Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-25-2019, 11:55 PM   #85
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Can of beans View Post
by the way, I believe the emissions killing diesels is related to the EGR systems all the Tier4F engines have. we're planning to skip to Euro Stage 5 Cummins engines. The Stage V engines don't have EGR, they have smaller radiators, but they do dose more DEF. the after-treatment packaging is much better also. Maybe they'll bring that to the on-road engines
The on road standards tend to have much more stringent NOx limits than the off road engine standards. Manufacturers have tended towards a combination of both EGR and SCR treatment.
__________________

jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2019, 12:31 AM   #86
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shermy1987 View Post
Dogmatic opinions with blanket statements are never wise. Nor is blind faith in authority.

There are many valid reasons why people choose to modify a vehicles emissions system. Ranchers and people living in remote locations would be some good examples.

The environmental benefits are also very complex when it comes to certain systems. A DPF does a tremendous job of removing diesel particulates. However the SCR side is a costly and complex system. The catalyst itself is made with rare metals mined from third world countries. It uses urea which has to be mined. Its an unreliable system. And most importantly, this very complex system is installed to combat nitrous oxides.

Nitrous oxides are pretty benign in comparison to most gasses. Unfortunately diesel engines in private vehicles were thrown into the same category as commercial vehicles. The need to prevent nitrous oxide emissions from the average pickup is ludicrous to say the least. Its also one of the reasons precenting alternative diesel fuels being further developed and used as they damage the catalyst.

And lets just remember. The vast majority of the worlds engines don't have any emissions whatsoever. Grab yourself a passport and go take a look at what the rest of the world is driving outside the US and Europe. there's no emissions systems on any vehicle.
If those ranchers in remote areas are operating their vehicles off road only, then those modifications would make sense. And they would be legal.

Not sure why the reference to mining for urea. I consider it a product of natural gas (or other petroleum products).

There is a lot of research going on re new materials for SCR systems. Product development is happening. Systems will become more reliable, but not necessarily cheaper. If people are not comfortable with the current state of the art, then choose a product that doesn't have SCR. A gasoline engine is but one alternative.

I see the reason for your confusion over SCR. You are wrongly focusing on Nitrous Oxide. That is not the target of selective catalytic reduction systems. Nitrous Oxide is also known as laughing gas. Your dentist may use it. The formula is N20. Yes, it is pretty benign, unless it is in the atmosphere where it attacks ozone similar to the CFCs that we moved away from for good reasons.

SCR systems are designed to reduce NOx. Nitrides of Oxygen, not Nitrous Oxide. Nitrides of Oxygen include NO and NO2, which are the two most concerning, as they contribute to smog, and acid rain.

All of the worlds engines have emissions. Some have more than others, due to the type and quality of the emissions controls applied to them. I have seen them working around the world. I actually have two passports, thanks. I had a long career selling, servicing, and providing technical support for products from the world's largest manufacturer of diesel engines. Off road and on road. North American emissions standards when I worked in Canada, Euro standards during my time based in the EU, and a general lack of standards during my time based in South America. Australia as well, now that I think about it, but only on projects, not as a resident. In Chile, my vehicle (Expedition) met North American emissions standards. The issue wasn't the new vehicles there, it was the installed base of old vehicles. The pollution in Santiago Chile was so bad, partly from the uncontrolled diesel engine buses, that odd and even number ending license plates were permitted to be operated only on dates that were odd or even during air quality alerts, just to try to help improve the air quality and reduce the hospital visits. People who could afford to do so moved out to the coast during July and August (winter there) due to health issues in the city. These are among the reasons to have well regulated emissions controls, not reasons to remove them in North America because of wanting to sink to the lowest common denominator. The important figures to me for North American emissions aren't just the grams/km numbers, it is the per capita annual figure. We drive more, with larger and more powerful engines than many places in the rest of the world and thus emit more, but we have the ability to reduce our impact. Choosing not to because "he's not doing it" is unconscionable IMO.
__________________

jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2019, 07:33 AM   #87
3 Rivet Member
 
1971 27' Overlander
Kansas City , Kansas
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 180
Thanks for the correction of my typo. Yes, Im aware of the difference between NOX and laughing gas. And most developing countries have at the most an EGR system fitted to their engines. A Chinese farmer could not afford a years income to fix his truck every week.

I used to be involved in the R&D of LNG truck engines. The governments obsession with stupidity and regulation required DPF systems to be fitted to something that did not require such a devise. Just one example of government stupidity in the emissions department. I also watched hundreds of gallons of uburnt natural gas go up into the atmosphere every week all in the name of environmentalism. That said, depending on which city you look at, smog in developing cities has been reduced by converting public transport to CNG much more than adding emissions systems to diesel cars.

