modern diesel for overlanding in developing countries - post your solutions

thethePete

Explorer
Delete your emissions crap. It's deterimental and prone to failure anyway, and it's all based off fear mongering that those darn sooty diesels are terrible for the planet. I've done several newer trucks and all saw power and fuel economy increases, with only minor increases to tailpipe emissions.

There are several tuner options from any of a dozen different manufacturers that allow you to remove the emissions systems without causing any problems or codes. Many market their product for "markets where ULSD is not available" to loophole removing the emissions equipment. Any of the "big 3" domestic manufacturers are covered and there are options out there for the euro diesels as well.
 

drewactual

Adventurer
Delete your emissions crap. It's deterimental and prone to failure anyway, and it's all based off fear mongering that those darn sooty diesels are terrible for the planet. I've done several newer trucks and all saw power and fuel economy increases, with only minor increases to tailpipe emissions.

There are several tuner options from any of a dozen different manufacturers that allow you to remove the emissions systems without causing any problems or codes. Many market their product for "markets where ULSD is not available" to loophole removing the emissions equipment. Any of the "big 3" domestic manufacturers are covered and there are options out there for the euro diesels as well.

^yup.... the etiquette within the community is NOT to mention names of companies or individuals who script programming to defeat the emissions... keeping that option alive, instead of putting them in harms way where they'll face penalties such as H&S Performance faced.

the emissions equipment on these things is counter intuitive, anyways. It defeats itself... so- let's say it reduces the emissions 25%- but increases economy 25%... where is the advantage? Meanwhile, people with some sense and not into 'rolling coal' (which is idiotic and wasteful) tune with efficiency in mind, and achieve a tail pipe sniff better than OE, and while increasing horse power and torque... How asks you? The marvel of variable geometry sequential turbo technology coupled with piezoelectric injectors playing gate keeper to a silly high rail pressure...

the concepts are simple- sequential variable geometry turbos, one low pressure high volume, the other high pressure lower volume, allow response right off idle- and the piezo injectors can have as many as five distinct injection events per cycle- not forgetting the all important 'pilot' injection... the piston can be chased all the way to the bottom with injection that tapers off volume ensuring it's burned instead of continuing to burn in the exhaust.... this is only possible in a computer controlled and monitored environment... today's diesels are light years ahead yesteryears with mechanical injection and unbalanced fuel to air dumps.

enter the EPA and mandates- many if not ALL engines were retrofitted to meet the requirements... DPF's, DEF's, DFluid, EGR's, ect... because they were 'added', they can be removed... and it happens all the time.

remove those items dealing with exhaust- from the catalysts to the filter to the EGR and it's related equipment, you'll find that these engines are back to being able to run about anything 'diesel'..... but..... the fuel needs to be filtered and 'polished' before the engine consumes it... 500ppm isn't an issue... once you head north of that, though, you can expect that QC is much less, and it needs to be filtered a few times before feeding it to your engine...

about fuel: 15ppm removes sulfur.... yay... but the process also removes lubricants- no yay... this is extremely hard on high pressure pumps that use the stuff to not only pump, but also to lubricate and cool... so even users of 15ppm should be lubricating their fuel... the 500ppm is a lot 'slicker', and not in need of constant treatment. so.. to tidy this up- remove the emissions equipment and run 500ppm exclusively and your engine will last a lot longer and be more reliable.
 

Darwin

Explorer
I have heard that heavy duty equipment being used in Mexico with higher sulfur diesel just uses more SCR (urea?). I have also heard that running the engine hotter and doing stop and go unloaded traffic helps. Again, all rumor.
 

Jeep

Supporting Sponsor: Overland Explorer Expedition V
Tigercat Industrial met tier 4 emissions with DEF only last year, no particulate filters, no egr, no variable turbo, nothing. They can run both fuels. def has been huge in cleaning up emissions for years, using it to max capacity and eliminating all the other stuff makes a lot of sense, their 6.7 engine looks a lot like a Cummins too......
 

Maninga

Adventurer
I was wondering. If a person had to keep all the emissions gear on and had a large truck with sufficient payload, think it'd be a valid solution to just have large fuel tanks onboard? Say enough to go 2-3000 miles. I'm thinking of South America and Russia/Asia, would there be enough places spattered around where a person could fill up irregularly and make it out ok?

It would be a lot of fuel, 6 to 800 litres, but there's overland trucks that could handle it (and seen write ups with that amount as a tank).
 

thebigblue

Adventurer
FWIW I have been in Morocco and Western Sahara where bad diesel quality is not uncommon - though it's still better than other places in Africa - my truck is a G400 MY2005 with a twin turbo common rail engine. I have had zero problems in Africa, but after getting may rails blocked with paraffin in France due to bad diesel I'm biased on the issue. Last time I went to Western Sahara for a month and used injector cleaner in every tank full. The truck has a been fitted with a water separator and an additional fuel filter from factory.
 

dlh62c

Explorer
I have heard that heavy duty equipment being used in Mexico with higher sulfur diesel just uses more SCR (urea?).

