VW-Style Cheating: An Experiment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
There is no mpg penalty per Ford engineer interview for the current emission system on the HD Ford diesels.

I don't know why Dodge didn't design this system correct in the first place? That was just a bad design trying to get by without DEF. Maybe VW hired the engineers who should have been fired from the Ram design team who designed the Ram emission systems?


Dodge didn't design anything, it was all Cummins hardware and software. They had enough credits and met the targets set forth by the EPA before the deadline and were therefore able to get by with a DPF/DOC only. Commercial applications and all engines larger than the 6.7 acquired SCR from 09-10 even though pickups didn't see it until 13, including the C&C 6.7L trucks. The decision was likely driven by the hundreds of millions it saved them in production costs over the years, but honestly it wasn't as bad a system as everybody claims as long as the truck is used as it is designed to be. By design they need to be run hot to allow for passive regen to occur. It is when they are used for short trips and unloaded runs where the frequent active regens tax the system to the point of failure. Fuel dilution, soot loading in the oil, stuck Turbo vanes all due to excessive EGR and active regen. The SCR is much more forgiving in light duty use.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
There is no mpg penalty per Ford engineer interview for the current emission system on the HD Ford diesels.


And I'm sure he has a nice beach house for sale, just north of Phoenix!

Quote:
I don't know why Dodge didn't design this system correct in the first place? That was just a bad design trying to get by without DEF. Maybe VW hired the engineers who should have been fired from the Ram design team who designed the Ram emission systems?


One more time: NOBODY USED DEF IN 2007!


Vehicles over 8500 GVW are not subject to CAFE requirements. Might wanna check on that beach house.
 
What I'm not understanding about this post is the net affect on simply unplugging the EGR. It has no bearing on the regen of the DPF, which is where a large portion of the mileage penalty takes a hit.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
There is no mpg penalty per Ford engineer interview for the current emission system on the HD Ford diesels.


And I'm sure he has a nice beach house for sale, just north of Phoenix!

Quote:
I don't know why Dodge didn't design this system correct in the first place? That was just a bad design trying to get by without DEF. Maybe VW hired the engineers who should have been fired from the Ram design team who designed the Ram emission systems?


One more time: NOBODY USED DEF IN 2007!


Thanks a lot internet engineer. I trust their word over yours any day.
Who cares if no one used DEF then? It was a bad design, a temporary fix before they could do it right with DEF. No different than VW.
 
People are hesitant about today's diesel engines but they truly have come a long ways. The EPA for all the good they have done threw the largest technological wrench in the cogs in the history of internal combustion. 2007 saw the reduction in emissions that we've ever seen in the past. Big players like Cat and Navistar fell by the way side. The first few years were tough on every manufacturer. Everybody had their share of growing pains whether it was in the form of after treatment or fuel system components. Looking at where we are today is pretty impressive how far they have come. My 98 CTD is about as simple as they come. Mechanical injection, no EGR, factory rated at 215 HP/420 ft lbs torque (slightly above that now!). Fast forward to my 13, factory rated at 385 HP/850 ft lbs torque. The kicker, they both get very similar mileage unloaded while the 13 gets better mileage the heavier the load gets. Part of this is due to the 6 speed Trans vs the 4 speed, but it is mostly the performance of the engine. I love my 98 and will likely never sell it but its hard to beat the refinement of these new trucks.
 
Originally Posted By: jrmason
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
There is no mpg penalty per Ford engineer interview for the current emission system on the HD Ford diesels.


And I'm sure he has a nice beach house for sale, just north of Phoenix!

Quote:
I don't know why Dodge didn't design this system correct in the first place? That was just a bad design trying to get by without DEF. Maybe VW hired the engineers who should have been fired from the Ram design team who designed the Ram emission systems?


One more time: NOBODY USED DEF IN 2007!


Vehicles over 8500 GVW are not subject to CAFE requirements. Might wanna check on that beach house.


I deal with them every day: in 2008, diesel mileage TANKED. We have tractors getting 4MPG! (Not to mention the problems with the emission systems.)
 
[/quote]

I agree with you. I recently had the option to remove the cat from my Jeep when the exhaust fell off. Since it's the big cat, there is no oxygen sensor on it ... but I do like having catalysts so I put it back on. And the raw exhaust fumes were horrible.


But I believe a Ford Excursion is going to be putting out much, much more pollution over it's life than a Honda Civic that, literally, burns less than 1/5 of the fuel.

I'm sure their oddball calculation is based on a crazy formula; in the end, the Civic probably puts out less bad stuff per mile driven than the Excursion. Probably not per gallon of fuel consumed since the ultra lean burn mode can't keep the catalyst up to temperature. [/quote]

No, IIRC, the calculation is per mile. So the newer Excursion really does put out less of the regulated pollutants (I burned HC, Co, NOx, etc.) than the older, smaller car. . The Excursion puts out more CO2, but it's not a pollutant. That's not to say CO2 doesn't matter, but it's not directly harmful in and of itself like the other gasses are. Mass emission of CO2 wouldn't be an issue if deforestation weren't also going on.
 
