The real question is what will SCT do to existing owners based on the "Agreement" Reached with the EPA? I would put money on existing SCT owners getting shafted if they pull down any new updates when plugged into a computer ruining any custom tuning done or DPF/EGR deletes. If they update their truck, it's probably not going to move anymore.

Here' is the public relations reply.... makes it sound all sunshine and rainbows like the EPA entered into a joint venture with Derive (Makers of SCT..)

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...300718323.html

 

Boy, I've been out of the game a looooonnnnngggg time, haven't really kept up with things like I should have.
I'm not surprised, it was bound to happen eventually.

You know, I've been warning about doing deletes and all this against Fed regs. Most of them (modders) didn't care. They just didn't. That's all fine and dandy until it comes time to pay the piper. That's the chance that they ran when doing that. They should have known going in with their eyes wide open.

That would be the job of the PR department.

 

I really dislike this indifferent way of approaching the problem. When the government legislation makes a problem significantly worse by reducing the lifecycle of a diesel engine they are creating more emissions. Now requiring fleet wide replacement more often, the 6.4 ambulance fleets are a great example. The carbon cost of re-manufacturing an engine or replacing a fleet of trucks is significant and should only happen at the maximum possible interval. Congress should have approached this with more intelligence and less politics, which they never seem to do on any topic. The consumer gets a truck that only lasts 150k now instead of 4-500k. Guess what. Consumer takes the damn defective equipment off. The chance of an EPA fine and cost of a new engine are weighing factors on that decision.

 

It's a cold hearted reality that we live in.

I'm not saying I agreed with the legislation (or that I disagree), but until that legislation changes, that's what people have to deal with. You know what too, what people have done to "help" them solve the problem on their own, actually may have contributed to even a shorter lifespan as well, depending on what/how they did it. Although, more then often then they say that they want to improve things, what they've done, tended to shorten the lifespan as well. Very few of them actually de tuned their engine, most increase. Most loved the black smoke (which didn't help prevent this situation).

Congress is a political entity (given by where it's membership comes from), to expect them to do anything without politics playing a part is rather hopeful at best.

Most politicians are out of touch. They really don't know what is going on and so you get stuff like this (some of it is because a lot of members have been at that one job for so long, they are insulated in a bubble). If you want that to change, then you have to change the makeup of that entity. That's not going to happen, at least not easily. And like you said, it's not just this topic. I've seen them advocate really really bad things that would actually compromise, especially when it comes to tech.

This actually requires intelligence/research/knowledge on both sides (lawmakers as well as customers). I had a 6.0 that when I traded it in for this truck listed in my siggy, still had the original EGR and oil cooler. That was an '06 ('05 build), one of the most reviled years for the oil cooler as well. Not one issue out of those components in the 200k that I had on it (I got it when it had 20 miles on the clock). But I did my research. And I wasn't going to run the risk of getting busted for getting rid of federal mandated equipment (doesn't matter if I liked it or not).

That's the risk that one takes. I'm not saying that I like it or not, but if one is going to take that chance, be willing to pay the piper if you get caught.

 

I teach my kids the same canned line, but I'm going to point this out. If consumers are removing their emissions equipment because it causes high enough EGT's to increase wear on the engine (and I'm not going to argue thermodynamics, more heat = more engine wear) that's the EPA's fault. It's not the consumers fault they're looking for a reliable truck. It's unreasonable to expect the consumer to pay $15000+ for a replacement engine AND repair to the emissions equipment because "**** happens". The majority of people deleting are going for the stock tune or a tow tune because they know this equipment is shortening the life of their truck. I don't want to drop 70k every 5 years on a new one. I want one that's going to last 15 years, then I give it to my kids or use it as a farm truck.

What can the EPA do? Encourage manufacturers to not slap a bandaid like DEF and SCR on the problem. Take into account what the impact of bandaids do to the market, to the consumer and to the environment.

 

That's life. Nothing is for sure. If you are expecting a sure thing, your going to be disappointed. I've seen people with totally stock $100k+ cars with less then 4 months ownership and have 9 printed pages of DTCs. It happens. It sucks.

