Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-17-2012, 02:04 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 855
Sorry, ED I was not trying to disparage your post. I was only trying to point out that the DEF mandate has not proven to be as good as the hype. While the tailpipe emissions "might" be cleaner than a 99 Ford Diesel for instance it is no where near as good they could be IF Governments would stay out of the auto business. Instead of demanding, why not partner with them to come up with better emission systems all the while increasing fuel economy instead of decreasing it. Heck, people only need to go back to older Dodge Cummins that routinely could get over 20MPG vs a 2012 Cummins that is so chocked with emission junk that they are hard pressed to see 17MPG. That IMHO is a giant step backwards.
__________________

__________________
donn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 02:48 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Coops1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 358
What DEF is really doing... this post from another forum details why the government is doing this and it's not just about the environment as you would think.

Quote:
I work in the commercial trucking industry. Anyone who has done so for a while will quickly see that cancer rates are high in our industry in many of the "old timers" that have been driving for 20/30 years. When I say high, I mean REALLY high - a huge bell curve, statistically.

I work for a large international company, but my local terminal has about 40 or so employees. In the 10 years I've worked there I've seen nearly 10 of those 40 effected by cancer in one form or another, and 5 of them are no longer with us. I also have a relative who worked in a constant diesel-polluted environment that lost his battle with cancer last fall.

The links between diesel particulate and illnesses is long, well proven on paper, and for anyone who works in an industry where diesel is an everyday thing, you start to see the real-world effects on people as well, particularly when you look at those who have been exposed to it for 20 or more years where it becomes blatantly obvious something is wrong. There is really little debate on the subject anymore unless you want to hide your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist - particulate matter is a carcinogen, end of story.

So, my thoughts on our current emissions standards are torn. I'd be hypocritical to stand here and jump up and cheerleading emissions equipment since my personal pickup has none, but (by the standards of my year) it runs pretty clean - I do not subscribe to the childish "blow black smoke at every opportunity" camp, so my truck surely pollutes, but I'm not covering people in a cloud of diesel smoke at every intersection, either. That said, when I'm spending 12-14 hours a day pounding the pavement in my work truck, Im starting to feel better and better about my health prospects knowing that slowly, the tractors that are in front of me, blowing out the exhaust that I breathe all day every day, are getting cleaner.

When your life revolves around effectively sitting in front of hundreds of other trucks all day long (the life of someone who makes their livelihood chasing other peoples tailpipes) your opinion on this can change pretty quick, especially when you see your friends and coworkers dropping dead in numbers or barely surviving cancer in statistical figures that would make zero sense in any other industry. I refuse to believe that's just a fluke.
__________________

__________________
26WRB - V-Lite
Denali HD LML
Coops1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 12:07 AM   #23
Member
 
08ramguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 34
I just want to add that my 2011 ram 2500 H.O 6.7 is also a beast, no def to deal with which is why I stuck with dodge, I had a 2008 ram 6.7 non H.O and it did a great job pulling the same trailer, it was 28ish feet and weighed fully loaded about 10500, thats with 4 quads, 100gls of water, and lots of other crap, I am glad to hear ford has made a diesel motor thats is sounding like it is a beast, point is i think the gov. needs to mind there own business.....and no def for me
__________________
08ramguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 04:42 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
ret2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 364
6,000 miles on my Duramax and still on the first 5 gallons of DEF, low light still hasn't come on. Back to the dealer one time for a update. Get 19.5 MPG interstate driving, no trailer. 10.5 MPG pulling 10,700# fifth wheel. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Love my truck.
__________________
2014 Cedar Creek 34 RLSA-7
2015 Chevy Silverado 3500HD LTZ SRW

ret2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 02:34 PM   #25
Junior Member
 
Team Topper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 23
The fuss is down the road when you have to replace those exhaust components past the warranty. Right now they are only warranting this system for 3yrs/36k mi.. I believe it should be warranted the same as a cat. Converter and the such. Most mechanics are saying bad things about def. Caterpillar has stopped making over the road diesel engines. Several large trucking companies are parking the new trucks and rebuilding older ones. My hope is that DEF will be like the catalytic converter being mandated in the 70's. But the technology needs to be proven before I'll make a 50 thousand dollar mistake.
__________________
Team Topper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 09:12 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
jtad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 106
"Heck, people only need to go back to older Dodge Cummins that routinely could get over 20MPG vs a 2012 Cummins that is so chocked with emission junk that they are hard pressed to see 17MPG."

That old Cummins wasn't making 400hp and close to 800 ft/lbs.. Granted there are plenty of them out there that guys have done some major work to. But as long as people want more and more hp/tq you are going to trade off mpg.... The fact that I can make close to 500 hp and well over 800 ft/lbs with a mild tune in my 07 duramax and still get 18-20 empty and 10 1/2- 12 1/2 pulling my trailer...I will take that all day long. You can keep your old Cummins that got 20 mpg and wouldn't hardly get out of it's own way... I have had one of those things... along with 7.3's, 6.0's and two 5.9 Cummins. All were good trucks.
__________________

2011 Cursader 298 BHD
2012 F-250 FX4 6.7 Power Stroke
B&W Companion Hitch
Days Reserved for 2012: 39
jtad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 10:59 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southwest Wyoming
Posts: 588
I had a 2005 5.9 Cummins. Traded it for a 2008 6.7 Cummins. Made me sick when I saw the loss of mileage and similar performance. Didn't take me long to do the deletes and a tuner. It is a totally different truck now as far as performance and mileage. It has more power than I will ever need.
__________________
2012 Grey Wolf 19RR
2008 Dodge 2500 CTD

Nights camped 2012 - 35
Nights camped 2013 - 46
rkswyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 07:59 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
transamz9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtad View Post
"Heck, people only need to go back to older Dodge Cummins that routinely could get over 20MPG vs a 2012 Cummins that is so chocked with emission junk that they are hard pressed to see 17MPG."

That old Cummins wasn't making 400hp and close to 800 ft/lbs.. Granted there are plenty of them out there that guys have done some major work to. But as long as people want more and more hp/tq you are going to trade off mpg.... The fact that I can make close to 500 hp and well over 800 ft/lbs with a mild tune in my 07 duramax and still get 18-20 empty and 10 1/2- 12 1/2 pulling my trailer...I will take that all day long. You can keep your old Cummins that got 20 mpg and wouldn't hardly get out of it's own way... I have had one of those things... along with 7.3's, 6.0's and two 5.9 Cummins. All were good trucks.
HAHA!! Do you want to make good on those claims? I have an '05 Cummins 5.9 and will be more than happy to put the same amount of fuel in it as you and line up beside that Duramax and compare power and fuel economy. I agree with getting rid of all that choking crap.
__________________
transamz9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 08:23 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Coops1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 358
18-20 is easy... this weekend did 21 & 19 doing 70mph on a 4 hr trip and that's with all the crap on it. A friend of mine bought a new Dodge last year and traded it in after 6 months due to the poor mileage he was getting.
__________________
26WRB - V-Lite
Denali HD LML
Coops1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2012, 08:37 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southwest Wyoming
Posts: 588
There is a class action lawsuit out for the 2008-2011 Dodge Cummins diesels concerning the poor mileage and issues with the emmisions related equipment. Loose the DPF, EGR valve and a few other items and mileage picks up big time.
__________________

__________________
2012 Grey Wolf 19RR
2008 Dodge 2500 CTD

Nights camped 2012 - 35
Nights camped 2013 - 46
rkswyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




ForestRiverForums.com is not in any way associated with Forest River, Inc. or its associated RV manufacturing divisions.


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 AM.