diesel engine/future

[billiards]

i dont do a lot of posting....i do visit this forum/site often....owning a ford (06 6.0 die.) die doesnt mean it has died...atleast not yet....i find it interesting that a leader in the diesel industry ...Cat., doesnt make or even attempt to make a diesel for the small truck we commonly use to pull our rv.......and the remaining mfg. ALL SEEM to have their problems....having been in the diesel fuel business for most of my life (75 years and try to hold) i have found in all of the wisdom our government, for the people and by the people, they do not have a good success ratio in business... and that is the largest problem with the sludge burners....currently at 38,000 miles w/ no problems..none...i do the filters, oil, clean the egr valve, (no timely basis) @ what i call a heavy price ...our world country competitors have no concern for the polution we try to deal with....if you ever have a chance to view a photograph from China take notice of the shadows cast by the objects displayed....at high noon there are not any, and its not because of clouds. my point is there is no free lunch....a new truck used to be bullet proof for the first 100,000 miles and it didnt cost $50,000.00

[jmtandem]

billards,

Go look at the new diesels, manufacturer's claim the air coming out of the exhaust is cleaner than the ambient air in many metropolitan areas. I think the industry is doing a lot to clean up emissions and still have a truck that can tow something. Not everybody wants to drive a Prius, especially when towing something as heavy as a 30 plus foot travel trailer. Maybe China needs to adopt more strict standards. My understanding is CAT is out of the over the road diesel business focusing on the earthmover and off road market. Too bad, they do have a good product.

[TomR]

As a diesel wanabee it seems to me that the ever more complex, expensive and less fuel efficient diesels may be sending more purchasors toward the gasoline pick-ups. Gas engines have gotten more HP, a little better fuel mileage and do cost so much less than diesel.

Maybe once they hit the current pollution specs they will be able to gradually improve the diesel engine design and get lost MPG back and maybe lower the price premium of buying a diesel engine...again over time??

Tom R

[RedSHED]

Originally Posted by jmtandem

billards,

Go look at the new diesels, manufacturer's claim the air coming out of the exhaust is cleaner than the ambient air in many metropolitan areas. I think the industry is doing a lot to clean up emissions and still have a truck that can tow something. Not everybody wants to drive a Prius, especially when towing something as heavy as a 30 plus foot travel trailer. Maybe China needs to adopt more strict standards. My understanding is CAT is out of the over the road diesel business focusing on the earthmover and off road market. Too bad, they do have a good product.

Actually, China's 2010 standards are slightly stricter than Europe's.
Go figure.

[nunya001]

As an owner of a 7.3L Powerstroke diesel with a Vegistroke V3 fuel system I can say with certainty that there are viable alternatives to the over regulated diesels currently being produced - unfortunately, they are not within the regular product offerings. Yes, it is a shame to see great technology ignored and good technology left behind. The 7.3L motor provides reliability, exceptional power and just a hair under 20MPG unloaded. Are you telling me that the engineers behind the 6.0, 6.4 and the new scorpion just couldn't figure it out? No way - they are presented with unproductive restraints that kill the business case for having the right balance of mpg, emissions and power.

[JimGolden]

Well, I'm a transplanted aerospace engineer working in civil engineering building highways for the DOT......

The CAT 777 is a thing of beauty. It's got a 65 cubic yard bed, can haul over 100 tons in that bed, and gosh only knows what the gross weight is....it doesn't matter because it's off road only.

So there's the deal....CAT must be hedging their bets in the heavy equipment earth moving business. The CAT 777 is definitely not an on road machine. When the tire diameter is about 9 feet and each tire costs $30,000 (you read that right!), that's a machine.

It just ain't cool if you don't have to climb a ladder in front of the grill to get into the cockpit! We don't need a road...we make our own road! - CAT 2009


OK, so I say this half in jest. But maybe that's what CAT is figuring. They make a lot of really good off road equipment. Maybe they figured that the regs concerning the onroad stuff just wasn't worth it anymore.

