How the EPA Spent 35 Years Killing the Diesel Engine
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
- Through overreaching emissions output standard changes with little regard to how automotive manufacturers will meet these standards and who ultimately pays for it, which always come down the line to the end consumer, the EPA has almost entirely killed the diesel engine; an extension of one of man kind's most important inventions.
Check out our website: dustrunnersauto.com
Follow me on Instagram: @bryce.cleveland
Gear I use to shoot my videos:
(Buying through these links supports the channel)
Panasonic G7: amzn.to/2FKsmKe
Panasonic 25mm F1.7: amzn.to/2X8LQhG
Rode Mic: amzn.to/2J0lrik
Tascam DR05: amzn.to/2LvYFjR
Neewer lights: amzn.to/2Xem68x
-Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS - Авто та транспорт
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBySr6Bt0B8/mqdefault.jpg)
If you guys enjoyed the video, please SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON. It helps the channel out a huge amount and helps UA-cam put the video in front of more people. Thanks for watching 😬
Burning H2 makes NOX LOL
The only cars that burn low NOX are 12:1 or turbo charged cars on E85 made from Switchgrass. Like many of my buddies Hot Rods do.
California being a "forward thinking" states is the exact opposite of how it's characterized by everyone else. Diesel emission isn't even toxic to breathe
Golden era of diesels were the 90’s to 2007, after that EPA really destroyed them imo.
This is the exact reason why I purchased a 2007 Classic Silverado with the beloved LBZ Duramax.
@@TheRedrider05 same here
As long as you avoid the Ford 6.0.
@@sebbonxxsebbon6824 and 6.4 lol
@@sebbonxxsebbon6824 How do I know the 6.0 Powerstroke is less problematic and could get fixed or install the bulletproof on the engine.
I believe EPA is the reason that Americans never get to see any of the most popular diesel engines from Japan and Europe in smaller trucks and SUVs. The most famous Toyota Land Cruiser uses Diesel engines not gasoline engines.
EPA should be ABOLISHED. With thay said, just this year a bill was passed to take away control and power from the EPA, being that they are a corrupt organization.
At least someone who knows that's the most powerful diesel are from overseas. Special the 72 and 79 serie land cruiser
We don't have the awesome foreign trucks because of the chicken tax which is designed to protect domestic production of vehicles.
BMW had a really cool V8 Turbodiesel they only sold in Europe too. I wish it was sold here, because it was truly a perfect match for the E38 7 Series / X5 of the time
If Toyota puts Diesel engines in their American vehicles I would never buy a Ram, Chevy, or Ford ever again.
Abolish the EPA.
That is all.
And the ATF 👍
We bought a new 2014 Ford Super Duty with a 6.7 L diesel after retiring with the hopes of pulling our travel trailer to 'see the country'. That truck had all of the problems mentioned in the video - all emissions related - that absolutely at our lunch. It was the MOST expensive vehicle that I have ever owned to keep on the road. The EPA has successfully killed off the most efficient internal combustion engine ever developed and, you're right, it's left the cost directly in the laps of the 'lowly citizen' to bear.
When my father got his used 2011 F250, as soon as it began to give emission related issues we deleted the entire system. This has VASTLY reduced issues as with most modern diesel trucks, the emission system is the Achilles heel for reliability, especially in the powertrain. It's has been more cost effective to just straight pipe and re-tune the vehicle than fix the emissions equipment, especially if major repairs are needed repeatedly.
@@nathan9314 I had the same thought but, unless you're going to keep the truck 'forever' it'd be nearly impossible to resell without getting into hot water. In NH you have to guarantee that no modifications have been made to the emission control systems before it can be sold or traded-in. I agree with you, though, without the emission 'crap', they're great, reliable engines.
Exactly why I keep driving my 1996 f-250 7.3 ..
@@markkeyser man not hating by I thought NH was the freest state every state in the south dosnt care
The South may not care but the feds do.
@@3091752 The EPA (federal bureaucracy) has mandated emission checks on all vehicles in NH. God help anyone that gets caught (especially by the federal DOT) for messing with the emissions crap on a vehicle.
"What does Federal law prohibit?
The CAA contains two relevant requirements - one related to tampering and the other to defeat devices. The following acts (and causing them to occur) are prohibited:
For anyone to knowingly remove or render inoperative any device or element of design that had previously been installed on a motor vehicle or engine in order to comply with CAA regulations.
See CAA § 203(a)(3)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(A)
For any person to manufacture or sell, or offer to sell, or install, a part or component for a motor vehicle, where
A principle effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any device or element of design that had previously been installed on a motor vehicle or engine in order to comply with CAA regulations, and
The person knows or should know that such part or component is being offered for sale or installed for such use or put to such use.
See CAA § 203(a)(3)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B)
The CAA states that it is a crime to knowingly falsify, tamper with, render inaccurate, or fail to install any "monitoring device or method" required under the CAA. Vehicle Onboard Diagnostics (OBD) systems are a "monitoring device or method" required under the CAA.
See CAA § 113(c)(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(2)(C)
Violations are widespread and financial penalties are significant. Those who sell or install devices to defeat emission controls can be fined over $5,000 per defeat device, and dealers can be fined over $50,000 per tampered vehicle. Nationally, EPA has settled over 100 civil tampering cases to date, and the Department of Justice has won jail terms and high fines in criminal cases."
If the goal was protecting the environment would be efficiency standards not emissions standards, if you burn less fuel to do the same job there is by definition less emissions possible.
true, My 1996 Diesel Volvo got 46 mpg with an engine that's good for a million+ miles, any diesel car after 2002 barely hits 30 mpg and the engine only lasts 200k. The 96 uses far less resources and fuel. So even if the particulate per gallon of fuel is higher - the old engine uses a lot less gallons.
Yep, and to do a regen for the plugged up DPF just dumps fuel to burn it off. Lol. Talk about counter produtive
This is partially true. Ideal engine does not pollute at all - it produces only water vapour and CO2, which are not pollutant. Problem is that for high specific power you need more compression, therefore more NOx, and you can always have unburned fuel at high RPM.
As for old cars being efficient - partially true, but they were far lighter.
Exactly. I've heard the argument that, "you burn more fuel but you still put out less NOx" etc . But that doesn't take into account all the extra emissions put out by the extraction, refining and transportation of the extra fuel used per vehicle in the "environmentally friendly" engines. A portion of those extra emissions are from unregulated or much less strictly regulated offshore oil rig generators, ship engines (mostly bunker fuel) and train engines.
@@Shade_Tree_Mechanic I live in a country where 70% of imported second hand cars are Diesel.
First thing people do, is to remove DPF, block EGR, and do chip tuning for better economy and more power (more NOx at low power, more soot at high power).
In winter, when humidity is high and there is no wind, air is acid. And rolling coal here is not a joke, but normal situation at every traffic light.
I drive 1.2 petrol, Euro 5 standard with LPG conversion. It is not perfect, car is dead slow, but exhaust is just water and CO2.
The older diesels are way WAY more reliable than the newer ones. I'm in fleet maintenance and companies are desperately keeping their old trucks on the road while the new ones are constantly parked in the shop. A lot of these companies are seriously worried about what they'll do when the old trucks just can't be used anymore. Eventually the frames weaken and crack. Even the engine blocks are only good for so many miles and heat cycles. It's a real concern. The new trucks cost 10 times the amount of money to keep on the road, when you add repair costs with revenue lost due to constant downtime.
One Word - Gilder Trucks .... F...KThe EPA
DEF system is a problem, needs DEF deletion
Out here in CA they are phasing out older commercial diesel trucks and making you sell them out of state to buy new ones. Thanks CA.
