EPA Diesel Engine “Delete Tuning” Crackdown...Is It Here Now?

[Deleted member 9101]

Almost all gasoline engines made in the last 10 years have fairly high compression ratios. This improves fuel economy and performance. Due to the large range of loads, altitudes etc, that the engines run at, variable cam and ignition timing are used to prevent detonation and provide optimal fuel economy. This means that bumping from the 87 to a higher octane results in better power, especially at sea level. For naturally aspirated engines, the gains are usually small, maybe a couple percent. The higher the compression ratio the bigger the gains.

Forced induction causes the adjusted compression ratio to rise with the boost level. Cramming more fuel/air into the cylinder means more power, but with lower octane fuel the ignition needs to be retarded significantly. Higher octane fuels allow the engine to run optimal ignition and cam timing. In some cases the gains can be as much as 10%.

The EcoBoost uses fuel to stave off detonation, which is why they get better fuel mileage on premium vs. regular.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'm guessing you don't have much experience with a twin turbocharged, direct injected, gas motor that has a 10.3-1 compression ratio???


Ford designed it to pull timing and boost when using 87 octane and to increase it when when using premium. The truck constantly adjust its timing and boost based on the octane of the fuel in the fuel rail.

It even says in the owners manual "For vehicles with EcoBoost engines, to provide improved performance, we recommend premium fuel for severe duty
usage such as trailer tow."


...and now you know...

Even the Coyote loses power on 87. It has the compression to use premium but dials back the cams and timing to get by on 87. I think the Mustang has about a 20hp variance between the two also. I am not sure on the trucks

 

[luthj]

Ignition timing affects cylinder pressure as a function of time. The longer and higher the cylinder pressure, the more power the engine can extract from the combustion charge.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Even the Coyote loses power on 87. It has the compression to use premium but dials back the cams and timing to get by on 87. I think the Mustang has about a 20hp variance between the two also. I am not sure on the trucks

The trucks are about the same loss. My truck runs great on regular...buuuut it runs noticeably better on premium.

 

[Joe917]

I'm guessing you don't have much experience with a twin turbocharged, direct injected, gas motor that has a 10.3-1 compression ratio???


Ford designed it to pull timing and boost when using 87 octane and to increase it when when using premium. The truck constantly adjust its timing and boost based on the octane of the fuel in the fuel rail.

It even says in the owners manual "For vehicles with EcoBoost engines, to provide improved performance, we recommend premium fuel for severe duty
usage such as trailer tow."


...and now you know...

Every day is a school day!

 

[NevadaLover]

To be sure, anyone who writes that scientists cannot form a 'proven' hypothesis cannot by definition understand how science works. No hypothesis can ever be 'proven' using the scientific method since it employs inductive logic. Scientists cannot and do not 'prove' anything...they only have more or less evidence in support for a given theory. At this point, there is an immense amount of evidence in support of the rapid warming of the planet--no matter the cause.

That's all I'm saying, decades ago the science was saying global cooling, new variables and better interpretation of the evidence at hand is saying global warming, what changed? New variables and better interpretation!
So now it's global warming and it's all humans fault, even though evidence shows multiple heating/cooling events long before humans got involved, but that can't be can it? It has to be humans and their horrible diesels and coal....
So what's going to be discovered to prove this interpretation incorrect and the earth is going thru another warming period regardless of humans and their diesel & coal.. who knows yet a lot of people jump on the AGW bandwagon and scream and holler and pound their fists that we need to stop the evil diesel and coal now or in a short period of time the world is finished!

 

[nickw]

That's all I'm saying, decades ago the science was saying global cooling, new variables and better interpretation of the evidence at hand is saying global warming, what changed? New variables and better interpretation!
So now it's global warming and it's all humans fault, even though evidence shows multiple heating/cooling events long before humans got involved, but that can't be can it? It has to be humans and their horrible diesels and coal....
So what's going to be discovered to prove this interpretation incorrect and the earth is going thru another warming period regardless of humans and their diesel & coal.. who knows yet a lot of people jump on the AGW bandwagon and scream and holler and pound their fists that we need to stop the evil diesel and coal now or in a short period of time the world is finished!

It's much more nuanced than you are painting it to be:

Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

 

[Ovrlnd Rd]

"The consensus is that we're right" doesn't mean anything. The only "proof" that the "consensus" provides is that their computer models point to "X." It has been PROVEN that their computer models and findings have been doctored to come up with the "evidence." they want. Forty years ago the "consensus" was that we were headed for another Ice Age. Since we're headed into a Minimum Solar Cycle I believe, and it's my belief not anyone's "consensus," that those scientists from 40 years ago are about to be proven correct. When the folks in CA are shivering because their electricity has been shut off by the state so they have no electric heat I'm sure they'll all be yearning for a little Globull Warming.

 

[luthj]

Literally none of that is true. But it does have the ring of truthiness. Which is why so many buy it. Hook, line, and sinker.

 

[NevadaLover]

It's much more nuanced than you are painting it to be:

Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

All I'm saying is the current consensus is "global warming", and just a couple generations ago the concensus was "ice age", when did this ice age happen? Did it come and go in 40 years? So now the consensus says warming caused by humans? It may very well be the climate is changing and caused in part by humans, but science can't be certain as the data they have currently points to that conclusion so but who says they have all the data and variables needed to make that decision? They were wrong not long ago!