Until then, I'll keep smiling with my Cummins powered Ram.

see ya all on the road,

[Beginner]

Observation of History:
Diesels are popular in just about every other country but here in the US.
Why?
General Motors!
Their objective back in the eighties with there POS diesels (a converted Oldsmobile/Caddy 350 ci Gasoline V-8 Block and heads) was to sour the American public on the thought of diesels.
They did a very good job.
Why, money.
The diesel costs more to make and GM couldn’t figure a way to spin it into a profit for them. Don't forget their buddies the oil companies. If every one drove diesels the fuel consumption would drop at least 10%. Even though the BTU content of a gallon of gasoline has declined drastically over the years since 1970, the cost of gas has continued to rise. Don’t forget that diesel cost less per gallon to refine than gasoline does. Why, because they (Big Oil) can. Big oil has it in their mind that they are entitled to ”X“ number of dollars for each mile we put on our car. Why do you think the electric car failed? Because big oil would lose their strangle hold on the us population. That is why the fuel cell is being touted so highly, the filling stations (big oils leash on us).
It costs 10 times as much to produce enough Liquid Hydrogen to propel a car 100 miles as it does to charge and propel an electric car 100 miles even with the batteries GM used in their electric cars of a few years ago. Why do you think Bush supported the Fuel Cell? Big oil again. Who’s going to stop them? Our congress, yea right, seen what they are doing to our health care.
The fact is that most people in this country drive less than 100 miles a day (I have read this, can’t remember where) and this includes me. Remember the GM electric car? It had the least efficient battery available at the time. They built it with the idea of souring the general public on the idea of electric cars, but it backfired. Those who got the little cars realized that with little or no change in their daily routine the car worked flawlessly. When GM realized the car wasn’t the flop they had hoped for they gathered them all up when the lease was up (no you couldn’t buy one for any amount of money) and crushed them.
GM has pulled this stunt before and got away with it. Back in the fifties GM engaged in unfair business practices and drove the steam engine out of existence, even though the steam engine was actually more efficient. They were convicted in Federal Court and fined $1.00.
You connect the dots for your self.
If GM put half the money in diesel research or battery research and development that they are putting into gasoline engine research we would have diesel or electric powered cars that would cost 1/3 to 1/5 of the cost of what we have now.
Ford Light truck diesels? When ford tried to build a light truck diesel initially it was a 20 thousand mile engine. That’s why they bought the International Harvester diesel for their trucks, but that backfired also. The IH engines wouldn’t die and people weren’t trading up in 3 years s before so they went back to building their own diesels and the 3 year cycle sort of returned.
Who seems to be at least trying to make head way on diesel development? I see BMW and Volkswagon as the leaders (yea that statement hurts me to make). BMW has been putting diesels in their cars in Europe and elsewhere for a very long time (decades). Mercedes and Peugeot are just to maintenance intensive and costly to be practical for the average person here.
Just my two cents worth.

Beginner

[Rebee]

I am really confused.

I have a 2007 Dodge w/6.7ltr Cummings and 3.73 rear. If I keep my foot out of it I get 23 mpg back and forth to work. Towing I get 14 mpg by keeping the RPM around 1500 or below(60 to 65 MPH). I have 40,000 miles on the truck and have towed many local trips and out to Yellowstone and back. I can run my fingers inside the exhaust pipe and there is no soot only a little rust. Compare oranges to oranges, get a 6.7 liter gas engine and put a 30 ft classic on the back and get the same results.

The longevity of the diesel is another reason to pay the price for one. 300k miles doing daily driving and heavy towing is more the norm with a diesel.

I believe the Duramax and Scorpion are also exceptional performers and clean burning engines. And with the Duramax you get an Allison transmission. How great is that?

[crispyboy]

I just can't understand why automakers do not make a light duty diesel in the half ton trucks. I know many people that would be happy to purchase one. It would only need to be a small 6 cylinder or large 4 cylinder like the Cummins 4bt engine and the automakers would be back in business. Before the recession hit there was a lot of clamor that the big 3 were each going to come out with one - maybe some day. I understand that the big 3 sell small diesels in every other country except the US. Thanks EPA for not letting the American public have choices.
I personally own a VW diesel - 1997 Jetta. It is a neat little car in many ways but if you have to work on the car you will hate it. Everything is done via the braile method - you just can't see things under the hood - can be very challenging. Changing the timing belt is an all day affair (every 60k). While you are there you might as well change the drive belts, thermostat and water pump. When your finished you need a laptop to time the injection pump. Other preventative maintenance has been to clean the intake manifold. The egr valve pumps soot into the intake and must be cleaned about 60k miles - intake will be 90% clogged. The car has been reliable up to now and I am currently troubleshooting an issue with the turbo which is causing the car to go into limp mode. Car has 175K miles and now the body is starting to rot. The nice thing about the car is that it gets 45 mpg and will go 100 mph without issue.

