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

Status
Not open for further replies.

shade

Well-known member
Last edited:

nickw

Adventurer
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.
Armchair logic, makes sense sitting around bull$&*ing with your buddies 5 beers in, but the reality is....again...it's much more nuanced when you actually get into the details of what is being studied and the science behind the logic. I'm not going to pretend I've read or even understand 99% of what's out there, but the details are important to have an informed and educated opinion before making statements calling out the scientists who do this stuff for a living....you know, many of the same ones that keep your water clean, food supply safe, rivers and streams free of pollutants, etc...
 

ttengineer

Adventurer
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??? :ROFLMAO::LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL::ROFLMAO:


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...

I was not aware the Ford line did that.

Either way, my statement still is true. The engine has to be tuned for the octane. So running a higher grade fuel will not improve performance, unless other metrics are met.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

shade

Well-known member
I was not aware the Ford line did that.

Either way, my statement still is true. The engine has to be tuned for the octane. So running a higher grade fuel will not improve performance, unless other metrics are met.

I remember people reporting that they ran 87 octane fuel in their Civic Si because it didn't make much difference compared to using the recommended higher octane fuel. In that case, it didn't make much difference if all the driver did was putter around at low loads & rpms, but the decrease in performance was very noticeable when the VTEC system wouldn't shift into high output mode. This was on a 2006 model, so I think it's becoming common enough that it's worth checking to see if it applies.
 

NevadaLover

Forking Icehole
Armchair logic, makes sense sitting around bull$&*ing with your buddies 5 beers in, but the reality is....again...it's much more nuanced when you actually get into the details of what is being studied and the science behind the logic. I'm not going to pretend I've read or even understand 99% of what's out there, but the details are important to have an informed and educated opinion before making statements calling out the scientists who do this stuff for a living....you know, many of the same ones that keep your water clean, food supply safe, rivers and streams free of pollutants, etc...

In my time on this earth I've been told by "scientists" that we are facing an ice age, nope wait it's global warming. broccoli is bad for you, nope it's good for you. Eggs bad, nope good. Etc.... ad nauseam, so if I'm skeptical of these "scientists" then I guess that's my bad?

There are multiple carcinogens, toxins and other pollutants being introduced into the environment daily but now diesel and coal are the evils of the day and need to be eliminated immediately, but what about their uses in interstate commerce, electricity generation or heating? Cut your nose off to spite your face kind of action isn't it?

I agree that we need to do more to protect this earth but acting like eliminating diesel or coal is the one true fix and that's because "science" says so? Well, "science" isn't perfect and that is demonstrated by science so I'm not going to drink the koolaid.
And acting like those of us who don't drink the koolaid hate the world is simplistic and assinine, the ones on this forum crying and whining about pollution and "armchair logic" aren't out doing anything to help the environment because they are posting on an internet forum using said "armchair logic" and being "keyboard warriors" NOT environmentalists!
 

shade

Well-known member
In my time on this earth I've been told by "scientists" that we are facing an ice age, nope wait it's global warming. broccoli is bad for you, nope it's good for you. Eggs bad, nope good. Etc.... ad nauseam, so if I'm skeptical of these "scientists" then I guess that's my bad?

There are multiple carcinogens, toxins and other pollutants being introduced into the environment daily but now diesel and coal are the evils of the day and need to be eliminated immediately, but what about their uses in interstate commerce, electricity generation or heating? Cut your nose off to spite your face kind of action isn't it?

I agree that we need to do more to protect this earth but acting like eliminating diesel or coal is the one true fix and that's because "science" says so? Well, "science" isn't perfect and that is demonstrated by science so I'm not going to drink the koolaid.
And acting like those of us who don't drink the koolaid hate the world is simplistic and assinine, the ones on this forum crying and whining about pollution and "armchair logic" aren't out doing anything to help the environment because they are posting on an internet forum using said "armchair logic" and being "keyboard warriors" NOT environmentalists!
I suggest making use of the hypocrisy fallacy links I posted earlier.

