Chip DPF Delete Discussion

[torch]

30 years ago, we would wash the walls of the station every spring, and the water would run off black, even in the dormitory. We had to wear rubber gloves and the waste water was considered a hazardous material because of the chemicals it contained. Now we have DEF systems on the apparatus and the water still resembles water when we wash the walls.

Will one tractor or one truck poison the planet? No, of course not. But cumulatively, diesel exhaust is as bad as second hand tobacco smoke. There are definitive links between diesel exhaust exposure and a variety of health effects.

To those that indignantly accuse "the feds" of interfering with your God-given right to spew diesel particulates into the atmosphere, I put it to you that defeating pollution controls on your engines is akin to Pacific Gas and Electric or Hooker Chemical Company dumping hazardous chemicals into the water table.

Pollution control requirements are not just some government conspiracy to make your life miserable; they are a way to protect all of us from harm. Complying with them is the cost of doing business responsibly. Like the water we drink, the air we breath is community property. It's not yours to pollute at will.

 

[SidecarFlip]

All well and good and myself, I'd never tamper with pollution controls but I'm here to tell you that if you put your mug in front of any of my exhaust pipes and I throttle my engines, you'll wind up looking like Al Jolson.

Just doing my part of creating airborne particulates with my pre tier 4 engines. Rolling coal is a way of life here.

I've run some tier 4 mandate engines and I'm not impressed. They run hot, use more fuel and are way too complex and it's my experience that the more complex an engine is, the more chance of a breakdown.. JD wanted mt to use one of their tractors last year and I did for a month and said no thanks.

I wasn't impressed. What does impress me is the way they break down in the field. They derate and you ave ti have a service call in the field and most times it cannot be fixed easily..

Not for me.

Of course none of that applies for a hobby tractor but for me, a field breakdown costs me time and money and there is always that impending rain event.....

 

[SDT]

You apparently have accepted what you have been "told" to believe about engines, fossil fuels, and pollution.
Do your own research unbiased by those pushing their "agenda". When you have done this and understand the reality of the how current regulation and practice is affecting us and the next generation under the cloak of "clean environmentlism" you will be saddened.
Come back here after you truly understand it all without the influence of what you are being told on TV.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

Bingo, Economax.

100% agreement.

SDT

 

[sheepfarmer]

Thank you torch, I was wondering how to say those things. When it was only one car or one truck or one tractor every few miles, or even one horse, the pollution wasn't significant. But now the population densities are so high that a little pollution from each individual really mounts up. We are rapidly exceeding the carrying capacity of the range to borrow a term from ranchers of my childhood in the West.

My thought would be to spend the energy trying to make these emissions controlled tractors better instead of trying to defeat them and hating them and the epa. We could lobby Kubota to fix the things that are irritating. Some would require little more than a change in the software. On my list are

1. Allow me to trigger a regen when convenient for me.
2. Put the graph of dpf level on all tractors with filters, not just the L60 and bigger ones. I think it drives people nuts wondering when their tractor is going to regen.
3. Make the error codes more accessible, especially for things the average owner could fix.
4. Continue training dealers. Seems like they are doing better at teaching new owners how to run their tractors effectively, but there is room for improvement.
5. Rewrite the owner's manuals for clarity!

All that said, I have had one of the first tier 4 tractors for 4 years, and had no trouble with it. I am happy not to have my pole barn reek of diesel fumes, unlike my garage with my 2003 Duramax. It does everything asked, and the fuel economy is fine. It regens every 30 or 40 hours, and I do NOT run it WOT all the time. It has auto throttle and so the rpms vary as needed for some tasks.

 

[torch]

You apparently have accepted what you have been "told" to believe about engines, fossil fuels, and pollution.
Do your own research unbiased by those pushing their "agenda". When you have done this and understand the reality of the how current regulation and practice is affecting us and the next generation under the cloak of "clean environmentlism" you will be saddened.
Come back here after you truly understand it all without the influence of what you are being told on TV.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

I don't watch TV. I have been wrenching engines for over 50 years and driving diesels for 30. I'm trained in Hazmat to Operations level, so I have at least a passing familiarity with the concept of chemical exposures -- be they airborne or otherwise. And I'm pretty comfortable in my ability to sort the wheat from the chaff when conducting research into various subjects.

Step 1 is to consider credibility of the source of any information. What bias could be present? Does the information make sense? Does it jive with known facts?

When I can see with my own eyes a grey pall hanging over a city, and when I am called to respond to a significantly higher number of respiratory ailments on smog days, I am inclined to accept that there is something in that air that is not good for humans. When I can see with my own eyes the dramatic difference in residue deposited by older diesel engine technology and modern diesel emissions technology, I have to accept that diesel particulates contribute to the grey pall.

