frozen def

[Merc63]

Is this just your speculation as you sit at your computer or do you have some research to back this claim up?


So because of a 10-12% gain, you guys think we should just let every vehicle roll around with a turbo back straight pipe because you think there is more emissions released (from emission controled vehicles) to bring that extra 10% to market? Funny

 

[Merc63]

My work truck is a 2011 LML Silverado. I had zero problems related to emissions up to 194k then a heater element went in the DEF tank so I deleted. I keep a log book of all fills and maintenance and have yet to beat my best tank (11.5 l/100km) economy wise but can see that the average is about 10-12% better. IMO the tune, (H&S tow) is no better for economy it's just the loss of the regens. The truck stinks now with the cat and DPF gone.

is your truck a one ton? From a full tank of winter fuel, how many kms will you get from that tank in the city? What about the highway?

 

[JMCX]

is your truck a one ton? From a full tank of winter fuel, how many kms will you get from that tank in the city? What about the highway?

3/4 ton with a topper packing about 2000# all the time . I do 90% highway, a complete tank just city is maybe a once a year thing. Right now I am averaging about 900km to a tank. Before, if I was in the city and it decided it was time for a regen it would kill the mileage that's for sure. I drive watching the l/100 so am very aware of what is affecting mileage.

 

[Merc63]

In the summer I did about 820km to a tank on highway towing around 2k lbs.

I asked a guy at the hill the other day and he said he was getting 1500km a tank... I thought he was full of it.

 

[LBZ]

In the summer I did about 820km to a tank on highway towing around 2k lbs.

I asked a guy at the hill the other day and he said he was getting 1500km a tank... I thought he was full of it.

Just think how good your mileage would be if you deleted all the emissions crap and put a good tune in it!

What was that guy driving? Unless it was a 6.5 Chev diesel long box or a new 1/2 ton dodge he's full of $hit.

 

[JMCX]

In the summer I did about 820km to a tank on highway towing around 2k lbs.

I asked a guy at the hill the other day and he said he was getting 1500km a tank... I thought he was full of it.

He neglected to mention he had a Titan tank. I have done 1100 on a tank but that is when forced to drive below 100 in a herd or favourable winds. Come summer fuel and with the deletes I will average 1000 a tank I think.

 

[Merc63]

He was in a newer dually. I'm almost certain he said on one tank of fuel.

I towed an aluminum trailer with 2 sleds, fuel and gear to golden from Edmonton, I don't think I would have made it all the way there on one tank, had to fill up. I did hit a regen right as I left though. Economy was reading 24l/100km but went down to 21l/km after the regen.

 

[kimrick]

I know this video is for 2011 def systems, but still good info.
There is tons of folks I know who fill there def tanks to the brim. Not a good idea.

Here is the link....... A little long, but most folks will watch a video rather than ever reading there owners manual...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF5Oggb7gUk

 

[LBZ]

Is this just your speculation as you sit at your computer or do you have some research to back this claim up?


So because of a 10-12% gain, you guys think we should just let every vehicle roll around with a turbo back straight pipe because you think there is more emissions released (from emission controled vehicles) to bring that extra 10% to market? Funny

It's way more than 10 - 12% considering how much more is burnt during regens and how often regens happens.
Also that's 10% more since the introduction of the DPF. Pre-DPF motors also saw a 10% drop with the introduction of the EGR. So that's a 20% drop in fuel economy over less than 10 years.
Another thing to consider is that ALL of those engines running in the patch are NOT required to have this emission control equipment on them. So if these emissions are so bad, and they have to produce more fuel to make up that 20% loss in economy, where are we reducing the emissions?
It's a smokescreen thought up by the EPA that got flawed skewed and in-accurate data from scientists under political influence who since have had some of their findings discredited. The US government is trying to hide this too. There was an article out and about that was written by a former epa scientist that went in depth to the corruption within the EPA but I can't find it now. It was recent though. And to further illustrate as to just how corrupt and poorly managed the EPA is they just passed a Bill stating only industry connected consultants be used. Foxes being allowed to run the henhouse now. Bill Passed: EPA Must Take Advice from Industry Shills, NOT from Independent Scientists |

https://autoengineer.wordpress.com/...l-regulations-environmental-irresponsibility/
Survey: EPA Scientists (2007)

Why go on about the EPA? It's because these are the clowns that influence and regulate everything emissions related pretty much in North America.

 

[pwdrhnd]

When i deleted the emissions on my truck it only resulted in about a 2 mpg gain. But i do still like the idea of clean burning diesel engines. When you start a piece of equipment in the shop with def fluid it sure is nice and clean compared to the black smoke that blows out of the older ones until they warm up. I also know of a guy in sask fhat deleted his dodge and put a big stack on it so he could "roll coal". The DOT pulled him over and gave him a ticket for illegally modifing his emmissions system. He had thrown away his old exhaust and had to by all new from the turbo to tail pipe. $8000.00 i think is what the bill was. So save your old exhaust incase you get busted some day.

 

[Merc63]

I have a hard time believing you LbZ when two guys on here did real life deletes, one saying 10-12percent and the other saying 2mpg. These trucks are becoming more and more efficent. Just the lmm to LML is 10% more efficent.

I don't see how an EGR is going to cause a 10% drop in efficent, all it does is recirculates exhaust gases which are not completely burnt at idle and cruise to reduce NOx. At idle and cruise only a small percent of the oxygen is used in combustion so they pump it back in to be burned more and also cut down the NOx in the process.

I do get what you are saying but I really think that loss in efficiency is maybe around 10-15% max and that burning more fuel to be clean actually is better than straight piping it, environmentally wise.

