there are also lax industrial emissions standards as well.

There is no single cause, there are no easy answers. I did my thesis on some of this stuff and studied it for many years.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
It doesn't need to freeze solid for the system to become inoperable. It is more common for it to freeze and become a problem on pickups than big trucks for sure, whether that is tank size or tank placement I'm really not sure. Seeing as how the GMs seem to be the worst for freezing tanks, I'm guessing its placement.

Here is a little hint. The SCR/DEF is not operative when the engine starts up even in 100F temperature. The EGR is what reduces NOx at startup and the SCR/DEF system takes over once the catalyst is heated up to the right temp and the rest of the DEF system is operable. If the DEF is frozen, then the heat from the exhaust and from the DEF line heaters will thaw it until it can be used.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
I have not as of yet diagnosed and repaired any DEF systems, the parts are expensive and typically by the time people call me the dealer has run them thru the ringer for so much they are just fed up and want the equipment gone.

If you have never diagnosed or repaired it then how do you know expensive the parts and repair time is? How are you able to argue about the operations of these systems with people that have experience with them if you don't have experience with them at all? Again, your words are from hearsay and you have no real experience or real world data that you can provide to back up your claims.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:


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.

No, you haven't provided any data. All you are going by is hearsay. You basically have no experience or knowledge about it yet you want to tell me, who has almost 20 years experience working with diesel and truck manufacturers, how the cow eats the cabbage.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
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.

Yes they are assumptions and false ones at that. Your very first post in this thread was false and based on assumptions when you called my post foolish for stating that the DPF on these trucks is for health reasons. I then proved how unfoolish my post was with facts. You then tried to downplay the health dangers by coming up with some bogus .005% number out of thin air. Next you began to try tell us that the pre emissions trucks get better fuel economy even though you have no way to back that up, and I inturn proved you wrong with factual hand calculated fuel mileages from Fuelly.com of pre and post emissions diesels. Now you are trying to talk about freezing DEF fluid when you don't even know how the whole system operates. It is funny that you talk so much about these systems yet you do not even know how they operate.

Also, I thought you said you were out of here a few pages back. What happened?

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
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.

I am "literally" the only person? How about jus2shy who works with refuse trucks and told you flat out that you over dramatization of all these "issues' you claim these truck have is a bunch of baloney. Or Sport45 and the others who are also telling you that deleting is irresponsible.


Fact is, if you did not like these emission devices in the first place then you SHOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT A DIESEL TRUCK WITH THEM. No one else should have to pay for your own decisions, just like I don't think I should have to pay someones welfare after they just spent $3,000 on a set of rims. You purposely went out and bought a diesel truck with these devices and you purposely increased those around you health risk by deleting those devices. Those around you that have a greater health risk did not make the decision for you to buy a diesel and they sure as hell did not make the decision for you to purposely make it pollute the air they breathe so why should they have to pay for it or be affected by it? If you think these emissions systems are just a bunch of bull then why don't you do as I said and run your exhaust to your cab and put your A/C on recirculate. According to you that will only increase your health risk by .005%.

It doesn't need to freeze solid for the system to become inoperable. It is more common for it to freeze and become a problem on pickups than big trucks for sure, whether that is tank size or tank placement I'm really not sure. Seeing as how the GMs seem to be the worst for freezing tanks, I'm guessing its placement.


I have not as of yet diagnosed and repaired any DEF systems, the parts are expensive and typically by the time people call me the dealer has run them thru the ringer for so much they are just fed up and want the equipment gone.

Things seem to be changing. 9 pages of mostly good discussion about a Ram problem and just 1 old Ford hater posting about a 6.0.
For what its worth I recently had to do the egr cooler on my truck and decided not to delete but go bullet proof.
Is there anything aftermarket for the Cummins?

oops I almost got sucked in!