VW caught cheating on emissions

[RichardJensen]

So your citation is a guy talking on the internet?

 

And your "proof" that IH hired out the work is that they didn't sue anyone?

[RichardJensen]

And even if the 70s had never happened, the argument that diesel regs are "too tough" because VW was able to comply with them but chose not to is just ludicrous.

[matthewq4b]

So your citation is a guy talking on the internet?

 

And your "proof" that IH hired out the work is that they didn't sue anyone?

Listen Riched it is common knowledge in the industry. And it was a quick example that it is common knowledge, not my fault you are not aware of this. There are not too many EU manufactures that design mid-sized diesel engines for third party customers I'm pretty sure you can figure it out.

 

They now will admit nothing about having any involvement in the VT365 program it is one of those programs they want no association with and have bleached it from their walls and their inter-web Really if you were responsible for designing the 6.0L would you admit to it given it's reputation?

And really if you have ever seen a 6.0L in the flesh it is plainly evident it is of European origin and design. It is sort of like me telling you to prove it was not. You will quickly find there Zero information on the web about the development of the VT365. Pretty strange how much it touted as a revolutionary engine and won awards initially for it's power and efficiency and perceived reliability. It is a good engine with a near indestructible bottom end capable of crap loads of power. The tighter emissions of pick up use nuked what could have been an engine to rival and likely surpass the 7.3 PS if it had just been designed for the emissions in Pick up use.

 

Quit being obtuse and stay on topic and quit trying to deflect. And none of this changes the fact the 6.0L has basically no issues in it's intended application.

Edited December 18, 2015 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

 

And that, you say, was an example of the horrors of the 70s, correct?

 

What about a '92 F150 with a 145hp I-6 towing a 5,000lb holiday trailer? And that was after the speed limit was raised to 65MPH!!!!!!

 

And that was the base engine you had the option of up grading. 142 and 195 HP were the respective top engine option in Ford full size family sedans of the era. Additionally the trucks were equipped 3.55 to 4.11 Not 2.73 to 3.00 geared rear ends, Additionally .the 300 6cyl sported much better torque figures over a wider range. So ya sort of a fail on that point.

Edited December 18, 2015 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

And even if the 70s had never happened, the argument that diesel regs are "too tough" because VW was able to comply with them but chose not to is just ludicrous.

 

I never said that. That was Akirby. And actually the Diesel emission regs are pretty much where they should be. They have been pretty much on par with keeping pace and forcing the development of Diesel emission reduction technology with out stripping it to badly. VW chose to cheat to supply what they perceived as a superior product (in terms of power and efficiency it is) and fulfill the driving factor of all company's to increase profits.That is all, it is that simple. Every manufacture at one point and time has done exactly the same thing and cheated on emission regs , just in today's online world every one know about it and it is not just a a single news story on the evening news or local news paper or a magazine article in a few specialty magazines.

 

If regulations either emission Fuel economy or what ever become draconian or unachievable company's and people a like will cheat to meet them. That is why it is important to make sure these sorts of regulations are achievable and obtainable. No one wins if they are not. VW could have easily met these emission targets they just chose not to. This is not what happened 1970's where the regulations out stripped the available technology you need to be aware of this all manufactures struggled to meet them, this struggle assisted in giving the Japanese a foothold in NA.

 

But it does prove that when regulations start impacting the viability of what is perceived as necessary products, no good will come from it. It will not benefit the consumer as the product goes to hell, the company stalls and fails to advance technology VW now has 5 years fo catching up to do in emission tech not much a hurdle but it is still there ( it's not as great as the Japanese had to over come in the early 80's due to a decade of cheating their way though emissions) or the environment where all this crap from cheating non compliant vehicles gets dumped, In the end no one benefits.

Edited December 18, 2015 by matthewq4b

[jpd80]

Sorry, late to the discussion but I'd add these points about emissions and power in the 1970s,

The car makers were hit with a triple whammy in so far as:

1. Leaded fuel exhaust emissions began to bite as US72 and then toughened to unleaded with US75

2. OPEC's decision to triple crude oil process virtually overnight...

3.EPA introduces CAFE to increase then 13.5 mpg average to 27 mpg

 

Now, given those challenges, I think the automakers were taxed to their limits to deliver products

that met all those criteria and were still able to be sold to customers.

