Stop in for a cup of coffee

-
Diesel was cheap when it was considered a by-product of gasoline production. Then some numbers guy figgered out "We should be charging by the amount of therms contained in diesel. It's got more than gas does!" :BangHead:
 
Unconventional said:
Diesel was cheap when it was considered a by-product of gasoline production. Then some numbers guy figgered out "We should be charging by the amount of therms contained in diesel. It's got more than gas does!" :BangHead:
Click to expand...
I wonder if there would be a market for a new diesel in a pickup that only had 300 Hp and 500 torque that got 25 MPG? You know those numbers were huge just a few years ago.... I mean if they focused on mileage like they have trying to one up the other brands. How much power do you really need???
 
Mopar Tim said:
I wonder if there would be a market for a new diesel in a pickup that only had 300 Hp and 500 torque that got 25 MPG? You know those numbers were huge just a few years ago.... I mean if they focused on mileage like they have trying to one up the other brands. How much power do you really need???
Click to expand...
Dodge did that with their V6 diesel. I think they had some engine issues though.
 
upload_2022-6-10_11-7-57.png
 
Mopar Tim said:
I wonder if there would be a market for a new diesel in a pickup that only had 300 Hp and 500 torque that got 25 MPG? You know those numbers were huge just a few years ago.... I mean if they focused on mileage like they have trying to one up the other brands. How much power do you really need???
Click to expand...
Power is only part of the problem. No BS, what’s killing current trucks is the DPF system that the EPA mandated. In the test cell, and in the test trucks, no bullshit, we saw an AVERAGE drop of 45 to 50 percent in MPGs with the DPF, plus you have the urea cost. We bypassed the DPF on 4 of the 9 test trucks with the 6.7 HO, we saw 22-25 mpg unloaded, on each. Vs 14-16 on the 5 we left with the DPF. Towing was even worst. Heavy, we saw DPF trucks dropping to 7-9 mpg, same load(a bobcat skid steer) those 4 trucks we deleted averaged 12-15 over the exact same route.
 
toolmanmike said:
Dodge did that with their V6 diesel. I think they had some engine issues though.
Click to expand...
Probably. They should have used the v8 that Cummins later sold to Nissan who couldn’t build a truck to handle the thing to save themselves.

but yeah, that French Eco diesel is junk
 
dukeboy_318 said:
Power is only part of the problem. No BS, what’s killing current trucks is the DPF system that the EPA mandated. In the test cell, and in the test trucks, no bullshit, we saw an AVERAGE drop of 45 to 50 percent in MPGs with the DPF, plus you have the urea cost. We bypassed the DPF on 4 of the 9 test trucks with the 6.7 HO, we saw 22-25 mpg unloaded, on each. Vs 14-16 on the 5 we left with the DPF. Towing was even worst. Heavy, we saw DPF trucks dropping to 7-9 mpg, same load(a bobcat skid steer) those 4 trucks we deleted averaged 12-15 over the exact same route.
Click to expand...
This I agree with. There has to be a way to make a diesel more clean air friendly then what is being used now....doing away with the DPF is a big start....
 
dukeboy_318 said:
Probably. They should have used the v8 that Cummins later sold to Nissan who couldn’t build a truck to handle the thing to save themselves.

but yeah, that French Eco diesel is junk
Click to expand...
One of my old customers put a 4BT in a chevy pick up. The thing screamed and got 30+. It came out of a potato chip truck. A newer one with the balance shaft and a GM bellhousing.
 
