[Pappy19]

According to my latest "Light and Medium Truck" magazine (which is free by the way), all medium-duty diesel engines starting in 2007 will be required to have a "particulate filter" in addition to the other emissions equipment. What is a particulate filter? How about it goes on the exhaust and catches carbon particulates and then burns them up. It's supposed to reduce soot in the atmosphere by 90%!! I wonder how much power it will subtract as well!! This particulate filter is to go hand in hand with the extra low sulpher diesel coming out in 2007 and is scheduled to add 5-7 cents per gallon regardless of Opec prices. In addition, this new setup to handle the extra emissions, particulate filter and low sulphur fuel, is supposed to add an ADDITIONAL $5,000-7,000 to each rig!!! I'm almost inclined to buy an '06 just to keep away from all that emissions crap. While the article didn't say that light duty diesels up to 1 ton would be required to have a particulate filter in 2007, you can rest assurred that soon thereafter it will be a requirement. Especially with all you oil burners with programmers and chips blowing big gobs of black soot in the atsmosphere!! Shame on you!!

 

[Diesel Jay]

And folks wonder why the engine LD diesel mfg'ers are worried that customer demand might taper off to the point that they never recover the investment and engineering expenses, thus precipitating all sorts of financial upheaval.

'07 is more than just an emissions hurdle. It's an economic hurdle that demands higher investment, increased complexity and failure/maintenance components, along with decreased fuel efficiency.

- Jay

 

[SL_MASS]

WOW! 5 to 7 thousand dollars more??? The nicest King Ranch I've came across is $54,140.00, so add another 5k and your at $59,140 or 7k and your at $61,140. 60,000.00 dollars for a pickup, thats just crazy. Remember the good cheap old days anyone? My Grandmother told me a story when her and Granddaddy bought a new chevy pickup for 1,200.00 dollars.

 

[Mike Lewis]

I've already decided NOT to buy a new truck. Prices topping $42,000, MINIMUM, for anything worth having unless Ford has added lots of nice features to the base model since I had one of their base F-150s a few years ago.

Prices way too high on these trucks to justify... vs saving for retirement, kids' education, etc.

Guess I'm stuck with the '91... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

[Mike Lewis]

Of course, that was when $1200 was like, I dunno... $12,500 nowadays.

In 1986 my dad bought a new Pontiac sedan for $12,500 (probably paid less... that was what was on the sticker). V-8, loaded.

Today, you get a V-6 sedan of the same size for $23,000. Have wages doubled in the past 20 years? I doubt it. Auto prices have far outpaced what folks earn... and folks are willing to borrow against the equity in their home (much more often than 20 years ago).

By the time that fellow has paid off his $54,000 truck he will have actually paid $60,000 assuming 5 years of payments at 5% interest. You can buy a nice house for twice that. No WAY a vehicle is worth that much money. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif Frickin' thieves.

We're a debt society... some of us choose not to be ruled by debt. After 7 years of car payments I've finally learned my lesson... wife's truck is paid off next year and my next new vehicle will be paid for in cash.

 

[ttreibel]

Trap filters can be made cheap and easy to replace if the manufactures decide to go that way. There is no reason it should cost much more than an oil change. VW has a Passat that has cleaner air coming out the exuast then going in the intake. If you are looking to make a smoke show then get a 2nd Generation Cummins and BOMB the heII out of it, if you want a happy medium look at a 02 Powerstroke or an 03 or 04 cummins. When I bought my 03 I figured it was the last diesel pick-up I would own the next will likely be a Hybrid the writing is on the walls.


Are houses really that cheap in Texas? If so why? the national average is 220K

In my area you can't even get a condemmened Meth Lab for 120K

 

[jschira]

[ QUOTE ]
Are houses really that cheap in Texas? If so why? the national average is 220K

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are. Track homes go for about $60-$70/sf. "Custom" builders go for $70-$90/sf. That includes the lot. Most of the track builders (Ryland, KB, etc.) around me are building 2500 sf to 3500 sf houses that sell in the $150k-$200k+ range. You can still find new 1500-1600 sf houses for <$100k.

