To "delete" or not to "delete"

ShinerBlock wrote:
Let me guess, it was the computer in your truck told you that you were getting 27 mpg at 75 mph. What did your hand calculations at the end of the tank say? Was it any where near the average of what your computer stated? If you are like everyone else who actually hand calculated their fuel mileage, you would have found out that those mileage computers were not very accurate back then as much as 7 mpg off. Although they have improved over the years, they still or off depending on the vehicle. So yeah, your computer may have told you that your were getting 27 mpg, but if your mileage computer was like everyone else then you were probably getting much less.

I should have used the American gallon.. which is about 17% smaller so my mileage "hand calculated" was 22.47 miles per US gal... not bad for a 2005 3500 CC CTD with 6" lift Road armor bumpers front and back and 10 X 20" wheels with 35" tires...




So, how does burning less fuel create more smog?:R


blt2ski.... need to close this topic... its gotten stupid enough. :B

RVman3252 wrote:
I have a 2012 Cummins, even the Dealer suggest I have a reputable company delete it. I have done very little research on this, but was curious how many of you have had this done? The dealer said it will improve fuel mileage, increase horsepower and decrease maintenance...

The law seems clear:

http://epa.ohio.gov/dapc/echeck/testing_info/need_a_test.aspx

DirtyOil wrote:
mine didn't spew black smoke...

As Turtle N Peeps and I have been trying to point out, just because you are not blowing black smoke does not mean you aren't blowing out diesel particulates or NOx gases. In a diesel like yours, if you are not blowing out black smoke and creating a bunch of power then that means your combustion temperatures are high. If your combustion temperatures are that high then that means you are creating a **** ton of NOx. As I said before NOx gases cause that orangish haze over cities and mixes with moisture in the atmosphere and your lungs to create acid. This acid in your lungs is not enough to cause immediate problems, but overtime it will.

You are also creating diesel particulates as well, but just in finer forms mixed with more air. Gasoline engines produce coarse carbon particulates, but do you see black smoke blowing out of their pipes? No you don't. So again, as TNP and I stated, just because it is not blowing black smoke without a filter does not mean a thing,

DirtyOil wrote:
mine did get much better power and best of all 27mpg @75mph M/T ...

Let me guess, it was the computer in your truck told you that you were getting 27 mpg at 75 mph. What did your hand calculations at the end of the tank say? Was it any where near the average of what your computer stated? If you are like everyone else who actually hand calculated their fuel mileage, you would have found out that those mileage computers were not very accurate back then as much as 7 mpg off. Although they have improved over the years, they still or off depending on the vehicle. So yeah, your computer may have told you that your were getting 27 mpg, but if your mileage computer was like everyone else then you were probably getting much less.

DirtyOil wrote:
the re-ground cam got rid of that nasty "polluting" 3rd injection event... less smog and less fuel burnt. Won't do that to mine 2013 though... as I found a another hobby.

Actually no, it is more smog. Smog is NOx gases. Your engine creates a lot of NOx gases when your engines combustion temperatures are high like it is there.

DirtyOil wrote:
P.S. ... removed all the "I's" for ya... :B

Still doesn't change the fact that it is a selfish and inconsiderate thing to do.

DirtyOil wrote:
P.S.S. ... also stayed on topic of "deleting" :W

Read the posts starting with my very first one. It was your buddy 6.6 Oilburner that started jumping off topic with his false assumptions. I was just correcting them.

DirtyOil wrote:
P.S.S.S. .... rather then standing on your "high horse" you should hook it up to your RV and sell that smog machine your preaching about? You could lead by example then "What if everyone was as selfish as that?" and show us all how not to be so selfish! :R

High Horse? Let me get this straight.... You are the one who thinks they are too good for emissions regulations and that your own wants are greater than the health of those around you, and you are saying I am on a high horse? At least I have respect and consideration for others. So you going to answer any of those questions or are you just going to beat around the bush posting false assumptions just to try to justify it like your buddy has been doing?

ShinerBock wrote:

DirtyOil wrote:

One has to be responsible for: "pay for emissions systems" its built into the price of the vehicle...

Yes, I know, and Oilburner is complaining about the added cost of those systems.

DirtyOil wrote:
I say delete... I did... best thing I did to my 2005 CTD, was larger injectors, turbo, cat delete, straight pipe, programmer, camshaft...
more power and better mileage!

