Sinister Diesel fined ONE MILLION DOLLARS

[BourbonRunner]

Quick Google search shows up to 80% more nox emissions for a deleted diesel. 10-20% better fuel economy definitely does not make up for significantly worse emissions.

Well... I just sell houses for a living but I think that's an incomplete data set. Much of the EPA's rules/regs are Byzantine and the govt is notorious for always trying to force a round peg into a square hole.

In all the years I've closely followed cars and car culture, never once have I seen a comparison of the total emissions vs miles driven for an entire tank of fuel for the non DEF diesel and gas motor of the same vehicle. I'd want to see how that stacks up. My suspicion is it is nearly the same for both but since people can see diesel exhaust easier than petrol...

Sponsored

 

[Sprinkler-Fitter]

Not sure on research but heard it from a guys that has way over 1 million miles on deleted truck 160 to 200k every year and has used both thats all the facts I need I drive alot and pass semi everyday that are emmision compliant that spew 10 time exhaust deleted trucks do

What are you using to measure to know that it’s 10 times the exhaust coming out of the deleted trucks?

 

[bleda2002]

I hope your not a guy that believes a quick google search from some liberal in there basement? The thing you need to consider is the source? Are they really getting guys with deleted truck to do testing? I agree to disagree with you on this have a great day

No sir, just an actual study with real world tests. Yes its an EPA study, so I am sure that this will be disregarded as just being an agenda, but the interesting part was below where they did test deleted vs non-deleted like trucks. They also used the certification numbers of pre-emissions diesels to 2009 standards which were less stringent than 2017+.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/f...epaaedletterreportontampereddieselpickups.pdf

This was the part I found interesting: "AED used two methods to determine emission rates. Wherever possible, AED used chassis dynamometer test results from testing a vehicle tampered using delete tuning products where all emissions controls were removed. On average, AED observed that Class 2b and 3 diesel trucks emitted 30 to 300 times higher NOx and 15 to 40 times higher PM (depending on the drive cycle, when all emissions controls are removed or disabled (EGR, DPF, DOC, NAC or SCR)). The considerable increase in emissions reverted the vehicle back to 1980s-era emissions levels. Over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) drive cycle, the tampered NOx emissions rate ranged from approximately eight to ten grams per mile.

Where emissions test data was not available, AED used emissions levels for each pollutant as certified by vehicle and engine manufacturers. For example, a 2009 GM 3500 with a 6.6 Liter Duramax diesel engine was certified at 1.2 grams per brake horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr) for NOx using EGR, DOC, and DPF. AED assumed this certification level for NOx for untampered vehicles in this group. For tampered vehicles in this group, AED assumed 3.6 g/bhp-hr, the certification level for 2002 model year 6.6 Liter Duramax diesel engines which were the last Duramax engines to be certified without EGR, DOC, or DPF. In terms of estimating excess emissions, this is a significantly more conservative approach than using emissions testing results."

So they did indeed test deleted vehicles to find they were 30-300 times more nox, and 15-40 times more particulate matter. Once you delete these things they're basically back to the 80's and 90's for emissions.


Non-deleted diesels are actually cleaner than many gas engines for CO2, CO, and particulate matter. Its also cleaner to produce and overall would be better for the environment in my opinion. But deleted diesel is just nasty.

 

[Pescatoral Pursuit]

Tyranny via bureaucracy.

EPA stomping piss ants.

 

[Orange01z28]

Ecoterrorism

I'd say its a pretty clear violation of the 8th Amendment as well

 

[Orange01z28]

We're all people who like to modify our vehicles. Celebrating any aftermarket company that gets punished for doing just that is anathema to what we like to do

We need to stick together before it's all illegal

Always fight government overreach, always fight to be able to do to your possessions what you want to do to them

 

[Teqsand]

Sad to see. It’s amazing that diesel can run 100% on renewable fuel and has drastically more efficiency than gas commuter engines….yet it’s constantly attacked by the government. It’s almost like they are forcing us all to evs or something ?

The 4xe would have been much more palatable had they put in a small diesel/genset with electric powering the wheels like a locomotive....