Unfortunately, people also look for "reliability" in the wrong places. They fall for PR.

First, I don't believe the majority consider a stock tune when going for aftermarket tuning. Maybe, maybe just a tow tune. I've seen far more "say" that they are just doing that with regard to a tow tune on boards like this one. But not keep it on stock tuning. They can't really do that anyway, because of deleting said equipment, so they already can't do a stock tune in that regard (in the most strictest of sense of stock). Now, talking about off board, just out and about. Shoot, most are on at minimum street tunes.

If one is that worried about it, de-tune the friggin' thing. It already has far more HP then what is needed for what trucks were original designed to do, which is haul things.

Part of the problem wasn't only the EPA, it was also Ford pushing HP levels to absurd ratings, because that is what was selling. Then you had people that weren't really working these trucks to help clear out these parts, using them as grocery getters and idling them excessively without a high idle circuit.

 

Another link that all may have seen:

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/sct-bully-dog-tuners-fined-epa/

I don't see how they can get all the flash tuners already sold with custom tuning already up and running working fine. My truck has 38k + miles on it and I'm doing research on deletes if and when I need it. All I'd want is a 0hp or modest low smoke tow tune. I'm no tree hugger at all, but it's the guys running the race or performance tunes that are dirty tunes which roll coal to make all of us diesel truck owners look bad.

It's crazy to me how the emissions equipment is only warrantied for 5 years or 50k miles. I learned the hard way by thinking an extended warranty would cover the emissions stuff for 7 years or 125k miles. Boy, was I wrong.

I was talking with a friend of mine owns a collusion shop and he was fixing his niece's car, a newer model Ford Escape. It had blackened tail pipes. Then the paint salesman spoke up and said his new Ford Edge is the same. I'm now going to start looking at all the newer cars out there for evidence of the same thing because:

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a22974104/black-exhaust-pipes-car-direct-injection/

They are running cleaner and still produce some soot. But yet our modern diesel trucks are so tightly filtered because of this that we have filters. I get that our engines produce more soot than these modern DI engines, but there's more of them than modem day diesels. What's good for the goose...

Just venting I guess. I'm all for clean Air but the gov't is definitely straddling the consumers with the cost of what it takes to run these emissions on our trucks, the extra fuel, and extra maintenance for the upkeep of these systems.

Besides, our 6.7s run really, REALLY well deleted. It doesn't have to swallow its own feces. Plus all these global warming stuff doesn't help with the powers that be scaring everyone out of their minds with their nonsense. But I digress.... Just my 2 cents.

 

Around here there are mobile testing stations that test as you run through the on/off ramp etc. Even though there is no diesel testing for vehicles over 10.5K, they still give fines if testing shows things out of whack.


Why a smoke tune at all, even a modest one? That'll still draw attention to you, regardless if your full on out rolling coal or not. That adds to the perception of dirty diesel owners.

Law makers tend to be behind the times (probably still think of diesel engines from their childhood versus how they are now).

While there are more passenger vehicles out there. Which demographic is more fond of rolling smoke, gas burners or diesel burners?


Mine runs fine bone stock.

Regardless about global warming and it's validity, I prefer clean air with a good degree of visibility. I hope that my kids would be able to enjoy that as well.

 

When I said a modest, low smoke tow tune, what I meant was little to no smoke. That doesn't mean I prefer smoke or want it. That's nowhere near rolling coal. This also doesn't mean I prefer deleted over running stock. Like I said, this would possibly be done if I had problems down the line, as I am still under warranty. The problem I have is that emissions equipment is only warrantied for half of what your drivetrain is. That's a scam right there in my eyes.

My truck runs fine too stock. I don't want more noise and big horsepower. What I'd like is more reliability and life. I'd also get a muffler on the delete pipe to sound stock like. I'm for clean Air also but I don't agree with a concept that says you need to burn more of a non renewable resource to meet emissions. It is what it is, I get it.

Diesel moves the world from big trucks, trains, planes and ships, etc. If that's the case with lawmakers, they need to wake up and realize that the rest of the world like Mexico, Cuba, Russia and China need to do the same as we are.

