Cummins been using urea since last year.

 

Subscribing...

I'm no Navistar fan; it seems that they made a big gamble on fleets opting for their "simpler" massive EGR system for 2010+ engines. The problem is that fuel is currently the largest operating cost for most commercial fleets, which makes inefficient engines a poor choice. And even though slightly more complex, engines using SCR are much more efficient. And of course they are paying nearly $2,000 less per engine to the EPA.

In my opinion Navistar has been heading downhill for years with their engine technology, and this is yet another glaring example.

 

I'd say I mostly agree. I think they gambled on that people would rather have simpler technology; instead people realised how nice the DEF system actually works.

 

The EPA like all federal organizations must continue to move the goal post lest they become unneeded. There is no doubt we had air politution. I lived and worked in Birmingham Al in the early 70s and the air was horrible. And the EPA did a good job there and elsewhere. But we are now over 40 years and untold trillions of dollars away from that problem. Now as I travel around the country (which is pretty much all I do now) I encounter no pollution, even in the larger cities. I have not , however been to LA. In short we are now, at the direction of the EPA picking the fly crap out of the pepper, and in our case at tremendous expense to makers and users of diesel pick up trucks. So, when is enough enough. I have brought this to the attention of a member of congress. He had no clue which I expected, and no interest, which I also expected. Navistar was trying to find a better technology to comply with a burdensom artifical EPA standard. Good for them, cause what we have is not the answer. And starting next year (I think) or maybe 2014, these trucks have to start getting lighter thanks to another arbitrary EPA decision. How long will it be until you can't pull a 5th wheel or horse trailer? Who knows, but I feel that without a course correction that's where we are headed. So, the real result of this court decision is that no one else will try to find a better diesel technology and we will be stuck with the DPF until our trucks and my way of life are history.

 

It's BS.
Regulating diesel exhaust particles.
Carcinogenic?
The Rest of the work has diesel pickups far less regulated?
USA and Canada has some remarkably high cancer rates.
It's been stated several times by health professionals that poor eating habits could likely be the underlying leading cause of cancer.

I don't know what they're talking about, the other day I ate 3 angus mushroom swiss bugers at mcdonalds, and I feel gggrrreeeaat!!!!

But seriously though, I think about the year 2000 was where I was satisfied with how clean diesels were burning versus the BS that they are now.
China is buying a huge amount of oil now, so prices will never drop ever again.
Eventually RV'ing will be a hobby for the rich only.

It's depressing but I see no other outcome.

 

You know, Parkland you just brought to mind some info I stunbled across and here is the link: How much pollution does a volcano produce? It states that a single volcano spits out more polution, such as ash and other carcinogenic particles than all automobiles on earth for ALL time. So when is the EPA going to attack mother nature and put DPF's on volcanos? I know I am being overboard, but still this gives you and idea at how little polution a vehicle actually spews compared to other activities of the world.
Also I farmed for a majorty of my life, born, raised and all we had were diesel tractors and combines. I watched that black smoke hours upon hours and most of it was whisped to the ground by the humidity in the air. Also, fertilizer is made from hydrocarbons and the smoke from diesel is actually a form of fertilizer. The carbon and nitrogen is good for soil. I just cannot put much support behind the EPA and the groups that have no idea what polution actually pertains. I am not getting political here just cannot wrap my arms around the idea that the emissions are 100 percent bad, they actually say that volcano eruptions are good for the land and the chemcal makeup has many similarities to burning hydrocarbons. I am all for keeping our emissions withing limits but there are circumstances that these limits cannot be met that can be balanced economically. I guess there willl always be people who have to complain, just like the old timers back in the horse and buggie days, my grand dad said there were people that complained about the horse s*** on the streets.........

 

A lot of people have been drinking the kool-ade and believing what they want you to hear. CARB sets the standards for the country and whatever trash they publish other governments take notice. Read the article, this is about our diesel particulate.

