Considering that Mercedes (Daimler) owns Detroit Diesel it only makes sense.

The ONLY NAFTA company not going Bluetec (SCR) is International. Lets see where that takes them.

 

If you can get a bigger 6.9 liter Duramax and disable the DPF and urea system than you will have power +++.

As with the Audi V12 diesel engine you cannot really compare a road going diesel engine with Audi's custom showcase racing diesel engine, presumably without urea injection. Are you sure it is available in the R8?

 

Yes, it's available in both the R8 and the Q7 production vehicles. Makes its 740lb/ft at 1750rpm so it'd make a great tow rig.

By the way, latest info I have is that the Duramax will remain a 6.6L but power will be bumped to more than 400bhp and 700lb./ft.

 

Which has absolutely no affect on its operation. Its only a dye to aid in identifying law breakers.

Why wouldn't they? Its far cheaper to license existing technology that works than to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to R&D your own that does the same thing, make the exhaust of a dirty engine look clean.

Nope, fuel economy will only get worse. Urea injection has zero impact on economy, the DPF and cat are still restricting the exhaust and the DPF still needs lots of heat to burn off soot. EGR flow rates will be even higher in 2010.

Builders can't reduce NOx by 98% in 3 years without significant compromises. Increasing displacement is how they are making up for the emissions systems choking the life out of the engines.

 

That is correct. It is only for ID purposes and believe me when I tell you, the IRS, your state comptroller, and any other taxing entity has the ability to identify it, even in a very diluted quantity. If they detect a minute amount, you just as well have had the full monte.

I just called our off-road fuel supplier and they have switched to ULSD already, even though it is not mandated until 6/2010.

 

I have a good friend who works for a turbo manufacturing facility and they manufacture turbos and assist in meeting emissions in light duty trucks. I had an interesting conversation with him a few weeks ago after touring the turbo manufacturing facility and it is related to this thread.

Light duty trucks must meet certain emissions points in a specified drive cycle that is not friendly to light duty trucks. They have to meet this regardless of other parameters. With the 2007 emissions change, most all light duty trucks drastically suffered in MPG due to the requirement to meet the emissions requirements at several different test points. This testing specification was primarily designed for off-road diesel engines and heavy duty trucks - not light duty trucks, but they all fall under the same umbrella. He said it is becoming increasingly difficult to meet the EPA requirements in a light duty truck, and MPG is NOT one of those requirements/specifications - only measurements at certain points on their testing cycle. So for the manufactures to meet those requirements, MPG drastically suffers. My friend is an engineer there and is involved in this matter regularly.

So it appears that pre-2007 vehicles are the ones to obtain to get better MPG.

 

true. Man, this thread erupted. Glad to say my "trusty" dually has been running well lately. just hope it lasts as when it run well matches its on paper abilities this is one mean factory truck

-Rob

 

Bummer about your F450 problems. My 350 has been perfect and I can't imagine going back to the 7.3 or 6.0's. Having said that, I would be torqued if downtime on a work truck was impacting my buisness.

Off road fuel is red. I use it in my boat and all that is available is ULSD. By the time I have it delivered it's not that much cheaper than buying at the pump. Maybe 20 cents/gallon lower. Major bust if you get caught putting it in your truck. EPA violations are really sticky.

I believe more than ever that the modern common rail diesels hold promise for a portion of long term energy relief.

The CDI has some around town sacrifice but is a good overall mix that saves some petrol.

Good luck with the truck.

 

Its a shame since the powerstroke of the 1990s with Turbo was sweet and savy on fuel.

 

Yeah, its nickname was "powerjoke" for a reason.

 

I had Powerstrokes in the '90s. They were slow, smelly and noisy. I actually had more trouble with my 7.3 than any of the newer ones.

 

The 7.3 probably did more to promote diesel engines in North America than all the others combined. We have had a fleet of 9 that have averaged 240K with the high end at 350K, with little to no down time. This doesn't include my personal fleet of owning two at a time from '98 to "07, all 7.3 Powerstrokes. Both of my wife's had 90+K and both of mine had 256K and 220K respectively when sold in excellent condition. The "Powerjoke" mantra may play well with the 6.0's but those who speak it, are either fooling themselves or don't have a clue. They did not change for improvement, they changed to meet EPA guidelines.

It remains to be seen how well the 6.4TT holds up. We only have one so far.

 

Thats it? Cummins has a 350k life expectancy before first overhaul, 100k more than International rates their engines.

The 6.0L was a much better engine than the 7.3 ever was or could have been. It was compromised by an overly aggressive EGR system.

So, how do you like getting 12mpg?

 

240,

If there is NO lubrication problem with ULSD, and its purely a marketing hype, then why oil companies kept the sulfur in the first place? I guess just to pollute the environment with no other benefits...

 

Money. Removing sulfur is an expensive process that requires extra equipment. It does no harm to leave it in and there is no tangible benefit to spending the extra cash to extract it so they just let it be.

 

Oh yeah! Go try to trade-in one of them. On the other hand, 7.3's are bringing a premium, comparatively.

I don't drive the 6.4 TT. The jury is still out. My 6.6L Duramax gets a whopping 14-16.

 

I have a 6.4PSD. If I had it do over I may buy a DMax Chevy/GMC but I still think the the Ford tows a heavy trailer a little better. The DMax in my experience gets better MPG around town.

The mileage wars are interesting. I get 15-17 mixed and a steady 10-12MPG pulling my enclosed car hauler. I drove 1000 miles to a race with buddies in a new DMax and new Cummins. We got almost exactly the same mileage towing nearly indentical haulers.

My 7.3 got better mileage around town by about 2-4MPG but it was the same pulling my hauler.

