H3LZSN1P3R
You're doing it wrong
Thats not true at all there are MPG gains 100% but you would get the same gains with emissions on tuning. Delete tuning you will get maybe .5-1mpg better avg but thats because no Regen cycles
Ram Heavy Duty Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Delete discussions
- Thread starter jetrinka
- Start date
UglyViking
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,410
- Reaction score
- 1,787
- Points
- 113
Who knows what the future holds, but man I'd love to see a comparison of the total emissions output of the plastic containers, overseas shipping, and on-road trucking to get DEF to our trucks. Not to mention the added pieces that have to be manufactured. It would be nice to see how many miles a diesel truck would need to drive to account for the hard parts and account for the production of DEF. Is def that much better? Maybe. I honestly think that it's primarily people didn't like seeing the black smoke, and that's what really pushed this over the edge.
The largest advantage of using SCR and DEF is that it significantly reduced the amount of EGR cycles the engine has to use in order to meet NOx emission targets. That’s why the 2013+ trucks no longer needed the EGR cleaning like the 2012 and previous trucks did. It was a great improvement in terms of the health of the engine long term, but the trade off was the addition of an extra fluid requirement and a whole lot of sometimes fragile components in order to incorporate it into the emissions framework. I am in complete agreement with you in terms of the costs and resources associated with the addition of that system. My instincts tell me that it’s a wash (at best) but more likely a “feel good” policy that ultimately caused more harm than good. It’s a shame. By 2006 we really had the diesels figured out. Incredibly good fuel mileage, long term reliability, power, and ease of repair were all on their way to being as close to perfect as you could get….. then enter a certain alphabet agency…..damn shame.
So we both agree then, people are Not getting 5-10 mpg gains like social media experts would have you believe. I probably gained the .5-1 like you mentioned
IndyRamMega
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 932
- Points
- 93
Hard to figure what your actual gains are when you lift and put 37" tires on your rig....on stock size tires and depending on how you drive 2-4 mpg's is easy to pick up....
I agree, but I'm not running 37's, and have calibrated my speedometer to be exact, and I also know how to do math. I never saw + 2-4 with stock sized tires tires either.
.
H3LZSN1P3R
You're doing it wrong
I got a reliable 3-4MPG gain but only when the SOTF is on 3or 4 when its on 1 i get .5MPG better
Just trying to picture in my mind what the reaction is to someone towing a travel trailer that says y'all is in - Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia?
Besides, isn't fuel cheaper there?
gimmie11s
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,677
- Reaction score
- 3,973
- Points
- 113
I bought a brand new 06 cummins 2500 and that truck as an absolute beast. Did everything great. Sounded awesome. Amazing off-the-pedal power. Great daily driver, great tow pig. Fantastic mpg. Dead nuts reliable. Good looking.
I miss it dearly.
They were really getting the engines dialed in at that point. I truly wish the emissions mandates would have held off a little while. It would’ve been nice to see a 6.7L evolve from the 5.9L without the added emissions. Couple that with the Aisin and it would have been a real show stopper. The body work was another story. That generation didn’t seem to last long in the rust belt. But like everything else, some things evolve faster and better than others
Me too. I refer to my 06 2500 as the one that got away.
Funny thing, several trucks later I had the opportunity to grab an 05. Almost identical trim and options…. sometimes you remember things a little better than they actually were.
The 05 was fun to drive here and there but I much preferred my deleted 13 6.7 that I owned at the same time as the 05.
gimmie11s
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,677
- Reaction score
- 3,973
- Points
- 113
Ha, very true. Ive noticed that effect on other things in life. Your memory of them may be a bit better than they actually were. Who knows. I do know I miss that 06!
\Our government mandated certain emissions targets for the vehicles. Manufacturers choose how they were going to meet the emissions standards and had input into the rule making process for standards. Its always interesting to me that there is a consensus that the truck manufacturers are "victims" of government overreach. In reality manufactures are participants. It would have been nice if manufacturers had chosen to develop cleaner burning diesel engines that didn't generate as much particulate matter and NOx emissions that they needed the after treatment systems we have today. But that is the path manufactures choose, and lets be frank the manufactures spend a lot of money lobbying and participating in the EPA rules making (given how regulated auto manufacturing is). So its not like manufacturers didn't have a say in how they were going to comply with emissions rules. I'm going to add my opinion, but diesel engine manufacturers choose not to clean up the combustion process by redesigning the engines, or the EPA mandating increases of diesel cetane ratings to improve combustion, but instead choose the path of not changing anything but the after treatment. For better or for worse that is what we have today. At least these after treatment systes are a lot more reliable now then they were on my diesels from 2009.
H3LZSN1P3R
You're doing it wrong
Cummins tried to go without DEF but in 2013 they were finally forced to use it….
gimmie11s
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,677
- Reaction score
- 3,973
- Points
- 113
I wonder if they'll ever get Ducted Fuel Injection (DFI) off the ground. That would eliminate the need for EGR and probably all the aftertreatment save infrequent DPF regens.
I've never heard of DFI before. Thanks for sending me down a rabbit hole that will probably consume my entire afternoon!
What do you dispute?
That car companies lobby the government, and participate in the EPA rule making process? https://www.edf.org/media/gm-and-edf-announce-recommended-principles-epa-emissions-standards-model-year-2027-and-beyond#:~:text=“GM and EDF are joining,turbocharging U.S. manufacturing and jobs.”
EPA and Cummins working togther https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-10/documents/cummins-commitment-ltr-05-18-10.pdf
That car companies had no other choices to meet emissions requirements than DOC/DPF/EGR/DEG? https://www.marineinsight.com/tech/...for-controlling-nox-sox-emissions-from-ships/
That fuel couldn't be modified to reduce emissions? https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/cetane#:~:text=The importance of higher cetane,fuel consumption and exhaust emission.
The solution everyone arrives at is collaborative, and the manufactures are going to choose the most profitable way to meet the EPA targets they had inputs to. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses The EPA is mandated by law to take into account the economic impacts of harm reduction, and the manufacturers want to meet the rules they lobby for in the cheapest way possible. My only point was that the manufactures were not victims but willing/active participants in the emissions solutions we got. We didn't have to end up here, but this is where the money led us.
Last edited:
I reread the original Sandia labs article and it does indicate EGR would still be a part of the system, though it should be relatively soot free. https://www.sandia.gov/labnews/2019/08/29/ducted-fuel-injection/
“Now that we’ve got soot out of the way, there’s no more soot/NOx trade-off,” he said. “So we can add dilution — taking some of the engine exhaust and routing it back to the intake — to get rid of NOx without soot emissions becoming a problem. It’s like a two-for-one deal on reducing pollutants.”