2009 LMM regen frequency = every 357 miles

[richp]

Hi,

Well I have something, although it might not be very catchy -- questions nobody seems to care about.

Over the life of a truck, how much extra fuel will be consumed by regeneration, in relation to the alleged savings in pollution output?

With regard to the 2011 machines, what is the extra cost to the consumer for not just the urea, but the additional hardware on the engine, and how does that compare with any asserted savings in pollution output for that engine?

How much farther can this go before owning a diesel is no longer cost-effective for anyone (unlike Mark) who does not tow constantly?

When the market to guys like me -- who could conceivably get away with towing with a gasser -- dries up, what will manufacturers do when light truck diesel sales dwindle?

When will this stupidity stop? The government has screwed up both the automotive market and that of the food industry with its ethanol subsidies (which AlGore recently acknowledged was a mistake to advocate) -- lowering fuel economy, increasing corn prices, etc. They advocate and subsidize (with our tax dollars) electric vehicles that can't go very far, go even less distance when you have to use a heater in the winter or air conditioner in the summer, and rely on electricity supplied by a grid that can't expand efficiently due to other Federal regulations. This continual Federal pressure to squeeze the last few percentages of pollution out of the cleanest vehicle fleet in the world is ridiculous.
(Tirade off.)

FWIW.

[hapaschold]

mark,

how was information stored ? number of regens and duration ?

i ll have to ask when i take my 09 in early next week..

or maybe i wont given the last few months of crap i ve been going thru.

[madmatt]

I've asked those very questions before myself. I've been told it cost around $6k to outfit each truck with the urea related equipment.

[Mark Rinker]

Over the life of a truck, how much extra fuel will be consumed by regeneration, in relation to the alleged savings in pollution output?

I would guess MUCH more. I don't see how ~300-500 gallons of extra fuel burned by each DPF equipped Duramax on the road in the first 150K miles can be environmentally friendly. Now add Fords, Dodges, etc...

With regard to the 2011 machines, what is the extra cost to the consumer for not just the urea, but the additional hardware on the engine, and how does that compare with any asserted savings in pollution output for that engine?

Don't know...

How much farther can this go before owning a diesel is no longer cost-effective for anyone (unlike Mark) who does not tow constantly?

Its not that effective for me, either...ask my wife...or my accountant.

When the market to guys like me -- who could conceivably get away with towing with a gasser -- dries up, what will manufacturers do when light truck diesel sales dwindle?

Hopefully march on the EPA headquarters with torches. Cali CARB offices, next...

When will this stupidity stop?

Soon we can all pray, but I don't see how, or when.


The government has screwed up both the automotive market and that of the food industry with its ethanol subsidies (which AlGore recently acknowledged was a mistake to advocate) -- lowering fuel economy, increasing corn prices, etc. They advocate and subsidize (with our tax dollars) electric vehicles that can't go very far, go even less distance when you have to use a heater in the winter or air conditioner in the summer, and rely on electricity supplied by a grid that can't expand efficiently due to other Federal regulations. This continual Federal pressure to squeeze the last few percentages of pollution out of the cleanest vehicle fleet in the world is ridiculous.
(Tirade off.)

It is ridiculous. I would love to see a documentary on the Duramax, from 2001 - 2011, chronicling the engineering pressures to meet EPA regs, the effect on $$$, the effect on the environment.

Madness.



FWIW.

Alot.

(My thoughts are in bold italics, above...)

[JohnC]

It's even worse than that. Regeneration converts inert carbon trapped in the DPF into CO2, the very thing every tree hugger is complaining is causing global warming. In the process it uses extra fuel, which produces more CO2 and no benefit.

[richp]

Hi,

This whole situation reminds me of that great line from Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, where Butch says, "I've got vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals."

Why is it that a bunch of old farts like us can so clearly identify the flaws in these policies, and yet all those supposedly smart folks in Washington can't?

Hang in there folks, the next few years are really going to be interesting....

[Mark Rinker]

From my perspective, the squeeking wheel gets greased ($$$)...the marginalized or less represented have a harder time getting policy change in their favor.

Also the whole topic of junk science and policy...

Personally, I think this is the new USA - love it or leave it. My plan is to cooperate voluntarily less and less - i.e. the DPF comes off. As for urea - well, there should be a workaround available for that, soon enough.

[richp]

Hi,

I guess I'm trending along the lines of dropping my DPF once I'm out of warranty.

Anyone know authoritatively what the legal implications of for doing that? Will EPA pollution cops track me down like a dirty dog?

[Kennedy]

I haven't heard of any major issues yet so long as those who have testing return it for testing.

I did hear of an interesting issue with Commercial vehicles in NY. Supposedly they check and won't let you onto certain job sites (possibly state or Federal projects) without all devices intact and they supposedly check. May be NYC specific I am not sure. Pure hearsay.

My best advice is to keep the equipment and make your alterations easily returned to stock.

[richp]

Hi Mark,

I was re-reading your original post. It seems to say that the 2011 trucks have both DPF and urea injection -- or at least your sentence about total cost sort of reads that way.

I didn't realize both systems were on the new trucks -- I thought the urea did away with the need for the DPF. If both are on the new ones, things are even worse than I realized....

[Mark Rinker]

Bwahahaha, Rich. Think like a bureaucrat, Rich...nothing ever expires or goes away. All inefficiencies are cumulative.

http://www.thedieselpage.com/duramax/LMLDuramaxc.htm

[DickWells]

Last I heard, this Fall, from a neighbor who runs an OTR trucking company, and has an 010 tractor with (I think) a Cat in it, is, that he's spending several hundred bucks a month on urea, alone. Hates his 09 Ford diesel pickup, for the mileage he's getting, VS the power output, too. Sort of harks back to 73~, when we had the mfgs scrambling to meet emmisions, while halving, or worse, the mileage. How much less polution do you get, overall, when you make less smoke, but burn tripple the fuel?

[cowboywildbill]

I was talking to an Owner Operator that has a late model Peterbuilt double sleeper conventional tractor that he drives, I can't recall if he said he was running a Cat in that one or not. But he uses about $ 40 to $ 60 a month in urea. He was happy with it, he claims it get's decent milage and basically offsets the price of fuel. Cost about the same per mile as his non DPF trucks. He did say that one of his trucks has a Cat with twin turbo's in it and he has nothing but trouble with the turbo's and EGR system in that one. He said he will never buy another powerplant with twin tubo's.
And you have to be careful where you park your rig because they will steal the Catalytic convertors off of them in a heartbeat. And I have a friend that had a brand new F450 Ford last year with the 6.4 in it. He said it only averaged 9 mpg empty and 5.2 to 7.5 while towing. He traded it in 7 months. He bought a new 2010 DMAX He just about doubled his average mpg and said it pulled better/stronger also. But he took a bath on the trade in$$$.
But he's poorer but happy now. I do think it is dumb to burn more fuel to clean emmisions? Kinda like an oxy moron. Imagine what these new trucks could do power and mpg wise if they didn't have a cat or regen or urea and no egr system in them. And this is interesting, I don't know if it's true, but I heard someone say that Al Gore owns or has major holdings in a urea manufacturing company. Go figure!