blocked dpf filter on svl90-2

[kubotafreak]

OP will probably find an injector issue after the dpf problem is solved. This tends to be a cause and effect. Unless the filter has 3000 plus hours.

Lugbolt, i agree with most of what you posted. Getting the dpf into a condition to regen was my assumption of the goal here.

 

[ruger1980]

I don’t know if any of this was directed toward my post or not. Fwiw, I’m not suggesting do it with an unconventional means. I was saying that manufacturers should provide an option to do it. If the dealer software can do it, the user should be able to.

I’m not sure why you are saying the government is to blame, but if you have a reference, I’d love to read it. Sure, they are the blame for forcing DPFs to be added. Maybe you are thinking government thinks end users would be running around doing manual regens for fun. I guess it’s possible, but not probable.

At the end of the day, there are far too many different ways to use equipment/vehicles that produces infinite variables for the people programming the DPF software. I don’t think they can ever get it perfect which is ok, so make it possible for the end user to start over without a dealer trip.

Jim the EPA sets the parameters that the DPF regeneration process can run at when there is an issue or code. If the engine has a fault code it cannot perform a regen. If soot load has reached defined levels the regen has to be set to parked, forced or at the most severe level cleaning or replacement must be performed. The EPA sets these rules not the manufacturer.

As far as the consumer performing their own work/regens, it is very rare that an end-user has the skill sets and knowledge to work on many of these modern machines. Also if a regen is forced at to high of a soot load then a runaway regen can happen damaging the DPF and possibly other components or maybe even the entire machine.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Jim the EPA sets the parameters that the DPF regeneration process can run at when there is an issue or code. If the engine has a fault code it cannot perform a regen. If soot load has reached defined levels the regen has to be set to parked, forced or at the most severe level cleaning or replacement must be performed. The EPA sets these rules not the manufacturer.

As far as the consumer performing their own work/regens, it is very rare that an end-user has the skill sets and knowledge to work on many of these modern machines. Also if a regen is forced at to high of a soot load then a runaway regen can happen damaging the DPF and possibly other components or maybe even the entire machine.

I would be surprised if the EPA set those parameters. The EPA generally only establishes output limits and how the manufacturer does engine management to meet those limits is up to them.

Dan

 

[ruger1980]

Look up the EPA's regulations but it is a long read.
The EPA sets a number of parameters around the operation of the exhaust aftertreatment system. Otherwise it would be too easy to disable the system.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Look up the EPA's regulations but it is a long read.
The EPA sets a number of parameters around the operation of the exhaust aftertreatment system. Otherwise it would be too easy to disable the system.

I have seen much worse. If you have a citation please provide it and save me the time of searching the entire CFR.

Dan

 

[kubotafreak]

At the end of the day it really does not matter who set the constraint. The end user is faced with a computer they cant easily break into. Right to repair really screams at me right now. Im pretty sure if tractor manufacturers used OBD ports like cars we wouldn't be having this conversation. But due to Kubota using a Texa 4 pin connector to interface with the body/frame computer, it does not seem anyone has made a cheap alternative. To Segway off this, I would think it would be easier to interface the Denso engine ecu directly than going through the Kubota box to get to it...

 

[GreensvilleJay]

I was curious, as I've spent 5 decades in the elctronics design/build field, I looked at 'TEXA 4 pin' connectors. There are several premade cables at about $100-$200 and you can buy just the shell and pins to 'roll your own'. never looked at what's 'under the hood' of my BX23S though the wiring diagram does have CAN+,CAN-, so I assume regular CANbus network configuration. Should be easy enough to get the hardware right, as for software...well, maybe Mr. Google can help.

 

[TheOldHokie]

At the end of the day it really does not matter who set the constraint. The end user is faced with a computer they cant easily break into. Right to work really screams at me right now. Im pretty sure if tractor manufacturers used OBD ports like cars we wouldn't be having this conversation. But due to Kubota using a Texa 4 pin connector to interface with the body/frame computer, it does not seem anyone has made a cheap alternative. To Segway off this, I would think it would be easier to interface the Denso engine ecu directly than going through the Kubota box to get to it...

They are using a CAN bus? Somewhere in the wiring there is point to hook into the data stream. But the next hurdle is the data and communication protocol may well be Kubota specific and figuring that out would require a lot of sniffing and analysis. I don't see any of that happening. Kubota and their multi-colored friends are not going to give away their strangle hold on service unless forced to by regulations.

Dan

 

[ruger1980]

Why do you say the OP doesn't have the "right to" work on his machine? Anyone can purchase the Kubota diagnostic software shown and try to diagnose as they are able to.

If you want your cake for free consider this. The OEM spends a boat load of money developing a product, so they should be able to charge what they want or what the market will bear.

If you came up with a product would you like to be forced to give it away?