@@shadowopsairman1583 won’t pass emissions test and state inspection for commercial trucks
You also need to have somebody producing and selling ''bare'' truck chassis, then stick you motor in it, or buy a new one, and call it done. not buying a truck, just buying the motor and chassis seperately, Like how many boats go. Otherwise there is no hope
As a diesel tech and owner, the most reliable and efficient diesels are the common rail pre emissions engines. Even today, they command a high price!
Unless you have a new diesel truck with less than a few years on it, or tons of cash, you will see how horrible the new stuff is.
Agree, work for a large fleet, 90 percent of the breakdowns/tow-in are emission related failures not to mention the cost of the parts/availability of them.
Diesel efficiency is set by turbo boost.
Same, almost all the problems I saw on customer's trucks, were with systems that my older trucks lack all together.
I wholeheartedly agree that pre dpf common rail diesels are the peak of diesel (when you take into considerarion power, fuel effecienct, reliability and longevity, and usability on a daily basis, not just each of these parameters in a vacuum).
I also consider DPF, EGR, and SCR systems to be a necessary evil, even if my next car will likely not be a diesel in order to avoid having to deal with those potential headaches
I have worked on heavy duty diesel engines since the 70's. The add on emissions devices have been the biggest failure components and caused sound engines to fail in my experience. Several times I had well tuned engines without add on emissions devices that tested showing lower emissions that current similar engines with full emissions add-ons. The precise tuning does require regular adjustments to account for usage and wear, but reliability and increased fuel economy pay off in a big way. I really question the soundness of the engineering that to reduce emissions you have to burn more fuel. It makes no sense at all.
Has a single “progressive” policy made sense so far?
It makes sense for oil company and manufacturers profits. EGR's kill engines
Saving the planet one plastic DEF bottle at a time
I agree, there has got to be a better way to reduce emissions on the Diesel ICE. If you could burn less fuel with higher fuel pressures your emissions should be a LOT lower by just doing that.
Diesel bros really be like “yea the reliability of my truck is more important than the fucking earth” stfu bro nobody wants to breath that shit
I've long had a theory that because CAFE standards were essentially frozen from 1990 to the mid-2000s, that this is why 90s and early 2000s vehicles are often optimized from a powertrain standpoint when you think about performance, reliability, fuel economy and cost. My argument is that tech kept improving coming out of the 80s but because CAFE was stable, the tech went to making engines more powerful and reliable. After the mid-2000s we really started to see direct injection, turbos, and a bunch of other complexity. That's why this video is so important. People think that regulation is a free lunch - just make those greedy manufacturers build "better" stuff and consumers will benefit! That's not how it works. Any constraint you apply to a manufacturer is an inefficiency from a economic standpoint. And the idea that unelected bureaucrats at the EPA can just decide what is good, to the noted detriment of the end consumer, should piss EVERYONE off.
Blame democrats in congress and the epa, and in the whitehouse for all this bs
You are exactly correct. When emissions standards and CAFE targets are stricter every year, the engine makers don't have the time or resources needed to make engines more powerful. They have to meet those targets, otherwise the vehicles that are equipped with those engines can't be registered. That would mean nobody would buy them. The haters can't understand that.
@@shadowopsairman1583 You are forgetting that the Clean Air Act was signed into law by Tricky Dick, a Republican President, the EPA was created under his watch, and CAFE was championed and signed into law by President Gerald Ford, a Republican, the same one who pardoned Tricky Dick.
@@michaelbenardo5695 First, I think we can recognize that Nixon wasn't a great president. Second I guess I'd ask what the congress looked like in those years.
@@kevin9c1 It was majority Democratic in both chambers, but the Clean Air Act was a bi-partisan effort. All Republicans voted for it.
Every single aftertreatment system fails and/or shortens the life of every single diesel engine it is installed on.
No. The epa does not have good intentions with their actions. The case of Caterpillar vs the EPA is a shining example.
Facts!
Imagine being one of the people who think government regulations are good for anything except THEIR OWN PROFIT.
Epa was put in check now can no longer destroy the Diesel engine.
@@victorbernier4765 when???
@@victorbernier4765
Tell us more please
If modern diesels are mapped correctly their emissions are lower without any after treatment ,EGR etc etc
Correct. Infact the old 7.3 powerstroke runs cleaner than the new 6.7. It just couldn't meet noise pollution standards.
A customer at the quick oil change I manage (and a friend) has deleted emissions on his F250 Diesel, The oil is clean when he gets there, and clean and clear even after running it- it is the only diesel I've seen like that (3-5 every day)
He said it's because he deleted the EGR so the engine "Isn't breathing its own shit"
This is correct. Diesel oil on a deleted truck will have much cleaner oil, even at a 15k normal interval. My deleted Cummins was the same. The EGR pushes too many soot deposits into the intake system overtime. DEF systems aren’t the major problem, they’re secondary to EGR systems.
My 49cc runs great breathing its own shit strangely enough.
@@CornFed_3 Almost as if Diesel fuel doesn't burn completely, leaving soot in its exhaust. If only there was a way to make sure the fuel was completely burned...
@@jhoughjr1, if you support diesel emissions equipment, I’m sorry.
I've always wondered where we'd be with engine technology as far as efficiency and power if engine designers didn't have to spend most of their time trying to figure out how to meet some new standard made by people who don't know and don't care about the realities of meeting these standards. It's why when I bought my truck I bought a 2006 so that the engine was not held back by emissions equipment. I figure it's only a matter of time until the government forces older trucks off the road like how cali did by just no longer allowing them to be registered
Like all government programs the EPA only exists to perpetuate itself. It’s not about the environment, it’s a jobs program.
Nothing truer then that
Just another way our government screws the working people and small business owners. By the people, for the people means nothing with Democrats in charge.
The EPA is good, they have saved thousands of lives at this point
@@Bluebottlenose yeah? Name one.
@@TurboGTO288 Its not really something/someone you can name, you just have to look at the data. There have been much less emissions related deaths than there where before, and i think it is because of the EPA lowering emissions
The first 12 seconds is what the EPA needs to get drilled into they’re mind lmao
Agreed😂
The EPA also has been putting small farmers out of business for the past 45 years. There is so much bias in that organization that it's a crime.
Yeah small farmers that do dumb shit like burn plastic on their farms.
@@jhoughjr1 It's 2022, who does that anymore? No vegetable farmer in my area does that. They would get fined.
I just bought a new F350. Went with the gas 7.3L. I don’t want anything to do with fixing/maintaining these modern EPA controlled diesels out of warranty. Got a buddy who had a 2020 F250 power stroke and with only a few thousand miles on it the high pressure fuel pump destroyed itself sending metal shavings through the whole engine. Imagine paying for that out of warranty. No thanks!
That's Ford's or Bosch's fault on their quality control. They also use high pressure fuel pumps for their Ecoboost engines to increase power and fuel economy. There's a lawsuit about it.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"
-Ronald Reagan
Reagan was no good either. He destroyed the Labor Movement and paid our jobs WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS to go to Asia, and he smuggled huge amounts of cocaine into the country.
@@michaelbenardo5695 destroyed the labor movement? Because he fired government employees that were striking? Government employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize or strike. They're serving the public. Go get a job in the private sector if you're not satisfied with government pay and benefits.
