I wonder about new Kubota tractors...

[troverman]

There are automobiles, etc. running/operating today that are 100+ years old. I wonder if the circuit boards that control today's automobiles, etc. will be available 100+ years from now?

What makes you certain the ECU's that control today's vehicles will fail in 100 years? They are actually relatively simple, well armored, and have no moving parts.

The fact is that most cars still running at age 100+ have had a lot of money spent on them to keep them running. All those cars back then have had to adapt...no more leaded gas or bias ply tires or asbestos brake pads. It won't be any different for modern cars...

 

[NHSleddog]

What makes you certain the ECU's that control today's vehicles will fail in 100 years? They are actually relatively simple, well armored, and have no moving parts.

The fact is that most cars still running at age 100+ have had a lot of money spent on them to keep them running. All those cars back then have had to adapt...no more leaded gas or bias ply tires or asbestos brake pads. It won't be any different for modern cars...

I guess we will have to see our first functioning circuit board last 100 years before we go expecting the millions of others to do the same.

I have replaced a WHOLE LOT of circuit boards in my time and not a single one of them was even 20 or 30 years old yet.

 

[troverman]

I guess we will have to see our first functioning circuit board last 100 years before we go expecting the millions of others to do the same.

I have replaced a WHOLE LOT of circuit boards in my time and not a single one of them was even 20 or 30 years old yet.

My neighbor has a 1987 Ford F-150 with a fuel-injected 351 cubic inch V8. It still runs just fine...still the original computer. About 33 years old.

My 1999 Harley Davidson Road King has 40k miles on it now and it still runs very reliably. An ECU runs the fuel injection system, which includes a MAP sensor, intake air temp sensor, throttle position sensor, and of course the fuel injectors. There is also a crank and cam sensor. The bike has a digital odometer and trip meter, and has electronically-controlled self-cancelling turn signals. There is also a lean angle sensor. All of this equipment is original and in fine working order at 21 years old.

I think there are a number of vehicles run by ECU's which will still be operating at 100 years old.

 

[SDT]

My neighbor has a 1987 Ford F-150 with a fuel-injected 351 cubic inch V8. It still runs just fine...still the original computer. About 33 years old.

My 1999 Harley Davidson Road King has 40k miles on it now and it still runs very reliably. An ECU runs the fuel injection system, which includes a MAP sensor, intake air temp sensor, throttle position sensor, and of course the fuel injectors. There is also a crank and cam sensor. The bike has a digital odometer and trip meter, and has electronically-controlled self-cancelling turn signals. There is also a lean angle sensor. All of this equipment is original and in fine working order at 21 years old.

I think there are a number of vehicles run by ECU's which will still be operating at 100 years old.

Don't kid yourself.

SDT, who was an ECM design engineer for a major US automobile manufacturer in a former life.

P.S.: My older brother BS/MSEE, Purdue was a world renown designer of memory chips (including failure analysis) agrees.

 

[SidecarFlip]

My son drove rollback for a while and had to pick this one up. It broke down in the road and didn't have a shoulder to pull off on.

I bet it was electronics related too.....

 

[SidecarFlip]

I do agree that it is easier to work on an automobile than a tractor, simply because of proprietary access to the computer.

The government recognized that only dealers would be able to work on computerized vehicles because only they could afford a $20k proprietary scan tool. Therefore, they instituted the standardized OBDII interface on all vehicles, for all functions related to emissions. This allows even end users like ourselves to scan our vehicles with a cheap $20 code reader. I'd like to see something similar in the ag and construction industries.

That said, it is not impossible to work on or diagnose problems with a fully computerized tractor or similar heavy equipment. Underneath the overlay of electronic control is the same basic diesel engine y'all are familiar with. You can still use 12v test lights to determine if a circuit is powered. You can use continuity testers to determine if wiring is good.

The OP seems to loathe the idea of computerized control of the engine and emissions system, but the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Computerization allows for more power, better cold weather starting, better fuel economy, and fewer emissions. I see nothing wrong with that. On-road vehicles have been fully computerized for decades, and most are extremely reliable.

