"Working Hard" Diesel Tunes?

No Time said:

Wow, much hatred for diesels in here based on some previous posts?

Of course an engine designed to work with boost is going to be underpowered and poor performing with no boost. I’d be surprised if it performed well with no boost.

It no different than if you design an engine for E85 and run it on 87 octane that will result is performance issues. 

Or if you add big tires and a lift without  re-gearing and it’s not surprising that the engine has to work harder getting everything moving and up to speed from a stop. 

Just to be clear, I don't hate diesels. I actually think they're mildly interesting, with their terrific fuel economy potential and other benefits. I also think the new Cummins crate engine is pretty neat. But I'm also not blind to the shortcomings like their nasty, oily fuel that's always coated onto fuel pump nozzles at the gas station, plus the freaking oil slicks that never evaporate when it gets spilled. Also the engines make an annoying racket and let's be honest they weigh a ton. But what I really despise about diesels is not the engines, it's the drivers. Let's just say they really attract a certain kind of person.

freetors said:

 But what I really despise about diesels is not the engines, it's the drivers. Let's just say they really attract a certain kind of person.

Around here, diesel pickups are almost exclusively work trucks. So the certain kind of person is someone who uses their truck as a tool. That may not be true everywhere, but maybe it's the people who live near you that you don't like instead of their choice of fuel.

And my 6.7 doesn't weigh a ton. It's only a little more than half that 

 

Just to be clear, I don't hate diesels. I actually think they're mildly interesting, with their terrific fuel economy potential and other benefits. I also think the new Cummins crate engine is pretty neat. But I'm also not blind to the shortcomings like their nasty, oily fuel that's always coated onto fuel pump nozzles at the gas station, plus the freaking oil slicks that never evaporate when it gets spilled. Also the engines make an annoying racket and let's be honest they weigh a ton. But what I really despise about diesels is not the engines, it's the drivers. Let's just say they really attract a certain kind of person.

Not being combative, but...

The nasty freaking oil slicks not evaporating is exactly one of its benefits.  It can be absorbed by a substrate and not evaporate into the atmosphere where it does crazy amounts of damage.  I remember back in the day seeing reports of how the switch to sealed gas caps and charcoal canisters on gas vehicles kept something ridiculous like 6 million tons of hydrocarbon vapor out of the air per year.

Gasoline's low evap point and flammability make it much more of a hazard.  It is one of the main reasons that school buses are required to be diesel in most states... so our children don't die by barbeque.

And, just because you smell it doesn't make it bad.  About the only thing a diesel does worse than gas is particulates... which is solved if the driver keeps the DPF... and NOx which has been solved with throttling and emissions restrictions.  Even the particulates are heavy and they quickly fall to the ground once they cool off.  The resulting soot is primarily carbon and about as dangerous as dropping a lump of Kingsford charcoal on the ground.

I'm just tired of hearing all of the positive things about diesel being misconceived as negatives.  I remember wanting to punch Jenny McCarthy in the face when she went on a campaign to eliminate diesel from school buses because it smells bad so it must be killing our children.

You say "doesn't conveniently evaporate," I say "thank god it doesn't evaporate."
You say "smells bad," and I say "smells good."
You say "must be killing baby seals because black smoke," and I say "they actually aren't"

Lighter weight fuel means less fuel to transport.  Larger hydrocarbon chains in the cracking process means less environmental impact to produce.  Safer to transport, store, and dispense without explosion.  Greater BTU content.  Fewer aromatics means longer shelf life.  Longer injection pulsewidth means the fuel is burning later in the stroke which is one of the reasons diesels make such disproportionately high levels of torque.  To me, the mountains of benefits to diesel cannot be displaced by "it smells yucky."

I'm just not cool with people dismissing and dissing diesel because "it must be awful but I have no real knowledge other than 1 in 50 of the diesels on the road have been modified to roll coal."  I can almost guarantee that (on the average) for every brodozer you see, there are probably 50 diesels that you encounter that you don't even realize are diesel.  They don't smell or smoke unless they modify them to do so.  

