Ford Power Stroke Nation banner

6.4L fact of the day

4K views 27 replies 15 participants last post by  Big Bore 
#1 ·
I think its a fact anyway.
I heard that the new 6.4's put out 1/100 the amount of pollution that the old 6.9L did. Pretty cool I thought.
 
#2 ·
I wouldn't doubt if it is less than that. My dad's 6.4 has 25,000 and the inside of the tail pipes are still shiney!
 
#10 ·
Any truck with a working DPF will look like that!?



I wonder what the ol 6.9's got for fuel mileage...

Interesting enough even though they're cleaning up emissions, the trucks seem to get worse fuel mileage every time a new one comes out.
 
#4 ·
not at all. I thought they blew oxygen out of the tail pipes. :doh:
 
#7 ·
per an instructor at ford training center in allen park, in some cities the air coming out of the tail pipe is cleaner than the air going into the intake.
 
#8 ·
tis true, the ole 6.9L never polluted even an ounce... I think the OP has it all mixed up, must have meant to say that the 6.4L doesn't produced 1/100th of the Horsepower that the ole 6.9L made, yea thats definitely what he meant...













:doh:
 
#12 ·
I understand HOW they're doing it, I dont understand WHY they're doing it. Sure it pollutes less, but at what cost? We're now using twice the fuel as we would have, and draining resources faster as well as making all of us poorer.

Sure enough people will find away around it (as they already have).

What scares me is how its getting harder and harder to get around a lot of this stuff and that some day in the near future we will be stuck driving 10mpg clean burning diesels that emit no smoke. Smoke is cool and all, but I'd be willing to back a product that could make big power without polluting like crazy. The only problem is with these is more fuel = more power and more often than not more fuel = some smoke.
 
#13 ·
My entire point was that they are claiming the impossible. You CANNOT burn more fuel and emitt less....

Mass in..... mass out....

They just like to make a little list of things they want to look at and make those things come out the tailpipe in fewer Percentages.... as in PPM... but the entire outflow is higher, so the entire thing is negated at least to some degree.

Else a guy couldn't take an engine over a decade old that has been deemed UNSUITABLE for road use due to emissions and consistently get TWICE the fuel mileage (burning and EMITTING... half the sh*t for any given distance down the road) by dropping a 12v Cummins in any fullsize truck and utilizing the "barbaric" P7100 that to date, none of the new wonder setups can freakin touch for mileage...

On top of that, when I'm riding behind a 12v set in stock trim, I don't smell anything, and I don't want to gouge my own eyes out like I do when I'm riding behind a new "clean" diesel....

"Clean" diesels are the biggest G'damn joke going right now. I swear, it's the biggest goof of all time. And hardly anybody seems to freakin see it.

There must be alterior motives, because a truck consuming and EMITTING twice the crap for any give mile down the road is NOT F'ING CLEANER!!!

These guys can't see the forrest for the trees...... LITERALLY!
 
#14 ·
Soooo charles...what your really saying is.....

If I make 10 ppm less Nox , but produce 100 million more total per mile driven, that I'm NOT making emmisions cleaner?????

hahahah.
Govt figures .....go figure.:doh:
 
#15 ·
Sounds to me like the "green" products that are gonna save the planet, like electric cars.

They are clean!!! No emmisions !!


Except for the pollution made by power plants,

except for the pollution made by battery production,

except for the pollution made by waste from old batteries,

except for the pollution made by car crashes and waste cleanup from them--hazmat teams

Oh wait...this is a thread about 6.4 diesels.
Sorry.
 
#19 ·
Another thing to add to what Charles said, just because we can't see smoke, doesn't mean it's cleaner. I bet in 5 years they will find out that the bi-product of the DPF burning off is way worse than smoke. They think just because they can't see it, that makes it cleaner! Have you ever driven behind a 6.4 burning off? It smells like paint thinner!
 
#23 ·
the guys who believe the less emissions with with no dpf vs dpf only belive that because they want to remove the dpf or know little to nothing about emissions.

Fuel ussage does play a role in emmisions of course, however the bottom line is whats comming out the tailpipe is cleaner then any prev generation.

A gas analizer would be nice to compare, but even an everyday joe can tell a difference between a 6.4 vs 6l, 7.3, 6.9 etc. start your truck up and drive it out of your garage and you will smell a noticable differance.

The argument some have is now you have the dpf contaminant, (have to be emptied/cleaned at some point) and then the refineries for the extra fuel usuage. Generally its easier to control emmissions on a stationary engine (aka plants, etc) vs a moving engine (aka truck).

Automakers jobs is to keep tail pipe emissions low otherwise they won't be able to sell the vehilce to being with. Plants have epa regulations too, so overall in theory it should work out to be less emissions per vehlce, per gallon fuel, etc.

The problem with emissions is that sure newer vehilce put out less emmissions then 20 years ago, but there are a lot more people, and vehiles in the world then 20 years ago. Hence why the 6.4 can actually clean the air in some cities. The 6l also had that claim to fame too. Ford also had rads coverned in platinumn, rhodidum (sp*) etc that would act like a catalytic convertor when you were driveing down the road, thus helping to clean the air.

