motor question

2003 was the first of the steps toward diesel emission reduction. Most manufacturer's used an exhaust recirculation. Couple that with the introduction of ULSD and different fuel/air mixtures by the motors (ie. CAT's ACCERT motors) they were able to meet those standards. Fast forward to 2007 standards becoming stricter and we have the diesel particulate filter coming into play. And now that we're into the 2010 models we have taken that a step further by adding a urea filter for the exhaust.

 

2003-07 motors run hotter detroits, cummins and volvos use egr valves (exhaust gas recirculation valves) to get emmisions into compliance. Extra heat is harder on belts hoses and bearings in alternators. It loads the oil up with soot which causes extra wear. Before the advent of egr motors it was nothing for a well maintained motor to go past a million miles no problems. Anymore it's common to see overhauls at 500,000 miles. They're also notorious for worse fuel economy. You're best to stick with '02 or older engines. Those were the peak of efficiency. You can find non-egr ISX's in a few '03 trucks. You can even find single turbo 6NZ cats in some '03 trucks. But most '03 will have egr ISX's or single turbo MBN "bridge" Cats. Stay away from these engines and the 14L detroit. Get a non egr ISX, N14 Cummins, 6NZ Cat, or 12.7 Detroit... The newer engines, especially the ones with the pi$$ tanks now, avoid like the plague...

 

the 14l detroit is a good motor. its just the fuel mileage sucks. my 05 columbia set at 455hp gets 5-5.5mpg where as my old 2000 classic i drove had a 500hp 12.7 detroit got 6.5-7mpg.


my 14l has 700k and has been fairly good. only had to replace the vpod that controls the variable pitch turbo. $750

just hope that turbo doesnt go out. its like $5k

 

lots less huffing and puffing with the older detroit engines--either they worked or they didnt--none of this sometimes choke and snort on some hills and not others--no turbo spooling up at the redlight scaring the guy in the car beside you

 

lol.. i do have a short somewhere in the turbo control wiring. if im hard on the throttle and hit a turn its like just instantly turning the turbo off and she smokes black as night.

 

what I find the most interesting about all the gov't mandated changes--the gov't claimed their initial reasoning was actually 2 fold--less emissions and increased fuel mileage--well i really do not know anyway happier w/a ULSD motor than an earlier model in terms of fuel mileage--I hear stories of some getting there--and how it can/might be done etc....as for emissions--I have no actual facts--and I seriously doubt anyone else has either(but we're with the gov't we know best)--and the newer motors I see seem to roll balck smoke like an old buttoned up B-mechanical--but even if the emission claims are true--w/a net loss in fuel mileage--is there really any difference--I know I'm being too logical

 

olhand. the guys i see saying theyre getting 7mpg+ out of their emision motors are usually the same guys who NEVER haul a load under $3/mi

take that statement any way you want.


i asked a cummins engineer what motor produced less emissions, a "clean" motor at 5.5mpg or a good pre emission electronic motor getting 7mpg.

he basicly told me that is like the elephant in the room that theyre not really allowed to talk about