 

After that initial jump in CAFE, we had a long period where that level remained flat while the focus was kept

on continually tightening emissions until say the last ten years when North American consumers became

more aware of fuel economy due to higher gas prices.

[akirby]

 

I never said that. That was Akirby.

 

I never said or implied that. I just said it was possible for regs to go too far and be impossible to meet with current technology or be too expensive. I never said that this was the case with what VW did - it's not.

[silvrsvt]

Sorry, late to the discussion but I'd add these points about emissions and power in the 1970s,

The car makers were hit with a triple whammy in so far as:

1. Leaded fuel exhaust emissions began to bite as US72 and then toughened to unleaded with US75

2. OPEC's decision to triple crude oil process virtually overnight...

3.EPA introduces CAFE to increase then 13.5 mpg average to 27 mpg

 

Now, given those challenges, I think the automakers were taxed to their limits to deliver products

that met all those criteria and were still able to be sold to customers.

 

After that initial jump in CAFE, we had a long period where that level remained flat while the focus was kept

on continually tightening emissions until say the last ten years when North American consumers became

more aware of fuel economy due to higher gas prices.

 

 

The auto industry didn't recover from the malalzie period till the late 1980s.

 

Its slightly amazing that 30 years later we have cars that get better MPG's, family sedans are faster then most 1960's Muscle cars and are far safer overall.

[RichardJensen]

Listen Riched it is common knowledge in the industry.

 

"common knowledge" that Navistar hired a European firm to design the entire 6.0L PSD and never told them it would be used in "light duty" vehicles?

 

Knowledge that is so "common" that the only reference you can find to it is some guy talking on the internet about school buses?

 

--

 

And you cannot *possibly* expect me to believe that a LACK of evidence SUPPORTS your argument.

 

Switch out the 6.0 for CHEMTRAILS in order to see just how ridiculous your logic is.

[RichardJensen]

 

Additionally .the 300 6cyl sported much better torque figures over a wider range. So ya sort of a fail on that point.

 

The '77 Ford LTD got 290lb-ft of torque from the 351.

 

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the maximum tow rating for these vehicles was well under 5,000lbs. Cripes. The max tow rating for a '78 half-ton Ford was 6,000lbs--at least according to this guy: http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1018938-1977-f150-towing-capabilities.html

[jpd80]

The 6.0L was perfect storm of screw ups. The engine for the application as designed has had no major issues. The 6.0L was designed as a school bus engine not as an engine to power pick up trucks.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In School bus applications the 6.0L has proven to be a reliable and efficient emission compliant engine, it has not suffered failed head gaskets, blown EGR coolers, oil cooler failures, HPOP failures, Sticking injectors, ICP and IPR failures these issues that plagued the 6.0L in the F Series were and are rare problems in School buses with 6.0L engines. The ULSD Cummings from the get go was designed for use in Pick up trucks and was able to meet the demands placed on it in that application with out issue.

The 6.0L was not a crappy designed emissions engine, but an engine put in an application it was not designed for. It the perfect example of the results of not fully disclosing the intended use of piece of machinery to the design engineering team.

Until you realize that IH used the VT365 in its own trucks with little if any of the issues experienced by the Ford 6.0.

The difference in the two applications was that IH VT365 did not have the Powerstrokes emissions equipment.

 

So there you have it two versions of the same architecture, one reliable, one less so and the difference

was the emissions equipment and software running it...

 

Running the engines in vans was less troublesome, pointing again tot the changes made for emissions

putting pressure on the engine's reliability in truck usage.

Edited December 18, 2015 by jpd80

[jpd80]

 

 

The auto industry didn't recover from the malalzie period till the late 1980s.

 

Its slightly amazing that 30 years later we have cars that get better MPG's, family sedans are faster then most 1960's Muscle cars and are far safer overall.

