sequential single turbo
-
91nbtsi;287056 wrote:
.. Just picked up a Cummin's last weekend and love it so far.:icon_cheers:
DrifterExtreme;287059 wrote:
Just wondering why the cummins is so simple looking and the Chevy and Ford look like big piles of complicated bull shit?
.LOL agreed.... Leave it to Ford to put a composite intake on a diesel............... and seriously i have see it all when one of these is on a diesel....
edit...
If I was ford, I would throw that project over the cliff before they have another disaster
seriously how hard would it be to work with CAT, Deere, or Ivenco to source an engine??
-
KA-T_240;287100 wrote:
I6> Powerstroke any day
i6>all, as far as on road diesels goawd95mn;287099 wrote:
Just wait until you guys see the light duty Cummins. Things get a little more complicated.
i hope your not referring to the 5.9 v8 cummins that was suppose to go into the 1500s? because i beleive that plan got scraped awhile back, would have loved to see it though. -
zbrown;287088 wrote:
LOL agreed.... Leave it to Ford to put a composite intake on a diesel............... and seriously i have see it all when one of these is on a diesel....Actually, I know the 07 emissions Duramax's also have a throttle. It is there to close under certain conditions to increase the load on the engine to assist in increasing the exhaust temp for emissions.
Emissions controls are ghey. Diesels are looking like the gas engines of the early 80's with 8 million vacuum lines, haha. You can see the electronic throttle in this pic:
-
91nbtsi;287106 wrote:
Actually, I know the 07 emissions Duramax's also have a throttle. It is there to close under certain conditions to increase the load on the engine to assist in increasing the exhaust temp for emissions.Emissions controls are ghey. Diesels are looking like the gas engines of the early 80's with 8 million vacuum lines, haha. You can see the electronic throttle in this pic:
The funny thing is the cummins passes emissions with half the shenanigans as the other two.
lol and it is the only combo that passed the 2007 and 2010 emission standards way back when it was introduced........... I love how the other two had to design an engine to meet 2007, and then go back to the drawing board scratching their head damn hard on how they were going to pass the 2010 standards
-
awd95mn;287099 wrote:
Just wait until you guys see the light duty Cummins. Things get a little more complicated.Which one the 6.7 with hpcr fuel system or the 8.3 with the xpi fuel system?
They aren't too bad.91nbtsi;287106 wrote:
Actually, I know the 07 emissions Duramax's also have a throttle. It is there to close under certain conditions to increase the load on the engine to assist in increasing the exhaust temp for emissions.Some manufacturers are calling these "butterfly valves" to slow down the air during cold conditions. Main reason was for the emissions but also they were getting so much condensation, ice was forming inside the intakes and the turbos, some chunks being big enough to break fins.
zbrown;287107 wrote:
The funny thing is the cummins passes emissions with half the shenanigans as the other two.lol and it is the only combo that passed the 2007 and 2010 emission standards way back when it was introduced........... I love how the other two had to design an engine to meet 2007, and then go back to the drawing board scratching their head damn hard on how they were going to pass the 2010 standards
In fact they were so far ahead they didn't have to fully meet 2007 and 2010 standards in class 8 trucks because of all the credits they have. The governements next step is eliminating credits though.
out there;287120 wrote:
can anyone offer links to substantiate that the usa is tougher on diesels than europe? i remember reading it last year, but i can't seem to find itWith the 2010 emissions they will be ahead of Europe in Nox standards, google it and it should be everywhere. Funny thing is 2004 emissions they wanted to get emissions down by using egr, but that increased exhaust temp too high creating high Nox levels, so 2007 they wanted to lower that with ulsd fuel and dpf, now 2010 they want it lower. Everything they have done adds weight and lowers fuel mileage, they could have just let engine manufacturers meet a mpg rating, thus lower emissions because less fuel is being used, which would save everyone $ except oil tycoons and the government taxing the crap out of fuel. Go figure.