[TomR]

Originally Posted by Rebee

I am really confused.

I have a 2007 Dodge w/6.7ltr Cummings and 3.73 rear. If I keep my foot out of it I get 23 mpg back and forth to work. Towing I get 14 mpg by keeping the RPM around 1500 or below(60 to 65 MPH). I have 40,000 miles on the truck and have towed many local trips and out to Yellowstone and back. I can run my fingers inside the exhaust pipe and there is no soot only a little rust. Compare oranges to oranges, get a 6.7 liter gas engine and put a 30 ft classic on the back and get the same results.

The longevity of the diesel is another reason to pay the price for one. 300k miles doing daily driving and heavy towing is more the norm with a diesel.

I believe the Duramax and Scorpion are also exceptional performers and clean burning engines. And with the Duramax you get an Allison transmission. How great is that?

Is yours a pre-ULSD (ultra low sulpher diesel) engine?...change was implemented January 2008 I believe...with USLD engines arriving some weeks/months after 1/1/08. Many seem to like some of the earlier diesel engines for MPG and less maintenance...ie; pre-ULSD engines.

I think the issue is the USLD engines MPG and the coming 2010 even tougher pollution standards.

From most of what I read the new (USLD) and the coming 2010 newer engine have issues with MPG, pollution equipment, UREA required, cost and engine heat. Not heard much that the new 2010 engines will be any better?...maybe worse?

Your 2007 may well be a pre-USLD "keeper"?

Tom R

[Ag&Au]

Sometimes the uncanny ability of the forum software to pick pertinent advertising amazes me. When I was viewing this thread, I noticed an ad for parts to bypass (remove) the Catalytic filter and diesel particulate filter. Unfortunately (or fortunately depend on you view), I could not get away with that here. In Denver and surrounding areas, Diesels must be emission inspected annually. The first thing they do is make sure that kind of stuff is there. I believe my 2003 Ram was one of the last years to be able to burn traditional diesel. When did they start requiring the low sulfur diesel?
Regards,
Ken

[Ag&Au]

Originally Posted by w7ts

....................................
When did they start requiring the low sulfur diesel?
Regards,
Ken

I found the answer to the question I really wanted to ask, but didn't now how. The first catalytic converters were on 2004 1/2 Dodge diesels.
Ken

[TomR]

Originally Posted by w7ts

I believe my 2003 Ram was one of the last years to be able to burn traditional diesel. When did they start requiring the low sulfur diesel?
Regards,
Ken

Not sure when "low sulfur" diesel was introduced...buit I believe ULTRA Low Sulfur diesel (ULSD) was dated 1/1/2008...and it took some time to get it into the distribution system...along with much stricter emission rules.

Now I believe 2010 has newer MORE restrictive emission rules...not sure if the ULSD also changes to an Ultra Ultra Low Sulfur diesel UULSD?) for 2010???

In any case I believe many are keeping their older model diesels to wait until all this sorts out a bit?

I too am waiting for more variety of clean, quiet diesel autos to be introduced to US...many good models in Europe have not found their way here yet. Tom

[rbr]

I'm glad my impulse purchase of the '09 Duramax at least avoided even worse EPA intrusion... no urea req'd, but the manual does say that non-ULSD will choke the particulate filter worse than a cat with a furball, so I was wondering about Mexico as the SO has been making noises about Baja. is ULSD the norm there or is it the usual mix of water and whatever come out of the still that day?

[CanoeStream]

Originally Posted by TomR

Not sure when "low sulfur" diesel was introduced...buit I believe ULTRA Low Sulfur diesel (ULSD) was dated 1/1/2008...and it took some time to get it into the distribution system...along with much stricter emission rules.

Now I believe 2010 has newer MORE restrictive emission rules...not sure if the ULSD also changes to an Ultra Ultra Low Sulfur diesel UULSD?) for 2010???