@@Burdman660 That's not all he did. He would go on the radio on Saturday mornings and broadcast instructions to the employer class on how to smash their employee's unions, such as changing the spelling of your business's name, even by one letter, and registering as a new business, moving to another building, even next door and getting rid of all of your employees and hiring new ones that are not union members, firing your employees for striking as long as you use the words "permanently replacing" the employees, not FIRING the employees, etc. He also pushed through an amendment to the tax code that provides for employers to get paid, WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS, to move jobs and even entire facilities out of the country. All those things together, not just the firing the the Air Traffic Controllers, destroyed our Labor Movement. He also was a cocaine smuggler. He set up an operation that he had Oliver North run, in which plane-loads of cocaine were flown into this country and sold to fund a war in another country that Congress would not fund. He should have been charged with high treason and executed. And no, I am not repeating what some Commie told me, or what I read in some Commie publication, I LIVED THROUGH IT. I AM 66 YEARS OLD.
@@Burdman660 You are a hater. Banning workers from unionizing or striking is slavery. Slavery is ILLEGAL in this country, and is a sin in any case. And don't tell people to quit their job. They will lose their pension if they do that, and if they are over a certain age, it will be too late for them to build up a pension in another job. WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO WITHHOLD THEIR LABOR. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES, NOT NAZI GERMANY.
@@Burdman660 The Air Traffic Controllers weren't striking so much over pay and benefits, they were striking over the excessive and dangerous work load, and being an Air Traffic Controller is a life and death job. SAFETY, not costs, are what is supposed to be first.
The EPA is a tax paid for racketeering outfit. Meant to keep us on an oil backed dollar. If you don't fill up on average twice a week or more. The oil dollar crashes. So they made tanks smaller the more efficient the engines became. But they won't let you take those efficiency defeating devices off of your engine. God forbid you actually get over 30 mpg with your diesel. God forbid you use alternative fuels. We've had the technology to gain more low end torque from V6 and V8 gas engines to help get the fuel economy we need. But every gas engine has to be revved to the moon just to hit peak torque.
The truth is... we literally drive our economy. Through exorbitant taxes, ridiculous fuel prices and arbitrary government practices/policies/agencies.
Tell me you pay too much in taxes without telling me you pay too much in taxes. (Government sending all of it's foreign interest buddies trillions in your tax $'s. While your infrastructure and your communities suffer). They don't work for you. They work for the machine.
Buy a pre emissions truck, diesel swap it, don't chooch.
LOL, even gasoline engines, if configured like they should be, don't need to be revved to the moon!
@@RJARRRPCGP BS most gas engines dont see peak torque until 4500 rpms. If gas engines reached peak torque or carried torque from 1500-2500 rpms we would have more fuel efficient vehicles. Only engines that carry that torque are big blocks. If a small block design did that the EPA would slap sanctions on it and only offer it overseas.
Hell.. VW makes a 1.6 tdi that gets 75mpg. Its built in Mexico and is only offered in every other country except the US. We've had the tech and designs for fuel efficiency for over 30 years. But it would interfere with the Petro dollar.
@@bladenrexroth2555 A smaller turbo, or a supercharger and it not being "stereotypical-race-tuned", would be the answer. I also see more smaller engines every day, pretty much having more torque-per-RPM. So, I don't know where you got that from. Even Honda is getting gud in that department!
@@RJARRRPCGP a divided intake and smaller ported heads would do the same. But you don't see an LS based head with oval or small square ports. If they had a oval port option with a divided intake? Just those 2 options alone would produce 450+ TQ around 1500 rpms and carry it to probably 3500 rpms. The crossover point for HP and TQ would be around the 3500-4000 rpm range instead of 5800.
You have to ask why those options are never talked about or offered.
Feeling lucky with my '89 Suburban with an equally old V8 diesel engine getting a little over 20 mpg and not having most of the emissions crap on it.
The number of people willing to buy the lie that government regulators know best what kind of engine is good for you is unbelievable. Diesel is simply unbeatable for economy, torque and longevity.
You clearly have not used an electric motor. There are reasons electric motors power our trains, ships, factories, and nearly every other situation where electricity is available. Diesel is only good because it is highly mobile. We are running out of oil, so we need to get going on the next step in transportation anyway.
@@retroMartin, we’ve barely scratched the surface of petroleum resources, good lord. Electric motors are great to an extent, but also have many downfalls. You mentioned trains, which are a prime example. While their main power source is electric, it’s backed by a massive diesel generator set up. Sure, they get roughly 480 miles per gallon of diesel used, but they still require a fuel source. Diesel has always been the best option that’s *currently* long-term viable.
@@CornFed_3 Nice! So where are these amazing pools of untouched oil? Because we know how the continents looked like 200 million years ago, and so we know where there was shallow ocean with warm waters and high nutrients for algae to bloom and die, and later become oil. All petroleum areas are known and in use. No new incredible rich fields like the Saudi Arabian discovery 90 years ago has been found. What we do find is new small pockets in existing regions, and the ability to extract more from existing fields by new technology. Like fracking. Let me know if you know where these giant new fields of oil could be.
@@retroMartin, we have more petroleum resources in the state of Alaska that haven’t even been touched yet (Thanks, Biden). Does that answer your question?
@@CornFed_3 Those are not nearly enough to meet global demand for many years lmao. And they are definitely included in current estimates of 40 years left of oil. Yes, we keep finding small deposits here and there, but there are no large reseroars that suddenly gives us 80 more years with oil.
Even if the increased costs were paid for by the EPA, it still comes out of the consumer's pockets in the form of taxes.
Used to be the ultimate deal....diesel fuel was cheaper than gasoline...the engines got better mileage....seemed like a win all the way around...until now.
Yes I remember seeing the lower than gas diesel prices as a kid when they were being introduced into cars here in late 70s. Then they were real diesels like the everlasting Mercedes 240D and not today's electronically bloated over priced too expensive to fix garbage.
In Australia diesel vehicles are very popular even with small cars, but as a result of that diesel fuel is now more expensive than unleaded petrol due to all the demand.
Was great until u had to breathe.
What are we going to do when the regulations are so strick that companies can't afford to run them anymore. It's going to be the end of the economy.
Agreed, the diesel performs the heavy lifting for the U.S. economy
many countries have regulated their economy out of existence. For example, North Korea.
It's already at that point. Companies are only able to operate still because they are relying on the old trucks while the new ones are at the shop. Once all they have are the new ones, it'll be game over.
Cool story bro
Forcibly out the EPA and others. It's going to have to happen.
While the largest user of Diesel engines has been the government 🙄
And they don't have to follow said rules
Socialism is for the people and not the socialists
The diesel engine, when Rudolph Diesel first invented it, ran on bio fuel. The engine is not the problem, the fuel is. No one at any time told oil companies to make fuel burn completely inside the engine. They can do it but it would make engines live forever because the carbon fouling would stop. Then health outcomes would improve which would affect the health industry. It's all about money.
It always is
Got my start as a Mechanic in the 1970s, watched the cavalcade of idiotic attempts to meet EPA's inglorious standards they had no idea how to implement just threw the manufacturers under the bus to get the emissions DOWN. That stated I do appreciate the electronics controls that improved performance per Cu In Displacement with mass horsepower from smaller engines and increased capacity to lower fuels consumption, HOWEVER, that is where the Idiocy factor steps in.p
EPA Mandated lower emissions regardless the physics math they sought to change not by science but decree, demands as to Increasing Fuel Economy while Reductions of emitted materials at same time do not in reality work. To reduce particulate matter which on early fixed timing engines actually only occurred during acceleration or on well worn engines the eventuality was they had to be reduced, thus electronics varied timing and fuel rates to accommodate making engines much more efficient as well reliable. That is where all sense and sensibility ended.