And note the real differences in the 1980s and 1990s was no increase in CAFE

with efforts concentrated on continual lowering of emissions. From about 1986

and the introduction of widespread multipoint EFI, and three-way Cat converters,

as well as the introduction of 4-speed autos manufacturers were able to return

performance and economy to engines by applying more post exhaust treatment

to their strategies. The use of fuel shut off on deceleration further improved both

fuel economy and emissions.

Edited December 18, 2015 by jpd80

[blwnsmoke]

Another automotive example: Compare the 6.0L Powerstroke with the first ULSD Cummins: The Cummins engine easily met the newer, stricter emissions standards without compromising reliability; the Powerstroke was a disaster. Whose fault was that? The EPA's for tightening diesel regs & requiring ULSD? Or Ford and International's for engineering a crappy product?

 

The 6.0 wasn't really a disaster because of the emissions, there were 4 main reasons for the reputation the 6.0 had back then.

 

1) 10 deadbolts per head which was ridiculous. The heads simply needed more clamping force hence the ARP studs that everyone was putting on if you had a head gasket failure (had nothing to do with emissions). The motor can't handle the torque the 6.0 had stock (more then the vt365) let alone all the people who were tuning these trucks. How many head gasket failures were caused because people cranked up the power? Mine was one of them at 50,000 miles.

 

2) Ford did not have any sort of cleaning procedure in place when it came to cleaning the guts of the motor out. Because of that, a lot of casting sand was present in the 03-04 motors until they started washing the internals of the motor which solved that problem. Casting sand helped cause the oil coolers to block and overheat therefore starving the egr cooler from being able to cool itself which then caused the egr cooler to crack leaking coolant either internally or externally. Motors were hydrolocking due to internal leaks or at times blowing out the degas bottle. Many put on aftermarket coolant filters that would filter out the casting sand (I put one on my 6.0 and it was amazing the crap it filtered out even being a 2007).

 

3) HPOP leaks causing hard start or no start issues. With the injectors being oil fed, they needed a certain PSI in order for them to fire. When the oil got up to temp, it would thin out and if you had a HPOP leak, your truck will not start again because it is thin enough to leak therefore causing the truck to not build up enough PSI to fire the injectors. This would leave many stranded until the oil cooled down and thickened back up again.

 

4) Ford chose to use Gold coolant in the 6.0 which was the biggest disaster IMO. The gold coolant is not a diesel coolant and can't handle the temps a diesel runs at. Over time, the silicates would build up on the oil cooler effectively blocking coolant flow. What Ford should have done and MANY owners of 6.0s was to do a coolant flush with VC9 and water to get all the shit coolant (i.e. gold) out of the system, replace the EGR and oil coolers and then put in a Cat-1 ELC rated coolant (what the VT365 uses) in there. That coolant does not contain silicates that would break down and clog them.

 

I don't consider any of those things related to emissions and yet these were the 4 biggest downfalls of this motor. Only thing I can see related to emissions is Ford being forced to go from the 7.3 to the 6.0 because of emissions. But the failures were not emissions related.

 

Put on APR studs, the correct coolant and insure the oil/egr coolers are clean and the 05-07 motors are very strong and considered "bullet proof". It is amazing how strong these motors run when they are setup correctly.

 

Sorry about going on a rant but didn't want the wrong info out there. Many consider the 6.0 to be fantastic motors now because everyone understands them and what the downfalls were and how to fix them.

Edited December 19, 2015 by blwnsmoke

[RichardJensen]

 

Put on APR studs, the correct coolant and insure the oil/egr coolers are clean and the 05-07 motors are very strong and considered "bullet proof". It is amazing how strong these motors run when they are setup correctly.

 

AFAIK, you also have to make dang sure you change out *both* fuel filters regularly and use high quality fuel as well. Friend of mine uses only Fords in his fleet, and I forget how long they had PSDs before his mechanic found out about the second fuel filter (which--why he kept on going to that mechanic, is I guess, you know, small town/small business stuff).

 

I recall somebody (for what it's worth) saying that Ford never did endurance testing with low-grade diesel fuel, and therefore the propensity of the injectors to clog, etc., was not discovered until there were units in the field.

[RichardJensen]

BTW: My biggest source of skepticism regarding the "engine was designed in Europe" thing is what European vehicle engineering firm has the expertise to design an entire engine of that size and complexity--and in a V8, not an I-6, configuration?

