LOST JEEPS
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

Not Just a Jeep CRD Thing
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11214		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Cowcatcher [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Not Just a Jeep CRD Thing
My boss asked me if I could give him an early afternoon lift home since we both live in the same rural part of the county. Seems he had dropped his 2 year old, 12K mile F350 diesel off at the dealer for the third or fourth time for a problem that to me sounded suspiciously like our EGA problem. This time a mechanic went out on a test drive with him and guess what! Stuck valve in the turbo. In his case the reason is supposably corrosion from not driving it enough. They will be keeping it a few days to get it fixed!
Author:  BlackLibertyCRD [ Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Not Just a Jeep CRD Thing
Cowcatcher wrote:
My boss asked me if I could give him an early afternoon lift home since we both live in the same rural part of the county. Seems he had dropped his 2 year old, 12K mile F350 diesel off at the dealer for the third or fourth time for a problem that to me sounded suspiciously like our EGA problem. This time a mechanic went out on a test drive with him and guess what! Stuck valve in the turbo. In his case the reason is supposably corrosion from not driving it enough. They will be keeping it a few days to get it fixed!


Not driving it enough is bull, I had Ford training and that valve has same problem sticking because buildup from poor design egr flow control valve. They have a redesigned egr with it's own flow control and the new flow control valve is just a dummy. :roll:
Author:  heat [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yep, the Ford's had the same problem until the '05 and '06 model year of the 6.0 Powerstroke. You would think that something built by International wouldn't have these kinds of problems but I guess they don't even have EGRs in the big motors. My F250 is simply amazing now that they are doing away with the 6.0 because it can't meet the '07 pollution standards.... Again, same problem with the 2.8 in the Jeep.... Oh well, guess we just have to live with these torque monsters..... :D

Ken....
Author:  no-blue-screen [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
The Ford/Chevy/Dodge full size trucks don' t have to meet those emissions next year do they? I thought it was only "light-duty" applications that were required to meet the them for 07, and the heavy-duty trucks and such were given a little more time for the phase-in.
Author:  DarbyWalters [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
They should up the towing and carrying capacity of the CRD and add some D/E/ rated tires...take us out of the light duty...lol
Author:  Bovie [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
They do have to meet emmissions. The 07 Dodge Cummins moved up to 6.7ltr from 5.9ltr. It keeps the 610 foot pounds but looses 20hp. This is flat out BS. How is burning more fuel and making less power better for the enviroment?
Author:  heat [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Partially correct. We might call them heavy duty but in the government world they are still light duty. At the same time Uncle Sam understands the "middle of the road" area these trucks sit in because so many of them are used for business, etc. They need to meet the standard by something like 2010 but they require them to be able to burn ultra low sulfur diesel by 2007 or that is as I understand it. The big three are able to do that with their current motors but Ford I know wants to get ahead a bit (as well as introduce more HP and torque) by the end of 2007. Ford will be introducing a 6.4 liter two turbo version of the powerstroke by the end of 2007. That may actually end up as a 2008. I'm not sure what GM has planned and I know Dodge/Cummins were studying where to go from here but didn't know they had made the new motor yet. The Cummins is a well proven motor and Ford had worked out the teething pains on the Powerstroke. The newest Duramax still has some small issues but I think they built it from the get go with the newer standards in mind.. Only time will tell....

Ken....
Author:  Cowpie1 [ Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ok... the low down from a semi driver.

The "big" engines have had EGR since 2002, except for CAT that has been able to meet EPA with its ACERT engine. The "light" diesels are not the only ones. The entire Cummins line is EGR as well as Detroit Diesel, International, Mack, and Volvo.

ALL diesels for the 2007 calendar year on are required to have particulate filters on top of the current EPA requirements. All of them from the little diesels in cars to the Largest engines in Class 8 trucks. It will add approx $6K to the cost of large engines, but the smaller engines in the Dodge, Chevy, Ford, the cost will be spread out the entire pickup line adding about $5-600 cost per diesel vehicle (per my dodge dealer). Also, ULSD will be required for all the new engines and the only fuel for ALL on road vehicles by 2010. 80% of all on road diesel will have to be ULSD by October 2006.

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble thinking they are getting screwed with the new engines and someone else is getting by. The Govt is an equal oportunity shafter. Every diesel made for the road is going to have the same requirements. Even CAT (the only one able to comply with EPA without an EGR setup) is going to have to change to meet the 2007 standards.

:(
Author:  retmil46 [ Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:58 am ]
Post subject: 
Cowpie1 wrote:
Ok... the low down from a semi driver.

The "big" engines have had EGR since 2002, except for CAT that has been able to meet EPA with its ACERT engine. The "light" diesels are not the only ones. The entire Cummins line is EGR as well as Detroit Diesel, International, Mack, and Volvo.

ALL diesels for the 2007 calendar year on are required to have particulate filters on top of the current EPA requirements. All of them from the little diesels in cars to the Largest engines in Class 8 trucks. It will add approx $6K to the cost of large engines, but the smaller engines in the Dodge, Chevy, Ford, the cost will be spread out the entire pickup line adding about $5-600 cost per diesel vehicle (per my dodge dealer). Also, ULSD will be required for all the new engines and the only fuel for ALL on road vehicles by 2010. 80% of all on road diesel will have to be ULSD by October 2006.

