Does anyone have a LML yet?

I wish I had one!!!

They wont be on dealer lots until end of may or so...I think.

Production will start for the crew cab and regular cab LML on May 25th. The Ext cab units will start production on July 6th.

So does that mean we can get our hands on one by the end of the month?

I was told we wont recieve one until August. :bawl:

So does that mean we can get our hands on one by the end of the month?

Probably around the end of June.

So does that mean we can get our hands on one by the end of the month?

Depends on how close to Flint MI (assembly site for all crew cab and regular cab LML's) you are and if your dealer has any in the order queue. If a dealer is close enough to get a new unit "trucked" to them, it could happen, though first week in June is more likely. If it is going long distances by rail, probably mid June or later.

I was told we wont recieve one until August. :bawl:

Extended cab LML's start production 7-6, so that it likely for them.

still cant even order 'em yet as the dealers have no clue... so ......

RedEagle, do you know which plant will assemble the 2011 extended cabs, if not Flint.

you can order them..just no pricing!

Ive seen 2 new 6.7l Ford diesels running aruond town today.

Ya I've seen the Superduties on the lots... quite a few actually. Makes me wonder how many will jump ship if they don't wanna wait. Especially with the relentless marketing going on by Ford and how it's obviously a better truck (based on the apples to apples tests they did against our 2010's ;)) It seems everytime I turn on the radio or TV its a new SD ad....makes me throw up a little

Ive seen 2 new 6.7l Ford diesels running aruond town today.
I saw the F450 and that truck looks awesome! The dually bed is different and the front fender flares are new. I even liked the front end on the one I saw...

More like apples to oranges. ;)

There are quite a few on lots down here in Texas but I've only seen one on the road. I'll admit, the front end doesn't look too bad in person.

The pictures I've seen of the new dually fenders look hideous though.

just saw another one, that make 3 so far.

2010 was short production year I guess...I got mine in late November and there were only a few that had been built by that time, now we have the 2011's in June?

RedEagle, do you know which plant will assemble the 2011 extended cabs, if not Flint.

Fort Wayne will build all of the 2011 extended cab HD and LD pickups. Preproduction units have been built at both Flint and Fort Wayne.

The local ford dealership has two and they haven't sold one yet. I also just saw that someone dynoed a new 6.7 and it put 310 to the ground. For some reason I think the lmm put more to the ground than that but I am not sure.

I was debating on getting a used GMC 2500HD Extended Cab, but from all the enhancements of the 2011, and hopefully I can get an employee discount number + rebates, it may be best to purchase a new one.

I'm interested in the Extended Cab so it will be sometime in August, which would be great timing for me because both my existing truck and car will have to sell first. That will be my down payment money :)

Ive seen two at the Ford dealer here in Southwest Missouri south of springfield. They have had them for a month now and Ford motor co. was there to help release them.

The local ford dealership has two and they haven't sold one yet. I also just saw that someone dynoed a new 6.7 and it put 310 to the ground. For some reason I think the lmm put more to the ground than that but I am not sure.

310rwhp stock???

i think the LMM put 310 or 315 to the ground stock ( i may be wrong) but that is sad for ford if thats all they put down being rated at becuase they put alot of money and time in that motor and their still 3yrs behind the dmax:rolleyes: now say the new LML put down 340rwhp stock then that would be quite impressive compared to the ford

check out this stuff on the torque vid..... http://www.fordvehicles.com/2011Superduty/?p=headtohead&video=headtohead-fuel-efficiency do yall notice anything funny about this vid? and i know our trucks are alot quicker than this

I was told today that we should see the first transport full of LML's in the beginning of july

check out this stuff on the torque vid..... http://www.fordvehicles.com/2011Superduty/?p=headtohead&video=headtohead-fuel-efficiency do yall notice anything funny about this vid? and i know our trucks are alot quicker than this

I notice 2 things in that video. 1st, the dodge apparently didn't have any oil pressure. 2nd, the Ford was accelerating through the starting line whereas the others were steady at 30 prior to the start. And it would appear that they chose 30 mph to make sure the Chevy was immediately after a shift point.

I notice 2 things in that video. 1st, the dodge apparently didn't have any oil pressure. 2nd, the Ford was accelerating through the starting line whereas the others were steady at 30 prior to the start. And it would appear that they chose 30 mph to make sure the Chevy was immediately after a shift point.


i didnt notice the speed thing, but i do now thx:D but what i noticed was the tow haul was off on the duramax witch i think makes pulling a trailer slower ( to me) and on the ford by the rpm's the tow haul had to be on

on the trailer sway test I guarantee they shut off the silverado's stabilitrak, which has been available since 2009. Dodge still doesnt have any form of electronic stability control, and Ford didnt get it until 2011!!

OK NO, sorry ford, the 2009-2010 stabilitrak isnt directly marketed/intended to control trailer sway like the 2011 silverado's stabilitrak is designed for, but STILL...if they had left stabilitrak on for that "fair" test, I guarantee it would have controlled trailer sway better. Not as well as the ford (because like I said, the 2009-2010 stabilitrak on the GM HD trucks was only designed to properly control a truck alone), but It would have done better than fords test would have suggested.

and how the ford engineer says "nope, not offered on chevy or dodge!!". If he really wanted to be fair and not sit there yapping like a fat hillbilly, he SHOULD have said "well the silverado does have electronic stability control (they had it 2 years before ford did), but it does not incorporate trailer sway control technology". That would have been perfect...tells the truth, but also, to keep ford happy, makes it look like they still have the edge.

Trailer sway control and stability control are like brother and sister...for ford to say "the 2010 silverado does not have anything like this" is retarded.

ben

on the trailer sway test I guarantee they shut off the silverado's stabilitrak, which has been available since 2009. Dodge still doesnt have any form of electronic stability control, and Ford didnt get it until 2011!!

OK NO, sorry ford, the 2009-2010 stabilitrak isnt directly marketed/intended to control trailer sway like the 2011 silverado's stabilitrak is designed for, but STILL...if they had left stabilitrak on for that "fair" test, I guarantee it would have controlled trailer sway better. Not as well as the ford (because like I said, the 2009-2010 stabilitrak on the GM HD trucks was only designed to properly control a truck alone), but It would have done better than fords test would have suggested.

and how the ford engineer says "nope, not offered on chevy or dodge!!". If he really wanted to be fair and not sit there yapping like a fat hillbilly, he SHOULD have said "well the silverado does have electronic stability control (they had it 2 years before ford did), but it does not incorporate trailer sway control technology". That would have been perfect...tells the truth, but also, to keep ford happy, makes it look like they still have the edge.

Trailer sway control and stability control are like brother and sister...for ford to say "the 2010 silverado does not have anything like this" is retarded.

ben

Ben, I will correct you a little bit. Even with Stabilitrak on, the vehicle would have behaved the same way. The trailer oscililating does not generate enough lateral acceleration make Stabilitrak active. I would say this testing is legit but, I'm sure they won't compare 2011 vs. 2011. I would hope that Chevy marketing does.

Trailer sway is one of those systems that is not real fun to test or calibrate.

My Preliminary Order Detail was pulled on 4/29/10.

Crew cab Long bed.

Like others said before, you can order, you just cant get a price on it yet.....

I will have a Clean Sweet 2008 3/4 Ton Suburban up 4 sale as soon as i get a delivery date on the Pick up.

My Preliminary Order Detail was pulled on 4/29/10.

Crew cab Long bed.

Like others said before, you can order, you just cant get a price on it yet.....

I will have a Clean Sweet 2008 3/4 Ton Suburban up 4 sale as soon as i get a delivery date on the Pick up.


I'd sure love to inject that thing with a lmm. To bad I'm running on a little bit of limited funds. Someday though..

Saw this at the 3i show in great bend KS

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4585411902_001245bec5_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4585412502_1fe78f1c08_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3327/4584786225_870641e85c_b.jpg

Saw this at the 3i show in great bend KS


Great pictures! If you have anymore I would love to see them!! Post them here or my email is BobKeaton@gmail.com If you have any thanks in advance!

Bob

Has anyone taken a look at the tie rods yet??? Maybe I missed it, but I can't find any pictures/info on whether or not they put truck tie rods on them this time.

Another thing I saw from Fords propaganda video was that the Duramax tach was only at ~2200 rpm while passing with the loaded trailer, I know the rpm's are going to go up higher than that up a steep grade like that. Also, I don't know of the accuracy of the fuel mileage test, 42 miles/2 gal= 21 miles a gallon stock, I will be very impressed if they are actually that good.

check out this stuff on the torque vid..... http://www.fordvehicles.com/2011Superduty/?p=headtohead&video=headtohead-fuel-efficiency do yall notice anything funny about this vid? and i know our trucks are alot quicker than this

I would hope the Ford beats the Chevy since they are comparing a 2010 Silverado and a 2011 Ford! If the Ford would not have, they obviously would have not posted the video as the 2010 Silverado is rated at 365hp\660tq.

Let's see Ford do this against an apples to apples comparison. Bring on the 2011 Dmax @ 397hp\765tq against the 2011 Ford @ 390hp\735tq.

Saw this at the 3i show in great bend KS

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4585411902_001245bec5_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4585412502_1fe78f1c08_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3327/4584786225_870641e85c_b.jpg

I was at the show today as well. Talked to the reps for about 15 minutes about the new changes to the engine. I guess I didn't realize that the DEF is in addition to all the other emmisions crap. I thought that the DEF was supposed to replace that stuff. They also told me that by 2014 the diesels would have to abide by even STRICTER emmisions standards. I mean at some point something has to give. From what I've read these are supposed to get better mileage than the previous LMM. That's almost hard to believe, but then again maybe with the changes in the engine and more hp/tq maybe they can squeeze a few more mpg out of it Even the tech guy said it was ridiculous what they have to do to meet emmision standards. But one thing about it, this new engine ought to pull like a freight train. I was kind of disapointed that there weren't more changes to the exterior. Basically the grille change slightly and that's about it. I'm not trying to be a debbie downer because I still would like to get one, probably have to wait awhile. I saw the new F250 6.7 as well. Like the looks of the grille, but it was ridculous how stuff was under the hood. I have no idea how you could work on it.

drove a ford today was not impressed. the sales man told me to punch it . so i waited till it was warmed up and punched it . i said to him that's it??????. he said do it again so i did . told him my max would run away from it in a hart beat. he said some ting is wrong with it . it's slower than the last one we had. i told him to call me when they had it fixed

but the gas mileage dohiky said i was getting 24 mpg give or take a little

Ben, I will correct you a little bit. Even with Stabilitrak on, the vehicle would have behaved the same way. The trailer oscililating does not generate enough lateral acceleration make Stabilitrak active. I would say this testing is legit but, I'm sure they won't compare 2011 vs. 2011. I would hope that Chevy marketing does.