All I see are a bunch "I's" in there. This leads to believe that you have no regard for those around you or if your choices impact their lives just as long as you get to do what you want. Let me ask you.

What if everyone was as selfish as that? What if everyone cut off their catalytic converter and deleted their EGR on their gas engine? What if all diesel owners deleted the emission systems as well just because they didn't want to have to abide by regulations? What would happen ten, fifteen, or even twenty years down the road if everyone was as selfish as that to not care about how their actions effect those around them?



Hell why not stop there. What if people picked and choose which regulations they abide by at all. What if the class 7 & 8 trucking companies chose not to abide by the braking regulations or tire regulations ? Would you mind your family sharing the road with a truck that does not abide by the braking regulations and has brake shoes that are down to the bear metal? Both the minimum brake regulation and emissions regulations are their so that someone else's decisions do not effect your health and safety. The only difference is that one has the potential for an immediate effect while the other is over time. So who gets to decide which ones we abide by and who has to abide by them? Would you want your family to be on the road with those trucks that do not wish to abide by the brake or tire regulations because they see it as "too costly" for them?

mine didn't spew black smoke... mine did get much better power and best of all 27mpg @75mph M/T ... the re-ground cam got rid of that nasty "polluting" 3rd injection event... less smog and less fuel burnt. Won't do that to mine 2013 though... as I found a another hobby.


P.S. ... removed all the "I's" for ya... :B

P.S.S. ... also stayed on topic of "deleting" :W

P.S.S.S. .... rather then standing on your "high horse" you should hook it up to your RV and sell that smog machine your preaching about? You could lead by example then "What if everyone was as selfish as that?" and show us all how not to be so selfish! :R

DirtyOil wrote:

One has to be responsible for: "pay for emissions systems" its built into the price of the vehicle...

Yes, I know, and Oilburner is complaining about the added cost of those systems.

DirtyOil wrote:
I say delete... I did... best thing I did to my 2005 CTD, was larger injectors, turbo, cat delete, straight pipe, programmer, camshaft...
more power and better mileage!

All I see are a bunch "I's" in there. This leads to believe that you have no regard for those around you or if your choices impact their lives just as long as you get to do what you want. Let me ask you.

What if everyone was as selfish as that? What if everyone cut off their catalytic converter and deleted their EGR on their gas engine? What if all diesel owners deleted the emission systems as well just because they didn't want to have to abide by regulations? What would happen ten, fifteen, or even twenty years down the road if everyone was as selfish as that to not care about how their actions effect those around them?

Hell why not stop there. What if people picked and choose which regulations they abide by at all. What if the class 7 & 8 trucking companies chose not to abide by the braking regulations or tire regulations ? Would you mind your family sharing the road with a truck that does not abide by the braking regulations and has brake shoes that are down to the bear metal? Both the minimum brake regulation and emissions regulations are their so that someone else's decisions do not effect your health and safety. The only difference is that one has the potential for an immediate effect while the other is over time. So who gets to decide which ones we abide by and who has to abide by them? Would you want your family to be on the road with those trucks that do not wish to abide by the brake or tire regulations because they see it as "too costly" for them?

Irresponsible behavior by a few causes undo regulation on the rest of us due to governing to the lowest denominator. Pollution is additive and everyone must attempt to take steps to mitigate it - If the general consensus was that the individual does not matter, we would have ever rising toxicity levels in what we breathe and eat due to the cumulative affect.

This is getting a little ridiculous. I'd wager that a pretty small percentage of diesel owners actually delete, particularly since the newer DEF systems were adopted, and the health and environmental impact of those who do is a pretty small drop in the bucket compared to everything else we're exposed to in modern life. 90% of the time I see black smoke blowing out of a diesel pickup it's an older pre-emission truck. I guess it wouldn't surprise me if more of the newer trucks get deleted as they come out of warranty, but an awful lot of people such as myself live in areas that have mandatory emission testing, so it isn't even an option for a lot of people.

Getting upset at somebody who wants to delete his truck seems a little over the top, but maybe that's just me.

just because you are not responsible enough to maintain and pay for emissions systems that you knew were on your truck when you bought it?

One has to be responsible for: "pay for emissions systems" its built into the price of the vehicle...