EPA Mandated levels to be achieved based on Best guess Estimations of saving some tens of thousands of lung disease laden patient's lives by elimination of diesel particulate matter, not effective as to actually saving ANY Human with lung diseases. In actuality tire wear erosion, pavement wear erosion creates MORE Fine Particulate than the engines do where the EPA has made attempts to regulate Dust from earth moving and farming yet that is another story. As to Diesels exhaust the electronics did well on particulate reductions, the next step was reductions of solids that do not fully combust in the engines as Sulphur, again a HOWEVER, that reduces the BTU value of the fuel where MORE Fuel has to be introduced due to a small insignificant effect called PHYSICS Laws. Foe a engine to deliver a HP rate the Fuel has to deliver a specific BTU Value, cannot burn garbage and receive golden HP delivery where electronics added more fuel to compensate for BTU reductions. Now paraffins with additive components added to emitted particulate values and as the engines had variable timing with increased HP the levels of consumed Air (Mostly N2) created more Nitrogen Oxides (formed of consuming air in combustion under high heat) so EGR systems and increased compression (Oxymoronic conception) to burn said actually already consumed exhaust to reduce NOx which does not really work as requires MORE fresh air against a delivered fuel rate producing More NOx, Self Defeating Systems. So EPA Mandated LESS Sulphur to reduce solids yet again as numbers did not truly decrease, leading us to the DPF/ DEF Fed SCR systems that under Optimum Full Power Constant pull conditions as on a dynamometer show work well, do NOT in actuality function well on engines rolling from Hard power pull to downhill coast thru low power steady state flat terrain running and then inner city stop/go type functions.
Converters do NOT achieve adequate heat levels long enough to reduce the emissions, the DPF systems do not have that heat of Catalyst operation to decompose the particulates to a lesser size (again Oxymoronic to consider Finer RELEASED Particulates as non hazardous as Finer penetrates DEEPER into Lungs), then requiring the systems be replaced at a severity of cost that adds excessive costs to transport of materials that do not rectify as good practices as to delivery to clients/consumers. The end result is extremes of expenses passed on to consumers that did have lung diseases where now living expenses are increased decreasing expendable income to combat these same lung damage issues where over time the conditions from the engines in inner city conditions did not in reality actually change. For manufacturers they required additional costs values to machines to cover the expenses of warranties to be covered in the excess repairs of these tentative and generally functionless systems.
The EPA is NOT a savior in these concerns, they are a bane upon society as a whole increasing costs, not in reality increasing healthy living or living conditions where they manage only to continue to add costs to those that cannot afford them to claim a Guesstimated figure of saving thousands of lives that likely Still Died.
The EPA buraeucrats are car-hater ex hippies who want nothing less than to destroy this country.
This is a very good explanation of what is going on and how to wreck diesel engines!
I went back to a gas truck over all this crap. I had a 6.4 powerstroke that ran flawless (some of the mentioned parts in the video fell off). I got sick of driving around hoping I wouldn’t get stopped. If you’re caught running without emissions anymore you’re treated like a bank robber.
I run an old 2002 Jetta TDI (ALH engine code). These are unkillable. I also run a 2017 6.7 Powerstroke, it’s reliable since i’ve deleted all the EPA crap on it. It seriously never broke. I’m glad I live in a country where we are not checked with emission system.
Good for you! May I ask what country?
I live in Quebec, Canada !
A good amount of us in the states take that shit off too
I am in Canada too…also with a 2002 TDI Golf…400k Kms on it now…did some of the known mods…ie Malone stage 4 tune, upgraded turbo/nozzles, egr delete, bigger clutch, highway cruising at 100 to 110 kms/ hr..fuel economy averages 4.5 L/ 100.. no smoke when I accelerate as my timing/ injection quantity are adjusted for max economy. Engine hp is around 150 from 90 (factory) and tq is 275/lb ft.
At some point, I am sure our local government is going to mandate these cars off the road, but I will run it as long as I can.
As a diesel tech the engines that are regulated now are so clean that anymore regulation is ridiculous. We no longer have a smog or dirty air issue
Agreed. They just love scReWing up the American people who just want a reliable diesel truck.
@@charlesrodriguez7984 yep and keep leveraging emissions on common folk because they don’t have the balls to go after international shipping companies that cause 1/3 of pollution with bunker fuel
Exactly
Makes me proud to own my 2001 cummins. I thought 11,500.00 was kind of a lot to spend on a vehicle at the time (I was 19). Having the truck has taught me differently though. Great vehicle.
Great Video, but One important thing was forgotten. Many older Diesel engines had the ability to run on Vegetable Oil with only minor (heat the fuel before injection to reduce its thickness) modifications needed. So in a grand scheme of things it's actually worse for the planet, that's before taking into account what damage DEF emissions do.
True imagne a world where all heavy duty ran off fast food waste? Imang how much greener that would be.
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough Exactly ..... F THE EPA and tgs far left beurocrats
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to run off Peanut oil. That came to an end in 2003 when Ford Discontinued the 7.3 Powerstroke.
@@JohnCamp Yep, he didn't understand why people wanted to use diesel instead of vegetable oil. Made no sense.
Why do people mess with that crap, when they could use filtered used motor oil and atf? Add upto 20% regulator gas in the mix and your golden deep into freezing temps
Due to new Peterbilts pretty much “no orders accepted”, I was forced to take a glider kit truck that I currently have and do a 650 hp Cat 6NZ upgrade. Quite frankly I very much enjoy returning to my roots of driving big truck over these new trucks. It feels good!!
Peterbilt isn’t accepting new orders? Since when?
A couple months ago, was at my Dr office, and a Diesel pick up went past in parking lot. I noted the sweet smell" of clean burning diesel, not like those fools who love to roll coal. His was deleted & PROPERLY TUNED, he regularly pulled a 5th wheel RV. His exhaust pipe was clean. And claimed to achieve 18 mpg pulling his trailer, and 24 mpg not pulling his trailer. They don't do smog checks where I live, I would like to delete but no one around here is willing to do a delete, as those jackboots at the epa have them running scared. So, I am stuck with a solid / best engine available and will be prone to early failure at some point due to some ignorant clueless need at the epa
Just drive your truck to Texas and git'er done.
I did this too. Very little towing, but need a pickup for other things. Plus I dislike driving a car. A 6.7 powerstroke, and there is zero soot out the pipe. It easily makes hills in 6th, and keep the filters changed every year. Getting 24mpg also with Power&Service cetane boost, injector additives.✌
wow thats like such horrible gas mileage. My dads beat up gmc jimmy that is frankensteined together gets 25 mpg. Literally every beater I have seen gets at least that.
Oh sorry i meant 28mpg
@@KLRmurdercycle My old 24V autotragic gets 22mpg with a worn out turbo and hasn’t gotten a overhead yet. I’m sure a more efficient turbo and tune would bring that up substantially.
In off road equipment they went to smaller displacement engines with limited HP and improved gearing to get around having to add DPF and other emissions components
It’s crazy how these company’s still make these motors work good
Diesel fuel, more than the compression ignition engine itself, is the biggest contributor to the emissions of a diesel engine. If methyl esther (biodiesel) were used in place of diesel, it would be a LOT easier for these engine manufacturers to meet these draconian standards. It seems very much that the diesel engine has been in the cross hairs of the EPA for YEARS (just as this video states). What they're doing is very unfortunate considering that the diesel engine is, quite literally, THE engine of the world's economies. Without them, we wouldn't have anything like we have it today.
It is a worry that we've got these environmentally concerned agencies dictating terms that they themselves could not achieve.
The EPA changes the standards and expect everyone else to achieve it.
