Ram Promaster Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
We diesel owners may not want to know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Curious to know what does the diesel PM have for their diesel exhaust/scrubbing system? Is it similar?
It is very similar. ALL of the new "clean diesel" emission control systems are very similar. Doesn't matter VW or Mercedes or BMW or Ram or Ford or GM.

They all have an EGR system (some have both a high-pressure and a low-pressure EGR system - notably VW), various "throttles" in the intake system and "back-pressure flapper valves" in the exhaust system to produce the correct amount of EGR flow, an oxidizing catalyst, a diesel particulate filter (often in the same housing as the oxidizing catalyst), a SCR (selective catalytic reduction) catalyst, and the "diesel exhaust fluid" tank, dosing pump, heating elements to stop the DEF system from freezing, level sensors, etc.

The early VW "clean diesel" TDI did not have the SCR/DEF system because in a VW Golf sized car they were able to squeak through the emission regulations without it, but the newer models have switched over to use it.

The other common thread is that, to my knowledge, all of the "clean diesel" engine manufacturers have been having all sorts of issues with them (although the particular issues vary between manufacturers), and they are all expensive to keep running out of warranty after things start failing.

Friend of mine has a 2010 Golf TDI and it needed the DPF replaced before 100,000 km (thankfully under warranty) and it has gone through several exhaust back-pressure flaps.

A friend of mine is a heavy-truck mechanic ... they're having trouble, also. Down-time is much, much higher with the newer trucks (and if the wheels aren't turning, you aren't earning). Many fleets have been trying to keep the older trucks on the road as long as they can, but with the mileage many of these trucks pile on, that can only be done up to a certain time before the older trucks are beyond repair.

I think the "clean diesel" emission control systems were forced onto the marketplace by the emission regulations before the technology was ready for prime time.

I was a long-term VW TDI diesel owner, but I've switched back to petrol power for the moment until the diesel tech gets sorted out and becomes proven in the long term.

Mercedes is by no means alone in having these problems. The North-American-spec "clean diesel" Fiat engine in the ProMaster hasn't been around long enough to know how it will be in the long term. An ominous indicator is its use of a Bosch CP4.1 injector pump. That pump has been a disaster in the VW clean diesels. I will not buy a diesel engine that has a Bosch CP4 injector pump. Some imaginative folks have developed a retrofit kit for the VW clean diesels to allow the previous-generation, more expensive, but more durable, Bosch CP3 injector pump to be fitted to those engines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
I'm wanting to buy a Promaster, and have been having a hard time
deciding on gas or diesel. With the issues some are having with the
diesel and this info, it's looks like a simple V6 gasser for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
The gas promaster does not have an EGR valve which is a big plus, transit has them in both turbo and non turbo gas engines. The eco (turbo) has a design problem of intake carbon from the egr and direct injection. The detergents in fuel do not enter the intake to clean the valves because the fuel is directly injected into the cylinder. Chemical cleaning of the intake smokes the turbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
The problems with current diesel maintenance is the reason we moved to a gas PM at the end of a Sprinter warranty. The Sprinter is a solid, good vehicle except for the USA/NAFTA EPA mandated pollution equipment which all diesels (incl PM) are suffering from. Most govt employees are overeducated academics with no real world experience (and can say this as someone more educated than virtually all of them). The DEF, Blue Tec systems are an engineering disaster - less due to the auto companies than to govt know-nothings who are shoving this crap down our throats as part of the "climate change" tax and control schemes. Several expediters told me they spent to the tune of $3000-6000 replacing DPFs. Several big rig truckers told me about seeing rigs stranded by the pollution equipment.

Now many of the Sprinters prior to Blue Tec / DEF haven't had as many of these problems and many RV'rs have not put on the miles to see the problems.

