Generally speaking, this is still either a DIY or you gotta "know a guy." No shop is going to openly advertise this, talk about it over the phone, etc.

One other note, doesn't matter if you live in an emissions county or not. No emission testing on diesels in any county in Texas.

I'm an absolute gearhead, and I love all things internal combustion, but with all the EPA rules being thrown out the window we are going to look like LA in 1970 again real quick.


Modern Catylitic converters do not rob you of any power.

Rolling Coal is just unburnt fuel.

Don't be stupid.

Negative. I live in Dallas county and have owned a Jetta TDI and currently have an X5 diesel. Both have been safety only inspections from day 1. I've always told the shop when rolling in "it's a diesel" so they don't start setting up for an OBD emissions test based on the look of the vehicle.

https://www.dps.texas.gov/apps/rsd/vi/inspection/inspectioncriteria.aspx

Tim Weaver said:

---

I'm an absolute gearhead, and I love all things internal combustion, but with all the EPA rules being thrown out the window we are going to look like LA in 1970 again real quick.


Modern Catylitic converters do not rob you of any power.

Rolling Coal is just unburnt fuel.

Don't be stupid.

---

The first thing I would like to get rid of is the EGR. No reason at all for the engine to have to eat its own feces. Second is the DEF system, as you pretty much harm the environment more with the packaging of the DEF than what it helps. I have no real desire to lose the DPF, as I do like being able to be close to a diesel without having to breath the exhaust. You can tell immediately when you are around a deleted truck by your nose burning.

I don't think that's going to be the case. My 6.0 wit big injectors and deleted everything was the best thing I did. Even tuned properly, it will "roll coal" if you slam the pedal down but only for a second as it catches up. It's not a goal so much as a by product of tuning. The EGR is gone and she dumps vapors out under the back of the cab. My 1977 International tractor operates the same way. The truck runs better, gets better mileage, and sounds better after wiping out the cat. I do not condone the 12" tail pipes and piss poor DIY tune jobs that roll smoke all the time.

I think most people just want their trucks to run better and have less down time. There is always going to be a bro that does it different but I'm not willing to sacrifice those things to limit that doofus.

That said, I'm a huge fan of the newer trucks that run cleaner and quieter. I'd still delete the dpf and EGR. The rest I'd leave alone. Those put out close to or maybe more than my built 6.0 straight out of the box from the factory. Tons of power and not something I'd fool with modifying much more.

clarythedrill said:

---

You can tell immediately when you are around a deleted truck by your nose burning.

---

I'm not one to say that someone has soft hands, but this is some serious soft hands energy.

"Rolling Coal" at all is just silly.

And the hands get softer…

Acct2009 said:

---

Let's be clear here, what you are describing is illegal federally and in all 50 states. It's illegal because it causes pollution that others have to suffer the consequences of.

Now will you get caught? Seems unlikely.

Does it follow the Aggie Code of Honor to break the law at the detriment of others just because you know you're unlikely to get caught?

---

This post is just full of ignorance. DEF and DPF have only been around for about a decade. All modern diesel trucks before that did not smoke from the factory, and a properly deleted new diesel won't either.

-Today's diesel emissions systems reduce engine efficiency causing them to have worse mpg. So we are burning more fuel to save the environment.

-These engines cost more and don't last as long.

- How much more fuel is being burned and emissions released producing and transporting DEF all over the country?

-How many millions of tons of plastic DEF jugs are being put in landfills. Also what energy is being used to make all of this extra plastic?

I can go on, but these are the big hitters.

JuneBug07 said:

---

Acct2009 said:

---

Let's be clear here, what you are describing is illegal federally and in all 50 states. It's illegal because it causes pollution that others have to suffer the consequences of.

Now will you get caught? Seems unlikely.

Does it follow the Aggie Code of Honor to break the law at the detriment of others just because you know you're unlikely to get caught?

---

This post is just full of ignorance. DEF and DPF have only been around for about a decade. All modern diesel trucks before that did not smoke from the factory, and a properly deleted new diesel won't either.

-Today's diesel emissions systems reduce engine efficiency causing them to have worse mpg. So we are burning more fuel to save the environment.

-These engines cost more and don't last as long.

- How much more fuel is being burned and emissions released producing and transporting DEF all over the country?

