How can I get rid of my dpf on my 07.5

[catoiler]

Have you been brainwashed into that junk science?



If every soccermom in the US drove a tri-axle Petes with a C16 in it, the air would be fine. The clean air laws have nothing to do with cleaning the air or what ever you may believe, and everything to do with conditioning people to continual gov't control of their lives down to the minutest levels.



Its all about control ... and the solution to it can be found 231 years ago in the history books.

Yea baby but you forgot that whole "global warming" crap!

 

[Bobcat698]

Al Gore didn't invent the internet. But he did make up Global Warming!

 

[Wayne_C]

IMO fuel efficiency should be regulated more instead of emissions, because we will be running out of fuel to feed these fuel thirsty emission engines before there are environmental problems caused by vehicle emissions. I may be wrong in my way of thinking, but a more efficient engine will burn less fuel and let out fewer emissions.

 

[2Rowdy]

Wayne if your wrong I'm the same boat you are.

 

[AHarris]

Well, you see, theirin lies the true crux of the argument: China, India and to an extent S. Korea are the biggest culprits and cause of most of the smog in the western US. As long as they keep expanding their industrial base and continue to run old powerplants and steel mills on high sulfur coal without emission controls, no amount of emissions upgrades in the US or EU are going to amount to much. I did hear that China does claim to be working to meet US/EU emission standards, but in what timeline?

Yeah, there's some truth in this. I read that Asian smog contributes about 10-25% of the current smog in the Northern Hemisphere and that number could go up to 40-50% by 2020. This is based on projections on the explosive growth of motor vehicles and cheap coal fired power plants in the growing economies of Asia (China, India, S. Korea). Qulaification: I'm not an expert on this--I'm just relaying what I read.



Domestically, 40% of our air pollution is produced right here at home just by America's 600+ coal power plants which produce over half of our national electricity. The lion's share of the the rest comes from OUR OWN motor vehicles, industry, agriculture, etc.



Worldwide, air pollution is a growing problem. It's exacerbated by the exploding middle class in Latin America, China, India, and Russia who are now able to afford their own car. In these developing countries, this same exploding middle class can now also afford TVs, computers, and air conditioners which means building more cheap coal power plants to keep up with the skyrocketing electricity demands. I'm not holding my breath waiting for China or any other developing economy over there to make meaningful progress towards meeting US/EU emission standards... that's political eye wash. Right now, the name of the game is "make it as cheap as you can and make more money. " Their rationale: why spend millions on smoke stack scrubbers and updated power plants when that cheap dirty coal power plant gets the job done at more profit?



This has 2d and 3d orders of effect for the rest of the world. The smog being carried over the Pacific to the Western US on the jet stream is just one example.



Pretending the problem doesn't exist isn't the right answer. Efficient engines and reasonable pollution controls are a necessity. Having said that, I watched An Inconvenient Truth and thought was was no more than a political ad for Al Gore peppered with "junk science" and non-sequiturs. :-laf Ignoring that drivel and reviewing what I consider valid scientific data, I conclude there are some major problems with our environment which are indeed caused by human beings and which warrant corrective action.



The best thing we can do about it is use some common sense. Little things add up. What I do is not waste fuel, electricity, water or food. We recycle. I am buying a 6. 7 partly because I like the fact that it's a clean burning engine and also because I'm getting it for $15 under sticker and have a big TT at home. I will get over double the fuel mileage pulling my camper with this truck verus my old Ram 1500 gasser while enjoying the towing experience a lot more. My wife drives a Grand Cherokee which manages a whopping 18 mpg hwy. We don't do much unnecessary driving. We turn off lights and TVs when no ones in the room and (other than my daughter ) "try" to keep the showers under 15 minutes. Can I do more? Probably. Do I feel compelled to yet? Not really. At the end of the day I'm not going to lay awake at night worrying about it, and I'm not ready to sell my truck and RV and go trade my wife's paid-off GC in for a Prius.



Deal with the environment in whatever way that works for you. Jusst throwing in my . 02 worth.



Sorry this was so long and off the subject of removing DPFs from your 6. 7. Good luck!

 

[AKaiser]

IMO fuel efficiency should be regulated more instead of emissions, because we will be running out of fuel to feed these fuel thirsty emission engines before there are environmental problems caused by vehicle emissions. I may be wrong in my way of thinking, but a more efficient engine will burn less fuel and let out fewer emissions.

