Cascade Crew

IROCDave · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:44 pm Post subject:

I'm guessing that most of you guys do not know the history of the power stroke engines or the modern light duty diesel engine history.

To start, the Powerstroke engine line was built by Navistar and installed in Ford SD trucks. Ford did not build it and if I understand it correctly, dd not engineer it. Ford did provide specs for the engine. The 7.3 Power stroke was a really good engine and put a huge dent in the lame duck 70's based Dodge trucks with the ultra relaible Cummins engine. Ford tried to push the envelope and cut costs with the 6.0 (ohno) litre Powerstroke as the marketing / hype reached hysteria in 2004. The 6.0 (ohno) was a disaster. It is the main reason FOrd was in financial trouble in the mid 2000's and Ford had to sue Navistar to release the next engine for Ford.

In the late 90's GM purchased a large percentage of Isuzu heavy industries for the sole purpose of developing a diesel engine that outperformed Cummins and the Navistar 7.3 and 6.0 Ohno Power Stroke. GM had a well deserved reputaition as a piss poor manufacture of disel engines. It did the trick. The die hard Ford ( Power Stroke) and Dodge (Cummins) customers ripped the Duramax becuase it had alluminum heads and was associated with a japaneese company. In hind site they would all eat their opinions as Cummins and every model of Power Stroke since has had Common rail injection and alluminum heads.

The Duramax / Allison transmission package has been the best all around HD prospect since it's introduction.

The US government / oil industry have ruined the fuel economy advantages of daily driving a diesel power vehicle since 2006. Diesel used to be much cheaper than gas, but they flipped the switch in 2006 and all of the sudden diesel costs more than premium gasoline. The US government started clamping down on the emmission on diesel engines in 2005. Imagine how well a EGR system works on a disel engine....It doesnt. They plug up after about 50K.
Now they require a DPF filter and a seperate tank for Urea injection. Modern light duty diesel engines are monsters when it comes to power, but the fuel economy is in the toliet becuase of the emmisions requirements.

IROCDave · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:48 pm Post subject:

aaron_sK · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:00 pm Post subject:

@ John: I know the idea is that a spinning gasser can put out as much power as a lugging diesel. However in that scenario a diesel will use less fuel, it will create less heat, and it will not ping.

@Dave, I own a fine specimen of the long history between IH/Navistar and Ford. Wink

As you are aware the balance of power between the Navistar engineers and Ford's engineers shifted throughout the run. Ford engineers were the ones that pushed the 6.0 through which led to all the finger pointing and lawsuits.

@ Jon: Why in the world would you trade up for a newer truck? If you're worried about rust just buy an out of state truck with a blown motor and swap yours in.

blue89 · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:07 pm Post subject:

DPF's are required, urea is not. Navistar has chosen heavy egr to accomplish the same thing. Only downside is a cooling package twice as big as a urea engine.

QwkTrip · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:19 pm Post subject:

Twilightoptics · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:41 pm Post subject:

QwkTrip · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:08 pm Post subject:

I don't work in the engine design center and anything I know about emissions systems is just enough to have general awareness. Most of what I do is with off-highway machines. There is a little part of me in every type of machine made.

I think the EPA allowed companies to stage in stricter emissions between 2007-2010 based on percent of sales. Something like 50% of sales must comply between 2007-2009 and 100% comply by 2010. This allowed companies to "flex" some older engines for more years and give time to make updates. Very few engines actually met 2010 standards before 2010.

2007 brought the DPF (diesel particulate filter) to reduce hydrocarbons (soot) with on-highway engines. 2010 brought the SCR (selective catalytic reduction) with urea dosing in the exhaust stream to reduce NOx emissions. Some companies are still using EGR to control NOx emissions but I think all will have to update to SCR eventually as the emissions standards get more strict. Maybe by 2014?

