EPA ruins modern diesels in US
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
From: OC, SoCal
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
EPA ruins modern diesels in US
While still sounding good on paper, the 08 and newer diesels are undependable and down on power thanks to the EPAs attempts to make them clean emissions vehicles. It's like what happened to gas cars in the 1970s when catalytic converters arrived on the scene.
My truck is supposed to be 350bhp/650lbft at 2000rpm but it feels like a dog from a stop and goes through a process call regeneration where it sloshes unburned fuel through the exhaust system to clean the soot out. This soot is trapped in something called a DPF (diesel particulate filter) which means the engine has to run increadibly hot.
The real kicker is mileage is down by about 3mpg from the pre-08 diesel trucks and the dpf and injectors keep getting clogged.
What sense in protecting the environment by making us burn way more fuel?
I have a friend with a Cummins Ram dual rear wheels and that's even worse than mine and the same goes for the Chevys with 6.6L duramax. Sorry for the rant (possibly incoherent) but typing having just put my $60k truck into the shop again. When it's working it tows 20,000lbs like its not there but in my businesses (contract building) this down-time is killing me.
Before this is taken as bashing american, it is not. GM and Ford (possibly Dodge) are making great trucks better than ever but thanks to the EPA the diesels in the heavy duty models are to be avoided. I'm going lemon law if I have any more issues after this and if successful it'll be a dependable gas V8 or V10 with no turbos or EPA-bs.
Maybe the kinks will be worked out over the next five years or maybe this tech is fundamentally flawed. Certainly the EPA should be helping develop the tech instead of just demanding the meeting of their emissions requirements.
My truck is supposed to be 350bhp/650lbft at 2000rpm but it feels like a dog from a stop and goes through a process call regeneration where it sloshes unburned fuel through the exhaust system to clean the soot out. This soot is trapped in something called a DPF (diesel particulate filter) which means the engine has to run increadibly hot.
The real kicker is mileage is down by about 3mpg from the pre-08 diesel trucks and the dpf and injectors keep getting clogged.
What sense in protecting the environment by making us burn way more fuel?
I have a friend with a Cummins Ram dual rear wheels and that's even worse than mine and the same goes for the Chevys with 6.6L duramax. Sorry for the rant (possibly incoherent) but typing having just put my $60k truck into the shop again. When it's working it tows 20,000lbs like its not there but in my businesses (contract building) this down-time is killing me.
Before this is taken as bashing american, it is not. GM and Ford (possibly Dodge) are making great trucks better than ever but thanks to the EPA the diesels in the heavy duty models are to be avoided. I'm going lemon law if I have any more issues after this and if successful it'll be a dependable gas V8 or V10 with no turbos or EPA-bs.
Maybe the kinks will be worked out over the next five years or maybe this tech is fundamentally flawed. Certainly the EPA should be helping develop the tech instead of just demanding the meeting of their emissions requirements.
Last edited by transferred; Mar 5, 2009 at 04:54 PM. Reason: wrote wrong rpm figure
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 4
From: Toronto
2006 E320 CDi, 2008 3/4 Ton Suburban, 2007 "rice rickshaw" Accord 5 speed
While still sounding good on paper, the 08 and newer diesels are undependable and down on power thanks to the EPAs attempts to make them clean emissions vehicles. It's like what happened to gas cars in the 1970s when catalytic converter arrived on the scene.
My truck is supposed to be 350bhp/650lbft at 2900rpm but it feels like a dog from a stop and goes through a process call regeneration where it sloshes unburned fuel through the exhaust system to clean the soot out. This soot is trapped in something called a DPF (diesel particulate filter) which means the engine has to run increadibly hot.
The real kicker is mileage is down by about 3mpg from the pre-08 diesel trucks and the dpf and injectors keep getting clogged.
What sense in protecting the environment by making us burn way more fuel?
I have a friend with a Cummins Ram dual rear wheels and that's even worse than mine and the same goes for the Chevy's with 6.6L duramax. Sorry for the rant (possibly incoherent) but typing having just put my $60k truck into the shop again. When it's working it tows 20,000lbs like its not there but in my businesses (contract building) this down time is killing me.
Before this is taken as bashing american, it is not. GM and Ford (possibly Dodge) are making great trucks better than ever but thanks to the EPA the diesels in the heavy duty models are to be avoided. I'm going lemon law if I have any more issues after this and if successful it'll be a dependable gas V8 or V10 with no turbos or EPA-bs.