To summarize, all I need to be fully happy is an inexpensive way to extract and clear codes from a Kubota.

I find that comment a little condescending in as much as you don't know anything about me except what you read on here, likewise for you. ...and you'll never be fully happy because there will never be an inexpensive way to extract the binary codes from Kubota's ECM. Why they have a dealer only proprietary code reader which I got to play with this afternoon earlier.

Got to sit down with the midwest Kubota rep too and yes, we discussed at length T4 final Kubota's and I cannot really say what we discussed because it was a casual conversation but let's just say he's on many of the pages I am.

I possess a lot of electronic high tech stuff. I just don't like it intertwined in my tractors. Nothing more.

 

[JeffL]

Ramblings from a Retired Development Engineer:

The diesel engine manufactures were never suppose to meet the impossible standards imposed by the powers in control of the EPA. Plan was to drive them into heavy duty gasoline engines.

The fact that they were met is a testament to the shear will power of the engineers and owners/stock holders of the companies wishing to continue to have jobs and companies to operate. The cost to operate HD gasoline engines would have brought a collapse of every trucking company in the US and the resulting economy.

The learning curve is painful to everyone involved, manufactures and consumers. No manufacture wants to sell you a pile of crap.

On another ramble:
In the olden days we designed engines for economy and horsepower. Economy was #1. Big Fleet owners claimed up time was #1 but bought the engine that was 0.1 mpg better (millions of $ in saved fuel per year).

Efficiency and emissions are directly tied together.

Now EPA will regulate CO2 which is tied to efficiency and another attempt to kill diesel engines.

After a career in the field I must wonder where we would be if EPA left us alone and we spent all our efforts on efficiency and not split with emissions.
I'm saying increasing efficiency would have decreased emissions with out the pain.

 

[SidecarFlip]

Most likely. Problem with that philosophy is, it don't pass the green smell test.

Caterpillar Diesel was smart, They said hell with the on road diesel engine market and bailed and bailed on hundreds of thousands of dedicated Cat engine owners, me included.

Rudy's Diesel's diesel engine is already inherently efficient. A little tweaking of the design would have reduced emissions, especially particulates (visible smoke) to very acceptable levels but the powers to be weren't happy with almost, they wanted absolute so you wind up with Tier 4 final that most likely isn't really final at all.....

 

[lugbolt]

It ain't just tractors. It's mowers. It's trucks. 18 wheelers.

The cost to repair a mechanical diesel is pennies on the dollar in comparison (currently). That will change as time goes on. When stuff is still new, it costs more. As it ages and aftermarket stuff becomes available, costs will drop off. The trucking industry has taught us that.

Think about 18 wheelers. Everything we buy/use/own is shipped via trucks. That means we the consumers pay for their fuel costs, tire costs, operating costs, insurance costs everything. When their cost goes up, so does ours. Similarly, farm tractors. When the cost to repair/maintain a farm tractor rises, the cost of corn rises, and anything that uses corn (ethanol, beef, chicken, etc).

A liberal argued once that I was wrong in my statement that crap rolls down hill. I fail to see how that is wrong.

The US government has done MORE damage to the economy than good and I see this every single day. When our government gets involved in something, they 100% always find a way to screw it up with lack of logic. Our favorite saying at work is "think backwards".

 

[dlsmith]

I sold my last truck in early November. Bought my first one in 1970.
50 years in the trucking business was about 25 too many. I don't miss it a bit.
I sleep A LOT better at night.

