DPF DEF Delete

[InterBlog]

The percentages are accepted as true in relative terms. But I'm wondering about absolute terms. 85% of relatively little is still only a little.

As analogies go, it hearkens back to the disposable plastic fork argument that I've witnessed on multiple forums. Some people become aghast when they learn that I use disposable cutlery when I'm on fast-paced long-haul trips such as to Nova Scotia and I'm not stopping at campgrounds with water and wastewater services. I'm "polluting" by throwing away a few plastic forks (even though I wash and re-use them most of the time).

My response: Say what?! Each one of my trips to Nova Scotia liberates 6,714 pounds of CO2, and you are worried about my three forks in the trash along the way?!

The point being, if one is to be concerned with conservation, that's an admirable goal, but we all need to remain intellectually honest, rather than being penny wise pound foolish. We need to concentrate on what REALLY matters in terms of conservation, if we are to have an impact. That is as true individually as it is societally.

[NCMEDIC]

Deleted the DPF and the EGR on our Ram. Best decision ever. Increased power and fuel mileage, along with better reliability.

[Lafitte]

^

[panamerican]

I get that these systems are designed to improve the environment, but let's be honest here, the amount of pollution a truck (light, heavy or otherwise) is still very high compared to it's commuter counterpart.

DEF can be circumvented. I have seen it done. I don't advocate it should be done, but these DEF systems are fairly unreliable comparatively.

Let me also point out that many years ago, back in the 80s when car companies installed catalytic converters with ceramic beads as the heat media to re-burn the unburned gas and reduce smog causing emissions, the auto companies themselves had kits you could buy to remove the beads and replace and replace the cap. I did a test. I removed the beads and then took it to for my emissions test. Big surprise that the car still passed emissions without any catalyst in the converter and I got better MPG (which is Earth friendly in and of itself too).

Flash forward to the mid 1990s. Had a car that kept throwing the check engine light. Turned out the air injection pump was throwing condensate into the system. It was a well known issue and the manufacturer's solution, disable the air pump that pumped in O2 so that the catalytic converters could actually work efficiently and burn the unburned fuel. Nothing burns without O2 and is far less effective with very low amounts of O2. They placed a sticker under the hood, reflashed the computer to ignore the pump and guess what, besides never having another check engine light appear....it passed emissions both tailpipe and later on via OBD2 scan for over a decade that I owned the car. I'm pretty sure with little to no air injection, I belched out far more emissions that I should have, but a sticker, a re-flash of the computer to pay no mind and disable the air injection pump and it was just as effective as it was designed to be?!?! Yea, not!

So, yes, DEF has benefits, yes, DEF is not as reliable as it's emission control counterparts, but don't think for a second that by putting DEF in every diesel car or truck is gonna save the planet (ask VW about diesel). It's kin to dropping a pebble in the ocean. It requires global buy in, and extension into industrial machines, trains, etc for it to be a bit better solution. It's better than nothing, but not silver bullet folks think it is. I would have no problem disabling it if it gave me constant problems.

[Teamaron]

Originally Posted by Rig Rat

Got ours replaced just last week, for $2k.

I’m mostly miffed to be grossly overcharged to put DEF back into the tank at $5 a quart!

They charged $50 for 2 1/2 gallons when I can buy the same amount for $12.50 at Wally W. or $3 a gallon bulk at a truck stop!

Am waiting for the service mgr to call me back.

Can you send me copy of your repair?

Trying to buy part and need model #
Ours is a 2013 chassis

[Teamaron]

I found part #


BOSCH 906-470-05-53

[Lineman2]

So, I also had the engine light come on and scanned the code saying defective def heater. Chevrolet has an extended warranty 12 or 120,000 for this defect. Took it to the Chevy dealer they replaced the heater for free. 55 miles later the ox sensor in the exhaust goes which is not covered after 100,000 miles. Decided I might as well delete the entire system for what the sensors cost. So I went with the EFI live with tuner switch (5 setting) system and 4” exhaust with 6” tip. It cost me $2,300 and I have never been happier. Fuel response is out of this world. Fuel mileage has increased to 25mph from 19.5 on daily driving. The best thing is that the def tank is not hanging down 10” below my frame now.