Maybe the kinks will be worked out over the next five years or maybe this tech is fundamentally flawed. Certainly the EPA should be helping develop the tech instead of just demanding the meeting of their emissions requirements.
My truck is supposed to be 350bhp/650lbft at 2900rpm but it feels like a dog from a stop and goes through a process call regeneration where it sloshes unburned fuel through the exhaust system to clean the soot out. This soot is trapped in something called a DPF (diesel particulate filter) which means the engine has to run increadibly hot.
The real kicker is mileage is down by about 3mpg from the pre-08 diesel trucks and the dpf and injectors keep getting clogged.
What sense in protecting the environment by making us burn way more fuel?
I have a friend with a Cummins Ram dual rear wheels and that's even worse than mine and the same goes for the Chevy's with 6.6L duramax. Sorry for the rant (possibly incoherent) but typing having just put my $60k truck into the shop again. When it's working it tows 20,000lbs like its not there but in my businesses (contract building) this down time is killing me.
Before this is taken as bashing american, it is not. GM and Ford (possibly Dodge) are making great trucks better than ever but thanks to the EPA the diesels in the heavy duty models are to be avoided. I'm going lemon law if I have any more issues after this and if successful it'll be a dependable gas V8 or V10 with no turbos or EPA-bs.
Maybe the kinks will be worked out over the next five years or maybe this tech is fundamentally flawed. Certainly the EPA should be helping develop the tech instead of just demanding the meeting of their emissions requirements.
The EPA and California "clean air" freaks putting their political agendas to work. I often wonder what has changed since 1971 when the catalytic converter came into being and what is the point in tightening the rules every few years. If we ever have zero emission vehicles these dogs will invent new reasons to ban cars and fun vehicles.
All these clean air dogs should give up their limos and travel by donkey and bicycle.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 4
From: Toronto
2006 E320 CDi, 2008 3/4 Ton Suburban, 2007 "rice rickshaw" Accord 5 speed
All emission laws apply to MB as well as Dodge and VW so it is relevent.
Ralph Nader and his friends are anti-car and the car industry and yet he travels by car and airplane. I am certain he does not cycle to Washington if he wants to do anti-fossil fuel political lobbying.
Basically cars are virtually zero emission now with all the LEV and ULEV. Subaru sells a ZEV. What more is there to do? Nothing.
Politicians beg to differ as they need a platform. An excuse for their existence. They have to go CAFE, crash worthiness and many dreamt up new fangles to establish large departments.
You are lucky south of the Canadian border. The politicians here are much more liberal and already had banned smoking and cell phone use in cars. If you let them take away your freedom they will seize it gladly with both hands.
Ralph Nader and his friends are anti-car and the car industry and yet he travels by car and airplane. I am certain he does not cycle to Washington if he wants to do anti-fossil fuel political lobbying.
Basically cars are virtually zero emission now with all the LEV and ULEV. Subaru sells a ZEV. What more is there to do? Nothing.
Politicians beg to differ as they need a platform. An excuse for their existence. They have to go CAFE, crash worthiness and many dreamt up new fangles to establish large departments.
You are lucky south of the Canadian border. The politicians here are much more liberal and already had banned smoking and cell phone use in cars. If you let them take away your freedom they will seize it gladly with both hands.
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 5
From: Federal Heights, CO
1982 300D VNT, 1980 240D 3.0T, 1982 300TD
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 4
From: Toronto
2006 E320 CDi, 2008 3/4 Ton Suburban, 2007 "rice rickshaw" Accord 5 speed
You are right. I saw a 2008 Dodge 2500 diesel with the word "Bluetec" on the windshield sticker on it.
There are aftermarket firms making kits to disable or bypass the PDF. One of them is in Alberta, Canada. Give them your business.
Trending Topics
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Ha...the trucking industry has taken a huge hit....Volvo just released their pricing to meet EPA2010 emission standards on their heavy duty trucks. The system (SCR) will be an additional $9600. 
All engine manufacturers (Cummins, Detroit Diesel etc) will be in the price range as well.
Eventually it will be too expensive to operate trucks.
All engine manufacturers (Cummins, Detroit Diesel etc) will be in the price range as well.
