DPFs, EGRs, DEF, etc...

[jyoutz]

How many times have you won the lottery as well?

0. And I also don’t know anyone else who has had front end problems on Dodge 4x4s. 2wd yes.

 

[pmsmechanic]

It's all relative rick...do you consider front ends on dodges to be part of maintenance costs because one could make an argument for that.

The earlier Dodges had issues with their front ends but it's still a lot less money than fixing 6/6.4L issues. If you replaced factory Dodge parts with aftermarket the issues dodn't exist anymore. While aftermarket parts help with 6/6.4L engines it's still a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive to totally solve their issues.

It's interesting how this thread took a quick turn into the demerits of the big 3 and their diesel woos vs what I feel the video was pointing out. Basically he was asking the question as to why people like you and me are saddled with unreliable emissions on vehicles when large emitters (ships, airlines etc.) are essentially getting off relatively scott free. So far no one has commented on that question other than an early dis about how the video producer is just a whiner when really he's making valid points.

 

[Jchonline]

Basically he was asking the question as to why people like you and me are saddled with unreliable emissions on vehicles when large emitters (ships, airlines etc.)

Funny how when you are breaking the law you just point the finger at others you think are more guilty. He knowingly broke it and after he was fined $180k (reduced to $22k) he then started working political channels to get it changed. A better idea is to get things changed before you break the law.

Yes I understand the law sucks...but we all know there are thousands of them we despise. Some we break at our own risk.

Adding additional emissions standards to boats and planes is a reasonable idea...but if it creates more inflation then no thanks. Street legal race cars do not inflate prices for everyone. Making boats and planes more expensive to operate does.

In other words...comparing a hobby to an economical staple of modern business isnt really a reasonable comparison at all is it?

Now if we were talking about tractors and heavy equipment instead....who different issue.

 

[Snobdds]

If you replaced factory Dodge parts with aftermarket the issues dodn't exist anymore.

I think I have been pretty clear that if you do your maintenance on the 6.4, the problem dosen't exist anymore.

 

[Hay Dude]

I think I have been pretty clear that if you do your maintenance on the 6.4, the problem dosen't exist anymore.

You may be downplaying and under estimating the amount of “maintenance” you are referring to. I think the word “maintenance” should be changed to “premature maintenance/**** maintenance“ or “early repairs to lessen big repairs”.

The rockers were lightweight junk as proved by Ford making better ones as replacements.
Oil dilution from 7 & 8 takes out parts of the engine.
The DPF sensors were prone to breaking off, shutting down the engine immediately (happened to me twice). Now I don’t know how a broken off sensor is a “lack of maintenance issue” but whatever….
Sensor replacement is about $1,000 if the sensor is rusted into the bung and the bung needs drilled out or a new one welded in.
The DPFs themselves won’t go more than 100k without needing replacement or cleaning. Replacement was $1,700 without new sensors. Did 2 of those. When they are starting to fail, they kick out more smoke than a freight rain. Real good look for your customer base
Previous owner of my F-350 did the turbos at 110,000. I think that was $3600.
Just not a good design. Not built for reliability.
It was dead & buried after only 2-3 years and deservedly so.

 

[Snobdds]

You may be downplaying and under estimating the amount of “maintenance” you are referring to. I think the word “maintenance” should be changed to “premature maintenance/**** maintenance“ or “early repairs to lessen big repairs”.
The rockers were junk as proved by Ford making better ones as replacements.

Oil dilution from 7 & 8 takes out parts of the engine.
Not a good design.
It was dead & buried after only 2-3 years and deservedly so.

Well I see you have me off ignore...brave of you.

Early oil changes are hardly a big lift. Adapt and overcome is not just a catchy slogan.
Oil dilution only takes out engine parts if oil is allowed to degrade to a point it ceases to be oil anymore. There is a choice factor in there.
The 6.4 needed to have a SCR to meet new emission standards in 2011, a new engine was needed, hence the 6.7. The EPA deemed it dead and buried.

The dawn of the emission motor was not without hiccups. Every one of the big three struggled with it, even your inline god.

If emissions were not needed on the 6.4...we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Hay Dude]

Yeah well, thank the Lord it’s gone and so are mine. Never saw an engine(s) suffer so many problems. In talking to other 6.4L owners and my friendly Powerstroke mechanic, who had some very unkind things to say about it, I believe my own experiences and them more than you.

