To delete or not to delete ?

[brooks379]

I had a problem with my wife’s car the other day and took it to a repair shop . As I was talking to the tech about it I noticed they had a F450 6.7 Powerstroke fire truck in a bay with the whole exhaust pipe, DEF tank off the truck. He said the fire truck ideled a lot and was not running right so they were deleting it, it only had 30,000 miles on it but being a fire truck it needed to sit and idle a lot. They saw my F350 6.7 and said it would be just a matter of time before I would need a new DPF exhaust system and said for $1700 they would delete it or when it goes for $5000 they would replace it factory new. Never had a problem with it but that got me thinking......anyone have their truck deleted ? They said it would run better, get better mpg, no DEF or regen. I told them I will think about it.

[nremtp143]

brulaz wrote:

It's rare to hear of a clogged EGR on a newer diesel with DEF and DPF. But on 10 year old systems, it's common.

There were early rumours that the 6.7 Cummins in the new RAM HD (2020?) would eliminate the EGR completely. But lately I've been reading that it will still be there.

That's what they keep saying, but here is my truck at 29K miles with a new turbo, EGR, EGR valve, waste gate and solenoid, but look at the EGR cooler core. This truck is rarely driven except when it has the Montana hooked to it. The core should be pristine. No codes or other problems. Just a hauler.

[brulaz]

gitane59 wrote:

Bedlam wrote:
I thought DEF and DPF were both downstream. Eliminating EGR would be more in-line with your hopes.

Current DEF and DPF system's will not work without massive amount's of EGR so until the entire system is entirely downstream and independent of the engine mechanic's itself it is hard to call the current system downstream.

Earlier diesel emissions control, without DEF, used a lot more EGR than they do today.

It's rare to hear of a clogged EGR on a newer diesel with DEF and DPF. But on 10 year old systems, it's common.

There were early rumours that the 6.7 Cummins in the new RAM HD (2020?) would eliminate the EGR completely. But lately I've been reading that it will still be there.

[Flashman]

So they can still sell in California.

[gitane59]

Bedlam wrote:
I thought DEF and DPF were both downstream. Eliminating EGR would be more in-line with your hopes.

Current DEF and DPF system's will not work without massive amount's of EGR so until the entire system is entirely downstream and independent of the engine mechanic's itself it is hard to call the current system downstream.

[Bedlam]

I thought DEF and DPF were both downstream. Eliminating EGR would be more in-line with your hopes.

[gitane59]

My DW used to work for a county road department before retiring and at any one time up to 25% of their diesel trucks of all classes were out of service due to emission system failures. Many small fleet hot shot operator's have been forced out of business because of repeated failures of late model emissions system's. Larger OTR fleet operator's around here have had to buy up to 25% more tractor's because even the big class 6 tractor's have DPF and DEF failure's.
Between environmental wacko's and overzealous government bureaucrats mandating regulation's they know nothing about from an engineering and technical basis they have completely screwed up diesel engine's. Until downstream emission control system's are perfected deleting DEF and DPF system's are an evil necessity for many individuals and entities. Condemning people for doing things that they must do to survive ain't cool.

[ShinerBock]

Charlie D. wrote:


Don't the new non-modified engines also emit less than the pre-2003 emission vehicles you speak of? Are you saying that a deleted vehicle with the emission system severely restricted or removed produce no more particulate (soot?) than a gasoline engine?

Yes, due to variable geometry turbos, better turbo blade technology, common rail, precision injectors that have multiple injection events, higher pressure fuel pumps, cams deigned for emissions, and a few other things; a deleted modern diesel on a low level tune has better emissions than most pre-2003 trucks. The removal of sulfur from the fuel also helped out a lot compared to the fuel back then.

Not all gas engines emit the same same PM as a deleted modern diesel, but many directed injected gas engine do. However, due to the composition of gasoline and diesel fuel and how fine the PM that GDI engine emit in comparison, you will see it out of the tail pipe in a diesel engine but will not out of a direct injected gasoline engine.

[Charlie_D_]

ShinerBock wrote:
Do you also say the same for those driving older pre-2003 emissions vehicles that emit more than a modern deleted diesel and refuse to get a newer vehicle with better emissions? Or how about those that refuse to move away from the conveniences of a population dense area which intensifies NOx production especially in warm climates. Or what about the people driving direct injection gas engines that emit about the same particulate matter as a deleted diesel?

Don't the new non-modified engines also emit less than the pre-2003 emission vehicles you speak of? Are you saying that a deleted vehicle with the emission system severely restricted or removed produce no more particulate (soot?) than a gasoline engine?

[rjstractor]

Grit Dog wrote:
And I’d rather have a fireman they was breaking the emissions laws than one sitting in a truck in limp mode when I need a fire truck! Btw, if you know where Lincoln Co NM is, no one there cares and pretty much no one goes there unless they already live there or have to be there.