Early on, I had a KW with an 8V-71 Detroit and a Pete with a 335 Cummins.
Later on I had 3 COE Petes with 425hp 1693 Cats. Those ware all mechanical, dual overhead cam engines, and put out LOTS of power after you adjusted the rack stop screw on the injection pump. Fuel mileage sucked though, but fuel was fairly cheap.
Then came a few more Petes with 3406Bs, still mechanical engines, lighter than the 1693s and pretty good power. They were also better on fuel, usually 5 mpg or a little better average. I tried a Detroit Series 60 475hp in a truck, was a pretty good engine until it spit a rod out the side in St. Louis. Replaced it with a 379 Pete with a C15 Cat 6NZ that went 1.5 million before a broken valve actuator caused some problems that ended up having to overhaul it.
The C15s are basically an electronic 3406. Whereas 3406 injector nozzles were ~$75 each, a set of electronic injectors for a C15 was $4K.
The other weak point with electronic engines in a truck is the wiring harnesses and sensors. I knew when they started using electronics on engines, that once they got a million miles or so on them, they would become problematic, and they were. The C15 developed an intermittent miss, and I spent over $3K at Cat shops trying to find the problem. Finally found a harness worn through inside a loom clamp behind the air compressor. I told them to change all the engine harnesses and be done with it.
The last truck I had, an '07 Pete with a C15 twin turbo 500 hp Cat, was overhauled at 1.2 million after the idiot driver ran it low on water and got it hot causing the head gasket to fail. Then after another 50K miles it went spastic and ran like shite. After a 100 mile tow to the Cat shop they found some oil had somehow gotten into an ECU connector and caused the problem. I thought oil was a pretty good insulator, but apparently ECUs think different.

The new engines with DPTs and DEF injection can be nightmares. I have a friend that bought a new truck a couple of years ago with all the emissions crap on it and he's almost ready to get rid of it and find a pre-2008 truck or build a glider kit with a C15 or ISX. He's tired of some sensor going titsup and having to limp it into a shop to get it fixed. So far it's been under warranty, but that's running out soon and he's not going to put a bunch of his money in it to keep it running.

All in all, I think the earlier electronic engines were pretty good. They weren't all that complex and did give better fuel economy. But when they had to add all that Tier 4 crap, it was a step backwards.

And don't get me started about the ELDs. That was a 25% decrease in productivity slapped on the independents and smaller operators..

 

[JeffL]

Yes, the first electronic injectors were developed for efficiency and HP and they did the job well. Reduced the smoke in the DD 2-cycles very much. Unfortunately most people base all their diesel knowledge on the 1960's city buses with the mechanical DD 2-cycles and the 1980's GM diesel fiasco. The Cowboy's with the DD 12V71 with four turbos feeding two superchargers turning 3600 rpm didn't help either! All smoke aside; That was a beautiful song.

 

[troverman]

I find that comment a little condescending in as much as you don't know anything about me except what you read on here, likewise for you.

Wow, pretty ironic of you to feel like someone was condescending towards you. Normally, it's those guys with a "little" tractor who get that feeling...

Ramblings from a Retired Development Engineer:

The diesel engine manufactures were never suppose to meet the impossible standards imposed by the powers in control of the EPA. Plan was to drive them into heavy duty gasoline engines.

The fact that they were met is a testament to the shear will power of the engineers and owners/stock holders of the companies wishing to continue to have jobs and companies to operate. The cost to operate HD gasoline engines would have brought a collapse of every trucking company in the US and the resulting economy.

The learning curve is painful to everyone involved, manufactures and consumers. No manufacture wants to sell you a pile of crap.

On another ramble:
In the olden days we designed engines for economy and horsepower. Economy was #1. Big Fleet owners claimed up time was #1 but bought the engine that was 0.1 mpg better (millions of $ in saved fuel per year).

Efficiency and emissions are directly tied together.

Now EPA will regulate CO2 which is tied to efficiency and another attempt to kill diesel engines.

After a career in the field I must wonder where we would be if EPA left us alone and we spent all our efforts on efficiency and not split with emissions.
I'm saying increasing efficiency would have decreased emissions with out the pain.

Diesel engines actually produce less CO and CO2 than gas engines. In fact, right now new studies are showing that direct-injected gasoline engines produce fine particulate matter which is more harmful to the respiratory system than diesel particulate, which is more coarse. That's why gas particulate filters are now becoming a thing.