In my wonderful state of Taxation, New York, we have adopted the CARB laws. But we dont have sniffers here in Western New York but the big Apple and surrounding area does. I see a lot of trucks around my area deleted. I wouldn't want the big 5" pipe or a 6" tip. I'd want to fly under the radar with the stock tailpipes.

Not trying to get into a debate over climate change, but if these climate change peeps and the one world gov't crowd take over, we might have clean Air but this country would look like Venezuela under those progressive views.

As for the gas burners, I just found it amusing that new cars have black tailpipes. That's all.

 

FYI the CARB standard is the US Federal standard.

 

FYI, CARB laws are stricter than the Federal standard. They are stricter with hydrocarbons and NOX emissions.

New York State of Taxation is one of 13 states that have adopted Cali's laws. The District of Columbia also follows them.

 

This is what CARB thinks of the little guy trying to make a living out in the wonderful state of California. There are plenty more of these videos.

https://youtu.be/hDTZkLh0WK0

I'm at work on my cell so this link won't work. Just copy and paste it.

 

You are misinformed. Re-read my post.

CARB laws are not stricter than federal because the CARB standard IS THE FEDERAL STANDARD. The CARB standard is the FEDERAL STANDARD for all 50 states. No such thing as 49 state legal anymore.

FYI - New York uses the CARB Federal emissions standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...sion_standards

 

Okay so I went to the Wiki link and this is the first thing I see:

United States emission standards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2009)This article needs to be updated. (November 2010But okay, I read anyhow...

Motor vehicles[edit]

Due to its preexisting standards and particularly severe motor vehicle air pollution problems in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, the U.S. state of California has special dispensation from the federal government to promulgate its own automobile emissions standards. Other states may choose to follow either the national standard or the stricter California standards. The states that have adopted the California standards are: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico (2011 model year and later), New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.[1]
[2]
[3] Such states are frequently referred to as "CARB states" in automotive discussions because the regulations are defined by the California Air Resources Board.



Then there's this statement which I want to see if it's true or not.


The EPA has adopted the California emissions standards as a national standard by the 2016 model year[4]


So the Reference link (4) is supposed to take you to this link which I had to find myself because the link did not work on Wikipedia:


https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/...y=P100AKHW.PDF


So, as I read this EPA document which is supposed to prove that in fact, The EPA has adopted the California emissions standards as a national standard by the 2016 model year, it does not. There is no mention of CARB laws after the first page here:


EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are finalizing a joint rule to establish a national program consisting of new standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy. EPA is finalizing the first-ever national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and NHTSA is finalizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

The new standards apply to new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The EPA GHG standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO2 level all through fuel economy improvements.

These final rules were developed in response to President Obama’s call for a strong and coordinated federal greenhouse gas and fuel economy program. At the same time, the national program allows automobile manufacturers to build a single light duty national fleet that satisfies all requirements under both Federal programs and the standards of the State of California and other states that have adopted the California standards. The national program therefore provides critical nationwide environmental and energy benefits while ensuring that consumers have a full range of vehicle choices
and is collaborating with California regulators on stricter national emissions standards for model years 2017–2025.[5]


So, in fact, CARB standards ARE NOT the new Federal standard. This article here, in fact begs to differ that point:


https://www.dmv.org/articles/epa-emi...dards-revision



One last comment here so I can post the beginning of the second page text which is this:



Need to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Improve Fuel Economy from Passenger Cars and Light Trucks


The rules will simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy security, increase fuel savings, and provide clarity and predictability for manufacturers.


Climate change is one of the most significant long-term threats to public health and the global environment. It is caused by an excess of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which effectively trap some of the Earth’s heat that would otherwise escape into space. Greenhouse gases are both naturally occurring and anthropogenic. Greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activities include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.


The key effects of climate change observed to date and projected to occur in the future include, but are not limited to, more frequent and intense heat waves, more severe wildfires, degraded air quality, heavier and more frequent downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, continued ocean acidification, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems.


I am all for cutting back on dangerous compounds to keep the environment, water, our lungs and our children safe, but the hysterical nature of this political agenda is not based on facts but on projections. I am going to leave it at that.