And for the record, they don't have to smoke to make mountains of power.  Brodozer douchebags just like them to smoke.  The Duramax I modified in Dad's truck puts 938 lb-ft to the wheels, and if you have the chip cranked up all the way, the only thing you get is a tiny puff of grey haze until the turbo spools up.... which would be completely solved with VVTN.

... which is why I want to start playing with his 08 Duramax too 

Curtis said:

 Even the particulates are heavy and they quickly fall to the ground once they cool off.  The resulting soot is primarily carbon and about as dangerous as dropping a lump of Kingsford charcoal on the ground.

The problem with the particulates is less about environmental concerns and more about human health concerns. You're correct that PM is mostly carbon, but the size of the particulates means that once inhaled they tend to find their way into the lungs where they nestle themselves in for good. Hence The link between PM exposure and lung cancer.  

And the issue when it comes to modern diesels with deleted emissions hardware, is that they're often much dirtier (NOx, hydrocarbons and PM) than older diesels that never had the emissions equipment. When diesels were initially equipped with emissions reducing hardware they really had to clean up the combustion process to meet the new regulations, but this hurt fuel economy and to an extent power. As the restrictions tightened they added more systems to the engines until they reached a point where the aftertreatments/EGR/etc are so good at removing pollutants that they can actually run a dirtier combustion process. This means fuel economy returned, and power levels have climbed significantly. But it also means that when those emissions systems aren't working properly, or they're removed completely, that the engine is polluting at a higher rate than even old unregulated diesels. And that's before they do any tuning to roll coal or add a ton of power. Companies spend hundreds of millions on testing and calibrating emissions hardware for modern diesels to find the right balance of power, fuel economy and tailpipe emissions. Even a knowledgeable aftermarket tuner isn't going to do better on any of those areas without sacrificing in at least one of the other categories. The reality is that the only way a modern diesel is clean without emissions equipment is if they're neutered well below factory power levels and ain't nobody doing that.

Keith Tanner said:

freetors said:

 But what I really despise about diesels is not the engines, it's the drivers. Let's just say they really attract a certain kind of person.

Around here, diesel pickups are almost exclusively work trucks. So the certain kind of person is someone who uses their truck as a tool. That may not be true everywhere, but maybe it's the people who live near you that you don't like instead of their choice of fuel.

And my 6.7 doesn't weigh a ton. It's only a little more than half that 

Here I’ve noticed a trend in that the work trucks owned by guys and girls serious about their businesses are increasingly gas.  There are exceptions of course.  A mini excavator is better towed with a diesel.  But a lot of the professional landscaping, lawncare, snow removal folks that can afford new equipment are purchasing petrol.  

The diesel truck here is driven by and creates the same menace as did the jacked up ‘72 Nova with the long haired kids my grandpa always complained about in the late ‘70’s.

STM317 said:

Curtis said:

 Even the particulates are heavy and they quickly fall to the ground once they cool off.  The resulting soot is primarily carbon and about as dangerous as dropping a lump of Kingsford charcoal on the ground.

The problem with the particulates is less about environmental concerns and more about human health concerns. You're correct that PM is mostly carbon, but the size of the particulates means that once inhaled they tend to find their way into the lungs where they nestle themselves in for good. Hence The link between PM exposure and lung cancer.  

