Diesel F150 Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

Registered
Joined
111 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

Registered
Joined
214 Posts
Why mess with a good thing. The drive to squeeze more power out of smaller engines only reduces their life span.
 

Registered
Joined
111 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Why mess with a good thing. The drive to squeeze more power out of smaller engines only reduces their life span.
That must be why tuned and deleted diesels making more power tend to have shorter lifespans with more reliability problems than stock trucks. Oh, wait- it's the opposite.
 

Registered
Joined
214 Posts
That must be why tuned and deleted diesels making more power tend to have shorter lifespans with more reliability problems than stock trucks. Oh, wait- it's the opposite.
That has everything to do with the emission system and not the truck itself. If you run this with a 90hp tune deleted, vs stock power deleted, your stock power truck will likely last you a lot longer.
 

Registered
Joined
111 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
That has everything to do with the emission system and not the truck itself. If you run this with a 90hp tune deleted, vs stock power deleted, your stock power truck will likely last you a lot longer.
We can play this game all day. It all depends on how you drive it. A 90hp tune truck driven normally will last longer than a stock power truck that's driven hard and beat on daily, because I've seen it done both ways. Prove me wrong.
 

Registered
Joined
214 Posts
We can play this game all day. It all depends on how you drive it. A 90hp tune truck driven normally will last longer than a stock power truck that's driven hard and beat on daily, because I've seen it done both ways. Prove me wrong.
Sure, how you use it and take care of it matters a great deal.. of course. All i'm saying is the more power you squeeze out of a small engine, the more stress the components will see, and that alone will reduce the lifespan of an engine. This is why the small turbo'd engines tend to fail a lot sooner than their large NA coutnerparts. Prime example is the commercial version of the 6.7 vs the pickup version. In the chassis cab, F-650 to F-750 the engines are rated down to as low as 270 hp and 675 lb-ft torque... the b-10 rating on these however is over 500,000 mi. The pickup version is lucky to get a B-10 of 250,000 mi. Both engines are the exact same with the exception of the turbo charger.
 

Registered
Joined
14 Posts
It's an interesting aside about deletion. I have read several "articles", papers, which all start with the "A case for why NOT to delete your truck". Some obviously take a government slant around pollution and emissions etc. Others though are from diesel specialists, enthusiasts, or experienced folks where they cite that the emissions systems on modern trucks are engineered much better than 5 years ago and are tuned to actually last just as long as the so called "bulletproof" trucks. I was interested in potentially taking some of these routes but ultimately decided that it was a matter of trusting what I was reading. As in, not sure I trust any of it. As much as people say it makes a world of difference which I would tend to agree with for the older trucks and systems, it's hard to find non-biased real world information about modern trucks and specifically our 3.0 Powerstroke. So I have just left it alone for the moment. Not looking to stoke an argument, just wondering if at the end of the day it is still just accepted that overall deleted engines tend to perform better regardless and out last otherwise.
 

Registered
Joined
111 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Before jumping to the stance of "engineers and scientists designed them to meet government mandates to help protect the environment and they know what's best", remember what similar engineers, scientists and mandates did to gas cans. And then also remember that their good intentions and hard work did absolutely nothing to prevent the gas vapors in those gas cans from ultimately going into the air anyway.

Even with the newest, latest and greatest emissions systems on modern diesels, the most common points of failure and problem components are the emissions systems. Even on these engines, the first recall was for improperly assembled EGR valves. And no matter what anyone says, recycling exhaust laden with gritty soot back into an engine isn't good for it or it's longevity- just like burning extra fuel (producing a higher volume of emissions) and injecting toxic chemicals into the exhaust to "clean" it (from plastic bottles in cardboard boxes, naturally) won't save the planet.

Having said that, this is about the most honest and unbiased article I've found with regards to tuning/deleting a modern diesel and why you might- or might not- want to do it.

 

Registered
Joined
111 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Sure, how you use it and take care of it matters a great deal.. of course. All i'm saying is the more power you squeeze out of a small engine, the more stress the components will see, and that alone will reduce the lifespan of an engine. This is why the small turbo'd engines tend to fail a lot sooner than their large NA coutnerparts. Prime example is the commercial version of the 6.7 vs the pickup version. In the chassis cab, F-650 to F-750 the engines are rated down to as low as 270 hp and 675 lb-ft torque... the b-10 rating on these however is over 500,000 mi. The pickup version is lucky to get a B-10 of 250,000 mi. Both engines are the exact same with the exception of the turbo charger.
By that logic, our engines should produce 25 horsepower because then they would last 10x longer. Diesels are over-engineered to last, hence why they take so long to break-in. And yes, industrial application engines in trucks and equipment have lower power ratings partially for longevity- nobody is trying win bragging rights for fastest dump truck or tractor- but mainly for emissions regulations (how many pickups do you see with "clean idle certified" stickers?). Feel free to look it up if you don't believe me.
 

