Ram/Cummins DEF Failure

[Can of beans]

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

[Shermy1987]

Originally Posted by jcl

Those factors you list only come into play once you decide it’s OK to emit higher levels of exhaust emissions, because of a lack of personal concern for environmental, societal, public health, or legal reasons.

The vehicle you have was certified to a standard. If you don’t value that feature, then buy a vehicle that isn’t as clean. But we don’t get to decide to follow just the rules that appeal to us. “Do as you wish” is a good motto for choosing an afternoon activity. Less so for deciding to flaunt laws. Modifying a vehicle to increase emissions is illegal. One day, it will be seen in a similar light as DUI, dumping our trailer tanks in a campsite because dump stations are for other people, or throwing trash out the window while driving.

And it isn’t about California as a location, it is about CARB standards, which originated in California, but which apply in far more states than California. Including New York.

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.

[wulfraat]

Originally Posted by Shermy1987

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.

Good healthy conversation here. I appreciate both perspectives.

The above begs the question - to follow or to lead?

[sbowman]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

I suppose here in TX I could make some space in the wine closet for my DEF stash!

LOL............like buying wine @ Trader Joe's, buy to drink not store.


Best regards and safe travels............

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Can of beans

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]

Originally Posted by Shermy1987

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.

[Shermy1987]

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.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Shermy1987

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.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by n2916s

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.

[Shermy1987]

Originally Posted by jcl

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?

[wulfraat]

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.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Shermy1987

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.

[Shermy1987]

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.

[jcl]

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.

[n2916s]

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.

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by n2916s

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...

[n2916s]

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.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by n2916s

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.

[Adiredneck]

Originally Posted by jcl

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.

That's the whole point, we did say no. Unfortunately, because of bad engineering and government overreach we had to do it post-sale, as no choice for an actual trouble-free system or safeguard against a truck that leaves you stranded in 150 miles is available. And you call us selfish and despoilers of the planet. I simply ceased being one of your "beta testers".

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Adiredneck

That's the whole point, we did say no. Unfortunately, because of bad engineering and government overreach we had to do it post-sale, as no choice for an actual trouble-free system or safeguard against a truck that leaves you stranded in 150 miles is available. And you call us selfish and despoilers of the planet. I simply ceased being one of your "beta testers".

The "just say no" applied to whether to purchase one, not to deciding whether to pollute ten or more times the legal limit.

It sounds like you regret your purchase decision. That is unfortunate.

Hopefully, armed with the information, others will be in a position to make the decision before purchasing a current model diesel, or a used vehicle that has been modified as yours has.

If someone robs a bank, they are usually called a bank robber. I have never heard them referred to as someone who simply ceased being poor.