Trailer sway is one of those systems that is not real fun to test or calibrate.

ahh ok!! Thanks for correcting me.

I just ASSumed that the swaying trailer would be enough to trigger a stabilitrak event. :o:

I cant even imagine trying to 'reverse engineer physics' and incorporate trailer sway control into the stability control system software.....incredible the amount of work that must go into that. :cool:

Just out of curiosity...is there an additional yaw sensor towards the rear of the truck, and it has to correllate with the primary one or something like that? Or just a much more sensitive one? Is the system still made by TRW or did they go to Bosch or kelsey hayes? Hopefully when GM gets the LML service manual stuff online they go into at least some detail on the trailer sway control system because Im really interested in how it works and what it has to do differently from the normal 'trailer-less' stability control setup.

ben

ahh ok!! Thanks for correcting me.

I just ASSumed that the swaying trailer would be enough to trigger a stabilitrak event. :o:

I cant even imagine trying to 'reverse engineer physics' and incorporate trailer sway control into the stability control system software.....incredible the amount of work that must go into that. :cool:

Just out of curiosity...is there an additional yaw sensor towards the rear of the truck, and it has to correllate with the primary one or something like that? Or just a much more sensitive one? Is the system still made by TRW or did they go to Bosch or kelsey hayes? Hopefully when GM gets the LML service manual stuff online they go into at least some detail on the trailer sway control system because Im really interested in how it works and what it has to do differently from the normal 'trailer-less' stability control setup.

ben

TRW has the system on the HD trucks. TRW bought Kelsey hayes brake business a while ago when they went bankrupt.

The trailer sway control is a rather simple algothrim in the brake controller. It does not require any unique sensors other the standard sensors for Stabilitrak. Trailer swaying creates a sinusoidal yaw rate without steering input from the driver. It normally takes three sine waves to detect and then the system first tries to dampen the trailer oscillations by applying the brakes out of phase of the trailer sway. If this does not work after two tries, the brake controller cuts torque from engine to reduce the vehicle below the oscillation critical speed as quickly as possible. I thought it would never work that well because I always thought you wanted to stretch out the trailer and truck by appling trailer brakes and/or accelerating the vehicle. It works very well and I believe it is a must have on vehicles that typically pull un-brake trailers.


On the HD trucks, I believe they have the ability to use the Integrated brake controller as well. This probably minimizes the frequency that you need to cut engine torque or the amount of torque you need to cut.

any1 also notice on the apples to apples video that the speedos tween the ford and chevy very oddly seemed to accelerate the same? hmmmm odd. and that the dmax got like 15ish mpg? last time i checked they got better than that, or maybe im wrong

Again, Ford is comparing their NEW truck to the 2010 Silverado and the 2010 Ram. I would wager they used a GM HD that had very few miles on it, and I bet their Ford diesel for that test was well broken in. Not apples to apples. Then again, Ford has NO way of getting a 2011 GM HD. If people are dumb enough to not realize this, they may end up driving a Ford :eek:!

Toyota did the same thing in one of the car magazines on a LD truck test. The Tundra pickup they provided had 8000 miles on it (the testers even put that in the article) , and it got slightly better mileage than the "really" new trucks that GM provided for the test.

Again, Ford is comparing their NEW truck to the 2010 Silverado and the 2010 Ram. I would wager they used a GM HD that had very few miles on it, and I bet their Ford diesel for that test was well broken in. Not apples to apples. Then again, Ford has NO way of getting a 2011 GM HD. If people are dumb enough to not realize this, they may end up driving a Ford :eek:!

Toyota did the same thing in one of the car magazines on a LD truck test. The Tundra pickup they provided had 8000 miles on it (the testers even put that in the article) , and it got slightly better mileage than the "really" new trucks that GM provided for the test.


Hey Im not dumb but if the Ford has a solid drive train people will flock to them. Have you seen how well build a Ford is compared to GM and Dodge? Ford has really turned itself around in the last couple years.

Again, Ford is comparing their NEW truck to the 2010 Silverado and the 2010 Ram. I would wager they used a GM HD that had very few miles on it, and I bet their Ford diesel for that test was well broken in. Not apples to apples. Then again, Ford has NO way of getting a 2011 GM HD. If people are dumb enough to not realize this, they may end up driving a Ford :eek:!

Toyota did the same thing in one of the car magazines on a LD truck test. The Tundra pickup they provided had 8000 miles on it (the testers even put that in the article) , and it got slightly better mileage than the "really" new trucks that GM provided for the test.

good point...I saw the commercial with the 2011 SUper Duty being "the most powerful" and was thinking that was BS..this explains it

I really can see myself in a 2012 3500 Dually this time next year....fantastic stuff from The General...

-Rob

the one thing i will give ford, and dodge for that matter, is that they still use a soild front axle on their 3/4 and 1 ton trucks and you can actually get a manual trans behind them. 2 things GM has been drifting away fron since the early 80s and now has done away with all together

the one thing i will give ford, and dodge for that matter, is that they still use a soild front axle on their 3/4 and 1 ton trucks and you can actually get a manual trans behind them. 2 things GM has been drifting away fron since the early 80s and now has done away with all together

No manual on the Ford PSDs now, just Dodge.

SFA, I just don't see how it's superior now the GM front end has gone from 4,800lbs to 6,000lbs....I love my F450 but better freeway economy (from 3.73s and 6-speed Allison) and better low down power (765lbs @ 1600rpm) is just the ticket and with a GCWR of 27,500 for the new models I can get away with a 1-ton and be totally legal as I usually gross at 26-27k 2x/week....the exhaust brake and 14.2s are very important at that weight too....

-Rob

i just like the simplicty and durabilty of a solid front axle. each to their own, ya know. does the new dmax have an exhuast brake now?

i just like the simplicty and durabilty of a solid front axle. each to their own, ya know. does the new dmax have an exhuast brake now?

yes, it integrates with the transmission and cruise control...

so basically, you set a speed with the cruise control, and the transmission and exhaust brake will downshift/activate as needed to maintain your preset speed....so say you're towing a big trailer and set the cruise at 65mph. You come to the top of a big hill and start coming down the otherside...truck starts speeding up, exhaust brake activates, and/or trans will downshift to maintain your 65mph without you having to hit the brakes. :cool:

I think the trailer sway control and hill-start-assist is pretty cool too.

ben

now thats badassness :bow:

Cant wait to see the new suspension components on the front end!

I will buy a Denali when they hit the streets.

http://www.chevrolet.com/pages/open/default/future/silveradohd.do in 70 sec

http://www.chevrolet.com/pages/open/default/future/silveradohd.do in 70 sec


still cant build one from the web site and the dealers still have no clue on when thy can even get one...

"put down $1500 and we'll order you one and figure out the details once it comes in":Insane::eyecrazy::cookoo:

if any body is even thinking about doing something like that; they have no room to complain about getting :sheephump by the dealer

Does anyone know how big the fuel tank is to achieve the "680" miles per tank GM is claiming for these? They say an (I think) 11% increase in mpg over the previous LMM but I dont see how. I cant even come close to that with my LBZ with no emissions of any kind. Granted, my truck has the duty cycle of a garbage truck haha, but even when I had a long highway commute the best I did was about 15.5 to 16 mpg. Maybe they used a 2WD reg cab with max inflated tires.

36 gallons is now the Std Tank size. 10 gallon increase, nice for towing.

still cant build one from the web site and the dealers still have no clue on when thy can even get one...

"put down $1500 and we'll order you one and figure out the details once it comes in":Insane::eyecrazy::cookoo:

if any body is even thinking about doing something like that; they have no room to complain about getting :sheephump by the dealer
i was talking about the 70 sec video

What about it?

still cant build one from the web site and the dealers still have no clue on when thy can even get one...

"put down $1500 and we'll order you one and figure out the details once it comes in":Insane::eyecrazy::cookoo:

if any body is even thinking about doing something like that; they have no room to complain about getting :sheephump by the dealer[/quote]


Just ordered mine a week ago. It has an estimated arrival time of the very end of June. Course u always got to add a couple of weeks to whatever the dealer tells u.

Yes, I have one. It is a captured test fleet truck that I will be driving for the next four months.

2011 GMC 2500HD, SB-EC SLT, 4x4, LML, 20 inch wheels, Silver in color. Sure is pretty . I will post pix later today.

Does the SLT interior have any of that fake wood on the dash? I hate that stuff.

Unless they changed something the slt will have the fake wood.

you can put Z71 suburban dash pieces in....they are brushed aluminum/metal, not fake wood.

Yes, I have one. It is a captured test fleet truck that I will be driving for the next four months.

you are now god and wil be bombarded by questions, ill start with the 1st; hows that baby run?

you are now god and wil be bombarded by questions, ill start with the 1st; hows that baby run?

Haha I couldn't agree more! Cannot wait to see those pics, especially with the new wheels!

yep I'm anxious to see the wheels myself


Yes, I have one. It is a captured test fleet truck that I will be driving for the next four months.

2011 GMC 2500HD, SB-EC SLT, 4x4, LML, 20 inch wheels, Silver in color. Sure is pretty . I will post pix later today.

yep I'm anxious to see the wheels myself

Uh, aren't they the same 20" wheels that were shown on the Denali and the 2011 Silverado HD?

I want to see this new front end! Tierods - known weak point, pictures, please :D

Uh, aren't they the same 20" wheels that were shown on the Denali and the 2011 Silverado HD?

Yes they are. I am looking forward to seeing them on different applications. On trucks other than at the shows.

