But why? Previous to on-board ECM's, in order to achieve additional performance, it meant tearing apart different parts of the engine and making mechanical adjustments.
#Ram ecodiesel def delete upgrade#
Since vehicles had the capability to being "tuned," it has by far been the most popular upgrade in terms of performance adders. It is strange to keep getting anti-diesel posts for an option that hasn't been available for over two model years, especially coming out of Texas where diesel seems to be the engine of choice in anything like a truck. It is quiet, makes no diesel exhaust smell or soot, burns cleaner and with less CO2 than the gasser, pulls like a freight engine with no need for shifts and once you get used to the ATM is fund to drive. I think it is sad we don’t have access to a diesel in this van as it is a much better driving experience. The diesel transmission is more expensive due to more limited supply I would guess, so some of that $23,000 would be lost but not nearly all. Lots of low mileage transmissions are available for both as a check with LKQ shows. If both had to buy 5 transmissions or rebuilds which is unlikely the cost and time would be nearly equal. I believe the 3.6 gasser reliably gets 17 for most users so in 540K miles (should we be so lucky) the gasser would use 31,700 gal of perhaps $2.70 gas about $85,500 and the diesel would use 20,700 gal of $3.00 diesel (10% is the differential I see at stations that serve both) for $62,300. I have 61+K, no transmission issues (knock on wood) no emissions issues (again) and 26+ lifetime fuel mileage. My comment wasn't to disparage the gasser which I like fine but to be clear that diesel fuel mileage in the PM is great compared to older gassers, the 3.6 modern engine and even other diesel trucks and vans. Tx do you know something we don’t? There are folks who would say the same about the transmission in the gasser as lots of folks are seeing 100K transmission failures. This engine can get 150% the fuel mileage of the V6, it is super clean, it is better for the environment than gas, the fuel should not be much more expensive than gas and the engine we have has a 500K lifetime. When or if it doesn't I may sing a different tune but the overriding issues sill will remain. Modern diesels would be better than gas and lots better than the VW defeated system.Īll this is said as mine is working perfectly and I see no reason it can’t continue. Gas vehicles produce lots more CO2 so there is no perfect answer for them. Newer ones are fine of course if we don't defeat the system. Cities in Europe are having to ban older diesels due to the NOX contribution on diesels. Back to sunny AZ and 85º March 11, until then I’m hoping for no snow.ĭiesels have abused the environment for so long after gas vehicles cleaned their act up I hate to contribute to the issue now that they don't.
You may wonder why I’d be in NH in February and I do too. I took it out at about 30º and it ran fine plowing the driveway. It doesn’t gel now but my JD-990 is sitting in the barn with summer diesel in it as I haven’t run it enough this fall and winter to make a dent in the fuel level. I have owned a few diesel tractors and a car and if I were still in a -20º place I’d not have diesel. Until that time it should be FCAs responsibility. Today emissions components are required to have a warrantee for 8 years or 80,000 miles whichever is first. I won’t say what but you might google “rodding the Catalyst” to better understand the issue. I had to take drastic measures I am not proud of. My ’94 Explorer was not fixable as far as Ford could determine and out of warrantee. I am against deleting the emissions system or any part of it as long as you can get it fixed and continue.
0 kommentar(er)