I say delete... I did... best thing I did to my 2005 CTD, was larger injectors, turbo, cat delete, straight pipe, programmer, camshaft...
more power and better mileage!

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
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.

Buyback? The only buyback I know of were from Caterpillar which was not totally due to emissions systems. Caterpillar was the only major one that had issues because their way of dealing with the emissions system was different then the rest.

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

Yes you are trying to discredit. Go into those profiles. Most will tell you their modifications if any. However, that does mean the data as a whole is skewed. If what you're trying to state that pre 2007 emissions trucks get better fuel mileage than post 2007 emissions truck was correct then you would see it in that data . However it is nowhere to be found and you have yet to provide data yourself to back up your claim. Like I said before, if you are going by the fuel mileage on your trucks computer and comparing it to modern fuel mileage computers in these trucks then your data is WAY OFF. The old mileage computers were notorious for not being correct by A LOT and even showed up 7 mpg better then actual. Modern mileage computers (while still not perfect) show a more accurate number and are +/- 2 mpg.

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

Funny, the other manufacturers had enough time to comply with the 2007 emissions standards. In fact, the 2007 Cummins engines actually complied with the 2010 regulations. Cummins even had enough time to design a whole new engine with their 6.7L and ISX to meet emissions. Trust me, engineering, designing , and testing an engine is a LONG process. International had enough warning about the 2007 emissions specs to design the 6.4L Powerstoke. Ford had enough warning about the 2010 emissions spec to design the 6.7L. GM had enough time redesign the 6.6L.

CAT's decision to not spend the money to redesign their engine to meet 2010 emissions was their choice and you should have made the same decision if you knew you were not responsible enough to maintain and pay for your diesel engine and it's components. Although, like I said earlier, Caterpillar's on-highway engine sales is a very small part of their business compared to the rest of the manufacturers. This was a big factor as to why they chose to get out of the market as well.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
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.

Yes, it gets passed onto the consumer just as with anything else. YOU wanted the diesel so YOU should be the one to pay for it along with the regulations that come with it. Why should anyone else pay for you wanting to own a diesel? I really don't understand how you do not get that concept. If you think it is a too high of a price or too high of an issue then go buy a gasser instead of purposely (and illegally) making your truck emit more pollution increasing other people's health risks just because your are not responsible enough to handle or pay for your own decisions.

As far as the class 7 & 8 market is concerned, there are a lot of regulations that cost these business with trucks more than these emissions systems. Although, those companies are making money from public roads. If they take issue of having to pay to comply with regulations (like the emissions regulations and braking regulations), but do not mind the money they make on these public roads while polluting it then they need to go out of business. They sure like to make money off of it, but they don't want to be pay to abide by the laws and pollution regulations. That just tells me that they are like you and do not mind benefitting from their decisions, but do not want to take on the responsibility of paying for it.

Also, every industry has to comply with laws and regulations from mining to food. Some of it's safety regulations for it's workers to health regulations for consumers. As they say it takes money to make money, and if a business does not want to pay to comply yet make money then they don't need to be in business. It sounds really stupid for a transport business owner to say "I like making money off of tax payer funded roads, but I sure hate paying to comply with regulations to keep the tax payers that paid for those roads safe or with less of a health risk."

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
It substantially queered the entire truck market.

These trucks are also not "queered" either. Last I checked these new engines still make WAY more power than previous years. Although as I stated earlier, if you don't want to comply then don't own one. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
The trucks were just flat out problematic out of the gate and people are still scared.

As I said before, everything from trucks to engines have their problems right out of the gate no matter how long you test them. How come the double standard on your part? Turbos used to fail left and right on engines back in the day. Engines used to not last 100k miles. Things get better as time progresses and it is not just limited to emission devices. If you are ignorant and scared about it then DON'T BUY A DIESEL.

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

Wow, where I come from it is rude to ask a person how much they make. Why didn't you answer mine?

Why should someone else be negatively affected health wise or have to pay more in taxes or health insurance, just because you are not responsible enough to maintain and pay for emissions systems that you knew were on your truck when you bought it? If you should not have to take up the costs of owning the diesel that you chose to buy, then who should and why should they?

spoon059 wrote:

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.

I have, but typically the tank heater and line heater thaw it out quick enough. Sometimes one of the heaters fail or only thaw around the element. Talking like -30/-40 weather.