Removing DPF

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Nov 9, 2010 | 12:09 PM

#16

senix

Super Moderator

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 37,383

Likes: 1,867

From: Frederick, MD

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2addy

I'm the poster boy for what can wrong with the 6.4 so I am biased, no doubt. But that's how we form our opinions, from experience. Let's just say over $25k in warranty claims.

Yup, I can understand. I have had a good experience with mine save a bad TCM @ 600 miles.

Nov 9, 2010 | 12:20 PM

#17

tgreening

Elder User

Joined: Dec 2009

Posts: 882

Likes: 0

From: Ohio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2addy

I'm the poster boy for what can wrong with the 6.4 so I am biased, no doubt. But that's how we form our opinions, from experience. Let's just say over $25k in warranty claims.

I hear you. It happens. I bought a brand new '87 Bronco that was the biggest piece of crap I'd ever owned. After a total drivetrain rebuild front to rear the dealer never did throw the right part at the problem to fix it and the dealer ended up giving me everything I paid as a trade in on an '89 Bronco, the most trouble free truck I'd ever bought. Go figure.

Nov 11, 2010 | 03:41 PM

#18

Texas450

Senior User

Joined: Aug 2010

Posts: 312

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoadJunkie

So let's go nuts here and say a 6.4l will average 15 MPG over 50,000 miles. Diesel in the my area is now running $3.01 to $3.14 per gallon, so let's say it averages $3.10 per gallon. For 50,000 miles (3,333.33 gallons) the truck will use $10,333.33 worth of fuel. If you save 10% that will be $1,033 dollars over 50,000 miles and twice that amount over 100K miles, $2,066. How much is the conversion and will you drive the truck long enough to break even? Am I missing something?

I couldn't agree with you more about engineers focusing on better mileage. I guess as long as we buy the trucks, the motivation for going in that direction is lost. But then, I couldn't help myself!

hey dude your looking at this the wrong way....

pre mods lets stay we get 12mpg. im also assuming that we have 40 gallon tank(adjust if you need)

using your numbers of $3.10 a gallon....it would cost us 124 bucks to fill all the way up....and only getting 12mpg that means we could only run 480m before empty. that equals .26 cents a mile (rounded up)

now lets put the mods on the truck and get 15 mpg.

this means we can run 600m on one 40gallon tank before empty.
this equals .21 cents a mile (rounded up)

the difference is just 5 little ol pennies a mile....not very much except when you do a little bit of math and take .05 x 50,000 it equals $2500 bucks saved and of course if you run 100000m it would be $5000 and so on and so forth.....in my truck i went from 8 mpg to 12-13ish which is saving me a ton....but my truck is 450

Nov 11, 2010 | 08:22 PM

#19

RoadJunkie

Senior User

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 161

Likes: 0

I see what you're getting at, erh...ah...dude(?). My calcs were based on the quote: "From what I've read, the dpf accounts for nearly 10% of fuel consumption". If that's the case, removing the DPF would get you 10% improvement in mileage. Your example is based on a 25% (with optimized tune, I would think) improvement, that is, 3 mpg from 12 mpg to 15 mpg. Naturally, if you're getting that much improvement your calcs are also correct. Furthermore, as you have demonstrated, the more miles your drive while keeping your truck, the more money you save. Still, and with all due respect for those that choose to tune, ripping out the DPF it's not for me.

Nov 12, 2010 | 07:25 AM

#20

Texas450

Senior User

Joined: Aug 2010

Posts: 312

Likes: 0

If you tune and keep dpf on you are asking for problems and you can't take the dpf off with out having tuner....you can however have a dpf delete and turn off the tune. I have tried this and was still getting 10mpg...20%over stock. Not to mention my f450 is heavy compared to some...10300lb empty. This 10% stuff I think is nonsense...at least from my experience.

Best 2 ya dude

Tex

Nov 12, 2010 | 10:03 AM

#21

kel1306

Thread Starter

Mountain Pass

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 140

Likes: 2

Roadjunkie, I wasn't very clear when I was talking fuel consumption. I meant during the regen cycle, DPF accounts for 10% of fuel consumption. I did not mean that the dpf would use 10% of the fuel in the tank. My Bad. If I can find the article I read, I will post it. My whole point was if the dpf can be removed with a tune, whether it be a power tune or not, can you coax enough fuel mileage out of the 6.4 to justify buying a truck with a 6.4 over a 6.0.

Nov 12, 2010 | 11:01 AM

#22

RoadJunkie

Senior User

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 161

Likes: 0

If you drive (and keep) your trucks for 100,000 miles or 200,000 miles I would think it would be worth while and eventually save you some bucks. My dad has the 6.0l and it does pretty well, although he has had to use his extended warranty to replace turbo. I talked to my collision mechanic (has a fleet of Ford trucks and tow trucks) about his 6.0l last week and he says he gets a little better mileage on that truck than his 6.4l, but indicated you really have to stay on top of maintenance on the 6.0l. I asked him about "chipping" and he stated all of his trucks are stock. Anyway, a lot of the fun is doing the research and chatting with others prior to making a decision...so have fun.

Nov 12, 2010 | 01:09 PM

#23

pyro2nite

Senior User

Joined: Nov 2007

Posts: 311

Likes: 0

A tuner for mileage is a good thing. Now saying that, I just bought a Mini to get rid of the DPF. I have been averaging 4.5% fuel contamination in the oil. Also I was stuck along the freeway because one of the pressure probes in the exhaust malfunction. I want to increase the life of the engine and have a reliable truck. I already get good mileage, so if I pick up a mile or two that will be a bonus.