Are emissions controls worthwhile? Consider Los Angeles. Following the imposition of gasoline engine emission regulations, LA's air pollution is now 40% of what it was in 1970 even though there are at least twice as many cars on the road.

Is there a cost? Absolutely. I can't say if the cost of cat converters is more or less than the cost of medical treatments for asthma or cancers. What I can say is that those who would cause the smog pay for the cat converters whereas those that suffer the consequences have to pay for the medical treatments.

So please, as a party who has a vested financial interest in circumventing emissions requirements, feel free to explain this "hidden" agenda. Because I don't think it's hidden: we each have a responsibility to minimize the crap we dump into our shared atmosphere.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

The same fight was put up against catalytic converters and other emissions systems on gasoline engines, they won, you can't but any car or large equipment without it, been that way for years, along with unleaded fuel.
They are all but perfected now no real issues.

This will pass too!

 

[Newlyme]

The same fight was put up against catalytic converters and other emissions systems on gasoline engines, they won, you can't but any car or large equipment without it, been that way for years, along with unleaded fuel.
They are all but perfected now no real issues.

This will pass too!

Yep. Right through a GPF or DPF.

 

[ItBmine]

30 years ago, we would wash the walls of the station every spring, and the water would run off black, even in the dormitory. We had to wear rubber gloves and the waste water was considered a hazardous material because of the chemicals it contained. Now we have DEF systems on the apparatus and the water still resembles water when we wash the walls.

Will one tractor or one truck poison the planet? No, of course not. But cumulatively, diesel exhaust is as bad as second hand tobacco smoke. There are definitive links between diesel exhaust exposure and a variety of health effects.

To those that indignantly accuse "the feds" of interfering with your God-given right to spew diesel particulates into the atmosphere, I put it to you that defeating pollution controls on your engines is akin to Pacific Gas and Electric or Hooker Chemical Company dumping hazardous chemicals into the water table.

Pollution control requirements are not just some government conspiracy to make your life miserable; they are a way to protect all of us from harm. Complying with them is the cost of doing business responsibly. Like the water we drink, the air we breath is community property. It's not yours to pollute at will.

Agreed Torch. But where my problem lies is (I'm going to use my class 8 trucks as an example), since 2004 I have seen two price increases of jus over $10,000 each listed as an emissions surcharge that the manufacturer says is due to the cost of the added emissions equipment.
Still, ok. But give me something that works. Nobody likes to buy a $240,000 truck and be a guinea pig test pilot and go through 5 years of just "working out the bugs."
I feel all the manufacturers were RUSHED into meeting these standards and the technology was just not ready yet. Especially where i am in the cold climate. They really don't work in the cold.

Yes they are improving every year but it is brutal, the expense we have to incur just to keep them on the job every day.

If they are so confident in this stuff....why don't they give me a full 5 years of warranty with no deductible on ALL the emissions components.
I know why, because they would go broke like me.

 

[ItBmine]

Thank you torch, I was wondering how to say those things. When it was only one car or one truck or one tractor every few miles, or even one horse, the pollution wasn't significant. But now the population densities are so high that a little pollution from each individual really mounts up. We are rapidly exceeding the carrying capacity of the range to borrow a term from ranchers of my childhood in the West.

My thought would be to spend the energy trying to make these emissions controlled tractors better instead of trying to defeat them and hating them and the epa. We could lobby Kubota to fix the things that are irritating. Some would require little more than a change in the software. On my list are

1. Allow me to trigger a regen when convenient for me.
2. Put the graph of dpf level on all tractors with filters, not just the L60 and bigger ones. I think it drives people nuts wondering when their tractor is going to regen.
3. Make the error codes more accessible, especially for things the average owner could fix.
4. Continue training dealers. Seems like they are doing better at teaching new owners how to run their tractors effectively, but there is room for improvement.
5. Rewrite the owner's manuals for clarity!

All that said, I have had one of the first tier 4 tractors for 4 years, and had no trouble with it. I am happy not to have my pole barn reek of diesel fumes, unlike my garage with my 2003 Duramax. It does everything asked, and the fuel economy is fine. It regens every 30 or 40 hours, and I do NOT run it WOT all the time. It has auto throttle and so the rpms vary as needed for some tasks.

I also fully agree with your 5 suggestions. All the new engines should have this. And it is one thing I have had changed on my Detroit Diesel DD15. I have it set up so that if it is within a few hours threshold of needing a regen, I can force a parked regen before it gives me the dash light to do so.
That way I can do it before or after a shift, rather than get caught during my shift where I would have to incure 30 to 45 minutes of down time.