-How many millions of tons of plastic DEF jugs are being put in landfills. Also what energy is being used to make all of this extra plastic?

I can go on, but these are the big hitters.

---

Your facts are meaningless against an emotional diatribe.

Tim Weaver said:

---

Yeah. I agree with DEF, and to a certain extent EGR.

---

The EGR is far worse on the vehicle and does nothing to benefit the environment. I helped a friend delete his truck and with a reset to factory tune there is far less smoke than when I start my lawn mower.

Ignorance is killing this country much faster than auto emissions

GAC06 said:

---

Acct2009 said:

---

Let's be clear here, what you are describing is illegal federally and in all 50 states. It's illegal because it causes pollution that others have to suffer the consequences of.

Now will you get caught? Seems unlikely.

Does it follow the Aggie Code of Honor to break the law at the detriment of others just because you know you're unlikely to get caught?

---

Yeah but if you're blowing black smoke everywhere you're letting everyone know you don't have soft hands

---

To be fair, many of those rolling coal do have soft hands.

I think what I'm trying to say is that everyone has soft hands except for me (and that rolling goal is gay).

This thread convinced me to get rid of this stuff on my '16 Ford 6.7

Been working on it since the weekend. I bought the 4" pipe with muffler. This only replaces the DPF, so you get to keep the stock resonator and tailpipe. A decade ago, I straight piped a 6.7 all the way out the back with no muffler and it was very loud and droned big time pulling a trailer. With this setup, the noise is very doable. Unless you are standing directly next to the tailpipe at idle, you probably wouldn't know.

Dropping the DPF and installing the pipe was about an hour process. Not tough at all.

The tune came from The Diesel Dudes via a BDX tuner. That process took about 1-2 hours since I had to plug into the truck, then go inside and update the tuner on my laptop, then back outside to tune the truck. It is one file, but is usable with a 5 position switch that I installed.

I unplugged the sensors at the EGR and rocked it for a few days with no issues. Some of the videos indicate that you can leave the EGR cooler in place with it unhooked with no issue. If that's true, I should have just done that.

But an EGR delete did come with the full kit, so I embarked on that process. Huge PITA. Despite soaking the EGR pipe bolts for a few days in PB, I broke one of the bolts and rounded the head on the other. I ended up removing the upper Y piping to get better access to the holes to drill out. Lots of drilling with new bits and and new taps and even had to buy a right angle drill adapter. Lots of cussing. But I got them drilled to m8x1.25.

The kit is pretty cheap and bare bones. One new heater line, some bulk 3/4" hose that kinks closed going to the reservoir, hose clamps 2 sizes too big, poor instructions online, combined with 2 install videos that are either of the wrong year 6.7 (15-16s have some differences) or are just terrible quality videos.

Now its runs fine, but I have squealing/screeching noise when I give it decent throttle. I even went and bought/installed a new belt thinking I maybe soaked the original belt with coolant on accident. Still there. Still trying to figure that out. It has to be something with one of the block off plates.

The EGR cooler weighs about 33lbs. The DPF weighs around 110lbs.

Ill post some pics in the next post.

-Switch Installed in 12v slot
-pipe with muffler
-not fun
-welding a nut to the stripped bolt so that I could then break the bolt and get the pipe off
-kinked configuring they want
-junk
-reworked that coolant hose using parts from the original hose.

Tip for removing the DPF. Just unbolt the metal brackets off the side of the frame rail instead of wrestling with the rubber exhaust hangers. The new kit only uses the middle bracket, so you can pull that one off once the DPF is on the ground and bolt it back up.

Also, that is good to know about the 4" pipe with muffler, that is what I was looking at as well

Has anyone done the ACTUAL math on the emissions?

Assuming a fully stock truck, life span of 300,000 miles, averaging 12 mpg.
Some quick math assuming you use the 5 gals of DEF per 5000 miles (the fill it up per every oil change that most everyone does). Thats 300 gallons of DEF. or 120 plastic 2.5 gallon jugs. Plus the Regens (and those aren't clean otherwise there wouldn't be any smoke or smell)

Compared with a non-emissions truck that gets 17 mpg. Mileage alone thats 7500 LESS gallons of diesel burned on the same pickup. That coupled 120 less 1x use plastic jugs being both MADE AND LANDFILLED has to count for something.

