• Welcome to EcoDieselRam.com We see you haven't REGISTERED yet.

    Your truck knowledge is missing!
    • Registration is FREE , all we need is your birthday and email. (We don't share ANY data with ANYONE)
    • We have tons of knowledge here for your EcoDiesel truck!
    • Post your own topics and reply to existing threads to help others out!
    • We believe in quality OVER quantity, and a family friendly place for your #EcoDiesel home!
    CLICK HERE TO REGISTER! Problems registering? Click here to contact us!

    Already registered, but need a PASSWORD RESET? CLICK HERE TO RESET YOUR PASSWORD!

rattle noise, loss of power, etc and engine light/ 86,000 miles

gofishingup

Member
Sep 2, 2019
60
18
Truck Year
2016
Thanks for the info, I agree with everything you have said, until the EPA is reigned in and we get rid of these emission standards we're not going to have a practical and reliable small diesel motor. It just irks me to see what Toyota has done for a number of years with the 4 cylinder diesel in the HiLux. That diesel motor gets incredible mpg, is super reliable and is a proven small diesel that is sold practically all over the globe, but not in the US because of emission standards.

The EPA for the most part is full of BS. Can anyone say hole in the ozone? Forty years ago, that's all you heard, the world was going to end because of everyone using their Right Guard deodorant cans. That died out. The same will happen to what they are not terming "climate change" which started out as global warming. Twenty years from now that will go by the wayside as well. But in the meantime, the EPA will continue pushing their legislation and agenda about we need a cleaner America. Meanwhile the other countries of the world continue their business and continue importing HILux's into their countries and just laugh at the EPA standards in America.

I think this small diesel engine will amount to no more than an experiment that did not work out and won't work out with the current EPA emission standards.
 

TC Diesel

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2016
2,448
690
Truck Year
2015
The real problem with Dsl it creates NOx, and the EPAs CAA of near 0 NOx is Hideous, NOx is created by lighting. Example if EPA allowed just a 3-4PPM per mile it would take Avg Dsl to create 1 pound of NOx by weight 700K miles driving. Last months lighting storm created more NOx than all the Dsl in MN for months of driving, that's just 1 lighting storm for just 1 day locally.

By the Way it takes fuel to lower the NOx so the climate nuts are polluting more solids by weight. Even if you lower the MPG by 1/8PG you are going to add several more OZ of solids into the atmosphere.... Per tank.
 

gofishingup

Member
Sep 2, 2019
60
18
Truck Year
2016
But yet the politicians that are put in office year after year let the EPA run their agenda and impose these ridiculous standards that crpiple the American automobile industry. I've talked to the engineers at GM and it's just incredible what they have to do to try and meet the EPA standards. Take a look at some of the standards that are suppose to be met 10 years from now, it's just incredible. Meanwhile the automobiles get more and more expensive because the cost of meeting those standards is pushed onto the consumer.

I saw something recently that a single lightening strike during a thunderstorm has the energy equivalent of the nuclear bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima during WWII. I suppose now the EPA will want to outlaw lighting in the US.

I don't care if it's a republican, democrat, independent or a member of the whig party, just give me a politician who will promise to reign in the EPA and impose deregulation in this area and he or she will have my vote.
 

TC Diesel

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2016
2,448
690
Truck Year
2015
The EPA has done much good, its the extremes of near 0 XX of x that's crazy.

Framers are Now using more granular sulfur to increase the sulfur that has seem to have left the ground. Climate nuts are just that, heck Human waste is comprised of Nitrogen and other gases.
 

Andy Papp

New Member
Oct 30, 2019
8
0
Truck Year
2016
To update everyone, the truck got fixed eventually. On the way home the light came on and back to the shop two more weeks. 6 weeks all together to replace intake manifold the particulate filter. Did not want to risk any more problems since warranty will be up in 14k miles and truck doesn't run so great after emmission warranty "upgrades" so I traded it in on a new one hoping the latest generation eco diesel might have the issues fixed. Well I have 15k miles on my new 2020 Ram eco diesel and it lost power made a deisel knock and crapped out on the side of the road. Today is 6 days and Carl Burger in La Mesa still has not diagnosed it. I'll keep you posted. I think I made a second big mistake.
 

TC Diesel

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2016
2,448
690
Truck Year
2015
I wouldn't be to concerned at this point and elevate the matter to a BIG MISTAKE "BUT" if that motor done, cut your losses and by GAS.
 

carlhenry

Well-Known Member
Nov 21, 2018
1,506
283
Truck Year
Not Listed
they r having a few problems with the 3.0 in the 2020 jeep wrangler
 

Andy Papp

New Member
Oct 30, 2019
8
0
Truck Year
2016
They got my truck diagnosed. Lost fuel pressure due to a failed bearing in the fuel pump which sent metal into the system. My question is would this failure also get metal in the crankcase? The fuel pump is on back order. I escalated the case through Chrysler so they are supposed to expedite the parts, whatever that means. For now I have to just wait and see.
 

TC Diesel

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2016
2,448
690
Truck Year
2015
If any Bushings/Bearings Fail on the CP4 it generally explodes. it would be impossible to contaminate crankcase lube.

The more I read on this forum , Even someone with My resources does not own any VM motori products. I have the pump in stock Yet Ram has none says much.
 
Top