I think you make a fallacious assumption that these emissions engines are significantly less fuel efficient. I don't think the engine is the biggest culprit. The trucks we put them in are the bigger problem. Look at what happened to the fuel economy when we went from the BR to the DR, and why. The current sheet metal is responsible for the biggest proportion in lost fuel economy, not emissions controls.



In 1992, Dodge was planning to bring out a new designed pickup that for all practical purposes looked like a beefed up Dakota of the same model year. Iacocca said "go pound sand. " Thank God, for in two years, we got the most aerodynamic, and possibly sexiest, truck in history. Inside Mopar, it was called the T300 project, in homage to the big KW T600.



The BR, as it would be known, had a Cd (coeff. of drag) of 0. 44, which wouldn't be matched until Ford redesigned the F250 in 1995.



Guess what, the DR (2002/03 to current) is worse, aerodynamically, as it has more frontal area to push, and is higher up, especially compared to the GMs, who are advertising 22 MPG (with a small V8, of course). This all happened while fuel prices were still relatively low, and Dodge, taking cues from Ford's Super Duty enlargement (which was a reaction to sales losses to Dodge vs the 1995 F150 design), beefed up the body's vertical proportionment as to not lose sales based on what the latinos call "machismo. " Looks like Toyota goofed as well, going with a new Tundra with worse Cd than the BRs and F150s, compared to the first version's Cd of 0. 41, which would be the best "full sized" (yeah, right, but anyway) pickup Cd.



The 2009 is supposed to remedy all that, yet some of you are more concerned about form than function. Yeah, I know, we all want our tough looking RAM, which is one reason why I'll probably keep what I have. I don't see buying a first production year Ram 1500/Dakota/Durango CTD. But a second run, perhaps. Just depends on my needs. I think now that Mopar is out from under the stifling control of Daimler Corp, we have a shot at ending the box effect, which makes no dang sense for fuel economy anyway.



updated FAQ on Ram MPG improvement (long)

 

[MCummings]

Hippity hop down the rabbit trails... .





Regardless of how "legal" a 500HP truck is. How do we get the DPF NOx and Cat off of the truck without 50% power.





Merrick

 

[LMcCary]

Back to original question, can you remove the DPF? NO! Esp. if it is Cummins software, because as soon as you try to defete the operation of the DPF it will derate you engine power. (According to Cummins)

 

[Wolfy]

No! I mean Yes! I mean ...

Have you been brainwashed into that junk science?



If every soccermom in the US drove a tri-axle Petes with a C16 in it, the air would be fine. The clean air laws have nothing to do with cleaning the air or what ever you may believe, and everything to do with conditioning people to continual gov't control of their lives down to the minutest levels.



Its all about control ... and the solution to it can be found 231 years ago in the history books.

Hello Fatcat,



Just saw your response to my tongue-in-cheek comments.



Forgive me for not falling for your "Have you stopped beating your wife?"-type question.



There is a bit of an implied insult (regarding gullibility or stupidity) in your post, so:



For the record, I am confident that my brain is as impervious to "washing", and as capable of critical thought as your own.



We have a national role-model who inspires others to consider science they don't like the result-of to be "junk". (But then he is anything BUT a scientist, huh?) Has that particular dunce "washed" YOUR brain?



People who have legitimate concerns about the environment (and health, etc. ) are not necessarily co-conspirators with those in government who undoubtedly WOULD like to have the "control" over us that you see as the only reason for concern.



There are separate issues.



I'm sure you will understand if I give a bit of attention to people who spend their lives working and studying in fields other than mine or yours, and if I expect them to have possibly learned something while they were at it. It wasn't me (was it you?) who figured out the we should not use lead-based paint in our house for crawling infants to chew-on. )



I was a firefighter. You should not turn to me for facts about genetic engineering or neuro-surgery. In the same sense, I don't feel obliged to learn my environmental "science" from the "A louder, smokier truck is a BETTER truck!" crowd, or the "If I wanna do it,... I should be able to!" demando-babies.



I understand that you have things nicely simplified to a convenient level ... "Whatever I choose to believe is fact,... and anyone thinking otherwise has swallowed B. S. "



Comforting, I'm sure, ... but a bit narrow, IMO.



Here are two observations that I accept as fact.



1. A corporate controlled police-state government is not a good thing.



2. We humans, collectively, are destroying our planet.



I believe we should work to correct both situations. I would be surprised to discover that we really disagree.



I am absolutely unable to relate to anyone who proudly proclaims themselves to NOT-be "an environmentalist".



It makes me think of a cartoonish hick with thumbs through his overall straps, chest puffed-out, grinning around a piece of straw hanging out of his mouth, boasting "I don't G. A. S. for NUTHIN"!



