Goodbye DPF and soot?

JRscooby wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:




Yeah, all those people who live in the city were NOx is a health issue, it is all about me because they don't want to move away from their favorite Starbucks.

Learn how and where NOx forms.

I maybe should learn something. OTOH, Maybe you should learn about how society forms. Maybe you could get the idea between your ears that without cities we would not need any emission controls, because we would have no trucks, or computers to talk about trucks with.

So California's water restriction laws and regulations should be enforced all over the US even though they do not have a water shortage problem? California has a water issues(just like its NOx issues) because its population density. That is essentially the same thing as telling a person in a rural part of the country that does live in a high NOx area that he has to abide by the same rules as a person that lives in a high NOx area. If a person wants to live in a metro area, they should have to pay for it, not others.

ShinerBock wrote:




Yeah, all those people who live in the city were NOx is a health issue, it is all about me because they don't want to move away from their favorite Starbucks.

Learn how and where NOx forms.

I maybe should learn something. OTOH, Maybe you should learn about how society forms. Maybe you could get the idea between your ears that without cities we would not need any emission controls, because we would have no trucks, or computers to talk about trucks with.

JRscooby wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Well it is because of those people that I have to pay more for fuel due to lower efficiency, pay more for my truck due to the emissions equipment, decreased reliability, and pay more for repairs/maintenance in the long run due to NOx emissions that only effect the health of people in highly populated areas. Why should I have to pay for their wants?

Me me me it's all about me. You do not have to pay. You choose to drive a new diesel truck. If you can afford to drive the new diesel you could choose a new gas, or a old diesel. IMHO, the only choice you should have is to modify the engine to no longer meet emission standards.

Yeah, all those people who live in the city were NOx is a health issue, it is all about me because they don't want to move away from their favorite Starbucks. It is because of these heavily populated areas we have to have such strict NOx restrictions and emissions equipment on our trucks, and we would have no need for them if people would simply disperse because there would not be enough people in an area to have any effect on human health. No, but it all about me with these kind of people because god forbid they are more than 5 minutes away from anything.

Learn how and where NOx forms. You don't see this dark haze over the country side like you do in the city. Since our laws are one size fits all, I have abide by the same emissions laws as someone in the city even though NOx is not stagnated and has time to dissipate to turn into good ozone where I live. Places like southern California need these laws and restriction because of the heavily populated, not where I am from. So why should I have to abide by the same NOx emissions laws?

If you love around the pink areas of this map, you need NOx emissions. The yellow and uncolored areas, no.
Mapped: nitrogen dioxide pollution around the world

Grit dog wrote:

And in Scoobys example, either this is a singular personal experience that he is assuming to be the norm, or it's made up by throwing the poor me card.
A more accurate example might be the old toyota burning oil being pulled over with "probable cause" (the pollution or that conveniently busted tail light or any other host of minor infractions) and then citing the driver for expired registration (maybe because it couldn't pass emissions), no insurance and a bench warrant for the other unpaid violations.
That's not a feel bad for the poor scenario, that's a lack of responsibility or give a ____ by the driver of the car.

And none of this has a dang thing to do with the original discussion....big surprise.

Have you met the young lady? But you feel you can pass judgement.
A preacher that knows I can fix some things automotive called me to see if I could help. (Could not) Talking to her, the only life choice she made was believing if she served in the military she would have a leg up on the rest of her life. She has a job, but she needs a car to get from house to house to clean. No, I can't say anybody that owns one of the houses has a pickup blowing smoke.
I don't understand how anybody can declare just because somebody is poor, they made bad choices. 44% of jobs now are classified as low wage work. If you have ever looked at living on the edge, you would see the cost in time and money of just transferring her insurance and registration to another car might lead to missed meals. And likely the time restraint imposed by her job and the ticket, and the fact she does not have cash on hand to buy another car means she will have to pay more for the car, and a higher interest rate than you would.

ShinerBock wrote:

Well it is because of those people that I have to pay more for fuel due to lower efficiency, pay more for my truck due to the emissions equipment, decreased reliability, and pay more for repairs/maintenance in the long run due to NOx emissions that only effect the health of people in highly populated areas. Why should I have to pay for their wants?