When was the last time the EPA or any environment agency created a fuel burning engine that gets the results they want?
Well we couldn't go to the moon when Kennedy said to go to the moon. He didn't know how to achieve it.
@@jhoughjr1 He didn't dictate the terms. The space and moon program was already happening. All he did was announce it to help generate interest. A bonus if it was done during his term.
I had a 4 cylinder 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit diesel that got over 50 MPG. The thing was under powered but it sure could stretch the fuel.
I don't think the diesel engine is not gonna phase out. I believe California, New York, and Washington State are the ones who are going to phase out the internal combustion engine in 2035. All the states not going to ban the Internal combustion engines against the US populations. The synthetic fuel will save the internal combustion engine and alternative fuel will help to reduce emissions. Some websites are spreading misleading. No IC engine ban. We're not gonna do that. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Cool storybro.
Internal combustion engines will be around until we run out of oil. At this point we can’t sustain society without them.
@@mann_idonotreadreplies Thanks, I found a real websites on the list for phase out the internal combustion engine in Europe, California, New York, and Washington State.
I wanna believe it. But ain't so sure. See my other comments on here, I'm not a green 30 something, I'm a 50something mechanic on disability. I worry about my teenage daughter driving the 1968 Olds 98 convertible that my dad bought new and will'd to me. What are we supposed to do with our classic cars or people who chose to drive a modern interpretation of a carbed big block in their "classic" C10 or whatever chassis and body? Sure ain't gonna put electric motors in them..
Something I've noticed the EPA has done is the MPG estimates on the window stickers for diesels, obviously not HD trucks, is substantial less than reality. On my Jeep Grand Cherokee Ecodiesel it says 21 city and 28 highway with 24 combined which is way less then the 28 to 33 I've gotten in the 160k miles I put on it since I bought it new. It's also just slightly above what the V-6 gas base engine so people see it's only a little better and the $5000 cost for the diesel and don't see the benefits. There might have been a time that my Ecodiesel didn't have the emissions system hooked up and it allegedly got 36 to 38 mpg like that. I don't have the numbers in front of me but my VW Sportwagen TDI was also rated a lot less than real world driving. Of course VW has all sorts of other things but that's why my license plate on it says DSLGATE 🤣. As far has newer trucks I had a 2021 F-450 Platinum that started having DEF warnings at 2000 miles. Luckily my dealer offered me more than I paid 6 months after I bought it even with 19k miles on it and I went and got a extremely clean and low mileage 2009 Silverado 3500 with the LMM so I didn't have to deal with DEF!
Good for you! I'm not bashing Ford, I'm just glad you got one of the last pre dpf trucks no matter the make!
(I am a GM guy tho, so there is that... but still, I live in Dearborn Michigan where Ford is king and I'm not against them by any means.)
@@williamstamper442 yeah I agree. I like products from lots of manufacturers and from what I've seen the big 3 are all having a substantial number of trucks with big emissions problems. I went with Ford in 21 because I was blown away by the wide track front axle and how it turned. I've talked on my channel a bunch how I wish Ram and GM would make a regular production 4500 pickup. IMO GM made the best truck in those last years before DEF. I bought a 06 Silverado nee that I put 300k of mostly heavy towing and loved it. I had a 06 Ford F-350 6.0 that was a good friend's in the year or so between when my LBZ started getting too expensive to keep going and buying the 450 and after like $15k to $20k of upgrades it drove good except the 5 speed transmission was still way behind the Allison 6 speed. I've also had a couple Rams and I loved the engine but the auto transmissions let's just say weren't great and things like that steering wore out too. I bought this 09 Silverado last August in Montana with only 46k miles on it and completely rust free. In just under a year I'm about I'm about to hit 82k miles. I'm extremely happy with this truck! Yes there's things I miss about a 12 year newer $88k truck but I'm not in any hurry to get another new truck. I wish the EPA would live in the real world and lesson the emission standards to a point that they can be met reliable then there wouldn't be such a large amount of people that just delete the entire system and the emissions would be less overall. I was at a Buc-ee's gas station in Daytona Beach, Florida a couple months ago and spoke with 6 people towing with diesel trucks and the all said they had already deleted their truck or was going to soon. It's shocking that doing that is so common that people will admit to a stranger that they've committed a felony without thinking about it all.
Lmm had emissions but fortunately are easy to delete
@@hitchedtohorsepower deleting a diesel is not felony if you do not give a flying fuck, blowing smoke is fuckin tits
@@Joseph96752 correct, I meant didn't have the full emissions that came next with DEF and all that. Pretty sure the only real difference between the LBZ and the LMM was the DPF. Without admitted to a crime, yes it is extremely easy to delete haha. When I got rid of my 21 F-450 I really wanted another LBZ, besides not having the DPF I like the GMT 800 better than the GMT 900 but I found such a clean 09 Silverado 3500 that I couldn't pass it up.
Great job with this video. Well researched, and presented.
I drive a 2006 5.9L Cummins pre-emissions common rail.
Runs like the day it came off the lot 17 years ago. Never 1 issue.
The fact that federal put things in place to prevent things like carb in other states, then other states decades later require the same special emissions controls and benchmarks that carb requires infuriates me.
I really appreciate your realistic and grounded view on this!
From watching a Car Wizard video I learned that a lot of Diesel Trucks built in 2016 and later have a lot of reliability problems due to the complicated emission controls system. Basically a Diesel Truck owner that uses his truck as his work vehicle transporting loads to make a living can be driving along, then a trouble indication lights up on the dash and the truck suddenly goes into dramatically reduced power mode due to a bad sensor somewhere in the emission control system. Then suddenly the truck owner loses a lot money, because now the truck must spend time in the shop being repaired. Another result is that a lot of truck drivers hate these late model trucks. Also the demand for older diesel trucks that have much less emission control equipment and are more reliable has gone up and the price for older used diesel trucks has gone up.
OTR electric semi trucks… the idea of an electronic log book cutting down into driving time vs battery charging and cargo capacity vs battery weight, makes electric trucks a joke for long miles today and the foreseeable future(10-15 years into the future) so yeah, we should abolish California, New York, Washington and the EPA for now
Best way to go with the internal combustion engines altogether is bio fuels that can be made form grass,waste product from whiskey and Alge and these cut emissions to minimise of 90% and can be made just about anywhere in the world so cheaper to buy and EVs I heard a statistic on the radio saying that you could drive a 60s 70s muscle car for 46 years before it's equal to a ev and EVs don't last that long some barley last a year so yeah EVs are stupid and would also slow the economy down too and cause more harm than good
@@holden2260 I do t think we’ll have enough biofuel for that, I looked into it. Even though it is sort of carbon neutral in the best way, there just isn’t enough land out there to grow it. I think I’m today’s technology, a hybrid would be the best case scenario. Downsize the engine to a 7-8 liter for flat roads and have a electric assist motor to add extra torque for uphills and down hill breaking. Battery can be much smaller and would be more fuel efficient having the diesel motor running at higher loads giving it a much better efficiency range. That’s what I think. They’re trying to run before they can walk with semis
Battery electric OTR is not feasible. Just the materials needed to make enough battery capacity doesn't exist. Then the power grid to charge dozens of gigawatts of batteries doesn't exist.
@@superjesus4307 agreed, as of today, that’s 100% true
got to love the Employment Prevention Agency
We need to abolish the EPA
@@aaronbode9622 and the chicken tax and lemon law.
@@giancarlolugo9586 Chicken Tax sure, but why remove Lemon Law? Do you want to be sold a faulty vehicle?