And as far as taking you off ignore, I gotta tell all of you, it’s a great feature. You can ignore a poster who you want to ignore, then turn him back on once in a while, just to see if they’re still as misguided as they were before Muhammad hit a grand slam with that feature.

As far as in-line configuration goes, it’s proven by billions of miles of use, to pull harder with more torque and get better fuel mileage than a V8 configuration
Truck owners want trucks with torque and fuel economy.

 

[4570Man]

The dawn of the emission motor was not without hiccups. Every one of the big three struggled with it, even your inline god.

If emissions were not needed on the 6.4...we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Emissions equipment is continuing to cause problems but at least most manufacturers were able to build an engine that doesn’t continuously cause significant damage to itself. And I’m no Cummins fanboy but it’s not even up for debate which motor is more durable. One motor is used far and wide in industrial applications and the other only saw limited use in class 6-7 trucks and was mostly a failure doing so. 7.3s, Duramaxs, and 6.0s were also offered in a few medium duties and they were just ok not legendary.

 

[Hay Dude]

If you build a truck with properly speced rocker arms, they won’t grenade because the engine dilutes its own oil with diesel fuel dumped in 7 & 8 for the DPF.

 

[Wobblin-Goblin]

I reluctantly agree. Runs pretty strong for a V-8 when all is well, but man could those trucks break down. I mean it got to the point where I would ”rotate” my 6.4’s through my Powerstroke mechanic. We became friends as Im sure he viewed me as a source of income, not unlike an annuity. Lol Rest of the truck was pretty solid. Good transmission.
We could only have at best 2 of them running at once. The early rocker arms were junk. The DPF sensors were an instant call for a tow. Check engine lights on constantly. Lived off the handheld to clear codes just to get the hay delivered or machinery moved. Never forget I had a pump code and I could only go 20. Pull over shut off, get another few miles, pull over clear code, repeat. Did finally get hay delivered And limped home.
Those days are over now and my bank account is much better off with more reliable, harder pulling Cummins engines. Took me way too long to cut the umbilical cord from Ford. Got my first sniff of how well a Cummins pulled from my first JCB Fastrac about 12 years ago. The 5.9L in my first one would pull real hard. Just the fact that Cummins engines are tough enough for Agriculture speaks many many volumes.

God Bless Clessie Cummins. The man is a hero. Most of their engines are well designed and in line 6 torquey

I've got a 2003 Ford 7.3L Powerstroke and a 1994 Dodge Ram 5.9L Cummins. No issues with either engine and both are still driven today. If I had to choose, however, I'd pick the Cummins.

 

[jyoutz]

I've got a 2003 Ford 7.3L Powerstroke and a 1994 Dodge Ram 5.9L Cummins. No issues with either engine and both are still driven today. If I had to choose, however, I'd pick the Cummins.

Agree, but the 7.3 was actually a good power stroke, unlike those that came after.

 

[Hay Dude]

I've got a 2003 Ford 7.3L Powerstroke and a 1994 Dodge Ram 5.9L Cummins. No issues with either engine and both are still driven today. If I had to choose, however, I'd pick the Cummins.

And thats a 10 years older engine!
Says a lot.

 

[Wobblin-Goblin]

Agree, but the 7.3 was actually a good power stroke, unlike those that came after.

Yes. The 7.3L Powerstroke was (is) a really good engine. Mine is 19 years old and a is still my daily driver and it tows trailers all the time. No complaints whatsoever. However, if I had to choose, I'd choose the 12V 5.9L Cummins. It's a little better.

 

[Lee Robinson]

Funny how when you are breaking the law you just point the finger at others you think are more guilty. He knowingly broke it and after he was fined $180k (reduced to $22k) he then started working political channels to get it changed. A better idea is to get things changed before you break the law.

Yes I understand the law sucks...but we all know there are thousands of them we despise. Some we break at our own risk.

Adding additional emissions standards to boats and planes is a reasonable idea...but if it creates more inflation then no thanks. Street legal race cars do not inflate prices for everyone. Making boats and planes more expensive to operate does.

In other words...comparing a hobby to an economical staple of modern business isnt really a reasonable comparison at all is it?

Now if we were talking about tractors and heavy equipment instead....who different issue.