Obviously, Im not advocating for the removal of emissions systems or ending their development. However when you need a diesel vehicle, you don't spend all day driving it around the city and don't earn a large income. Considering the removal of your SCR system which is an unreliable piece of junk that can cost thousands of dollars a year in lost profits/repairs is something any logical person would consider.

Considering that option shouldn't come with threats of being an environmental terrorist, or the hope that the government will step in and arrest the person you disagree with. This is the sort of intolerance that leads down a slippery slope.

Unfortunately, we're trying to stop emissions coming our of a piece of 150 year old technology which burns fossil fuels. At some stage there has to be a ballance between the reality of achieving environmental goals and financial burden.

When you consider that something like 70% of all diesel fuel is burnt in the transport industry. Harry down the street removing the SCR system from his pickup is hardly causing an environmental catastrophe.
Shermy1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2019, 12:05 PM   #88
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shermy1987 View Post
Thanks for the correction of my typo. Yes, Im aware of the difference between NOX and laughing gas. And most developing countries have at the most an EGR system fitted to their engines. A Chinese farmer could not afford a years income to fix his truck every week.

I used to be involved in the R&D of LNG truck engines....
It may have been a typo, but the real issue was that N2O is relatively benign, as you said, but that NOx isn’t. Huge difference. The environmental impacts are very real for NOx.

I also worked in LNG development for transport. I led an engineering team working on fuel systems for LNG for both on road trucks, and off road heavy equipment. That included mining trucks, rail applications, marine applications, and so on. We may have run into each other.

We also had product development in process with European heavy duty on road truck manufacturers, developing fuel systems for engines that would meet both Euro 6 and North American regulations. Our partner was building products for global markets.

We were doing development work for, and selling product into, China. Mainly because of their government’s recognition of their urban air quality issues, and mandates to reduce pollution from transport vehicles. So this isn’t just a NA and Europe issue.

I don’t think NG is the future of transit vehicles, it is a bridging strategy IMO. Full electric is the end game.

When you say “when you need a diesel vehicle...” it ignores that some don’t need a diesel vehicle. They just want one (getting back to towing Airstreams). That is completely fine, but those diesel vehicles in North America have exhaust emission treatment systems, it is part of the deal. When support is expressed for removing those emission controls, it undermines the current approach of even permitting diesels to be sold for these applications. Removing the emissions controls doesn’t result in a marginal increase in pollutants emitted, it is an order of magnitude increase. For every modified vehicle. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Unless the goal is to have a race to the bottom. I just think that we should be better than that.
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2019, 03:18 PM   #89
Rivet Master
 
2012 19' International
Southeastern MI , Michigan
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by n2916s View Post
I am old enough to remember the entire Northeast Corridor under a brownish grey cloud of yuck almost continuously. Ditto for Southern California.

When flying into Miami from the southeast, even as recently as the 70's, we would encounter a lighter but omnipresent layer of that same haze, often as far as a hundred miles out.

Emission controls are complex, can and do fail and are a pain in the butt but they do work -- look out the window the next time you fly into MIA, JFK or LAX. Maybe it is just me, but defeating exhaust emissions for convenience seems, well, selfish.
The smoke from the fires in california can be seen in Michigan. Seems like that’s more visible than smoke from a few diesels.

My truck runs great with all emissions equipment intact, and without DEF. But I don’t hold it against people who want to remove emissions from their diesel, just like I don’t hold it against people for running air conditioning all summer or having campfires. Hell, the whole camping hobby couldn’t be less green.
Countryboy59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2019, 06:03 PM   #90
3 Rivet Member
 
1971 27' Overlander
Kansas City , Kansas
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
It may have been a typo, but the real issue was that N2O is relatively benign, as you said, but that NOx isn’t. Huge difference. The environmental impacts are very real for NOx.

I also worked in LNG development for transport. I led an engineering team working on fuel systems for LNG for both on road trucks, and off road heavy equipment. That included mining trucks, rail applications, marine applications, and so on. We may have run into each other.

We also had product development in process with European heavy duty on road truck manufacturers, developing fuel systems for engines that would meet both Euro 6 and North American regulations. Our partner was building products for global markets.

We were doing development work for, and selling product into, China. Mainly because of their government’s recognition of their urban air quality issues, and mandates to reduce pollution from transport vehicles. So this isn’t just a NA and Europe issue.

I don’t think NG is the future of transit vehicles, it is a bridging strategy IMO. Full electric is the end game.

When you say “when you need a diesel vehicle...” it ignores that some don’t need a diesel vehicle. They just want one (getting back to towing Airstreams). That is completely fine, but those diesel vehicles in North America have exhaust emission treatment systems, it is part of the deal. When support is expressed for removing those emission controls, it undermines the current approach of even permitting diesels to be sold for these applications. Removing the emissions controls doesn’t result in a marginal increase in pollutants emitted, it is an order of magnitude increase. For every modified vehicle. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Unless the goal is to have a race to the bottom. I just think that we should be better than that.
Heres an interesting hypothetical question. You sound well qualified enough to give a thoughtful and honest answer.