@@Nerfamus although the lemon law looks good on paper, It has some biased stuff against classic and old cars, ( specially the ones with patina vintage style in some places) a car should be legally to drive, no matter the exterior details on the surface, as long it's fixiable, restorable and the structure and frame, are not crippled or heavily Rusted (If it's a vintage car and it's rusty but It can be saved, It must be restored to make it road legal, If the owner wants to keep the body with it's original patina style paint they should allow him, as long the car it's mechanically good even If people (like his neighbours and karens) are against It (remember the case were HOA tried to go against a classic truck owner and they thought his truck was in bad condition but mechanically It was good)
We just have to reform the law, and make some changes for certain type of vehicles specially, for the historic ones (both domestic and foreign)not eliminate it at all.
You mean the diesel engine is dead in the US. Its still flourishing in the rest of the world even with environmentally strict governments. Germany for example is both ground zero for both green government and diesel engine manufacturers in Europe, and ditto for Japan in Asia. You may not imagine that for example, a Honda CR-V might exist with a diesel engine and yet this is a common option for other parts of the world. Elsewhere, common best selling compact pickups or utes, are sold mostly with diesel engines, such as the Toyota HiLux, Mitsubishi L200 and the Isuzu DMax. You cannot imagine a Chrysler 300 with a Mercedes six cylinder diesel but it exists in Europe. With the USA EPA having the regulatory hots on diesel engines, the result is that the US is becoming an outlier or an island dancing in one direction while the rest of the world dances in another way. For example, driving gas powered Tacoma pickups while the rest of the world are driving diesel HiLuxes.
I don't think diesel is not dead in all the states. It was California, New York, and Washington State.
Ford in mexico they are selling a ranger 3.2 turbo diesel
@@janamaro5894 Diesels have never been as popular in the US as in other countries. Don't know why but we'd be much better off embracing the diesel instead of the EV fraud that's so posh and trendy here with the poser crowd.
@@janamaro5894 and yet the EPA base their emissions standards from CA law. So despite not living on CA, we’re all f•cked.
@@giggiddy totally agree. The reason why it hasn’t been as popular is because the few times diesels were introduced into the US market back in the day, many of them were NA versions, so they were completely gutless and people started stereotyping these inefficient garbage piles as just that. Then, when yota and other vehicles started coming out with highly efficient half sized trucks and hyper efficient sub compact cars, they “didn’t meet epa standards” so the US never got to experience having vehicles that are 30-40% more fuel efficient, and significantly more reliable.
We’re finally catching up to the rest of the world in the 1/2 ton truck market, but even still, we’re 30 years behind everyone else. There are diesel Subarus that get over 50mpg, sun compact 3cyl cars that get 90+ mpg, and hilux trucks that get 35+ mpg everywhere else in the world but here, because the garbage epa won’t allow them here.
I have owned diesel cars for years, one VW and many Mercedes. Fuel mileage is great, the VW would go 55 miles on a gallon of diesel, the low sulfur fuel killed the injection pump. 1500 dollars for the pump and 250 for labor, this was in 94.. At 55000 dollars the 1995 Mercedes E300 diesel gave me 36 miles to the gallon. If I'm using less fuel then I also am using less oil. Now if your pig piss diesel has a problem with that system it will cost you 8000 dollars to replace it.
GM Ford Chrysler and AMC as well as the entire petroleum industry made one gigantic mistake 55 years ago and that is they should have pushed back against a lot of these standards.
Not even though I'm a Republican and a conservative I am a conservationist but not an environmentalist. In fact I despise the entire environmental movement because it's not about the environment it's about the forceful imposition of authoritarian socialism and the elimination of the entire working and middle class.
I'm old enough to remember when the EPA was inaugurated in 1970. I'm also old enough to remember genuine smog that most people your age haven't got a clue what it looks like. Now did automobile and diesel exhaust need to get cleaned up? Yes absolutely. In 1960 when I was born the average automobile exhaust consisted of 10% carbon monoxide (a deadly dangerous pollutant in any concentration, something that cannot be said for carbon dioxide which is not a pollutant and is not a danger to human or any other kind of life), unburned hydrocarbons ran around 1,000 parts per million the same with oxides of nitrogen (oxides of nitrogen combine with unburned hydrocarbons to form photochemical smog.) That very clearly needed to be cleaned up. However it did not need to be completely eliminated as that is physically impossible. Reducing emissions 96% from where they were in 1960 is realistic, 100% is not. As far as gasoline engines go, 5 g per mile hydrocarbons, 1/2 gram per mile carbon monoxide, half gram per mile oxides of nitrogen is realistic and can be met with modern systems. The use of alcohol in fuel can go a long ways towards achieving those numbers while improving fuel economy. Reading a report from Mobile oil corporation in 1977 showed that it was possible to catalyze methyl and Ethel alcohols the same way gasoline is catalyzed. Meaning very simply raw gasoline can be mixed with raw alcohol at a 5% concentration which would allow 1% oxygenation and would considerably reduce exhaust emissions especially CO and NoX. It is entirely possible to build gasolines that have the octane and BTU characteristics of 1970 with 2020 emissions. The EPA has stood fastly in the way of this. Again proving it's not about the environment.
Diesel the same thing. It is possible to reduce sulfur in diesel as well as add 10% ethyl or methyl alcohol into the fuel and refine it together. This fuel can be sold for the price of regular gasoline and produce more power on less fuel.
The EPA and similar laws are violations of the Constitution. Only the Congress can make laws rules and regulation there is no provision anywhere in the Constitution to allow Congress to divest its authority in administrative agencies. It's just not there. I've read the Constitution several times it is not there. It is entirely possible to build clean burning gasoline Diesel and kerosene engines that get good fuel economy and deliver good performance at a low price. Low price meaning low maintenance and repair costs.
Thank you for your video I look forward to seeing the rest of them. You're on the right track.
It's way past time to say the quiet part out loud. The EPA has no concern that every decrease in emissions that they require costs massively more to achieve and results in ever smaller decrease in emissions. For example, say cutting NOx emissions 50% costs $500 in additional vehicle cost, achieving 75% costs an additional $2,000, 95% costs and additional $5,000, and 98% costs an additional $15,000. That is the trajectory of current emission compliance costs but the EPA doesn't care because they are not bearing the compliance costs, the consumer is--with those costs buried in what they pay for anything (and that is about everything) that takes diesel engines to produce or transport. When will the whole crazy EPA emissions gambit finally stop? When Americans are starving because of it. We are dangerously close to that moment. The world economy literally runs on the diesel engine. Eradicate the diesel engine and people WILL die, by the tens or hundreds of millions. And we are at least 20 years, if ever, from having a full substitute for the diesel engine.
Well spoken. The EPA and other agencies need to go and I believe they will soon. With a little encouragement. I mean we're already almost there with all the other issues going on.
@@Shade_Tree_Mechanic I agree.
@@Shade_Tree_Mechanic They should go, but they won't! Like every good government idea, they will just get bigger and more bloated. Yet, be less and less useful. It's really just yet another jobs program for "minorities"! It serves itself, and none else!
Me sitting here with a 7.3 almost unharmed by the epa minus the ccv vent into the turbo
My partner can't understand why I want to keep my 2007 3500 classic LBZ mechanics crane truck with 500k on the road. All he sees is an old truck. No DEF no SCR, no problems.
Do you still have your LBZ and did you block off/ delete the EGR?
Ever wondered how much NOx etc a ship must pump out? An electric ship is something even Jules Vern would consider as s beinb far fetched.
Ships output the most since the majority of the time they're underway they burn Bunker Fuel. Close to shore or in port they have to burn Marine Gas Oil, but that's not all that much better with the quantities they burn.
