User talk:Azpyroguy

slanted

The first time that info was deleted was not even done by me, I only back up the removal of it being it is biased. I'll break it down for you paragraph for paragraph:

The EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation), and DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) implementations on these engines offered in 2007.5+ Dodge Ram 2500-3500 trucks are plagued with problems, ranging from soot plugged turbos (which creates another subset of problems in itself), soot caked intakes, and plugged DPF filter systems. Most of these caused catastrophic system failures, many times leaving the driver stranded.

All these problems are problems are in any truck equipped with the new emissions devices. Ford, GM, Dodge, doesn't matter. Even the big trucks. And I have worked on them all, including work for Dodge, Ford and GM dealerships, I don't need ask them anything. This isn't a Dodge/Cummins problem. It's a emissions system technology problem.

These systems, mandated by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) as per the 2010 diesel engine regulations, also cause a drop of at least 25% in economy. Similar legally mandated systems on competing diesel engines such as the Power Stroke and Duramax have been mostly trouble-free and without such large-scale negative impacts, providing hope that these problems may be solvable on the B series with future design revisions, and possible manufacturer recalls.

Powerstrokes started on fire. Duramax runs fleetguard DPF systems, they have the same failure rates as the Dodge's because Dodge also uses Fleetguard. Cummins owns fleetguard. Once again, this isn't a Dodge/Cummins problem. It's a emissions system technology problem. The 25% drop in fuel economy shouldn't even be stated, because these engines are made with EGR/DPF. A EGR deletion will increase fuel economy by 25%.

Despite Chrysler's attempts to fix these problems to date, owners are still caught in the middle. Chrysler has offered many owners to buy back their vehicles.

Ford has actually bought more trucks back than GM and Dodge combined.

Chrysler has suggested that owners "drive it hard, drive it fast" but it is not always possible or safe to do this, and it may result in failures of the engine and other powertrain components.

Chrysler actually suggests just leaving the the turbo brake on.

Many owners have decided to risk voiding their warranties by removing or disabling the EGR and DPF items on their trucks, resulting in a much more reliable engine and truck with better economy. They report getting around 18 MPG in city traffic, and over 21 MPG on the highway, while not towing.

By far, the worst part of this whole data bash. Yes owners do EGR/DPF deletes and do get better mileage, perhaps 18/21. But these trucks are built completely different Class 2-5. Let alone this engine shows up in class 6-8 Fords, with the same problems. So can these 18/21 after the delete. Sure, a 2wd, reg cab, 3.42 gearing will get over 25 MPG running bone stock. A 5500 4x4 might do 10 MPG with the deletion. They are all different.

Under warranty, all problems with the engine and powertrain will be repaired, as long as the owner has not removed any of the emissions system or installed any other potentially warranty-voiding devices. Warranty repairs can prove to be problematic for owners, as warranty repair policies may vary from dealer to dealer. However, under US law, all problems related to emissions systems must be covered under warranty for 5 years or 100,000 miles (significantly longer than the standard warranty); dealers refusing emissions-related warranty repairs risk legal punishment for both themselves and Chrysler Corporation. Although it has been found that on some non-California registered 2007.5 models that emissions warranty is only 5 year or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first.

Dealers refusing warranty repairs for no reason is non existent. That whole thing is slanted.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Please provide specific, detailed citations to every fact in the controversial section, inline. This is your responsibility, per WP:BURDEN. Do not restore the section before detailing such sources.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try again, referring to WP:RS this time. No forums. Claims made by biased sources (such as a law firm involved in a lawsuit) need to be referred to as claims, not facts.—Kww(talk) 05:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the section to mention the lawsuit based on emission claims. Not much else could be included because of the forum sourcing.—Kww(talk) 05:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for the outcome of the class action and let the courts decide what is factual information. We have tried numerous times to contact Dodge/Chrysler, and Cummins and get answers ranging from: marketing propaganda, no response at all, complete denials, etc. I assume that a scanned letter from Cummins and or Dodge admitting to them knowing about the issues would suffice as a reliable source.

Keep in mind the 6.7 emissions section isn't going to be a area where disgruntled 6.7 owners go vent about their bad experiences with Dodge dealerships and Cummins support, and claim "its a bad design overall." No more hyperbolic claims of this engine being lemon compared to other emissions engines, when it clearly is not.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only attest to the issues that I have had with my truck personally, along with a number of others who own the same model of truck. Gas engines don't "eat their own soot", have never had soot clogged intakes, turbos, etc. This only seems to be with diesel emissions systems. I suggest that we start another article specifically related to the factual evidence that is known today regarding the Cummins, International/Ford, CAT, and GM/Duramax diesel emission systems. Each have their own subset of issues based on that manufacturers implementation of the emissions systems. It would be great if we could get the cooperation of the manufacturers, but I highly doubt they will want to air their dirty laundry.

I've worked on these trucks with problems after Chrysler techs couldn't fix it. Starting another article may not be a bad idea, however the problems that have occurred in these engines can generally be isolated. EGR and DPF both have their own pages that discuss cause and effect. That being said if you want to start another page that discusses all the negative effects the diesel emissions systems have had on truck owners, the economy, oil prices, the diesel engine itself and the environment. I'm all ears. But that will be quiet the task. There really is no dirty laundry among the big diesel makers. They hate EGR/DPF just as much as we do, it's all the special interest groups that pull the strings of the EPA, in my opinion, of how the diesel engine got turned upside down. None of those companies like seeing their product struggling.

Here's the thing that bothers me and should bother you. If you had to travel offroad in a area for a few years where you absolutely had to depend on your engine running for a few years with no issues. Which would you rather have a 1980s Diesel or a 2010 Diesel? Ford, GM, Dodge, it doesn't matter. The 80's diesel is gonna be your best bet. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]