And the issue when it comes to modern diesels with deleted emissions hardware, is that they're often much dirtier (NOx, hydrocarbons and PM) than older diesels that never had the emissions equipment. When diesels were initially equipped with emissions reducing hardware they really had to clean up the combustion process to meet the new regulations, but this hurt fuel economy and to an extent power. As the restrictions tightened they added more systems to the engines until they reached a point where the aftertreatments/EGR/etc are so good at removing pollutants that they can actually run a dirtier combustion process. This means fuel economy returned, and power levels have climbed significantly. But it also means that when those emissions systems aren't working properly, or they're removed completely, that the engine is polluting at a higher rate than even old unregulated diesels. And that's before they do any tuning to roll coal or add a ton of power. Companies spend hundreds of millions on testing and calibrating emissions hardware for modern diesels to find the right balance of power, fuel economy and tailpipe emissions. Even a knowledgeable aftermarket tuner isn't going to do better on any of those areas without sacrificing in at least one of the other categories. The reality is that the only way a modern diesel is clean without emissions equipment is if they're neutered well below factory power levels and ain't nobody doing that.

I agree, but my big point is that only a very small percentage of diesels are "rolling coal."

I see it all the time with darn near anyone I ride with.

Friend - Oh my, look at that idiot diesel blowing black smoke. Diesel is such awful stuff.
Me - (knowing that we just passed 75 other diesels on our trip but friend noticed none because none of them visually announced their presence) Yeah, they tune them on purpose that way.
Friend - I hate diesel because cancer/smell/noise/etc
Me - You know THIS truck we're in is a diesel, and so are those two up there ahead of us, as is that VW beside us, and that Jeep Liberty parked there, and....
Friend - This truck is a DIESEL???
Me - 

Diesels are like the political party that you hate.  There are millions of [insert opposing party] supporters who are wonderful people and we would never know they are supporters of the wicked evil party we hate, but we only notice the ones that spew the most black, sooty E36 M3 out of their pipes.

That being said, coal rollers should be taken out back and beaten with a cattle prod, but even a 1979 diesel Mercedes pollutes less than my 66 Bonneville gasser.  Perspective.  According to USDOT, as of 2015, 4 percent of on-road light to medium duty vehicles were diesel.  NHTSA now reports 5.5% as an estimate.  Since 2008 now that diesel in light and medium duty vehicles now have to meet the same emissions criteria as gasoline, we have more or less set ourselves on the path to equalling the playing field.  Of course there are still a significant percentage of older diesels on the road, but as they taper off and leave service we have already set the standard for diesel being as clean as gas.

So of that 5-6% of diesel vehicles on the road, (excluding class 8 and above) even if 10% of them are coal rollers, they couldn't possibly upset the environment more than smoking tobacco, the myriad classic cars with carburetors and big cams, hacking down the rain forests, or the ridiculous levels of pollution by, for instance, 100 barrels of crude a day for 15 years spilling into the Gulf.

If it weighs more than 5000 pounds I don't care how much horsepower it makes except at the Salt Flats.

In reply to Curtis :

Curtis

it does not matter how many diesels are out there, or how much they really contribute. 

What matters is that it’s quite obvious when they have been modified, which means is very common to complain about their contributions to the air quality. 

And that matters as it then projects gas car cheating to all of us, which results in more restrictive rules. 

Especially when there are people out there who badly react to diesel PM. 

Personally I find a de catted petrol motor to be much worse. I have a diesel and to make smoke come out I have to turn the tuner all the way up and stomp it- but that’s not how I drive. Personally the greater concern to me with modern trucks is when they have very large lifts. 

In reply to Curtis :

Coal rollers are the "Loud pipes save lives" guys of the diesel community.

In reply to grover :

Taking a catalyst off a gas motor is worse than diesel, for sure. But the fact remains that it’s a lot more obvious of a modified vehicle when one rolls coal. Which risks us al, in terms of further regulations 

alfadriver said:

In reply to Curtis :

Curtis

it does not matter how many diesels are out there, or how much they really contribute. 

What matters is that it’s quite obvious when they have been modified by douche-tastic morons who only want to make black smoke, which means is very common to complain about their contributions to the air quality. 

And that matters as it then projects gas car cheating to all of us, which results in more restrictive rules. 

Especially when there are people out there who badly react to diesel PM. 