Is a new diesel pickup with no SCR, using 1 gallon of diesel per 16 miles whilst towing less environmentally friendly than a new gas powered pickup using 1 gallon of gas for every 6 miles travelled whilst towing?
Shermy1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2019, 09:19 PM   #91
Rivet Master
 
wulfraat's Avatar
 
2017 30' International
Broomfield , Colorado
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,747
Images: 1
Ram/Cummins DEF Failure

From the perspective of smog, acid rain, inflammation of human airways, reduced lung function, and other short/long term effects of NOx, hands down the gas engine wins. This is due to the fact that (A) it’s not as lean of a burn and produces less NOx to begin with and (B) gasoline engines that use a 3-way catalytic converter can reduce the NOx emissions in the exhaust by 99%.

SCR technology alone can achieve NOx reductions up to 90 percent for a Diesel engine.

NOx and diesel particulates are 2 of the largest issues with diesel combustion. Fortunately there are emissions systems that can deal with them.

Diesel is a higher energy density fuel, and apples
to apples produces less CO2 per mile which is good! But one must have emission controls for the exhaust treatment otherwise you take 2 steps forward and 8 steps back with regards to overall impact.
wulfraat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2019, 09:41 PM   #92
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shermy1987 View Post
Heres an interesting hypothetical question. You sound well qualified enough to give a thoughtful and honest answer.

Is a new diesel pickup with no SCR, using 1 gallon of diesel per 16 miles whilst towing less environmentally friendly than a new gas powered pickup using 1 gallon of gas for every 6 miles travelled whilst towing?
I don't disagree with wulfraat, but I would consider it to be more than 8 steps back if the pollution controls are not functioning as designed.

I am not clear on your definition of environmental friendliness. There are a large number of potential factors we could consider. Are we talking about total GHG emissions? Pollution impacts? Pollution impacts weighted towards the increased impacts in built up and urban areas (particulates, smog, etc)? Do we consider that both are dedicated tow vehicles and are never driven other than when towing? If not, I would normally look for a % of towing time and consider the towing benefits to be reduced by that factor if it is a dual purpose vehicle.

In your example with no SCR on the diesel, using my own criteria, I would suggest the gas engine has fewer environmental impacts. I am not clear on why you picked 6 mpg and 16 mpg, as it doesn't seem realistic to me, but in any case I don't think that a 10 to 12 fold multiplier on emissions from the diesel just due to removing the SCR can be overcome by whatever the fuel economy advantage is of the diesel, even if we go with the 10 mpg advantage you list. And the diesel wasn't cleaner to start, even if all the pollution controls were in place.

If you want to use broader criteria for environmental impacts, and another judgement on this question, look to the cities that are planning on banning diesel engines for light duty vehicles (which these trucks are, in general) in the coming years due to the pollution impacts. They aren't doing the same for gasoline engines. Those will take longer.
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2019, 09:08 AM   #93
3 Rivet Member
 
1971 27' Overlander
Kansas City , Kansas
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 180
I simply find this an interesting question that I do not know an answer to myself. Depending on what you consider a greater threat to the environment, the answer has many many variables. Its certainly not as simple as stating that a gasoline engine will produce less NOx emmissions so therefore is better for the environment.

The MPG was a broad suggestion on the fact there is something in the vicinity of a 10 MPG difference between gas and diesel pickups while towing, at least in my experience anyhow. Using no SCR is due to the fact that it is the most inefficient and unreliable emmissioms system in many ways. It is also the mandates for diesel NOx reduction that is putting the diesel engine in shaky hands as manufacturers struggle to meet new standards. And. The want to remove it arose on this forum.
Shermy1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2019, 11:56 AM   #94
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,785
It isn't that the manufacturers can't meet the standards. It is that they are not investing sufficiently in product development and testing so as to produce a system that the public accepts, and which has the lower failure rate of other components on the vehicle.. The problem isn't the pollution controls. It is that too many are prepared to buy partially developed products, and be beta testers. Just say no.

And one reason that manufacturers struggle with increased investments required for diesel products is that it is a product without a long term future, for these sized vehicles. Diesels will be around in medium and heavy duty vehicles for longer, IMO, but less so in light duty vehicles.

Look at half ton diesels. Manufacturers resisted the pressure to offer them for many years. They just didn't want the trouble. Then when one did it, they all had to. I wonder if they wish they could put the genie back in the bottle.
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2019, 12:09 PM   #95
Rivet Master
 
1986 31' Sovereign
Miami , Florida
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,994
Blog Entries: 13
Ram/Cummins DEF Failure

My Titan XD (diesel) gets about 13 mpg towing my 31'. My first gen Titan gas got a skosh less than 10mpg. Granted, I tow at 65 with the new truck vice 60 with the old (better tires on AS). Considering that diesel fuel has about a 30% greater energy per gallon, it is about what I would expect. And, further considering that, in my neighborhood, diesel is about 30% more expensive than gas so fuel cost per mile is about the same.

