+- Rawze.com: Rawze's ISX Technical Discussion and more (http://rawze.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Big Truck Technical Discussion... (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Things that may help others... (/forumdisplay.php?fid=46)
+--- Thread: 2250 Carnage Pictures (/showthread.php?tid=118)
2250 Carnage Pictures - preacherboy24 - 03-01-2016
When those ceramic plungers go out they take the engine with it.....
RE: 2250 Carnage Pictures - Rawze - 03-02-2016
thanks for sharing this.
By the way.. the updated pumps with the newer titanium plungers are jut as bad and cause the same complete engine destruction if not caught within a few days of the pump starting to go bad.
RE: 2250 Carnage Pictures - preacherboy24 - 03-03-2016
(03-02-2016 )Rawze Wrote: thanks for sharing this.No problem. By the way the guy who owns this truck bought extra insurance to cover this and they gave him a whole $5000 towards a $35000 engine. Cummins.....gotta love the way they are supporting their customers.
RE: 2250 Carnage Pictures - Starlight - 12-31-2016
I've seen this a couple times. Being the bearer of bad news can be stressful. One time it was fixable the other time engine was toast.
RE: 2250 Carnage Pictures - Hammerhead - 01-01-2017
F@$K!!!
They KNOW they have a goddam problem! Recall this $h!t and quick F@$KING your customers!!!
This pisses me off!
I feel sorry for this poor guy, preventable...if only he knew
RE: 2250 Carnage Pictures - Rawze - 01-01-2017
all newer common rail isx enignes should come with a big warning label to change plungers every 400k miles.
RE: 2250 Carnage Pictures - Hammerhead - 01-01-2017
(01-01-2017 )Rawze Wrote: all newer common rail isx enignes should come with a big warning label to change plungers every 400k miles.
The pressures that common rail systems require to operate at, this seems reasonable. The problem is, if the manufacturer doesn't recommend it, the sheeple won't do it...and they know it, and prey upon it!
RE: 2250 Carnage Pictures - Marajin - 01-01-2017
(01-01-2017 )Hammerhead Wrote:(01-01-2017 )Rawze Wrote: all newer common rail isx enignes should come with a big warning label to change plungers every 400k miles.
The pressures that common rail systems require to operate at, this seems reasonable. The problem is, if the manufacturer doesn't recommend it, the sheeple won't do it...and they know it, and prey upon it!
I guess it gives them an excuse to comply with epa's wishes that class-8 engines should only last 8 (currently it is 10) years or 435,000 miles, eh.
=============
Timeline for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine
Standards
• 1990 - NOx lowered from 10.7 to 6.0 g/hp-hr
• 1991 - 5.0 NOx Standard, 0.25 PM standard
– New low sulfur, 300-500 ppm diesel fuel
– Averaging, Banking and Trading (ABT) for NOx and PM Emissions
•1994 - New 0.10 g/hp-hr PM standard
– First Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOCs)
• 1998 – New 4.0 g/hp-hr NOx standard
– End of mechanically fuel injected engines
• 1998 Heavy Duty Consent Decree
– A large number of manufacturers controlling emissions to standard only in the test cell, NOx emissions 2-3 times higher in-use
– Led to develop of Not-to-Exceed (NTE) standards and use of Supplemental Emissions test
– Consent decree manufacturers required to certify early to 2004 standards
•2002 - Consent Decree manufacturers pull ahead 2.5 NMHC +NOx standard
–First use of Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) on heavy-duty diesel engines
–Introduction of common rail fuel injection
–Allows some engines to meet the standard with DOC but no EGR
•2004 – All manufacturers must meet 2.5 NMHC +NOx standard
–Useful life for heavy-heavy engines increases to 10 years, 435,000 miles or 22,000 hours
–Light-heavy and medium heavy duty useful live increase to 10 years with same mileages
•2007 – 0.01 PM and 0.14 g/hp-hr standards and phase-in of 0.20 g/hp-hr NOx standard
–Wall flow DPFs
–All manufacturers certify to a NOx standard mid way between 2004 and 2010
–Higher EGR flow rates
–Up to a 3% fuel economy penalty
–Supplemental Emissions Test and NTE in addition to transient test
-Manufacturer run in-use testing program begins for gaseous pollutants
–Uses Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMs) on in-use vehicles versus NTE standards
•2010 – NOx standard 0.20 g/hp-hr 100% phased in
–Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
–Heavy- duty vehicles limited to 5 miles per hour if SCR not working properly
–Heavy-duty On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) begin
•2014 – Heavy-duty Greenhouse Gas Standards for engines and vehicles
–Separate standards for vocational and tractor trailer engines and vehicles and vehicles
–Vehicle standards are model based reduction not actual measurements from vehicles
–Applied technologies result in modeled reduction in greenhouse gases
=============
Some very negative things here i see.
* "Up to a 3% fuel economy penalty" ---< I.E. Let the truck just WASTE fuel purposefully if it is not in compliance, or the ECM does not see what it wants to
I.E. -> Polluting the atmosphere even more on purpose as a penalty if you don't maintain the system in tip top shape, or of the engine becomes too fuel efficient for the ECM's tastes.
* "Useful life for heavy-heavy engines increases to 10 years, 435,000 miles or 22,000 hours" <-- It was 8 years, and some documents still reflect this. They don't want million mile trucks on the roads because that would mean less sales, etc. and trucks running with older emissions standards.
* "Heavy- duty vehicles limited to 5 miles per hour if SCR not working" < --- I completely disagree with this. Iit is very dangerous for trucks to be derating and shutting down on public roadways. NO EXCUSES!.
* "Vehicle standards are model based reduction not actual measurements from vehicles" <-- Do not let people figure out how to reduce emissions and make their truck overall more fuel efficient. Instead, make a bunch of BS regulations for "altering" equipment even if those alterations actually LOWER emissions/fuel consumption. Wouldn't want to improve the environment as a first priority now would we.
============
Gotta love idiot politicians and their money hungry, big-oil driven ways.
RE: 2250 Carnage Pictures - Hammerhead - 01-01-2017
Sad, so sad...but true, which is not only sad, but shameful!
I don't know about you, but I cannot justify replacing my truck every 4 years. It is a complete waste of resources.