DPF Regeneration driving me crazy...

[3 Horse Ranch]

Its stupid, looks stupid and its environmentally irresponsible.

I couldn't agree more. I owned a 79 International with a Detroit 8v92. One year I got talked into having 33% oversize injectors put in it. I did go up hill better and made a lot more smoke doing it. Over all I lost about 4/10s of a mile per gallon which adds up when you are putting 85,000 miles a year on it. The next year I went back to standard injectors.
I never could understand the fascination of demonstrating how badly out of tune your engine actually is by "rolling coal."

 

[Hay Dude]

Boy, that is no joke. Back then they were new, there was an F550 chassis cab ambulance with one of these engines at work. It would just billow out massive clouds of acrid white smoke when it went into regen. It made the previous "kings of the smudge pots," the 2.5 L Chrysler four-bangers from the late '80s with shot valve seals and early '90s and Mazda rotaries, look positively clean-burning by comparison.

This is what I am referring to. I actually had to sell mine because of the white DPF smoke. It was embarrassing to be pulling into a customers driveway with a regen in process.
And it smelled BAD. Apparently its the signature of a cracked DPF? I never confirmed that though. With the truck only being worth about $9,000 and a new DPF being $2000 with the possibility of having to install new sensors at $1000, thats when I had enough and sold it.
The terrible smell of the smoke from the broken DPF was the point I was trying to make.

 

[Blue Mule]

6.4? You guys haven't lived life on the edge until you've been within 50 feet of a 7.3 Powerstroke. I'm as far away from being a tree-hugger as a guy can get, but even I don't like being around those trucks. Even in 100% stock form those will gag you to death.

 

[rScotty]

6.4? You guys haven't lived life on the edge until you've been within 50 feet of a 7.3 Powerstroke. I'm as far away from being a tree-hugger as a guy can get, but even I don't like being around those trucks. Even in 100% stock form those will gag you to death.

Boy ain't that the truth. We have two trucks - a beautiful loaded 2001 7.3 Ford and a 2016 Mercedes Sprinter. Night and day. When the Ford is running you just don't walk behind it. In fact, you stay as far away as possible. It's has an odor in front and and exhaust funes in back that would gag a maggot. No emissions to worry about, though.

The Mercedes....well, you can barely tell if it's running. You have to put your hand on the pipe to feel if it is pulsing. The inside of the exhaust pipe looks brand new. No odor and almost no sound. No regen either....it uses DEF and the system doesn't care if it idles for hours or runs full chat all day. Economical, too.

Our Kubota tractor is pre-emissions, 60 hp, no computer, mechanical injection, repairable & bulletproof, runs fine.
We love our orange tractor - affectionately known as "ol' Stinky".
We will probably keep both our stinkers, but sure do look forward to our next tractor being a diesel with DEF.
rScotty

 

[Username Taken]

I love the smell of a good-running diesel. Spring morning, wild flowers and diesel.

Of course, a badly tuned anything stinks. I've been around 4 HP lawn mowers that stunk to high heaven. But a well-tuned diesel? I not only tolerate it, I enjoy it.

My wife doesn't like any kind of diesel fumes at all.

 

[tacticalturnip]

Me too! Drive a Chevy 1/2 ton gas 6.0 engine now.

I loved my 1500HD; a 6.0 and 4L80E in a 'half'-ton, it was a thing of beauty.

 

[tacticalturnip]

It's quite neat that a thread on DPF can turn so, ridiculous? Maybe that's not quite the word to use, but it's as applicable here as it is anywhere else in society. It's as though we as a society have reached a point that the idea of someone having a different viewpoint, whether it be based on personal experience or anecdote, is absolutely offensive- on a personal level. Is that not ridiculous? Tractors have existed in a basic form for over 100 years now, diesels have been heart of the majority for much of that time. With that said, I'd say the majority of active users here have decades of experience under their belts, both in operation of equipment and overall life lessons. These folks have spent much of their lives operating equipment that has, at the basics, changed little during that time. Suddenly an arguably unnecessary thing is added to these machines, something that changes the way they ought to be operated, and failure to adapt to these changes has the potential to cause inoperability. Inoperability, of course, results in lost time, potential revenue, and then add to it the ever shadowing cost of repairs.

On the flip side, you have a combination of younger operators who have grown up on these new machines, as well as those who have either adapted to the changes, or have not experienced any firsthand issues with these systems. It's expected that their experiences would leave them with a more positive view of these required systems, right? To pretend first hand experience doesn't shape our outlook would be silly.

I specifically mention these two camps, trying to give a fair outlook on both sides, because all of these points of view are valid. One could argue that the almost decade of argument on the topic has caused wariness, and that discussions on the topic are akin to an argument between brick walls. Yeah, life at this point is exhausting, but that doesn't mean civility need be done away with.

I suppose at this point I am rambling, and my only real point is that some of you could stand to be more patient and understanding with one another; and it really helps to be open to change. If newer machines are being designed to run at a higher RPM to avoid a specific problem, even if it's contrary to 50 years of practical use, perhaps run it at the higher RPM? Only time will determine the long term reliability of these systems; the results of improper implementation have cropped up rather quickly.