I do agree with your statement on efficiency vs emissions. I think it was shameful for the US Gov to target VW and their TDI engines in the way they did. I often wondered about the cost vs benefit...a little more NOx compared to a big loss in fuel economy. If everyone traded in their TDI's which would achieve an honest 50mpg on the highway for gas vehicles that would do 30-35mpg...did the environment really benefit from that switch? I doubt it.

 

[SDT]

Ramblings from a Retired Development Engineer:

The diesel engine manufactures were never suppose to meet the impossible standards imposed by the powers in control of the EPA. Plan was to drive them into heavy duty gasoline engines.

The fact that they were met is a testament to the shear will power of the engineers and owners/stock holders of the companies wishing to continue to have jobs and companies to operate. The cost to operate HD gasoline engines would have brought a collapse of every trucking company in the US and the resulting economy.

The learning curve is painful to everyone involved, manufactures and consumers. No manufacture wants to sell you a pile of crap.

On another ramble:
In the olden days we designed engines for economy and horsepower. Economy was #1. Big Fleet owners claimed up time was #1 but bought the engine that was 0.1 mpg better (millions of $ in saved fuel per year).

Efficiency and emissions are directly tied together.

Now EPA will regulate CO2 which is tied to efficiency and another attempt to kill diesel engines.

After a career in the field I must wonder where we would be if EPA left us alone and we spent all our efforts on efficiency and not split with emissions.
I'm saying increasing efficiency would have decreased emissions with out the pain.

Well said, JeffL, and 100% agreement.

SDT

 

[SDT]

It ain't just tractors. It's mowers. It's trucks. 18 wheelers.

The cost to repair a mechanical diesel is pennies on the dollar in comparison (currently). That will change as time goes on. When stuff is still new, it costs more. As it ages and aftermarket stuff becomes available, costs will drop off. The trucking industry has taught us that.

Think about 18 wheelers. Everything we buy/use/own is shipped via trucks. That means we the consumers pay for their fuel costs, tire costs, operating costs, insurance costs everything. When their cost goes up, so does ours. Similarly, farm tractors. When the cost to repair/maintain a farm tractor rises, the cost of corn rises, and anything that uses corn (ethanol, beef, chicken, etc).

A liberal argued once that I was wrong in my statement that crap rolls down hill. I fail to see how that is wrong.

The US government has done MORE damage to the economy than good and I see this every single day. When our government gets involved in something, they 100% always find a way to screw it up with lack of logic. Our favorite saying at work is "think backwards".

Well said, too, lugbolt.

Bureaucrats do not care about the American people or the American economy. They care about their career path.

SDT

 

[troverman]

Do you guys not prefer lower emissions? Picture interstates full of diesel Mack R series trucks belching clouds of black smoke. I think somewhere there is a balance, and I'm a 100% Trump supporter and an advocate for the free market system. I love diesel engines, and the internal combustion engine in general. I just don't find current diesel emission systems to be that onerous.

I recall mowing a field for 5 hours straight on my 2002 L4310 open station tractor. I like the smell of diesel exhaust, but not 5 hours straight of it. It was so nice to upgrade to a 2018 MX4800 with a DPF and common rail injection. No more blackened loader arms, no more diesel headache.

I believe even without regulations, there is no way the diesel market wouldn't have moved to common rail, electronic controls. They just make more power, have better economy, and are more refined. And frankly, a lot of people like the power of the diesel but not the smell...so the DPF and DOC may have also come along on their own too.

 

[Fladogman]

I'm new to the Regen world only having gone through one cycle so far. Other than having to operate at higher rpms and the noise it wasn't that bad. I guess it's the world we live in now... I'm trying to learn everything I can from you guys to be prepared for the other shoe to drop


Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[dlsmith]

The Cowboy's with the DD 12V71 with four turbos feeding two superchargers turning 3600 rpm didn't help either! All smoke aside; That was a beautiful song.