So unless you are prepared to buy a diesel vehicle outside of NAFTA or strip out the pollution equipment and switch the control module (which in NAFTA areas is probably illegal), either spend the money for extended warranties or buy a gasser.

btw: the oil changes are not really a big difference if buying oil yourself and either changing yourself or paying someone $20 to change. Sprinter costs about $110 at 10k mis PM costs about $60 but we change the gas engine 1.5x as often - (maybe don't have to but gas engines don't seem as rugged). And with diesel Sprinters we found that Freightliner svc centers were much lower priced than MB dealers. Any typical new car dealer svc dept is best to stay away from.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
outdoorvanman,
I think you are too focused on NAFTA. The newest Euro emissions standards require similar levels of reduction of NOx, particulates, etc. Are you saying we should accept the NOx and belching soot of the old diesels? If so I am not with you. EPA, CAFE, and the other regulatory agencies do not mandate the solution nor do they design them. They live in their "real World" of lowering pollution to improve health and make our lives better. The solutions come from the manufacturers and the component developers. My nephew works for Bosch automotive and sells technology to car companies to get the results determined by regulatory agencies. It is not always easy or obvious how these emissions levels should be reached and diesel technology is late in having to get it done. Short time, it may be less reliable and more expensive just as emissions solutions on gasoline vehicles were. I don't think you would want to go back to the fuel guzzling, underpowered or massive engined, service hogs of cars we had in the '70's. I'll bet you would have been saying they are jamming the gas regulations down our throats then too. Calm down it will be alright.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
outdoorvanman,
I think you are too focused on NAFTA. The newest Euro emissions standards require similar levels of reduction of NOx, particulates, etc. Are you saying we should accept the NOx and belching soot of the old diesels? If so I am not with you. EPA, CAFE, and the other regulatory agencies do not mandate the solution nor do they design them. They live in their "real World" of lowering pollution to improve health and make our lives better. The solutions come from the manufacturers and the component developers. My nephew works for Bosch automotive and sells technology to car companies to get the results determined by regulatory agencies. It is not always easy or obvious how these emissions levels should be reached and diesel technology is late in having to get it done. Short time, it may be less reliable and more expensive just as emissions solutions on gasoline vehicles were. I don't think you would want to go back to the fuel guzzling, underpowered or massive engined, service hogs of cars we had in the '70's. I'll bet you would have been saying they are jamming the gas regulations down our throats then too. Calm down it will be alright.
What irks me is the EPA establishing co2 levels for vehicles. I agree that the climate is changing, it always has and that co2 is a green house gas which is not at the top of the list of greenhouse gases. It is also fact that manmade global warming it is not scientific fact. It cannot and has not been proved by the scientific method. (look it up) Despite all the predictions, we haven't had a temp increase in 18 years. Remember "global freezing" or "peak oil", Y2K, hope and change, and other money generating scares? We were at the end of a 30 year cooling period at the time of the first satellite was put in orbit, and it seems that date is the benchmark for earths temperature. Climate change is the same as saying seasonal change. Manmade global warming is not science, its opinion and I am not a believer in opinion, only scientific fact.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
I hate to go along with anyone on this topic, especially when it is so divisive and charged with political overtones. I guess one can live in a world of "facts" that come from anywhere and anyone. I suggest anyone who wants to know more and hear the science side of this should have a source, JIC. The folks that put a man on the moon and develop the aerospace and Earth sensing technology have had their say. Check out: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Look at the left side of the chart at the increments, I used to make charts to sell budgets and fee increases to elected officials, I see the same attempts to exaggerate a point. They do not list an error factor, strange. Why has the climate been cooler at higher co2 levels in our past? Where did the terms scientific consensus, settled science come from? The terms are ludicrous and laughable to a true scientist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Looking at the first chart the area of 1940-1980, when we supposedly had virtually no emmision equipment on our cars, we had a virtual flatline of temperature increase. Starting in 1980 ,when we had substantial EPA equipment, the temp gradually rises. I don't buy it! I'm with mojogoat on this. The EPA has been given free reign and they have run rampant on new regulations. I am getting out of my industry because they have restricted the use of a lot of the adhesives we use and nothing seems to work anymore. The person it's going to bite is me! Nobody is going to sue the EPA because something failed but they will sue me!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
Unfortunately, the article doesn't address the root causes of the 'fatal flaw'.
A compounding factor is that ULSD has less lubricity than older diesel with higher sulphur content. Fuel pump failures can be attributed to that. I have read that biodiesel is better for lubricity than ULSD, but I suspect it may load up the emissions system more.

Debating when to put my order in for a diesel PM, its ashame as right now the local station has it for 2.29/gallon(!!!).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
The repeated question is "do you believe in climate change/global warming", key word "believe" as you would in the faith based arena. Using the scientific method is true science. Next time the experts tell you that eggs are bad for you, we are running out of oil in the world, USA does not have enough oil reserve for its consumption, they have weapons of mass destruction, you can keep your doctor, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are doing fine, etc...
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top