ORDERING MINE TOMORROW!!!! anyone wanna buy an 05??? hahaha

Have only had the truck for a day. Very quiet, very smooth, only 100 miles on it, so I haven't "nailed it" yet. Here are the pix I posted in my garage.


http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/garage.php?do=view&g=30040
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/garage.php?do=view&g=30040

I can't see any pictures in my post. If you can't, just click on my garage.

You will have to post more pictures than that!:p:
Tim

Have only had the truck for a day. Very quiet, very smooth, only 100 miles on it, so I haven't "nailed it" yet. Here are the pix I posted in my garage.


http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/garage.php?do=view&g=30040
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/garage.php?do=view&g=30040

I can't see any pictures in my post. If you can't, just click on my garage.


Good lookin truck

36 gallons is now the Std Tank size. 10 gallon increase, nice for towing.

10 gallon increase? My '08 LMM has a 34 gallon tank.....

Tom

10 gallon increase? My '08 LMM has a 34 gallon tank.....

Tom


Short beds had a 26 gal. You must have a long bed.

Short beds had a 26 gal. You must have a long bed.

Correct. 3500 SRW. Are the new long boxes getting a larger tank also? :D

Tom

Did anyone notice the oil pressure gauge on the Dodge in that torque test video, it appears that it has none

Look at that big eyesore hanging under the passenger side door.

And still not a big fan of the plastic on the hood.

Could you take more pics of how low slung the frame is and the new torsion bar design?

Pics dont work.

Correct. 3500 SRW. Are the new long boxes getting a larger tank also? :D

Tom

yeah, theyre getting the 36 gallon tank as well.

so, 2 gallon increase for you guys, 10 gallon increase for us short bed guys

what size/brand/style are the tires?

Y cant I see the pics?

They are in his garage.

Yes, I have one. It is a captured test fleet truck that I will be driving for the next four months.

2011 GMC 2500HD, SB-EC SLT, 4x4, LML, 20 inch wheels, Silver in color. Sure is pretty . I will post pix later today.


What is a captured test fleet truck?

If i had that truck i wouldnt be waiting around for break-in to punch the thing, there built to be driven!

What is a captured test fleet truck?

Captured Test Fleet is the first 100 to 300 vehicles built that is given out to select GM employees for rapid feedback. These fleets provide GM engineers with information and items that need to be addressed before sale to the public.

Very Very cool. Please post feedback daily if possible.

x2 It'll never be properly broke in unless you hit wide open throttle every now and then.

Look at that big eyesore hanging under the passenger side door.

And still not a big fan of the plastic on the hood.

Could you take more pics of how low slung the frame is and the new torsion bar design?

That low low frame is terrible! I didn't even notice it until you mentioned it. Looks only to be 8" or so off the ground :eek:

That low low frame is terrible! I didn't even notice it until you mentioned it. Looks only to be 8" or so off the ground :eek:


I'm hoping that is the eyesore urea tank that we see.

It sure is a clean truck!

part of me says 'i want one', the other part says '$70,000 *#&@&$%&' and the other other part says "urea injection? egr? MUFFLERS?! when will the emmisions madness end!!!!????' :eyecrazy:

I think it's a beautiful truck but couldn't agree more with the plastic thing on the hood I prefer either nothing like the 01-07s or even the 07.5+ plastic cowl piece..but all in all an awesome truck...still don't quite have a grip on the urea thing either

I'm hoping that is the eyesore urea tank that we see.

I wonder how the amp steps will work with the urea tank between the body and the frame?

Does the SLT interior have any of that fake wood on the dash? I hate that stuff.

Yes it still has some the "wood".

Captured Test Fleet is the first 100 to 300 vehicles built that is given out to select GM employees for rapid feedback. These fleets provide GM engineers with information and items that need to be addressed before sale to the public.

What he said!

Can you please more alot more pics?

I'm hoping that is the eyesore urea tank that we see.

subscribing

Can you please more alot more pics?


New pics added to the my garage

That lower ball joint is huge! And I like the new badge.

Great photos. Thanks for crawling underneath to give us the lowdown.

Does the truck still have a pitman and idler arm?

Why dont they powdercoat the parts so the damn things dont look like a rust bucket after only a few weeks:duh:

That low low frame is terrible! I didn't even notice it until you mentioned it. Looks only to be 8" or so off the ground :eek:


A little over 10" at the bottom the DEF tank shield.

The tires are LT265/60R20E Goodyears.

hook up to that airstream you have there and let us know how it does....

Thanks for the pics. Im curious about fuel mileage.

that thing is cool cant wait to see the mods happen

Awesome looking truck. I cant wait to get one.

Thanks for sharing the pics with us. The wheels looks REALLY nice for a factory set of wheels! Tell GM to spot you a set of 305/55/20's. ;) I'm curious about the pitman and idler arm setup, too. Any reports on the mileage? Considering how well my LMM does on mileage, I'm gonna be surprised if the LML shows a measurable gain. I'm in for a 2012 model. :)

I wonder if Chevy and GMC will use the same wheels?

I think the 20's are the same (seen the same ones on both Chevy and GMC). I'm pretty sure the 18's are different and not sure about the standard 17's.

I think the 20's are the same (seen the same ones on both Chevy and GMC). I'm pretty sure the 18's are different and not sure about the standard 17's.

I think the 20" wheels are the same, just different center caps.

what is the width of the 20's?

fuel economy will be the most intresting part....id be suprised if they can get the 11 percent increase after adding more power (stock power) is a fuel robber. The dumb thing about these trucks is they started out with 3.5'' exhaust at 300 hp and now were at like 400 and we still have same exhaust nevermind cat and dpf that lb7s never had like come on egts even stock will be wild on these things. Still more improvements to to be made, i also find the gm videos funny, even though im diehard GM they claim they will test them harder than the consumer....i highly doubt that, yes they may test them hard but for how long a few months. Lets see one with a few hundered thousand miles running strong.

The tie rods look about the same. Still smaller than a 2010 F150.

check out this stuff on the torque vid..... http://www.fordvehicles.com/2011Superduty/?p=headtohead&video=headtohead-fuel-efficiency do yall notice anything funny about this vid? and i know our trucks are alot quicker than this

that torque video is the biggest joke i've ever seen in the world. Ford should get an award for best joke of the year or something.

that torque video is the biggest joke i've ever seen in the world. Ford should get an award for best joke of the year or something.


How come the Dodge in the video has no oil pressure?

Because it is a Dodge.

fuel economy will be the most intresting part....id be suprised if they can get the 11 percent increase after adding more power (stock power) is a fuel robber. The dumb thing about these trucks is they started out with 3.5'' exhaust at 300 hp and now were at like 400 and we still have same exhaust nevermind cat and dpf that lb7s never had like come on egts even stock will be wild on these things. Still more improvements to to be made, i also find the gm videos funny, even though im diehard GM they claim they will test them harder than the consumer....i highly doubt that, yes they may test them hard but for how long a few months. Lets see one with a few hundered thousand miles running strong.


16.8 mpg at 350 miles - 60/40 Hiway/City driving.

If you listen closely you can hear the ford whine out to red line when passing and the chevy and dodge don't. probably only went half throttle

16.8 mpg at 350 miles - 60/40 Hiway/City driving.


I get about that now with the tune I'm running makin 400 to the tires...

I get about that now with the tune I'm running makin 400 to the tires...

good for you, this engine isn't close to broken in. Gotta love the old truck guys piping up about why they've got the best thing since sliced bread...:rolleyes:

-Rob

good for you, this engine isn't close to broken in. Gotta love the old truck guys piping up about why they've got the best thing since sliced bread...:rolleyes:

-Rob


WOW!

good for you, this engine isn't close to broken in. Gotta love the old truck guys piping up about why they've got the best thing since sliced bread...:rolleyes:

-Rob

Well instead of jumping down his throat, how about asking him what he meant first. I took it to mean since the new truck is around 400 hp and his truck is also, that may be the sweet spot for efficiency. Oh, and the LBZ is the best thing since sliced bread. :p:

Well instead of jumping down his throat, how about asking him what he meant first. I took it to mean since the new truck is around 400 hp and his truck is also, that may be the sweet spot for efficiency. Oh, and the LBZ is the best thing since sliced bread. :p:


x2

How come the Dodge in the video has no oil pressure?
Because it is a Dodge.
):h That could also be why it was so slow? We don't need no stinkin' lubrication! :D
If you listen closely you can hear the ford whine out to red line when passing and the chevy and dodge don't. probably only went half throttle
I thought the same thing. You can even see the tach on the GM, it doesn't get close to 3250. Looks like 2200 at best, it probably stayed in 3rd. Going WOT at 30 MPH, my truck kicks down to 2nd and holds at least 2800 RPM until I hit 4th @ 60MPH. I think they didn't floor either the Chevy or the Dodge for their "comparison"... They might not have liked the results when the competition was allowed to compete.

I'd love to see this test done again (by someone more impartial) with the 2011 GM vs the 2011 Ford. THAT would be interesting (and much more useful to the consumer).

I'd love to see this test done again (by someone more impartial) with the 2011 GM vs the 2011 Ford. THAT would be interesting (and much more useful to the consumer).


X2 I love how they get to put their all new rig against last years models. Why don't we try all 2010's against 2010's and all 2011's against 2011's and done by somone independent not getting marketing dollars. But they would've been the fist out on the fuel mileage test with their 6.4. :rolleyes:

Anyone know if they relocated the fuel filter for easier access on the LML or a factory installed access door?

from the pics posted by the OP it looks like = not...on the filter access...

and for the 400hp power level; the new motor makes 400 at the crank; so probably like 310 to the tires with all the emissions crap. I'm at 400 TO THE TIRES which is probably 480 to 500 AT THE CRANK with no emissions crap.

will be interesting to see what the MPG is once the regen kicks in....

will be interesting to see what the MPG is once the regen kicks in....

Good hell not this stupid discussion again.
For the record GM is claiming 11% mileage improvement on the LML over the LMM. This includes time spent in regen. GM testing showed 680 mile range on a tank, which calculates to ~ 18.8 MPG.
I get better than that in my LMM. Does that somehow mean that LMM's get better mileage??????

Redeagle's 16.3 MPG is a anecdotal piece of data (not very useful).

