DPFs, EGRs, DEF, etc...

[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