How so? Considering DEF does not eliminate the need or use of the DPF, it's only purpose is to reduce it.
2012 Ford F250 Diesel or Cummins?
- Thread starter somethingnuw
- Start date
How so? Considering DEF does not eliminate the need or use of the DPF, it's only purpose is to reduce it.
And if your paying $60k for a new dodge, the dealer is laughing all the way to the bank. You can get a longhorn with every single thing on it for less then that..... And not everyone buys those, they start under $50k.
Luke The Drifter
Active VIP Member
Its better in the sense that they don't have to use as much EGR to attain the same emissions. Thats the problem with a stock 6.7 cummins is the amount of EGR they use to meet emissions. The reason they're going to it for 2013 is because of the next set of emissions levels can't be met without it.
I'm sure every diesel engine manufacturer would love to hear your far superior ideas on meeting Tier 4 emissions Cyle, I mean their engineers are just a bunch of retards compared to you!
pfi572
Active VIP Member
Have a new 2012 Duramax with the urea and so far don't see what the big deal is with it. Fill it and goes 8000kms +/- no smell and fuel milage is good. The first 2011 Duramax's i guess had there problems in the winter freezing off but have repaired that.
Seems to me that the units with Urea are getting quite abit better L/100 than the ones without in these late model trucks. This is only on the ones that i have seen and not the units that are getting the 13l/100. Most are are around the 18l to 20l/100 that i have looked at.
I know if i was buying a new truck (Dodge) and the one with Urea was getting alot better l/100 i think that is the one that i would be purchasing.
Seems to me that the units with Urea are getting quite abit better L/100 than the ones without in these late model trucks. This is only on the ones that i have seen and not the units that are getting the 13l/100. Most are are around the 18l to 20l/100 that i have looked at.
I know if i was buying a new truck (Dodge) and the one with Urea was getting alot better l/100 i think that is the one that i would be purchasing.
recguy
Active VIP Member
Pfi172 is correct. There are no issues with the urea. The only thing that sucks is when it goes into re-gen, the L/100km jumps up quite a bit. This is only temp but it still goes up. Other than that the truck has lots of power and has good mileage.
As long as you factor in the urea (def) as your l/100 calculation......be it a small amount...it is still part of the fuel consumption & cost.
This is a bigger deal in the ag industry with the larger 4wd tractors.....urea consumption on some models is between 5 & 12% of the diesel burnt.....the cost adds up! And, some manufacturers are advertising great fuel economy but, conveniently, they forget to factor in the def fluid into their calculations......
Until new technology comes around, we are stuck with adding in a second fluid.....those mfg's who went the dpf/wgr route will use less def but in order to get to the FT4 (final tier 4), dpf/egr are not enough.
pfi572
Active VIP Member
Agree 100% the bigger the engines and the harder you work them the more the costs go up. Going to be a real pain with the heavy equipment in earth moving as well.
I have 2012 f350 with the 355 gear ratio. Every 10,000 km i add urea. Getting 14 litters per 100k.These trucks do not come with a manual transmission. If you are going to put a delete kit on just keep in mind your warranty could be voided. Had a friend this happened to. Ford sent out and inspector to the dealership to look at the truck and saw the exhaust and programmer in the truck and that is considered and modification not ford approved. Anyways i love my truck.
That is the way they design the vehicle believe it or not... It's all bolts and disconnection of the wiring harnesses. The job gets easier once the cab is removed.
Mike270412
Golden Boy
Concrete or Cummins;Cyle's the guy!
08summit
Active VIP Member
I don't think you can go wrong with any of the new diesels...they are all pretty comparable today and it usually comes down to preference and price. The ride in all 3 have come a long way the last couple yrs and mileage isn't great in any of them. I log alot of miles empty and pulling some pretty heavy trailers and know there isn't much difference in any of them. This winter alone I made 10+ trips to the mountians pulling an enclosed trailer and every trip I had a buddy pulling the same sized trailer driving a chevy or a ford and everytime we would stop to fill the difference is never more then 2 or 3 litres between all 3, so anyone that says one brand is so much better on fuel then the others is full os sh%#. Buy what you get the best deal on or whatever suits your needs the best...can't really go wrong with any of them today.