Registered
Joined
214 Posts
Before jumping to the stance of "engineers and scientists designed them to meet government mandates to help protect the environment and they know what's best", remember what similar engineers, scientists and mandates did to gas cans. And then also remember that their good intentions and hard work did absolutely nothing to prevent the gas vapors in those gas cans from ultimately going into the air anyway.

Even with the newest, latest and greatest emissions systems on modern diesels, the most common points of failure and problem components are the emissions systems. Even on these engines, the first recall was for improperly assembled EGR valves. And no matter what anyone says, recycling exhaust laden with gritty soot back into an engine isn't good for it or it's longevity- just like burning extra fuel (producing a higher volume of emissions) and injecting toxic chemicals into the exhaust to "clean" it (from plastic bottles in cardboard boxes, naturally) won't save the planet.

Having said that, this is about the most honest and unbiased article I've found with regards to tuning/deleting a modern diesel and why you might- or might not- want to do it.

First off it's not "unbiased" if it's written by someone that sells tunes or equipment, or advertises for those companies. Yes when you add more parts to an engine, you add more points of failure, no one's arguing that. Fact is I've seen stock 6.0's with full EGR last just as long as deleted ones, I pulled one apart with 360,000 miles on it and all the crosshatching still looked perfect. The introduction of DEF allows for engines to require significantly less EGR than the older versions by counteracting NOx chemically vs by reducing cylinder temps with EGR. These engines shut the EGR off entirely at high load, which is when you're producing the most soot, and uses only SCR to manage NOx... when you're just cruising down the highway you're not producing much soot at all, and thus it doesn't matter if you recirculate exhaust. Yes more soot will make its way in, but significantly less of it than that of the older emission systems. These engines also have an air oil separator on the crank case which will help to reduce oil getting into the intake which reduces the issue further. In reality i've seen gasoline DI engines plug up just as bad as diesel, often sooner. This engine should last a long time before any major work is needed, deleted or not. Yes your DPF will eventually need to be serviced or replaced, but i don't see a point in deleting until then, which would be around 200,000 miles, and most people ditch their trucks long before then.

And to your emissions point, there's a big difference between creating slightly more CO2 emissions from burning a little extra fuel, vs releasing NOx emissions that are 25 times higher, and large amounts of soot. Firstly a component of NOx, N2O, is 298 times more potent of a GHG than CO2, and thus reducing that has a significant impact on climate. Other NOx components are the main contributors to smog and we all know that isn't good for human health. Soot, specifically of the PM2.5 variety, has the ability to penetrate deep into your lungs where it can sit, and cause cancer and other lung diseases, so I don't know why anyone's a fan of that. Soot also settles out everywhere, even up in the arctic blackening the surface, which absorbs more radiation, increasing the surface temperature, further melting snow and ice, and leading to a reduced albedo effect solidifying the positive feedback loop of climate change.. So there are a lot of reasons to reduce these "emissions" and not worry about the little extra CO2 which is essentially harmless in comparison. Lastly Urea isn't toxic, it readily breaks down in the environment if released.. it's pee. The chemical reaction between this and components in NOx leads to Nitrogen and water... nitrogen is already 80% of what you breathe, so out the pipe it's essentially harmless. Yes plastic bottles suck, use the truck stop if you don't know how to recycle.

So consider these facts before you delete. You're doing yourself and everyone around a favour by not deleting your truck.
 

