DEF diesel engines

[kgard1225]

Hi, I was looking at a few used DPs and noticed one was listed as non- DEF engine. Can I get some opinions on the advantages or disadvantages of getting an older non-DEF engine ? I am only slightly aware of this DEF thing but assume it has to do with the ultra low sulpher fuel. Most of the older coaches seem to have lower HP and I am a little nervous about lack of power after reading many posts about 40 ft DPs with 300- 350 HP engines being under powered. Thanks, Ken

[Mile_High]

My Dads 67 El Camino had an air pump - took as a few years to figure out what that was.

[usersmanual]

I agree that the emission requirements cause the engineer's to scramble but we would be in a mess if we didn't have pollution controls. As I've mentioned in the past, Los Angeles has such thick smog before catalytic converters that you could almost cut it with a knife.

You couldn't even see the houses just off of the freeway it was so bad. It's probably 90% better.

After seeing what the 'lack of' pollution controls looks like in India, I like where are are today, the pollution was awful there.

I agree 100%. I went to riverside ca NASCAR race in 1975. the air quality was awefull compared to today.I just cant imagine what the world would be like today without controls put in place
people scoffed at 1966 fords with California mandated air pumps but now we see the reasoning behind it

[NeverHome2]

Cat tried to save money by claiming that their ACERT technology cleaned up the exhaust so they didn't need after engine cleanup. In order to pass EPA mandated testing they cut back on power and fuel consumption. This worked on the dyno but not in the truck. By the time DEF was used by Cummins and Detroit in 2010, emissions were mandated in off road machinery. Cat was fined millions of dollars for falsifying their truck engine tests so they stopped production of on-road engines. Cat then sold their truck engine manufacturing to Navistar who produced Cat C-13, C=15 engines under their own name for several years until the EPA forced them to stop. Cat still makes off road equipment engines that meet EPA regulations but I don't know how they do it. Incidentally, DEF is so good at cleaning up diesel exhaust it allowed engine manufacturers to raise the horsepower by adding fuel and letting the DEF clean it up.

[Mile_High]

Coming from an era of no smog equipment and the first smog pump introduced for California back in 65 or so, I'm really pleased to see how the new cars burn. There used to be a sweet spot on the carburetor mixture to keep the emissions test happy between CO and Hydrocarbons but the car ran terrible, then you richened it back up when you got home from your test defeating the whole purpose. Today, cars barely read anything in CO and hydrocarbon, and high performance has improved!

[Mr_Mark1]

Ivylog wrote:
NOx is EPAs current attempt to justify it's existence... actually expansion. Guess they do not know they cannot stop lightning. CAT did not procrastinate itself out of the Diesel engine business... trying to meet the ever increasing 2010 requirements did.

CAT apparently does not have good engineers. Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Volvo and other engine manufacturers got it 'worked out'. CAT will be up a creek without a paddle when emission requirements are put into place for off-road equipment.

I agree that the emission requirements cause the engineer's to scramble but we would be in a mess if we didn't have pollution controls. As I've mentioned in the past, Los Angeles has such thick smog before catalytic converters that you could almost cut it with a knife.

You couldn't even see the houses just off of the freeway it was so bad. It's probably 90% better.

After seeing what the 'lack of' pollution controls looks like in India, I like where are are today, the pollution was awful there.

Safe travels,
MM.

[Ivylog]

NOx is EPAs current attempt to justify it's existence... actually expansion. Guess they do not know they cannot stop lightning. CAT did not procrastinate itself out of the Diesel engine business... trying to meet the ever increasing 2010 requirements did.

[Mile_High]

mpierce wrote:

Mile High wrote:
Oh I think most of that is hoopla complaining from the peanut gallery. If there weren't federal mandates, there probably wouldn't be any effort to clean up emissions by the manufacturers because there is no profit or glitter associated with it. We would still have crankcase blow down tubes dropping oil on the ground.

If you ever want to remember what it used to be like, watch an old 60s movie and see the smoke coming out of the tailpipe as well as the drivers nostrils. I would never wish us to go back to that. I have a 1952 Cushman Eagle at home the puts out more pollution through that 1 cylinder aspirated engine than my Cummins, and that was normal.

Maybe "hoopla" to you, but I know, by personal experience, of a number of independant truckers that went broke because their new trucks spent so much time in the shop, working on the emissions systems.

Cleaner air is fine. It is good. But, the EPA forces the changes so fast, that technology cannot keep up, and the mfg's do not have enough time to work the kinks out. So, the poor buyers have to do it, in the shop.

Well that could be - or it gets procrastinated by the manufacturer.

