Dodge 6.7 Cummins

[dgl24087]

Looks like Dodge and Cummins are having some regen problems with new DPF technology. http://www.dodgeforum.com/m_883117/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#883117

 

[art]

Got to love new stuff!!!!

 

[cp1969]

This DPF is hopefully a transient system and will be gone before long. To burn fuel in the exhaust somehow seems like a stop-gap method of meeting and emission requirement, kind of like the old air injection pumps of old.

I read some of these post and have to shake my head. We buy these diesel pickups for "longevity", right? One guy in that thread says, "My '06 5.9 worked like a champ." How worn out could that '06 have been before he traded it for an '08?? I read posts where people buy new trucks every couple of years. They must want something really bad to trade for a truck that has "longevity" that often.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Not at all surprised by the problems; the 2007 diesel emissions requirements are painfully strict and difficult to meet. I read the linked forum and all in all the problems look fairly minor, if it's only a software programming issue. The 2005/06 Jeep CRD (diesel) of which I own a copy has much, much worse problems, some of them emissions related.

My wife has a 2006 Ram 2500-Cummins which she loves and wants to keep forever. With the change from 06 to 07, I will continue to encourage her plans to do so!

 

[radman1]

cp1969

The DPF technology is also being used in the semi trucks as well. I have not heard of any other diesel pollution control options at this time. The new Cummins seems to be a good engine by early reports but the DPF is having major issues. Dodge needs to get a better vender/option. Ford and Chevy also use DPFs but haven't had the same issues. Newer 2010 requirements will probably use urea in the pollution control scheme. Will you have to fill up with urea as well? The DPFs also seem to be killing fuel economy with Dodge, Ford and Chevy in the newer engines.
Many dodge owners seem to keep having recurring issues despite a change in the software.

 

[Dmace]

cp1969
Ford and Chevy also use DPFs but haven't had the same issues.

Wasn't the Ford recall for the fire shooting exhaust caused by the emmisions crap that reburns the fuel in the cats...?

You Tube Ford Video

Tech Article

Ford appears to be issuing a software patch to fix it also.

Either way, I would only buy a Dodge or Chevy diesel. The Allison tranny is a huge plus but I and two other friends have all had our share of way too many problems with newer Chevy's. My next truck is a 3/4 ton Ram mega-cab Cummins diesel.

I'd rather be cummin than strokin!

 

[LarryRB]

cp1969

The DPF technology is also being used in the semi trucks as well. I have not heard of any other diesel pollution control options at this time. The new Cummins seems to be a good engine by early reports but the DPF is having major issues. Dodge needs to get a better vender/option. Ford and Chevy also use DPFs but haven't had the same issues. Newer 2010 requirements will probably use urea in the pollution control scheme. Will you have to fill up with urea as well? The DPFs also seem to be killing fuel economy with Dodge, Ford and Chevy in the newer engines.
Many dodge owners seem to keep having recurring issues despite a change in the software.

The only difference being the Dodge runs real rough during a regen, one may think the truck is falling apart those 15 minutes,,, Better than a truck catching fire and burning like some others are doing. I don't know where you get they kill the fuel economy, Mine is getting 17 and once in a while a little over,, Last one got high 18's. A loss yes,, not an earth shattering loss. I will say that when towing,, there is a significant drop compared to the 5.9's I owned. I'm not sure of your statement they have recurring issues,, SDo you own a Dodge and know this?

 

[radman1]

Many of the newer diesel truck owners are reporting 13-15 mpg on the various forums with the newer engines, DPF and unloaded. Pulling loads some report as low as 8 mpg. My F-250 V10 gasser gets about 12 unloaded and 9-10 pulling loads. I drive 70-75 mph most of the time except when pulling. Getting harder to justify a 6-7K diesel when fuel mileage is getting closer to a gas. I will admit that the hp of the newer diesels are higher than several years ago when many made over 20 mpg. Like the catalytic converter, the DPF will evolve and get better and cheaper with time. The early catalytic converters could cause grass fires, smelled badly, were larger and so on. The were improved with time and now no one thinks about them much anymore.

My friend still has recurring DPF problems with his dodge truck despite updated software. His service guy is replacing some DPFs and told him the software should help but others like him are still having issues. My understanding is that dodge runs its regeneration only at higher road speeds. Fords, and I believe Chevy, will do a regen whenever the computer tells it to, at idle, road speed etc. Maybe some dodge owners who drive in cities or slower speeds are the ones with the problems?

 

[cp1969]

To add insult to injury, they charge an extra grand for the DPF. So list on the diesel option is now about $7k.

 

[KICK]

cp1969

The DPF technology is also being used in the semi trucks as well. I have not heard of any other diesel pollution control options at this time. .

they have used UREA injection in europe.

Green Car Congress: Mitsubishi Fuso Licenses Nissan Diesel Emissions Reduction Technology

 

[radman1]

they have used UREA injection in europe.