Emergency vehicles have an exemption that allows limp mode override when a regen is required. But where you live I'm pretty sure most of their rigs are pre-emission, which is not a bad thing. 😉 For my department the diesel emissions are a huge PITA for the mechanics. We've gone to V10 gas for our ambulances and they are great, just keep putting gas in them!

[ShinerBock]

These are the areas I avoid.

New NASA Images Highlight U.S. Air Quality Improvement

[ShinerBock]

brulaz wrote:


The manufacturers want "one rule for all" as well. Makes their life a lot simpler and more profitable.

But we should be happy that all the city people don't have to move out to the country to get a breath of fresh air. Having to deal with pollution controls on all our vehicles seems like a small price to pay to make the cities livable.

Personally I'm happy with my 2016 RAM Cummins just the way it is: un-deleted. It's clean, powerful and so far, knock-on-wood, very trouble-free.

I don't feel that I should have to pay more for fuel and an added item to repair just because some city boy doesn't want to move to a more rural area in order to curb pollution due to population density. Why should I pay for what he wants or doesn't want? I am not the one who wants to live in these big cities so I don't feel like I should have to pay for someone that does.

I avoid big cities like the plague and the area I mainly drive are not NOx sensitive areas. So the NOx from my truck has no ill health effects to others since there is not enough of it in these areas and it just dissipates eventually turning into good ozone.

[brulaz]

ShinerBock wrote:

...
So since the EPA has to make a "one rule for all" in regards to emissions, a person such as a farmer or one that lives in a rural area on a colder climate who will probably never drive their truck to an area with enough NOx to have any effect on human health still has to abide by the same rules a those city dwellers in places such as California where NOx is a health concern due to the heat and population density. How fair is that?

The manufacturers want "one rule for all" as well. Makes their life a lot simpler and more profitable.

But we should be happy that all the city people don't have to move out to the country to get a breath of fresh air. Having to deal with pollution controls on all our vehicles seems like a small price to pay to make the cities livable.

Personally I'm happy with my 2016 RAM Cummins just the way it is: un-deleted. It's clean, powerful and so far, knock-on-wood, very trouble-free.

[ShinerBock]

brulaz wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

...
NOx is only bad if it stays stuck in the troposphere like it does over population dense areas on hot days. In less populated areas and in cooler climates, it has a chance to dissipate into the stratosphere which is a good thing since it is an ozone gas that is also produced naturally. NOx in troposphere = Bad // NOx in stratosphere = Good
...

Section "10.2.2 Nitrogen oxide radicals (NOx)" of this book:Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, says that there is some ozone loss in the stratosphere from NOx catalyzed reactions. But that the source of NOx there is N2O coming up from ground level, not the NOx itself coming up.

But I'm no atmospheric chemist, and much of what's in the book is meaningless to me. Still it might be of interest.

Many rural areas still have enough clean air left to handle NOx and other pollutants without major problems like smog. Like they used to say: "dilution is the solution to pollution". But the amount of clean air, like water, is getting less and less.

It is mainly N20 coming from the ground level because that is what is left from the NOx as it dissipates. Due to its volatility, NOx in itself has a rather short lifespan of a day or so and what is left of it goes into the stratosphere as good ozone. This is why it is harmless in sparsely populated areas and it is only densely populated areas with hot temperatures that cannot disperse it fast enough that are mainly effected.

So since the EPA has to make a "one rule for all" in regards to emissions, a person such as a farmer or one that lives in a rural area on a colder climate who will probably never drive their truck to an area with enough NOx to have any effect on human health still has to abide by the same rules a those city dwellers in places such as California where NOx is a health concern due to the heat and population density. How fair is that?

[bartlettj]

My 2012 Duramax is in the shop right now getting the DEF tank heater, pump, and 9th fuel injector (the one that fires off the regen) replaced. Fortunately it's under warranty. It has 77k miles on it. It threw the code for the DEF tank heater on Saturday, telling me I had 100 miles left until it would limit the speed to 65 and the check engine light came on. Code P20B9. Dealership decided they wanted to take care of all of the special coverages at the same time for me on GM's dime, so didn't say no. I'm glad I wasn't on a trip when it happened. The truck hasn't had any problems before that, other than a NOx sensor replacement under recall. I'm not going to delete this truck, I go to California and Canada regularly and I don't want to risk CHP impounding it, and I also don't want to pollute in the first place. I like the fact that the truck doesn't smell like fuel or smoke under normal operation. I absolutely love the truck in all other respects. My truck doesn't spend much time idling, average lifetime speed is 39mph (total mileage divided by engine hours).

My truck has 10 years/120k mile warranty on DEF tank heater, pump, and DPF regen fuel injector. It's not that difficult to DIY the DEF tank stuff but you need the right scan tool to reset the computer.

[kw_00]

Yep I agree about the fire trucks, we feel the same. The emissions on diesels are very frustrating on us.. trust me. But the gov doesn't give us the option to take it off. I believe there's a large penalty for sure. In our business it's all about timing, we are under the gun as they say and every min does count...