What could the future possibly hold for a world full of such people?



I have the impression that you have not chosen to be bothered with much study of the "junk science" you so cavalierly dismiss.



Thankfully there are those who feel it important.



As TDR posters, you and I are both likely to take some deserved heat for this lapse into politics, even if there is a "vehicle" connection.



So I'll let you or others take it from here.



Said my piece.

 

[MMead]

As a 5. 9 owner I certainly do not claim to know much on this subject, but after reading some of the Chevy/Duramax forums it seems like they have found out how to eliminate most of the new power/fuel economy robbing systems in these new trucks. One Chevy guy says he literally cut all the sensors out and straight piped it all the way to the back and all that happened were a few codes popping up but no "limp mode. " I'm not saying it's right to do any of this, but why can the Chevy guys do it and the 6. 7's can't??

 

[Wolfy]

updated FAQ on Ram MPG improvement (long)

Thanks AKaiser, for the link.



Fascinating and informative stuff!

 

[Kiohio]

I'm with Wayne C. -with a twist

I think they should do emissions per mile.

It seems that as time progresses the mileage is going down on our trucks.

Through the different generations.

The 1st and 2nd gen 12v's with performance tuning would get in the mid 20's pretty easily.

The 24v's dropped. I would think if you figured it up there could be a hapy medium.

I don't know alot on the subject, so correct me if I'm wrong, but.....

I would think a truck getting 25mpg per "emissions unit" would be better than one getting 12. 5 mpg per 1/2 the "emissions unit".

Of course what I just said is waaaaaaay simplied, so I can understand it LOL

With that thinking you would save fuel also.

My dad, in his 70's now talked about getting mileage in the 20's on some of his late 50's and 60's model cars.

Amazing how we still haven't gained much without massive lightening of the cars.



Do they really want us to save fuel hmmmmmmmm

 

[dlmartin]

I'm surprised the Feds and the EPA haven't gone after the many "bombers" who sell the various products that alter engine performance on both gas and diesel engines. Each engine when certified through EPA is done so with specific components, and if those components are changed or modified that engine must be re-certified. I suspect the Feds will make an example out of one of these bomber manufacturers and bust them and scare most of the rest of them out of business. We may all have to find a neighborhood geek to reprogram our ECM's in the dark of night.

 

[MCummings]

I suspect the Feds will make an example out of one of these bomber manufacturers and bust them and scare most of the rest of them out of business.

Cummins has. TsT when Mark Chapple was programming ECM's way back when got a figurative hand slap. Changing the calibration to the RV 275.

We may all have to find a neighborhood geek to reprogram our ECM's in the dark of night.

Ever heard the name Marco, and Mad ECM? Smarty? Yup.



Re-certification takes alot of money and time. If I remember right, you have to have the truck being certified, driven, and inspected in intervals, and has to be inspected past the 50,000 mile mark.



Merrick

 

[JEstes]

Check this out: Edge Products: Customer Support

 

[RMarkey]

You basicly beat me to it, I was gonna say; I thought that was called california? Thats why I'm not there, among other reasons, and I'm anywhere else but there.

 

[catoiler]

Thats why most of the parts say "OFF ROAD USE ONLY!" that way it puts it on you for not following the rules!

 

[Wolfy]

Well, sure...

We may all have to find a neighborhood geek to reprogram our ECM's in the dark of night.

Isn't that traditionally prime-time for "outlaws"?

 

[hatchy]

I don't think the FEDS or the EPA will be the issue; Vendors could simply do R&D in the US, form a company in Canada or Mexico to sell the product. Or, if it is a downloader, they can sell the hardware as diagnostic/monitoring products, and have a site outside the US to provide the software to make changes. If there is a will, there is a way, especially if there is money involved.



By far, the biggest problem I think will come from the ECU. They are fairly complex as is, and I wouldn't be surprised if the OEMs will start encrypting the data in the future. On top of that, I believe that the EPA has already mandated checksums and tamper detection into ECU, so they can deter when maps have changed, etc.

 

[JEstes]

By far, the biggest problem I think will come from the ECU. They are fairly complex as is, and I wouldn't be surprised if the OEMs will start encrypting the data in the future. On top of that, I believe that the EPA has already mandated checksums and tamper detection into ECU, so they can deter when maps have changed, etc.

I don't know about other OEM's, but Cummins was told by the EPA that they had to make their ECU's harder to "crack". A friend of mine works for them, so we've had some pretty cool conversations.