Originally Posted By: supton
My truck does likewise, 1800rpm or so before coming down to 1500 or so. For some reason it takes several seconds for the mechanical fan to do its bit and stop spinning--so those first few seconds is quite the commotion.


My Ram does the same. So does the SRT, but there's no engine driven clutch fan to howl.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
So you proved the EPA cheat works, and why they did it. You also proved why urea systems are preferred.


That truck was built BEFORE UREA SYSTEMS WERE IN USE!



That's exactly the point. Cummins was trying to hit lowering NOx limits with egr alone, resulting in sooty operation, clogging egr coolers, and terrible efficiency. If they'd just gone straight to urea, they wouldn't have had those issues,mans they don't have them as much today because they HAVE gone with urea SCR.

DPF and regeneration- completely separate system with its own issues and IT, not SCR, is what hurts 2015 diesel efficiency. . It's much more problematic than SCR, but since the two are tied together in the publics' mind, SCR gets blamed for DPF problems.
 
AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH!

Read and COMPREHEND! In 2008, nobody was using urea! EPA 2007 engines DO HOT have DEF systems! DEF is EPA 2010!
 
Originally Posted By: czbrian


If the EPA favored that approach the smog in any large city would become unbearable. Although the OP improved his gas mileage around 35%, nox emissions probably went up 10x or more. Its not a big deal if a small percent of the population disables their emmission controls but if everyone did it you would have a problem. I'm not sure what the majority considers an acceptable level of smog but I dont think I like the idea of even increasing the amount of smog here in Houston even twice as much.


Closer to doubling the NOX from 1.2 g/hp-hr to about 2.5 g/hp-hr.

The land of diesels without EGR was not that long ago, and we still live with a great deal of them today. Road diesels were certainly not responsible for doubling smog.

Quote:
If I said that...

By merely unplugging an EGR on a 6.7L without existing issues, my MPG increased by 44%.

Would you believe me?


No surprise here. My old 2003 Ram 5.9 Never put up less than 19MPG unloaded, and the mags routinely reported 14MPG from the 6.7s. Do the research yourself. Even the 5.9 HO's were solid 19-20mpg trucks.

Quote:

Agreed. It's surprising how many people don't remember all of the air pollution issues in the 70's and 80's. Intentionally defeating the emissions equipment is nothing more than selfish, childish act. Fortunately most people are more mature than that.


It's no different from owning/purchasing a vehicle with less or no emissions controls.

Where the law is concerned, that's a different story of course, but nobody's checking down here.

Quote:
44%?! If everyone did that global fuel use would be halved! Supplies would last twice as long and prices would tumble.


Again, I wish I could say I was surprised, but I've already been to this rodeo before. The diesel engine is truly incredible when it isn't eating it's own dung.
wink.gif


Quote:
So you proved the EPA cheat works, and why they did it. You also proved why urea systems are preferred.

The invisible thing that happened when you pulled that EGR plug is that NOx emissions shot thru the roof. To be honest, its not a problem in rural areas where there aren't a lot of cars, because the ozone formed from the NOx quickly dissipates.

Its a HUGE problem in cities, though, because the ozone concentrations at certain times of day get so bad that it damages lung tissue.

There's really no downside to urea-injected diesels. You get the power and economy of non-EGR, plus the lower emissions. The urea catalyst doesn't add any exhaust restriction, because the DPF already dominates that (and now the DPF doesn't load up as fast as it would with EGR, so it has lower restriction too) Oh, I guess the owner has to suffer the SOUL CRUSHING burden of putting in a few gallons of DEF every few hundred miles.... the horror, the horror. ;-)

This is why VW should suffer horribly over this. Everybody else played the game, did their civic duty, took the initial consequences, and figured things out. Cheaters suck.


Through the roof? Not really. It's not like I converted it into a 6-71. EGR is only one part of the NOX reduction system. The pre-EGR Cummins were limited to 2.5 g/hp-hr, where in 2007, it went to 1.2 g/hp-hr.

DEF is absolutely a much better system, but never offered on this truck.

Quote:
Remember, the Ford Excursion V10 is a certified low emissions vehicle. A Honda Civic HX from the 90s is a gross polluter.


I think there was actually a Suburban that was a ULEV. Hilarious.

Quote:
There is no mpg penalty per Ford engineer interview for the current emission system on the HD Ford diesels.

I don't know why Dodge didn't design this system correct in the first place? That was just a bad design trying to get by without DEF. Maybe VW hired the engineers who should have been fired from the Ram design team who designed the Ram emission systems?


Something like that. It was a stupid move that probably killed a lot of DPF's. The horrific soot loaded clogs the engine and DPF pretty badly.

Quote:
With SCR (DEF) why even have EGR that destroys performance and fuel mileage?