I'm going back to my yurt, to do some gluten free yoga.

 

[Jstpssng]

It's quite neat that a thread on DPF can turn so, ridiculous? Maybe that's not quite the word to use, but it's as applicable here as it is anywhere else in society. It's as though we as a society have reached a point that the idea of someone having a different viewpoint, whether it be based on personal experience or anecdote, is absolutely offensive- on a personal level. Is that not ridiculous? Tractors have existed in a basic form for over 100 years now, diesels have been heart of the majority for much of that time. With that said, I'd say the majority of active users here have decades of experience under their belts, both in operation of equipment and overall life lessons. These folks have spent much of their lives operating equipment that has, at the basics, changed little during that time. Suddenly an arguably unnecessary thing is added to these machines, something that changes the way they ought to be operated, and failure to adapt to these changes has the potential to cause inoperability. Inoperability, of course, results in lost time, potential revenue, and then add to it the ever shadowing cost of repairs.

On the flip side, you have a combination of younger operators who have grown up on these new machines, as well as those who have either adapted to the changes, or have not experienced any firsthand issues with these systems. It's expected that their experiences would leave them with a more positive view of these required systems, right? To pretend first hand experience doesn't shape our outlook would be silly.

I specifically mention these two camps, trying to give a fair outlook on both sides, because all of these points of view are valid. One could argue that the almost decade of argument on the topic has caused wariness, and that discussions on the topic are akin to an argument between brick walls. Yeah, life at this point is exhausting, but that doesn't mean civility need be done away with.

I suppose at this point I am rambling, and my only real point is that some of you could stand to be more patient and understanding with one another.

I'm going back to my yurt, to do some gluten free yoga.

You left out a group though... some of us have seen and understand the effects of air pollution and understand that emissions controls are a way to try to mitigate it. Like it or not, all of that unburned fuel doesn't just magically disappear.

Many of the arguments I see against DPF, DEF, et.al. are very similar to those of 45-50 years ago against emissions on gas autos. Yet I wouldn't willingly go back to a 70's vintage vehicle for everyday use. They just weren't as dependable as today's vehicles.

As you mentioned though, not everybody thinks the same, or have enjoyed the same experiences. If we did, the world would be a pretty dull, boring place.

 

[tacticalturnip]

You left out a group though... some of us have seen and understand the effects of air pollution and understand that emissions controls are a way to try to mitigate it. Like it or not, all of that unburned fuel doesn't just magically disappear.

Many of the arguments I see against DPF, DEF, et.al. are very similar to those of 45-50 years ago against emissions on gas autos. Yet I wouldn't willingly go back to a 70's vintage vehicle for everyday use. They just weren't as dependable as today's vehicles.

As you mentioned though, not everybody thinks the same, or have enjoyed the same experiences. If we did, the world would be a pretty dull, boring place.

Don't think I left you out on purpose, it was not my intention; no matter ones viewpoint on DPF and other such systems, they're not going anywhere. At the end of the day here, and in all aspects of our lives, we could just stand to be more patient with one another.

 

[ericm979]

While I like a lot of restored '60s and '70s muscle and sports cars I hate being around them in traffic. They pump out a lot of raw gas when idling. Phew! It'll curl your nose hairs.

Same with tractors and other diesels. I don't like breathing stinky cancer causing diesel exhaust. Modern diesels with emission controls are a lot nicer to be around. I have had zero problems with my DPF equipped Branson and I have enjoyed breathing cleaner air that my last tractor while running it.

 

[tacticalturnip]

Speaking for myself, when my blood pressure is elevated I've been known to cut my nose off to spite my face. It's hard to adapt to a change when you're more focused on the agitation the change has brought, and while not all change is for the good, there are times when problems are made worse by our own fears. DPF should work as intended when operated as instructed, but that isn't always the case, lemons exist. That said, if you're running it wrong from the start you're not going to get a real read on the true reliability.

 

[Jstpssng]

While I like a lot of restored '60s and '70s muscle and sports cars I hate being around them in traffic. They pump out a lot of raw gas when idling. Phew! It'll curl your nose hairs.

Same with tractors and other diesels. I don't like breathing stinky cancer causing diesel exhaust. Modern diesels with emission controls are a lot nicer to be around. I have had zero problems with my DPF equipped Branson and I have enjoyed breathing cleaner air that my last tractor while running it.

The worst part is that the newer vehicles handle and ride better; are generally quicker and faster; and are more maintenance and problem free than their earlier counter parts such as the Camaro, Charger, and Challenger which they are trying to imitate. The only thing they lack over the older versions is soul.

I've often wondered; why have they not reincarnated the Pinto and the Vega?

 

[Hay Dude]

While I like a lot of restored '60s and '70s muscle and sports cars I hate being around them in traffic. They pump out a lot of raw gas when idling. Phew! It'll curl your nose hairs.

Same with tractors and other diesels. I don't like breathing stinky cancer causing diesel exhaust. Modern diesels with emission controls are a lot nicer to be around. I have had zero problems with my DPF equipped Branson and I have enjoyed breathing cleaner air that my last tractor while running it.