For example, on my last tank of gas my DIC showed 20.9 MPG for the first ~150 miles on the tank, while I was driving in my daily commute. Then my son and wife drove it for another ~ 150 miles. DIC showed 17.9 MPG when I got it back. (No they did not go thru a regen, that came about 50 miles later). Meaning they got ~ 15 MPG and I got ~21 MPG on the same truck, same tank of gas.

Just because somebody gets XX MPG with their truck, means squat.

The question is what would an LML get in the SAME driving conditions.


To answer your above comment, the LML will prob get ~ 10 MPG during regen, for the 0.75 gallons that is used in regen ~ once per 36 gal tank.
This means regen on the LML reduces fuel economy by a whopping ~ 2.2 %.

At the same time the LML is the most powerful, most fuel efficient, AND cleanest Duramax ever.

Good hell not this stupid discussion again.
For the record GM is claiming 11% mileage improvement on the LML over the LMM. This includes time spent in regen. GM testing showed 680 mile range on a tank, which calculates to ~ 18.8 MPG.
I get better than that in my LMM. Does that somehow mean that LMM's get better mileage??????

Redeagle's 16.3 MPG is a anecdotal piece of data (not very useful).

For example, on my last tank of gas my DIC showed 20.9 MPG for the first ~150 miles on the tank, while I was driving in my daily commute. Then my son and wife drove it for another ~ 150 miles. DIC showed 17.9 MPG when I got it back. (No they did not go thru a regen, that came about 50 miles later). Meaning they got ~ 15 MPG and I got ~21 MPG on the same truck, same tank of gas.

Just because somebody gets XX MPG with their truck, means squat.

The question is what would an LML get in the SAME driving conditions.


To answer your above comment, the LML will prob get ~ 10 MPG during regen, for the 0.75 gallons that is used in regen ~ once per 36 gal tank.
This means regen on the LML reduces fuel economy by a whopping ~ 2.2 %.

At the same time the LML is the most powerful, most fuel efficient, AND cleanest Duramax ever.

Well said!!

I thought the Urea was taking the place of the fuel for the regen.Does it use the Urea all the time,and that just cuts back how many times it regen?

That Mike Rove dude is a total jackoff. Almost as bad as the Ford spokesman they used in previous tv commercials that spoke two octives lower than he normally talked, trying to sound tuff. WTF??

Sure the new LML will suck in the MPG department just as the LMM does. The 09' get's a good 4 mpg's less with the exact SAME driving conditions with much less power at the wheels to boot. Towing mpg's are worse yet with the SAME fifth wheel.

What he said!


LOL we always call them pilot models

To many new thing with the newer trucks they look nice but my 06 will be my 1st and only diesel.Daily driving tune is a little over 600 rwhp and gets 19 to 20 mpg just hard to do all the time with a heavy right foot.

and for the 400hp power level; the new motor makes 400 at the crank; so probably like 310 to the tires with all the emissions crap

wow thats some pretty significant drivetrain loss!!!

LBZ/LMM trucks were 360hp (ok sorry, 365 for the LMM) and they dyno'd anywhere from 300-310 at the wheels. Im gonna go out on a wild limb and say that the extra 40hp the LML has isnt going to be lost in "all the emissions crap".

ben

16.8 mpg at 350 miles - 60/40 Hiway/City driving.

can you get any close up pictures of the ECM???

Sure the new LML will suck in the MPG department just as the LMM does. The 09' get's a good 4 mpg's less with the exact SAME driving conditions with much less power at the wheels to boot. Towing mpg's are worse yet with the SAME fifth wheel.

REALLY?????????

And you are basing this on what?????

I have read thousands of posts on this site. I'd bet the title to my LMM that the overall measured fuel economy difference between LMM's and any prior Duramax is 5% or less. AND the LMM's have MORE power. The LML's are better still by providing even more power and better economy.
Its amazing how some people just want to vilify emissions controls and make up wild statements like the above.

To put your silly statement in perspective, 4 MPG diffenence would be about 25% loss in economy. (my lifetime average for my LMM is 16.47 MPG with ~ 14K miles about 4000 of those towing, do you really expect me to believe I'd be AVERAGING 20.4 MPG in an LBZ after including ~ 30% of miles while towing????)
You combine that with your idea that somehow LMM's provide LESS power to the wheels. Just so you understand, when the LMMs were rated for power that rating was performed with ALL emission controls already included. Just as all prior models did when they were dynoed for rating/ marketing by GM.
The LMM's were the most powerful stock Duramaxes until the LML; emissions INCLUDED.
The only reason that LMM's would provide less power to the wheels is if there were DRIVETRAIN differences that made the system less efficient. The 6 speed Allison is MORE efficient than the 5 speed, so unless you have a prior model with a 6 speed you actual lost more thru the drivetrain. The driveline and axle is unchanged.

Good hell not this stupid discussion again.
For the record GM is claiming 11% mileage improvement on the LML over the LMM. This includes time spent in regen. GM testing showed 680 mile range on a tank, which calculates to ~ 18.8 MPG.
I get better than that in my LMM. Does that somehow mean that LMM's get better mileage??????

Redeagle's 16.3 MPG is a anecdotal piece of data (not very useful).

For example, on my last tank of gas my DIC showed 20.9 MPG for the first ~150 miles on the tank, while I was driving in my daily commute. Then my son and wife drove it for another ~ 150 miles. DIC showed 17.9 MPG when I got it back. (No they did not go thru a regen, that came about 50 miles later). Meaning they got ~ 15 MPG and I got ~21 MPG on the same truck, same tank of gas.

Just because somebody gets XX MPG with their truck, means squat.

The question is what would an LML get in the SAME driving conditions.


To answer your above comment, the LML will prob get ~ 10 MPG during regen, for the 0.75 gallons that is used in regen ~ once per 36 gal tank.
This means regen on the LML reduces fuel economy by a whopping ~ 2.2 %.

At the same time the LML is the most powerful, most fuel efficient, AND cleanest Duramax ever.


I'll take a bite... just cause I get 20 MPG driving 50/50 does mean something. I've got the old tech LB7 and I think thats pretty impressive mileage on it, and no emissions junk to worry about breaking at any point in the trucks life. Sorry but it seems silly to BURN more fuel to make a "clean" diesel what logic is there in that, also my previous rants in this side of the forum about the Urea injection have gone unanswered as to the effectiveness of the reaction of Urea to clean emmisions. That particular reaction has to happen far above 1000 degrees F to occur when Urea is injected into the exhaust stream. So, one does the LML in fact have POST turbo exhaust temps in large excess of 1000 degrees for the Urea system to actually do something, or is it a bunch of hooey the tree huggers came up with to please people?

wow thats some pretty significant drivetrain loss!!!

LBZ/LMM trucks were 360hp (ok sorry, 365 for the LMM) and they dyno'd anywhere from 300-310 at the wheels. Im gonna go out on a wild limb and say that the extra 40hp the LML has isnt going to be lost in "all the emissions crap".

ben


I cannot remember the site as for now that I read that the Allison trans has about a 80 to 100 hp loss....if you go by the old math of 20% power loss for a automatic trans then 400 at ther tires puts you in the area of 480 to 500 at the crank...is my math wrong???...is the old tried and true power loss conversion wrong???

As for the mpg while in regen; I was refering to the actual mpg on the DIC while in regen and then for the overall mpg of the load of fuel at fill up after a regen. If the LMM guys see around 8.5 in regen 15 overall; what will be the LML's numbers??? hopefully we will know in a couple of days.

I agree that the urine factor has not been answered as of yet by anyone. not even GM as to when and how much is used

Primed2win,

I think motovet is comparing his old truck and the power and mpg's it got with his new truck. His old truck was anything but stock.

REALLY?????????

And you are basing this on what?????

I have read thousands of posts on this site. I'd bet the title to my LMM that the overall measured fuel economy difference between LMM's and any prior Duramax is 5% or less. AND the LMM's have MORE power. The LML's are better still by providing even more power and better economy.
Its amazing how some people just want to vilify emissions controls and make up wild statements like the above.

To put your silly statement in perspective, 4 MPG diffenence would be about 25% loss in economy. (my lifetime average for my LMM is 16.47 MPG with ~ 14K miles about 4000 of those towing, do you really expect me to believe I'd be AVERAGING 20.4 MPG in an LBZ after including ~ 30% of miles while towing????)
You combine that with your idea that somehow LMM's provide LESS power to the wheels. Just so you understand, when the LMMs were rated for power that rating was performed with ALL emission controls already included. Just as all prior models did when they were dynoed for rating/ marketing by GM.
The LMM's were the most powerful stock Duramaxes until the LML; emissions INCLUDED.
The only reason that LMM's would provide less power to the wheels is if there were DRIVETRAIN differences that made the system less efficient. The 6 speed Allison is MORE efficient than the 5 speed, so unless you have a prior model with a 6 speed you actual lost more thru the drivetrain. The driveline and axle is unchanged.

If you read my signature you could answer your own question. The 02' had a big tune in it, with close to 500 RWHP daily. I also have an 09' with a mild tune and DPF delete. Sure the delete and tune improved miliage some, but still not close to the 02' with MORE power. I have driven the exact same route with both trucks, and the 02' gets an average of 4mpg better empty. Towing the SAME fifth wheel the 02' averaged 5 mpg better. Wild statements?... No just real world comparisons. Don't get me wrong...like the 09' just fine, and Iv'e done some things inside and out to improve on what GM delivered. Just know for a fact my 02' with big power delivered better mpg's under the same driving conditions....would'nt go weilding around that title with my experiance.....

Primed2win,

I think motovet is comparing his old truck and the power and mpg's it got with his new truck. His old truck was anything but stock.

I was.....and sadly now the LB7 is gone. It was nice while it lasted, but I knew the wife would'nt let me keep two diesels in the driveway too long. I will miss that truck.....:(

I cannot remember the site as for now that I read that the Allison trans has about a 80 to 100 hp loss....if you go by the old math of 20% power loss for a automatic trans then 400 at ther tires puts you in the area of 480 to 500 at the crank...is my math wrong???...is the old tried and true power loss conversion wrong??

I don't know where you saw that or what math you're using, but you're off by about a factor of 10! The Allison isn't eating much over 10 HP at the Duramax redline in 6th range.