 

[torch]

Also it has be researched extensively and found that the tailpipe emissions from a DEF fitted diesel engine while "appearing" "clean", are many times more cancer causing than non-def emissions. This is do to nanoparticles. Yet we here few people speaking of this. And, these nanoparticles do not rise, they remain lower in the air at the level we all breathe.

Authoritative nano particle studies almost exclusively predate the emergence of DPF and DEF systems in road vehicles. Even then, they were non-conclusive due to the difficulty in separating effects of nano particles from the effects of larger particles. But for the moment, let's accept that nano particles are nasty AND that nano particles are too small to be captured by current DPF technology. There is certainly no evidence whatsoever for your unsupported claim that the remaining nano particles make treated diesel exhaust MORE carcinogenic than untreated diesel exhaust!

And it remains undeniable that current methods are effective in reducing large particulate and NOx emissions.

Very many of today's diesel engines can come very close to meeting t4i emissions requirements without any additional control devices

Or put that another way: none of today's diesel engines can meet emissions requirements without additional control devices. Removing or bypassing those devices means an engine that met the requirements no longer meets them.

Manufacturers are not required to use any specific system. They are free to use any engineering solution that results in meeting the target. They could design an engine that is inherently clean enough to meet the standards without any after-treatment. So why have they all flocked to DPF/DEF? Because it is the most cost-effective solution. They are free to tune the engine for maximum performance and fuel efficiency then clean up the exhaust following combustion.

You keep saying "follow the money". Ok: show me the trail. Who benefits from cleaner air? (I already know who benefits from bypassing the system).

I feel all the manufacturers were RUSHED into meeting these standards and the technology was just not ready yet. Especially where i am in the cold climate. They really don't work in the cold.

From Wikipedia:

"Diesel particulate filtering was first considered in the 1970s due to concerns regarding the impacts of inhaled particulates.[11] Particulate filters have been in use on non-road machines since 1980, and in automobiles since 1985.[12][13] Historically medium and heavy duty diesel engine emissions were not regulated until 1987 when the first California Heavy Truck rule was introduced capping particulate emissions at 0.60 g/BHP Hour.[14] Since then, progressively tighter standards have been introduced for light- and heavy-duty roadgoing diesel-powered vehicles and for off-road diesel engines. "

Manufacturers may have been slow off the mark, but the handwriting was on the wall for decades.

I know there are costs and maintenance involved. My truck costs just under $1M and we face all the same issues as you. Probably more, since our trucks do rapid sprints followed by extended idling, never getting a sustained run long enough for an automatic regen.

You are right: manufacturers should be standing behind their product. They will if people only buy products from the one's who do. Alternatively, governments could mandate an extended emissions warranty for diesels, just like they did for gasoline.

 

[nickelplated5s]

I can't really agree there. My 2007 6.0 Powerstroke and 5.9 Cummins got way better fuel mileage than the new 6.7 Powerstroke. I'm currently getting the same mileage with a 5.4 Triton gasser as the new 6.7 Powerstroke gets.

A 6.0 with 3.73 and a five speed tranny does not outperform a 6.7 with 3.33 and a six speed tranny. I know, I had one. Similar unloaded mileage and way more power towing. My point was does the extra cost of of T4 equipment, extra emissions to make and replace the parts, outweigh the lower emissions you get. In other words full life cycle.

 

[redfernclan]

I don't watch TV. I have been wrenching engines for over 50 years and driving diesels for 30. I'm trained in Hazmat to Operations level, so I have at least a passing familiarity with the concept of chemical exposures -- be they airborne or otherwise. And I'm pretty comfortable in my ability to sort the wheat from the chaff when conducting research into various subjects.

Step 1 is to consider credibility of the source of any information. What bias could be present? Does the information make sense? Does it jive with known facts?

When I can see with my own eyes a grey pall hanging over a city, and when I am called to respond to a significantly higher number of respiratory ailments on smog days, I am inclined to accept that there is something in that air that is not good for humans. When I can see with my own eyes the dramatic difference in residue deposited by older diesel engine technology and modern diesel emissions technology, I have to accept that diesel particulates contribute to the grey pall.

Are emissions controls worthwhile? Consider Los Angeles. Following the imposition of gasoline engine emission regulations, LA's air pollution is now 40% of what it was in 1970 even though there are at least twice as many cars on the road.

Is there a cost? Absolutely. I can't say if the cost of cat converters is more or less than the cost of medical treatments for asthma or cancers. What I can say is that those who would cause the smog pay for the cat converters whereas those that suffer the consequences have to pay for the medical treatments.

So please, as a party who has a vested financial interest in circumventing emissions requirements, feel free to explain this "hidden" agenda. Because I don't think it's hidden: we each have a responsibility to minimize the crap we dump into our shared atmosphere.

