Is the Tacoma enough truck?

[Clutch]

I’ve gotten over 21 with the f350.

And yeah, it’s apples to oranges.. how to you prioritize efficiency when the epa mandates things that make efficiency impossible?

Pretty dang good for such a big heavy truck.

What I meant was... 1 Ton diesel trucks are spendy from the get go (and continue to be over its' service life). Not exactly an "economy" vehicle.

EPA...well....hmmm...it is nice to have mostly clear skies. Lots of diesel trucks running around here....lots of 'em deleted too. I can smell it and see it on my work commute. Some dude in a bracket lifted never been off-road whatever rolled coal on the Prius in front of me the other day. In the cooler months I can't have my windows down or the vent open or I get fumed out.

Choked down diesels or have a free for all and return to this... remember I am from the Pittsburgh, PA area.

 

[bkg]

Anyone rolling coal isn’t running a very well tuned engine. DEF adds a whole different type of pollution and the amount of fuel burned during a regen is crazy. We’d have less overall pollution if the engines were allowed to breathe.
Similar with ethanol.. I’ve done a number of math experiments that imply that e10 pollutes more (including production) and burns the same amount of oil-based fuel...
but, it’s feel good legislation, so...

 

[DaveInDenver]

Anyone rolling coal isn’t running a very well tuned engine. DEF adds a whole different type of pollution and the amount of fuel burned during a regen is crazy. We’d have less overall pollution if the engines were allowed to breathe.

If the focus was efficiency that would be yield lower pollution per mile traveled, gallon burned or other actual metric. We measure things absolutely and the result is a feel good number of NOx, CO, whatever. But it's not realistic, is it?

Similar with ethanol.. I’ve done a number of math experiments that imply that e10 pollutes more (including production) and burns the same amount of oil-based fuel...
but, it’s feel good legislation, so...

E10, E15, yeah, that's total B.S. Purely to please the agri-business lobby for whom corn is a major subsidy. It's not a question of food vs. fuel even, just that we don't need so damn much corn for anything. It's stupid in fuel, HFCS, whatever. The only thing I think we really should be pushing it for is perhaps biodegradable red Solo cups for keg parties.

 

[Clutch]

We’d have less overall pollution if the engines were allowed to breathe.
.

Yeah, I don't know what to tell you...my commute is 98% Interstate, so a lot of semi truck traffic too. Diesel fumes are pretty bad when the temp drops, perhaps from all those deleted trucks running around. And that is coming from a guy used to sit on diesel earth moving equipment for hours and hours on end. Used to love the smell of it...don't know what happened...maybe all those years running that equipment did it to me.

Lots of coal rolling rednecks running around these parts...don't think they really care if their engine is out of tune. Think that is the point....some weird insecure male posturing thing.

 

[Dalko43]

I’ve gotten over 21 with the f350.
And yeah, it’s apples to oranges.. how to you prioritize efficiency when the epa mandates things that make efficiency impossible?

19-21mpg is very good for something with the size and capability of a F-350.

As for the EPA regulations: yes, to some degree they do hamper fuel efficiency. But the emissions technologies have been optimized quite a bit since their introduction in 2006-2007. DEF/SCR, while it adds another layer of complexity, has actually reduced the inefficiencies previously attributed to EGR and DPF regnerations.

There are 2 ways to look at it:
1) a deleted diesel may be somewhat more efficient than one with the emissions intact (that exact margin of that efficiency gap is up for debate).
or
2) The newer 3/4 and 1 ton diesels get about the same mpg's as those from 10-15 years ago, and those older engines were far more dirty, made a fraction of the horsepower/torque and had only a fraction of the capability.

So long as the demand for diesel remains, OEM's will find a way to refine and optimize these emissions systems, just like they did with gasoline engines several decades ago.

 

[toylandcruiser]

They’re actually the small 3. Toyota is bigger than the domestics.

Nobody cares.

Well I do

 

[bkg]

19-21mpg is very good for something with the size and capability of a F-350.

As for the EPA regulations: yes, to some degree they do hamper fuel efficiency. But the emissions technologies have been optimized quite a bit since their introduction in 2006-2007. DEF/SCR, while it adds another layer of complexity, has actually reduced the inefficiencies previously attributed to EGR and DPF regnerations.