 

[kubotafreak]

Why do you say the OP doesn't have the "right to" work on his machine? Anyone can purchase the Kubota diagnostic software shown and try to diagnose as they are able to.

If you want your cake for free consider this. The OEM spends a boat load of money developing a product, so they should be able to charge what they want or what the market will bear.

If you came up with a product would you like to be forced to give it away?

I think you would feel a little different if you bought a new 80k rig and it had constant problems backed by less than sufficient dealer support. Sure, go buy your 5k worth of software. Nothing is free. My point is there is an intent by the manufacturer to protect their own, at your cost. Twisting your arm to come back to them involves right to repair. Forscan for ford is free, alpha obd for FCA is $150 worth of tools. We are not talking oil filters or fluids here. John deere has the same approach, and kubota costs the user 5+k to tap into their system. The cost for the system is the loss to the dealer network upfront. You can call it what you want but it is forced out of you.

"If you came up with a product would you like to be forced to give it away?"
They aren't giving it away. You purchased the product with market development included. Forcing service through them on the back end is right to repair. (excuse my wrong use of the term) Anyone who cares to learn the difference knows it hangs in a very gray area. It would have much more scrutiny if it was a product used as much as motor vehicles.

 

[ruger1980]

I think you would feel a little different if you bought a new 80k rig and it had constant problems backed by less than sufficient dealer support. Sure, go buy your 5k worth of software. Nothing is free. My point is there is an intent by the manufacturer to protect their own, at your cost. Twisting your arm to come back to them involves right to repair. Forscan for ford is free, alpha obd for FCA is $150 worth of tools. We are not talking oil filters or fluids here. John deere has the same approach, and kubota costs the user 5+k to tap into their system. The cost for the system is the loss to the dealer network upfront. You can call it what you want but it is forced out of you.

"If you came up with a product would you like to be forced to give it away?"
They aren't giving it away. You purchased the product with market development included. Forcing service through them on the back end is right to repair. (excuse my wrong use of the term) Anyone who cares to learn the difference knows it hangs in a very gray area. It would have much more scrutiny if it was a product used as much as motor vehicles.

First off no manufacturer is trying to screw the consumer. They all want customer satisfaction that drives the customer to return to them.

Unless expressly written into the purchase agreement, service is not included in the price of purchase. This includes repair costs and tooling to perform repairs.

A dealer does have to purchase the service tooling and that is included into their operational costs and paid for the customer repair bills. If a dealer is not supporting you as a customer that is between the consumer and the dealer. If you have issue with the dealer there are avenues to contact the OEM and express your dissatisfaction.

You mention forscan and alpha obd which are aftermarket programs and have nothing to do with an OEM. If you want an aftermarket solution you are free to develop one or if the market demand is there someone will. So not really a valid point

What it really comes down to is that some people think they should receive products that an OEM has developed for free because they purchased another product. The cost of the vehicle or machine includes the marketing, engineering and manufacturing costs plus a little but for profit - "hopefully".
Parts, service and support are generally born by aftermarket sales and not covered by the sale price.

 

[TheOldHokie]

I think you would feel a little different if you bought a new 80k rig and it had constant problems backed by less than sufficient dealer support. Sure, go buy your 5k worth of software. Nothing is free. My point is there is an intent by the manufacturer to protect their own, at your cost. Twisting your arm to come back to them involves right to repair. Forscan for ford is free, alpha obd for FCA is $150 worth of tools. We are not talking oil filters or fluids here. John deere has the same approach, and kubota costs the user 5+k to tap into their system. The cost for the system is the loss to the dealer network upfront. You can call it what you want but it is forced out of you.

"If you came up with a product would you like to be forced to give it away?"
They aren't giving it away. You purchased the product with market development included. Forcing service through them on the back end is right to repair. (excuse my wrong use of the term) Anyone who cares to learn the difference knows it hangs in a very gray area. It would have much more scrutiny if it was a product used as much as motor vehicles.

Everybody just needs to chill a little bit. Look back at how on-board diagnostics progressed with over the road vehicles to see where things are likely going:


No code has to be inserted here.

