modern diesel for overlanding in developing countries - post your solutions

[calicamper]

I read an interesting write up diesel mag I think. It was a break down of the GM 2.8 but what was interesting was the GM engineers comment about system tolerance to what he described as a wide range of diesel quality found in the US. He said they know that diesel quality can vary by quite a bit here in the US and that was one of the things they had to test and develop ECU fuel logic to handle fuel quality related challenges. I found that really interesting. It would be really facinating to find a diesel fuel systems engineer to host an Expo web session on this.

 

[thethePete]

BTW, dyed is 500ppm sulfur and ulsd is 15ppm. So dyed is enough to cause emissions problems. We have a bulletin out about it right now.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

 

[Darwin]

That might be the casa in Canada but in the USA all dyed diesel is ULSD.

 

[dlh62c]

BTW, dyed is 500ppm sulfur and ulsd is 15ppm. So dyed is enough to cause emissions problems. We have a bulletin out about it right now.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

Dyed diesel is for off-road use only, an example would be fuel for farm equipment. This is done to identify the fuel as non-taxed and to help enforcement officials easily identify it.

 

[adam88]

If you're honestly looking to travel the globe, then maybe the best bet is to buy a vehicle out of country? Why not go down to Mexico and buy a nice diesel truck there with no emissions? Yeah you can't import it back into the US, but you can drive it back to the US (if it's plated in Mexico) and then you could drive all over the globe with it, bring it back, sell it.

Emissions is only a problem if you want your cake and eat it too (e.g., you want to travel the globe but also want to keep the vehicle in the US).

 

[thethePete]

That might be the casa in Canada but in the USA all dyed diesel is ULSD.

I believe you are incorrect, but ok. You go tell Ford they're wrong then.

Dyed diesel is for off-road use only, an example would be fuel for farm equipment. This is done to identify the fuel as non-taxed and to help enforcement officials easily identify it.

I'm not sure what your point is? I'm aware of what dyed diesel is and what it is for. This doesn't keep loggers and farmers from using it in their trucks. People get busted all the time.
My point was that there is domestically available diesel all over that is of poor enough quality to cause SCR issues. And I'm about done with this topic anyway. I have my 4th 6.7PSD in my bay in the last 2 weeks with the same reductant code and the last 3 were all solved with different measures, you guys keep thinking what ever you want. I'll go back to being a professional diesel mechanic.

FWIW, it takes about 3 or 4 full tanks with fresh filters to get dyed diesel out of your system. Doesn't take much to contaminate it either.

 

[Jeep]

I believe you are incorrect, but ok. You go tell Ford they're wrong then.


I'm not sure what your point is? I'm aware of what dyed diesel is and what it is for. This doesn't keep loggers and farmers from using it in their trucks. People get busted all the time.
My point was that there is domestically available diesel all over that is of poor enough quality to cause SCR issues. And I'm about done with this topic anyway. I have my 4th 6.7PSD in my bay in the last 2 weeks with the same reductant code and the last 3 were all solved with different measures, you guys keep thinking what ever you want. I'll go back to being a professional diesel mechanic.

FWIW, it takes about 3 or 4 full tanks with fresh filters to get it out of your system. Doesn't take much to contaminate it either.

Before you go, are you seeing any of the manufacturers more susceptible than others? More Fords, Dodges, GM's?

 

[thethePete]

All 3 are having problems with the SCR systems, they are simply problematic in general right now. Dodge only implemented the SCR system in 14, IIRC so you can still go fairly new and get one without, but they have problems with their DPF systems, which I feel is largely due to their heavy use of egr to avoid the scr setup. In any event all 3 have the system now, and all 3 are having their own share of problems.

GM has the worst placement of the tank, outboard of the frame right behind the right front tire. Dodge and Ford both put it up by the fuel tank, protected by a skid plate. The GM tank is the lowest point of the vehicle.

If it were me I would look at the used market (Ford 6.4, or "bulletproofed" 6.0 (there are delete kits that keep the "cooler" in place, but block it off on either end and just allow coolant go through if you have visual inspections) or Dodge 4th Gen, either motor), and if I were adamant about buying new, Ford has EGR cooler problems and they seem to have sorted out the other issues (the earlier ones had some head issues) and the Dodge 6.7 has head and EGR issues. Also DPF issues galore. Ford will keep a front end in it a lot longer. But I'd pick between those two for sure. GM is great for staying on pavement and towing a retiree RV or something. They're solid pavement Queens and they haven't really messed with the 6.6 duramax for a reason. Typical GM evolution vs redesign.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk and edited for clarity on my PC.

 

[thethePete]

Also worth mentioning, if I bought one, regardless of the emissions laws in my county/province/state/wherever, I would be deleting the majority of the emissions systems as they run plenty clean enough without them anyway, as long as you don't get stupid with tuning it. Deleting the DPF alone is good for a huge mileage improvement. A few of my customers that run loaded all the time in their 13 Dodge 3500 6.7s went from 23-25l/100km to 13-17l/100km. One my fleet F550 dump trucks (08 6.4) went from 15ish MPG to 20-25ish, IIRC (it was over 20MPG for sure). EGR systems are prone to failures and are just problematic on diesels, even with maintenance. SCR systems... well... yeah. Even our 04 6.0PSD saw substantial gains in mileage, though it was never tracked. And with a 70hp tune to take care of the EGR delete it didn't smoke, even up a steep hill under very heavy load, and the tune was just enough to make it haul itself with ease and make highway mountain driving safe.