[jcl]

I think that removing emissions control systems is pretty similar to throwing trash out the window when driving. Some may suggest that it is just a pebble in the ocean, or that they are individually better off now, but whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Someone defaces a park and we see thousands of posts calling for him to be strung up and his business boycotted. People purposely emit pollutants and appear to be proud of it. A strange world

[95TLC]

Wow, I hope the government doesn't try to make gas cans pollute less....

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

The percentages are accepted as true in relative terms. But I'm wondering about absolute terms. 85% of relatively little is still only a little.

Logically a single vehicle will make no discernible difference to local air quality, as you say a lot of a little is still a little, but pollution controls applied to the entire fleet does and has because a lot of little's makes a lot. Today, there are only a handful of cities in the US still non-compliant for Ozone and PM2.5 whereas prior to pollution controls there were thousands.

Originally Posted by InterBlog

As analogies go, it hearkens back to the disposable plastic fork argument that I've witnessed on multiple forums. Some people become aghast when they learn that I use disposable cutlery when I'm on fast-paced long-haul trips such as to Nova Scotia and I'm not stopping at campgrounds with water and wastewater services. I'm "polluting" by throwing away a few plastic forks (even though I wash and re-use them most of the time).

I'm neither an environmentalist nor am I a conservationist. I am an economist and there is a difference between garbage properly disposed of on private land and pollution which damage public goods like air and free flowing water where no single individual is able to assigned ownership to manage that good. There is not now nor will there likely ever be a overall shortage of land suitable for garbage disposal. Air and water on the other hand needs to be managed by society and the cost of keeping it clean has to be distributed back to the primary cause.

Originally Posted by InterBlog

The point being, if one is to be concerned with conservation, that's an admirable goal, but we all need to remain intellectually honest, rather than being penny wise pound foolish. We need to concentrate on what REALLY matters in terms of conservation, if we are to have an impact. That is as true individually as it is societally.

Totally agree, and in the case of NOx, PM2.5, CO and other organics, these all really matter to air quality and must be managed. Emission controls are the least expensive way to manage them, sure it makes very little difference if a few in society cheat and take advantage of those who don't. If enough people cheat, the regulations will be changed to make it much harder to cheat and at a higher cost to all of us.

Those who completely disable all emission controls will find the new settings will make large differences in power and fuel efficiency, 5% and 25% is not unusual, but in the process they are producing the same emissions of 10-1000 vehicles. think about it, 25% better economy but as an average number about 1000% more pollutants. It is a sad statement that most seem proud of it and think they have accomplished something significant, when in reality they are simply cheating by taking advantage of the over design that must be built into the engine to accommodate the emission controls.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by panamerican

So, yes, DEF has benefits, yes, DEF is not as reliable as it's emission control counterparts, but don't think for a second that by putting DEF in every diesel car or truck is gonna save the planet (ask VW about diesel). It's kin to dropping a pebble in the ocean. It requires global buy in, and extension into industrial machines, trains, etc for it to be a bit better solution. It's better than nothing, but not silver bullet folks think it is. I would have no problem disabling it if it gave me constant problems.

One often misunderstood thing about the earth is its uncanny ability to compensate for nearly all abuses it encounters. It is why pollution is and will forever remain a localized problem and fortunately is resolved by local and regional regulatory solutions. So you're correct that pollution controls will never "save the planet" because the planet is not in danger from pollution. It is animals, plants and people in local areas that are threatened by out of control pollution. I completely agree use of DEF with catalytic reduction of NOx is not a silver bullet, but also as use continues, they will become much more reliable.

While I'm on my soap box, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant (regardless what the alarmists and statists continually scream at us) it is plant food, and as its concentration increases, the earth will happily adapt as it has in the many times past. This reality is why governments have been not been successful at convincing society to solve this non-problem.

[lsbrodsky]

For some reason, I love these kinds of arguments! While I would never consider removing environmental controls, I have always believed that government intrusion into manufacturing requirements is like pi__ing into the wind. What does one volcanic eruption do? How many years of IC engine emissions equate to that? Of course, I agree that there are local issues and I have never lived in a major metro area like LA with its attendant smog. But then government never could provide an adequate public transportation substitute, which was its job. Yeah, I want big V-8's, 10's, and 12's free of emission controls!
Larry

[BayouBiker]

You hit the nail on the head, Larry. Government regulation that tries to dictate how things should be done always morphs into something insidious and nearly always fails to accomplish the stated goal. Regulations that properly assign costs, and prevent gaming and cheating by dictating the required outcome but not how you get the outcome generally are successful. Your volcano analogy simply confirms the localized nature of pollution. Vehicles concentrated in geographical areas that are subject to stale surface cause local pollution while a volcano as huge a source of all kinds of noxious stuff can not and does not pollute the globe. So run your big powerful engines on private property outside of non-attainment areas to your hearts content, you will harm nobody (except perhaps you and other willing participants)!