My 6.0 was between the two and I never had any problems but I'm the only person that didn't.

 

There were many people who had very good luck with their 6.0's. They just had a much higher incidence of warranty claims than previously with the 7.3's. Ford tried to recuperate some of their losses by taking a self-imposed discount from IH, when they started shipping the 6.4 TT's. IH declined to honor the discount, stopped shipping the engines, and a lawsuit ensued. This was about the time I was in the market for a new truck (Mar '07). There was a huge shortage of Super Dutys and they were not willing to bargain on the small inventory they had. Thus, after 25 years of driving Ford diesels, I wound up with the Duramax.

 

I would agree that the Ford Super Duty tows a heavy trailer the best. Main reason for this is the frames of each equivalent model is so darn thick, even compared to the other Heavy Duty rigs from GM and Dodge. For instance, the empty curb weight of an F250 is 7700lbs vs 6200lbs for the other two. This impact payload/speed/handling but makes for one great towing truck.

I also had a reliable 6.0....it was an 05 F350 DRW. Overall though, i think the 6.4 pulls a little stronger and mine has been no problem since my last post a couple of months back.

That being said, I hear what you're saying about the GM Duramax Boulder. They come stock with the Allison which I far prefer to the Torqshift, even if it doesn't respond to mods quite so well....also, the Duramax 403CI has been around coming up 10 years while us blue oval fans get a new one every other year and the 6.7 Cummins is no 5.9 for toughness. Also seems Scotty loves his. Definitely advantage GM as regards engines.

However, I'd stick with what I've got as it's the only factory pickup truck that can legally tow from site to site my trailer, excavator, bobcat and the like. 24,000lbs is what I've put behind this thing (still legal and Dodge/GM only offer "1 ton" trucks rated to 16,000. I couldn't fit a GM 4500/5500 in my garage and the PU box is aftermarket and $$ for a new one. I sure am glad Ford brought this truck into the market in 2007.

There should be a truck section on this site

-Rob

 

Looks like Navistar/International is trying to delay once again...


SCR court battle heats up

Jun 4, 2009 1:23 PM, By Jim Mele, editor-in-chief

Truck and engine manufacturers relying on SCR (selective catalytic reduction) technology to meet Federal 2010 diesel emissions standards have issued their first legal response to U.S. appeals court petitions filed by Navistar. Those petitions, since consolidated into a single case, challenge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently issued guidelines for certifying 2010 diesel engines using SCR.

Cummins Inc., Detroit Diesel Corp., Daimler Trucks North America LLC (DTNA), Volvo Group North America Inc. and Mack Trucks Inc. as a group have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that they be allowed to participate in the case as amici curiae, or friends of the court. The group members, along with Paccar and its Peterbilt and Kenworth subsidiaries, have all committed to using SCR to meet the EPA’s 2001 ruling that NOx emissions from diesel engine be at or below 0.2 g/bhp-hr. beginning Jan. 1, 2010.

Navistar is the sole U.S. heavy-duty manufacturer to reject the SCR approach, and instead has committed to meeting the rule’s standards using high levels of EGR (exhaust gas recirculation). The company will at least initially also rely on emissions credits it has earned with cleaner light-duty diesels over the last two years to certify engines at a 0.5 g/bhp.-hr NOx level.

The SCR group told the court they should be granted amici curiae status because they had "spent considerable time and effort in participating in the EPA rulemaking that Navistar is challenging. … In addition, [they] have expended significant resources over many years in a good-faith research, development, prototype testing, and certification effort to comply with EPA’s" diesel emissions requirements for 2010.

The heart of the court case revolves around the SCR "certification guidance" issued by EPA in February and "certification requirements" released by the agency in March. In a brief to the court, Navistar said it intends to raise nine issues involving those EPA documents. The most important is that the EPA’s SCR guidance "relaxes the 0.2 g NOx standard" for SCR engines and "affirmatively authorizes operation of diesel engines with their emissions control devices bypassed, defeated, and/or rendered inoperative," both of which it says are in violation of the 2001 Clean Air Act requirements.

Those claims are based on EPA’s requirement that SCR engines have a ramped shutdown process that would disable a truck in steps if it is run without the diesel emissions fluid (DEF) needed by SCR for NOx reduction.

Navistar’s court petition also contended that the SCR guidance significantly amended EPA’s 2001 rules that created the diesel emissions reduction requirements and that the agency violated mandatory Federal rulemaking procedures by issuing the new certification process without following those procedures.

The SCR group asserted in its court papers that the members "have an important interest in ensuring that EPA’s 2009 SCR Guidance not be delayed. …In the absence of this guidance, [group members] and others in the industry would face substantial uncertainty as to the EPA certification procedures for SCR equipped heavy-duty vehicles in the U.S."

"We take issue with Navistar's position on this matter, and felt that it was important to provide the court with full information on SCR and the high level of acceptance and compliance in our industry, as well as the consequences of uncertainty and potential delay," DTNA spokesperson Amy Sills told Fleet Owner. "Delaying tactics at this late date are not in the best interest of our respective customers, nor do they further our shared environmental goals."

The other members of the SCR group declined to comment when contacted by Fleet Owner, as did Paccar.

The original court petition does not specify a remedy sought by Navistar, though last year the company did request that EPA delay the 2010 standards and that request was rejected. Citing company policy not to comment on pending court cases, Navistar spokesperson Roy Wiley would only say that it was "seeking guidance from the court."



From (may have restricted access):

http://fleetowner.com/management/scr...04/index1.html

 

Navistar makes junk engines but they are partially right by rejecting SCR, dead wrong about using higher EGR recirculation.