I have been thinking an awful lot lately about how much the government mandated emissions junk hurts or helps everything involved. I have heard stories about the old diesel engines putting out crazy mpg in the high twenties back in the "good ole days" and now we are in the mid to high teens and pushing low twenties with a good tailwind downhill etc... With all of the drive-ability problems that the emissions stuff creates would you think that it would be worthwhile for a company such as ford to build a new diesel motor without anything for emissions control on it for research? No EGR systems, no cats no DEF or anything. With all of the advancements in technology and fuel production would it be possible to create a motor that got great mpg and performance? Which is worse for the environment? The emissions from a vehicle that has burned its fuel with no cats or anything to turn it into something "better"? or A vehicle that uses much less fuel to get from point A to point B while just by itself or working? They could then take this newly constructed engine and run all kinds of tests and run the numbers to see what they could do differently you know?

I just think that if they were to produce a motor that was efficient, had less parts to break, was easier to work on, less expensive to manufacture, and still had the power, that people would just scoop it up!

Just my own rambling thoughts, what do you guys think?

 

Why bother to do that? If it doesn't meet the government's emissions regulations it is illegal to sell. Why would Ford waste money on something that has no chance of being sold?

 

Sorry but those days are long gone. We are quickly on the way to not even being able to do our own oil changes

 

I think they do test and build these engines without at least some of the emissions equipment. For example, they sell the 6.4 equipped trucks in other countries without the exhaust filters. Any country that is still running low sulfur, or even older sulfur fuel, has to run the engine without DEF.

But that is different that what you suggest, which is an engine with no emission concern whatsoever. Since progressive countries are the bulk of the business, they will design toward that standard, and just take stuff off for countries where it is not compatible.

I would love to see what a Saudi Arabia 6.7 could do in power and economy.

 

I guess most of my thought on the subject is just because we have been doing it this way for years does not mean it is right. Maybe I just need to start researching what their R&D departments really do. Another part of it really is the Government already knows what it wants to know, if you get what I mean. I understand that big displacement means relatively low efficiency just based on the sheer size of the cylinders and the amount of air that can be brought through the motor, but with the advancement in computer systems on board you think that they could really fine tune the injection system to be super efficient, and maybe this is how it is already, i am not sure. But it does get the brain going when you think about it.

I agree about the unrestricted 6.7 although, do they run ULSD? If not I know that the regular diesel used in the middle east just tore apart the F-350 my Dad was driving while working for a private contractor in Afghanistan... That company LOVED the 6.0 because of the fuel destroying the newer motors.

 

Here are the specs for a Saudi Arabia Superduty;
Ford Middle East - Saudi Arabia - Specification Data

Notice that the 6.7 is "High Sulfur Capable".