[J-150]

 

 

The auto industry didn't recover from the malalzie period till the late 1980s.

 

Its slightly amazing that 30 years later we have cars that get better MPG's, family sedans are faster then most 1960's Muscle cars and are far safer overall.

And computers are no longer the size of a house.

[blwnsmoke]

 

AFAIK, you also have to make dang sure you change out *both* fuel filters regularly and use high quality fuel as well. Friend of mine uses only Fords in his fleet, and I forget how long they had PSDs before his mechanic found out about the second fuel filter (which--why he kept on going to that mechanic, is I guess, you know, small town/small business stuff).

 

I recall somebody (for what it's worth) saying that Ford never did endurance testing with low-grade diesel fuel, and therefore the propensity of the injectors to clog, etc., was not discovered until there were units in the field.

 

I was doing 15,000 mile fuel filter changes (every other Oil change). When you buy the Motorcraft fuel filter, it comes with both upper and lower filter and 2 new orings, not sure how your friend could ever miss changing both filters.

 

The injector issues were more oil related then fuel. The injectors would get what they call "sticktion" where they would not fire properly (sticking so notnopening/closing cause rough idle). There was Oil additives you could buy to help with it once you started to have it which could help out with delaying replacing the injector but the end result was it would still need to be replaced eventy. Again, poor design IMO having the injectors rely on the engine oil for them to work properly.

 

They may not have done endurance testing but to be fair, ulsd didn't come out till 2007 as a requirement and the 6.0 came out as a 2003MY. Not sure how much endurance testing was possible back in 2000+/- or whenever it was in testing.

Edited December 19, 2015 by blwnsmoke

[RichardJensen]

 

I was doing 15,000 mile fuel filter changes (every other Oil change). When you buy the Motorcraft fuel filter, it comes with both upper and lower filter and 2 new orings, not sure how your friend could ever miss changing both filters.

 

Well, in strictest accuracy, it was my friend's mechanic, and I think he might have been buying 3rd party filters...... Don't know the whole story there. Just remember it being like very late in the '00s when he or one of his employees was like, "Did you know this thing has *TWO* fuel filters?" As they'd just had one stall out on the road & that was the problem.

 

What I recall (again, not sure if this is accurate) on the injectors was that Ford wanted to use Bosch injectors at the Siemens price, and Bosch didn't budge, so they went with Siemens. Again, that's my memory on that--and it was second hand info in any event.

Edited December 19, 2015 by RichardJensen

[matthewq4b]

 

"common knowledge" that Navistar hired a European firm to design the entire 6.0L PSD and never told them it would be used in "light duty" vehicles?

 

Knowledge that is so "common" that the only reference you can find to it is some guy talking on the internet about school buses?

 

--

 

And you cannot *possibly* expect me to believe that a LACK of evidence SUPPORTS your argument.

 

Switch out the 6.0 for CHEMTRAILS in order to see just how ridiculous your logic is.

And that was just one Example and pretty detailed one hence the reason for providing the link. It was meant to be proof.

Seriously Richard you are really grasping.

You got a computer and the internet do a search. Here I'll help you out "VT365 European" there ya go.

 

The VT365 was designed by a leading EU diesel manufacture they at the time were at time were leading the industry in emission Diesels and had already adopted SCR in 2003 for some applications in addition they and design and supply .engines and vehicles for third Party's I bet every one else here can figure it out.

 

Care to hazard a guess ? I bet the first person that does nails it.

 

This is not rocket science to whom it was I can not say due to employment disclosure reasons. Simple as that. Choose not to believe it that is fine I don't care no skin off my nose.

 

IH went to them for the design of this engine simply due to the fact that IH had ZERO experience in designing ULSD diesels and they needed this engine yesterday. So the design was farmed out to a company that had extensive experience designing on road ULSD emission diesels. It was never disclosed this engine was going pick up trucks that had a much tighter emissions requirements and see much more abuse.

 

Don't believe it, Don't care. Not my loss. And you can go on being sheeple.

Edited December 19, 2015 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

 

The '77 Ford LTD got 290lb-ft of torque from the 351.