Has someone in this thread been calling diesel "evil" and demanding it be "eliminated immediately"? There's a link to the strawman fallacy up there, too.

I don't think it's difficult for someone concerned about the environment to post on a forum and take action to protect the environment. If you can't do the same, that's your limitation, not ours.

You've presented nothing but logical fallacies (I forgot the ad hominem attack on luthj earlier, so that's three in rapid succession) and your myopic worldview to back up your opinion. Again.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
I was not aware the Ford line did that.

Either way, my statement still is true. The engine has to be tuned for the octane. So running a higher grade fuel will not improve performance, unless other metrics are met.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's the thing... Many new motors don't tune for a specific octane...they adjust on the fly for the octane that's being used.

This isn't 1967 anymore... Vehicles make countless decisions a second to adjust for maximum performance or efficiency. ;-)
 

nickw

Adventurer
In my time on this earth I've been told by "scientists" that we are facing an ice age, nope wait it's global warming. broccoli is bad for you, nope it's good for you. Eggs bad, nope good. Etc.... ad nauseam, so if I'm skeptical of these "scientists" then I guess that's my bad?

There are multiple carcinogens, toxins and other pollutants being introduced into the environment daily but now diesel and coal are the evils of the day and need to be eliminated immediately, but what about their uses in interstate commerce, electricity generation or heating? Cut your nose off to spite your face kind of action isn't it?

I agree that we need to do more to protect this earth but acting like eliminating diesel or coal is the one true fix and that's because "science" says so? Well, "science" isn't perfect and that is demonstrated by science so I'm not going to drink the koolaid.
And acting like those of us who don't drink the koolaid hate the world is simplistic and assinine, the ones on this forum crying and whining about pollution and "armchair logic" aren't out doing anything to help the environment because they are posting on an internet forum using said "armchair logic" and being "keyboard warriors" NOT environmentalists!
Next time you go in for surgery make sure to tell the docs you don't believe in germ theory or antiseptics and no need for antibiotics.....bunch of hogwash :)
 

NevadaLover

Forking Icehole
Next time you go in for surgery make sure to tell the docs you don't believe in germ theory or antiseptics and no need for antibiotics.....bunch of hogwash :)
I will, make sure you avoid them eggs, nope they're ok it's the broccoli that's bad for you, nope it's... we'll get back to you.
 

kahos

Member
I was not aware the Ford line did that.

Either way, my statement still is true. The engine has to be tuned for the octane. So running a higher grade fuel will not improve performance, unless other metrics are met.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Modern cars ECU have more computing power than many early spacecrafts and in many cases will be able to make the most of higher octane without any user input or programming. Turbocharged vehicles will see the most benefit, but even normally aspirated motors can eke some gains or better sustain peak performance.

Sometimes, the difference in power ratings and octane comes down to the brand. The "same" 3.5l engine in a Toyota and Lexus may have different power ratings. Toyotas are rated on 87 octane whereas Lexus are rated on 91. Heck, the 5.7L is rated the same between both, but the Lexus owner's manual will still recommend 91. (because 87 is for peasants, you wouldn't fill up a "premium car" with "regular gas, would you?

IIRC, the difference between using 91 or 87 octane in a Fusion/Escappe's stock Ford 2.0 ecoboost was 9hp (231, down from 240) Interestingly, peak torque remained the same.

It's also why many tuners will be advertise really big gains over stock with an ECM flash. The "170HP", 1.8T VW engine will really come alive with a 93 octane tune. Showing gains of 80hp and 107lb.ft of torque over stock. ( An 87 octane only tune would lose 10hp/30ft.lb of torque)

Even completely stock, the engine would gain an extra 14ft of torque from higher octane (93) gas being used (vs 91) with no user input. This would disprove your claim.
 
Last edited:

Ouiwee

Observer
The supercharged LT4 in my truck loses roughly 50 horsepower using 91 compared to 93 octane. The difference is very noticeable in the summer when it is given the berries. The factory rating of 650 hp and 650 torque is based on 93 octane fuel. It will not produce more power on higher octane fuel, unless it is re-tuned to do so (e.g., E85).