There are 2 ways to look at it:
1) a deleted diesel may be somewhat more efficient than one with the emissions intact (that exact margin of that efficiency gap is up for debate).
or
2) The newer 3/4 and 1 ton diesels get about the same mpg's as those from 10-15 years ago, and those older engines were far more dirty, made a fraction of the horsepower/torque and had only a fraction of the capability.

So long as the demand for diesel remains, OEM's will find a way to refine and optimize these emissions systems, just like they did with gasoline engines several decades ago.

Good points. And the quality of diesel fuel has dropped measurably as well.

I can be going 70mph and the computer telling me I’m hovering around 18mpg unloaded. While regenerating, power loss is noticeable and that little mileage number quickly ticks downward.. by the time the re-gen is done, computer will say about 14-15. Such a waste of fuel.

Will I delete? Highly unlikely. Hat has more to do with warranty than anything.

 

[Clutch]

Well I do

They do make an awful lot of vehicles....it is pretty apparent that Toyota is a car company that makes a couple trucks. Of course that is why I started buying their little trucks in the first place, felt more car like than the 60's-70's American trucks I was used to bouncing around in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toyota_vehicles

 

[bkg]

If the focus was efficiency that would be yield lower pollution per mile traveled, gallon burned or other actual metric. We measure things absolutely and the result is a feel good number of NOx, CO, whatever. But it's not realistic, is it?

Yup... great point. Efficiency measurements come in all shapes and sizes... for the consumer, efficiency is generally miles traveled per gallons burned as it's a simple, easy calculation. May not be the best measurement, but certainly most practical.

E10, E15, yeah, that's total B.S. Purely to please the agri-business lobby for whom corn is a major subsidy. It's not a question of food vs. fuel even, just that we don't need so damn much corn for anything. It's stupid in fuel, HFCS, whatever. The only thing I think we really should be pushing it for is perhaps biodegradable red Solo cups for keg parties.

[/quote]

I got into a loooong discussion one time about ethanol. It's an emotional discussion, unfortunately.

The reality is that ethanol causes more pollution than it saves (production through consumption) and doesn't reduce the amount of oil consumed... So it's a net loss.

My 04 IS300 would consistently do 9-11% better mileage on non-ethanol fuel. Which basically means that e10 did nothing... I still burned the same amount of gas.. and then burned the ethanol... which burns plenty of oil during production. The end result is that the average consumer, assuming they see similar differences in mileage, saw no appreciably positive impact by burning ethanol... but had a measurably negative total pollution impact.

 

[Dalko43]

I can be going 70mph and the computer telling me I’m hovering around 18mpg unloaded. While regenerating, power loss is noticeable and that little mileage number quickly ticks downward.. by the time the re-gen is done, computer will say about 14-15. Such a waste of fuel.

Noted, but I also think its worth pointing out that those mpg readout's are instantaneous estimates. They'll fluctuate as you accelerate/decelerate, go up grades, slow down, ect. The real measure to look for is the combined mpg (hand calculation) with all those emissions in place, and compare that measure to that of a similarly-tuned, but deleted, diesel (meaning both tuned for similar horsepower and torque outputs). Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has done a true apples-to-apples comparison on that.

With DEF and better tuning (less soot output), I don't think the fuel waste is as apparent now as it was 8-9 years ago. The DPF practically cleans itself with no additional losses when on the highway.

Will I delete? Highly unlikely. Hat has more to do with warranty than anything.

I think that's the sentiment that most owners share. If it works, I don't see a need to fiddle with it. If it breaks 10 years down the road, the cost of deleting will likely be less than the cost of replacing the system. Quite a few emissions-intact trucks already have very high miles on them; I think we'll find out in the next 10 years how these systems fare over the long term.

 

[bkg]

Noted, but I also think its worth pointing out that those mpg readout's are instantaneous estimates. They'll fluctuate as you accelerate/decelerate, go up grades, slow down, ect. The real measure to look for is the combined mpg (hand calculation) with all those emissions in place, and compare that measure to that of a similarly-tuned, but deleted, diesel (meaning both tuned for similar horsepower and torque outputs). Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has done a true apples-to-apples comparison on that.

I'm talking about the computer's "average" calculation ... if I"m averaging 18mpg over 100 miles... it'll drop to ~14 total average during DEF regen.

With DEF and better tuning (less soot output), I don't think the fuel waste is as apparent now as it was 8-9 years ago. The DPF practically cleans itself with no additional losses when on the highway.

