Ol'e Black Betty is in the shop

gitane59 wrote:
We have put just over 1300 towing miles on Black Betty since picking her up from the shop. Running smoother and quieter with no load attached than I can remember in a long time.
However she does not like having her batteries disconnected though. The software has to relearn how to downshift and spool up the turbo smoothly in the mountains pulling our 15Klb trailer.
It takes almost 2 days of driving to get it to downshifting smoothly without sputtering for a few second's as the turbo is spooling up with the added fuel. It has done this since new every time we disconnect the batteries for servicing.

Did you get pics of what is considerable wear but all tips in tact? Were there measurements or just a visual inspection that the dealer did?

We have put just over 1300 towing miles on Black Betty since picking her up from the shop. Running smoother and quieter with no load attached than I can remember in a long time.
However she does not like having her batteries disconnected though. The software has to relearn how to downshift and spool up the turbo smoothly in the mountains pulling our 15Klb trailer.
It takes almost 2 days of driving to get it to downshifting smoothly without sputtering for a few second's as the turbo is spooling up with the added fuel. It has done this since new every time we disconnect the batteries for servicing.

mitw44 wrote:
I am an Environmental Engineer by profession, and a Chemical Engineer by training. While I may not understand everything about diesel technology, I don't see any environmental benefit from the emissions equipment and changes to the sulfur specs in fuel. I honestly believe it is because environmental do-gooders have infected the highest levels of the EPA (until now, I really like Scott Pruitt), and their goal is to eliminate the diesel option for Americans.

Given that diesels have exploded in popularity in the emissions era and they are more common in non HD applications now, the environmental do gooders have clearly failed in their intentions.

You don't see any benefit? Do you remember how bad diesels used to smell? Not to mention the smog that was present in cities that has reduced drastically. Sure it's not as noticeable as say stopping businesses from dumping raw sewage into our rivers, but the effect is still there.

That being said.... To the OP, nice work on making the 6.4 last that long. Those are great engines that get bashed on. They did have their issues but there are still a ton running perfectly.

Grit dog wrote:
Welcome back to the 70s and 80s. I filled a lot of trash cans with air pumps and other emissions carp.
Same goes for the first few years of diesel dpf emissions. They’re not good. Newer models have rectified much of the issue and will get better again with the next gen of diesels.
If I had a pre DEF truck, some parts would fall off of it. If I had a new diesel, I’d keep the emissions unless hey gave me a reason to remove them.

Exactly. Any time you get the first generation of a big technology change, watch out. Emission control made cars much better ultimately and diesel will be too. May be already, considering the performance offered today vs. 20 years ago.

I am an Environmental Engineer by profession, and a Chemical Engineer by training. While I may not understand everything about diesel technology, I don't see any environmental benefit from the emissions equipment and changes to the sulfur specs in fuel. I honestly believe it is because environmental do-gooders have infected the highest levels of the EPA (until now, I really like Scott Pruitt), and their goal is to eliminate the diesel option for Americans.

Welcome back to the 70s and 80s. I filled a lot of trash cans with air pumps and other emissions carp.
Same goes for the first few years of diesel dpf emissions. They’re not good. Newer models have rectified much of the issue and will get better again with the next gen of diesels.
If I had a pre DEF truck, some parts would fall off of it. If I had a new diesel, I’d keep the emissions unless hey gave me a reason to remove them.

Now you got me started! Soap box alert!
I understand the need to consider the environment and in no way support deletes and tuning for the sole purpose of bumping up horsepower and increasing rates of fueling to make a truck go faster and spew soot, but the damage to engine reliability caused by the emission equipment and the cost's of the poorly engineered emission control equipment being passed onto the end-user by both the OEM manufacturers and the government regulations is criminal.
Seeing the fact that my truck's fuel economy is about 33% poorer than a pre-emission truck and a further 33% worse during regeneration phases which occur as frequently as every 150-175 miles while towing causes me to question whether there truly is any overall benefit to the environment not to mention the blue smoke screen that I lay down during the initial phase of a regeneration cycle.
On top of the poor day to day fuel economy if you ignore the "drive to clean your exhaust filter" messages and shutdown your engine prior to the completion of a regen you will do permanent cumulative damage to both your dpf filter and engine. Having to arbitrarily drive further to prevent engine damage further uses extra fuel once again damaging the environment. Can we respectfully have any faith that these post 2008 trucks are benefiting the environment at all?
Owner operators have gone bankrupt and fleet operators have had to purchase extra trucks and tractors simply because they can't keep enough of them running with all the poorly designed emissions equipment.
Not withstanding laws in most jurisdictions that make it illegal to tamper with emission's equipment on any vehicle HoneEagle is correct in Ontario with our mandated Emission testing protocol it is a mine field for anyone considering deleting the emissions equipment.
Emission's testing protocols varying in Ontario by GVWR and as such make it possible for some vehicle owner's to run deleted and technically pass the e-test with careful tuning.
Soap box off!

blofgren wrote:
I’m assuming that you are still running your stock emissions system? You may want to consider deleting because the 6.4 is much happier and much less thirsty when deleted.

One other thing you may want to think about is pre-emptive replacement of the hpfp. A coworker of mine has an 08 6.4 and the hpfp went at about 95k miles. He had it replaced and the fuel system cleaned but chose to keep the original injectors after they were cleaned and checked. 25k miles later one of them stuck open and ended up toasting the engine. He is currently in the process of having a Cummins transplanted into it at a cost of way too much $ IMHO.

Good luck and please report back with the findings.

The OP lives in ontario,deletes are not a good idea ....... E test ya know

I’m assuming that you are still running your stock emissions system? You may want to consider deleting because the 6.4 is much happier and much less thirsty when deleted.

One other thing you may want to think about is pre-emptive replacement of the hpfp. A coworker of mine has an 08 6.4 and the hpfp went at about 95k miles. He had it replaced and the fuel system cleaned but chose to keep the original injectors after they were cleaned and checked. 25k miles later one of them stuck open and ended up toasting the engine. He is currently in the process of having a Cummins transplanted into it at a cost of way too much $ IMHO.

Good luck and please report back with the findings.

mich800 wrote:
What is considerable wear with intact tips?

Good question? I have not yet seen the old part's. I assume he means that the end of the rocker arm with the ball pressed in is still intact, but that the other end which I understand to simply be a contact point has significant wear. I will try and get pictures of my worn rockers.