[mpierce]

Mile High wrote:
Oh I think most of that is hoopla complaining from the peanut gallery. If there weren't federal mandates, there probably wouldn't be any effort to clean up emissions by the manufacturers because there is no profit or glitter associated with it. We would still have crankcase blow down tubes dropping oil on the ground.

If you ever want to remember what it used to be like, watch an old 60s movie and see the smoke coming out of the tailpipe as well as the drivers nostrils. I would never wish us to go back to that. I have a 1952 Cushman Eagle at home the puts out more pollution through that 1 cylinder aspirated engine than my Cummins, and that was normal.

Maybe "hoopla" to you, but I know, by personal experience, of a number of independant truckers that went broke because their new trucks spent so much time in the shop, working on the emissions systems.

Cleaner air is fine. It is good. But, the EPA forces the changes so fast, that technology cannot keep up, and the mfg's do not have enough time to work the kinks out. So, the poor buyers have to do it, in the shop.

[Mile_High]

Oh I think most of that is hoopla complaining from the peanut gallery. If there weren't federal mandates, there probably wouldn't be any effort to clean up emissions by the manufacturers because there is no profit or glitter associated with it. We would still have crankcase blow down tubes dropping oil on the ground.

If you ever want to remember what it used to be like, watch an old 60s movie and see the smoke coming out of the tailpipe as well as the drivers nostrils. I would never wish us to go back to that. I have a 1952 Cushman Eagle at home the puts out more pollution through that 1 cylinder aspirated engine than my Cummins, and that was normal.

[Kayteg1]

mpierce wrote:
az99:

So true! The company I drive for, over the road, has had MANY newer trucks into the shop, for days at a time, trying to trace down emissions/DEF problems! Waaay more than normal engines. Eventually, they will get the problems sorted out, but by then, NEW controls will be called for, and the problems will start all over again!

Mechanics are human afterall and need time to learn new technology.
Just in time when I transfer my favorite music from cassette tapes to CD, the CD become obsolete.
Darn technology.
But on positive side, software become more and more user-friendly.
I still have customers who call my service only to reset garden sprinklers timer.

[kgard1225]

Wow, lots of great info here ! Thanks everyone. I'm starting to feel more comfortable with this diesel thing. I have worked on almost all of my gas engines over the years but never even looked at a diesel engine.

[mpierce]

az99:

So true! The company I drive for, over the road, has had MANY newer trucks into the shop, for days at a time, trying to trace down emissions/DEF problems! Waaay more than normal engines. Eventually, they will get the problems sorted out, but by then, NEW controls will be called for, and the problems will start all over again!

[az99]

If you can find one that does not use DEF that fits your needs, BUY IT! I had one of the late model Cummins pollution specials. It spent as much time in the shop as it did on the road. Check engine lights,clogged DEF,new ECMs,new EGRs, reflashes,wiring harness and on and on. Every time it went in and was "fixed", it lost fuel mileage.
The new EGR valves recirculate so much exhaust that they have to be liquid cooled.

The truck dealers and towing companies are very busy with these new pieces of gov. mandated junk.

[pigman1]

JumboJet wrote:

wolfe10 wrote:

JumboJet wrote:
DEF is introduced in the exhaust stream and has no effect on engine power.

While the statement is true, it may be a little misleading.

Because of DEF, the engines can be tuned for more power and better economy.

Very similar to what happened to gasoline vehicles between 1974 and 1975 when catalyst converters were added.

I was referring to the post title "DEF diesel engine". The engines are designed for leaner burn but produce a nasty exhaust that the fluid converts to water and nitrogen via the SCR.

Are the newer engines that require DEF actually providing better economy or just tuned for more HP?

Bret's statement is exactly accurate. When the pre-DEF engines were tuned for maximum power and economy it drove the EPA guys nuts because the products of combustion were causing pollution which could be tuned out on these same engines. The down side of that was that when they were tuned for better emissions, power went down and they actually got poorer mileage. Many who had a Cummins engine that was made in the 1-3 year period before DEF came in came in will probably remember the recalls issued to re-flash the ECM that were common. Each time it happened mileage dropped. In fact, if you had your rig in the shop that was engine certified, you got the re-flash without them telling you they did it or even consulting you. I spent a lot of time on the phone with Cummins and with service people about this. When the DEF engines first came out one of their selling points was better mileage and more power. This didn't have anything to do with the DEF (as many have said, DEF is only used in the exhaust stream after the exhaust leaves the engine) but what it did was enable engine makers to again design and tune for power and economy without the EPA clowns beating them about the head and shoulders. Was this better or worse? You decide how much pollution an RV contributes to the world smog when most are driving 3000 - 5000 miles a year and how much the extra equipment weight, complexity and maintenance are worth to you.