Eventually it will be too expensive to operate trucks.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 405
Likes: 1
From: Scottsdale, AZ
2007 GL320 CDI, 2001 TJ Rockcrawler, 2005 Scoobie STI
While still sounding good on paper, the 08 and newer diesels are undependable and down on power thanks to the EPAs attempts to make them clean emissions vehicles. It's like what happened to gas cars in the 1970s when catalytic converters arrived on the scene.
My truck is supposed to be 350bhp/650lbft at 2000rpm but it feels like a dog from a stop and goes through a process call regeneration where it sloshes unburned fuel through the exhaust system to clean the soot out. This soot is trapped in something called a DPF (diesel particulate filter) which means the engine has to run increadibly hot.
The real kicker is mileage is down by about 3mpg from the pre-08 diesel trucks and the dpf and injectors keep getting clogged.
What sense in protecting the environment by making us burn way more fuel?
I have a friend with a Cummins Ram dual rear wheels and that's even worse than mine and the same goes for the Chevys with 6.6L duramax. Sorry for the rant (possibly incoherent) but typing having just put my $60k truck into the shop again. When it's working it tows 20,000lbs like its not there but in my businesses (contract building) this down-time is killing me.
Before this is taken as bashing american, it is not. GM and Ford (possibly Dodge) are making great trucks better than ever but thanks to the EPA the diesels in the heavy duty models are to be avoided. I'm going lemon law if I have any more issues after this and if successful it'll be a dependable gas V8 or V10 with no turbos or EPA-bs.
Maybe the kinks will be worked out over the next five years or maybe this tech is fundamentally flawed. Certainly the EPA should be helping develop the tech instead of just demanding the meeting of their emissions requirements.
My truck is supposed to be 350bhp/650lbft at 2000rpm but it feels like a dog from a stop and goes through a process call regeneration where it sloshes unburned fuel through the exhaust system to clean the soot out. This soot is trapped in something called a DPF (diesel particulate filter) which means the engine has to run increadibly hot.
The real kicker is mileage is down by about 3mpg from the pre-08 diesel trucks and the dpf and injectors keep getting clogged.
What sense in protecting the environment by making us burn way more fuel?
I have a friend with a Cummins Ram dual rear wheels and that's even worse than mine and the same goes for the Chevys with 6.6L duramax. Sorry for the rant (possibly incoherent) but typing having just put my $60k truck into the shop again. When it's working it tows 20,000lbs like its not there but in my businesses (contract building) this down-time is killing me.
Before this is taken as bashing american, it is not. GM and Ford (possibly Dodge) are making great trucks better than ever but thanks to the EPA the diesels in the heavy duty models are to be avoided. I'm going lemon law if I have any more issues after this and if successful it'll be a dependable gas V8 or V10 with no turbos or EPA-bs.
Maybe the kinks will be worked out over the next five years or maybe this tech is fundamentally flawed. Certainly the EPA should be helping develop the tech instead of just demanding the meeting of their emissions requirements.
I wonder if some of it is related to the fact that at least the Dodge and Ford have brand new engines... 6.7 liter and 6.4 liter respectively. I know that the newer 6.0 liter Ford had all kinds of troubles and it was not even subject to the newer Emissions requirements.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
From: OC, SoCal
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
Just curious, has your truck or any of your friends trucks that are having all of the issues been modified from stock?
I wonder if some of it is related to the fact that at least the Dodge and Ford have brand new engines... 6.7 liter and 6.4 liter respectively. I know that the newer 6.0 liter Ford had all kinds of troubles and it was not even subject to the newer Emissions requirements.
I wonder if some of it is related to the fact that at least the Dodge and Ford have brand new engines... 6.7 liter and 6.4 liter respectively. I know that the newer 6.0 liter Ford had all kinds of troubles and it was not even subject to the newer Emissions requirements.
The Cummins has been even worse than my Powerstroke, in fact. I hope the inconsistent power issues are gone when I get it back, 45mph up a hill pulling only 18,000lbs is not right- that's pedal to the floor. Since the radiator fix the rest of the truck has been great, but power delivery is what I wanted this new tt diesel for.
The least issues has been with my colleagues 08 Duramax. He has 78k on it and although he had a few "increased emissions" messages in that time and mpg has been lower than his 06, it's been solid. I actually just recommended the new Duramax to another friend (which hurt as I'm a Ford truck guy) so I hope it's as reliable as the one with 78k.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
From: orlando, florida. Dr.Phillips, UCF
04 CLK 500, 07 GSX-R 750, S 550, 09 Jeep GC
I know i guy that knows a guy. he has a 2006 F-350 powerstroke. with the banks system on it. The fuel the runs is 1/4 off road diesel, and 3/4 mix regular diesel. this way there's still a little of that sulfer black smoke that the greenies hate so much and it seems to run smoother.
not sure here, but you might want to try propane injection on your truck, i've heard their are alot of benefits.
not sure here, but you might want to try propane injection on your truck, i've heard their are alot of benefits.
