Diesel options that don't have DPF....

[artificialist]

I am certain that all 2008-up engines got a DPF. That is because the 2008 smog test got much harder. Also, they went with ULSD in 2007 because DPFs would never last with 500 PPM of sulfur. Sort of like how lead was taken out of gasoline in the 70s because it would destroy cats.

Now DEF/Urea/SCR is a different story. Some cars have it some don't.
Here is a list I can think of (2008 to now)
No DEF:
All Mazda diesels
Ram 2500 and 3500 pickup
Ford 6.4 diesel
VW Jetta
VW Golf
Audi A3
Uses DEF:
All BMW diesels
All Benz diesels
Ford 6.7 diesel
Chevy Cruze
VW Passat
VW Toureg
Audi Q7
Ram Chassis cab 4500 5500

 

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
I am certain that all 2008-up engines got a DPF. That is because the 2008 smog test got much harder. Also, they went with ULSD in 2007 because DPFs would never last with 500 PPM of sulfur. Sort of like how lead was taken out of gasoline in the 70s because it would destroy cats.

Now DEF/Urea/SCR is a different story. Some cars have it some don't.
Here is a list I can think of (2008 to now)
No DEF:
All Mazda diesels
Ram 2500 and 3500 pickup
Ford 6.4 diesel
VW Jetta
VW Golf
Audi A3
Uses DEF:
All BMW diesels
All Benz diesels
Ford 6.7 diesel
Chevy Cruze
VW Passat
VW Toureg
Audi Q7
Ram Chassis cab 4500 5500


You can move the Ram 2500 and 3500 down to the "Uses DEF" part of the list: It was added for 2013 models.

 

[Silk]

Mitsubishi Triton with 2.5 or 3.2 engine has no DPF

 

[Fleetmon]

adding DEF is about as difficult as adding windshield washer fluid. It's not that expensive and it goes along with the price of having a diesel. Me? I'll take a diesel any day for my 150+ mile round trip ccommute.

 

[Silverado12]

Last time I saw DEF at a truckstop it was 2.79 per gal.

 

[Fleetmon]

And it's consumed at a rate of around 2%-3% of diesel consumed. Diesels aren't for everyone....DEF is now a part of the diesel thing. There are attractive, older options available and most of them have low miles and really haven't been worked to their potential and unless they've had a programmer/performance chip installed, they should be in relatively unabused condition. I wouldn't touch one that's been modded though.....not necessarily because of possible engine damage but transmission damage almost assuredly.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Diesel jumped the shark in 2008. The new ones are hand grenades with the pins pulled. I wouldnt own a post-2007 diesel if you GAVE it to me.

 

[Fleetmon]

I doubt if anyone WILL give you one.

Diesel - you either get it or you don't. In other words, I don't think you know what you're talking about....just sayin'

Your signature shows you own a good diesel....that certainly doesn't mean the others aren't good.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I do get it...diesels are now thirsty, finicky, problematic, and heart-stoppingly expensive. Any with the Bosch CP4 series injection pump are hand grenades.

 

[bdcardinal]

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
adding DEF is about as difficult as adding windshield washer fluid. It's not that expensive and it goes along with the price of having a diesel. Me? I'll take a diesel any day for my 150+ mile round trip ccommute.



I would love to own a new diesel truck. The new 6.7 has so much power, you don't have to do any chips or programming at all. Plus if you get a good trim level they are comfortable and can drive them for hours and hours comfortably.

It really is amazing all the new first time diesel truck owners we have that have no clue about proper maintenance. They are the ones that come in screaming and yelling about their truck going into limp mode when they run the DEF dry. They also are the ones that scream and yell about fuel filter pricing.

 

[Fleetmon]

Our 35d averages 29 MPG at 70+MPH every day and will pass almost everything it meets on the road. Our '99 528i, on its best day would get 28 MPG, was smaller and not near as comfortable. Ford has come a LONG way from the 6.0 and they had to lick many a calf with those. The 7.3 legacy will go down in history but once Uncle EPA says no, they mean it!