And DOT should be handing out more huge tickets to these retards that run these pig rich tunes, taking off from a light and blow black soot all over the intersection and into my car in the summer time.

 

[LBZ]

I have a hard time believing you LbZ when two guys on here did real life deletes, one saying 10-12percent and the other saying 2mpg. These trucks are becoming more and more efficent. Just the lmm to LML is 10% more efficent.

I don't see how an EGR is going to cause a 10% drop in efficent, all it does is recirculates exhaust gases which are not completely burnt at idle and cruise to reduce NOx. At idle and cruise only a small percent of the oxygen is used in combustion so they pump it back in to be burned more and also cut down the NOx in the process.

I do get what you are saying but I really think that loss in efficiency is maybe around 10-15% max and that burning more fuel to be clean actually is better than straight piping it, environmentally wise.

And DOT should be handing out more huge tickets to these retards that run these pig rich tunes, taking off from a light and blow black soot all over the intersection and into my car in the summer time.

Do the math. 10-12% is roughly 2-3mpg if your only getting 10-12mpg. Which is what I was getting with my old LML work truck. Extended cab long box 4x4. Fully stock with just a wooden box liner. With tons of emissions problems after 100 000km and 10's of thousands of dollars invested with weeks of downtime just to keep it running.

The EGR recirculates hot gases back into the engine. The hotter the engine runs, the less efficient it is and the more fuel it will burn. That small amount of oxygen they remove the first time around also raises the amount of pollutants per pound of gases coming out of the tail pipe as it is reducing the amount of oxygen in the gases on the whole. This also increases the density of the soot and other pollutants the DPF has to filter and burn off increasing regen frequency and length of time. Why do you think all the new diesel's have that homo tail pipe with holes in it? It's for emissions so it passes smog tests. The holes cause fresh air to be drawn in with the exhaust gas therefore fooling the smog testing equipment into thinking it is more efficient than it is.

In the big scheme of things, there may be a very slight reduction in emissions when you look at the long haul big rigs that are now equipped with DPF and DEF but I would be willing to wager it's closer to breaking even if not increased emissions due to increased consumption. I believe there are better ways to reduce the emissions out there, they just need to find one that doesn't affect the pocket book of the consumer so much.

 

[the_real_wild1]

Do the math. 10-12% is roughly 2-3mpg if your only getting 10-12mpg. Which is what I was getting with my old LML work truck. Extended cab long box 4x4. Fully stock with just a wooden box liner. With tons of emissions problems after 100 000km and 10's of thousands of dollars invested with weeks of downtime just to keep it running.

The EGR recirculates hot gases back into the engine. The hotter the engine runs, the less efficient it is and the more fuel it will burn. That small amount of oxygen they remove the first time around also raises the amount of pollutants per pound of gases coming out of the tail pipe as it is reducing the amount of oxygen in the gases on the whole. This also increases the density of the soot and other pollutants the DPF has to filter and burn off increasing regen frequency and length of time. Why do you think all the new diesel's have that homo tail pipe with holes in it? It's for emissions so it passes smog tests. The holes cause fresh air to be drawn in with the exhaust gas therefore fooling the smog testing equipment into thinking it is more efficient than it is.

In the big scheme of things, there may be a very slight reduction in emissions when you look at the long haul big rigs that are now equipped with DPF and DEF but I would be willing to wager it's closer to breaking even if not increased emissions due to increased consumption. I believe there are better ways to reduce the emissions out there, they just need to find one that doesn't affect the pocket book of the consumer so much.

The holes in the exhaust pipe have nothing to do with emissions tests. They are there to cool the exhaust down coming out of the pipe. The exhaust is way hotter now then it was before.

 

[the_real_wild1]

I know this video is for 2011 def systems, but still good info.
There is tons of folks I know who fill there def tanks to the brim. Not a good idea.

Here is the link....... A little long, but most folks will watch a video rather than ever reading there owners manual...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF5Oggb7gUk

Every winter I have to remind every single customer I see not to fill their def tanks all the way in winter. As well as telling the service writers to do the same with each customer.

 

[LBZ]

The holes in the exhaust pipe have nothing to do with emissions tests. They are there to cool the exhaust down coming out of the pipe. The exhaust is way hotter now then it was before.

BS
If it was hotter, then the pipe would be wrapped under the cab and box and the air induction would be closer to the DPF. There is no more protection or heat shielding except for the area around the DPF on an '08 or later than on an '01 Dmax.

 

[LBZ]

Look at it this way. The Ford tip has it what 8" from the outlet? How much cooling is that actually going to accomplish?
They tried to sell it to everyone that way 5-6 years ago when people started asking why to try and fool the EPA and the public. Truth is that it doesn't make hardly a bit of difference. It may cool a bit, but I guarantee it's emissions driven as told by my sources. If it did holy hell the straight pipe exhaust I run with the 1200 - 1250 degree EGT's cruising should have burned my truck and every trailer I have towed to the ground years ago. It's all smoke and mirrors.
Also, if regen's and DEF and whatnot all cause so much heat that required that style of tip, why does the Dodge Cummins not have one also?

 

[the_real_wild1]

Tell me why tractor trailer have all the holes in the pipes that are a shorter routed design?

 

[the_real_wild1]

And tell me who are your sources? I am a master tech at our dealership that works on a great deal of aftertreatment issues btw.

 

[LBZ]

Tell me why tractor trailer have all the holes in the pipes that are a shorter routed design?

Same reason.
I've seen it on stacks too. What are they going to burn?

 

[the_real_wild1]

Trucks don't go through emission testing