Super Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 511
Likes: 8
E55 AMG | Buell Lightning XB12
I know i guy that knows a guy. he has a 2006 F-350 powerstroke. with the banks system on it. The fuel the runs is 1/4 off road diesel, and 3/4 mix regular diesel. this way there's still a little of that sulfer black smoke that the greenies hate so much and it seems to run smoother.
not sure here, but you might want to try propane injection on your truck, i've heard their are alot of benefits.
not sure here, but you might want to try propane injection on your truck, i've heard their are alot of benefits.
New diesel emissions really are a pain.
What's more, if you have a diesel engine with a matched turbo and fuel map, you get little or no smoke at all. The OM642 is such an engine. A DPF is primarily a device to burn soot particulates....
Even with all of my modding, I can barely eek out a small screen...
(I no longer have a DPF, for those unaware.)
Super Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 511
Likes: 8
E55 AMG | Buell Lightning XB12
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 835
Likes: 2
From: Bay Area, CA
09' E320
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 835
Likes: 2
From: Bay Area, CA
09' E320
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 5
From: Federal Heights, CO
1982 300D VNT, 1980 240D 3.0T, 1982 300TD
Off road diesel is exactly the same as on road diesel, minus taxes.
There is NO lubrication problem with ULSD, its purely marketing hype to sell additives. The exact same scheme was pulled with the LSD switch and I guarantee it will be done again the next time they try to reduce sulfur content. If there really was a problem then MILLIONS of diesels would be frequently breaking down with bad injection pumps. The fact a few random problems occurred with a few people is not proof of a mass problem, just that any man-made machine can fail.
Last edited by 240D 3.0T; Mar 16, 2009 at 05:11 AM.
Newbie
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
617.912 722.118 123130 from Stuttgart
Yes, yes, yes, ASTM requires lubricity standard minimums, max water content and all sorts of things. The means by which each fuel manufacturer, blender and reseller achieves those standards can be quite different. Kind of like how there is one NTSC broadcast standard for HDTV, however, each manufacturer of HD products (Sony, Panasonic, etc...) achieves compliance differently. In the context of older cars and newer fuels, it is a little like saying the 8-track Hi-Fi won't sound as good through a digital tuner...
The guy didn't say where the mix of on/off was being used - let's hold off on the lynching, eh? No need to get all conspiratorial and hyperbolic. Off-road diesel is different than on-road diesel, for starters, it is a different color... by 2010 all off-road diesel will be ULSD.
There are differences in the ways by which ULSD, LSD and plain old D provide lubricity. Tho it is nothing detrimental and falls within a fairly normal comparative pattern of use and abuse, ULSD does provide older Bosch diesel fuel pumps a higher frequency of wear and scoring, plain and simple. Mixing as little as 5% biodiesel provides more than enough lubricity to reduce wear score patterns into a normal , or "conventional" diesel fuel profile. Tho sulfur does not provide lubrication itself, the removal of sulfur compounds also removes the constituent blends ability to lubricate. As well as pollute.
Some ways in which ULSD is different that are not so awesome:
Ways in which it is different that might be considered good:
Best,
Uncle Paka
There are differences in the ways by which ULSD, LSD and plain old D provide lubricity. Tho it is nothing detrimental and falls within a fairly normal comparative pattern of use and abuse, ULSD does provide older Bosch diesel fuel pumps a higher frequency of wear and scoring, plain and simple. Mixing as little as 5% biodiesel provides more than enough lubricity to reduce wear score patterns into a normal , or "conventional" diesel fuel profile. Tho sulfur does not provide lubrication itself, the removal of sulfur compounds also removes the constituent blends ability to lubricate. As well as pollute.
Some ways in which ULSD is different that are not so awesome:
- Reduces lubricity. All ULSD is being treated with lubricity improver additives to meet the ASTM D 975 diesel fuel specification.
- Lowers oxidative stability, ensuring that the fuel will be able to resist degradation under stress and exposure to air. New emissions-compliant engines stress the fuel more than previously used engine technologies.