 

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the maximum tow rating for these vehicles was well under 5,000lbs. Cripes. The max tow rating for a '78 half-ton Ford was 6,000lbs--at least according to this guy: http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1018938-1977-f150-towing-capabilities.html

 

 

 

 

290 Ft Lbs for the 351W and 262 FTlbs for the 351M the Windsor was not always available and was not nearly as common as the 351M

 

1994 the 300 Six was putting out 260 Ft LBS again lower gearing 5 speed Manual or 4 speed auto and and being an I6 means a much much broader and better torque curve.

 

And no the tow package on all for ford Full size cars since like forever was 5000lbs even the last iteration of the Panther was rated to 5000lbs with the tow package this lowered in the early 2000's to 2500lbs

Heck my old Marquis was fitted with tow package for up to to 5000lb trailers.

 

The Max tow rating for the F150's in the 70's was 10,000 Lbs ya seems almost unbelievable but that is what it was. Ford had what they called heavy half's they were in essence a 5/8's ton truck and these were rated to 10,000lbs towing.

Here is a snippet from a sales brochure of the era.

 

Edited December 19, 2015 by matthewq4b

[jpd80]

Reboot,

We got to this point because there was an assertion that VW could not meet the US EPA Diesel emission limits presented to them.

 

The truth is that VW had access to Ad Blue technology but chose to veto the engineering request for its use and save $300/car.

So regardless of what transpired beyond that point, VW brought all of this on itself by choosing to save money in the wrong area.

Edited December 19, 2015 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

 

The 6.0 wasn't really a disaster because of the emissions, there were 4 main reasons for the reputation the 6.0 had back then.

 

1) 10 deadbolts per head which was ridiculous. The heads simply needed more clamping force hence the ARP studs that everyone was putting on if you had a head gasket failure (had nothing to do with emissions). The motor can't handle the torque the 6.0 had stock (more then the vt365) let alone all the people who were tuning these trucks. How many head gasket failures were caused because people cranked up the power? Mine was one of them at 50,000 miles.

 

2) Ford did not have any sort of cleaning procedure in place when it came to cleaning the guts of the motor out. Because of that, a lot of casting sand was present in the 03-04 motors until they started washing the internals of the motor which solved that problem. Casting sand helped cause the oil coolers to block and overheat therefore starving the egr cooler from being able to cool itself which then caused the egr cooler to crack leaking coolant either internally or externally. Motors were hydrolocking due to internal leaks or at times blowing out the degas bottle. Many put on aftermarket coolant filters that would filter out the casting sand (I put one on my 6.0 and it was amazing the crap it filtered out even being a 2007).

 

3) HPOP leaks causing hard start or no start issues. With the injectors being oil fed, they needed a certain PSI in order for them to fire. When the oil got up to temp, it would thin out and if you had a HPOP leak, your truck will not start again because it is thin enough to leak therefore causing the truck to not build up enough PSI to fire the injectors. This would leave many stranded until the oil cooled down and thickened back up again.

 

4) Ford chose to use Gold coolant in the 6.0 which was the biggest disaster IMO. The gold coolant is not a diesel coolant and can't handle the temps a diesel runs at. Over time, the silicates would build up on the oil cooler effectively blocking coolant flow. What Ford should have done and MANY owners of 6.0s was to do a coolant flush with VC9 and water to get all the shit coolant (i.e. gold) out of the system, replace the EGR and oil coolers and then put in a Cat-1 ELC rated coolant (what the VT365 uses) in there. That coolant does not contain silicates that would break down and clog them.

 

I don't consider any of those things related to emissions and yet these were the 4 biggest downfalls of this motor. Only thing I can see related to emissions is Ford being forced to go from the 7.3 to the 6.0 because of emissions. But the failures were not emissions related.

 

Put on APR studs, the correct coolant and insure the oil/egr coolers are clean and the 05-07 motors are very strong and considered "bullet proof". It is amazing how strong these motors run when they are setup correctly.

 

Sorry about going on a rant but didn't want the wrong info out there. Many consider the 6.0 to be fantastic motors now because everyone understands them and what the downfalls were and how to fix them.