And these are real world MPG numbers from both of my vehicles. Both 3/4 or 1 ton trucks, both used to haul horses and cows around and general driving as well.

Since Diesel releases ~20 lbs of CO2 per gallon, thats 150,000 LESS pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere on a non-emissions truck.

I'm no Chemical Engineer so I'm reverting back to some rules of thumb and about 3 minutes of googling, but the napkin math don't add up to why we're supposed to add urea and extra fuel to a truck to do the same job.

because none of this is based on logic

Its the same reason we clear thousands of acres of trees to install CO2 reducing solar panels. The "science".

Ok. Here's actual numbers for people to chew on.

DEF is added for pollution control, not engine performance. The main thing is NOx (Nitrous Oxides). This is NO2 and NO3 (and some NO). These compounds, when exposed to the ambient air, create 2 things: acid rain and Ozone. For acid rain, water present in the ambient air will form Nitrous or Nitric Acid (HNO2 or HNO3, respectively).

For Ozone, you need 3 things (much like fire): NOx, UV rays and Hydrocarbons. UV is from the sun; can't stop that. Hydrocarbons are from ANYTHING. Fun fact: Reagan once joked that to solve the air pollution issue, we should cut down all the trees. In one way, he's technically correct. If you go into a pine forest in the summer, there are higher concentrations of HC than a city port. One of the worst HC is Isoprene, which is naturally emitted via photosyntesis. NOx is ONLY formed during combustion. This can be engines, furnances or fires. Yes, forest fires can create large amounts of NOx, which then goes with the HC that are being emitted to create large amounts of Ozone.

So in the US, the Ozone limits has been reduced to improve air quality. Ozone is the major issue with haze and air quality (amoung other things). The reaction to make Ozone is based upon having those three items above. You remove one of them, again much like fire, it goes down or away. That's why the Ozone rate goes away at night or dusk.

Since HC are emitted naturally, we can't really regulate those. We do limit the emissions, but people tend to get pissy about that (See the 0000 regulations for O&G wells and such). So the one people can control is NOx.

For engines, the higher you can get the cylinder temperature, the more thermally efficient it is. For gasoline engines, that's why MPG went up in the 90's then back down. They ran the engines hotter and you can make the engine leaner and pull out more MPGs. BUT your NOx creation goes off the charts at hotter flames (aka hotter cylinders). So to cool the engine, you put more gasoline in and that tampers NOx generation, but sacrifices MPG. The EXACT thing happens with Diesel.

But the issue with Diesel is that you get REALLY hot inside to ignite vs. gasoline. Especially when you go to HP systems; the temperature really goes up. So now I have this great efficiency engine, but making massive amounts of NOx. And with it, really bad air.

https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php

Go down to Table 1 (can't image it at work, so you'll have to read it).

In 1988, the NOx limit was 10.7 grams of NOx per bhp hr engine size. So if you had a 100 bhp engine, you could allow 107 g/hr of NOx from the engine. In 1990, the limit was reduced to 6; the same engine now can only emit 60 g/hr (56% reduction). Then in 1998, it was reduced to 4.0. Then in 2007, it was reduced to 0.2 g/bhp hr. In 2024, the limit was reduced to 0.05 and in 2027, it is proposed to go to 0.035.

So the same 100 bhp engine will only be allowed to emit 0.35 g/hr of NOX vs. now only emitting 2 g/hr of NOx (2024) vs. 107 in 1988.

The only way, industrially, that you remove NOx and SOX is with an SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) system. You can see this on gas turbines at power plants. See below:





This works by using Ammonia (NH3) and allowing the NOx and NH3 to react to convert the NOx back to N2 and O2 and water over a catalyst bed. So to 'steal' the technology from industrial plants, the only way to get Diesel engines down is to add NH3. This is done with Urea (NH2CONH2) in water. When heated, the Urea breaks down into Ammonia (NH3) and then reacts with the NOx from the engine to hit the limits.

The only other options are: stop using Diesel (unpractical at this time) or limit the number of engines in the US. Now, we can talk about the Ozone limits, which has been reduced from 0.08 ppm in 1997 to 0.075 ppm in 2008 to 0.07 ppm in 2015 (80 ppb to 75 to 70 ppb).

