To "delete" or not to "delete"

ShinerBock wrote:

Really? So does that mean that I don't have half a clue?

Thats correct. I'm starting to think you are some sort of wingnut as well.

ShinerBock wrote:

Let me ask you. How many diesel engine manufacturers have you worked for? How many diesel truck manufacturers have you worked for? How many diesel engines have you seen in a test cell to know that just because you raise the combustion temps to create more power (and the engine is not blowing out black smoke) DOES NOT mean it isn't blowing out carcinogenic diesel particulates in high volumes. Or that raising the combustion temps creates A LOT of NOx that turns into acid when it reacts with the moisture in the atmosphere or your lungs. So, how much experience do you have with this in order to say that those that do not agree with your assumptions do not have half a clue?

I have worked for zero diesel engine manufacturers, zero truck manufacturers, and seen exactly zero diesel engines in a test cell. What I did see was how the equipment consistently failed in the field. Time and time again, costing OEMs and truck owners alot of time and money.

How many EGR valves have you cleaned?

ShinerBock wrote:

Yes, they do, and I have data to back that up. Do you have data backing up your assumptions or are you only saying this so you can downplay it just to make yourself feel better about purposely (and illegally) taking off your emissions device increasing other people's health risks only for your own selfish benefit?

Particulate matter aside, how much does making a truck burn twice as much fuel actually reduce emissions? Whats the carbon foot print of a gallon of diesel being refined, then shipped by barge, freight car, transport and even single axle pedal truck? The fuel usage was substantially increased so now you are moving that many more gallons.

ShinerBock wrote:
So what about the health cost of the elderly man who doesn't have a "deleted" diesel? Or the parents of the little boy with asthma and breathing problems? What about their costs? Why should they have to pay just because some selfish "coal roller" doesn't want to pay for his own choices in getting a diesel.

What about the increase in the cost of every tangible good delivered by a truck?

ShinerBock wrote:

What? You are more worried about downtime of freight companies (which can be attributed to lots of things) over increasing people's chances of cancer. That is just a poor example. The difference here is that YOU CHOSE to buy a diesel and chose to purposely make it emit more DP. Those with the increased chances of lung issues did not make that choice. YOU DID, so why should they have to pay for it or be negatively affected by it? Why should someone else pay for your choices?

Its not a poor example at all. The trucks were running cleaner than they ever did before the EPA came in and fast tracked standards that no one was ready for. So EVERY LAST PERSON in the country suffers the consequences financially to some extent and maybe just maybe we reduced cancer by .00005% in areas near major highways?

Perhaps we should ban dirt because of the Radon it produces.