Registered
Joined
111 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
First off it's not "unbiased" if it's written by someone that sells tunes or equipment, or advertises for those companies. Yes when you add more parts to an engine, you add more points of failure, no one's arguing that. Fact is I've seen stock 6.0's with full EGR last just as long as deleted ones, I pulled one apart with 360,000 miles on it and all the crosshatching still looked perfect. The introduction of DEF allows for engines to require significantly less EGR than the older versions by counteracting NOx chemically vs by reducing cylinder temps with EGR. These engines shut the EGR off entirely at high load, which is when you're producing the most soot, and uses only SCR to manage NOx... when you're just cruising down the highway you're not producing much soot at all, and thus it doesn't matter if you recirculate exhaust. Yes more soot will make its way in, but significantly less of it than that of the older emission systems. These engines also have an air oil separator on the crank case which will help to reduce oil getting into the intake which reduces the issue further. In reality i've seen gasoline DI engines plug up just as bad as diesel, often sooner. This engine should last a long time before any major work is needed, deleted or not. Yes your DPF will eventually need to be serviced or replaced, but i don't see a point in deleting until then, which would be around 200,000 miles, and most people ditch their trucks long before then.

And to your emissions point, there's a big difference between creating slightly more CO2 emissions from burning a little extra fuel, vs releasing NOx emissions that are 25 times higher, and large amounts of soot. Firstly a component of NOx, N2O, is 298 times more potent of a GHG than CO2, and thus reducing that has a significant impact on climate. Other NOx components are the main contributors to smog and we all know that isn't good for human health. Soot, specifically of the PM2.5 variety, has the ability to penetrate deep into your lungs where it can sit, and cause cancer and other lung diseases, so I don't know why anyone's a fan of that. Soot also settles out everywhere, even up in the arctic blackening the surface, which absorbs more radiation, increasing the surface temperature, further melting snow and ice, and leading to a reduced albedo effect solidifying the positive feedback loop of climate change.. So there are a lot of reasons to reduce these "emissions" and not worry about the little extra CO2 which is essentially harmless in comparison. Lastly Urea isn't toxic, it readily breaks down in the environment if released.. it's pee. The chemical reaction between this and components in NOx leads to Nitrogen and water... nitrogen is already 80% of what you breathe, so out the pipe it's essentially harmless. Yes plastic bottles suck, use the truck stop if you don't know how to recycle.

So consider these facts before you delete. You're doing yourself and everyone around a favour by not deleting your truck.
Consider these facts:
First, the website I shared is "unbiased" because they share both the pros and cons and they don't sell or recommend anything, they list options. Second, I've never seen a fully stock 6.0 Powerstroke last even 100,000 miles without some form of upgrade to it's OEM components (turbo, egr, head bolts, etc). Third, it always matters if the egr is recirculating or not- they never fully stop- because it is putting abrasive solid particles into your engine and reducing the oxygen available to the engine for combustion. Not to mention smaller diesels are known for producing more soot than larger diesels, which compounds these issues and further shortens the life of emissions components. Yes, the oil separator helps reduce sludge buildup from oil and soot mixing in the intake, but that still leaves the soot- and the oil. You should really ask anyone who's pulled the intercooler on one of these if there's any oil going back into the intake. And if soot, NOx and other greenhouse gases are such a concern, ask yourself why there aren't emissions control systems on commercial shipping, commercial trains, and commercial aircraft? Then there's all the added infrastructure and energy used to acquire, refine, and transport the extra fuel burned to "save" the polar bears. Not to mention diesel exhaust soot is a particulate, and settles out in short order unlike gases which dissipate into the atmosphere. Diesel soot is actually less likely to affect breathing as particles are filtered and not absorbed by the human body- unlike the toxic gases produced by the emissions fixes. The only way you're really breathing it is to put your mouth on a tailpipe. Not advocating "rolling coal", simply stating facts. Because if you were really concerned about particulate emissions, you'd be against electric cars: they cause more particulate emissions than regular cars from increased brake/tire wear due to their weight, not to mention the emissions from powerplants to charge them (coal soot, GHGs), the battery packs which last ten years max then have to be disposed of as toxic waste, etc. So maybe consider these facts before toeing the party line. As for me, I'll worry about saving the planet at personal expense when the celebrities and politicians crying about the environment change their own lifestyles and give up their multiple mansions, yachts, private jets, helicopters, and giant SUVs to do the same. They aren't doing you or anyone around you any favors*, so feel free to go preach to them.

Lastly, truck stop DEF sits in their tanks and can go past it's shelf-life, so to prevent potential issues it's actually best for protecting the super important emissions systems to use oil and kill trees to make bottles in boxes to help save the environment.

Here's a challenge for you: if urea is so non-corrosive, non-toxic and safe (being "basically pee")- pour some on your aluminum bodied truck and/or drink it. Go ahead. I dare you.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top