Not SCR, but Diesel Exhaust Fluid, i.e. urea.

If the vehicle is equipped with a Selective Catalytic Reduction System that requires Diesel Exhaust Fluid, the use of regular diesel, (500ppm sulfur content in Mexico), can cause the DEF consumption rate to increase as the system tries to compensate for the increase in NOx emissions due to the higher sulfur content. Two to three times the normal DEF consumption has been reported. Typically DEF consumption is around 3% of the number of gallons of fuel consumed, but it can vary on the vehicle.

I have also heard that running the engine hotter and doing stop and go unloaded traffic helps. Again, all rumor.

Running the vehicle under a load and avoiding stop and go traffic is best. The hotter exhaust temperature will slow the rate of particulate matter accumulation from the use of regular diesel, (500ppm sulfur content in Mexico), in the DPF.
 
Last edited:

Darwin

Explorer
Not SCR, but Diesel Exhaust Fluid, i.e. urea.

If the vehicle is equipped with a Selective Catalytic Reduction System that requires Diesel Exhaust Fluid, the use of regular diesel, (500ppm sulfur content in Mexico), can cause the DEF consumption rate to increase as the system tries to compensate for the increase in NOx emissions due to the higher sulfur content. Two to three times the normal DEF consumption has been reported. Typically DEF consumption is around 3% of the number of gallons of fuel consumed, but it can vary on the vehicle.
I did more research on the newer Cummins 6.7 motors that use SCR and DEF, and found what you're saying to be true. It sounds like if one were take one these trucks to Mexico it would probably handle it but with an increase in DEF consumption? Right now I am trying to decide on what my next truck will be and have been leaning towards to the newer motor with DEF for a number of non fuel related reasons. I have also considered the older 5.9 in model year 06 because it would not require DEF and would handle the higher sulfur fuels without modifications or voiding factory warranty.

I was just in Guatemala City and noticed that they do sell Ultra Low Sulfur diesel, but I only saw it for sale in Guatemala City. There is hope, and maybe someday Mexico will sell it throughout the country.
 

dlh62c

Explorer
I did more research on the newer Cummins 6.7 motors that use SCR and DEF, and found what you're saying to be true. It sounds like if one were take one these trucks to Mexico it would probably handle it but with an increase in DEF consumption?

There's a thread on the RV.net site that talks about this very subject that might prove useful to you and others.
 

thethePete

Explorer
Well as a professional mechanic, I can tell you that we see a whole host of problems with SCR systems, some with DPFs, but they're typically caused by poor fuel quality or not using USLD. I'm not sure if the industrial sector is using different systems, or running them differently, but I know that I've had 3 trucks in my bay in the last 3 days and all 3 were related to reductant system issues and 2 of the 3 were because of nonUSLD use. Deleting these systems is the most practical way to ensure problem-free use with nonUSLD. It's not a cheap option, but it's the only one I would take if I were going to be running a "big 3" truck globally.
 

dlh62c

Explorer
Well as a professional mechanic, I can tell you that we see a whole host of problems with SCR systems, some with DPFs, but they're typically caused by poor fuel quality or not using USLD.

If your a professional mechanic in Canada, where are your drivers sourcing non-ULSD fuel?

Poor fuel quality can take several forms, excess water, excess particulate matter and/or cross contamination with other fluids. It's the latter that's often overlooked. Make sure your drivers aren't pouring additives into their fuel tanks. You might consider adding locking caps to your fleet's fuel and DEF tanks.
 
Last edited:

thethePete

Explorer
I work at a Ford dealership.

Fuel additives are no problem for an scr system, they just can't handle petroleum contamination.

Also you notice I said nonULSD and poor fuel quality. Dyed diesel or ****ty fuel from a station with contaminated tanks apply.

None of this negates what I said. With the issues we are having with scr systems in developed countries, the last thing I would be doing is keeping the system in place if I were headed out of Canada and the USA.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk
 

Darwin

Explorer
thethePete, I don't think its possible to buy any fuel that nonULSD. Dyed fuel, and even watered down crap fuel is still ULSD, at least in the USA. The issue here is the sulfur content, bad fuel will wreck any diesel regardless if it has pollution controls or not.
 

SSF556

SE Expedition Society
as thethePete mentioned we are seeing a lot of DEF pump failures and other issues associated with the SCR system....engines are pretty bulletproof...it is everything after the turbo that is the concern..it will get better though unless there is some new technology that would eliminate the need for DEF and the SCR system in the future.
 

thethePete

Explorer
thethePete, I don't think its possible to buy any fuel that nonULSD. Dyed fuel, and even watered down crap fuel is still ULSD, at least in the USA. The issue here is the sulfur content, bad fuel will wreck any diesel regardless if it has pollution controls or not.

lubricity and fuel contamination aren't necessarily mutually inclusive. I have no dog in this fight, I don't own a modern diesel, and I have no intention of going to any underdeveloped countries any time in the near future with my vehicle.

Also, I live in a port city, marine fuel is available, and cheap people are stupid.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
188,181
Messages
2,903,493
Members
229,665
Latest member
SANelson
Top