To "delete" or not to "delete"

ShinerBock wrote:

6.6 Oilburner wrote:


I have provided just as much Data as you, the difference is you are leaning on Data you say exists,(which I'm sure it does) and I am point blank telling you I have not kept a journal of every conversation I have had with customers.

No, you haven't provided any data. All you are going by is hearsay. You basically have no experience or knowledge about it yet you want to tell me, who has almost 20 years experience working with diesel and truck manufacturers, how the cow eats the cabbage.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
You call them assumptions, thats false, I'm not assuming anything. I'm sharing the experiences of people I deal with on a daily basis.

Yes they are assumptions and false ones at that. Your very first post in this thread was false and based on assumptions when you called my post foolish for stating that the DPF on these trucks is for health reasons. I then proved how unfoolish my post was with facts. You then tried to downplay the health dangers by coming up with some bogus .005% number out of thin air. Next you began to try tell us that the pre emissions trucks get better fuel economy even though you have no way to back that up, and I inturn proved you wrong with factual hand calculated fuel mileages from Fuelly.com of pre and post emissions diesels. Now you are trying to talk about freezing DEF fluid when you don't even know how the whole system operates. It is funny that you talk so much about these systems yet you do not even know how they operate.

Also, I thought you said you were out of here a few pages back. What happened?

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
You are LITERALLY the only person I have ever heard even hint at the fact that emissions standards were anything but a heavy blow to the entire transportation industry.

I am "literally" the only person? How about jus2shy who works with refuse trucks and told you flat out that you over dramatization of all these "issues' you claim these truck have is a bunch of baloney. Or Sport45 and the others who are also telling you that deleting is irresponsible.


Fact is, if you did not like these emission devices in the first place then you SHOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT A DIESEL TRUCK WITH THEM. No one else should have to pay for your own decisions, just like I don't think I should have to pay someones welfare after they just spent $3,000 on a set of rims. You purposely went out and bought a diesel truck with these devices and you purposely increased those around you health risk by deleting those devices. Those around you that have a greater health risk did not make the decision for you to buy a diesel and they sure as hell did not make the decision for you to purposely make it pollute the air they breathe so why should they have to pay for it or be affected by it? If you think these emissions systems are just a bunch of bull then why don't you do as I said and run your exhaust to your cab and put your A/C on recirculate. According to you that will only increase your health risk by .005%.

Look, if you don't know whats going on in the field up here in the Northeast, I can't help you understand. You're obviously not willing to entertain a thought that your beloved employer and the other OEs were backed into a corner by the EPA and had to equip trucks with equipment that wasn't ready or tried and true. But I guess CAT's inability to comply just means that they are inadequate as an engine builder?

I am by no means saying the systems haven't improved, but at what cost? And jus2shy is obviously well aware of the growing pains that came along with DPF systems in 2007.

If these systems are so **** reliable, why do emergency response vehicles get a free pass on deleting?


The fuelly data is not conclusive to the discussion we are having. You have no way of knowing if any of the trucks are deleted or tuned, and I saw more than one truck with aftermarket exhaust in the profile pics. Further more, the more miles logged, the higher the average MPG for almost every application you look at, which again is only logical.