chadpatten

I don't know this but I had heard some gossip that they might try to phase out pre 98 diesel pickups.

Is this truth?

I can't find anything but I just wondered if anyone has heard anything similar.

Lary Ellis (Top)

Not any truth to that rumor....they are not aware of the longevity of the awesome 12v and as such think they are dwindling in numbers already

What you do have to be concerned with is how your State may choose to regulate smog issues for licensing in the future........ I can recall California forcing everyone to put smog pumps on older existing vehicles many years ago.....that should never have happened but it did.

9812vram

I wish we could phase out the EPA. It takes a lot of fuel to burn "clean". lol makes a whole lot of sense. I wonder if we'd have less overall pollution if we burnt dirtier and used tons less fuel. I don't know. Just a thought. I keep hearing the 6.7's mileage doubles when you get the pollution stuff off, and even at that, they still burn pretty clean. There's gotta be a balance somewhere and I feel like it's tipped too far to one side.

patdaly

Cali has a mandate for refitting pre 98 trucks, but the last I knew it only applies to 11K and over Gross. Not to say they won't or haven't already dropped it to our trucks.

The best thing is they also have made it applicable to Ocean going vessels, so Mexico is building a port to accommodate them.

Time for you guys in Cali. to clean out the political class, hopefully before they kill the few jobs left there.

irocpractice

Time for you guys in Cali. to clean out the political class, hopefully before they kill the few jobs left there.[/QUOTE]

Can't yet Pat,too busy trying to stop moonbeams outta control "train to nowhere".Now,he is using taxpayer monies to lobby the state legislature (despite the state comptroller being adamantly against it) to vote more funds for the da%$ed thing.This is being pushed by the major contractor Siemmens and "the unions".

Scotty

This is what I brought forward to our Environment Canada...I questioned the higher consumption of our non renewable resources to get cleaner air...supposedly. I also asked if they know what the changes in the chemical composition is when you recirculate exhaust gasses through the engine and what the chemical change is with the DPF and the high heat in this particular emissions system.

At first the response and interest was very high and then all communications stopped.

I wonder if anyone knows what comes out of the tail pipe when the chemical compositions are changed the way they are now?

Sorry, I did it again...veered slightly off the rails of the topic. Dear Older Twin...send me to my room.

9812vram

I certainly can't say I'm surprised Scotty. Thanks for doing that on our behalf though. Nice to see there are still some people out there who are willing to try, rather than be walked on by these organizations. There is an underlying force driving the backers of these frauds that we simply can't compete with - it's called money!!!

infidel

From what I've read the exhaust coming out of a modern diesel engine is cleaner than the air in most big cities.

SpeedyWS6

Well the EGR event is VERY dirty and produces a form of sulfur dioxide (or something like that) that is pretty nasty. That is why the sulfur content in diesel fuel had to be dropped, to get the levels down low enough to prevent it from eating the engine from the inside out.

Disclaimer: I'm not a chemist, the above statement is my basic interpretation of a class I went to when all this stuff came about. A class that I have since forgotten 7/8 of the curriculum.

9812vram

Spot on Speedy. That's exactly what they taught me in school as well. EGR is certainly not clean - anybody that's ever worked on and EGR system will tell ya that.

I personally don't think there's any doubt the air is cleaner on the modern pollution engines that it was on the old ones - in some respects, but I'm not buying the "cleaner out than in" story just yet. For years the research showed butter was bad for you and they said "eat margarine". Then for no known reason, it all of the sudden changed! Wait a minute, margarine's horrible for your body, eat butter!!! Butter and margarine never changed - the research did. Most of the EPA numbers and research are based on two very specific pollutants - NOX and hydrocarbons. There is more than just those two elements coming out of the tail pipe. It's just a matter of time 'till the "research" shows the new engines pollute worse than the old ones due to some new chemical they just found and have never tested for before......

I still think we'd be better off using way less fuel and burning dirtier. If fuel mileage could double by taking off all the pollution junk, then we'd use half the fuel.... Dirtier air yes, but half as much. I don't know how to run the numbers, but I sure wonder what the scale would honnestly look like.
Plus, fuel would be way cheaper as demand would be down!

SIXSLUG

Unfortunately for the human race, until the entire world starts running clean, I can't see the US and Canada having that big of an impact on reducing emissions, especially when the newer trucks burn twice the fuel to go the same distance as my 24 valve.

My friends can't take their sprinter van to Mexico because the fuel isn't ulsd and will supposedly mess up the engine.

China is also still burning tons of fuel in 2-stroke motorbikes, and livestock produces tons of methane, as do we, whether orally, or the other end of the tube each day!

slevhansen

Maybe the US and Canada would make a difference, MAYBE, but I live in Denmark, a country with 5 mill. people, and around here everything goes crazy with that emissions thing.

New cars are sold with daytime runninglights, thatīs a good thing, but itīs only the headlights, not the rearlights.
BECAUSE then it uses less fuel and then it pukes out less CO2 and then it is TAXED lower, but how much fuel is used to power a couple of LEDs in the rear ???? canīt be much...

It seems like when itīs the environment, you just tax the crap out of it, no matter if it makes sence, just tax it.

Iīm kinda sick of it, does it show??

j_martin

20 or 30 years ago, we were being warned that the world was going into an ice age, and we were running out of oil. Neither happened.

Now we're being warned that the world is burning up, and we're running out of oil. Guess what? Neither is happening.

The temperature thing is a normal cycle. So is the CO2 thing. Atmospheric CO2 content is driven mostly by ocean temperature. As the normal temperature cycle goes into the cool phase, CO2 will go down, regardless of how much we make. Then we'll be put on the hook for polluting the oceans. It's already happening in the drive by media. In fact the amount of CO2 made burning "fossil" fuels is miniscule compared to the CO2 cycles on the planet. If you actually look at the numbers, you will laugh at the possibility of man's activities actually having any effect on it at all.

In this country, the environment is cleaner than it's ever been, but the powers that make their living looking for trouble keep convincing people that they are in imminent danger of dying by breathing.

A ruling class of people that think they know all the answers, and should be highly rewarded for being so smart at the cost of the minions has risen up and is in the process of taking control. They need to be unseated and replaced with representatives of the people........just like a couple of hundred years ago.

If we don't get that done before they manage to totally wreck the process (maybe too late) it might have to be as bloody as the last one.

amslube

After I did my deletes my MPG increased by 5mpg hand calculated. Doing some more calculations I came up with this fact: It takes about 9 gallons of diesel fuel EVERY tankful just to burn soot!!!! Seems like a very inefficient process to me and a waste of good fuel.

SIXSLUG

Well put, j martin.

I concur.