 

[dlh62c]

This thread is starting to drift from the original topic. Specifically the use of diesel fuel that has a sulfur content greater than 15ppm in a vehicle that requires ULSD. Fuel contamination via water, particulate matter or contamination with other fluids is a distinct and separate issue.

Ted White at RV.net has been keeping data on using non-ULSD in American vehicles in Baja and Mainland Mexico. I've contacted Ted via email with questions and he's always responded promptly.

MexicoRVBuddies has condensed his findings.

 

[thethePete]

^ It hasn't really. I specifically mentioned the fact that 500ppm diesel is more than sufficient to contaminate and cause issue with the emissions systems on modern diesels that require ULSD. People are questioning my statements on the basis that I should somehow not be seeing vehicles that are using non-ULSD in Canada. I only mentioned dyed as it was specifically mentioned in the bulletin I was reading. BTW, ULSD Dyed is marked as such. Dyed Diesel (also known as furnace oil) is not ULSD, and is available at the pump in many places in Canada and the US.

The OEMs have bullitens and technical data specifically regarding the use of non-ULSD in modern diesels and the very real, and very expensive problems that it can cause. This isn't just feedback from a bunch of people who spent the weekend bombing around Baja in their RV.

Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[Darwin]

You would have to wonder then why people would fuel up their truck with furnace oil. I am assuming they made a mistake at the pump?

All offroad diesel sold in Canada is ULSD according to wikipedia

Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations (SOR/2002-254), the sulphur content of diesel fuel produced or imported was reduced to 15 ppm after 31 May 2006. This was followed by the reduction of sulphur in diesel fuel sold for use in on-road vehicles after 31 August 2006. For the designated Northern Supply Area, the deadline for reducing the sulfur content of diesel fuel for use in on-road vehicles was 31 August 2007.

An amendment titled Regulations Amending the Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations (SOR/2005-305) added following deadlines:

concentration of sulphur in diesel fuel produced or imported for use in off-road engines shall not exceed 500 ppm from 1 June 2007 until 31 May 2010, and 15 ppm after that date.
concentration of sulphur in diesel fuel sold for use in off-road engines shall not exceed 500 ppm from 1 October 2007 until 30 September 2010, and 15 ppm after that date.
concentration of sulphur in diesel fuel sold in the northern supply area for use in off-road engines shall not exceed 500 ppm from 1 December 2008 until 30 November 2011, and 15 ppm after that date.
concentration of sulfur in diesel fuel produced or imported for use in vessel engines or railway locomotive engines shall not exceed 500 parts per million (ppm) from 1 June 2007 until 31 May 2012, and 15 ppm after that date.

 

[thethePete]

^Yes. Or they are cheap and trying to save a few bucks. That's why it happens most with construction contractors/farmers/loggers. Pretty sure I cleared up the dyed diesel thing. Most modern heavy equipment requires ULSD. You also have to remember, there are still places with pumps marked leaded fuel. No it's not pumping leaded fuel, but my point is not everywhere is as up-to-speed as they are supposed to be. I suppose I slightly oversold when I said "typically" caused by fuel quality/nonULSD, more "typical" would be sensor failure for a variety of reasons, one of which is fuel quality or sulfur content.

Many of the issues that are presenting are simply failures of compnents within the system while using proper fuel and good quality urea; poor quality, or fuel with a higher sulfur content is only going to exacerbate the issue. Also, issues with the modern emissions systems will cripple the truck. Simply running out of urea will cause the truck to go into a virtually useless limp-mode, and there is enough cheap/garbage urea to be found in Canada and the US already (the second step in any SCR diagnosis after determining if the injector is spraying enough reductant, is to measure the specific gravity of it and test it for petroleum contamination). Now try to find some urea in general, in a country with no other diesels running an SCR system. They also consume a lot of reductant under heavy loads (like 5000km to a tank of urea, or less). I wouldn't really want to be dealing with that if I were 3 boarders and 3000km away from the nearest dealer...

 

[dlh62c]

Latest from a RV caravan group currently in mainland Mexico.

....those are some mighty large rigs. Are any of them later model diesels that require ULSD? If so, have there been any issues running Mexico's higher sulfur diesel fuel in them?

.....Yes, we have some newer diesel rigs in the group, and no there haven't been any issues. There was a new 2014 chev on last years trip, no trouble. We have 2 on this year's trip. The trick is to only drive them under load, mainly on the hwy. I am seeing DEF in autozones down there. We have one guy on our trip this year who had all the stuff removed at BD Diesel in Abbotsford, B.C. prior to the trip. There is also a company in the Vancouver area selling a particle filter that can be removed & cleaned. Edge now has a chip & programmer that will force a regen cycle.....

 

[Darwin]

I haven't been able to find any confirmation that the Edge will be able to force a regen cycle on 2014+ Rams. If anyone is able to confirm it can please post here.

Thanks.