# May be in the market for a new to me truck



## MScowman (May 18, 2011)

I'm possibly looking for a new diesel truck but don't won't on with DEF or any of the newer global warming crap. How far back in years do I need to go back? 2013?


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

I think it was about 2010 for DEF....and I think Dodge joined in a year or two later than the others, but I could have missed it.

Regards, Mike


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

MScowman said:


> I'm possibly looking for a new diesel truck but don't won't on with DEF or any of the newer global warming crap. How far back in years do I need to go back? 2013?


The emission crap started in the 2000s already. I think the infamous Ford 6.0 was first pickup diesel to use cooled EGR for emission control. Eventually all brands had that, I think by around 2007. DPF probably around the same time. DEF showed up a few years later. DEF is an alternative for cooled EGR, I think DEF is the lesser of the two evils.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

DPF trucks can be deleted and programmed for under $1,000. 
Once deleted the trucks run amazingly well and get better fuel mileage. Hope some day to be able to do mine, but I kinda doubt I ever will.


----------



## paoutdoorsman (Apr 23, 2016)

Circumventing federal emissions requirements on the newer diesel trucks can certainly net more power, and often better fuel economy, but it comes at a cost to us and future generations. It's all fun until you watch someone you love pass away, and know that the cancer causing carcinogens from non clean burning diesel vehicles likely contributed to their end... https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/diesel-exhaust-and-cancer.html

The DPF was introduced before DEF systems. DEF is used in conjunction with the DPF and is the current technology/mechanism for cleaning the DPF on an as needed basis.

If you want a truck prior to DEF, your options would be before as follows:

Dodge: 2012 and older

Ford: 2010 and older

GM: 2010 and older

If you're considering a truck with DPF, but prior to using DEF, your options would be as follows:

Dodge: 07-11 (some 07's still had the 5.9, and those were non-DPF trucks)

Ford: 08-2010

GM 2007.5-2010

2004 to the years listed above would have utilized catalytic converter and EGR for the most part.

Good luck on your search MScowman!


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Yeah I'm not so sure....

If the "pollution control system" on the truck is proven to make it actually burn more fuel, doesn't that increase the consumption of fossil fuels? And doesn't increasing the consumption of fossil fuels pollute the earth more than consuming less fossil fuels? I thought the "green thing to do" was to consume LESS fuel?
I mean, that's the most disingenuous argument for pollution control I've ever heard of.

Also, After watching a documentary about DuPont and 3M polluting the entire earth with carcinogenic PFOAs, I think the government "picks its winners and losers" to go after.
Making the mostly working class people who run these trucks pay $5,000 more for a pollution control system that actually ends up shortening the life of the truck makes me skeptical.

I'm all for controlling pollution, but let's make a system that honors the value of the money the mostly hard working, relatively lower paid people that run them.


----------



## carcajou (Jan 28, 2011)

Circumventing federal emissions requirements on the newer diesel trucks can certainly net more power, and often better fuel economy, but it comes at a cost to us and future generations. It's all fun until you watch someone you love pass away, and know that the cancer causing carcinogens from non clean burning diesel vehicles likely contributed to their end... https://www.cancer.o...and-cancer.html

No disrespect intended paoutdoorsman

the cited article

What a bunch of crap. " May cause this.." and may increase the risk in rats..." Damn near everything man has made "may cause cancer" in it's pure state if you believe whats printed. Too damn much fear mongering going on to suit me.

Fact is most AG tractors that run 115 pto hp now require an engine 20 to 30 hp larger to produce the same hp. That engine will burn more fuel, 1 gallon/ hr more, then it's predecessor. (JD 7510 vs JD 6140R) Not only that, it consumes more raw resources in manufacturing, requiring more hydrocarbons used also.


----------



## Aaroncboo (Sep 21, 2014)

Thats it! Back to horses! I don't know how they pulled the ol switcheroo to being pulled in trailers rather than pulling them but they've had it too good... They have less emissions and most don't earn there keep anyhow. Well I say back to work with them! Lol


----------



## MScowman (May 18, 2011)

Thanks for the input guys, I'm in a conundrum. I have an 06 duramax, but I need to have it modified by Agribility because of my handicap. I lost the use of my legs years ago and I don't think they, "MS vocational rehab", will fit my current truck because of age. However, it runs just fine. They don't won't to spend the money on something that may not last very long, which I understand completely.


----------



## BWfarms (Aug 3, 2015)

You're going to want a DEF out of all the emission controls. It's inevitable, just resign to the fact and join the rest of us.