But now we have politicians and idiots with their "inconvenient truth" running around like chicken little screaming "the world is ending, the world is ending.." because humans are overheating the earth and that is the only reason the earth is in a warming cycle?

As someone said earlier "no hypothesis can ever be proven" yet now we are phasing out diesel and coal because they are the devil and causing the world to end??....

 

[Dalko43]

I've owned the 3.0 Ecodiesel and 2.8 Duramax. The difference in power and refinement between the 4 and 6 cyl is night and day. The diesel chatter does have some appeal at times, but there is such a thing as "too much"It sounds like a farm implement on a cold start in sub zero temperatures, which gets old rather quick. It feels like beyond the lack of HP, the 2.8's overall driveability is held back by the older 6 speed in the colorado. They offer the 8 speed in the vans, I'd be curious to know why they don't in the colorado twins. Packaging concerns? Cost concerns?

With Ford's diesel max towing numbers not being held back by thermal constraints like Ram's first gen ecodiesel, I'm surprised at how "poorly" it has performed in early reviews. Post Vw diesel gate market? Offering it on top trim levels only priced it out of reach for many and the benefits over the ecoboost are unclear. Car motor with timing belt? Meh.

The new GM 3.0 inline six sounds like a winner. It's not suited to my current driving conditions but I hope it does well. GM's pricing on the new generation isn't all that appealing however.

I've been a diesel fan but I may never return to the light duty market. I've been quite impressed with the Ford 2.7TT. Not as efficient, but gas makes for a worry free ownership experience by comparison. The availability of a 35% larger fuel tank on the ford makes for a satisfactory long distance cruiser.

I actually agree with much of the above.

The current crop of 1/2 ton diesels are okay on fuel economy, their actual performance (especially in terms of towing) is meh...Ford and FCA derived their diesels from sedan-focused designs. GM, at least on paper, built an engine that was intended for truck duties...too early to tell how it will perform in the real world.

Reliability issues will get ironed out over time...they already have been largely ironed out just over the last 10 years. The big 3 just need to get their act together on pricing and fuel capacity.

Still, a good time to be a diesel owner...more options now than there were in years past.

Why?
Can you elaborate?

GM still has a lot of quality issues...and a bad reputation for owning up to them.

Also I forgot to mention that American trucks are designed more to tow and less to carry in bad as opposed to Australian and European trucks where the case is other way around. This requires tow different architecture of the truck.

No, that isn't the case. The overseas trucks (hilux, Ranger, navara) are rated to tow just as much as their American counterparts, and have higher payload too. The global markets use trucks like trucks...so the offerings are geared towards that kind of use.

Outside of the 3/4 and 1 ton segments, a lot of North Americans buy trucks just because they want them...a lot of the midsized and 1/2 tons are geared more torwards lifestyle, comfort and mpg rather than outright performance/capability.

 

[NevadaLover]

Literally none of that is true. But it does have the ring of truthiness. Which is why so many buy it. Hook, line, and sinker.

Says the big mouth bass on the leader!

 

[Deleted member 9101]

As someone said earlier "no hypothesis can ever be proven" yet now we are phasing out diesel and coal because they are the devil and causing the world to end??....

IARC: DIESEL ENGINE EXHAUST CARCINOGENIC

www.iarc.fr

Health effects of diesel exhaust emissions

Epidemiological studies have demonstrated an association between different levels of air pollution and various health outcomes including mortality, exacerbation of asthma, chronic bronchitis, respiratory tract infections, ischaemic heart disease and stroke. Of the motor vehicle generated air...

erj.ersjournals.com

How diesel fumes could cause 'flare up' of respiratory symptoms

Scientists have shown how diesel fumes trigger respiratory reflexes which could potentially worsen underlying conditions, such as asthma.

www.sciencedaily.com

Effects of diesel exposure on lung function and inflammation biomarkers from airway and peripheral blood of healthy volunteers in a chamber study

Exposure to diesel exhaust causes inflammatory responses. Previous controlled exposure studies at a concentration of 300 μg/m[3] of diesel exhaust particles mainly lasted for 1 h. We prolonged the exposure period and investigated how quickly ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.who.int/ipcs/emergencie...Vaw2mTsQB8QuRhcuQ7ViqGk9-&cshid=1578094988077

Diesel Exhaust

What is diesel exhaust? Diesel exhaust is produced by the combustion (burning) of diesel fuel.

www.ccohs.ca

https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/ajrccm.162.1.9908092

Effects of diesel exhaust particles on human lung epithelial cells: An in vitro study

Atmospheric particulate matter (PM), an ingredient of urban pollution matter, is a mixture of solid and liquid particles differing in origin, dimensio…

www.sciencedirect.com

Do you like inhaling carcinogens and respiratory irritants?

 

[shade]

Says the big mouth bass on the leader!

Well, I'm convinced.

 

[NevadaLover]

And gasoline is harmless? What about lithium? Or lead? All by-products of vehicular production/propulsion thay are known carcinogens! Kinda hypocritical to single out diesel and coal when there are many more carcinogens produced in daily life.