Ram for ford
This forum has been invaluable for me (someone working toward his first diesel)! Thanks all!
I too am watching as someday mine will need to be replaced. But I am quite happy for now to watch and learn.
Making oil happens when the fuel injectors push raw fuel during the exhaust stroke through the headers and into the ceramic DPF filter where the unburnt fuel ignites and burns the soot that has been trapped in the filter.
The 6.4 motor uses all 8 cylinders to push the fuel down the pipe during a regen. It also does many more "active" regens than the 6.7.
The 6.7 only uses half the motor (4 cylinders) to push the fuel to the filter, making the event less intrusive on the behavior of the engine during a regeneration cycle. The 6.7 also does much more DPF cleaning "passively", meaning that it happens while you drive whenever the right conditions are met, usually when running under heavy load. The "active" regen is the one that makes oil and the 6.7 does this less than the 6.4 does but it's too early to tell if making oil is going to be an issue.
Making oil was not an issue with me as I put over 150K on my 6.4. I did however do 5K oil change intervals. On my 6.7 I change the oil when the computer tells me to which has been over 7500 miles and less than 10K miles, depending on several factors. Oil level has not been high yet.
From the 6.7 coffee table book:
converter which oxidizes hydrocarbons
in the exhaust and generates heat for
I would also think the shorter exhaust plumbing with exhaust ports in the vee might make it easier for the unburned fuel to make it to the right place vs. the 6.4's longer path.
Anyway as you post; the 6.7 is superior in design for DPF management.
Bob
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
From the 6.7 coffee table book:
converter which oxidizes hydrocarbons
in the exhaust and generates heat for
I would also think the shorter exhaust plumbing with exhaust ports in the vee might make it easier for the unburned fuel to make it to the right place vs. the
6.4's longer path.
Anyway as you post; the 6.7 is superior in design for DPF management.
Bob
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) is a method of converting harmful diesel oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions, by catalytic reaction, into benign nitrogen gas and water. SCR can deliver near-zero emissions of NOx, an acid rain and smog-causing pollutant and greenhouse gas, in modern highway clean diesel engines.
The SCR system does not alter the design of the modern Common Rail Diesel (CRD) engine, therefore it can continue to deliver excellent fuel economy and durability. Rather, SCR provides emissions after-treatment well into the exhaust stack, in a way similar to the soot containment achieved by the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF).
SCR works by injecting Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) , such as AdBlue, into the hot exhaust stack. DEF works in conjunction with the hot exhaust gases and catalyst to break NOx into two components of our normal atmosphere—water vapor and nitrogen.
The Process - How SCR Works
Engine: The NOx reduction process starts with an efficient CRD engine design that burns clean Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) and produces inherently lower exhaust emissions—exhaust that is already much cleaner due to leaner and more complete combustion.
Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) tank and pump: Under the direction of the vehicle’s onboard computer, DEF is delivered in precisely metered spray patterns into the exhaust stream just ahead of the SCR converter.
SCR Catalytic Converter: This is where the conversion happens. Exhaust gases and an atomized mist of DEF enter the converter simultaneously. Together with the catalyst inside the converter, the mixture undergoes a chemical reaction that produces nitrogen gas and water vapor.
Control device: Exhaust gases are monitored via a sensor as they leave the SCR catalyst. Feedback is supplied to the main computer to alter the DEF flow if NOx levels fluctuate beyond acceptable parameters.
dodge tends to only put stuff on their trucks after others have had it at least year. not having urea injection means the cummins is chocked down with EGR and gets very poor mileage. the dodge 6.7 is a known fuel hog.
my ford 6.7 is getting possibly better mileage than any past diesel I have owned and that includes mechanical injected cummins motors. I just haven't had much chance to run non winter fuel in the thing to really know. problems from these engines are nearly unheard of with as many out there I think victory can be declared, aside from my t case exploding I have been very happy with my ford.
You can delete anything you want!
The question is, can you stop Ford from finding out and voiding your warranty?
Rick,
I am not so sure about that.
There is an alternative to the DEF system --- in which plasma reactors are used.
IMHO, that is the wave of the future because it imposes a far smaller fuel penalty.
I view the DEF solution as simple, but kludgy, and an interim technology.
In the proposed Honda system, the electrically-powered plasma reactor first converts oxides of nitrogen other than NO<sub>2</sub> to NO<sub>2</sub>. In addition, and in conjunction with a reducing agent injected upstream of the reactor, it can also oxidize PM. Multiple reactors could be placed in series or in parallel, if needed.
The NO<sub>2</sub> exhaust stream then flows to the catalyst units where it is adsorbed or reduced by alkali metals and silver.
Other companies and laboratories are exploring the use of plasma-catalyst combinations for NO<sub>x</sub> reduction.
- Research funded by the DOE and later by ArvinMeritor led to the deployment of a plasma reformer (Plasmatron) for use with heavy-duty diesel engines. In development since the 1990s, the system reduced NO<sub>x</sub> emissions by up to 90% when used with an adsorber catalyst. It operated effectively at lower temperatures than other NO<sub>x</sub> removal systems, and it reduced the amount of fuel required for adsorber regeneration in half.
- GM researchers have developed a plasma-assisted catalyst system (PAC) capable of reducing NO<sub>x</sub> under highly lean conditions using E-diesel or ethanol as the reductant. The system consists of a compact, energy-efficient hyperplasma reactor followed by a dual-bed catalytic reactor. They also demonstrated good NO<sub>x</sub> conversion (above 90% on average) over a wide temperature range of 200-400° C under steady-state optimum operating conditions.
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory also developed a two-phase approach to a plasma catalysis system, also producing reduction of NO<sub>x</sub> emissions by as much as 90%.
- Caterpillar has looked at reformer-assisted lean NO<sub>x</sub> catalysis as well as plasma-facilitated catalysis.
- Researchers from Ford, GM, DaimlerChrysler and PNNL collaborated on a three-phase plasma-catalyst system. (They found that with hexene as a reductant, the system reduced NO<sub>x</sub> by more than 90%; with diesel or Fischer-Tropsch reductant, however, the catalyst efficiency rapidly dropped off.)