Very well done video all the points are correct only video I’ve seen like this that was done right good job
The US Supreme court just ruled the EPA does NOT have the authority to rewrite exhaust regulations. All changes to EPA rules have to be made BY CONGRESS.
Looked this up for myself and you're exactly right! Congress takes half the year to decide on anything so this is a bit of good news at least!
Regulations are NOT law just suggestions Congress and the Senate are the only ones that have the power to make laws.
This was for co2 emissions. Nothing to do with the emissions of other things which is well within the existing regulatory frameworks. Vehicle emission standards aren't going anywhere.
The EPA actually doesn't have the legal right to create or enforce any rules, as they are laws and only Congress can create new laws according to the Constitution
Them and basically all government agencies
Some fleet owners tried LNG. Essentially, a spark ignition engine running on natural gas. But it it would not work for over the road long range hauling. Because there was no infrastructure. Plus the tractors did not get the fuel range of a Diesel.
I'm a professional diesel mechanic and all I do all day is work on trucks, everyone gives modern Diesel engines bad rap because of all the emissions systems added to them but the most modern versions of them are very reliable and extremely compact at least on heavy trucks!
We have a fleet of autocar cabovers (garbage trucks) they get beat to death day in and day out and hardly ever give problems.
The modern DPF, SCR, DOC is about the size of a muffler on an old truck and you hardly ever see any problems out of them aside from the occasional NOx sensor or DEF sending unit.
Cummins has it perfected 100%
The ECM programming is top-notch and they just about diagnose themselves if there is a problem!
No smoke, no smell, almost no pollution, tons of power, easy to repair and diagnose, what's not to love????
Diesel engines, at least Cummins are not going anywhere! You just can't be the power density of diesel fuel with modern battery technology!
I agree electric is the future but not for at least 10 to 15 years, it takes me 5 minutes to fill up a 50 gallon diesel fuel tank and the truck will run all day on that!
Same here in Europe the emission regulations have absolutely destroyed Modern Diesels.
Does the EPA realize that everything they eat, sleep, drive, ware, buy, and so on comes on a diesel engine trucks 🤷🏿♂️
No...
They don’t care
Are there any potential solutions you see that can keep air pollution and emissions low while also not crippling industry, especially transportation? I'd love to see a follow up video on this. In my eyes, large trucks with gasoline or even hybrid powertrains seems like a decent short to medium term solution.
Pollution levels were fine in the early-mid 2000s diesel engines. They didn't smoke at all, or at least could be built that way (Powerstroke, Cummins engines of various sizes, some Cat engines did smoke a little.) They are chasing after infinitesimal amounts of pollution now with no actual benefit. The air where I live is the same as it ever was except for fires in summer.
OM606 owner here👋
Keep the faith diesel brothers!
OM616 here. Licensed to Force Motors in India and still going to present day
I respect and enjoy your videos. Have you done any on ultra low sulfer fuel vs red or off highway fuel being used in on highway applications ? How much of an effect it could have on DE filters ectc.
And then you read billionaire yachts get fuel exemptions... and guess what they use? Diesel...
What the EPA never considers with these regulations is the environmental cost of repairing and maintaining these more complex diesel engines.
100% this, and this statement applies even more to electric/hybrid vehicles. It's almost like the folks at the EPA are free to pursue emotional knee-jerk reactions to what they feel is "bad for the environment" and have no responsibility or accountability to the American people... just another out-of-control bureaucracy.
@@bryanpratt3933 Yeah, they are trying their best but really do not understand the industry and thus cannot come up with practical solutions….
I guarantee you one 12V cummins that goes 1 million miles vs a modern diesel engine that breaks every 200k miles will consume more resources ultimately.
Since a huge part of vehicle emissions are from building new ones.
Excellent video and you are absolutely correct.
Since the Supreme Court just ruled that Carb/EPA had no authority to rule over power plants & factories, all engine/vehicle manufacturers & owner operators should file a Class Action lawsuit against Carb, The EPA & the federal government over this. Especially with the record parts failure & the backorder on parts, there's absolutely NO WAY POSSIBLE to stay compliant AND in business. I choose to stay in business!
Ironic that if unrestrained by emmission measures its never been more efficient due to advances of injection and turbos.
Just dump 2 stroke oil into your old diesel engines, designed to run on non low sulfur fuels
The older diesels that were engineered on higher Sulphur fuel can typically run on vegetable oils or have vegetable oil added to help with lubricity. So even if they stopped pumping diesel at the station there's a pretty good chance the old chuggers will keep going on with cooking oil new and used...
Good reporting!
The EPA needs to look at just what the end goal is.When you have engines burning more fuel to do the same work you have gone backwards . Push standards back to 2006.Common rail engines are very efficient. They still smoke under high load. Truck and off road engine are very expensive to keep running non emmision vehicles run every day. Those assets make companies money while the emmissionized engine are limping with codes or broke down. I can write things down here I know about EPA and pre Obama diesel attainment zones but the government will wipe this comment off here. There has been no change in diesel attainment zones since the inception of emmisions restrictions .Read this it will be wiped out they EPA have not made that fact know.In this administration we are being steered to profit some very rich people. Smarten up people the government is lying to you.
I made another comment but at the end you reminded me of something...
The stupid 350 Olds gas converted diesel. I say this as a DIE HARD Oldsmobile guy! We still use those crappy engines to make 440plus cubic inch small block drag race Gas Powered Oldsmobile engines that make 750-1000hp, BUT... as a diesel it SUCKED. It sucked so bad it turned the entire American public against diesels for a very long time! I had my experience with them. If you could keep an injector pump in them and run them on half kerosene they would actually shake down 34plus upwards of 40 sometimes in a 4000lb delta 88. But they did so at being in the way in the slow lane while leaving a steady roll of coal. As good as those 80s delta 88s were the diesel fumes still found their way inside. A friend's dad had a company shop truck, I'll say it was about a 1981/1982 C10 with the Olds diesel. He got it new and took care of it. My buddy and me only took it out once but that thing actually squawked tires from a roll going over an uneven surface. That's kinda what you expect from low rpm diesel torque. But the maintinece and upkeep on even that lowly half ton chev p/u caused it to be a poor choice for daily fleet driving so it got turned in at like 40k miles. The 6.2 chevrolet diesel didn't help matters much when it came out. I know there are die hards out there who love them but honestly, it's hard to get aboard that platform too. GM kinda hurt the diesel reputation and the EPA just took that and ran with it, creating what we have today.
There isn't a reader on this comment section that don't want if they don't have a 12 valve cummins in a clean body. I know of one at the end of my street which soon as I have a spare $4k that rusty silver bitch will be mine!
But yeah GM ruined it for us all because of their antics in the 80s
That is false, it was NOT a converted engine. The block, crank, rods, pistons, heads, cam and everything functional are specifically designed for diesel. The only parts it shares are bolt-on accessories like manifolds and covers. It was designed to be manufactured on the same tooling as the gas engine so it shares dimensions with it. Thats it.
Oldsmobile Diesel 350 V8=Better to get a gasoline 262 V6!
And the kicker is that GM owned Detroit Diesel at the time and by all accounts never consulted with them.
@@bobbbobb4663 Something like an 8V38 or 6V50 would have been tits.
@@bobbbobb4663 that is a great point bob-O!