Luckily I’m in a cab, so my pre T4 tractors don’t give me any breathing issues.
I am all for cleaning up the air, but I still think the way they do it is suspect.
1. Takes more fuel to run a DPF than same engine without DPF, that creates more fuel consumption. Everyone admits “idling around” is bad for a DPF equipped diesel.
2. DPFs and all the accessories themselves have to be manufactured, transported, installed and repaired, creating more pollution and fuel consumption.
3. Where do all the trapped particulates go? They don’t just disappear! They still exist. So wouldn’t they still be polluting the ground or wherever else they get buried?

Theres also the drawbacks of increased cost of ownership.

Have all these drawbacks been weighed against the cleaner air?

 

[tacticalturnip]

The worst part is that the newer vehicles handle and ride better; are generally quicker and faster; and are more maintenance and problem free than their earlier counter parts such as the Camaro, Charger, and Challenger which they are trying to imitate. The only thing they lack over the older versions is soul.

I've often wondered; why have they not reincarnated the Pinto and the Vega?

Now this is from research, but I'm under the impression the Pinto was more reliable than it's given credit for. The Vega on the other hand, well, maybe aluminum wasn't the right choice for their block at the time.

I mean, I'm 35, the butt of jokes for me was the Chevrolet Cavalier, but they certainly were everywhere. All over the neighborhood. In all the yards. Rusting.

 

[5030]

While I like a lot of restored '60s and '70s muscle and sports cars I hate being around them in traffic. They pump out a lot of raw gas when idling. Phew! It'll curl your nose hairs.

Same with tractors and other diesels. I don't like breathing stinky cancer causing diesel exhaust. Modern diesels with emission controls are a lot nicer to be around. I have had zero problems with my DPF equipped Branson and I have enjoyed breathing cleaner air that my last tractor while running it.

Better quit breathing then because there are a lot of supposed other cancer causing pollutants in your air including the smoke from the fires out there... Sometimes living in a glass house isn't all that good.

 

[tacticalturnip]

Personally, I found the redirection of exhaust towards the bottom of the machine to be the most noticeable and much appreciated change between the old machines we had on our dairy and the newer utility tractors I have run.

I love the aesthetics of pipe sticking through the hood, but in this case I don't mind the sacrifice.

 

[5030]

Personally, I found the redirection of exhaust towards the bottom of the machine to be the most noticeable and much appreciated change between the old machines we had on our dairy and the newer utility tractors I have run.

I love the aesthetics of pipe sticking through the hood, but in this case I don't mind the sacrifice.

One of mine is vertical and one has the optional down exhaust and I agree, I prefer the down. I find the vertical stack to be an obstruction to my vision more than anything else.

 

[Jstpssng]

but I'm under the impression the Pinto was more reliable than it's given credit for.

I've believed that for a long time. A couple of friends had Pintos when we were in HS and they beat the snot out of them. The running gear couldn't have been too bad, in the last few years of production they offered the same engine in the early Ford Rangers. Drawbacks were the rust and general poor workmanship from Detroit in that era. Then there was that annoying problem of exploding when in an accident...

 

[5030]

I've believed that for a long time. A couple of friends had Pintos when we were in HS and they beat the snot out of them. The running gear couldn't have been too bad, in the last few years of production they offered the same engine in the early Ford Rangers. Drawbacks were the rust and general poor workmanship from Detroit in that era. Then there was that annoying problem of exploding when in an accident...

Gee, I had one, a standard Pinto with a tiny trunk when I was a lot younger and I'm still around so it never exploded. The early ones had a engine made in England and was bulletproof. I flogged mine constantly. Wasn't quick but got good fuel mileage not that mileage was a concern back then with regular leaded being around 25 cents a gallon.

I seem to gravitate to the 'banned for safety reasons' vehicles. Had a Suzuki Samurai as well. Nice little and very inexpensive 4wd vehicle. Not much in the power department either and I never had it roll over or even seem tippy to me and typical me, I flogged it too.

Actually, I flogged every vehicle I have owned up until flogging got to be too expensive, then I reverted to somewhat normal driving.

Think the only vehicle I never flogged was my dad's 67 Corvette Stingray convertible. It had a big block 427 with 390 horses so flogging it would have meant the removal of my drivers license by the cops. I drove it sedately and fiddled with a ton of girls in it too, Girls are were attracted to a Vette for some reason and they all wanted to go for a ride and I obliged of course and always found a way to park somewhere secluded and do something considered a big no back then, kissing them...lol Those were the days. Just fond memories now that I'm a professional dirty old man.

 

[tacticalturnip]

I've believed that for a long time. A couple of friends had Pintos when we were in HS and they beat the snot out of them. The running gear couldn't have been too bad, in the last few years of production they offered the same engine in the early Ford Rangers. Drawbacks were the rust and general poor workmanship from Detroit in that era. Then there was that annoying problem of exploding when in an accident...

Ugh, rust, I forget just how far we've come in that fight. Of course, living in our region, it still holds true that vehicles oft rot out before they mechanically fail us.