Absolutely disagree with this. When regeneration happens, there is SIGNIFICANT loss in power and increase fuel consumption...

I think that's the sentiment that most owners share. If it works, I don't see a need to fiddle with it. If it breaks 10 years down the road, the cost of deleting will likely be less than the cost of replacing the system. Quite a few emissions-intact trucks already have very high miles on them; I think we'll find out in the next 10 years how these systems fare over the long term.

neighbor upgraded to 10/100 B2B on his GMC when he purchased it... I bought my F350 used, so that wasn't an option. I do agree - if something goes wonky, delete is likely the option. Have been tempted to purchase now and put in the rafters as I suspect it will be hard to do as the feds crack down over the next 5 years.

 

[Bayou Boy]

I have 78,000 miles on my 2014 Ram 3500 Cummins. The majority of that is in town driving empty. I have had my truck tell me that it was doing a regen once. It lasted about 2 or 3 minutes and drove normally during that time.

I can honestly say that I have never, not once, felt a decrease in power or even noticed at all any other regen happening. Not a single time through tens of thousands of miles hauling a 4000# truck camper nor thousands of miles pulling a boat. I'm not sure what you guys are doing to cause these weird losses of power and frequent regenerations but that is not a normal thing.

 

[Buliwyf]

They're not hauling a camper or towing a boat like they should be.

That's the problem with the oversized, over powered, modern diesel engines, they aren't working hard enough to get into their efficient range of use. It's been a problem forever. You need at least 30% load. 50% would be optimal. If Dodge, Ford, GM would have made a truce at 300hp years ago, reliability would be doubled.

I've been trying to get my friend to dump his Cummins for years. He runs a landscaping company, never ever leaves the county. Absolutely zero highway use, and his John Deere back hoe on a flatbed tandem dually gooseneck is only 11-12,000#. Diesel isn't needed. As such, he's had nothing but bad luck with the Cummins and Duramax (won't touch a Ford). A v10 F550 dump truck would be perfect. But the human ego is a strong thing, in idiots.

Not to mention that the rolling coal guys, are just asking for more EPA mandates, making all of this even worse. He's got his Edge tuner wrecking cylinder #6 as we speak. LOLz. Will never learn. This will be the 3rd diesel engine he's wrecked since I've met him.

 

[jasmtis]

They're not hauling a camper or towing a boat like they should be.

That's the problem with the oversized, over powered, modern diesel engines, they aren't working hard enough to get into their efficient range of use. It's been a problem forever. You need at least 30% load. 50% would be optimal. If Dodge, Ford, GM would have made a truce at 300hp years ago, reliability would be doubled.

I've been trying to get my friend to dump his Cummins for years. He runs a landscaping company, never ever leaves the county. Absolutely zero highway use, and his John Deere back hoe on a flatbed tandem dually gooseneck is only 11-12,000#. Diesel isn't needed. As such, he's had nothing but bad luck with the Cummins and Duramax (won't touch a Ford). A v10 F550 dump truck would be perfect. But the human ego is a strong thing, in idiots.

Not to mention that the rolling coal guys, are just asking for more EPA mandates, making all of this even worse. He's got his Edge tuner wrecking cylinder #6 as we speak. LOLz. Will never learn. This will be the 3rd diesel engine he's wrecked since I've met him.

It's not that diesel doesn't make sense for most HD buyers, it's that a 6.7 liter twin-turbo diesel putting out 1000 ft-lbs of torque is simply unnecessary for nearly everyone. So then you're picking between overkill but some better efficiency towing with the diesel and a gas engine that's a better fit for what you need but will drink fuel towing. If they offered something like Toyota's 4.5 diesel V8 (270 hp, 480 ft-lbs) it would make way more sense for most people who want to tow more than a half-ton is comfortable for but not drag the moon out of orbit.

Someone at my work has a newish bro-dozered out 3500 Silverado. On the rare occasion like today I drive my Range Rover to work I like to park next to it and appreciate the fact I spent 3% of the money, tow just as much with it(nothin), have taken it to way more places and honestly probably even have a better on-road driving experience.

 

[Buliwyf]

A 5.0L V6, single turbo, center exhaust, would be perfect for my F250.

We're seeing the same effect with the new 7.3L gas engine coming out. F250 guys want them as well. But the F250 doesn't need such.