[panamerican]

LOL. I always get a grin when folks get all environmentalist about emission control systems. As was pointed out, volcano eruptions, the fires in Australia, etc will emit more CO and particulate than all the vehicles on the planet for at least a year, prob more.

Is it the morally right thing to do (remove emission control devices)? Prob not, but I'll tell you what, if the DEF system ever becomes as reliable as the gasser emission control devices and does not shut down the vehicle in what the manufacturer or government feel is a reasonable period of time and the repair costs are similar to that of a gasser, I'd have no issue keeping such a system active and running on my diesel vehicle (if I had one). But I can say without reservation, thousands in repairs and operation or a few thousand one time to disable. Tough call. In my previous post, GM actually got a pass on a whole far reaching model that was sold for nearly a decade for a very widely sold vehicle where this system traversed three GM divisions when they were allowed to delete the air injection system which in my opinion is a significant part of the gasser emission control system. If GM can get an EPA pass during the Clinton years, what does that say?! Not ok for us to do it, but if you have money and are a big lobbying corporation, no problem allowing up to 200k+ vehicles have significantly reduced emission control efficiency?!

Quasi off topic, in the major metro areas, many of us use reformulated gas at various times of the year. So on top of the MPG hit from the emission control devices, we also take a hit on the reformulated gas that produces less MPG, so it's a double hit....triple hit if your state/county or municipal gov slaps significant taxes per gallon, reformulated or not...and guess what....the ozone action days, the smog-- the still persist. So I am doing my part, but at some point, you just can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. It's all we do as consumers is pay for these mandates that have not yielded the all results they promised.

[lsbrodsky]

Fear not Panamerican: EV's will solve all of your problems!!! All of that charging power will come from free sunlight and wind! No more IC engines, no more coal burning, no need for oil and gas. Just charge your EV tow vehicle at any Federal park as you drive across country. What a great world!

Larry

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by jcl

I think that removing emissions control systems is pretty similar to throwing trash out the window when driving. Some may suggest that it is just a pebble in the ocean, or that they are individually better off now, but whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Someone defaces a park and we see thousands of posts calling for him to be strung up and his business boycotted. People purposely emit pollutants and appear to be proud of it. A strange world

And others rail about how bad it is for the environment to modify vehicles, but then they smoke, throw cigarette butts out the window, speed, and run red lights.

Of course, asking on a forum whether you can delete your diesel, especially knowing the tone of the forum, is not smart either.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by Teamaron

Has anyone here deleted the DPF system?

Check engine light went on and found that have bad DEF heater. Not about to spend $2500 to repair and out of warranty anyway.

And if so how much, what tuner, exhaust system?

I have not done this, but I own a diesel and know what it costs. A tuner is $800-$1200. An exhaust retrofit is $1200-$2000. I installed a stainless steel OEM exhaust on my truck in two hours with air tools, including the original DPF and sensors. It’s easy.

I drive my PRE-DEF diesel only for towing. It will take 5 years to put 10,000 miles on it so I will leave emissions intact. I won’t go into, or be lectured about, the ethics. I just figured I would ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTION for a change.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by lsbrodsky

What does one volcanic eruption do? How many years of IC engine emissions equate to that?

This myth has been around for quite a while. Your National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has published articles on it. Estimates range from 60 to 90 times the emissions coming from human activities as all volcanic activity.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...man-activities

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by jcl

This myth has been around for quite a while. Your National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has published articles on it. Estimates range from 60 to 90 times the emissions coming from human activities as all volcanic activity.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...man-activities

Doesn’t include fires. Smoke from California, with its onerous emissions rules, can often be seen/smelled in michigan.

Anyway, humans ain’t going away, so it is what it is.

[jcl]

A few mentions above of the GHG emissions of the Australian fires. They are huge. But the real story is that years of emitting GHGs have impacted the climate, with longer and hotter dry spells, and the droughts in Australia have made the fires (which occur regularly and are not individually caused by climate change) far worse, and that in turn makes for more climate change. We have climate change causing climate change. We will look back and talk about tipping points.