Prof fired for debunking pollution myth

 

How little pollution compare to other activities? In the US where our emissions standards are perhaps the most strict in the world automobiles account for 1/3rd of all pollution. I'd hardly call that a "little amount"

You can call it "Kool-Aid", but the W.H.O recently after years of research found that constant exposure to diesel exhaust increases your risk of lung cancer by 7 times. The American Cancer Society is also likely to release similar results shortly.
Some of it goes to the ground, but research has shown that diesel particulates can float in the air for days or even weeks before settling down to the ground.
Absolutely false. Fertilizers are not made from hydrocarbons, they're made from inorganic nitrogen compounds chemical compounds. Plants need potassium, phosphorus, and nitrogen - none of which is in Diesel exhaust - at least in a way that's beneficial to plants.

Carbon in the soil is actually WORSE for plants, because carbon consuming microorganisms use nitrogen in the soil to break down the carbon sources, starving the plants. Being a farmer all your life, you should be familiar with nitrogen deficiency.

Diesel exhaust emits tons of Nitrogen Dioxide, and Nitric Oxide, which both readily combine with water in the atmosphere and eventually form various acid compounds. Those acids create acid rain, which ruins soil and destroys plants and causes massive corrosion to everything else.

Except that these limits can and are being met, and really it's not that much more expensive.

 

How exactly would one ever be "constantly exposed" to diesel exhaust? Thats the problem with all those studies. Does "constantly exposed" mean being in the vicinity of a diesel vehicle all day long, or having and exhaust pipe connected to a face mask 24/7 ?

And how do you figure that it's not much more expensive? Sure, maybe the truck's initial cost isn't much more expensive, but what about it lasting 1/2 as long?

 

People that work in or live near heavy industry, mines, and diesel locomotives are all fairly constantly exposed to diesel exhaust.

Also not sure what you mean about a truck lasting half as long.

 

I just don't see how you could single out groups of people that have been exposed to diesel exhaust without other influences as well. Just for example, chances are that lower and housing would be likely near those places, and lower income individuals statistically might smoke more, drink more, etc...

And to put a thousand mice in a box filled with exhaust, well thats not really a good test either, it does not simulate real life.

And what I mean about a truck lasting half as long.... Compare what we have now to what we had 10 years ago....

1. EGR requires extra parts that will eventually fail, sometimes causing extensive damage or bricked engine.
2. New injectors and fuel system is as close to a science project on wheels as you can get. Can cause serious damage during malfunction.
3. Any engine problems are now very expensive to repair, requiring service usually at the dealer.
4. EGR & regen & emission friendly tuning can cause less than ideal performance, less than ideal engine oil, and accelerated wear.

 

Except that the people conducting these tests are not idiots. Of course they figured those in. They even mention that the test group consisted of healthy, non-smokers.
Except that these tests were conducted in real life places over decades, not in a lab.

Blame Navistar for that one. Gasoline engines have been using EGR for over 35 ears, and many other Diesel engines have had EGR for the better part of a decade without many issues.
Blame Navistar for designing parts that aren't up to the task. Common rail injection has been around for nearly two decades now, and is quite reliable.
Fair enough
Those issues have been pretty much ironed out.

 

Lead Head, since your a walking encyclopedia of diesel pollution knowledge, tell us about all the pollution caused from cow farts? Is the government going to require farmers to install fart catalytic converters on their rear ends.?

 

I don't think the involved scientists are idiots, but one has to question how modern scientists and science communities tend to favor the organization that funds and backs them.

Common rail has been around a long time, but not mass produced running 30,000 PSI in work trucks.

Ironed out? I don't know about that.
I would say there has been some improvement at the cost of adding yet more emssion equipment to the vehicle.

The sad truth is that I can't see any of these trucks being cost effective to keep on the road very long, eventually once the value is low enough, it will be sickening taking it into the dealer for little repairs and such.

6.0 diesels seemed to be the cutting edge of what small town mechanics could fathom, 6.4's and 6.7's will most likely be dealership and specialty shop jobs.