Now what I'm thinking is that your math was for older transmissions with non-locking torque converters. In open converter mode you can be down in the 80% efficient range. You multiply torque but make lots of heat doing it.

Plus for 2011 the Allison with the LML gets variable main pressure so that the pump makes less pressure when the torque is low. Other changes improve lube distribution and lower friction clutch plates to lower its overall drag torque by about 30%.

That's fine motovet.
My point is comparing STOCK trucks. Comparing modded trucks quickly becomes silly because it becomes "apples and oranges".

In stock form LMM's had the most available power til the LML's.
LMM's get VERY competitive gas mileage to any stock Duramax. LML's have probably seen the biggest improvement in economy in the lifespan of Duramax. 11% is a fairly significant improvement.

To address other issues:
Yes DPF does burn more fuel. As I have pointed out its ~ 0.75 gallon per tank, which equates to fuel economy loss of ~ 3% on LMM's and ~2.2% on LML's. In return DPF WORKS! DPF's reduce particulate emissions by 85-100%.

As for urea: urea is injected into the exhaust continuously at normal operating temps, in miniscule amounts. Urea also WORKS! It reduces NOx emissions by 60-65%. It is a big part of the reason both Ford and GM were able to bump up power so much and still produce the cleanest burning diesel trucks ever.

All you guys clinging to old school diesel tech need to realize you are part of the problem. America as a whole has refused to embrace diesel technology because of the perception that diesels: Stink, Smoke, and Pollute. When a HD diesel truck pulls away from a traffic light belching a huge cloud of black smoke it only reinforces this perception.

Diesels can and should be a huge part of the solution to our country's dependence on oil. But that will only occur when Americans as a whole come to accept them as both Clean AND Efficient.
Welcome to the 21st century. Please leave your emission control bias in the past where it belongs.

can you get any close up pictures of the ECM???

Ben, great minds think alike :) I asked Tim the same thing. He has now added a pic of the TCM to his garage, hopefully the ECM will follow shortly.

Cheers
Cindy

That's fine motovet.
My point is comparing STOCK trucks. Comparing modded trucks quickly becomes silly because it becomes "apples and oranges".

In stock form LMM's had the most available power til the LML's.
LMM's get VERY competitive gas mileage to any stock Duramax. LML's have probably seen the biggest improvement in economy in the lifespan of Duramax. 11% is a fairly significant improvement.

To address other issues:
Yes DPF does burn more fuel. As I have pointed out its ~ 0.75 gallon per tank, which equates to fuel economy loss of ~ 3% on LMM's and ~2.2% on LML's. In return DPF WORKS! DPF's reduce particulate emissions by 85-100%.

As for urea: urea is injected into the exhaust continuously at normal operating temps, in miniscule amounts. Urea also WORKS! It reduces NOx emissions by 60-65%. It is a big part of the reason both Ford and GM were able to bump up power so much and still produce the cleanest burning diesel trucks ever.

All you guys clinging to old school diesel tech need to realize you are part of the problem. America as a whole has refused to embrace diesel technology because of the perception that diesels: Stink, Smoke, and Pollute. When a HD diesel truck pulls away from a traffic light belching a huge cloud of black smoke it only reinforces this perception.

Diesels can and should be a huge part of the solution to our country's dependence on oil. But that will only occur when Americans as a whole come to accept them as both Clean AND Efficient.
Welcome to the 21st century. Please leave your emission control bias in the past where it belongs.

Great post...I fully concur...:beerchug:

-Rob

So...when are the LML's supposed to be out? I have already seen some 2011 F250's.

Why do we need a urine tank,? why not mix it at the pump? LOl

Why do we need a urine tank,? why not mix it at the pump? LOl

I hope your joking, either that or you should learn how to read.

Ben, great minds think alike :) I asked Tim the same thing. He has now added a pic of the TCM to his garage, hopefully the ECM will follow shortly.

Cheers
Cindy

I sent Ross some pictures of the ECM connectors a couple weeks ago. :D

whatever it is, it must have some pretty healthy drivers in it...and a decent heat sink to cool it...the injectors run on 250 volts! :eek:

I am also really liking that new transmission crossmember and lower control arms.

Ben

Hopefuly the LML will have improved efficiency over the LMM, but I'm not convinced the new generation engines to date can compare to the older ones for mpg. I tracked miliage changes with both trucks when adding mods, and both gained about 2 mpg's with their respective mods. With that said the differences would be the same in stock form for me, though the 09' could improve with some more miles on her.....

Fuel filter looks very hard to get to.

We're going to have to hack up that urea tank when we convert to right hand drive, :rolleyes: lol.

So...when are the LML's supposed to be out? I have already seen some 2011 F250's.

Flint Assembly will begin crew cab and std cab model production on May 24th.

Fort Wayne Assembly will begin ext cab production on July 6th.

I was at the show today as well. Talked to the reps for about 15 minutes about the new changes to the engine. I guess I didn't realize that the DEF is in addition to all the other emmisions crap. I thought that the DEF was supposed to replace that stuff. They also told me that by 2014 the diesels would have to abide by even STRICTER emmisions standards. I mean at some point something has to give. From what I've read these are supposed to get better mileage than the previous LMM. That's almost hard to believe, but then again maybe with the changes in the engine and more hp/tq maybe they can squeeze a few more mpg out of it Even the tech guy said it was ridiculous what they have to do to meet emmision standards. But one thing about it, this new engine ought to pull like a freight train. I was kind of disapointed that there weren't more changes to the exterior. Basically the grille change slightly and that's about it. I'm not trying to be a debbie downer because I still would like to get one, probably have to wait awhile. I saw the new F250 6.7 as well. Like the looks of the grille, but it was ridculous how stuff was under the hood. I have no idea how you could work on it.

Visited with the Chevy factory reps at Houston Livestock Show in March, and we discussed the DEF, et. al. at length. The more they talked, the more that a 2010 and older was looking good. After they said that the added emmissions equipment was estimated to add $9000 to the base price, before the diesel engine and allison expense...my reply was "you just talked me out of a new diesel". Apparently, the computer recognizes if the DEF is low. At 100 miles remaining on the DEF, it governs the truck down to a max of 55mph. If you run it out of DEF, it governs to a blazing 4 mph!

I see a market emerging for two items - rebuild parts for any diesel engines pre-DEF and a chip to bypass the DEF thing.

Chip to bypass DEF, DPF, EGR, etc!

Visited with the Chevy factory reps at Houston Livestock Show in March, and we discussed the DEF, et. al. at length. The more they talked, the more that a 2010 and older was looking good. After they said that the added emmissions equipment was estimated to add $9000 to the base price, before the diesel engine and allison expense...my reply was "you just talked me out of a new diesel". Apparently, the computer recognizes if the DEF is low. At 100 miles remaining on the DEF, it governs the truck down to a max of 55mph. If you run it out of DEF, it governs to a blazing 4 mph!

I see a market emerging for two items - rebuild parts for any diesel engines pre-DEF and a chip to bypass the DEF thing.


kinda beating a dead horse. If you can't top off your urea every oil change then it's your own fault. It will begin to warn you with around 1,000 miles left so once again that's plenty of time.

Initally there were talking about a 4k price jump but I think it's down to around 500 which is about the yearly price hike anyways.

Yes though all of the aftermarket will come out with ways to bypass it.

Visited with the Chevy factory reps at Houston Livestock Show in March, and we discussed the DEF, et. al. at length. The more they talked, the more that a 2010 and older was looking good. After they said that the added emmissions equipment was estimated to add $9000 to the base price, before the diesel engine and allison expense...my reply was "you just talked me out of a new diesel". Apparently, the computer recognizes if the DEF is low. At 100 miles remaining on the DEF, it governs the truck down to a max of 55mph. If you run it out of DEF, it governs to a blazing 4 mph!

I see a market emerging for two items - rebuild parts for any diesel engines pre-DEF and a chip to bypass the DEF thing.

your chevy rep is a retard and just wants you to buy a 2010 now rather than have to wait a couple extra months to get your hard earned money.

ben

I would not talk to that rep ever again. He seems like another misinformed salesman. All salesman do is regurgitate bullet points spit at them from engineers. They totally miss what the engineers actually say and give you some random reinterpretation of the conversation they just had. Oh and they are huge on selling whatever leftover crap they have on the lot. Just a way for them to clear there lots.

:agreed:your chevy rep is a retard and just wants you to buy a 2010 now rather than have to wait a couple extra months to get your hard earned money.

ben

your chevy rep is a retard and just wants you to buy a 2010 now rather than have to wait a couple extra months to get your hard earned money.

ben

X2!!!!

Anyone that wants to geteducated about urea can do so in a few minutes on this forum or many others.
The only people scared of urea are those who haven't educated themselves about it.

Pretty simple math to me: 5 gal urea every ~ 5K miles at a whopping cost of ~ $25. The LML gets 11% better mileage so it saves ~ 31 gallons of diesel over the same 5000 miles. Diesel is goin for ~$3/ gal, so the LML is ~ $70 cheaper to drive every 5000 miles.

Also, as has been pointed out MANY TIMES. The truck will warn you when you have ~ 1000 miles left on the urea tank, and then keep reminding you until you refill the tank. If somebody is too stupid to refill it then they probably should be allowed to drive anyway.:banghead:

I have never heard of urea till it was announced for the new diesels. What other uses does it have....or what was it originaly designed for?

X2!!!!

Anyone that wants to geteducated about urea can do so in a few minutes on this forum or many others.
The only people scared of urea are those who haven't educated themselves about it.

Pretty simple math to me: 5 gal urea every ~ 5K miles at a whopping cost of ~ $25. The LML gets 11% better mileage so it saves ~ 31 gallons of diesel over the same 5000 miles. Diesel is goin for ~$3/ gal, so the LML is ~ $70 cheaper to drive every 5000 miles.

Also, as has been pointed out MANY TIMES. The truck will warn you when you have ~ 1000 miles left on the urea tank, and then keep reminding you until you refill the tank. If somebody is too stupid to refill it then they probably should be allowed to drive anyway.:banghead:


my favorite argument is "OH THATS GREAT, so when the urea runs out, ill be stranded, what a POS!!!"