You know what irritated me about the Duramax? They put the confounding DEF cell behind the right front tire. The most idiotic placement I have ever seen! You can see it from the curb and heaven forbid should you drive off road and run over a branch or rock... GM dropped the ball on that one, definitely not a farm truck. However rumor has it that it will be moved under the bed like Ram's for 2020 models. It was one of the mitigating reasons for getting a Cummins in 2013.


----------



## IH 1586 (Oct 16, 2014)

BWfarms said:


> You're going to want a DEF out of all the emission controls. It's inevitable, just resign to the fact and join the rest of us.
> 
> You know what irritated me about the Duramax? They put the confounding DEF cell behind the right front tire. The most idiotic placement I have ever seen! You can see it from the curb and heaven forbid should you drive off road and run over a branch or rock... GM dropped the ball on that one, definitely not a farm truck. However rumor has it that it will be moved under the bed like Ram's for 2020 models. It was one of the mitigating reasons for getting a Cummins in 2013.


I saw that at a farm show the first year they came out with def. I wondered how it would hold up to corn stalks, ruts in the woods, and much less road debris. I've put 2 deer under vehicles.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Just the clarify, the description of DEF in here is incorrect. DEF is urea, a nitrogen source used in the convertor ( not a DPF) to finish reacting nitrogen that have too many oxygen attached so they don't form nasty old smog. Oxides of nitrogen occur any time you have very high temperature combustion. DPF trucks use egr and programming to keep the temps down, that is why they had a big power and mileage hit that the DEF truck don't.



paoutdoorsman said:


> Circumventing federal emissions requirements on the newer diesel trucks can certainly net more power, and often better fuel economy, but it comes at a cost to us and future generations. It's all fun until you watch someone you love pass away, and know that the cancer causing carcinogens from non clean burning diesel vehicles likely contributed to their end... https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/diesel-exhaust-and-cancer.html
> 
> The DPF was introduced before DEF systems. DEF is used in conjunction with the DPF and is the current technology/mechanism for cleaning the DPF on an as needed basis.
> 
> ...


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

True, but it would be interesting to calculate the costs associated with the procuring, shipping, marketing, storage of liquid urea. Also the cost to install the system on the truck. I see huge totes of the stuff stacked to the rafters and wonder the costs of producing it? It must burn quite a bit of diesel fuel, electricity, etc. to make and package the urea. Then there's the cost to bring the totes to the wholesaler/retailer. How much tractor trailer diesel fuel and man hours necessary to do that? Then it needs to be stored. How much diesel fuel was required to be burned to build buildings to store it in? And forklifts to move the totes and load it on trucks? And then theres the reliability issues. What is the cost in diesel fuel to tow trucks that are shut off when the system breaks?

One of my DPF trucks was shut down completely because a temperature sensor broke in the DPF. I had to call a tow truck at great expense to me. Diesel fuel from the tow truck polluted the atmosphere to tow my truck to the service dept.

Where does it all end?

Maybe all that wealth transfer to Urea injection on trucks is better spent elsewhere? Maybe public works that save lives in a more direct manner?

Then there's the millions of trucks running around with DPF's. They're still getting 2MPG less than the newer DEF trucks.

Maybe the government should step in and partially/fully fund these trucks to be retrofitted with DEF systems if they're so stinkin worried about air pollution??? But they dont.


----------



## MScowman (May 18, 2011)

Well, I pulled the trigger on a 2011 Ford F250 power stroke. 108,000 miles and very clean. Should I look to delete DPF seen a lot of videos on youtube about it, all I want to do is increase the longevity of the truck. What are your opinions?


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

MScowman said:


> Well, I pulled the trigger on a 2011 Ford F250 power stroke. 108,000 miles and very clean. Should I look to delete DPF seen a lot of videos on youtube about it, all I want to do is increase the longevity of the truck. What are your opinions?


May you get great service and many years of usage out of your truck MScowman.

Regards, Mike


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Mine both still have their DPF's and I don't like them, but learned to live with them. Run the truck a while and see what you think. If you see periods of lots of gray smoke, especially when it's cold, it's probably in need of cleaning or replacement. If the trucks DPF runs normally, You'll barely see any smoke. 
My 550 DPF has periods of immense smoke (especially when it's cold), then runs clean. My 350 has a newer DPF and you only see an occasional puff of smoke.
As far as removing goes, I haven't been able to decide what to do. So many other needs ahead of removing the DPFs


----------



## IHCman (Aug 27, 2011)

Aaroncboo said:


> Thats it! Back to horses! I don't know how they pulled the ol switcheroo to being pulled in trailers rather than pulling them but they've had it too good... They have less emissions and most don't earn there keep anyhow. Well I say back to work with them! Lol


Liberals are already saying cow farts are killing the environment. Just wait till more people switch over to horses. The liberals will probably mandate a pollution control system on those horses to reduce the methane coming out the back end.


----------