Add in DEF, fuel filters every 10k and $75 oil changes and, well, the diesel (at least for me) is more expensive to operate per mile. The diesel should have greater longevity but my first gen went 213000 without any major repairs so the longevity bar is set pretty high.
__________________
new (usually dirty) Nissan Titan XD (hardly paid for)
Old (enhanced with "male pattern baldness") Sovereign
Young, lovely bride
Goofy dog, dismissive cat
n2916s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2019, 07:19 PM   #96
Rivet Master
 
gypsydad's Avatar

 
2017 28' Flying Cloud
2014 25' FB Flying Cloud
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Austin (winter) Lincoln MT (summer) , Texas & Montana
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by n2916s View Post
My Titan XD (diesel) gets about 13 mpg towing my 31'. My first gen Titan gas got a skosh less than 10mpg. Granted, I tow at 65 with the new truck vice 60 with the old (better tires on AS). Considering that diesel fuel has about a 30% greater energy per gallon, it is about what I would expect. And, further considering that, in my neighborhood, diesel is about 30% more expensive than gas so fuel cost per mile is about the same.

Add in DEF, fuel filters every 10k and $75 oil changes and, well, the diesel (at least for me) is more expensive to operate per mile. The diesel should have greater longevity but my first gen went 213000 without any major repairs so the longevity bar is set pretty high.
Diesel gas, oil changes (0il changes=$75??; where; I pay $120 with coupons in Austin?? Fuel Filter is $150-180...) and MPG cost a lot, but power is there if your pulling a larger AS and need the payload also. Love the 3/4T for towing, but not convinced long term costs for me, will be worth it...I have 56K now on my 2017F250. Love the power, but not the costs...especially fuel...going thru TX now heading to MT thru Tetons and Yellowstone...best price after Austin has been $284/gal...feel like I am in CA, except not really; there it would be $5+per Gal...
__________________
Empty Nesters; Gypsies on the road!
2017 28' Twin Flying Cloud
2017 F250 King Ranch, 4X4, Blue-Ox WDH
Summer in Lincoln, MT- Winter in Austin, TX
gypsydad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2019, 07:59 PM   #97
Rivet Master
 
1986 31' Sovereign
Miami , Florida
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,994
Blog Entries: 13
Did my oil yesterday. Filter $18 (online) 2.5 gallons Rotella T6 at Advance Auto for $54.99.

Fuel filters online run about $95 for the pair. Swapping them out takes about an hour the first time, 30 minutes after that. The procedure for both is in the owner's manual.
__________________
new (usually dirty) Nissan Titan XD (hardly paid for)
Old (enhanced with "male pattern baldness") Sovereign
Young, lovely bride
Goofy dog, dismissive cat
n2916s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2019, 08:57 PM   #98
Rivet Master
 
2012 19' International
Southeastern MI , Michigan
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by n2916s View Post
My Titan XD (diesel) gets about 13 mpg towing my 31'. My first gen Titan gas got a skosh less than 10mpg. Granted, I tow at 65 with the new truck vice 60 with the old (better tires on AS). Considering that diesel fuel has about a 30% greater energy per gallon, it is about what I would expect. And, further considering that, in my neighborhood, diesel is about 30% more expensive than gas so fuel cost per mile is about the same.

Add in DEF, fuel filters every 10k and $75 oil changes and, well, the diesel (at least for me) is more expensive to operate per mile. The diesel should have greater longevity but my first gen went 213000 without any major repairs so the longevity bar is set pretty high.
Yep, they’re expensive to maintain. Worth every penny every time I step on the gas (throttle lol).

Good thing I love to work on my stuff. EGR cleaning is next.
__________________

Countryboy59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DEF question - 2016 RAM 2500/3500 Owners With 6.7L Cummins Diesel AIRHEDS Tow Vehicles 31 11-10-2016 06:43 PM
RAM Diesel DEF / DPF immobilization RivaHaven Towing, Tow Vehicles & Hitches 31 11-11-2015 09:08 AM
Dodge Ram 4x2 Cummins rp709 Tow Vehicles 0 01-21-2012 10:05 PM
To Cummins or Not to Cummins?? Help!! On the brink! big_john Tow Vehicles 33 03-23-2010 08:20 PM
Will 2000 Dodge RAM 2500 with Cummins 5.9L tow A/S well? idahosafari Tow Vehicles 23 03-11-2004 02:34 PM


Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Airstream, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.