TMK, it significantly reduces EGR events, but would be a lot nicer to have no EGR at all.

Quote:
Prices wouldn't drop because production would be cut, and we wouldn't be able to breathe.


You were able to breathe in 2006. You'd breathe fine today.
 
Originally Posted By: jrmason
What I'm not understanding about this post is the net affect on simply unplugging the EGR. It has no bearing on the regen of the DPF, which is where a large portion of the mileage penalty takes a hit.


EGR: Increases soot
DPF: Catches soot
Soot: Loads DPF
DPF: Gets loaded and requires regen
Regen: Throws away fuel

DPF must have had a lot to throw away too, I'm now averaging 21.8MPG.

It's really nothing new:

http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/showthread.php?36543-Excellent-MPG-s-w-EGR-unplug-Cummins-6-7
 
Eliminating EGR increases soot load to the DPF which can only increase the frequency of regens.
 
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I just did a Google search, just to be sure I didn't have things bass ackwards, but all I find is a lot of info from major sources regarding the increase in soot loading with EGR.
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: jrmason
Eliminating EGR increases soot load to the DPF which can only increase the frequency of regens.


Really? Just ask anybody that eliminated the EGR on their diesel vehicle how the oil looked like before the deletion and after.



This is true. And also intake cleanliness. Once my buddy deleted the EGR on his 6.0L the runners stayed clean, oil stayed cleaner and he picked up a solid 2MPG. EGR on a diesel is a bit of an abomination because it is so bloody dirty.
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: jrmason
Eliminating EGR increases soot load to the DPF which can only increase the frequency of regens.


Really? Just ask anybody that eliminated the EGR on their diesel vehicle how the oil looked like before the deletion and after.


Engine oil has NOTHING to do with the DPF. The purpose of Exhaust Gas Recirculation is to burn NOX/PM from the exhaust to cut down on emissions. So now you've eliminated that, yes, you will absolutely have cleaner crank case oil, intake, and equally as important on the 6.7 Cummins the vanes on the HE351. Where do you suppose it's all going? Straight out the pipe, and into the DPF.
Not rocket science folks.
 
Originally Posted By: jrmason
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: jrmason
Eliminating EGR increases soot load to the DPF which can only increase the frequency of regens.


Really? Just ask anybody that eliminated the EGR on their diesel vehicle how the oil looked like before the deletion and after.


Engine oil has NOTHING to do with the DPF. The purpose of Exhaust Gas Recirculation is to burn NOX/PM from the exhaust to cut down on emissions. So now you've eliminated that, yes, you will absolutely have cleaner crank case oil, intake, and equally as important on the 6.7 Cummins the vanes on the HE351. Where do you suppose it's all going? Straight out the pipe, and into the DPF.
Not rocket science folks.


Where does the extra soot generated via the mpg hit go with EGR? Yes, some of it ends up in the oil and caking the runners, turbo...etc but the majority of it is just going to go right out the tail pipe as well. The difference is that with active EGR, you are burning more fuel (as quite evident by the MPG hit) which means more soot being generated for the DPF to deal with.

EGR on a diesel is, IMHO, absolutely idiotic. It is like a pollution paradox. You burn more fuel, increasing emissions of a certain type in order to reduce emissions of another
crazy2.gif
 
Your turning the discussion into something it isn't. I never stated the positives outweigh the negatives in EGR. I've cleaned enough intakes and turbos (and rebuilt a few) to know how detrimental it is to the guts of an engine. The fact is your still sending more emissions out the tail pipe for the DPF to process, which leads to more active regens which leads to more fuel being burned on the exhaust stroke to clear the DPF. At best it might be a wash, but certainly no 30-40% increase in mileage.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH!

Read and COMPREHEND! In 2008, nobody was using urea! EPA 2007 engines DO HOT have DEF systems! DEF is EPA 2010!


Sheesh, take your own dang advice. Go back and re-read what I said.

I NEVER said anyone was using "urea" (SCR) that year... I am comparing the high EGR method of controlling NOx to the urea method, and then I'm pointing out that they would have been BETTER if they HAD bitten the bullet and adopted SCR early rather than trying to dodge it with high levels of EGR. SCR WORKS BETTER THAN EGR. Doesn't matter who used what which year. SCR just works better. The problems of 2007/2008 EGR engines prove that. Got it?

Now, go right ahead and read the first sentence or two of this post and respond with "nobody used urea in 2008" again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
Calif smog test results failed finally passed but don't understand NOX emissions
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
PandaBear
Redhawk454
My 6.7 Cummins is having a daily regen. Do I need to worry about oil dilution?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
6K
Audiman
TiGeo
5 years in my VW Golf Sportwagen....report
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
wpod
Nick1994
2023 Fiat 500 Hybrid Rental Review
Replies
12
Views
2K
pezzy84
M
  • Locked
11th Gen Corolla Grade Change; Sharing Experience
Replies
3
Views
1K
M56959
Back
Top