DEF for 2013

[TDickerson]

Well, after reading the latest TDR it does appear that the Ram will be using the SCR system starting in Jan 2013. If that is the case I will be waiting a little while longer to get the SCR system. I know a lot of people don't want the urea tank and something else to have to fill, but I think it will be the best alternative to achieve better fuel economy, and hopefully less regenerations and less fuel dilution as well. I just hope that Dodge puts the tank in a better place than GM did with that ugly thing hanging under the truck. Can't believe they did that. So, I'm looking forward to that and will buy the Dodge Cummins if that happens as planed.

 

[rscurtis]

There were rumblings about this on Allpar also. And at $2. 50/gallon at the pump, the cost is incidental. The hopefully reduced oil changes will probably pay for it.

 

[AH64ID]

While I am not in the market for a truck I do like the idea of SCR vs non-SCR to meet the EPA BS standards.

 

[Deleted member 995608]

At National Finals Rodeo this year and 2010, the Dodge reps claimed the urea was coming to the light duty trucks.



It's a welcomed change on this end. Glad I haven't bought a new truck yet.

 

[EDankievitch]

As much as I read the cost of opperation of the new trucks as apposed to an older truck... . everytime I do the numbers they just don't add up. My current 05 4X4 will give me around 20 (real figured miles divied by gallons) mpg on a normal week to week driving. I drive about 28,000 miles a year that works out to about $5600 a year in fuel. Now with a new truck that gives about 16. 5-17 mpg that works out to $6787 a year in fuel. Now if you have a truck that uses DEF and did not have the regen cycle wasting fuel your Mpg would be back up closer to the 20 that my old truck gets. The cost of the DEF works out to about $150 a year for that 28,000 miles. Still alot cheaper than the current non DEF system. Even if you use that fuzzy goverment math... ... So I guess you could say I'm hoping that Dodge adopts the DEF system for all their trucks and soon.

 

[RonD]

As much as I read the cost of opperation of the new trucks as apposed to an older truck... . everytime I do the numbers they just don't add up. My current 05 4X4 will give me around 20 (real figured miles divied by gallons) mpg on a normal week to week driving. I drive about 28,000 miles a year that works out to about $5600 a year in fuel. Now with a new truck that gives about 16. 5-17 mpg that works out to $6787 a year in fuel. Now if you have a truck that uses DEF and did not have the regen cycle wasting fuel your Mpg would be back up closer to the 20 that my old truck gets. The cost of the DEF works out to about $150 a year for that 28,000 miles. Still alot cheaper than the current non DEF system. Even if you use that fuzzy goverment math... ... So I guess you could say I'm hoping that Dodge adopts the DEF system for all their trucks and soon.

Ed, wishful thing, the problem is all the current Diesel Trucks that use DEF still have the Regeneration process, it may be less, but it's still there, Dodge and Cummins will add DEF when the Fed's and States want less emissions from are already clean trucks.

 

[rscurtis]

Emissions are as low as they're going to go. Reductions in CO2 are not really emission reductions, they are fuel economy increases. DEF will also allow the EGR to be reduced and timing to be restored.

 

[Deleted member 995608]

Emissions are as low as they're going to go. Reductions in CO2 are not really emission reductions, they are fuel economy increases. DEF will also allow the EGR to be reduced and timing to be restored.

I hope you're right. No way I'll buy a new truck with the current mpg, . . . and I want a new truck like a hooker wants her pay.

 

[bombero]

How many MPG increase is DEF going to make. You have a cost for the urea and the fact that there is another system to go wrong on the engine. My current CTD has never got good milage anyway. If I can get about 14 with my normal driving and 10 pulling my 10000 travel trailer I wont be happy but OK.

 

[RonD]

I hope you're right. No way I'll buy a new truck with the current mpg, . . . and I want a new truck like a hooker wants her pay.

If you want to know about what added MPG's will most likely be, find out what a 2010 Duramax gets, and a newer one with DEF gets, that will be about what the Ram will get. If I recall on the big 3 truck tests, they were all within 1. 5 MPG of each other, also the added cost to build a truck with DEF is a lot more, a guess a grand or more, the new trucks weigh more, and have more power, so don't expect anything to exciting with a MPG increase.

 

[EDankievitch]

Yes there is a DEF expense, but it's not as high or as bad as some would like to make us belive. I've had the chance to talk with a few people that have the "New" Ford engine. The MGP gains are huge over the old 6. 0 and 6. 4 ltr engines. These are guys that have business and monitor their expenses closely. They've all said that even with the extra expense of the DEF the new trucks are much cheaper to run. Much as I had shown in my post above. Yes there still is some re- gen with the DEF system but it's alot less often than the 60-80% duty cycle that one of the authors wrote about in the TDR the last two issues.