Me me me it's all about me. You do not have to pay. You choose to drive a new diesel truck. If you can afford to drive the new diesel you could choose a new gas, or a old diesel. IMHO, the only choice you should have is to modify the engine to no longer meet emission standards.

JRscooby wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Actually it is not pure ignorance when speaking in terms of PM and NOx.

What I referred to as "pure ignorance" was your implication more people should move into rural area, and instead of driving 50 miles a week to get back and forth to work now drive 50 miles one way, and think that the increase in driving will not increase emissions.

Well it is because of those people that I have to pay more for fuel due to lower efficiency, pay more for my truck due to the emissions equipment, decreased reliability, and pay more for repairs/maintenance in the long run due to NOx emissions that only effect the health of people in highly populated areas. Why should I have to pay for their wants?

time2roll wrote:

JRscooby wrote:
Most of the time it happens is in the suburbs. A guy in a new, shinny, lifted pickup can leave the light, blowing enough black smoke that pedestrians can disappear. But the maid on her way to clean the house of the rectum that just choked the kids walking to school can get a ticket because 20 year old Toyota is smoking as she slows for the light.

Two wrongs do not make a right and low income does not get a pass. Yes I agree this example is unfortunate.

The Toyota needs to be fixed or replaced and a 'fix-it' citation is in order.

The truck with a modified and deliberate intention of smoke should be impounded on the spot, heavy fine assessed, and require OEM repair before returning to the owner.

And in Scoobys example, either this is a singular personal experience that he is assuming to be the norm, or it's made up by throwing the poor me card.
A more accurate example might be the old toyota burning oil being pulled over with "probable cause" (the pollution or that conveniently busted tail light or any other host of minor infractions) and then citing the driver for expired registration (maybe because it couldn't pass emissions), no insurance and a bench warrant for the other unpaid violations.
That's not a feel bad for the poor scenario, that's a lack of responsibility or give a ____ by the driver of the car.

And none of this has a dang thing to do with the original discussion....big surprise.

time2roll wrote:
Two wrongs do not make a right and low income does not get a pass. Yes I agree this example is unfortunate.

The Toyota needs to be fixed or replaced and a 'fix-it' citation is in order.
The truck with a modified and deliberate intention of smoke should be impounded on the spot, heavy fine assessed, and require OEM repair before returning to the owner.

Why should the owner that has proven he thinks the law does not apply get the truck back? Sell it at auction to somebody that must fix before use, use money for public transportation, reduce the need to drive the wore out Toy.
The "fleet average MPG" should help, if you want to buy a big o truck to haul your butt and groceries fine. But part of the money you pay to the manufacturer should go to subsidize the cost of a more efficient vehicle. This would push down the price of used economy cars, getting the more worn ones off the road.
But the issue is, just like in the '70s people will buy a vehicle big enough to not be included in the average. 3/4 ton?

ShinerBock wrote:

Actually it is not pure ignorance when speaking in terms of PM and NOx.

What I referred to as "pure ignorance" was your implication more people should move into rural area, and instead of driving 50 miles a week to get back and forth to work now drive 50 miles one way, and think that the increase in driving will not increase emissions.

Groover wrote:

"Trust me, the EPA is not perfect, but some seem to take what they say as the word of God without question or even knowing what the regulation is."

I wholeheartedly agree with this. In fact, they probably did more harm than good with the regulations in the 1970's that made many cars more than double their fuel requirements and thus CO2 emissions.

I agree that when the emission regulations started fuel millage took a big hit. Mothers '63 Ford would go twice as far on a gallon of gas as my wife's '73 Chevy would, and could pump lead in the air while doing it. (Was happy to get away from both wife and Chevy) And because only people that needed a pickup bought trucks, half ton trucks where exempt. Which made many buy pickups, and the mess behind that. (Never learn, now regulators are moving people into even heavier pickups.)
But OTOH, as long as the cost of the pollution is not on the capitalist he will never try to reduce it without government regulation. Because of regulation, first they tried to clean between combustion and tailpipe. But with regulation, and competition from cars if places where fuel is not as cheap, we have learned to burn cleaner from jump. Right now, with diesel, we are watching them try to clean between combustion and tailpipe. If you are not willing to live with the cost of being the test subject, drive your old truck. If the currant technology did not sell the OEMs would change technology.
Another idea. The claim is pre-07 engines are good for at least half million trouble free miles. At 150,000 the rest of truck has enough wear it is no longer dependable? (To me the main reason not to spend the money for diesel option, especially on used market.) Buy a new truck, with all the bells and whistles you want, but the cheapest engine option. Put you old engine in the new truck. Old truck with new engine will bring something on the used market.