• 1968: Volkswagen introduces the first on-board computer system with scanning capability, in their fuel-injected Type 3 models.
• 1975: Datsun 280Z On-board computers begin appearing on consumer vehicles, largely motivated by their need for real-time tuning of fuel injection systems. Simple OBD implementations appear, though there is no standardization in what is monitored or how it is reported.
• 1980: General Motors implements a proprietary interface and protocol for testing of the Engine Control Module (ECM) on the vehicle assembly line. The 'assembly line diagnostic link' (ALDL) protocol communicates at 160 baud with Pulse-width modulation (PWM) signaling and monitors very few vehicle systems. Implemented on California vehicles for the 1980 model year, and the rest of the United States in 1981, the ALDL was not intended for use outside the factory. The only available function for the owner is "Blinky Codes". The Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTC's) can be interpreted through the blinking pattern of the "Check Engine" (MIL) light.
• 1982: RCA defines an analog STE/ICE vehicle diagnostic standard used in the CUCV, M60 tank and other military vehicles of the era for the US Army.[1]
• 1986: An upgraded version of the ALDL protocol appears which communicates at 8192 baud with half-duplex UART signaling. This protocol is defined in GM XDE-5024B.
• 1988: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) requires that all new vehicles sold in California in 1988 and newer vehicles have some basic OBD capability.[2] These requirements are generally referred to as "OBD-I", though this name is not applied until the introduction of OBD-II. The data link connector and its position are not standardized, nor is the data protocol. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommends a standardized diagnostic connector and set of diagnostic test signals.
• ~1994: Motivated by a desire for a state-wide emissions testing program, the CARB issues the OBD-II specification and mandates that it be adopted for all cars sold in California starting in model year 1996 (see CCR Title 13 Section 1968.1 and 40 CFR Part 86 Section 86.094). The DTCs and connector suggested by the SAE are incorporated into this specification.
• 1996: The OBD-II specification is made mandatory for all cars sold in the United States.
• 2008: All cars sold in the United States are required to use the ISO 15765-4[5] signaling standard (a variant of the Controller Area Network (CAN) bus).[6]

I anticipate a similar progression with off road machinery. Ultimately the manufacturer's and the regulatory entities will be forced to agree on a common interface and protocol and you will have OBDx for tractors. Consumer angst as demonstrated here will help fuel that progression. At that point third parties will join the game and the cost of scan tools will go down (some),

Dan

 

[GreensvilleJay]

so... just what does it cost to 'unplug' a plugged DPF filter.....

also, sad that CANbus was/is used. NOT a 'robust', reliable form of communications, with extremely high overhead....

and... heard long time ago that OBD-III, would ,among other diddies, have realtime, wireless linkage to allow 'little things' like local LEOS being able to 'sweep' a highway and nail everyone speeding.. ticket automatically sent to car owner's address within minutes.

 

[Fordtech86]

also, sad that CANbus was/is used. NOT a 'robust', reliable form of communications, with extremely high overhead....

Whats your alternative?

Just asking as I just work on em, don’t build em…

Typical radio in a modern car can be on at least 4 different CAN networks. Can bet if that don’t work they will be beating down the door (and they do but networking isn’t the issue)

 

[GreensvilleJay]

CANbus is really 'fussy' about hardware 'connections', has a lot of 'overhead' (lot of 'data' to ensure a little bit of data is good),if ONE module(computer) has a glitch or fails to respond within a timelimit, poof, system can 'crash'.More than 1/2 the 'problems' I've seen are hardware... gimpy connectors, loss of signal cause, well, cars and tractors do tend to bounce...DOH.,EMI glitches lockup the systems.,shorted wires/open wires, etc. due to poor installs. Underspec components(um, it gets HOT in a car in summer....) Sunset looped software....from the 'gee, it's not supposed to do that' programmers who have never ever seen real hardware or done low level programming. Someone could write an entire book on the flaws of Can, maybe fill a shelf.
There are others though the push now is for SPE (Single Pair Ethernet), cramming tons of data on 2 wires.'Should' be faster and cheaper.
My favorite though is a 4 decade old,slow speed, true single wire (plus ground of course), that I can get 15 miles of 100% reliable communications with 22 bits of information for every 24 bits. A break in the wire, is easily found and no loss in data with a 2nd 'backup' wire. Bad nodes, easily bypassed. never ,ever been sucessfully 'hacked'. It ain't 'fancy' but reliable.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Whats your alternative?

Just asking as I just work on em, don’t build em…

Typical radio in a modern car can be on at least 4 different CAN networks. Can bet if that don’t work they will be beating down the door (and they do but networking isn’t the issue)

Tesla is giving CAN quite a workout with all the devices they have connected to it and the traffic load they are generating. So far they seem satisfied with it.

Dan

 

[lugbolt]

the government itself does not specify to use a dpf. The government specifies a certain emissions level of certain chemicals (and noise). How manufacturers go about meeting those specs is up to the manufacturer, as long as it meets or exceeds the spec, the epa is fine with it. It just happens that the dpf (and def on >75hp) system was/is deemed to be the least intrusive and least costly way of doing it. Are there other ways? Probably. I don't know of them, but "they" never schooled me on those other devices because they aren't used.

Much the same, the cost to repair an automotive engine's emissions control system, also expensive--and the root cause of the expense is the leaf licking us epa (and it started with commiefornia). If you don't like it (and I don't) contact your congresspeople. I'm on the horn with them often about this and other issues.