To "delete" or not to "delete"

ShinerBock wrote:
So let me get this straight 6.6 Oilbunrner. You have exactly ZERO experience, ZERO facts, and ZERO data backing up your assumptions and you are calling my comments foolish and me a wingnut? WOW!!!!

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
Particulate matter aside, how much does making a truck burn twice as much fuel actually reduce emissions?

The new trucks do not burn twice as much diesel to reduce emissions. Please show your data backing up such a ludicrous claim.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
What about the increase in the cost of every tangible good delivered by a truck?

What they hell does that have to do with what we are discussing? If you are saying that these emission devices are causing massive issues in over the road trucks I can tell you that you're dead wrong. I currently work in the class 7 & 8 diesel truck field (mostly oilfield now) and I can tell you these trucks are not being downed left and right due to emission systems like you are trying to claim. Although I shouldn't be too surprised since most of your claims have been baseless without any real world experience of the matter up to this point anyways.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
The trucks were running cleaner than they ever did before the EPA came in and fast tracked standards that no one was ready for.

Wasn't ready for it? If you never worked for an diesel engine manufacturer then how do you know who was ready for what? I can tell you that we knew at Cummins what the next round of emissions standards were years in advance. If you think that the development of the 6.7L from the 5.9L was just an overnight thing then you are sadly mistaken.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
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?

Actually the numbers going by the data is way more than that although again I would love to see where you get your data to back up such ludicrous statements and assumptions.

The funny thing about this Data is that it can be manipulated to lead in most any direction the collector wishes. I suppose the guys who work on these trucks day in and day out, and the guys who drive these trucks are also at some insanely increased risk of respiratory cancer?

I suppose the fact that Glider sales are completely thru the roof and at an all time high has nothing to do with problematic emissions systems? I suppose an additive being required that had (and still has) virtually no infrastructure for bulk delivery has had no impact on the market or environment?

I guess the fact that owner operators are now deleting class 8 trucks and smaller because they have been there and done that and have more money wrapped up in emissions component related failures than the fines will be? Along with substantial documented fuel savings.

The problem with all this Data you are asking for is that it doesn't exist because the EPA does not give one shred a $h!t the hardship it has imposed on the entire country as a whole. There is no bottomless bucket of taxpayer cash to create studies like the CDC can do.

I work with Contractors, Construction companys, Owner operators, Independent repair facilities, Dealers and large fleets on a daily basis. But I guess there constant tales of woe over emission system failures don't count as data.

My opinion at this point is that you are to far up the food chain and to submersed in engineering data that was compiled to prove a specific point that you are blind to what is really going on with practical application.

Have to say my 2004 Cummins would only "roll coal" if I were babing it then stuck my foot in her. Then only for a very very short time, other then that she burned very clean.

I agree at what cost has all of this emission garbage cost us? My 04 could hit the same mileage that my Ecodiesel does 27+ all day long on the highway @ 77 MPH for the ED and 70 for the Cummins. What are these new 6.7 diesels making, maybe 20 MPG @ 60 MPH if your lucky?

Nope the reason we have these emissions are first and foremost big trucks sitting in rest stops, truck stops or where ever idling for hours on end. 10 years ago if you drove past any truck stop or rest stop you had to do it holding your breath and drive through the diesel fog! The second were buses spewing black diesel exhaust out the tailpipe! The third and not near as much were the clowns thinking they are cool cranking their tuners up and pumping black smoke going through intersections or where ever.

Don

So let me get this straight 6.6 Oilbunrner. You have exactly ZERO experience, ZERO facts, and ZERO data backing up your assumptions and you are calling my comments foolish and me a wingnut? WOW!!!!

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
Particulate matter aside, how much does making a truck burn twice as much fuel actually reduce emissions?

The new trucks do not burn twice as much diesel to reduce emissions. Please show your data backing up such a ludicrous claim.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
What about the increase in the cost of every tangible good delivered by a truck?