He certainly should accept it was his choice to break the law...but I don't think he is saying, "hey they did it too" when pointing at the ships and planes not having DPFs and such. Instead, I think he is saying, "look at all the pollution being produced to reduce pollution" and in doing so is expressing frustration that he has to either go gas, go with crippled diesel, get an old diesel, or risk breaking the law to fix the problem which creates another problem (a legal one for him).

That is how I took it, so that is why I shared it in a tractor forum...for any equipment that has DPF added has it added to reduce pollution (supposedly), so I certainly hope the attempt to do so we are not producing more waste by adding more equipment, reducing lifespan, reducing fuel economy, and burning more fuel to get these products over here and put together...for if we are leaving a larger carbon footprint in doing the "cleaning," then it is just spinning wheels.

Take battery powered automobiles...if they are charged by the sun, they make sense, but if they are charged by a generator, then one is just fooling themselves to call them clean.

That's why I am glad I bought a tractor that was not required to have this stuff on it.

 

[RickB]

If you build a truck with properly speced rocker arms, they won’t grenade because the engine dilutes its own oil with diesel fuel dumped in 7 & 8 for the DPF.

Butbutbutbutbut all you gotta do is change that diluted oil 2-3 times more often than the manufacturer calls for.

 

[Ortimber]

If increased oil changes would’ve been the only thing required to keep the 6.4L out of the service bay, Ford and Navistar missed the boat and could’ve saved themselves a whole lot of money and aggravation had they offered free (unlimited) oil changes for all 6.4L vehicles.

 

[Hay Dude]

If increased oil changes would’ve been the only thing required to keep the 6.4L out of the service bay, Ford and Navistar missed the boat and could’ve saved themselves a whole lot of money and aggravation had they offered free (unlimited) oil changes for all 6.4L vehicles.

Thats a great point. Obvious answer is that it was more than just oil changes creating the problems.
Ford did ZERO to help with the 6.4.
I would always ask the service tech, why doesnt Ford offer a rebate check on a new 6.7L purchase as a way to keep customers loyal if you had a 6.4L?
I guess thats why Ford has relinquished a lot of sales of heavy duty pickups to Ram?

 

[jyoutz]

He certainly should accept it was his choice to break the law...but I don't think he is saying, "hey they did it too" when pointing at the ships and planes not having DPFs and such. Instead, I think he is saying, "look at all the pollution being produced to reduce pollution" and in doing so is expressing frustration that he has to either go gas, go with crippled diesel, get an old diesel, or risk breaking the law to fix the problem which creates another problem (a legal one for him).

That is how I took it, so that is why I shared it in a tractor forum...for any equipment that has DPF added has it added to reduce pollution (supposedly), so I certainly hope the attempt to do so we are not producing more waste by adding more equipment, reducing lifespan, reducing fuel economy, and burning more fuel to get these products over here and put together...for if we are leaving a larger carbon footprint in doing the "cleaning," then it is just spinning wheels.

Take battery powered automobiles...if they are charged by the sun, they make sense, but if they are charged by a generator, then one is just fooling themselves to call them clean.

That's why I am glad I bought a tractor that was not required to have this stuff on it.

I’m glad that I bough a modern tractor with emissions. I used to get a sinus headache after operating my old tractor for a few hours because of the fumes. I don’t have that issue with the emissions from my new tractor.

 

[Lee Robinson]

One thing I have to give Ford credit for is they never took a government bailout.

 

[rScotty]

I’m glad that I bough a modern tractor with emissions. I used to get a sinus headache after operating my old tractor for a few hours because of the fumes. I don’t have that issue with the emissions from my new tractor.

Me too. I sure do wish those emission systems were engineered better. But something had to be done. Anyone over a certain age (50ish?) can remember when huge stretches of the US were covered by a sort of gray/orange cloud of exhaust of all kinds. Cities were so shrouded in smog that you had to decide if you really wanted to drive into it.

The air is hugely better everywhere now. It's been a painful journey but it had to be done. Hats off to us for putting up with all the hassles it took to get where we are now.

Our solution may not be the best, but at least it is moving in the right direction. Everyone benefits, even the ignorant ones who just don't understand and don't care. Luckily most folks are smarter than that.

Maybe next time instead of wasting all our energy fighting about whether to fix a problem, we can put that energy to work figuring out a better way to do it.
rScotty