I just feel like shaking my head and saying "doesnt the same thing happen when you run out of diesel, dumbass? Have you ever had a problem keeping your fuel tank filled?" :D

ben

Other uses for urea:

Urea, a white crystalline solid containing 46% nitrogen, is widely used in the agricultural industry as an animal feed additive and fertilizer.

It is also used in coal fired plants, and other such plants to be injected into smoke stacks to reduce emissions.

I thought urea was for bomb making. Maybe it ill add a little punch to the diesel.

my favorite argument is "OH THATS GREAT, so when the urea runs out, ill be stranded, what a POS!!!"

I just feel like shaking my head and saying "doesnt the same thing happen when you run out of diesel, dumbass? Have you ever had a problem keeping your fuel tank filled?" :D

ben

:rotflmao:

do the new fords and dodges need urea to?

do the new fords and dodges need urea to?

Ford = yes
Dodge = no; but will be in coming in a year or two

Urea is a big part of the reason Ford and GM are 730 and 765 ft/lbs of torque and Dodge is at 650. Dodge kinda missed the boat on urea. They are using much more EGR trying to clean up emissions. This just robs power.

Urea cleans up emissions so nicely, it allowed Ford and GM to up power and still be cleaner than ever.
Urea is here to stay get used to it, its actually a GOOD thing.

Ford = yes
Dodge = no; but will be in coming in a year or two

Urea is a big part of the reason Ford and GM are 730 and 765 ft/lbs of torque and Dodge is at 650. Dodge kinda missed the boat on urea. They are using much more EGR trying to clean up emissions. This just robs power.

Urea cleans up emissions so nicely, it allowed Ford and GM to up power and still be cleaner than ever.
Urea is here to stay get used to it, its actually a GOOD thing.

I agree, urea isn't such a bad thing. I was hoping that it would be urea instead of dpf/egr. Here in the Agriculture sector, some manufacturers are using urea and nothing else to meet emissions (at this point) which is so much better for the engine itself, Fuel economy also increases, costs also stay down.

dodge uses urea on the cab/chassis trucks only.

the pickup trucks use a "special" "rare/expensive" type of catalytic converter.

Mercedes uses urea (Blue-Tec) and it is expensive as crap! This is probably going to raise the market cost of Urea significantly.

Mercedes uses urea (Blue-Tec) and it is expensive as crap! This is probably going to raise the market cost of Urea significantly.

yeah, its expensive as crap because its "mercedes branded".

When it becomes availalble at wal mart and auto parts stores in the coming months, its going to be cheap, somewhere around 3.00/gallon

Maybe a few of you on here need to read through this for the "Urea" injection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_non-catalytic_reduction

Once again I am asking if you all feel safe of having 1400 to 1900 degree exhaust temperatures POST turbo for the benefit of urea injection doing anything regarding emissions. The way I see it is GM has written a better tune on the truck and Urea injection is a bunch of hogwash bullshit to make the hippies happy.

Maybe a few of you on here need to read through this for the "Urea" injection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_non-catalytic_reduction

Once again I am asking if you all feel safe of having 1400 to 1900 degree exhaust temperatures POST turbo for the benefit of urea injection doing anything regarding emissions. The way I see it is GM has written a better tune on the truck and Urea injection is a bunch of hogwash bullshit to make the hippies happy.

Please get better educated!
The link you posted is relative to COAL burning power plants.

Here's a link for Ford's explanation of Urea in their trucks it states 250 degrees C:
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/SD_Diesel_Aftertreatment.pdf

I can't find GM's explanation but its similar.

Urea is in WIDE use throughout Europe in diesels since 2008. In fact > 65% of commercial use vehicles are now sold with Urea in Europe.
I haven't been hearing about any issues with crazy temps you are talking about.
Learn more about it and you'll be less scared of it:)

Please get better educated!
The link you posted is relative to COAL burning power plants.

Here's a link for Ford's explanation of Urea in their trucks it states 250 degrees C:
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/SD_Diesel_Aftertreatment.pdf

I can't find GM's explanation but its similar.

Urea is in WIDE use throughout Europe in diesels since 2008. In fact > 65% of commercial use vehicles are now sold with Urea in Europe.
I haven't been hearing about any issues with crazy temps you are talking about.
Learn more about it and you'll be less scared of it:)


Once again the link I posted does not say anything about it being coal or diesel engine. It states the TEMPERATURE required for the process to happen is the temperature I listed... maybe you should read again.

The reaction requires a certain temperature range to be effective, typically 760 to 1,093 °C (1,400 to 1,999 °F), otherwise the NO and the ammonia don't react. Ammonia that hasn't reacted is called ammonia slip and is undesirable, as the ammonia can react with other combustion species, such as sulfur trioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_trioxide) (SO3), to form ammonium salts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_non-catalytic_reduction#cite_note-1)

Now... read that again... and then come up with a reply. I will await.

And to Reiterate... my question is not whether the reaction works or not... merely the use of it on a vehicle where I don't see it working because of the temperatures required. If you can't see my clear explaination don't bother replying with don't be scared of it.

Once again the link I posted does not say anything about it being coal or diesel engine. It states the TEMPERATURE required for the process to happen is the temperature I listed... maybe you should read again.

The reaction requires a certain temperature range to be effective, typically 760 to 1,093 °C (1,400 to 1,999 °F), otherwise the NO and the ammonia don't react. Ammonia that hasn't reacted is called ammonia slip and is undesirable, as the ammonia can react with other combustion species, such as sulfur trioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_trioxide) (SO3), to form ammonium salts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_non-catalytic_reduction#cite_note-1)

Now... read that again... and then come up with a reply. I will await.

And to Reiterate... my question is not whether the reaction works or not... merely the use of it on a vehicle where I don't see it working because of the temperatures required. If you can't see my clear explaination don't bother replying with don't be scared of it.

Geez, you must be right, our diesel engine trucks are the SAME as industrial power plants:banghead:.
Here's the first few lines of your link: "Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) is a method to lessen nitrogen oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_oxide) emissions in conventional power plants that burn biomass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass), waste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration) and coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal). The process involves injecting either ammonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia) or urea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea) into the firebox of the boiler at a location where the flue gas is between 760 and 1,093 degree Celsius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius) (1,400 and 2,000 °F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit)) to react with the nitrogen oxides formed in the combustion process."

Do more research, I'm a little sick of doing it for people who are remaining delibereately uniformed on urea.
You sound like a politician using scare tactics and misinformation to justify your stance.

Also note that your link refers to "SNCR". Diesel powered vehicles are using "SCR" or Selective Catalytic Reduction. ITS A DIFFERENT PROCESS THUS DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS.

Quick chemistry lesson catalysts are used to ALTER a chemical process. In some cases speeding the reaction at a given temp Ie. diesel exhaust.
Read about catalysis here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalysis

Did you read the Ford explanation I posted? Here's a quote, "Dosing typically occurs between 200 and 500 degrees Celsius." Just so you know they go on to state that DPF temps are ~ 600 degrees C during a regen. So the SCR process in the new trucks will occur at LOWER exhaust temps then HD trucks have been seeing since 07. And lower than ANY HD diesel sees during a hill climb while towing.

What the hell is your motivation in printing misinformation anyway???
Do you just not know what you are doing or are you just so accustomed to villifying ANYTHING done in the name of the environment you can't help yourself?

yeah, its expensive as crap because its "mercedes branded".

When it becomes availalble at wal mart and auto parts stores in the coming months, its going to be cheap, somewhere around 3.00/gallon


I hope! A customer of mine is the head Mercedes/BMW Tech at the local dealership. He recommends that repeat buyers DO NOT buy Benz diesels. Their Urea tank is supposed to last 15k miles. On the 15k service the Urea system adds an extra $900 for draining and re-filling the Urea tank at $34/gallon.

I would throw in some "regular" urea and see how she goes.

I hope! A customer of mine is the head Mercedes/BMW Tech at the local dealership. He recommends that repeat buyers DO NOT buy Benz diesels. Their Urea tank is supposed to last 15k miles. On the 15k service the Urea system adds an extra $900 for draining and re-filling the Urea tank at $34/gallon.

Typical dealership BS.
"Draining and re-filling urea tank." Hmm shouldn't the urea tank already be empty????
Urea for $34/gallon. The dealership is doing what they do best; preying on the uninformed donsumer who doesn't realize he's getting totally screwed.

Anyone who gan fill their gas tank and /or top off their windshield washer fluid can fill a urea tank. I would hope nobody is dumb enough to pay someone to do it.

Geez, you must be right, our diesel engine trucks are the SAME as industrial power plants:banghead:.
Here's the first few lines of your link: "Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) is a method to lessen nitrogen oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_oxide) emissions in conventional power plants that burn biomass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass), waste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration) and coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal). The process involves injecting either ammonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia) or urea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea) into the firebox of the boiler at a location where the flue gas is between 760 and 1,093 degree Celsius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius) (1,400 and 2,000 °F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit)) to react with the nitrogen oxides formed in the combustion process."

Do more research, I'm a little sick of doing it for people who are remaining delibereately uniformed on urea.
You sound like a politician using scare tactics and misinformation to justify your stance.

Also note that your link refers to "SNCR". Diesel powered vehicles are using "SCR" or Selective Catalytic Reduction. ITS A DIFFERENT PROCESS THUS DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS.

Quick chemistry lesson catalysts are used to ALTER a chemical process. In some cases speeding the reaction at a given temp Ie. diesel exhaust.
Read about catalysis here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalysis

Did you read the Ford explanation I posted? Here's a quote, "Dosing typically occurs between 200 and 500 degrees Celsius." Just so you know they go on to state that DPF temps are ~ 600 degrees C during a regen. So the SCR process in the new trucks will occur at LOWER exhaust temps then HD trucks have been seeing since 07. And lower than ANY HD diesel sees during a hill climb while towing.

What the hell is your motivation in printing misinformation anyway???
Do you just not know what you are doing or are you just so accustomed to villifying ANYTHING done in the name of the environment you can't help yourself?


Where have I posted misinformation? I am asking a question, you are being an asshole instead of answering a question. I see no need to have more "environment" controls on a diesel which by nature burn cleaner than gasoline engines. When you pull your head out of your ass let me know to have a proper debate instead of stating I am posting misinformation when it was merely links to the Urea injection process and my question.