So there is a reduction in MPG in engines to reduce NOx. But the other option to reduce air pollution is to put limits on engines. And since most people in the US think that's not going to fly, you have to make the combustion cleaner.


Interesting paper on Ozone in Houston: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/14463/2016/acp-16-14463-2016.pdf - Ozone in the morning is driven by VOC (Hydrocarbons) vs. NOx in the afternoon.

Good chemical background on Ozone: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/acmg/files/intro_atmo_chem_bookchap12.pdf

NOx Information: https://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/fnoxdoc.pdf - Has good info on various control technologies for both internal and external fires.

~egon

Ha!

Just came here to post to say I just deleted the muffler and cat on my 1997 7.3 on Friday. Sounds like a silverback gorilla now.

FunnyFarm14 said:

---

Finally something from someone that knows something!

If you take into account the reduction in fuel burned on a non-emissions vehicle and compare that with the fuel burned with emissions on where do the NO2,3,X #'s stack up?

I would think the 7500 gallons that aren't burned account for something. Though I may be wrong. I just pull the stuff out of the ground I don't know what happens after that fact LOL

I think the Edison Motors group has it figured out regardless.. All the benefits of electric power with an onboard diesel generator. Torque, Speed, and enough KWH to run it!

---

This gets into several different areas on how the extra fuel is burned. If we go with your numbers, 7,500 gallons, how does that compare?

If we are looking at just truck engines, I'll pull wiki numbers and show below. I'm assuming the F-250/F-250 super duty (changed names in the years below). I made a few assumptions:

7,500 gallons of diesel
60 MPH average driving speed
MPG is what I get when searching; I assumed the combined MPG
Engine power is rated; no modifications

SO, with that...
1988, 180 hp, 12.1 MPG
1990, 180 hp, 15 MPG
1998, 235 hp, 14 MPG
2007, 325 hp, 12.9 MPG
2024, 475 hp, 14.5 MPG

That's the power and the years I picked. That's the years the values changed from prior years on NOx.
1988: 1,926 g/hr
1990: 1,080 g/hr
1998: 940 g/hr
2007: 65 g/hr
2024: 24 g/hr

That's how much NOx is produced by the engine, per hour, per the regulations. Notice that massive drop from 1988 to today. That's a 98.77% reduction in creation. Another way, the new engine produces 1.23% of the 1988 engine (or is allowed to).

If we use the fuel amount and the MPG, we get the total miles that can be driven 'extra'. They are:
1988: 90,750 miles
1990: 112,500 miles
1998: 105,000 miles
2007: 96,750 miles
2024: 108,750 miles

This is more a function of the MPG, but I used this to get the travel time. Remember, the NOx limit is per hour (grams per BHP per hour). So getting more time driving means more or less NOx. As mentioned, the assumed speed was 60 MPH, so we get the miles/60 MPH and get hours. From the hours, we multiply it by the 1st number (g/hr) and convert to kg/hr. This is how much extra NOx we'd emit vs. not emit.

1988: 2,913 kg
1990: 2,025 kg
1998: 1,645 kg
2007: 105 kg
2024: 43 kg

So you can see that the older engines, with the 'extra' 7,500 gallons of diesel, lots of NOx is created/not created. While newer engines obviously make way less NOx, IIRC, the first year of DEF was 2007. So comparing 1998 (or 2006) vs. 2007, we see a difference of 93.63%; we reduce the amount of NOx by ~94% with DEF vs. not having DEF. And remember, the 7,500 gallons is over the 'lifetime' of the car; not just one year.

But with most regulations, we are somewhat to the point of deminishing returns. In order to maintain that level of reduction, in a similar timeframe, you'd need to find a new technology honestly.

But going to a diesel (or gas) engine to generator to electric motor, you can technically make the engine smaller, which reduces fuel consumption (bonus), which would help 'ease' the need to lower emissions limits (as the OVERALL NOx generation is lower, as less fuel is being burned), but could end up with higher overall thermal/energy efficiency vs. current technology. And, adding in the ability to charge batteries on board, you could 'lower' the amount of NOx per mile driven without having to add new technology to the engine to control emissions.

~egon