Of course, houses in Troy Aikman's neighborhood go for just a little more.

Why? Cheap land. Cheap labor.

 

[drcampbell]

Power loss is negligible unless the regeneration cycle fails to burn away accumulated soot. Some of the systems available include a soot trap and silencer in one unit with no more back pressure than a muffler alone. Regeneration uses a little extra fuel, also negligible if the engine isn't producing great gooey gobs of greasy Diesel soot in the first place.

 

[mgraveman]

this is what they claim. I have read whole books on particulate filters and emissions systems for diesels, but I just do not buy into this crap.

Regardless of how they are supposed to work, theya re on mroe thing to break, and will be an expensive thing at that, because there is no way ford will allow a cheap repair of something as expensive a sthis.

 

[George C]

I'll be sure to let you guys know as soon as I get mine.

Personally, I'm not afraid. If you guys want a diesel engine, these WILL be the new hurdles we'll have to deal with.
I also find it highly unlikely that costs of the 07' will be any more than the usual 2-3%..

 

[Mike Lewis]

Heheheheh. At my previous assignment (in Georgia) you could get an older house in town for $60,000. The house I grew up in (middle class neighborhood south of Houston) would sell for probably $130,000 in today's dollars... unless prices have gone way up for 35 year old ranch style houses in that market.

 

[jdkline]

Eventually I expect even the older diesels will be required to be parked or retrofitted with particulate filters. I expect to see them on the road for a long time to come unless an ountright ban or "sin tax" is put into effect. These particulate filters may be the final answer to diesel emmissions concerns, just as catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline greatly reduced gas engine emissions. We can hope that the system will not be failure prone or break the bank to fix. And with biodiesel or ULSD there won't be as nmuch smoke to filter in teh first place.

 

[drcampbell]

[ QUOTE ]
... with biodiesel or ULSD there won't be as much smoke to filter in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bio and ULS contain the same amount of carbon as old-fashioned dinoDiesel and produce the same amount of smoke if run overly rich.

 

[jdkline]

It reduces soot emissions by 75% its advocates say. I can only report what I have learned. My personal experience is that with my fuel at the stock setting approximately I don't make near as much soot or black smoke as #2 diesel.

 

[roofeditor]

[ QUOTE ]
Power loss is negligible unless the regeneration cycle fails to burn away accumulated soot. Some of the systems available include a soot trap and silencer in one unit with no more back pressure than a muffler alone. Regeneration uses a little extra fuel, also negligible if the engine isn't producing great gooey gobs of greasy Diesel soot in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like something that will eventually plug up, but never fear the aftermarket section will show or tell how to saw it off or gut it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[kude]

[ QUOTE ]
Bio and ULS contain the same amount of carbon as old-fashioned dinoDiesel and produce the same amount of smoke if run overly rich.



[/ QUOTE ]

Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? If we stop mucking around with carbon dioxide sinks it won't be a problem. While biodiesel may be cleaner than fossil diesel, natural gas based diesel has to to be cleaner than both, don't you think?

There's a certain strangeness at EPA. At first they pushed mileage, now they push NOX reduction and forget about mileage. To me, NOX reduction pushes out more carbon dioxide.

The big unanswered question to me is, if you are inserting inert EGR gas back into the cylinder, then why does mileage go down? You would think a very lean fuel mixture could be used.

It appears to me that EGR was thrown on the engine without the science of reducing fuel consumption being thought out. Of course reducing NOX was thought out, but not with with reducing fuel comsumption at the same time.

Maybe I'm entirely wrong in my thinking, but I'm not a PHD.

 

[lww]

Engineers not too nervous to discuss their product claim the addition of the inert exhaust gas will do the job of reducing NOX, by reason of reducing peak combustion temperatures. As well this reduction in temperature reduces power (fresh, combustion air being displaced by old exhaust). That's been happening up to 30% by vollume in Mack engines (internal egr for vocational use), but will increase another notch or so to achieve 2007 targets.
Things to look forward to in a nutshell, lower HP, increased fuel consumption/ cooling system heat loads/ and soot stress on crankcase lubricants, as well shorter engine life (150,000gal life formula) etc. etc.
For class eight operation, I suspect profitable business is set to become a tad challenging! (alright, more challenging)
Lorne

 

[brewcider]

A lot of you are acting like this is the final blow to diesels. This is the beginning! New clean diesels = wider acceptance! When the media has nothing better to report, they go to their favourite pasttime of bashing loud, smelly, smokey, slow diesels.