I live not 2 miles from the existing Detroit Diesel right now, and roger penske was always pretty cool about tech and making things right. I mean penske was ultimately a business man but had a heart too. Back in 1976 dad and I went to a winston cup race at michigan international speedway
MIS, in irish hills or whatever they call it now. At the gate between infield and general admin parking was mr Roger himself directing traffic and shaking hands with us regular people off the street! Anyway got off track a little but yeah, imagine the 6.2 or whatever they could have come up with if only they put those two entities together in a think tank and gave mechanics and engineers a voice and input for the ultimate light car/truck diesel for the times!!
I drive a 2011 jetta tdi. It still has all the factory emissions equipment. I have no plans on removing any of it until it gives me 1 issue. After that I’m removing it all
Roll Coal at a few intersections,
And a few Senators take note.
Damn shame
As an ex diesel mechanic and pedestrian, modern diesels are quieter, cleaner, way more powerful and so many electronics any idiot with the ignition key can operate it. If we have the amount vehicles today operating with emission laws that satisfy manufacturers, can you imagine the smog, cancer rates, chronic illness. I don't think targets are overreaching, manufacturers will be just fine. Owner operators have bigger problems with crime, cutthroat competition, fuel prices, parking, congestion, operator fees costs, no right to repair and the list goes on. you are obviously too young to appreciate the cleaner air that you grew up in.
Easy for you to say. If you owned one of these disasters you would be singing a different tune. Many single operators have resulted to deletion, because it was that or bankruptcy. They should of gave the manufacturers time to build a reliable engine, reason caterpillar stopped making their engines.
How many useless consumer goods do you buy each year that are shipped across the ocean on ships that burn bunker fuel? How many tech gadgets do you own that use rare earth minerals that are mined by children in Africa and destroy their local ecosystem? Those same minerals that go into electric cars. Because you can't see it it must not be happening right?
How convenient for you to work in an industry that benefits from kneecapping an engine that is pivotal in keeping our economy running efficiently. It’s almost as if you had a vested interest in the destruction and over complication of what used to be the most reliable, efficient, and powerful ICE on the market.
Please explain your stance to my long haul owner/operator friend and many, many others who have to sit for hours at a time while their truck fails to regen and has to limp around trying to keep this economy running while in derate mode at 65% power, hoping he throws a specific code so he doesn’t have to pay for a new DPF.
@@daviddonaldson6069 35 years to phase in necessary emission laws is plenty time, your issue is with the person who profits off you, manufacturers, parts suppliers, skilled labour to fit these parts and not forget planned obsolescence, corporate cost cutting and brokers cutting rates to the bone. Blocked dpf and egr is the result of excessive idling, dirty engine oil, blocked air filter, poor fuel generally a lack of maintenance, bad operation of the vehicle all the sins of owner operation.
@@downbytheriver501 you don't have a truck do you? Tell your friend if you can't run it then you should park it.
CA poop emoji, perfect! 🤣😂
I love visiting Cali since my whole family is from there, but I could never live there. Hell, I’m close to leaving AZ because it’s become too much like Cali.
@@Dustrunnersauto Cali looks pretty on the surface but inside it’s probably bad. (I’ve never been there).
Funny how the EPA punished manufacturers for a "defeat device" that increased mpg. Duh, if you don't burn as much fuel, you don't pollute as much, and are less likely to need ancillary devices to control smog. What they are doing to diesels is the same as what happened in the 1970's and 80's to gas engines. Put ancillary devices on the engine that cut power in half and cause fuel consumption to skyrocket in order to control smog; if they weren't burning as much fuel, they would put out half the smog in the first place.
sulfur is a great high PSI lubricant which is also part of why the "newer" types of diesel don't last.
post-2010 they are garbage
pre-1985 diesels go 1 million miles (easily) but not running on the new fuel
Think about the billions of dollars spent every year on diesel engine repairs related to emissions failures. 6.0L/6.4L International alone.
I think had all the manufacturers of large diesel engines got together and stop producing engines (as it is near impossible to pass what's coming) The rest of the third world countries don't have emissions at all.
"billions of dollars" lol, Is it a game for you to just pull numbers out of your ass?
And don't forget to account for the insane amount of expenses air pollution brings us. Modern Diesels pollute WAY less than older pre-emissions diesels did. Diesels provided a great solution to problems decades ago, but we've since realized how bad they were/are for the environment and local air quality.
The alternative here isn't diesels existing without emissions equipment, it's diesels even existing at all in modern applications.
As a Floridain I love the EPA and Florida's programs but man when it comes to emisstions control it has to be asked... when is it good enough? As you can't have 0 as Humans emit stuff like the dreaded CO2.
The problem lies in compliance, ignore the government, and do your own thing as much as possible. It's not hard to outsmart the government.
As a farmer in truck driver the EPA has made me into an extreme anti-environmentalist... We have nothing but problems with our diesel trucks pickups in tractors most of it is emissions related. I've come to the conclusion that all you can do is delete it all or run old stuff that doesn't have it on.
Preach it brother.. get rid of 3 letter agencies.
ATF needs to go first. Until they do, 3D printer go brrrrrrrr 😉
NSA...
Imo FBI, CIA kinda cool... not all tho
FDA used to be good, now for big pharma
The government should not be controlling these companies too much. I dont want vehicle factories giving us belt drive transmissions just to comply. Im glad gas engines (specific make and model) can be very reliable (not you HyunDIE) today.
To combat ULS Diesel lacking lubricity, I added ash less marine 2 stroke oil to my 7.3 and noticed an immediate difference after adding it. My injectors were noticeably quieter
Very good
I have been telling people this for years
Thank you
EPA has been allowed to make itself a nuisance and thats the issue at large.
All of the administrative agencies have. I can't say why each agency was founded but it's clear that the role of the whole administrative state has become to give the Executive the ability to legislate unilaterally without Congress interfering. I mean why even have the House and Senate when the President can just write an executive order to force any federal agency to enforce whatever rules he wants?
@@Dover78 I wished you were wrong on that; what a sad truth this is man.
EPA should focus on engine efficiency, burn less fuel and emissions will follow. Burning more fuel to lower emissions only makes sense if helping oil companies increase profits is the actual goal. It requires burning more fuel to make these emissions control systems work as proven by falling fuel economy numbers for the last couple decades.
Yup, injecting diesel on the exhaust stroke is wasteful. And injecting diesel through nozzles directly into exhaust is insane.
It really blows what they’re making them put on the newer Diesel engines. GM’s L5P is a beast of an engine with a huge setback because of all that emissions crap. (Not sure about the others as I haven’t owned any of those).
Cleaner diesels and the removel of sulfur from diesel fuel is actually a GOOD thing. Unfortunately, the EPA has gotten completely out of hand.
Let me play The devil's advocate here: should we all just be breathing in huge amounts of diesel exhaust? Maybe they've got a little bit overboard these days, but back then, I remember days where you cannot go outside because you were significantly increasing the risk to your health. There were days where there was no recess because the air was so bad. Notice that that's no longer a thing? Now, I think there is a happy medium we can find, but the EPA I think has overall been a force for good. 95% of families do not need a super high-powered sports car, or a heavy duty truck, regardless. What is the point of having such high output for the consumer market? Plus, now we have all the experience of building modern diesel engines, so putting in things like DPF into new trucks is not nearly as unreliable as it once was. Also, with respect to ultra low sulfur diesel, I don't think it's a big deal because 1/ you can restore lubricity as well as cetane level by using either fuel additives or biodiesel, and 2/agricultural, and off-road diesel applications can use not ultra low sulfur diesel. Agricultural diesel is still available at most co-ops as far as I know
Eh I can kind of live with diesel pickups becoming a high cost luxury, too many people using 1000ft/lb motors as a grocery getter
Its important to have clean air but it takes time to to do that. It doesn't happen overnight
Thank you!