transferred

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.

harkgar

This is not ranting but an elegant statement of facts.
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.

lkchris

It's not very "factual" at all.

And, it's irrelevant to Mercedes.

harkgar

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.

240D 3.0T

Not in the least. Mercedes' BlueTec models have the EXACT same system.

harkgar

240:

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.

harkgar

I meant a Diesel Particulate Filter, not a PDF file.

Sorry.

scootr29

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.

Danno4x4

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.

transferred

My truck is bone stock down to the tires. My friend's Cummins is stock as far as I know but I know he was planning on having the DPF removed though it's 2010 compliant so I'm not even sure if that would help with urea injections and the like.

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.

CLK Masters

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.

Rob CL

ULSD has an evident lack of lubricity. You can try additives to combat this, though that can be a shot in the dark.

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.)

TMAllison

Not true per ASTM specs. People said the same thing when LSD first came out.

stickygreen

In CA, all offroad "red" diesel is ULSD.

Rob CL

Can you point me to a document citing this? All EPA documents related to ULSD state very clearly that there is a deficiency of lubrication.

TMAllison

Ref ASTM specs and compare LSD to ULSD.

Rob CL

I am lost for sure now... If you happen to find a link, please pass it along.

Thanks!

TMAllison

You'll need to read ASTM D975 or the wiki if you want lighter reading.

240D 3.0T

All he is doing is evading taxes.

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.

Uncle Paka

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:

1. Reduces lubricity. All ULSD is being treated with lubricity improver additives to meet the ASTM D 975 diesel fuel specification.
2. 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.
3. Lowers conductivity. ASTM D 975 will include a conductivity specification in the near future.
4. 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.
5. Lowers density, resulting in slightly lower energy content, thus decreasing fuel economy.
6. Changes the cold flow behavior.

Ways in which it is different that might be considered good:

1. Cleans up the fuel system and keeps it clean.
2. Protects fuel pumps from wear.
3. Prevents corrosion.
4. Fights acid wear from EGR gases.
5. Removes or displaces water.
6. Reduces filter plugging.
7. Keeps pistons cleaner.

Either way, fuel is engineered to meet a lot of considerations.

Best,
Uncle Paka

Rob CL

Thankfully I'm not the only person privy to this info. LOL...

Thanks for the info Uncle Paka.

TMAllison

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.

scottybdiving

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.

Rob CL

I hear what you're saying. The angle of my argument was only better described by Uncle P. I have been advised several times over by MB and Jeep techs as to where I should and shouldn't purchase diesel.

Their reason: Non-uniform methods for attaining certification. This is of course with respect to lubricity.

Carl Lassiter

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.