My only grivence with emmission components is if they fail they should not cause more emissions then if they were not in place to begin with.

People need to look at the emision history of the diesels in ford trucks. What was the biggest emmision component on the 7.3 dit, vs the prev 6.9/7.3? Just proves that not all emmision components are as favorable as others.

Emmisions evolve and improve, however gas has had a lot more years to evolve. Now you have gas engines that can put out simlar tq and power curves to a diesel with less emmisions, less maintenace, similar if not better fuel milage and the biggie less cost. Now think about why the 4.4 is dead in favour of a dit gas.

If people keep taking emmision components off of diesels, etc then we wont have to worry about it because there won't be any diesels around.

Its funny how people will mod their diesels and dump there cats, dpf's etc. Yet most guys who mod their gas will keep there emissions. Perhaps upgrade to hi flow cats, etc.

Its kind of like how people who smoke were thought of to look cool, now they are frowned upon. Just like the people who think diesel smoke is cool, that is changing, even diesel owners are starting to think people who bellow out black smoke are morons.
 
#24 ·
The 6.4 does not emit less than a 12v cummins running a conservative pump. You cannot spray twice the fuel in the cylinder for every given mile and not have twice as much sh*t also come out the tailpipe unless you are splitting the atom in those cylinders....

Conservation of material. What you have is less "emissions" (as defined by the governing bodies). And in the end, it really only means that ___, ____ and ____ is down Per Million but the fact of the matter is that the engine is producing more of those millions out the tailpipe when it's burning over twice the fuel for each and every mile traveled.

Are all of the "emissions" that these new "clean" diesels are ranking better on not being measured on a percentage basis, as in PPM?

It's a farce.
 
#25 ·
Hence my reference to Gale Banks' Engineering and his Sidewinder dragster about 2 months ago.

He's burning more fuel (and is able to do so due to the extensive electronics and staged nitrous systems) but claims to be cleaner.

People buy that BS and assume that he IS cleaner.....when in reality, there is a lot of #### coming out of the exhaust that you CAN'T see.

I had a debate with my wife about a month ago about how these "clean" diesels and the advertising that go with them are the biggest load of EPA propaganda that we've seen in the last 5 years (since the introduction of EGR on the 6.0 in '03 and the LLY in 04.5) These emission control measures do nothing but make the engine LESS efficient in operation.
 
#26 ·
I gotta back up and possibly eat some of my own words here.....
Per==schooling for emmissions here goes...

The emmisions MAY be cleaner for certain types of emmissions. Say NOx. Cylinder temps determine the amount of Nox produced. Hence the reason the ealry ones had stamping on valve covers for the total Nox output. Add fuel= more Nox. Stop up air filter=higher EGT= more Nox. Or , preduce the same amount of Nox at a higher rpm= more total Nox.

By making split shots they kinda reduced Nox by reducing the cylinder temps. Two small shots of fuel shouldnt get it as hot all at once, but by having two burns, in my mind then you added to the time its at that temp, making it go back up???
Timing probably has a difference too.
But it works like this--
Hotter temps= more Nox AND less unburned CO (basically fuel)

Lower temps= Less Nox AND more CO.

Theres a happy point in the middle where they kinda even out, and both are at the lowest total level possible.
Higher power levels will make more of both. Out of balance cylinders make more of both.
Mechanical problems make more of both.

Bad thing is, fuel economy is not necessarily the best at the point where they are both at the lowest.
Power output isnt either.

Keep in mind I'm talking cylinder temps..NOT EGT.
So, more advanced timing should cause more NOx, while more retarded timing should cause more CO.

Kinda like the boost levels. Add timing, boost falls off, retard it and it goes up. I've seen this in my truck , and its not by just a little bit that it changes. Went from max of 42 psi on more advanced timing to just over 55 with less. EGT went up to, but not by a huge amount.

Smoke out the tailpipe also. With more timing, =less smoke. So, it seems that all that applies to diesel pretty good.
My question is, at what point between "clean" diesels, and old style pre-DPF stuff, is the happy spot?
At some point there has to be a line you cross where the drop in mileage (extra fuel being burned) negates any drop you had in emmisions output.
I mean really, by blowing 100 times the volume out the tailpipe , of cousre it reduced the PPM in bad stuff. But theres was 100 million times more total output, so wheres the gain?

If thats all that matters, then those of us with big singles should be fine on emmions as long as its spooled up real good! hahah Or....everyone should go get compound turbos installed, even if they are so little they stay spooled all the time even at idle.:bowfast:
Charlie, go get you truck tested in your tow tune, and let us know in PPM what its making!
I bet its close to what they are doing with the new ones, if not better. Oh yeah, do it in drive too, to keep the flow up out the tailpipe.
 
#27 ·
Almost forgot.
How bout new cars that make MORE emmisions than older cars? Stupid old cars and their crappy old carburators and no having cadillac converters. (yes , I know its not cadillac--catalytic duhhhhh)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top