Aren't you a HD mechanic? If you are and you think the emissions is a good idea you can't work on on road engines whatsoever. There is not one truck that doesn't have emissions issues that cost stupid amounts to fix, the pickups are headed down the same road.
DRD
Active VIP Member
Everything with an IC engine is being hit by new regulations, from locomotives to nat. gas engines to pickups.
Planes, trains and automobiles. Deal with it.
Planes, trains and automobiles. Deal with it.
drew562
Active VIP Member
Stock 2012 ford dually pulling my 28' enclosed and I can make leduc from revy every trip on one tank. My friends 2012 dodge dually pulling my same trailer can't make calgary on a tank. The other thing it can't make is a decent pass on a two lane unless facing downhill. 25 trip last year to revy and that's how it played out.
- Thread starter
- #35
somethingnuw
Active VIP Member
J-Roc is that the ford dealer in Peace River? What did they do for a reflash?
andrew3399
Active VIP Member
Wow roughly 33 liters per 100 Kms?? Someones truck is fawked!
- Thread starter
- #37
somethingnuw
Active VIP Member
I get your point and your right...I need a big truck and I think a gasser would kill me! Yes they are cheaper, but at the pumps i'd cry!! I love diesels can't seem to get enought and I believe in 2014 the diesel market is going to get worse... all the problems were having now with emmissions stuff is only getting worse... 25% decrease in emmissions from here ( i don't get how California thinks using twice as much diesel is better for the environment) but anyhow these years I believe are our last chance to get big displacement diesel truck. I am guessing 400 hp and 600-800 lbs of torque wont be seen again... IMOP... where does that leave us? Anyhow, if Im spending 60k (hoping to be more like 50k) I still want the best fuel economy for that price. If a ford can get 10-11 litres per 100 km and a dodge 22 thats a big difference to me. this truck will be used for a lot of long trips and nothing makes me feel better in a diesel then not stoping to fill up. I am also the type of guy that will keep a truck for a long time so I want a vehicle which will be reliable over the long run! I loved the old ones... kick myself for not buying an early 07 cummins with a mega cab!!!!
Speaking of cummins does anyone know if they still have that deal where they're giving the diesel engine away for free? I must have missed the bus on that! Oh well ford employee pricing now!
- Thread starter
- #38
somethingnuw
Active VIP Member
Thanks for the post that's a very interesting observations and that's what I am after real world use and facts!!! I love the cummins never thought I'd look at a ford but I have personal knowledge (two friends own 2010 cummins and one owns 2012 ford) the ford owner is the only one not complaining! Now on other posts and other forums seems cummins guys (stock) get two very different results some say excellent milage 10-12 litres per 100 km on the lie o meter to 22 but its fairly consistant. Now reading further I am finding that lots of Dodge dealers are starting to do the deletes and give warrenty as well. Now if I could get the truck for 50k this is something i'd be interested in. Then like you said it comes down to the best deal. I already ruled out Chevy/gms for cab room and ground clearance. So I left only with Ford and Dodge. Thanks for the info.. I wish GMC/Chevy had a truck I liked 0% for 72 months would be the deal breaker! Yes, like someone already pointed out at 60k mileage and stuff shouldn't make a difference but I am cheap old bastard and yes it does to me!
Luke The Drifter
Active VIP Member
I never said the latest and greatest emissions systems are anything great. I agree they aren't ideal systems hence why my 2012 Ram doesn't have a single emissions system on it. But with that said, the emission laws aren't going away anytime soon and currently this is the best the manufacturers can come up with, deal with it or buy a gas engine. I don't work on highway trucks but I hear about the horror stories through buddies that do. Luckily mining equipment hasn't gotten as bad yet but I'm sure the next ten years will be interesting for us.
08summit
Active VIP Member
You have one hell of a good truck then...I travel with 3 2012's (Fords)hauling 29ft enclosed from edmonton Single wheel 350's without lifts and everyone fills in Cochrane as they cannot make Golden. Thats driving 120-125km/hr...i have 2 buddy's that made the trip empty last yr and crawled into Revy with the fuel light on. Not calling you a liar but thats just better then 15litres/100km hauling a 28ft enclosed trailer through the mountians in the winter...Are you sure your not driving a Volkwagon?
Similar threads