Mopar Tim said:
This I agree with. There has to be a way to make a diesel more clean air friendly then what is being used now....doing away with the DPF is a big start....
Click to expand...
There is. But Chevy and Ford threw a GIANT fit about it. They didn’t want to do a full redesign of their blocks and heads until 2025. (This was back in 2015). They sent reps to the EPA board and through a crybaby fit. They couldn’t get the NOX or Carbon emissions down without that filter in their designs then, which are largely unchanged internally since 2015. Meanwhile, the Cummins 6.7 meet 2030 emission standards in place at the time without DPF. When Cummins started the 6.7 design in 2006, they spent tons of time and money on R&D because the PM at Cummins and Dodge did not want that damn setup on their trucks. Too expensive and too risky. So they over designed and focused all efforts to reducing the emissions through complex injection timing and turbo boost. The intakes were designed to be as equal as possible, smooth as possible and the turbos were given variable vanes to adjust. They damn near came close in the 5.9 to meeting the emissions of 2030, I mean right on the edge. So they felt they had tuned the max out of that, so they enlarged the bore. This helped with exhausting the heads and boom, emissions were met and exceeded the standard.

The problem is, Ford and Chevy had already completed their redesign cycles BEFORE the revised emission laws came out and were caught flat footed. So the DPF came about as essentially a bolt on option. They were so bad on emissions, that Chevy had to start in early 2008 using the DPF and Ford a year later. It wasn’t until 2016 when the EPA forced ALL Diesel engines in the use to have a DPF regardless of emission numbers that Cummins finally broke down and had to put one on.
 
dukeboy_318 said:
There is. But Chevy and Ford threw a GIANT fit about it. They didn’t want to do a full redesign of their blocks and heads until 2025. (This was back in 2015). They sent reps to the EPA board and through a crybaby fit. They couldn’t get the NOX or Carbon emissions down without that filter in their designs then, which are largely unchanged internally since 2015. Meanwhile, the Cummins 6.7 meet 2030 emission standards in place at the time without DPF. When Cummins started the 6.7 design in 2006, they spent tons of time and money on R&D because the PM at Cummins and Dodge did not want that damn setup on their trucks. Too expensive and too risky. So they over designed and focused all efforts to reducing the emissions through complex injection timing and turbo boost. The intakes were designed to be as equal as possible, smooth as possible and the turbos were given variable vanes to adjust. They damn near came close in the 5.9 to meeting the emissions of 2030, I mean right on the edge. So they felt they had tuned the max out of that, so they enlarged the bore. This helped with exhausting the heads and boom, emissions were met and exceeded the standard.

The problem is, Ford and Chevy had already completed their redesign cycles BEFORE the revised emission laws came out and were caught flat footed. So the DPF came about as essentially a bolt on option. They were so bad on emissions, that Chevy had to start in early 2008 using the DPF and Ford a year later. It wasn’t until 2016 when the EPA forced ALL Diesel engines in the use to have a DPF regardless of emission numbers that Cummins finally broke down and had to put one on.
Click to expand...
DPF=Band Aid
 
dukeboy_318 said:
Power is only part of the problem. No BS, what’s killing current trucks is the DPF system that the EPA mandated. In the test cell, and in the test trucks, no bullshit, we saw an AVERAGE drop of 45 to 50 percent in MPGs with the DPF, plus you have the urea cost. We bypassed the DPF on 4 of the 9 test trucks with the 6.7 HO, we saw 22-25 mpg unloaded, on each. Vs 14-16 on the 5 we left with the DPF. Towing was even worst. Heavy, we saw DPF trucks dropping to 7-9 mpg, same load(a bobcat skid steer) those 4 trucks we deleted averaged 12-15 over the exact same route.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a well monitored test. :thumbsup:
 
I think one of the PG&E grid inspection drones must have made some incidental contact with the lines nearby :lol: Power went out momentarily. Can't be blamed on the gale force winds this time, they're not here yet :rofl:
 
Her pussy literally is worth a few million bucks haha
 
Last edited:
Well at least this showed up before I leave for a month.
Going to sit anyway. I'm not digging into the Valiant till late fall.
Thinking maybe a combo driving light turn signal thing for those round holes

20220610_161907.jpg
 
Old man ray said:
Well at least this showed up before I leave for a month.
Going to sit anyway. I'm not digging into the Valiant till late fall.
Thinking maybe a combo driving light turn signal thing for those round holes

View attachment 1715940190
Click to expand...
Most people try to add as many options as they can.... you're going for the car with zero options.
What if i deleted everything. ????


#respect
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top