Europe has approximately an 8ppm standard and that's just not going to happen here. The U.S. deliberately decided to go no lower than 15ppm (ULSD) and it took quite a lot to buck up and not give way to oil company grousing -- the same companies in a lobbying effort who turned diesel-gas price differentials upside down about three years ago.

I bought my 2006 while still in the LSD 200ppm standard. ULSD became mandated partway thru the 2007 model year -- approximately February or March 2007 IIRC. And there it is going to stay.

Before the latest recession chop blocked car and truck sales, GM & Toyota were well along in development of 1/2-ton truck diesels. You'd have to see truck sales and at the pump prices trend upward before this is revived. At about the same time Ford turned its back on its longtime diesel Navistar source and took that in-house. And Ford was developing a 4.4L diesel -- also stillborn by the recession. Isuzu and others build plenty of medium to small diesels. You will see more diesel options given an invigorated market ... a couple years away at best.

[CanoeStream]

rbr - there may be better sources of info but I found this after a brief search: Baja Highways. It doesn't appear to have been updated recently and doesn't say a thing about ppm sulfur levels.

Also:
ULSD... cant find it and do i have to run it on LMM? - Page 2 - Diesel Place
Low sulfur ultra low question - Diesel Place

Mebbe your SO wants to fly to Cabo?

[Mike Leary]

Ours runs fine on low sulfur, we sure change fuel filters a lot more than we did fifteen years ago; co-incidence?

[Rebee]

Originally Posted by TomR

Is yours a pre-ULSD (ultra low sulpher diesel) engine?...change was implemented January 2008 I believe...with USLD engines arriving some weeks/months after 1/1/08. Many seem to like some of the earlier diesel engines for MPG and less maintenance...ie; pre-ULSD engines.

I think the issue is the USLD engines MPG and the coming 2010 even tougher pollution standards.

From most of what I read the new (USLD) and the coming 2010 newer engine have issues with MPG, pollution equipment, UREA required, cost and engine heat. Not heard much that the new 2010 engines will be any better?...maybe worse?

Your 2007 may well be a pre-USLD "keeper"?

Tom R

It is a 6.7 which was delivered mid year of 2007 (July). It is the ULSF unit. I ordered it as soon as it was avaliable. This unit meets the 2010 requirements. It uses a Particulate Filter (Catalytic converter).

It is also very quiet and comes with an exhaust brake standard.

[SteveH]

just traded an '07 1/2 ton GMC pickup (5.3L gas) for an '08 3/4 ton GMC Duramax Diesel 4X4. Took a short trip to New Mexico to pickup a small trailer (17 footer), and AVERAGED 14.9 MPG on the entire trip. The best mileage running empty was 16.8, and the worst pulling the little trailer was 13.6. This is actual mileage dividing miles driven by gallons used, not by the dashboard computer, which by the way, agrees.

This stuipid thing gets WORSE fuel mileage than my 1/2 ton gas truck did.

So, let's see now.....the fuel is about 20 cents a gallon more expensive, and it gets worse mileage????

Sorry folks, I just don't see any savings here. On the contrary, it will cost more to drive this Diesel. The only good thing is, it does have lots more power.

[TomR]

Originally Posted by SteveH

just traded an '07 1/2 ton GMC pickup (5.3L gas) for an '08 3/4 ton GMC Duramax Diesel 4X4. Took a short trip to New Mexico to pickup a small trailer (17 footer), and AVERAGED 14.9 MPG on the entire trip. The best mileage running empty was 16.8, and the worst pulling the little trailer was 13.6. This is actual mileage dividing miles driven by gallons used, not by the dashboard computer, which by the way, agrees.

This stuipid thing gets WORSE fuel mileage than my 1/2 ton gas truck did.

So, let's see now.....the fuel is about 20 cents a gallon more expensive, and it gets worse mileage????

Sorry folks, I just don't see any savings here. On the contrary, it will cost more to drive this Diesel. The only good thing is, it does have lots more power.

Seems to be what you hear more and more on the diesel truck sites. I do believe that the new and "newer...2010" pollution rules have greatly diminished the benfits of a diesel pick up...other than strong torque...which if you pull on the very heavy side may still lead you to a diesel.

Tom R