And the whole "environment" thing is a bunch of bullshit. Mankind cannot do enough to have any effect on our environment as proven by the bullshit the "global warming" scientists have made up for the past 30 years.

OK you all need to chill out now this is starting to look like a rice burner forum, who cares it's either gonna work well or not at all so we just need to wait and see, not act like kids!

jon5212,

I do not buy the global warming theory either; however, man most certainly can influence his environment. Compare the air of LA today with 40 years ago. You cannot tell me there is no difference. A large portion of the reduction in smog has been the reduction of nox emmissions. If urea is successful on a diesel at removing these emmissions and the cost is $30-40 every 5000 miles, I say the price for the clean air is well worth the cost.

There is a point of diminishing returns on all efforts to clean up emmissions, but from all that I have read on urea, it is a very cost effective way to help with a known problem: nox emmissions.

Where have I posted misinformation? I am asking a question, you are being an asshole instead of answering a question. I see no need to have more "environment" controls on a diesel which by nature burn cleaner than gasoline engines. When you pull your head out of your ass let me know to have a proper debate instead of stating I am posting misinformation when it was merely links to the Urea injection process and my question.

And the whole "environment" thing is a bunch of bullshit. Mankind cannot do enough to have any effect on our environment as proven by the bullshit the "global warming" scientists have made up for the past 30 years.

Umm when you post a wikipedia link relating to INDUSTRIAL POWER PLANTS and state that our trucks are using the same system and generating the same temps I call it misinformation. What do you call it???

You can call me names if you want, I could care less. You are the one who posted a bunch of BS and I called you on it. Who's the ******* then?

And the whole "environment" thing is a bunch of bullshit. Mankind cannot do enough to have any effect on our environment as proven by the bullshit the "global warming" scientists have made up for the past 30 years.

You need to get an education...it also sounds like your motivation is pure jealously of the guys who can afford new trucks...:rolleyes:

-Rob

Umm when you post a wikipedia link relating to INDUSTRIAL POWER PLANTS and state that our trucks are using the same system and generating the same temps I call it misinformation. What do you call it???

You can call me names if you want, I could care less. You are the one who posted a bunch of BS and I called you on it. Who's the ******* then?

It merely mentions that it is also used in industrial plants... it also refers to use in automobiles as the reaction is the same thing. So no thats not misinformation, however you can do whatever you want and say whatever you want... it doesn't change anything and doesn't hurt me.

And weak attempt Transferred... You don't know me... I have every means to buy a new truck if I want to... I choose not to because of the BS that is sold to the general public and people buy it.

Jon 5212

As far as people being misinformed here we go, I think better research needs to be done and not just believe the first thing you read. Look for your specific application. You were way off on your research. This is a reagent urea which it take less to get the action required to make it work. It is also sprayed in at a fine mist not a solid concentrated form, you would only be having temperatures of 300 to 600 degrees Celsius needed for the chemical reaction no where near what you are talking about,this is also the reason for the redesigned tail pipes.


Now does this answer the question??

[QUOTE=transferred;3866314]You need to get an education...it also sounds like your motivation is pure jealously of the guys who can afford new trucks...:rolleyes:

-Rob[/
most people have been so misinformed by the hippies that have been caught lying about climate change that they do not realize there is no part of diesel fumes that is harmfull to our planet or environment in any way. Yes fumes can give people and animals cancer but aside from that there is no negative effect. Those scientists would like us to beleive that at some point millions of years ago our atmosphere was 100% oxygen. Let your mind go just a little bit and you might start to wonder what would have happened if lightning would have struck a tree. With out the very gases that they claim are destroying the planet life would cease to exist. Why burn more fuel to make the exhaust cleaner? It fills somebodies pockets with lots of loot but benefits noone else in any way shape or form but costs us more money. We removed the dpf on a truck at work and gained 5 to 10% fuel economy. Their is no logical reason to burn that money to try to solve a problem that does not exist.

Ford = yes
Dodge = no; but will be in coming in a year or two

Urea is a big part of the reason Ford and GM are 730 and 765 ft/lbs of torque and Dodge is at 650. Dodge kinda missed the boat on urea. They are using much more EGR trying to clean up emissions. This just robs power.

Urea cleans up emissions so nicely, it allowed Ford and GM to up power and still be cleaner than ever.
Urea is here to stay get used to it, its actually a GOOD thing.

Hasn't Dodge been using "blue tech" technology since the inception of the 6.7?
That is what the little badges say anyways.

kklonghorns,

nox in diesel has a very direct and dramatic negative effect -- it forms smog.

Don't confuse co2 emmissions and the earth warming theory with other pollutants that do result from burning diesel in an internal combustion engine. Some of these other pollutants do cause problems--hippies or not.

kklonghorns,

nox in diesel has a very direct and dramatic negative effect -- it forms smog.

Don't confuse co2 emmissions and the earth warming theory with other pollutants that do result from burning diesel in an internal combustion engine. Some of these other pollutants do cause problems--hippies or not.
Yeah, gas cars produce NOx as well. As much as I hate CARB and having to smog cars, big cities are WAY cleaner than they used to be, even when I was a kid. It used to be I couldn't see Sacramento from 15 miles out, now I you see it from 30+ miles away on most days.

I know this is off topic, but I am in favor of smog requirements for new vehicles, but they shouldn't enforce them after it sells. The # of people who remove/disable the equipment is minimal compared to the # of people who don't. It wouldn't really hurt the environment as much as they want us to think, since most people don't mess with it. Heck, of the 4 vehicles I own, only 1 has any smog equipment disabled (because it malfunctioned all the time and ticked me off).

[quote=transferred;3866314]You need to get an education...it also sounds like your motivation is pure jealously of the guys who can afford new trucks...:rolleyes:

-Rob[/
most people have been so misinformed by the hippies that have been caught lying about climate change that they do not realize there is no part of diesel fumes that is harmfull to our planet or environment in any way. Yes fumes can give people and animals cancer but aside from that there is no negative effect. Those scientists would like us to beleive that at some point millions of years ago our atmosphere was 100% oxygen. Let your mind go just a little bit and you might start to wonder what would have happened if lightning would have struck a tree. With out the very gases that they claim are destroying the planet life would cease to exist. Why burn more fuel to make the exhaust cleaner? It fills somebodies pockets with lots of loot but benefits noone else in any way shape or form but costs us more money. We removed the dpf on a truck at work and gained 5 to 10% fuel economy. Their is no logical reason to burn that money to try to solve a problem that does not exist.

Wow interesting rant. Full of crap, but interesting.
Just to set the record straight, it s the concentrations of any particular gas that you want to study in the atmosphere that are important.
Ever heard of the concept of moderation in all things.
Living in an environment of 100% Oxygen or anything else for that matter would kill everything on the planet over time.
If you really think diesel exhaust cannot harm the environment, try this little experiement: Put your truck in the garage and run a tube from the tailpipe into your house, start the truck, set a clock and let me know how long it takes before your house has a nice healthy enviroment:).

Seriously, just use some common sense about it, there are 6.9 BILLION people on the planet today, there were 1.6 Billion in 1900. Small negative contributions multiplied 6.9 Billion times creates problems.

What is the harm having these truck burn cleaner really???? You don't have to believe in global warming, you just have to use some common sense.

Its kinda like smoking, a pack of cigarettes a day doesn't seem to have any ill effects when you start cause its a tiny insult to the system that your body easily handles, however after 20-30-40 years you've had a heart attack, stroke, high blood pressure, COPD, and need to wear oxygen to walk 20 feet.

Our environment is no different, its robust and can handle alot, but enough insults over a long enough time takes a toll.

so yeah back on topic, any1 got a shiny new 2011 dmax yet?

local Chevy and GMC dealers here in town say MAYBE August....

they still have no clue:banghead::idiot:

local Chevy and GMC dealers here in town say MAYBE August....

they still have no clue:banghead::idiot:

So, when are they hitting the lots then?

I think you could see them on lots in states near Michigan within 2 weeks. A small town in Iowa was getting the first 2011 HD. It was a red regular cab 4x4.

[quote=kklonghorns;3868171]

Wow interesting rant. Full of crap, but interesting.
Just to set the record straight, it s the concentrations of any particular gas that you want to study in the atmosphere that are important.
Ever heard of the concept of moderation in all things.
Living in an environment of 100% Oxygen or anything else for that matter would kill everything on the planet over time.
If you really think diesel exhaust cannot harm the environment, try this little experiement: Put your truck in the garage and run a tube from the tailpipe into your house, start the truck, set a clock and let me know how long it takes before your house has a nice healthy enviroment:).

Seriously, just use some common sense about it, there are 6.9 BILLION people on the planet today, there were 1.6 Billion in 1900. Small negative contributions multiplied 6.9 Billion times creates problems.

What is the harm having these truck burn cleaner really???? You don't have to believe in global warming, you just have to use some common sense.

Its kinda like smoking, a pack of cigarettes a day doesn't seem to have any ill effects when you start cause its a tiny insult to the system that your body easily handles, however after 20-30-40 years you've had a heart attack, stroke, high blood pressure, COPD, and need to wear oxygen to walk 20 feet.

Our environment is no different, its robust and can handle alot, but enough insults over a long enough time takes a toll.

[QUOTE=NK06LBZ;3871119]

Wow, interesting rant,I bet you support global warming that's what pissed you off. I'm not sayin urea is bad,but it sure seems like all this emissions crap has no end.

as for the emissions junk, there has to be a way to keep the levels down with out using more fuel. It makes no sense to ADD fuel with no power gain just to keep the noxiuos fumes level down.

when you have a engine of 2.5L from 1984 and one from 2008 made by the same manufacturer and the only difference is the newer engine has emission controls, but also has electronic fuel injection which is supposed to be more accurate and economical than the older mechanical injection and yet the newer engine gets 10 to 12 MPG less than the older mechanical injected engine. how is that better for the Global Environment??

as for the emissions junk, there has to be a way to keep the levels down with out using more fuel. It makes no sense to ADD fuel with no power gain just to keep the noxiuos fumes level down.

when you have a engine of 2.5L from 1984 and one from 2008 made by the same manufacturer and the only difference is the newer engine has emission controls, but also has electronic fuel injection which is supposed to be more accurate and economical than the older mechanical injection and yet the newer engine gets 10 to 12 MPG less than the older mechanical injected engine. how is that better for the Global Environment??

