Regeneration

[Ramets]

Originally Posted by mel s

Ramets
"Diesel Particulate Filter Regeneration" is required on "newer" coaches.

Those of us with "old fashion", (aka: GOOD, RELIABLE), diesel engines don't have to worry about regeneration.... or about buying DEF, (Diesel Exhaust Fluid).

How fortunate is that?

Mel
'96 Safari, 3126 Cat. 138k miles

Happy to hear that. I'll just remain blissfully ignorant.

[akadeadeye]

Originally Posted by PDR John

Remember, if you do a manual regen the exhaust can hit 1500 degrees. I can start fires very easily.


This is the white plug and where it is located on my coach.

Attachment 89204

read the engine manual and follow the procedure.

John, I called Spartan and was told I don't have a Regen. switch. What do you do with that white plug?

Don

[PDR John]

It's what replaces the switch in most RVs. Disconnect it to go into active regen, you have to be parked for this regen. Two types of regen, passive and active (or called parked). Passive happens while driving.

Chassis makers don't think RVers are smart enough to not start fires. Spartan & Freightliner both say "take it to an authorized service center". All the ones I found wouldn't be able to hook it up to a computer (how they say it can only be done) for at least a week.

Our filter finally shut us down in Omaha NE, from Indianapolis IN, because it wouldn't regen. We finally found a post on line about the plug and a short paragraph in the Frieghtliner book.

It was raining so hard the night we pulled over, Omaha had flooding. The exhaust was so hot it was drying the pavement, while 2 1/2 inches of rain was coming down. Be careful where you do this.

Semi trucks get the switch MrD posted about, we are supposed to pay a service center.

My plugged filter was caused by a turbo tube letting pressure release and not getting the exhaust hot enough. Frieghtliner did a recall on all my turbo tubes, clamps and hoses.

[96 Wideglide]

Originally Posted by Mr_D

I had it on auto the whole trip and would see the "hot exhaust" warning from time to time.

That does'nt sound right on a single 3,000mi trip.

[mel s]

"Regeneration", "Catalytic Converters", Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF)", Emission Control GIZMOS" and weird EXPERIMENTS"...OH MY!

My only question is this:
What was wrong with vehicle engines for the 100+ years before the EPA decided that engine manufactures HAD to FIX them?

Mel
'96 Safari, 3126 Cat, (using none of the above for 138k miles).

[Mr_D]

Originally Posted by 96 Wideglide

That does'nt sound right on a single 3,000mi trip.

It might be if the engine is about to blow up like ours did!

[Flyin_lo]

Originally Posted by Old Car Nut

Can you take that junk off your rig? Damned EPA and their garbage.

There are ways for all that stuff to "Fall Off" but it is not legal.

[Mr_D]

Originally Posted by Mr_D

It might be if the engine is about to blow up like ours did!

Also turned out that the DPF was cracked so it wasn't functioning correctly. Still averaged 7.6 mpg though.

[hawgguy]

Originally Posted by mel s

What was wrong with vehicle engines for the 100+ years before the EPA decided that engine manufactures HAD to FIX them?

Nothing really.

In 1960 the world population was around 3 billion. Now it has increased to around 7 billion - with a commensurate (if not more) increase the the number of internal combustion engines.

The use of DPF (for soot) and DEF (for NOx) reductions are probably not a bad idea if we want to keep on breathing.

Not a greenine, but a realist.

[EZDZIT]

PDR John,


Thanks for the picture. In the past, I have tried to find the connector without luck. It isn't getting any easier to get between the seat and steering column but now I know what to look for.


By the way, in more than 26,000 miles I have yet to see any indication that a regeneration is called for or occurring.

[Rich-n-Linda]

I thank God that we have an '06 coach and don't have to mess with all this regen crap. It's why we'll likely never get rid of it.

[smiller]

Originally Posted by hawgguy

Nothing really.

In 1960 the world population was around 3 billion. Now it has increased to around 7 billion - with a commensurate (if not more) increase the the number of internal combustion engines.

The use of DPF (for soot) and DEF (for NOx) reductions are probably not a bad idea if we want to keep on breathing.

Not a greenine, but a realist.

Indeed. The 'damned EPA and their emission controls' line gets really old. I would expect that any thinking person realizes that there has to be some control of emissions from the countless millions of vehicles on the road. The EPA only sets standards for emissions limits based on research and does not dictate how manufacturers must achieve them. If you don't like how the manufacturers have engineered the solution then invent a better way to reduce emissions and make yourself a fortune in the process. You might find that it isn't such an easy task.

Some emission control systems are well-implemented and relatively trouble free and some are indeed unreliable botches due to shoddy engineering, trying to save pennies, etc. Which of the two it is is on the manufacturer, not the EPA.

[PDR John]

Navistar actually achieved the EPA mandated tailpipe emissions without using DEF. The EPA felt it was unfair and sued them, took 2 years for the EPA to win.

I can understand setting standard. What it can't understand is, regulating how companies meet that standard. The government stifling innovation will lead to nobody investing in something new or better. Instead they will just ride out what ever the government deems necessary and wait for the new regulations.

[smiller]

Originally Posted by PDR John

Navistar actually achieved the EPA mandated tailpipe emissions without using DEF. The EPA felt it was unfair and sued them, took 2 years for the EPA to win.

No, the very first Google hit describes the facts of the case and the Navistar engine did not meet standards, and it was not the EPA that sued, and it was not the EPA that won. The EPA was not telling Navistar how to implement emission controls, in fact they were trying to be accommodating by allowing Navistar to produce EGR-only engines (EGR is another strategy to reduce NOx emissions) that did not meet standards and pay a non-compliance fee instead in order to give them time to catch up. It was the other manufacturers who sued because they thought this was unfair, not the EPA. The EPA was not dictating how Navistar met NOx standards, and in fact was trying to give them a way to stay in production until they managed to do so. The complaint that generated the lawsuit was from private industry, not the government.

EPA loses final legal battle over Navistar's EGR engines