Groover wrote:
"CO and CO2 on the other hand(which gassers mainly emit) do stay in the air regardless of where you are at."

Shiner, you generally put a lot of thought and intelligence in your posts. Surely you are not claiming that the carbon in diesel fuel is somehow converted into NOx instead of CO and CO2. And, since diesel has a higher percentage of carbon in it that gasoline a pound of diesel will make more carbon byproducts than a pound of gasoline.

Production of NOx is an endothermic process which means that it absorbs energy and increases demand for carbon based fuel. Once it is discharged it starts breaking down and creates nitric acid which slowly dissolves most everything.


"Trust me, the EPA is not perfect, but some seem to take what they say as the word of God without question or even knowing what the regulation is."

I wholeheartedly agree with this. In fact, they probably did more harm than good with the regulations in the 1970's that made many cars more than double their fuel requirements and thus CO2 emissions.

No, I am not claiming that the carbon in diesel is converted to NOx. That is ludicrous. What I am saying is that diesel emit less CO and CO2 than gassers due to their efficiency. Diesel fuel does have more carbon than a gallon of gas, but due to how efficient a diesel is at utilizing that gallon it emits less carbon per mile.

A prime example of this is the BMW 328d and 328i. Both are exaclty the same except the 328d has a 2.0L diesel engine and the 328i has 2.0L gas engine. The 328d is EPA rated at 31/36/43 mpg combined and has a CO2 output of 68.75 g/m while the 328i is rated at 23/27/34 mpg and has a CO2 output of 77.5 g/m. Keep in mind that our EPA test cycles are geared toward achieving the best results for a gas engine so the the 328d is likely to achieve better fuel economy than the EPA numbers which in turn would lower CO2 output in the real world for the diesel while increasing it for the gasser. In fact, I can attest that it does since I own one and generally achieve 43 mpg combined when it was stock where the EPA rates it at 36 combined.

I am also not saying that the EPA has not done any good or had good intentions especially when it was first created by Republican President Richard Nixon. However, with most government agencies that were started with good intentions, they eventually turn partisan and used by an elected official to implement their agenda. As I said before, I am all for the EPA or any other agency making thought out and calculated decisions using objective data, but I am against them making decisions purely based on a political agenda without looking at the effects of said decisions as a whole.

Many times they just make a decisions and do not calculate the total impact of that decision. One prime example was the CAFE footprint regulation that killed fuel efficient compact truck such as the Ranger and S10. Another is what I previously stated where they lowered the NOx from 1.2 g/hp-hr to .2 g/hp-hr(considerably lower than EU), and by doing so probably created more pollution by what it took for the market to get it there. The EPA does not look in retrospect on whether their decisions actually created more pollution because of how the market reacted o that decisions.

They basically tell the manufacturers that they have to meet a certain number in five years and do not look at the added pollution that it took to get there years later. All they care about is meeting that number. They don't look at the decreases fuel efficiency, adds more pollution from all the plants making DEF and plastic jugs, added garbage pollution from the plastic jugs, added pollution from transporting DEF and so on. As long as the manufacturers attain that 1 g/hp-hr, that is all that matters to them.

"CO and CO2 on the other hand(which gassers mainly emit) do stay in the air regardless of where you are at."

Shiner, you generally put a lot of thought and intelligence in your posts. Surely you are not claiming that the carbon in diesel fuel is somehow converted into NOx instead of CO and CO2. And, since diesel has a higher percentage of carbon in it that gasoline a pound of diesel will make more carbon byproducts than a pound of gasoline.