It isn't.

It isn't.


then why is all this shit being forced down our throats.....:damnit1:

So the urea system is in addition to the dpf and a LML goes through regens like a LMM?I thought the milage improvements came mostly from no more regens.

So the urea system is in addition to the dpf and a LML goes through regens like a LMM?I thought the milage improvements came mostly from no more regens.

Yes the urea is suppose to help clean the dpf filter, so that there is less regenerations.

as for the emissions junk, there has to be a way to keep the levels down with out using more fuel. It makes no sense to ADD fuel with no power gain just to keep the noxiuos fumes level down.

when you have a engine of 2.5L from 1984 and one from 2008 made by the same manufacturer and the only difference is the newer engine has emission controls, but also has electronic fuel injection which is supposed to be more accurate and economical than the older mechanical injection and yet the newer engine gets 10 to 12 MPG less than the older mechanical injected engine. how is that better for the Global Environment??

Just to inject a little humor into this subject, I had to find the script from Star Wars 3. Not that anyone is narrow minded, we just have all become accustomed to removing those nasty emissions devices to suit our own needs. Usually power and better fuel mileage is the results.

Anakin, if one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Jedi. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the Force.

The older ones might have gotten better mileage but we are forgettting the power gains through the years. We are very close to the power production produced by the older full size semi's of the 70's and 80's. But we are now getting 2-3 times the fuel mileage and very little emissions. I remember the 1980 Benz 300D that I had for a very short time. Not sure of the torque but without a turbo, the 3.0L 5 cylinder engine produced a whopping 80 hp and pushed a very heavy car to around 26mpg. The turbo version got the same mileage but boosted the power to 120hp. You could see and smell the exhaust (which I didn't mind, I wanted a diesel) and many just didn't want to deal with it. Now BMW is using a 3.0L engine getting 265 hp and 425ftlbs but mileage is up to 36 mpg.

So yes, modern electronic devices have increased every aspect about current diesels and about the only thing that hasn't changed is the basic diesel combustion process. Instead of just injecting fuel into an engine and what burns produces power, we now monitor every degree of rotation multiple times to make sure that engine is burning extremely efficient.

I don't own a truck with the DPF on it but isn't the idea behind it's light off to cook off particulate matter? IF we work the engine hard like a diesel is designed to operate, doesn't it cook off the carbon within the DPF without regen? I'm very guilty of using my truck like a gas rig when I'm in town. Now when I'm on the road it's a different story. I'm either pulling a full trailer or pulling one that's empty to get a load someplace. When I don't create enough heat then nothing will burn off. If I had a truck with DPF then I can understand why it would have to regen itself to burn off the matter that would normally be done if I was working it hard. I could be very wrong but that's my understanding of the process.

Last parting gift. Back in July 1978 at the rip age of 21, a buddy on mine and I decided to take a big motorcycle trip. Eastern Oregon, CO, AZ, CA, OR, WA and back to OR and we put on around 4,000 miles during the month. It was a great trip but the heat was incredible in AZ. But it was nothing like the huge brown cloud of haze that we encountered coming into Banning, CA. Made me gag, burnt my eyes and visibilty just sucked. I had never seen such crap in the air before but now I understand why CA had to do something and why the CARB and EPA were created. We love our rides but they are polluters...just not as bad today as before. And while we hate greenies and there detriment to our enjoyment of rodding around in our trucks or cars, they had a valid point. If they hadn't forced emissions controls on us and we had just let things continue, OMG what would we be breathing today?
I don't like having my power limited and enjoy a finely tuned engine just like the rest of you do. But there comes a time when we have to be responsible and protects ourselves...from ourselves. Maybe I'm just older now and see things differently.

SO while we've had emissions devices for a long time and we usually do our best to defeat them, it's time to look as all aspects of ownership. The engineers and car companies don't do this out of the kindness of their hearts and we forced to make their engines burn cleaner and product better mileage. If in certain circumstances it take more fuel to clean out the pipes for overall better emissions then it's something we have to deal with for now. Like the Air Injection pumps we used to have, modern computers have made them a thing of the past. Maybe the DPF will do the same when they come up with better tech. But for now...we just need to "embrace the horror". Armaggedon there. Ok my novel is done. We all have different views on this but there is a reason for it. In the end we now have trucks that are more like mini-semi's than pickups, far better mileage and lower emissions. I'd say we all make out pretty damn well.

IF we work the engine hard like a diesel is designed to operate, doesn't it cook off the carbon within the DPF without regen?

Not true, it stays in regen forever and never comes out. The Edge J/A told me so on a buddy's truck. Fuel mileage was down to about 25% of what an LB7 got pulling the same load FWIW. We averaged 7.0 MPG.

if you only have 7 mpg then why you dont buy yourself a big rig like peterbilt or kenworth and maybe your dpf system is faulty because normally its supposed to regen only once a tank approx

Just to inject a little humor into this subject, I had to find the script from Star Wars 3. Not that anyone is narrow minded, we just have all become accustomed to removing those nasty emissions devices to suit our own needs. Usually power and better fuel mileage is the results.

Anakin, if one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Jedi. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the Force.

The older ones might have gotten better mileage but we are forgettting the power gains through the years. We are very close to the power production produced by the older full size semi's of the 70's and 80's. But we are now getting 2-3 times the fuel mileage and very little emissions. I remember the 1980 Benz 300D that I had for a very short time. Not sure of the torque but without a turbo, the 3.0L 5 cylinder engine produced a whopping 80 hp and pushed a very heavy car to around 26mpg. The turbo version got the same mileage but boosted the power to 120hp. You could see and smell the exhaust (which I didn't mind, I wanted a diesel) and many just didn't want to deal with it. Now BMW is using a 3.0L engine getting 265 hp and 425ftlbs but mileage is up to 36 mpg.

So yes, modern electronic devices have increased every aspect about current diesels and about the only thing that hasn't changed is the basic diesel combustion process. Instead of just injecting fuel into an engine and what burns produces power, we now monitor every degree of rotation multiple times to make sure that engine is burning extremely efficient.

I don't own a truck with the DPF on it but isn't the idea behind it's light off to cook off particulate matter? IF we work the engine hard like a diesel is designed to operate, doesn't it cook off the carbon within the DPF without regen? I'm very guilty of using my truck like a gas rig when I'm in town. Now when I'm on the road it's a different story. I'm either pulling a full trailer or pulling one that's empty to get a load someplace. When I don't create enough heat then nothing will burn off. If I had a truck with DPF then I can understand why it would have to regen itself to burn off the matter that would normally be done if I was working it hard. I could be very wrong but that's my understanding of the process.

Last parting gift. Back in July 1978 at the rip age of 21, a buddy on mine and I decided to take a big motorcycle trip. Eastern Oregon, CO, AZ, CA, OR, WA and back to OR and we put on around 4,000 miles during the month. It was a great trip but the heat was incredible in AZ. But it was nothing like the huge brown cloud of haze that we encountered coming into Banning, CA. Made me gag, burnt my eyes and visibilty just sucked. I had never seen such crap in the air before but now I understand why CA had to do something and why the CARB and EPA were created. We love our rides but they are polluters...just not as bad today as before. And while we hate greenies and there detriment to our enjoyment of rodding around in our trucks or cars, they had a valid point. If they hadn't forced emissions controls on us and we had just let things continue, OMG what would we be breathing today?
I don't like having my power limited and enjoy a finely tuned engine just like the rest of you do. But there comes a time when we have to be responsible and protects ourselves...from ourselves. Maybe I'm just older now and see things differently.

SO while we've had emissions devices for a long time and we usually do our best to defeat them, it's time to look as all aspects of ownership. The engineers and car companies don't do this out of the kindness of their hearts and we forced to make their engines burn cleaner and product better mileage. If in certain circumstances it take more fuel to clean out the pipes for overall better emissions then it's something we have to deal with for now. Like the Air Injection pumps we used to have, modern computers have made them a thing of the past. Maybe the DPF will do the same when they come up with better tech. But for now...we just need to "embrace the horror". Armaggedon there. Ok my novel is done. We all have different views on this but there is a reason for it. In the end we now have trucks that are more like mini-semi's than pickups, far better mileage and lower emissions. I'd say we all make out pretty damn well.

Excellent post!!!!!
I agree completely. Its amazing how quickly we forget what things were like just a short time ago. I had an 81 Audi diesel. That was quite possibly the most gutless car EVER produced this side of a model T (also the biggest POS I ever owned, I planned my weekend on fixing the car not knowing what would be wrong yet but something always was). I would drive up Parley's canyon outside of Salt Lake going 20 MPH in second gear engine roaring at near redline. It got 35 MPG, which I thought was great being a dirt poor college kid at the time. Anyone remember Semi's climbing those same mountains at 10 MPH in the 70's and 80's. You don't see that today.

My LMM gets 19-20 MPG empty, burns far cleaner, and tows 8000 lbs up the same mountain at whatever speed I choose (usually 70-75MPH).

Another thing people forget about the fuel misers of the 80's was they weighed far less than a comparable car does today. Compare a 1985 Civic to a new version, the 1985 version probably tipped the scales under 2000 lbs. Todays versions go over 3000 lbs. All that extra weight burns alot more fuel.

Thanks P2W and good point about vehicle weights. Hey I forgot a couple States when listing my motorcycle trip. Couldn't very well get to CO without going through ID and UT. Between my retirement from the Navy and starting work here in Iraq, I lived in Layton for like 1.5 yrs, wound up in Elko, NV and then up to Poki. I seem to be revolving around northern Utah for some reason. Might be the subconscious mind playing tricks on me since I have a lot of family buried in Beaver, UT. A long long time ago...in a galaxy far far away. Ok that's just stooopid. I might be older but I'm still just a kid inside I reckon. Bla bla bla. Outta here.

go to your dealer, they should have pricing now

go to your dealer, they should have pricing now
I plan to stop by the dealer today on my way home from work and see what they have to say.

I went by yesterday,but he still couldn't give me a price.