2013 2500 6.7 L Cummins question

Logger · Sep 7, 2012

I am new to this website. I am on the verge of purchasing a new Laramie 2500 6.7 L Cummins. The dealer tells me this is the only engine in the peer group that does not require an additive, in Maine at least. He says the additive will not be needed likely through 2013. Any wisdom or knowledge around this?
Also, will the addition of a chip or hi-flow air filter void the warranty?

bigbadram1500 · Sep 7, 2012

Welcome.

Moved this over to the diesel section, so our diesel members can help you out.

Stangshcky12 · Sep 7, 2012

There hasn't been much talk of the 13s
I believe they will get the DEF system later in the production year but will have the DPf system that doesn't require the DEF fluid for a little while ( I could be wrong)
The DEF thing isn't all that bad, rather then using diesel fuel to clean the filters it uses DEF fluid. You fill a 7 or 8 gallon tank somewhere between 5-8k miles depending on the way you drive of course (basically with an oil change)

As far as running a tuner or an intake, it depends on what breaks
A tuner, most instances will probably void your engine an trans. warranty should you

RYAN66 · Sep 7, 2012

As far as fuel additives you dont need to run any in any of the trucks, I always run diesel kleen though.

infernoredram · Sep 7, 2012

I read they're going to start requiring the additive (urea/DEF[diesel exhaust fluid]) in the 2014s, along with bumping it up to 400HP. Like Cody said, the DEF isn't bad. It's just gonna serve as a catalyst to burn the particulates in the DPF.. What that means is less regen, use less diesel to burn the particulates, and lower EGTs.

Intakes usually don't void the warranty, but a programmer sure as hell will lol... Especially if you do the DPF/EGR deletes. Which are highly recommended

Stangshcky12 · Sep 7, 2012

RYAN66 said:
As far as fuel additives you dont need to run any in any of the trucks, I always run diesel kleen though.

I believe he is referring to the DEF fluid since he mentioned about rams being the only ones on the market not using it (which rams can and chassis trucks already use a DEF system)

Esai brought up some good points to DEF fluid
Something other things to consider
DEF is a water ammonia mixture so it is renewable unlike diesel
11-12 powerstokes are averaging about 15.5 mpg vs 11-12 cummins 14.1 mpg
Over a 7,000 mile interval (about how long 6-8 gallons of DEF fluid will last) the powerstorke uses 44.8 gallons of diesel (at $4.11 a gallon average in the US) less then the cummins
So by useing $32 of def fluid (2.5 gallons is $10) the powerstroke saves about $150 in just 7,000 miles (over $4,000 over 200k miles)
And somebody might live an extra day because we polluted less are some hippy crap like that

By no means am I saying powerstrokes are better and these aren't exactly the best conditions to compare but even at 20% error it's still saving over $100 over 7,000 miles

But you do have to get the fluid and fill the tank which is such a foreign idea for so many people...

infernoredram · Sep 7, 2012

^^^^
Exactly!

A lot of people are knocking the DEF because they simply just don't understand it and see it as "more money" and "environmental *********" <-which it kinda is, but is a good thing if you plan on keeping the DPF.

Seeing the mpg's on the a current stock 6.7 makes me sick. They have the potential to get awesome mileage, but waste just so much damn fuel going into regen... hence the deletes :birgits_tiredcoffee

Sagebrush2500 · Sep 8, 2012

... a buddy recently told me that he read an article stating the emissions are not significantly different whenever comparing the output of high-MPG diesels releasing a smaller volume of "dirty" emissions versus a "clean" diesel burning extra fuel and creating a larger volume of "clean" emissions.

Gotta love the government and the individuals who really think we need MORE of them in our lives. These are the kinds of people who order a 6 slice pizza and since think they're getting something more by having it cut into 8 slices.

quietpeen · Sep 8, 2012

Sagebrush2500 said:
... a buddy recently told me that he read an article stating the emissions are not significantly different whenever comparing the output of high-MPG diesels releasing a smaller volume of "dirty" emissions versus a "clean" diesel burning extra fuel and creating a larger volume of "clean" emissions.

Gotta love the government and the individuals who really think we need MORE of them in our lives. These are the kinds of people who order a 6 slice pizza and since think they're getting something more by having it cut into 8 slices.

that wouldn't surprise me one bit with the emission of an older diesel and a newer "clean diesel"

Stangshcky12 · Sep 8, 2012

Eh I have personally seen the effect of a def system exhaust compared to a pre emissions on agricultural equipment
We do a lot of dyno testing at school, the brand new new holland tractors emmisions out put is nearly zero even under load (pto dyno)
I have a picture of a chart of the emmisions I recorded somewhere....

Stangshcky12 · Sep 8, 2012

Well photobucket isn't cooperating so I can't find the chart

I guess I should say the pre-emmisions diesels weren't that bad
It's when you consider the amount I trucks on the road and the equipment in the country with diesel engines that that not so bad exhaust gas adds up

There's an estimated 15.5 million trucks in the transportation business that consumed 53.9 billion gallons of fuel for business purposes. Granted not all are diesel trucks but those are still impressive numbers even if you cut them in half.

garner · Sep 8, 2012

The 2013 will have to use urea

infernoredram · Sep 8, 2012

garner said:
The 2013 will have to use urea

The 2500 and 3500?

If so, please link me to the info

garner · Sep 8, 2012

infernoredram said:
The 2500 and 3500?

If so, please link me to the info

Urea exhaust in 2013's good or bad on CF

Edit: Or just google 2013 cummins urea and you'll see a bunch of threads about it

Stangshcky12 · Sep 8, 2012

I don't believe there has been an official announcement about it, it's all rumors as far as I know

TexasRammer · Sep 8, 2012

infernoredram said:
^^^^
Exactly!

A lot of people are knocking the DEF because they simply just don't understand it and see it as "more money" and "environmental *********" <-which it kinda is, but is a good thing if you plan on keeping the DPF.

Seeing the mpg's on the a current stock 6.7 makes me sick. They have the potential to get awesome mileage, but waste just so much damn fuel going into regen... hence the deletes

Do the dpf's really use that much fuel?

Sagebrush2500 · Sep 8, 2012

My understanding is that they're far more efficient whenever the fuel is introduced using a direct injector.

Stangshcky12 · Sep 9, 2012

TexasRammer said:
Do the dpf's really use that much fuel?

A DPF system can use up to 2 gallons of fuel per 100 engine hours give or take depending on how the truck is used

For perspective my girlfriends truck had a little more then 4,500 engine hours over 150,000 miles

TexasRammer · Sep 9, 2012

that doesnt seem bad at all, seems like it would be barely noticeable

Stangshcky12 · Sep 9, 2012

That's what they claim but I personally think they go into regen more often then what they claim from my experience

I've also noticed it use enough fuel to move the needle on the fuel gauge lol

2013 2500 6.7 L Cummins question

Junior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Forum statistics