Production of NOx is an endothermic process which means that it absorbs energy and increases demand for carbon based fuel. Once it is discharged it starts breaking down and creates nitric acid which slowly dissolves most everything.


"Trust me, the EPA is not perfect, but some seem to take what they say as the word of God without question or even knowing what the regulation is."

I wholeheartedly agree with this. In fact, they probably did more harm than good with the regulations in the 1970's that made many cars more than double their fuel requirements and thus CO2 emissions.

JRscooby wrote:

First you have not addressed the point without regulation the research into making the engines run cleaner.

Never said it hasn't, and I am not against regulation that are well thought out and not some number reached for political browny points.

JRscooby wrote:

Most of the time it happens is in the suburbs. A guy in a new, shinny, lifted pickup can leave the light, blowing enough black smoke that pedestrians can disappear. But the maid on her way to clean the house of the rectum that just choked the kids walking to school can get a ticket because 20 year old Toyota is smoking as she slows for the light.

Well that guy deserves a ticket just like the guy in the gas truck that clearly was blowing oil though his piston rings that I had to smell for miles down a back country road the other day. Just to make it clear, I am against rolling coal just as much as you. However, you can still modify your truck and not roll coal. With today's diesels, you have actually program the truck to roll coal because they will not with a clean tune even with all the emissions system off.

JRscooby wrote:
This is a problem. But I think a good part of the problem is unlike most of the developed world, somebody running for office in the government can say he will listen to god and money, not scientist. (Most people I know, if they mention the voices in their head we beg them to get back on meds. But I guess if they could get on the news they could get elected)

As a husband of a senior level III scientist, I can tell you that even they are capable of giving subjective bias data that fits their predetermined mindset.

I implore you to go back and look how and when the recent 2007+ diesel regulations were created and what the market did to reach these numbers. Look at everything from the decreased efficiency of every engine, the mining of added catalyst materials, the creation and emissions from soot burning DPF cleaning machines, the plants that make DEF fluid, the plants that make the DEF jugs, the added pollution from the DEF jugs, the emissions from the truck that deliver DEF, and so on. Then ask yourself if all this was worth the very minuscule amount PM and NOx limit change when the EPA told the manufacturers a number to reach and did not recalculate the impact on what they did to reach it.

Then look into why our emissions regulations are biased toward gas engines even though they spew more greenhouse gases than diesels. Not only that, but also look into why our fuel economy tests are also geared toward attaining the highest number possible for gassers which is why gassers generally do worse than the EPA numbers in the real world and diesels do better. You can also look into other EPA CAFE regulations and how they actually had a reverse effect in many cases by making cars bigger while killing off smaller more efficient vehicles and is one of the reasons why automakers will stop making cars.

Trust me, the EPA is not perfect, but some seem to take what they say as the word of God without question or even knowing what the regulation is. I bet nobody here even knows what the current CO, CO2, PM, or NOx limit is without looking it up or knowing their impact between each regulation, but by God they will defend it to their dying breath because it came from the EPA.

JRscooby wrote:
Let me see. A long time ago it was discovered for society to develop past substance farming cities are needed to concentrate market and labor. I think most who live in city do so because that is where the jobs are. It is pure ignorance to think any vehicle will pollute less driving 100 miles a day instead of 10.
But most important, who in sam hill is forcing you or anybody else to pay the cost? When I lived on the farm, we used 2 pickups. When I got old enough to need one, I bought one that was 10 years old. As soon as we knew it would work we could pull the 14 year old one out of service long enough to rebuild the engine. Emission standards have been on heavy duty diesel pickups for what 13 years? If you don't want to pay the cost, drive the old truck, or buy a gasser.

Actually it is not pure ignorance when speaking in terms of PM and NOx. Read more about these two and you will know what I mean. NOx is is only bad in lower atmosphere, but is good ozone in upper atmosphere. In highly populated areas where it does not have time to dissipate in the stratosphere, it is harmful to humans. However, in less populated areas where it does have time to dissipate into the stratosphere to become good ozone, it is not harmful. CO and CO2 on the other hand(which gassers mainly emit) do stay in the air regardless of where you are at.