Exhaust fluid!? Has emissions equipment gone too far?
 

If anyone else is into diesel's, as i am, then I'm sure you've heard of the new DEF and DPF systems in the new trucks. For those that haven't heard of it, here's a basic summary: The DPF (diesel particulate filter) is supposed to catch all the little particles in the exhaust. Well obviously it is going to get clogged, so the vehicle is also equipped with a DEF (diesel exhaust fluid) injection system. What it does is sprays this fancy fluid into the exhaust to raise temperatures and burn all the particles to clean the DPF.
Now this already sounds like a pain in the a. Well there's more.
The fluid isn't cheap. $5 a gallon to fill a 5 gallon tank every 5,000 miles. That's an extra $25 every 5000 miles, for what? Well I'll tell you what, a loss of 2-3mpg compared to previous models.
So lets get this straight. There's extra emissions equipment on the truck that causes WORSE FUEL MILEAGE THAN WITHOUT IT! How does that make sense!?
"But you can just not fill the tank right?" WRONG! The truck will go into limp mode if you don't fill the tank. Some trucks, such as the powerstroke, won't even start without the fluid!
"Well I'll just get rid of the system". NOPE! That will void your warranty.
"Well I'll just deal with it til the warranty is up". That's fine, except for the fact that the warning system and the level sensors are malfunctioning in every brand. They can sense windsheild washer fluid, coolant, fuel, but the can't make this one work? Come on, man!
.
Anyone else think this is going way too far? It's costing owners money for the fluid, plus it hurts fuel mileage. I find it ridiculous. :nono:

Yes! It's going too far. Another case of the government running amuck! :pain:

If a state has emission laws it seems logical that diesel engines should also be subject to those emission laws. Welcome to the same silly $chtick the rest of us have been dealng with since the late 1970's.

That's yet another reason to hot rod old stuff, the variety that isn't subject to emissions testing.

I agree compeltely with you sir and that is exactly why I do not and will not own any diesel newer than a 2009. Course if you are a Ford man then you haven't had a diesel option since 2003 IMO....

Agreed. The 6.0's and 6.4's were both HORRIBLE. The 6.7 actually looks kinda cool. But I'm a duramax guy. Looking to buy one when i sell my car. I was considering paying half cash and getting a loan for the other half to buy a brand new truck, but with all this new crap I actually prefer buying a used mid 2000's truck.

My kids keep asking me when I'm going to buy a new truck, I say why?... this ones been paid off for 8 yrs, 7.3, 125,000 miles, runs like a top, has plenty of power with a 60 hp/110 lbs. ft. tow chip, pulls anything I can hitch up to it, no cat converter just a 4" exhaust and small straight through muffler.

I drove a new 2012 F-250 pretty much like mine ...$54,000!!!! holy chit.......no thanks

Until the fedgov mandated OEM fuel efficiency standards, mileage wasn't something they cared about. The early attempts at cleaning up exhaust emissions are a prime example- they decreased HP, PLUS made the mileage worse. All that mattered to them was meeting the fed/state emissions requirements. They basically said, "Mileage? Bah- that's not OUR problem- it's all on the consumers!"

I'm with you on not buying a new truck. The old ones may actually be better. Why replace it if it works?
.
Ford's pricing has become ridiculous recently. A base single cab, long bed with the 6.7 starts at $50k. I can get a fully loaded duramax for less than that.

I have an 86 with a 6.9, no payments. I don't drive it much in the winter and never when the roads are bad.

Just goes to show what happens when you get a room full of tree huggers together, they look at one problem at the expense of something else!

In my experience, the new diesels with DEF are much better on fuel than the ones with the 'afterburner' exhaust.

I drive other people's trucks...no payments..haha.

Coincidentally, I just put 300 miles on a brand spankin' new F-350 today. Averaged 13.1 MPG pulling a loaded trailer. The truck it replaced was an '09 F-350 with a 6.4 and the afterburner exhaust; on the same run it would get 7-8 MPG.

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t...B/2013F350.jpg

Joe...how did the Hemi powered dark green Vicky turn out?

You are comparing it to a 6.4 though! Haha. Worst diesel ever built!
I'm a duramax fan. The new d-max is pretty awesome. I guess i would deal with it til the warranty is up then delete all the crap.

The worst part is that they don't even know what they're talking about! They see the black smoke and they freak out. Little do they know that black smoke has less pollutants than their prius puts out. Plus is settles and is just carbon. Sprinkle some on your dinner, still better than gasoline exhaust fumes.

I retired from Freightliner almost 4 years ago. These laws are federally mandated. It has been a nightmare for the manufacturers to comply. So much so that Catipillar finally decided it was not worth it. They got out of the on road production of heavy truck engines rather than try any longer to comply with the ever increasing emission requirements. Daimler Trucks North America owns Freightliner brand and Detroit Diesel as well as the Mercedes truck engines. They have no choice but to continue to strive for an efficient, economical, and reliable power plant that is compliant. The new engines are more expensive to produce, heavier, and less fuel efficient. Also they have to run on a low sulpher fuel that now costs more than gasoline. Isn't government regulation great? :drunk:

John L