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble thinking they are getting screwed with the new engines and someone else is getting by. The Govt is an equal oportunity shafter. Every diesel made for the road is going to have the same requirements. Even CAT (the only one able to comply with EPA without an EGR setup) is going to have to change to meet the 2007 standards.

:(


Exactly. At Freightliner's Cleveland NC plant, we've already run many of the EPA '07 engines down the line to put in test trucks for fleet evaluation. We're talking plumbing and electronics nightmare. Detroit Series 60 and the MB 4000 series engines end up looking like a large version of our CRD engine. CAT engines I've seen look to have still avoided an EGR, but have an afterburner device fitted behind the turbo exhaust with multiple fuel nozzles feeding into it and a sparkplug for ignition. And no, I don't mean glowplug, I mean sparkplug, I pulled off the wiring boot and looked and traced out the wiring, a Champion sparkplug with a separate ignition system.

The one thing they look to have still avoided for '07 is that they all still have an open CCV system vented to atmosphere, but now all are sporting an oil separator draining back to the sump.

Price increase is about right, word we've gotten is that they're trying to limit it to $4K per truck or as close as they can get.
Author:  RFCRD [ Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
retmil46 wrote:
Exactly. At Freightliner's Cleveland NC plant, we've already run many of the EPA '07 engines down the line to put in test trucks for fleet evaluation. We're talking plumbing and electronics nightmare. Detroit Series 60 and the MB 4000 series engines end up looking like a large version of our CRD engine. CAT engines I've seen look to have still avoided an EGR, but have an afterburner device fitted behind the turbo exhaust with multiple fuel nozzles feeding into it and a sparkplug for ignition. And no, I don't mean glowplug, I mean sparkplug, I pulled off the wiring boot and looked and traced out the wiring, a Champion sparkplug with a separate ignition system.

The one thing they look to have still avoided for '07 is that they all still have an open CCV system vented to atmosphere, but now all are sporting an oil separator draining back to the sump.

Price increase is about right, word we've gotten is that they're trying to limit it to $4K per truck or as close as they can get.

From what I understand, CAT has been avoiding the EGR for seveal years by paying a hefty fine for each engine. The Detroit Diesel Series 50 EGR "clean diesel" transit engine (4 cyl version of a Series 60 w/ EGR & VGT) was such a warranty nightmare that DDC dropped it last year. DDC owns the diesel market in public transit, never thought I would see the day they would virtually pull out. The last batch of buses we got at work came with C-9 CAT's and simple particulate traps that require periodic clean-out and will plug and throw a CEL if left idling more than a few minutes. That afterburner device (aka active particulate trap) is a nasty device. Once it lights up for cleanout, you can not turn off the engine until it's done which may take up to 15 minutes. This is prompting big arguments in transit due to diesel idling bans in most major east coast cities and safety concerns about lighting a chimney fire in a bus full of passengers.
Author:  onthehunt [ Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've also heard that Cat was paying a fine for each engine made and just tacking it on the price of the engine at the end. Whatever they did it seemed to work because our company only specs Cat engines now. They were a Cummins customer for 30+ years. Nobody wants the egr diesels and are willing to pay a premium for it. I know I would pay a $500 fine to get rid of my egr! On a side note- what's with series-60 engines? They sound like a jet turbine at idle. Are they using boost to put more oxygen in at idle to make them epa compliant?
Author:  RFCRD [ Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
onthehunt wrote:
I've also heard that Cat was paying a fine for each engine made and just tacking it on the price of the engine at the end. Whatever they did it seemed to work because our company only specs Cat engines now. They were a Cummins customer for 30+ years. Nobody wants the egr diesels and are willing to pay a premium for it. I know I would pay a $500 fine to get rid of my egr! On a side note- what's with series-60 engines? They sound like a jet turbine at idle. Are they using boost to put more oxygen in at idle to make them epa compliant?

Knowing public transit math is the key to understanding why paying the EPA fines work. Every new bus is funded 80% Fed, 10% State, 10% Local matching funds. So even if the fine is say $10K per engine, Uncle Sugar is paying $8K and the state is paying $1K of the fine. The local share would be $1K which would be recouped quickly in maintenance and fuel savings. So to close the loop, you are paying the fines for them as taxpayers.

On the Series 60, I believe you are right on the extra boost at an idle. I have only listened to one '05 Series 60 bus engine with EGR and VGT. It has a strange harmonic at an idle. Working around a lot of buses that do a lot of idling to maintain HVAC, I know that both the DDC Series 60 and the Cummins M11 idle cold and produce very nasty fumes, even on high idle. Several years ago, DDC was deactivating 3 cylinders (only firing 3 holes) in a attempt to reduce fuel consumed at idle and control the fumes. I believe now they are messing with the injector timing and boost pressures to compensate in some way.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/