-
-
Bookem;287124 wrote:
Everything they have done adds weight and lowers fuel mileage, they could have just let engine manufacturers meet a mpg rating, thus lower emissions because less fuel is being used, which would save everyone $ except oil tycoons and the government taxing the crap out of fuel. Go figure.
that's my point. the harsher the standards on diesels, the less they will shine and the less people will want to buy them. more diesels on the road means less money for the oil barons and refineries.besides, requiring a mileage goal would involve activists shouting "double standards!" because of the lax requirements on gasoline. bad publicity, no matter how you look at it.
personally, i'm pleased that diesels are about as well accepted as linux.
-
Bookem;287124 wrote:
With the 2010 emissions they will be ahead of Europe in Nox standards, google it and it should be everywhere. Funny thing is 2004 emissions they wanted to get emissions down by using egr, but that increased exhaust temp too high creating high Nox levels, so 2007 they wanted to lower that with ulsd fuel and dpf, now 2010 they want it lower. Everything they have done adds weight and lowers fuel mileage, they could have just let engine manufacturers meet a mpg rating, thus lower emissions because less fuel is being used, which would save everyone $ except oil tycoons and the government taxing the crap out of fuel. Go figure.I'm still in the air on this, but I don't see the mileage getting worse in 2010. For 2010 Cummins claims that by using the DPF along with the SCR they are able to improve fuel mileage. There have been claims that they have discovered a 6% improvement over the 2004 era trucks and that 6% increase includes the cost of urea. In 2007 the mileage was so poor because they had to mess with the fuel mapping to make up for the added restriction and the burn off stage, but now for 2010 they are able to more accurately tune the fuel mapping due to being able to better burn the fuel.
PSiedTSi;287132 wrote:
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the 4.5 liter thats been delayed. Considering that would be more "light duty" than a 6.7 or 8.3
You are correct sir, but I think it is larger then that. I'm not entirely sure on what the displacement is though, I want to say it's around 5.0l, but I don't remember off the top of my head. It is a V8 and will go in the 1/2 ton pickups, which could be something other then Dodge. I am pretty sure Cummins should be producing some of them right now or are very close. The turbo is under the intake manifold which is really dumb, lots of stuff to take off the get at it. I asked one of the engineer's about heat soak and he said that shouldn't be a problem. We will see I guess.
-
awd95mn;287148 wrote:
I'm still in the air on this, but I don't see the mileage getting worse in 2010. For 2010 Cummins claims that by using the DPF along with the SCR they are able to improve fuel mileage. There have been claims that they have discovered a 6% improvement over the 2004 era trucks and that 6% increase includes the cost of urea. In 2007 the mileage was so poor because they had to mess with the fuel mapping to make up for the added restriction and the burn off stage, but now for 2010 they are able to more accurately tune the fuel mapping due to being able to better burn the fuel.You are correct sir, but I think it is larger then that. I'm not entirely sure on what the displacement is though, I want to say it's around 5.0l, but I don't remember off the top of my head. It is a V8 and will go in the 1/2 ton pickups, which could be something other then Dodge. I am pretty sure Cummins should be producing some of them right now or are very close. The turbo is under the intake manifold which is really dumb, lots of stuff to take off the get at it. I asked one of the engineer's about heat soak and he said that shouldn't be a problem. We will see I guess.
yay pickups
get back to fargo and put new heads on an intrepid:drunken_smilie:
-
EPA 2010 will increase fuel mileage for manufacturers using SCR. They are able to increase the efficiency of the engines via tuning lower EGR rates, producing more NOx. However, because they are now treating it out of the cylinder with the SCR, the NOx is not an issue. With the engine tuning and lower EGR rates the engines will also produce lower amounts of soot, hence less DPF regenerations and less fuel wasted. But, all this comes with more hardware, more computers, added weight, and another tank to fill.
Manufacturers such as Navistar...have chosen to not use SCR and rely on credits and "massive" EGR rates to meet the NOx requirements. Expect their fuel economy to drop even further.
I love tree huggers.:icon_geek:
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login