Disagree, and added to your quote to reflect my thoughts... Millions of diesels are out there modified that don't ever even give off the faintest hint that they are modified let alone even known that they are diesels. Dad's 04 Duramax makes no smoke, is quiet (obviously you can still hear it's a diesel), and other than the occasional white tire smoke, there is no hint that it's modified at all.

I do agree with the more restrictive rules part, but my gripe is that people see the tiny percentage of coal-rollers and think THAT is what diesel IS without educating themselves on the truth,  I'm not defending coal rollers, I'm defending diesel and griping that uneducated (not you... in general)  people ascribe a blanket statement to the entire fuel not realizing that they just drove past 30 diesels and didn't even realize they were diesels.  Its as if you dislike Donald Trump and then hate Republicans, or dislike Obama and then hate Democrats without even realizing that a dozen of their close friends are from that offending party.  They're taking a tiny percentage of diesel experiences and assuming that they are all the same.  It frankly pisses me off.

Case in point.... this forum is full of some of the most brilliant automotive minds I have ever encountered... all of you... and there is still a pretty fair smattering of prejudice against diesel based on a lack of accurate information.  I'm not arguing that coal rollers suck, or differing on the cancerous effects of PM, I'm simply saying that I don't like when obviously educated car gurus like y'all lump all diesels into an opinion because you hate bro-dozers.

That's like saying, "I met a Brazilian once.  He was a butthole.  Therefore all Brazilians are buttholes."  I'm just saying, "by the way, you've met 64 Brazilians in your lifetime and didn't even know they were Brazilian."

ShawnG said:

In reply to Curtis :

Coal rollers are the "Loud pipes save lives" guys of the diesel community.

Truth.

alfadriver said:

In reply to grover :

Taking a catalyst off a gas motor is worse than diesel, for sure. But the fact remains that it’s a lot more obvious of a modified vehicle when one rolls coal. Which risks us al, in terms of further regulations 

More truth.

grover said:

...Personally the greater concern to me with modern trucks is when they have very large lifts. 

And yet even more truth

Racecar camber good, stance camber bad. The thing that's especially funny about smoke is that it was never good, and we now don't need it at all but we emulate the bad old days just to wave our flag and announce our social clique.  The only reason diesels smoked is because their fuel control was laughable. You literally had a fuel lever and it did what it was told regardless of rpm or boost (and thus actual ability to move air and burn fuel), so it overfueled anytime you wanted it to. It was less precise than what you'd find on a gas lawnmower engine or a Model T. But, since diesels don't really suffer poor drivability when overfueled, the masses remained unwashed. And now that we have modern, precise, load sensing fuel control and can avoid smoke almost entirely, we're breaking it so it acts more like a 70 year old relic. 

I mean, i guess if modifying my gas engine to have a hot-tube ignition would get me noticed by all the other affirmation-seekers who shared my particular kink, I'd go ahead and do it because i have a hard time feeling like anything i do is worthy unless someone out there is poloing my marco.   #loudandprouddieselperformance  #bromance #smokesignals #SOS #lonely 

No Time said:

Wow, much hatred for diesels in here based on some previous posts?

Where?

They accelerate slowly and need boost.  Period.  If you don't believe that then you've never driven a non turbo Diesel.  Remember 120hp Dodges, 45hp Rabbits?  They made less torque and less power than their similarly sized gasoline brethren.  And when you tried to rev match a shift, the tach may as well have been a clock for as quickly as the engine would free rev.

They do excel at certain things (incredible idle and low load fuel economy, relative simplicity, non-evaporative polluting fuel) but at the expense of other things (specific torque, power/weight, throttle response, ease of cleaning up the emissions we care about)  That isn't "hatred" unless your definition of hatred is "not giving glowing praise to all things all the time".

Engines is tools, you use the tool that works for the job.  If you need a 14mm wrench, it doesn't mean you hate 9/16, it's simply not the tool you need.