chiptune dpf delete problems

Flys Lo

Adventurer
My understanding is that the major difference between the old diesel and new ULSD is sulphur content. Is there any other change that makes it "better"? I understand that ULSD is better for the environment but I don't think it is any better for engines.
Low Sulphur by itself is not much "better for emissions". Low Sulphur fuel enables fitment of specific emissions equipment (specifically DPF), that fail with high sulphur fuel being used.

Countries that do not have Low Sulphur fuels typically also don't have the emissions requirements that need a DPF, and will have different engines fitted to them. I know new Fuso's sold in many parts of the world today have mechanical injected diesels with not even a Cat fitted.


As for the argument of better filtration - I don't follow it so much. Adding filters inline will drop fuel pressure, and may even result in fuel starvation - and given modern Common Rail injection pumps are lubricated off fuel, that will cause the problem you were trying to avoid anyway. It also gives you an additional thing that can fail in your fuel line and get sucked into your fuel pump and/or additional points for water/dust ingress. The factory filters for me are fine as long as:
a. You check/replace the standard filters regularly. Including draining water from the water separator each month.
b. Source good fuel to begin with. I also use these in all my vehicles: http://www.profill-australia.com/e-store/STORE.html
 

Czechsix

Watching you from a ridge
Flys - I agree with you that introducing other elements/connections into the system will up the chances for failures, however the stock fuel filter for my truck is smaller than I've ever seen on any diesel truck out there. By quite a bit. I do know that diesel has a tendency to have more particulates in it than gasoline does, and that's specifically what I worry about. Adding in a couple of FASS style filters (large Fleetpride cans) will up the filter media surface by at least an order of magnitude, plus being easier to swap out while keeping high quality fuel filtration going. If you so choose, you can even go to more efficient filter media, but the size of the can still gives you more than enough throughput.

Might be a non-issue where you're at, but when my warranty expires, I'm dropping in some additional filtration. Up to that point, I'm changing fuel filters more often than is recommended.

Ski:Euro3 in Africa makes sense, wish we had that here. Sigh.
 

dlh62c

Explorer
Adding filters inline will drop fuel pressure, and may even result in fuel starvation - and given modern Common Rail injection pumps are lubricated off fuel, that will cause the problem you were trying to avoid anyway. It also gives you an additional thing that can fail in your fuel line and get sucked into your fuel pump and/or additional points for water/dust ingress. The factory filters for me are fine as long as:
a. You check/replace the standard filters regularly. Including draining water from the water separator each month.
b. Source good fuel to begin with.
This thread is drifting off the OP's original topic.

I agree with the above and it doesn't hurt to drive them regularly.

Czechsix

Its your drive, you can add as many filters as you want, but keep in mind the system as a whole.

There's sensors that are constantly being polled by the vehicle's computer, the data is compared with limits embedded in the computers firmware. Its these sensors that monitor the system to ensure it runs within a set of parameters and warns you should the monitored component values fall outside those parameters.

For example; the computer might be monitoring the current drawn by the fuel pump, as long as it falls with in a certain set of parameters all is good. Add another filter or one that stops smaller particles and the current drawn by the pump increases which could induce a system fault, but in the worst case, shortens the life of the pump.

What would be helpful is a differential pressure gauge mounted to or across the OEM filter housing.
 
Last edited:

SkiFreak

Crazy Person
I installed a Racor FG500 as a water separator and it sits before the OEM fuel filter. Given that I did not install the Racor as a secondary fuel filter, I use 30 micron filter elements, which does not seem to restrict the fuel flow to the fuel injection primer pump. I also have a vacuum gauge fitted to the Racor filter, which tells me if there is a restriction at that filter.
So far this setup has worked flawlessly and I have seen absolutely no performance issues. I also have a Steinbauer chip installed, which means I use more fuel under power than the standard configuration.
As has been mentioned, you have to ensure that the primer pump does not have to work harder, which means you need to ensure that you do not increase the restriction in the fuel pickup line. Do that and it should be fine.
 

pugslyyy

Expedition Vehicle Engineer Guy
I installed a Racor FG500 as a water separator and it sits before the OEM fuel filter. Given that I did not install the Racor as a secondary fuel filter, I use 30 micron filter elements, which does not seem to restrict the fuel flow to the fuel injection primer pump. I also have a vacuum gauge fitted to the Racor filter, which tells me if there is a restriction at that filter.
So far this setup has worked flawlessly and I have seen absolutely no performance issues. I also have a Steinbauer chip installed, which means I use more fuel under power than the standard configuration.
As has been mentioned, you have to ensure that the primer pump does not have to work harder, which means you need to ensure that you do not increase the restriction in the fuel pickup line. Do that and it should be fine.
I have a KTI FilterBoss on my Fuso, in place of the stock filter. I use 2 micron filter elements.

Untitled.jpg
 

IcedVolvo

Observer
Hmmm, the removal of the DPF is relatively simple on other models, I am not sure why it is such a pain.

In other vehicles you pull the DPD off, split it with a cutting wheel or plasma, remove all the inside filters, ceramics etc, weld it back together (its stainless so you need TIG) and replace it.

Optionally you can replace/remove the sensors with resistors across the terminals (18k simulates analog sensors for ISUZU) but you cant just do this without the muffler mod as well as the DPD filters will eventually clog up completely and back pressure will build up and kill your engine.