Nothing sounded like a Buzzin' Dozen!

 

[JerryMT]

I wonder if the newer Tier 4 final units will hold their resale value as well as the older pre 4 tractors are?

I know that across all brands, pre 4 tractors are in high demand.

When the dust finally settles and manufacturers get the 'bugs' ironed out, will the post 4 units hold their resale value like the pre 4 units are now?

I believe people are really dismayed with the complexity and failure rate of the post 4 units, not just Kubota either, but all of them which is the driving force behind the high resale value of pre 4 units, I think at least.

I read comments about Kioti, Deere, FNH and every other brand, all stemming from failed emissions components.

I've read through about half of the pages of this thread and the emphasis seems to be on reliability of the Tier 4 engine emission controls. Maybe I missed it but no one appears to have recognize the cost that these emission requirements have driven into the initial purchase price of these tractors. Not only is reliability compromised by complex electronic sensors and PCU's but the development cost and tooling costs and component costs drive the purchase price of farm tractors upward. This impacts a low margin business like agriculture significantly because it is difficult to recoup the higher operating costs because of the downward pressures on the price received for agricultural products.

And what will the Tier 4 requirements on farm tractors do for local air quality? These engines are used in rural areas in such low numbers so as to add an insignificant increase in air pollutants.Regulators exist to regulate so that's what they do. But at what cost? I can see regulating emissions on engines which operate in large numbers in major cities, but not farm tractors. They are used in low numbers in low population rural areas so Tier 4 doesn't make sense to me. The newest tractor I operate is Tier 2 (2007 NH TD95D) and it has a coolant temperature driven injection timing device on it for cold start up. It's never been a problem.

Several years back I commented on these same issues on this forum. One poster chastised me severely for my comments at that time. He accused me of denigrating common rail fuel systems and these Tier 4 controlled engines and scaring and demoralizing owners of these machines. What a bunch of bunk!

While I would like to see these systems made optional for farm use, there will have to be some major changes at the EPA before it happens.

 

[SDT]

Nothing sounded like a Buzzin' Dozen!

Though I'm prejudiced, I love Detroits.

Interesting reading below about how GMC Diesel helped win WWII.

http://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/General Motors/detroit-diesel.htm

My Father was one of those US Navy/GMC Techs near the bottom of the page. He spent three years in the South Pacific and first met my Mother, a US Army Nurse, in Leyte Gulf in 1945.

SDT

 

[SDT]

I've read through about half of the pages of this thread and the emphasis seems to be on reliability of the Tier 4 engine emission controls. Maybe I missed it but no one appears to have recognize the cost that these emission requirements have driven into the initial purchase price of these tractors. Not only is reliability compromised by complex electronic sensors and PCU's but the development cost and tooling costs and component costs drive the purchase price of farm tractors upward. This impacts a low margin business like agriculture significantly because it is difficult to recoup the higher operating costs because of the downward pressures on the price received for agricultural products.

And what will the Tier 4 requirements on farm tractors do for local air quality? These engines are used in rural areas in such low numbers so as to add an insignificant increase in air pollutants.Regulators exist to regulate so that's what they do. But at what cost? I can see regulating emissions on engines which operate in large numbers in major cities, but not farm tractors. They are used in low numbers in low population rural areas so Tier 4 doesn't make sense to me. The newest tractor I operate is Tier 2 (2007 NH TD95D) and it has a coolant temperature driven injection timing device on it for cold start up. It's never been a problem.

Several years back I commented on these same issues on this forum. One poster chastised me severely for my comments at that time. He accused me of denigrating common rail fuel systems and these Tier 4 controlled engines and scaring and demoralizing owners of these machines. What a bunch of bunk!

While I would like to see these systems made optional for farm use, there will have to be some major changes at the EPA before it happens.

Bingo, Jerry.

The emissions nonsense adds thousands to the cost each regulated tractor, and for no significant benefit to anyone.

SDT