 

All great points Blwnsmoke. But the head gasket issue and the HPOP issue was directly related to emissions and will touch on that in a bit.

 

The sand casting issue was a manufacturing issue and the VT365 experienced this also in the early motors. Even though the engine was an EU design it was built by Navistar.

The Gold coolant was a complete fail on Fords part it is not a dedicated Diesel coolant it does not have the same anti-cav properties of Diesel coolants not the heat transfer capability's of it.

This was compounded by the tighter emissions. The Cat ELC coolants is probably the Diesel coolant on the market. And all my diesels even the Mercedes ones run it.

 

We also had the failed injectors in the 6.0L and failed FICM's ( Fuel injector control module's) again IH did not have this problem in the VT365. It was a direct result of emissions.

 

What killed the 6.0L in the Ford trucks was..... heat. And that was direct result of the tighter emissions.

 

The VT365 in the IH products does not suffer Head gasket failures EGR cooler failures FICM failures,injector failures all are not common. and quite rare In the Fords all this was due to heat.

 

So what is different from the VT365 and the 6.0L essentially nothing. Except calibration and there in lies the culprit. And what is different ? EGR cycles and injector pulse.

 

So lets look at the EGR issue. First off you have to understand the 6.0L is easly capable of generating 1250°F exhaust temps pre turbo.

Where are the EGR gasses drawn from ? Just before the turbo. The EGR gasses of course cannot be fed in to the engine at over 1000°F so they go through a cooler to cool them so this exhaust heat is dumped in to the cooling system. In the which in it's self is not an issue if the coolant system is designed to dissipate this extra heat.. Which it was in the VT365.

The issue came with the Emission calibration for pick up trucks. In that application the EGR valve had much much higher duty cycle meaning it was open way more often dumping way more heat in to the engine compared to the VT365.

 

The Ford trucks did not have proper temp gauges what is there is not much better than an idiot light and no EGT gauge so you really had no idea how hot things actually were.

 

Further more the Oil is cooled by the coolant,all this extra heat was put in to the Oil, the coolant, the injectors (cooled by engine coolant and driven by engine oil) the heads the block the turbo HPOP etc etc. This was compounded by Fords use of Gold coolant and not proper Diesel coolant this made the heat saturation issue even worse.

 

It was entirely possible in the Ford application to overheat the EGR cooler so bad that it would form a steam bubble inside it stopping the flow of coolant and melting it's internals causing it to then leak and dump coolant in to the combustion chambers, this extra heat stressed Injectors causing failures and ramp'd up the amperage needed to drive them this in turn resulted in FCIM failures. This extra heat in the oil also over stressed HPOP's causing the early aluminium bodied units to fail the revised all steel ones lasted much better. All this stressed the heads and gaskets and caused failures. Every single 6.0L with blown head gaskets has warped gasket surfaces with out exception.

 

Since they knew this engine was going to operating at higher temps and under more stress the amperage to the injectors was upped this over stressed the FICM's causing FCIM failures and injector failures. The FICM calibration has been changed more times than i can count to try to counter this.

 

 

That is what killed 98% the 6.0L's in Ford trucks a higher EGR duty cycle in a system not designed for it. It is that simple. The VT365 in IH use is a very reliable engine, no blown head gaskets no EGR cooler failures no wasted FCIM's or injectors.

These issues are very rare in the VT365.

 

How can you fix it ? One thing that must be done is dumping the Ford gold coolant and replacing it with Cat ELC. The second is disabling the EGR valve. This can be very easily with an SCT tuner. It does not disable the EGR valve 100% it is active at low engine RPM"s and light load situations such as Idle and coasting. But it's use is reduced by about 85%. These 2 small changes will stop 99.9% of the 6.0L issues in 90% of pick up trucks. There are all kinds of after market kits for the 6.0L remote oil coolers remote oil filters egr deletes none of this is needed unless you are really going to be pushing the truck IE drag racing or doing lots of high speed very heavy towing. The ARP studs are good insurance but are not necessary in 90% of trucks.. Personally If you are doing head gaskets put in the studs but that is me personally as I have never been a fan of torque to yield head bolts ,I just feel torque to yield bolts are not good in dynamic applications but that is me.. Also make sure that FICM has the latest revision of software this has helped with injector failures by changing the injector pulse and not driving them as hard.

