G'Day.
We in Australia are getting recall letters in reference to "Emission Recall 67A".
Mine are getting more insistent each time, last one almost threatening! Now I contacted the dealership here about what changes are made to the motor, they have no sodding idea.
My concerns are that there is are transparency issues. Early letters suggested the DPF sensor may have been fitted wrong. My 2500 back pressure builds up on the gauge and it regens. Seems normal enough to me.
I don't appreciate smoke and mirrors, lack of knowledge about their product or just plain indifference. After speaking with the dealership about my concerns on at least three occasions they never once got back to me.
I have taken the 2500 in and had it put on a dyno to get benchmark readings on Kw/Hp and torque. Came up very nice they did.
I will be compelled to eventually get the recall done.
Cummins suggest in one statement there will be 'no change' and in another 'shouldn't be any change'. We will see when I do the the second dyno run under the same conditions as the first.
Pretty stupid to think they would get away with defeat software in the first place.
Would I be correct in suggesting that the fines Cummins are getting can partially be mitigated by actively recalling all those 6.7's.
Has anyone experienced any felt changes in performance or fuel/Add Blue-DPF usage?
Thats the big one guess.
Its perfect like it is, its as it was purchased and I like it to stay that way!
Cheers
omark61
The 67A update will change the programming for the SCR controller so that it will apply
more DEF to the emissions output under certain operating conditions. It’s nothing more than an increase in DEF application in order to achieve greater NOx reduction when the engine is operating under certain loads. It doesn’t de-tune the engines power or anything adverse. I have several friends with 2013-2018 6.7 trucks and all of them have had the 67A recall completed with no adverse performance losses. The only change they’ve experienced is a slight increase in DEF consumption, which was the expected outcome. The advantage of getting 67A done is that you get a nice extension on the SCR system warranty, which you’ll likely need at some point if you plan to keep the truck in stock configuration for an extended length of time. One of those friends I mentioned just recently needed the DEF pump assembly replaced on his 2016 truck. It was done for free under the warranty extension he received as a result of having 67A completed.
In reference to your comment regarding a letter about the “DPF sensor being fitted wrong”, I am assuming based on this comment that your truck is either a late-production 2021 or a model year 2022?…..
Late produced 21’s and all 22’s were manufactured without a PM (Particulate Matter Sensor). The sensor was internationally backordered during that entire production cycle and the factory literally couldn’t get them. Ram / FCA / Stellantis signed a memorandum of understanding with CARB that basically allowed them to produce the truck with an “incomplete” emissions system on the promise that, when the PM sensors were available again, Ram would voluntarily recall the trucks and install the sensor free of charge.
The PM sensor does not, in any way, have any direct connection, impact, or control of the DPF. It does not control regeneration, it does not read DPF pressures, and it does not have any control or influence on the SCR / DEF system. The PM sensor is installed downstream of the SCR outlet. Its sole function is to monitor the exhaust stream flowing out of the emissions package. It has a probe on the tip of it that captures soot particles. After a period of time it “measures” the amount of soot captured and creates an estimated value of total soot within the post-emissions exhaust flow. This estimated value has to be below a certain acceptable level. If the amount collected exceeds a certain value, it will trigger a diagnostic trouble code that indicates that the exhaust exiting the aftertreatment system is excessively laden with soot. This can only happen if the DPF has been, in some way, compromised. Either the internal media has cracked, or the packing around the media is allowing untreated exhuast to bypass the media, or the DPF itself has been removed and replaced by a piece of straight pipe (lol). In essence the PM sensor is simply a “watchdog” to make sure no excessive levels of soot are being expelled into the environment. The DPF’s used today are 99% efficient at capturing soot particles when manufactured and functioning correctly.
You are correct in that Cummins is being held directly accountable for the 67A recall being completed on these trucks. They must show a specific percentage of these trucks as complete by a certain date or they will face additional fines. What happened to Cummins in this situation is actually quite sad. They were the victim of a regime change at EPA. When the trucks were first manufactured, the current EPA management had approved their operating parameters as they were presented. It was only later, when the regime at EPA changed (old people left, new people brought in) that they were re-targeted and the new regime “didn’t like” their emissions performance. The words “cheating” were used by the media as a means to vilify Cummins, when in reality that’s not at all what happened. They presented their trucks for testing, they were approved as designed, and sent on their merry way. What Cummins did was undeniably no different than what GM or Ford was doing at the time.