QwkTrip · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:31 pm Post subject:

I'm also expecting the EPA and local State governments to really clamp down on illegal removal of emissions equipment. It's a $10K fine if you are caught without a DPF and it's the easiest thing in the world to tell if it's gone... just look for the black tail pipe.

The magazines are half the problem with every issue all about horsepower and billowing black smoke. The diesel hot rodding craze is doomed unless people can figure out how to make smokeless power. And when the clamp down happens the value of every 5.9L 24V Cummins and pre-2007 Duramax will go up.

I'm letting my subscription for Diesel Power run out. It's become useless to me. A thick magazine full of pictures from drag races and pulling events. I don't care! Diesel World still has practical technical articles but they are beginning to fill the pages more and more with the same crap of drag races and dyno event coverage. If they get too disconnected with the average truck owner then I'll drop that one too. I just picked up GM High Tech Performance so I'll have something new to read anyway. Very Happy

IROCDave · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:23 pm Post subject:

The EPA and Fed have it in for diesel powered vehicles. It has nothing to do with getting off of arab oil. Diesel is one of the first products to come off the top of refined crude.

A small displacement diesel engine would be perfect in most econo cars, VW has been in this market for decades. Like I said, there is a focused effort to keep high MPG diesels out of the US. Makes you wonder what the objective is and who profits. Actually, it's clear as day......

If my 7200lb 4wd 03 CC Duramax can pull down 24 MPG on the HWY and 19 around town why couldnt a 6000lb 1/2ton equally equipped truck net 30 mpg with a 4.5 litre diesel?
Who would be upset about that? Yep, the big oil companies. There is no logical reason to charge .80 cents a gallon above regular gas prices for a product that requires less investment. None.

IROCDave · Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:00 am Post subject:

I started to respond to a great point Aaron mentioned earlier, but my father in law started going on about his latest get rich quick sceem. My wife wasnt around to keep him distracted so I bailed halfway through the response.

Manufactures are addicted to promising the moon with towing and rated cargo capicity. But, only a small percentage of people actually see these claims put to the test. The average online brand loyal blow hard that is the most vocal rarely puts his vehicle to the maximum advertised and or claimed potential. I have, and it always felt bad for doing it. It felt like it was being treated as an appliance. This hit home for me when I took the family on a vactio0n from Bothell to Idihoe. The trip from Vantage to Spokane involved a solid 30MPH head wind the whole way and the AC on full tilt. The temps rose, fuel economy went in to the toilet, the clutch fan was engaged most of the time and I was left thinking I am beating the piss out of the engine. The trip home was the same thing.
If you work in the construction industry you will see these vehicles put to the test day in and out. Most times the advertised cargo capacity is ignored, as well as towing capacity. Most companies just look at the history and establish a threashold for dumping company trucks at a certain mileage based on historical maintenence costs. In the late 90's / early 2000's every one was buying Fords. They were cheaper than Chevy's and held up better. The 01 HD chevy's started swinging the pedulum away from Ford, then the 6.0 Power Stroke happened. I noticed in 2005 almost all company owned trucks on the sites I was on were GM HD's. It has been that way ever since.

My company bought a couple of Fords in the early 2000's but never went back. Brand allegiance means nothing to the owners, it comes down to intitial price and how it last. The company I work for gets rid of 3/4 ton gasoline powered 6.0 litre trucks at 180K miles. The engines typically run fine, but the rear diffs and transmissions start failing. It is cheaper for them to give them away then keep them on the road. The handfull uf duramax / allison powered trucks are still running strong. Some of them have over 500K miles. I enquired about picking one of these 1 ton duallies up for my sister and was told they wont be sold untill the engine or transmission blows up.

Thats my .02 cents. When comparing HD trucks, Toyota is not a factor ( to expensive and no history) and neither is Dodge (cummins is great, but it's rapped in a piss poor box). Ford lost the market in the mid 2000's and GM has owned it since. Ford can claim they leed in sales, but add GMC to Chevy and see how it really comes out. Then view sales over the 40 years in in the same light......