Well said.
It is painful, but I don't have a problem paying my fair share. Times have changed, there are a whole lot more people in the world. Things are not like they were when I was a kid and most things have not gotten better.
The Earth can not keep repairing its self. I remember going to Disneyland in 1971. My eyes were tearing up from the smog. You couldn't see the mountains because of the smog.
This has gotten better.
I remember being on mess detail in the Navy and hauling the trash bags to the weather deck to throw over the side. Hopefully they don't still do that. I think we need to start taking a little better care of this old place we call Earth, or it will stop taking care of us.

 

[ItBmine]

Torch: Well I guess our new 6.7's are sick then. Yes they have more power, but they have the same MPG as my old gasser, LOL. My 6.0 was way better on fuel. Even the 07 5.9 Cummins was and it was horrible compared to my 6.0.
I delivered RV's across the country with those trucks doing 5500 KM (3417 miles) a week.

Sounds like I have the same problem as you. When I am running the highway pulling my pony dump trailer, grossing 140,000 pounds I have few problems. But working as a dump truck without trailer at 80,000 pounds I can rarely work it hard enough, or long enough runs in construction for it to do a passive regen on it's own. And this only gets worse in the winter on snow removal. I can't do an 8 hour shift without being shut down for 40 minutes.

But I will not delete either. Just too much risk. And many of the programmers my friends have used have bad files, because I have seen a Detroit and many Cummins ISX blow up after being deleted.

Even that biggest and most famous Canadian delete company.....when they do ISX's....they have to replace the variable geometry turbo with a conventional turbo in order to prevent turbo over speeding. This then severely weakens that awesome Cummins engine braking power on the jake.
Why is this necessary? Bad programming.

 

[SidecarFlip]

Engine brakes (retarders, Jake brakes) have little to do with emissions hardware or software as they mechanically act on the valve train, holding a valve open slightly to allow the engine to ingest air and cause compression braking. Only exception to that is an exhaust butterfly valve bit I've never seen one on a Class 8 diesel.

 

[ItBmine]

I never said it had anything to do with emisssions. I was using it as an example of the bad programming a certain delete company is using.
It has nothing to do with this topic other than using it in that example.

The turbo change they have to do to make their delete programming work diminishes the power of the engine brake on the ISX, which is one of it's best features.

Sorry if I did not explain my example better.

 

[TexasBoy]

I put it to you that defeating pollution controls on your engines is akin to Pacific Gas and Electric or Hooker Chemical Company dumping hazardous chemicals into the water table.

If any man is 100% honest with himself he cannot dismiss nor refute the truth in that sentence above.

I dont think any one of us hates emissions, we just hate the expense and problems these new ones bring. Sure wish them geeks in the lab coats could invent something that makes all this a non-issue.

 

[torch]

Sure wish them geeks in the lab coats could invent something that makes all this a non-issue.

I'll second that motion!

 

[hagrid]

The only thing that can change that is your vote.

 

[Fido Farms]

http://www.agrotronic.pl/en/1548/Kubota_tractors__deactivation_of_EGR_and_DPF_already_possible

 

[jtboney1]

I don't watch TV. I have been wrenching engines for over 50 years and driving diesels for 30. I'm trained in Hazmat to Operations level, so I have at least a passing familiarity with the concept of chemical exposures -- be they airborne or otherwise. And I'm pretty comfortable in my ability to sort the wheat from the chaff when conducting research into various subjects.

Step 1 is to consider credibility of the source of any information. What bias could be present? Does the information make sense? Does it jive with known facts?

When I can see with my own eyes a grey pall hanging over a city, and when I am called to respond to a significantly higher number of respiratory ailments on smog days, I am inclined to accept that there is something in that air that is not good for humans. When I can see with my own eyes the dramatic difference in residue deposited by older diesel engine technology and modern diesel emissions technology, I have to accept that diesel particulates contribute to the grey pall.

Are emissions controls worthwhile? Consider Los Angeles. Following the imposition of gasoline engine emission regulations, LA's air pollution is now 40% of what it was in 1970 even though there are at least twice as many cars on the road.

Is there a cost? Absolutely. I can't say if the cost of cat converters is more or less than the cost of medical treatments for asthma or cancers. What I can say is that those who would cause the smog pay for the cat converters whereas those that suffer the consequences have to pay for the medical treatments.

So please, as a party who has a vested financial interest in circumventing emissions requirements, feel free to explain this "hidden" agenda. Because I don't think it's hidden: we each have a responsibility to minimize the crap we dump into our shared atmosphere.

I'm with Torch 100% on this one.