Green Car Congress: Mitsubishi Fuso Licenses Nissan Diesel Emissions Reduction Technology

Yea, urea maybe the future. However, the dodge cummins 5.7 is suppose to be 2010 compliant as it is with out the use of urea. Urea is suppose to reduce the (NOX?) emissions. Europe is more stringent than here which is why no one uses urea yet. I read that dodge uses some type of special metal/catalyst in their DPF to make it 2010 compliant. It reportedly makes the DPF more expensive than what ford or chevy use. I heard a ford DPF costs about $1000.

 

[Renze]

Over here in Europe, you see AdBlue (which is a trade name for urea) tanks popping up all over the country, allmost every self respecting gas station has one as 80% of new heavy trucks need urea to get to Euro 5.
With the use of urea, the fuel consumption was lowered by about 10 to 15% (compared to Euro 3 engines which didnt use it) because motor makers can adjust their injection pumps for maximum fuel efficiency and let the urea take care of the emissions afterwards.

 

[radman1]

Over here in Europe, you see AdBlue (which is a trade name for urea) tanks popping up all over the country, allmost every self respecting gas station has one as 80% of new heavy trucks need urea to get to Euro 5.
With the use of urea, the fuel consumption was lowered by about 10 to 15% (compared to Euro 3 engines which didnt use it) because motor makers can adjust their injection pumps for maximum fuel efficiency and let the urea take care of the emissions afterwards.

Interesting. It maybe cheaper to add urea and offset the cost of the urea with better fuel economy from the diesel engine. I think by 2010, urea maybe the solution in the states.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Urea injection is a very reasonable technology. The main hurdle in the US is the general assumption, unfortunately probably correct, that too many of our drivers are stupid or lazy and will refuse to refill the urea tank when it needs it. This doesn't inherently disable the engine, but it would make emissions go through the roof. As a result, it's likely that the engine computers will be set to go into limp-home mode if out of urea. That in turn would make most US buyers unhappy.

 

[HappyCPE]

As a result, it's likely that the engine computers will be set to go into limp-home mode if out of urea. That in turn would make most US buyers unhappy.

Well, most buyers don't forget to fill the fuel tank, right? If they do, they don't get a limp home mode, they get a walk home mode.

The current system is questionable to me. I have to burn ULSD which gives me less MPG, increasing my reliance on imported fuel that is more expensive and needs an additive to make my truck run well. [at least that is what my Ford mechanic tells me to do and I do feel a difference.]

If the urea boosts mileage, why aren't we doing that? I have heard the urea tank needs a refill every 30k miles or so. So what - I get my vehicles serviced that often and more. It can't be very expensive since they spread it on corn fields to make ethanol.

I'm all for saving the earth and the fuzzy critters on it but I'm keeping my polluting Powerstroke until someone figures out the right, simple thing and proves it works reliably. I'm tired of the dumbed-down lawyered-up solution for Americans.

{rant mode off}

 

[Z-Michigan]

You would still need ULSD with a urea system. Higher sulfur diesel is not coming back.

From what I've read urea tank refills will be a lot more often than 30k miles. If they do turn out to be that infrequent, that's great! No, urea should not be very expensive, unless the dealers/mfrs find some way to charge 10x what it should be because they control the supply of the only fluid meeting the manufacturer's specs.

I have not noticed any decrease in mpg with my two diesel vehicles, which I owned for about 9 months before ULSD came into my area. Also, both of them are running better now than with LSD.

Personally I find the 2005/06 model diesels to be quite clean when running on ULSD, and I don't like the 2007+ emissions rules for their blanket application across the US.

 

[Toiyabe]

If the urea boosts mileage, why aren't we doing that?

It doesn't really boost mileage. It just doesn't hurt mileage like some other emission reduction methods do. The urea is injected into the exhaust, so it doesn't affect the way the engine runs. It just allows you to run at a higher combustion temperature (which is more efficient) without producing unacceptably high NOx emissions.

 

[jcmseven]

As I have stated in previous posts, my new Ford 6.4L diesel gets exactly what, if not slightly better than, my old 7.3L did and gets better than many of my colleagues that run the 6.0L. I am getting on average about 1/2 mpg more than my friend's post emissions Duramax but it is close. I cannot say go diesel based on economy alone, but how many of us would really do that anyway? As for the one posters comment about the Cummins and Duramax engines being favorable over the new Ford, this simply is not the case. They are all excellent engines and the Cummins issue I am sure will be sorted out quickly. As each offers great performance I would go with whichever is attached to the truck one wants.

John M

 

[jayhaitch]

What is a large component of mammalian liquid nitrogenous waste? What is one of the two blood tests ordered to check renal function? What are we going to put into the second tank on future diesels? Why should any company corner the market and patent the additive when we have our own recycling equipment "on board?" Why, it would down right cheap to refill the urea tank

 

[HappyCPE]

This is the system that makes sense to me:
Mercedes-Benz - BlueTec® - The new SCR diesel technology
It is available on the 2007 and 08 E320. The obvious dowside is that I just ain't got $50 large to spend on a car.