wintersun wrote:
The DPF is used not only on the small diesel engines put into pickup trucks but also the big rigs on the highways as well. The fleet operators view it as something to manage and not to whine about.
The same kind of whining took place in the 1970's when catalytic converters were added to gas engine exhaust systems. Same kinds of delete kits were being sold for them as are now sold for eliminating the emissions controls on diesels by their young owners.
A DPF does reduce fuel economy but far less than driving above the speed limit and the extra fuel burned with the latter does not seem to bother anybody so it is a specious argument to be making. I view the DPF and the need for DEF is part of the price for operating a diesel, and professional fleet operators do the same and they are dealing with hundreds or even thousands of trucks in their fleets.
The older diesel engines are less reliable to start with when taken as a whole and they were not engineered to burn ultra low sulfur diesel fuel or to burn B20 biodiesel fuel. There are always trade-offs and if you want the most economical power choice (in terms of total cost of ownership and operation) for an RV go with a gas engine.
One notable advantage with the Cummins diesel engines that are put in the Ram pickups is that they use the same filters as the big rigs and so you can easily upgrade to a 2-micron or even a 1-micron filter and reduce particles getting into the injectors by 90-99%. The 4-micron filters that are only 98.7% effective at best still let through more than 240,000 particles per gallon of diesel that is burned and with the high pressure common rail fuel systems these particles are hitting the insides of injectors at extremely high speeds.
Who's whining? Do you equate a dislike of a certain technology with whining? :rolleyes: Let me ask you something: What sort of first hand experience do you have with Cummins turbo diesels? And do you, or have you ever, owned one with a diesel particulate filter? Because I see some opinions being passed off as fact by yourself which are not supported by my lengthy history as an owner of these trucks.
When my 2012 went into "regen", the mileage would drop precipitously. In fact, if I were to use the truck as a grocery getter/runaround vehicle it would be stuck in an almost perpetual state of regen, and my mileage would be less than 10mpg. I can do the same running around with the 1997 and never drop below 15. And my 1997 has been "turned up." I have around 720 ft lbs at the wheel, which is equal to the 800 ft lbs at the crank which the 2012 had, so the "newer truck with more power using more fuel" argument does not explain the thirsty nature of the 2012. Go to Cummins Forum and read about the mileage complaints on the 2007.5-2012 vintage trucks. Also note early turbo failures, fuel contamination in the oil, and other not so pleasant side effects of the newer iterations of common rail injection and exhaust treatment. The only high mileage DPF trucks you find have been "deleted."
The suggestion that the newer engines are more reliable than the older ones is laughable. Nothing has proven itself more reliable than the old 12 valves. Now, the 98.5-02 24 valve trucks had issues with lift pump failures taking out the VP44 injection pumps, and also the "53" blocks (Brazilian cast) would crack, and the 03-07.5 common rails had a penchant for melting down motors due to injector issues, but with proper filtration and fuel delivery, the 5.9 liter engines are bulletproof. There is simply no evidence right now that the 6.7 is more reliable, and the low sulfur diesel has ZERO effect on them. It is not even necessary to run an additive. Lastly, I would like to see your proof that a gas engine in an RV provides a lower cost of ownership.
