Fuel mileage vs pollution

Emissions have brought down diesel efficency. They lowered compression and fuel air enrichemnt. they raised engine size to compensate somewhat. Hp and Torque Figures well... The Pig --- injection with cat does lower emissions but at a price. Fords with accumulated miles are facing problems with corrosion.The others may too. The Cummins, in Dodge still gets away without the DEF doesn't it? The recirculation and after burn presents it's own problems.
You burn more fuel so you get more emissions, in the same mileage, maybe not in this case but you sure spend a lot more money, for the engine/emissions hardware, RV and fuel.
When they took the sulfur out, of diesel it caused lubricity problems, which they denied and advised you shouldn't /didn't need to run lubricity agents or any additives. Then the biodiesel besides serving Big Ag was to counter the lubricity problem and so on.
There only concern is emissions not our pocketbook and they still miss the mark.
Ethanol is the biggest boon doggle and most expensive for Americans except....

DEF Tailpipes are nice shiny Stainless Steel! So what is DEF? It is another $$ fluid that gets injected ,not into the Engine but rather into the Exhaust pipe!
Sure it cleans the pipe but where does all that formerly Black Smoke go?

Can anyone say "Smoke and Mirrors" or "Hocus Pokus"

It all sounds like so much Bovine Excrement to Me!

The pre-emission diesels about 2005 were the best built now with EGR and DEF they are back to near where they were but they burn more fuel and emit more CO2 so green house gas went up only the Nitrous Oxide went down it is a component of smog but was low in a diesel anyway. The tail pipes are clean but that does not mean the engines are polluting less, on the contrary you burn more fuel (uh lets see where does it all go?) The feds and common sense can not be used with a straight face. So now the clean diesels, use more fuel, the fuel now costs more, and you need to buy a new thing called DEF and there is now a whole bureaucracy to support just that with tons of throw away plastic bottles to go along. We are not better off....... The gent that started this thread with his B5.9L has the better engine when compared to the new 6.7L smog proof replacement. My old Cummins L10 looks good except for a little black at the end of the tail pipe, but I get very near 10 MPG with a 40 foot Monaco.

Even if the new diesel only got 2 mpg (so use 5 times the fuel) it would still put out only a fraction of the emissions your old 5.9 did.
Heck, they don't even get the tail pipe dirty!

Lobstah wrote:
One can only hope that the government acquires some degree of common sense between now and then and rethinks the whole fuel situation. Ethanol has been a disaster in that it doesn't achieve any of it's intended goals.

Jim

Um, Common Sense and government do not belong in the same sentence. If that is what you hope for, you are going to be sorely disappointed. Government decisions are based on a combination of politics and crony capitalism. Nothing more, nothing less.


From what I have read, the very latest generation of diesels, mileage is slightly worse than the ones from 3 years ago or more. Much older than 10 years ago, it is difficult to get an apples to apples comparison, as there are often other factors that come into play, such as weight.

You should check out a older aircraft engine. 10 gallons per hours and the fuel system is set up to inject fuel on every stroke. They use fuel to cool the engine on the exhaust stroke. So half of the fuel is dump overboard for cooling. Most of the newer ones are setup just like a car.

ChooChooMan74 wrote:

the bear II wrote:
I will stop worrying about carbon emissions when planes, ships and trains get more than a few miles to the gallon. Not to mention gas fired fountains like in Las Vegas. I'm guessing they do a lot more damage to the environment than my once a month weekend trips for a round trip of 400 miles in the RV.

My train is much more efficient on fuel than all the trucks that would be needed to carry the same load. Yes, by 2 engine set may be using 400 gallons an hour or so at full load Notch 8 (what you may call Wide Open Throttle), how much fuel would be used in the 100s of trucks carrying the same cargo?

If you can believe the various advertisements, today's modern freight trains can carry 2000 pounds of cargo 480 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel.

the bear II wrote:
I will stop worrying about carbon emissions when planes, ships and trains get more than a few miles to the gallon. Not to mention gas fired fountains like in Las Vegas. I'm guessing they do a lot more damage to the environment than my once a month weekend trips for a round trip of 400 miles in the RV.

My train is much more efficient on fuel than all the trucks that would be needed to carry the same load. Yes, by 2 engine set may be using 400 gallons an hour or so at full load Notch 8 (what you may call Wide Open Throttle), how much fuel would be used in the 100s of trucks carrying the same cargo?

Lobstah wrote:
One can only hope that the government acquires some degree of common sense between now and then and rethinks the whole fuel situation. Ethanol has been a disaster in that it doesn't achieve any of it's intended goals.

Jim

When the gubmint puts out all these regs, they ignore the unintended consequences (and common sense) of their actions. Sure the new stuff burns cleaner, but reduces our MPG, so we burn more fuel...bottom line no change in emissions due to the extra fuel burned and more cost to us because we have to use more fuel.

I will stop worrying about carbon emissions when planes, ships and trains get more than a few miles to the gallon. Not to mention gas fired fountains like in Las Vegas. I'm guessing they do a lot more damage to the environment than my once a month weekend trips for a round trip of 400 miles in the RV.