- Lowers conductivity. ASTM D 975 will include a conductivity specification in the near future.
- Lowers solvency so it is less able to solubilize impurities and oxidative byproducts. This can increase injector deposits, reduce fuel economy and negatively impact performance.
- Lowers density, resulting in slightly lower energy content, thus decreasing fuel economy.
- Changes the cold flow behavior.
Ways in which it is different that might be considered good:
- Cleans up the fuel system and keeps it clean.
- Protects fuel pumps from wear.
- Prevents corrosion.
- Fights acid wear from EGR gases.
- Removes or displaces water.
- Reduces filter plugging.
- Keeps pistons cleaner.
Best,
Uncle Paka
Last edited by Uncle Paka; Mar 16, 2009 at 08:41 AM.
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 835
Likes: 2
From: Bay Area, CA
09' E320
Uncle P - You wanna tell Rob that LSD had to have additives added to it so that it too would meet ASTM specs; and that the situation is no differnt today with ULSD, nor will it be any different in the future when super-duper 1ppm ULSD comes out........
What lubricity is taken away in one form (sulfur) is added back in another so that the spec is met.
The telling fact is that all on road diesels ARE burning ULSD and you don't see long lines of them bumper to bumper from coast to coast on the side of the road with their hoods up.
Its a non issue.
What lubricity is taken away in one form (sulfur) is added back in another so that the spec is met.
The telling fact is that all on road diesels ARE burning ULSD and you don't see long lines of them bumper to bumper from coast to coast on the side of the road with their hoods up.
Its a non issue.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
From: Spicewood, TX
2008 GL 320, 2007 Silverado LTZ C3500 Duramax Turbo Diesel
Except in CA, off road diesel is not mandated to be 15 PPM at the refinery until 6/2010. Marine and Rail 6/2012. By 6/2014 all diesel manufactured has to be 15 PPM.
http://www.clean-diesel.org/nonroad.html
If you have ever been audited by an IRS compliance officer, you wouldn't consider running "red diesel" in a road vehicle. The consequences are grave.
My Duramax (New Style '07) has been reliable so far (65K). It has only been in for a recall issue on the wipers. I was hoping for better than the 13-16 mpg that it's getting, but it has tons of power. I was also a Ford diesel person for 25 years. My previous truck was a 7.3, and I bypassed the 6.0. The 6.4 TT was brand spanking new and they were so proud of them at the time, I ended up with the Chevy.
http://www.clean-diesel.org/nonroad.html
If you have ever been audited by an IRS compliance officer, you wouldn't consider running "red diesel" in a road vehicle. The consequences are grave.
My Duramax (New Style '07) has been reliable so far (65K). It has only been in for a recall issue on the wipers. I was hoping for better than the 13-16 mpg that it's getting, but it has tons of power. I was also a Ford diesel person for 25 years. My previous truck was a 7.3, and I bypassed the 6.0. The 6.4 TT was brand spanking new and they were so proud of them at the time, I ended up with the Chevy.
Super Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 511
Likes: 8
E55 AMG | Buell Lightning XB12
Uncle P - You wanna tell Rob that LSD had to have additives added to it so that it too would meet ASTM specs; and that the situation is no differnt today with ULSD, nor will it be any different in the future when super-duper 1ppm ULSD comes out........
What lubricity is taken away in one form (sulfur) is added back in another so that the spec is met.
The telling fact is that all on road diesels ARE burning ULSD and you don't see long lines of them bumper to bumper from coast to coast on the side of the road with their hoods up.
Its a non issue.
What lubricity is taken away in one form (sulfur) is added back in another so that the spec is met.
The telling fact is that all on road diesels ARE burning ULSD and you don't see long lines of them bumper to bumper from coast to coast on the side of the road with their hoods up.
Its a non issue.
Their reason: Non-uniform methods for attaining certification. This is of course with respect to lubricity.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 1
From: L.A., CA
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
I'm hoping the addition of urea/bluetec helps mpg on the Duramax which is enlarging to a 6.9L for 2010. I'm going to order one so if it turns out to be unreliable I'll be sure to post about it.
I drove diesels while growing up and still believe in modern diesels. Just look at the 500bhp, 750lb/ft 6liter V12 Audi have just released in Europe.
I drove diesels while growing up and still believe in modern diesels. Just look at the 500bhp, 750lb/ft 6liter V12 Audi have just released in Europe.