Yes occasionally the dpd will do a "default" burn but this is done by injecting diesel into the cylinder on the exhaust stroke so fuel gets pushed into the hot exhaust and burns even hotter. With the muffler mod this just puts out a lot of smoke during the burn phase.

I have one of the C-Reader units (~$100) and it works fine for reading codes but I have had to clear a code yet so if someone has please lets us know how it went??
 

EarthCruiser

Adventurer
G`day SkiFreak , your correct.
Fuso (and Isuzu) does use different engines depending on what market they sell into.
 

lehel1

Adventurer
dpf delete

hello all

i know its been over a year, trying to do a successful dpf delete and waiting for results. i think i can officially say remapping a us version of the fuso ecu is not a option right now. chiptune nor any other company i have been able to find has been successful in remapping a us fuso ecu to date. my ecu finally got completely fried and i had to purchase a new one. the cost of experimenting with this all year and all the dealer work that was needed has in the end not been worth it. my truck was down for more than half the year just shipping my ecu back and forth, needless to say being in limp mode the rest of the time.

along with replacing the ecu, i also had to replace the turbo, rebuild the transmision, replacing a cracked exhaust manifold its been quite a expensive year for my fuso for only aa 118000 miles on it

although since buying my fuso and building a camper new in 08, and doing alot of fun traveling in it. in the end fuso trucks, along with many other new trucks on the market are completely dealer dependant. not great for a expedition vehical. even within the us which is all the traveling ive been able to do so far, ive have had poor experinces with the most simple problems that should have been able to be solved at any repair shop. but was stuck because of the need to be plugged into a fuso specific scanning tool to clear (codes even something like a fuel filter).

my log shows over 5500 miles driven in limp mode, out of 118000 i now have on it. just to have a codes cleared at a dealer. i can only fathom a trip to alaska and have an error show up on the alcan.

i loved my older unimog camper, and traveled in it for fifteen years. the fuso has been great, but not as a expedition vehical that i can or would take anywhere.

sure, i may be alittle discourage at the moment. my goal is to share my opinion, and to keep in mind all the variables before putting a considerable sum into a rig that may in the end not work out as well as one might have been planned. ive learned for myself having a dealer specific dependant vehical as an expedition rig limits the places i can plan on going.

im looking forward to seeing many of you at the expo. cheers lehel
 

Czechsix

Watching you from a ridge
Sorry to hear that. I wonder how the newer version of the FG will pan out. Time will tell, I guess. One thing I'll agree with though, is that these trucks are dealer dependent, at least for scans. I need to start sourcing a MUTSIII unit, or at least start hunting one down.

I haven't really dug into the older FG's, but isn't there a non-scanner method to clear codes, at least temporarily? I'm pretty sure I've spotted one for the '11 and newer trucks, using the multifunction display to read the codes and go through the steps.
 

SkiFreak

Crazy Person
I need to start sourcing a MUTSIII unit, or at least start hunting one down.
If you do find one, please share.
The only ones I have seen are the Chinese knock offs of the MUT III reader, but at around $500 I have not been willing to "try one out".
BTW... nothing that I have tried has been able to read the data that comes out of my ECU (FG84) and I have tried about 6 different units so far. :(

I haven't really dug into the older FG's, but isn't there a non-scanner method to clear codes, at least temporarily?
I believe that all models have the ability to read "blink codes" and to also clear the error codes via the fuse box.
This is covered in some detail in the workshop manual, as are all of the engine error codes.
 

Czechsix

Watching you from a ridge
If you do find one, please share.
The only ones I have seen are the Chinese knock offs of the MUT III reader, but at around $500 I have not been willing to "try one out".
BTW... nothing that I have tried has been able to read the data that comes out of my ECU (FG84) and I have tried about 6 different units so far. :(



I believe that all models have the ability to read "blink codes" and to also clear the error codes via the fuse box.
This is covered in some detail in the workshop manual, as are all of the engine error codes.
Ok, so my memory was correct on this. IAC, also, I'll keep you apprised of what I find for the MUTS...but what units have you tried that have been unsuccessful? So I don't duplicate what you've already found.
 

casejeep

Observer
So im new to this whole issue but... What about buying a whole new engine from South Africa or Mexico? Same engine but different computer module, right? Then you just take out the reburner and muffler? For use outside of the USA... of course...

I might be crazy, but it might work?
 

Czechsix

Watching you from a ridge
So im new to this whole issue but... What about buying a whole new engine from South Africa or Mexico? Same engine but different computer module, right? Then you just take out the reburner and muffler? For use outside of the USA... of course...

I might be crazy, but it might work?
I think there would be a problem with customs and EPA, bringing it in. Might be possible if it's broken down into parts, and brought in with other historic, antique parts. Not that I'm considering that, of course, and of course no one has ever done it, and this is for information purposes only.
 

mog

Kodiak Wrangler
I think there would be a problem with customs and EPA, bringing it in. Might be possible if it's broken down into parts, and brought in with other historic, antique parts. Not that I'm considering that, of course, and of course no one has ever done it, and this is for information purposes only.
I thought it was being brought in as a training aid for the charity school you run for underprivileged, at-risk, gender-neutral, innercity kids, you bighearted lug. :sombrero:
 

Forum statistics

Threads
180,036
Messages
2,806,152
Members
215,249
Latest member
Bbdude190
Top