In Germany you can buy cars with and without particulate filters (same hp). For example a Passat with a particulate filter is 647 US dollars more and has a 1.02% loss of fuel economy. The Passat without the filter get's 49 mpg, with the filter it gets 48 mpg. I can live with this!

The big 3 can't charge much more for the optional diesel engine. The $5000 option price is crazy. VW, Jeep, and Mercedes all charge around $1000 more for a diesel (the only exception is the Touareg).

The only chance I see for for the diesel option price on full size trucks to come under control is if Toyota comes out with a good big diesel pickup. This will only happen when ULSD comes available.

ULSD will open the door to many other diesels F150's, Rangers, Chrysler 300, etc...

I'm looking forward to 2007, after all, we made it through all the other regulations, 1974, 1979, 1990, 1991, 1998, and 2004. We'll make it through this one too.

 

[drcampbell]

[ QUOTE ]
Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? If we stop mucking around with carbon dioxide sinks it won't be a problem. While biodiesel may be cleaner than fossil diesel, natural gas based diesel has to to be cleaner than both, don't you think?

There's a certain strangeness at EPA. At first they pushed mileage, now they push NOX reduction and forget about mileage. To me, NOX reduction pushes out more carbon dioxide.

The big unanswered question to me is, if you are inserting inert EGR gas back into the cylinder, then why does mileage go down? You would think a very lean fuel mixture could be used.

It appears to me that EGR was thrown on the engine without the science of reducing fuel consumption being thought out. Of course reducing NOX was thought out, but not with with reducing fuel comsumption at the same time.

Maybe I'm entirely wrong in my thinking, but I'm not a PhD.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never pursued a Piled Higher & Deeper, either, but I have looked at combustion some.

Yes, carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It's just not regulated in the United States yet. There's debate over how high a priority preventing global warming should be or how much people contribute to it, but there's no debate about three things: 1) carbon dioxide and methane cause it, 2) the planet is warming, and 3) Pentagon long range planners are contemplating aftereffects of global warming - shifted Gulf Stream and massively compromised European agriculture, for one - as a possible national security problem.

I don't know anything about natural gas-based Diesel fuel. Can you send me a citation?

NOx reduction is accomplished by reducing temperature & pressure. (NOx forms when a mixture nitrogen and oxygen - you know, "air" - is raised to high temperatures and pressures, and some of the nitrogen and oxygen atoms combine.) Reducing the average operating temperature of any heat engine reduces its efficiency. It has nothing to do with air-fuel ratio. Tier 2 compliance did cost about 2 or 3% in fuel consumption, which is the same 2 or 3% increase in CO2. Rest assurred that engine designers are thinking about fuel consumption every day, but NOx is regulated by law; CO2 and fuel consumption are not.

 

[FloridaEd]

It gets worse. EPA requires pollution controls to be good for a set period, 100K I believe, without service. To get that in the particulate filter, the manfrs, according to their websites, are planning to have a sensor to tell when the particulate filter is plugging up. When this happens, the engine will start, for a short time, running very rich to put fuel in the particulate trap. Then, a spark source in the particulate filter will ignite the fuel and burn off the 'stuff' plugging the filter....kinda like a backfire, I would guess.

Nice.

Blowing up your diesel exhaust system every so often...to make the EPA happy. And wonder what this pressure will do to the turbo???

I know there are some guys who just have to buy new equipment for work, but they better buy a 2006 truck. Those 2007's are going to be a nightmare. I believe we may now start referring to the 2007 models as "IDIOTMOBILES" with no fear of overexaggeration.

And this will be the case with Chevy, Ford, and Dodge. No exceptions, y'all.

Florida Ed