@ Jarlaxle - I just walked outside and looked at approximately 1k diesels all hard at work and didn't see one wrecker in sight. Our shop has its share of electrical problems, brake issues, and etc but very rarely do we see any diesel problems. We only have a small variety of them though....one-cylinder Deutz to 16-cylinder EMDs and Cats. ALL of our light duty pick-ups and vans are diesel. We do tightly control the quality of our diesel fuel, we don't add any additives, don't use biodiesel (No problems with it except for seasonal equipment) and the only problem we have to solve when it arises is unecessary idling which will kill ANY engine.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I do get it...diesels are now thirsty, finicky, problematic, and heart-stoppingly expensive. Any with the Bosch CP4 series injection pump are hand grenades.


And with tubocharged gas engines you get the flat torque of Diesels while using cheaper gas, less expensive maintenance, and probably similar longevity to today's smogged Diesels.

 

[Stewart Fan]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I do get it...diesels are now thirsty, finicky, problematic, and heart-stoppingly expensive. Any with the Bosch CP4 series injection pump are hand grenades.


Interesting...

My 2011 Dmax with DPF/DEF gets better mileage and has been more reliable than my '07 Ram with the 5.9 CTD that was supposed to be gods gift to light duty trucks.

I just fill it full of fuel,top off the DEF every 5000-6000 miles and drive.

 

[surfstar]

Still waiting for a diesel Mazda CX-5
~45mpg in a CUV with twice the torque of the gasser...

 

[Fleetmon]

Mm-hmm, yep....y'all are right. Diesels are no good. I'm selling mine today since my experience must have been a dream.

The Europeans, military, governments...they're all wrong too....it looks like this has the making of a conspiracy by the gasoline manufacturers.

As I said a few posts back, diesels aren't for everyone.

 

[itguy08]

I think a lot of it has to do with there being no gas engines that could power a big rig. And that the maintenance and fuel costs were also lower. I think at the larger end Diesel still is king.

Now that Diesel tops premium gas in many areas, require DEF, and are more finicky about fuel and filter changes I think the light end of things gas has some real advantages.

Gas engines have 7-10k change intervals, some are turbocharged so have flat torque, are not as picky on fuel, lower cost fuel, and lower maintenance costs I think we'll see Diesels at the light end starting to go down in sales numbers. Look at the power from the Ecoboost 3.5 and how well it tows in an F150. Imagine if Ford turbo'ed the 5.0 and shoved that in an F2/350. I think you'd see well over 1000 lb-ft and a flat torque curve.

 

[badtlc]

Well this didn't go how I hoped.

 

[Fleetmon]

well...you certainly got a lot of differing opinions.

FWIW, my dad still drives a 1972 non-turbo diesel that gets 35 MPG and maintains 75 MPH on the highway with zero issues....thats always an option....an older low mile Mercedes.

For my own use, I'm not wary of any diesels and I've been exposed to just about every one of them made....the biggest problem with LD diesels is typically the owners. If I felt they were a problem I certainly wouldn't own one.

Good luck with whatever you choose!

Consider me shutted-upped on the subject!

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon

For my own use, I'm not wary of any diesels and I've been exposed to just about every one of them made....the biggest problem with LD diesels is typically the owners. If I felt they were a problem I certainly wouldn't own one.


Even the Ford/Navistar 6.0 in the F-series? Serious question as the RV guys think they are the biggest POS ever made.

 

[Fleetmon]

I already stated my opinion of the 6.0....the 6.0 engine design was a good one by Navistar that was made to operate poorly by Ford Engineering....they took a good engine, overhorsepowered it with unreliable, untested (at the time) fuel and emission systems....believe me, I suffered...I had 250 of them in one fleet of paratransit vehicles.

The 6.0 could be made reliable but required de-tuning (you don't hear of NEAR the 6.0 engine troubles in the smaller vans primarily because they were rated at IIRC 250 HP). However, once you tried to mod the engine you suffered headgasket failures coupled with improperly cleaned blocks leading to clogged coolers and numerous failures of poorly designed/intergrated emission sensors not to mention poorly trained technicians and unrealistic repair times with misguided factory reps.

The 6.0 was a classic case of "we have a bigger, more powerful diesel than anyone"! Fords only saving grace with that engine was it could not meet the current emission regulations so they had to discontinue offering it (otherwise they would have gone under long before the goober handout)....then they had a "better" idea with the 6.4 which also used a lot of untested (longevity tested) emission equipment that again couldn't meet emissions and finally settled on the 6.7 which, so far (and knocking on a few wooden heads at Ford), seems to be working fairly well.