 

[Deleted member 995608]

Yes there is a DEF expense, but it's not as high or as bad as some would like to make us belive. I've had the chance to talk with a few people that have the "New" Ford engine. The MGP gains are huge over the old 6. 0 and 6. 4 ltr engines. These are guys that have business and monitor their expenses closely. They've all said that even with the extra expense of the DEF the new trucks are much cheaper to run. Much as I had shown in my post above. Yes there still is some re- gen with the DEF system but it's alot less often than the 60-80% duty cycle that one of the authors wrote about in the TDR the last two issues.

Less re-gen would be a huge improvement IMO.



I live in a foothill community. If I drive into town for parts and such, it's a minimum of forty minutes of drive time so I guessing this will give enough time for a full re-gen.



However, I encounter a lot of stop and go's throughout the year too and some idling time.

 

[RonD]

Yes there is a DEF expense, but it's not as high or as bad as some would like to make us belive. I've had the chance to talk with a few people that have the "New" Ford engine. The MGP gains are huge over the old 6. 0 and 6. 4 ltr engines. These are guys that have business and monitor their expenses closely. They've all said that even with the extra expense of the DEF the new trucks are much cheaper to run. Much as I had shown in my post above. Yes there still is some re- gen with the DEF system but it's alot less often than the 60-80% duty cycle that one of the authors wrote about in the TDR the last two issues.

Ford did a re design on ther new 6. 7 engine and dumped Navistar, the 6. 0 wasn't that bad on fuel the 6. 4 was a Pig, the new 6. 7 isn't all that better than our current Cummins. Dodge uses DEF on the current C&C Trucks, what are those gaining with DEF?, I don't think a lot.

 

[Deleted member 995608]

Ford did a re design on ther new 6. 7 engine and dumped Navistar, the 6. 0 wasn't that bad on fuel the 6. 4 was a Pig, the new 6. 7 isn't all that better than our current Cummins. Dodge uses DEF on the current C&C Trucks, what are those gaining with DEF?, I don't think a lot.

Aren't the 4500/5500's heavier in weight?

 

['strokeThis_'07]

I doubt there is going to be a marked improvement in fuel economy. It's still exhaling through a straw with all the exhaust aftertreatment...



I'm still on the fence. I just don't see any benefit to these emissions I guess; there was nothing wrong with what my 07 had stock. I'll wait and see about the fluid, only time will tell.



I'll still plan to do full deletes on anything newer than 07. 5

 

[Deleted member 995608]

I doubt there is going to be a marked improvement in fuel economy. It's still exhaling through a straw with all the exhaust aftertreatment...



I'm still on the fence. I just don't see any benefit to these emissions I guess; there was nothing wrong with what my 07 had stock. I'll wait and see about the fluid, only time will tell.



I'll still plan to do full deletes on anything newer than 07. 5

Good luck! Im hoping it never happens to you guys, but I'm guessing that some type of safety inspection or smog inspection will eventually come your way and you'll be in the same boat as us Ca folks.

 

['strokeThis_'07]

If it gets as bad as Cali out here, I'm moving to Canada.



But honestly, I don't think Wyoming will ever get as bad as Cali is. And I don't see any emissions testing coming, unless the fed gets involved. Left to the state to decide, ain't happening. That's why I will NEVER move (unless the aforementioned Canada thing has to happen:-laf)

 

[rrl989]

I've had annual diesel safety/emissions for 10 yrs now in the NY metro area. It's a good thing for those of us that need to breathe, too many cars/trucks, too many people in a metro area.

 

[AEdelheit]

Yes there is a DEF expense, but it's not as high or as bad as some would like to make us belive. I've had the chance to talk with a few people that have the "New" Ford engine. The MGP gains are huge over the old 6. 0 and 6. 4 ltr engines. These are guys that have business and monitor their expenses closely. They've all said that even with the extra expense of the DEF the new trucks are much cheaper to run. Much as I had shown in my post above. Yes there still is some re- gen with the DEF system but it's alot less often than the 60-80% duty cycle that one of the authors wrote about in the TDR the last two issues.

Maybe the unloaded MPG is better but the loaded Isint, we have some at work and they don't get any better the the 6. 0's they replaced did. I don't like the idea of another system that will prevent the truck from running if it runs out or malfunctions

 

[Deleted member 995608]

I've had annual diesel safety/emissions for 10 yrs now in the NY metro area. It's a good thing for those of us that need to breathe, too many cars/trucks, too many people in a metro area.

I hate to tear down your little happy story, but I can almost guarantee you that NY state smog checks have done little to spare the air.



It's all bout' making money!