I have not tried fuel below 91 octane, for which it is rated, out of fear that it could damage the engine.

The flex fuel vehicles deploy an ethanol sensor that measures the proportion of ethanol in the fuel, which is itself an octane booster. A flex fuel tune adjusts timing, boost, etc., according to the octane level provided by the fuel + ethanol as measured by the sensor.
 

JDaPP

Adventurer

On the internet + it's European so must be true.

For other argument topics we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway, go.
 

JDaPP

Adventurer
Didn't say it was. Almost every discussion has various levels of facts and opinions (mining of rare earth minerals for batteries isn't exactly eco-friendly). At one point the world was flat and there was "proof". This whole thread has turned into nonsense and people trying to argue their point which overshadows some of the good information in it. Diesel has it place and EV has it's place. Neither one are saving the planet and each has it flaws.
 

DzlToy

Explorer
If you do not want a truck laden with emissions equipment, don't buy one. It's really that simple. No one 'needs' a new truck; not one single person on this planet is going to die or be severely injured in someway from not purchasing a new vehicle. This obsession that people have with buying a new 50k or 70k truck every few years is just as big of a problem, if not more so, than what comes out of the tailpipe.

Further, studies have shown that emissions from diesel passenger cars and trucks only contribute a small fraction of the actual contaminants, claimed to be polluting the atmosphere. Power generation is nearly a third (30%), manufacturing exceeds 20% and all transportation, including jets, trains, 18 wheelers, ships bringing millions of tons of crap from China everyday and even buses and taxis, make up about 25% of the total.

So instead of saddling a new $50k pickup truck with thousands of dollars of emissions equipment, requiring new hardware and a new chemical to be manufactured and added (DEF), thereby decreasing reliability, increasing maintenance costs and lowering the fuel economy of the vehicle, which simply results in more diesel being burned to go X number of miles or kilometers down the road, let's stop being consumers.

Think about how many factories have been built to build all of these new cars and trucks, and all of their associated parts. Think about how many semi-truck loads full of crap come to your local box/chain store every single second of the day. Think about how many ships come into ports from countries 10,000 miles away so we can have oranges in the middle of winter. Think about how many new Super-Walmart, Dollar General, Fred Meyer, TESCOS, Bunnings, Home Depot, Target and Lowes stores have been built in the last few decades.

I am not a greenie or an environmental whacko, but I do have a degree of common sense and can think logically. Filtering what comes out of the tail pipe of a Dodge diesel truck, is NOT the solution. Severely reducing consumption, development, exploding populations, home and commercial building, burning bunker oil/coal, and freeways choked with traffic for many hours each day, is.

People are the problem and as long as we continue to build houses, consumable crap and new cars at the rate of many millions of units per year, we are polluting the planet faster than it can repair itself. Buying a 15 year old used car that gets 30 MPG is infinitely "greener" than buying a new car with the latest emissions equipment screwed onto it, that gets 10 - 15 MPG, I assure you. Every single part on that new car or truck had to be manufactured; all of the glass, plastic, wiring, sheet metal, rubber, copper, aluminum, polyester, foam, vinyl, and so on. Where does all of that come from? Factories around the world churning out pollution then burning fuel to get those parts to the factories making cars, who then put them on a transport truck, which is hardly fuel efficient, to take them to a car dealer, so they can be consumed by you.

We can't keep doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different result. The Western 'consumerist/consumptionist' mentality has to change. That is the solution, not diesel particulate filters and Ad Blue.

If you insist on purchasing a new or nearly new vehicle, buy it in the name of a trust, LLC or 501(c)3. The driver's name is not revealed, as he/she is simply an end user, borrowing the truck if you will. Therefore any issues with the tuner releasing a customer list, which is about as 1984 as you can get, simply vanish. If you don't have the funds to pay a lawyer to do this or the private trust cannot pay cash for that 2020 F-350 you want so badly, maybe you don't need it after all.

"He who receives the benefit, shall also bear the burden."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
188,029
Messages
2,901,368
Members
229,411
Latest member
IvaBru
Top