 

[Teqsand]

The article gets interesting nearcthe bottom with the changes for 2027 derailing power and speed....

https://www.rvtravel.com/motorhomers-alert-epa-proposes-def-derate-rules-1052b/

 

[Badunit]

Where emissions test data was not available, AED used emissions levels for each pollutant as certified by vehicle and engine manufacturers. For example, a 2009 GM 3500 with a 6.6 Liter Duramax diesel engine was certified at 1.2 grams per brake horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr) for NOx using EGR, DOC, and DPF. AED assumed this certification level for NOx for untampered vehicles in this group. For tampered vehicles in this group, AED assumed 3.6 g/bhp-hr, the certification level for 2002 model year 6.6 Liter Duramax diesel engines which were the last Duramax engines to be certified without EGR, DOC, or DPF. In terms of estimating excess emissions, this is a significantly more conservative approach than using emissions testing results."

So they did indeed test deleted vehicles to find they were 30-300 times more nox, and 15-40 times more particulate matter. Once you delete these things they're basically back to the 80's and 90's for emissions.

Am I missing something here? With emissions it is 1.2 g/bhp-hr. Without it is 3.6 g/bhp-h. 3.6/1.2 = 3 times more NOx, not 30 times and certainly not 300 times.

 

[bleda2002]

Am I missing something here? With emissions it is 1.2 g/bhp-hr. Without it is 3.6 g/bhp-h. 3.6/1.2 = 3 times more NOx, not 30 times and certainly not 300 times.

I saw that as well, for 2017 the limit drops to .5 so that's some of it. The other thing I assume is that they are comparing coal rollers to stock vehicles where the 2002 would not be running a coal roller tune.

Either way 10-20% efficiency for at least 3 times the emissions is still a bad deal

 

[shawnebell]

My complaint regarding diesels really has nothing to do with the vehicles who run them. I find it reprehensible that - for all the years that the manufacturers were >ahem< "retuning" for emissions tests - CARB continued to say that the air was getting better in California with less soot and particulates from diesels.

At the end of the day, CARB has continued to lie and hamper actual advancements in California's air quality through tehcnology. Damned unelected whackamoles...

 

[Pescatoral Pursuit]

Quick Google search shows up to 80% more nox emissions for a deleted diesel. 10-20% better fuel economy definitely does not make up for significantly worse emissions. This is also not counting particulate matter increases and one study had a delete on 2017+ diesels as 1 vehicle producing the same amount of nox and particulates as 30 non-deleted trucks of the same model.

What about pollution from all the other variables associated with stringent diesel emissions?
What does that add up to?

 

[Badunit]

Either way 10-20% efficiency for at least 3 times the emissions is still a bad deal

Unless it is an increase of 10-20% over an insignificant amount, which would still be insignificant. I don't know if 3.6g/bhp-hr is a lot or a little or makes any difference whatsoever to the environment.

I wish I could trust the EPA to be truthful about the science but if they weren't always coming up with new crises to make new rules for, they'd be out of a job. If it was totally up to them, they'd mandate tailpipe emissions to be cleaner than the air drawn in. Maybe that will become the rule for electric cars, they'll all have to filter a specific volume of air per mile.

 

[bleda2002]

Unless it is an increase of 10-20% over an insignificant amount, which would still be insignificant. I don't know if 3.6g/bhp-hr is a lot or a little or makes any difference whatsoever to the environment.

I wish I could trust the EPA to be truthful about the science but if they weren't always coming up with new crises to make new rules for, they'd be out of a job. If it was totally up to them, they'd mandate tailpipe emissions to be cleaner than the air drawn in. Maybe that will become the rule for electric cars, they'll all have to filter a specific volume of air per mile.

10-20% fuel economy for at least 8 times the pollution is what I meant vs a 2017+ truck. Also the Duramax was still 2002 compliant tune, the study says the deletes were more like 30-300 because the tunes used are designed for more power and dirtier combustion (I read more of the report to find that tidbit explaining the discrepancy)

 

[Cascade253]

GDE has a pretty interesting read on their website regarding NOx and CO2 emissions. A lot of what they have to say makes sense. It's the "EPA Notice" on their main page
https://greendieselengineering.com/

Sponsored