EPA Going After Deleted Trucks…

[schmart]

OK legitimate question here; what is less pollution and better for the environment - 200 gallons of diesel and 20 gallons of DEF or 125 gallons of diesel, doing the exact same identical work before and after. ? This is the literal, day after day results my friend got.

You're gonna have to come with some pretty good arguments to convince me that making, transporting and burning an extra 75 gallons a day is the "environmentally friendly" way.

BTW no smoke either. Rolling coal is for idiots, for the most part. Not that I haven't done my fair share.

I work for a company that makes Diesel engines. Only answering the engineering question that was raised above, not stating any opinion on the validity of the regulations...

Basically, the engines of today produce well under 1% of the particulate and NOx emissions of the previous engines (ignoring Carbon emissions). The math proves that you would then have to burn more than 100X the fuel to produce the same pollution.... so from the EPA view, forcing you to burn 2x the fuel for the same job equates to better air quality.

Hope this helps clarify part of the issue.

 

[ditcherman]

I work for a company that makes Diesel engines. Only answering the engineering question that was raised above, not stating any opinion on the validity of the regulations...

Basically, the engines of today produce well under 1% of the particulate and NOx emissions of the previous engines (ignoring Carbon emissions). The math proves that you would then have to burn more than 100X the fuel to produce the same pollution.... so from the EPA view, forcing you to burn 2x the fuel for the same job equates to better air quality.

Hope this helps clarify part of the issue.

Ok, just because I don’t want to believe you doesn’t mean I don’t believe you. I guess. If I have too.

It does add some clarity. But you compare this engine with previous engines. What about this engine compared to this engine?

 

[Jaybird1980]

Yeah, almost all of the larger diesel emissions equipment is designed to lower nox and catch particulates. Once the particulate filter gets "full", the engine runs "regen cycles" to burn out those particulates. So they still enter the air, just at different times... kinda like GM adding A.I.R. pumps to gas engines. Makes it look better but not really doing anything.

Fun fact... a lot of large trucks use fuel to "cool" the EGR down while running. The problem with that is diesel fuel doesn't like being heated. Doing so causes the asphaltines in the fuel to clump up, clogging fuel filters and injectors and burns less efficiently. So now these "fixes" are making the engines run even worse and even less efficient.

Who remembers this stupid slogan.



The AIR pumps, the stupid exhaust tips that let air in.
Retarded people are the only ones who think that is cutting back on emissions.

 

[Brad69]

If you drive a older truck 1998-2004 Cummins ISX,N14 Detroit series 60, CAT C15.

They are the best of the modern engines. Might get slight puff of smoke when you shift. Great MPH and power.

I spend more on emissions repairs than engine repairs.

An "ONE BOX" for a Detroit is about $14,000!

If you wanna talk about nightmares Google "MaxForce" they put companies out of business.

 

[jwamplerusa]

I work for a company that makes Diesel engines. Only answering the engineering question that was raised above, not stating any opinion on the validity of the regulations...

Basically, the engines of today produce well under 1% of the particulate and NOx emissions of the previous engines (ignoring Carbon emissions). The math proves that you would then have to burn more than 100X the fuel to produce the same pollution.... so from the EPA view, forcing you to burn 2x the fuel for the same job equates to better air quality.

Hope this helps clarify part of the issue.

So when is enough, enough? When you walk everywhere.

 

[phylodog]

So when is enough, enough? When you walk everywhere.

Better us than them I guess. If you don’t own a diesel truck, have no personal need of one and remain ignorant to your dependence upon them then slapping $15k worth of garbage on other people’s trucks isn’t such a big deal.

 

[ditcherman]

The AIR pumps, the stupid exhaust tips that let air in.
Retarded people are the only ones who think that is cutting back on emissions.

This is not the daylight savings time thread, it is somewhere else!
Please stick to the subject at hand!

Oh wait.
Sorry.
Nevermind.

 

[ditcherman]

Better us than them I guess. If you don’t own a diesel truck, have no personal need of one and remain ignorant to your dependence upon them then slapping $15k worth of garbage on other people’s trucks isn’t such a big deal.

So Brad passing along his costs of his trucking company, and everything else that effects the cost of production of food and everything else isn’t your worry?

We’re all the victim.

 

[Brad69]

Like @ditcherman stated my costs are passed to the customer then to the end user.

My DEF bill runs about $1,200 a week. This is for imo nothing!

It doesn't reduce emissions it just produces them in different manner.

Unfortunately parts for the older engines are drying up and you can only rebuild engines a limited amount of times. As you people know the rest of truck is wore out after 2 million miles.


Don't even get me started on what's happening to our farmer's.

BTW I am not replacing equipment as it dies or a driver quits. I am getting out when I can.

 

[phylodog]

So Brad passing along his costs of his trucking company, and everything else that effects the cost of production of food and everything else isn’t your worry?

We’re all the victim.

His added costs are what I was referring to when I mentioned people being ignorant of their dependence on diesel engines. Food production and transportation being the primary easily forgotten tidbit.

The left is perpetually short sighted. Ask one if we should ban diesel engines and they’ll immediately say yes and follow it up with a blathering, ignorant diatribe full of virtue signaling about how awful diesels are and how much better off we’d all be without them. Give them their way and six months later when they can’t buy avocados for their toast, their favorite imported coffee bean or craft beer from across the country and they’ll be screaming about how they’re being victimized.

I’m well past the point of telling the petulant to STFU and let the adults go back to running the country so we all don’t die of stupidity.

 

[ditcherman]

His added costs are what I was referring to when I mentioned people being ignorant of their dependence on diesel engines. Food production and transportation being the primary easily forgotten tidbit.

The left is perpetually short sighted. Ask one if we should ban diesel engines and they’ll immediately say yes and follow it up with a blathering, ignorant diatribe full of virtue signaling about how awful diesels are and how much better off we’d all be without them. Give them their way and six months later when they can’t buy avocados for their toast, their favorite imported coffee bean or craft beer from across the country and they’ll be screaming about how they’re being victimized.

I’m well past the point of telling the petulant to STFU and let the adults go back to running the country so we all don’t die of stupidity.

Ah I completely missed your point, thank you.

 

[Tombs]

Maybe the EPA should be cutting checks to replace this incredibly expensive emissions equipment that serves no purpose to the owner and frequently fails, costing more than the vehicle is worth.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

What next,seat belts on motorcycles?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Maybe the EPA should be cutting checks to replace this incredibly expensive emissions equipment that serves no purpose to the owner and frequently fails, costing more than the vehicle is worth.

EPA = taxpayers