[matthewq4b]

BTW: My biggest source of skepticism regarding the "engine was designed in Europe" thing is what European vehicle engineering firm has the expertise to design an entire engine of that size and complexity--and in a V8, not an I-6, configuration?

 

Here is a list you pick

 

 

Scania

MAN

MTU (Now RR Holdings)

Daimler AG

Iveco

 

All of the above had the technical know how to design the VT365 at that time. The Europeans were years ahead of the domestics at that time in terms of designing and building cleaner diesels , It remains so today as most of the passenger and light truck diesels being sold in NA have EU roots. Just do a search to see who Navistar has collaborated with in the past from the above list

Edited December 19, 2015 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

 

I was doing 15,000 mile fuel filter changes (every other Oil change). When you buy the Motorcraft fuel filter, it comes with both upper and lower filter and 2 new orings, not sure how your friend could ever miss changing both filters.

 

The injector issues were more oil related then fuel. The injectors would get what they call "sticktion" where they would not fire properly (sticking so notnopening/closing cause rough idle). There was Oil additives you could buy to help with it once you started to have it which could help out with delaying replacing the injector but the end result was it would still need to be replaced eventy. Again, poor design IMO having the injectors rely on the engine oil for them to work properly.

 

They may not have done endurance testing but to be fair, ulsd didn't come out till 2007 as a requirement and the 6.0 came out as a 2003MY. Not sure how much endurance testing was possible back in 2000+/- or whenever it was in testing.

 

It was not uncommon for EU diesels to use Engine oil to drive the injectors it was more the norm rather than the exception in the era hence the reason the 6.0L ended up with this system. The stiction issues are a combination of poor fuel and poor oil and or or infrequent oil changes. If I recall correctly the 6.0L came from ford with a conventional 15-W40 from the factory it was the base recommended oil for the 6.0L, it really should have been full synthetic EU diesels of the era were using full synthetics and I imagine that is what the designers intended for it. . The deposits from conventional oils certainly helped contribute to stiction issues, Shell Rotella T6 5w-40 is great oil for the 6.0L and with some Revx added will help with eliminating stiction over time.

 

The 6.0L was designed for the much cleaner ULSD so i'm sure the pre ULSD diesel did cause some issues but i belvie that over heating of the oil and injectors caused most of the problems.

 

One of the big killers of 6.0L injectors is fuel starvation and that is due to failing to change the filter in the fuel conditioner (the fuel filter every one forgets about) on the drivers side frame rail. This starves the injectors and is a another cause of the injectors overheating as the fuel helps cool and lubricate them. That filter is also the water separator if that filter becomes plugged either with crud or water it will starve the injectors and they will quickly burn out. It should be SOP to crack the drain plug on the fuel conditioner with each oil change, if any amount of water is found in it replace the filter.

[matthewq4b]

Reboot,

We got to this point because there was an assertion that VW could not meet the US EPA Diesel emission limits presented to them.

 

The truth is that VW had access to Ad Blue technology but chose to veto the engineering request for its use and save $300/car.

So regardless of what transpired beyond that point, VW brought all of this on itself by choosing to save money in the wrong area.

 

Yup they choose to cheat there are many reasons why they did choose to cheat but in the end they did. And it is going to cost them in fines, reputation, lost sales, law suits, and technical advancement as they sat idle relying on software and not advancing the hardware.

 

There really is a similar parallel between Diesels now and when gasoline emissions were cranked down, it is interesting to witness the technical advancements and each company is tacking them, how some are cheating either a little or a lot. This currently is very similar to the early 80's for gasoline engines. We are now seeing HP's creep back up and efficiency creep back up with new tech on the horizon.

 

I think the whole industry is on the cusp of some major changes. We have Hybrids ,full EV's clean diesels making in roads (look where diesels were 15 years ago compared to today), gasoline engine tech is advancing too and the hiccups that are coming with it. I doubt we will recognize the auto industry in 15 years from what it is today. All in all it is an interesting time.