And I just found a post with his UOA report:

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/9...ml#post9009717

Stock truck, no fuel dilution.

 

That looks like a really flimsy rocker arm but then again I dont know what the spring pressure is. Havent we been making rocker arms for over 50 years in engines?? Gotta love the cost cutting measures taken on a part like this. The cost cutting on the radiators hasnt panned out so well for their warranty costs so far but I guess these rockers arent failing under warranty.... yet.

 

Wrong. .5 IS fuel dilution. 2.0 is the value that Blackstone uses as their benchmark, so that OA is showing approximately 25% of that MAXIMUM value. Doesn't sound too bad...or does it...?

My buddy's F350 has been Spartan tuned for almost 40K miles. His fuel dilution on his latest OA is showing TR, which means trace, which means less than a tenth of percent. I just ran an OA on my truck which had only been tuned for about 500 miles before I pulled the sample. It showed a 1% fuel dilution, which is double the one shown on the link you provided, but still half of the maximum value. That 1% however is at least 10 TIMES what my buddy's truck showed in his OA.

TR (trace) IS no fuel dilution, anything above that, is. Someone here recently said that they're OK with I believe 4% fuel dilution. If they're OK with 40 TIMES the level of fuel dilution that this DPF-deleted truck is running (pushing 90K miles FYI, about 1/2 tuned) then good luck...

I'm fairly confident my next OA, which will be the first full duration oil change with the DPF deleted will show very similar results to my buddy's F350. I'd be pretty happy with likewise having a TR result...

Bottom line is regen, EGR and DPF (among other EPA imposed regulations/devices) kill these motors, and deleting them kills your warranty. Unfortunately you can't have it both ways, so you need to pick your poison.

I've chosen the dark side, please feel free to join us, we have cookies!

 

<.5 that mean less than. Blackstone says <.2

So...in other words less than 1/2 of 1%. So what is that? A teaspoon or so?

At any rate these failures have more to do with a mechanical failure than a lubrication failure.

 

The fuel dilution value is given as a percentage...

Blackstone uses 2% as their maximum acceptable level/limit for this particular parameter. In other words, below 2% is cool, above 2% is something to keep an eye on and/or worry about.

A teaspoon isn't a problem? Not so sure about that. Let's use an example in layman's terms that perhaps everyone can relate to. Half of that maximum value of 2% is 1% (duh!). What happens when your Blood Alcohol Level (BAL) reaches 1% from ingesting alcohol? Well, in actuality, you're very likely, from a statistical standpoint, dead. Because once the human body reaches just half of that amount (.5) is starts having all sorts of problems which can rapidly lead to death. .5% BAL will actually kill most people too. There's a whole lot of things that I wouldn't want to put just one teaspoon of in my crankcase, and saying it's 1/2 of 1% and it couldn't possibly cause problems perhaps isn't the most accurate statement to make. With that being said I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable, relatively speaking, with a fuel dilution of .5% of #2 diesel than I would for gasoline...

I previously agreed with the statement that it looks more likely a mechanical issue from the rocker design than from increased wear from fuel dilution, but the bottom line remains that regenning makes "oil", which dilutes the fuel, which increases wear, which isn't good for longetivity. That's not a stretch by any means.

YMMV...

 

I did some math..hope it is accurate.
15 qtrs of oil is 480 ounces.
480 ounces/.5 means about 2.4 ounces of fuel.

Not a significant factor.

 

I was told there would be no math...

(I hope SOMEONE gets the SNL/Chevy Chase reference!)

 

FWIW I linked an EPA study on the fuel dilution/making oil issue for DPF cars and trucks. It's on this forum on Dec 13 or right around there. The bottom line is that the regen will cause fuel dilution period. The amount and impact can be debated. One thing that did make sense in the report was that diesel fuel will boil out of the oil much like water will. However, bio diesel will not. So if you live in one of those states where they are growing corn right up to their porches and all they sell is bio you need to be aware of that. As I recall the final conclusion was that the dilution had no significant impact on the engines tested up to 200,000 miles " which is twice the usable life of a diesel engine" (EPA's words, not mine).

 

Probably tested under ideal conditions as well.

I'd like to find the main EPA guy that thought DPF's are so great. I'd like to surgically attach a filter screen to his rear, and tell him : "It might be a little harder to push, but it will be cleaner in the toilet. "

 

Sorry, you are incorrect. I have a 100% stock truck, doing ~500 mi regens and my Blackstone reports show <0.5% fuel dilution.

 

The rocker design does look a bit flimsy to me. The cracking though makes me think a heat treating problem in the manufacture of those rockers left them too hard and brittle.

 

Well that is two of us and there are many many more.

 

you got the wrong guy.. EPA didn't say 'you MUST use DPF on your trucks'
he said, 'you must get NOx emissions down to this level, show me how you did it.' the manufacturers decided that DPF was the BEST available technology for manufacturing and maintenance at the time the designs were done. Ford AND GM picked this approach, as have the big rig manufacturers.

and then using the DPF there were other systems required to make it work over the long haul.. gotta regen to clean it, and clean it and clean it.. etc.
so, now we have to add some hardware & software to get fuel to make heat to clear the filter. Ford chose one way (re-use the existing fuel flow system), GM another. (add a separate fuel feed and injector in the exhaust stream)

both have side effects and troubles

we can argue if the 'designed' life expectancy is matching the reality or not..
but clearly Ford has decided to stay with the design, even onto the new 6.7 engine. Remember these guys fight over adding an extra bolt onto the truck cause it increases the cost.. so they aren't doing this lightly.

we can also argue whether air quality is better now than 30 yrs ago, and better than if we did nothing.

sam

 

Your point is well taken, Sam, but I have to point out that the DPF is not there to satisfy NOX requirements.

The EPA imposes two separate emissions restrictions on diesesl engines, NOX and particulate matter. To deal with NOX in 2007 the 6.4L has a huge EGR system as well as inefficient injection programming that allows it to meet the NOX requirement. To deal with the particulate requirement Ford and everyone else installed filters in their exhaust systems to trap and burn particulate matter.

Everyone to my knowledge uses a DPF, including Chrysler(bluetec), Volkswagen(TDI), Mercedes-Benz(bluetec), Dodge(Cummins), Chevy(Duramax), and Ford.

They acheive their NOX goals differently though. For 2010 Ford and Chevy added SCR which uses urea to eliminate NOX in the exhaust stream. The M-B and Dodge bluetec system uses LNT technology that does not consume urea but requires regeneration in a similar fashion to the DPF.

 

thanks, you're right Tom.. filter for smoke, other stuff for NOx.

it was 2011 for Ford and SCR tho, right?
2008-2010 had no DEF

Sam