What they hell does that have to do with what we are discussing? If you are saying that these emission devices are causing massive issues in over the road trucks I can tell you that you're dead wrong. I currently work in the class 7 & 8 diesel truck field (mostly oilfield now) and I can tell you these trucks are not being downed left and right due to emission systems like you are trying to claim. Although I shouldn't be too surprised since most of your claims have been baseless without any real world experience of the matter up to this point anyways.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
The trucks were running cleaner than they ever did before the EPA came in and fast tracked standards that no one was ready for.

Wasn't ready for it? If you never worked for an diesel engine manufacturer then how do you know who was ready for what? I can tell you that we knew at Cummins what the next round of emissions standards were years in advance. If you think that the development of the 6.7L from the 5.9L was just an overnight thing then you are sadly mistaken.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
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?

Actually the numbers going by the data is way more than that although again I would love to see where you get your data to back up such ludicrous statements and assumptions.

joeshmoe wrote:

RVman3252 wrote:
Yes the "delete" is about a EGR Delete... Thanks for most of the comments and I think they have valid points, I think I will just keep her as she is.

RVman / John

Wow. That was easy.

Do yourself a favor and don't be so quick to decide. Go to the various Diesel/Cummins forums and ask the same question. There are options to consider. Find out what the benefits are vs. consequences. Then make an informed decision. This forum is not a reliable source of info regarding this topic.

He'll likely find a bunch of boneheads that will tell him his truck won't run right unless its deleted. There may be very few guys here on this forum that have any expertise in the matter, but you will probably get better answers ( more bi partisan) out of the few guys here VS 49 comments about how wicked it will be deleted a Cummins or other diesel forum.

Do the 6.7s have a factory turbo brake? If they don't, I'm sure tuning would probably also open up that possibility. My equipment trailer and my trucks brakes would be pretty sad about the hill I live on top of if I didn't have the turbo brake in the tuning on my 07 Chevy.

Delete, delete, delete!!
And roll a little coal! It'll make you feel better!
Nothin like looking in your rear view Rollin into the throttle in high gear uphill with a load on your six and SEEinG her spool up and GO!

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.

RVman3252 wrote:
Yes the "delete" is about a EGR Delete... Thanks for most of the comments and I think they have valid points, I think I will just keep her as she is.

RVman / John

Wow. That was easy.

Do yourself a favor and don't be so quick to decide. Go to the various Diesel/Cummins forums and ask the same question. There are options to consider. Find out what the benefits are vs. consequences. Then make an informed decision. This forum is not a reliable source of info regarding this topic.

N-Trouble wrote:


I'm with ya... Those D-bags do nothing to help out the diesel community and are a big reason why we have the crummy/unreliable EPA mandated emissions we have today

Actually no, this started long before the "coal rollers". They are not even close to being the reason why we have these emission requirements.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:

Glad to see another guy with half a clue.

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

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?

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
You're grasping at straws if you think the boobs rolling coal for fun have any substantial impact on respiratory health. I'm quite confident the trucking industry dwarfs whatever particulate matter output these idiots drawing attention to "diesel motorsports" is.

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?

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
I'm not saying forward movement isn't good. But at what cost? These systems were implemented before the technology was ready, and the technology has just about caught up with the requirements as they continue to advance.

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.

6.6 Oilburner wrote:
So you are worried about the tax dollars you think you spent treating a cancer patient that lived near a freeway, and I am more worried about the dollars I KNOW every consumer indirectly spent on tow bills, repairs and downtime for many of trucking compnanies moving goods we consumer every day.

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?

RVman3252 wrote:
Well as this thread continues... I think I am more confused as ever... LOL

Believe me I am not wanting to "roll coal" as you call it... I certainly am not wanting it louder!!! more torque I really don't need, nor do I really need Horsepower... Lower maintenance cost and improved fuel mileage, that tweaks my interest....

I will continue reading...

RVman / John

YOu will pickup a couple miles per gallon but then you have to ask yourself how many miles will it take before I ever recoop the cost of the tuner and exhaust. Do the math and it doesn't look so attractive

As far as maintenance I'm not sure I follow. Are you referring to potential repair costs down the road on emissions components? If your still under warranty then it doesn't cost you anything. Once you tune your warranty is pretty much gone these days as the ECM logs any tuning even if you flash back to stock