Dodge is getting all the emissions junk next year too. Like we all didn't already know that.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../60703012/1041

 

I posted this in the 6.4 section as well. Sorry, jschira, didn't see that you posted it here this A.M....

It is a good read regarding all the BIG 3.

 

We all knew the particulate filters were coming. Its to reduce the small particles that are linked to cancer. The reason that UL sulphur diesel was mandated.

All trucks will likely have them and all are new, because of the ultra low sulphur. Its also the reason why 1/2 ton trucks and cars now have a chance as with lower EPA emissions will allow more vehicles to be sold.

 

So, particulate filters and emissions tree hugging equipment saves the environment, yet it reduces power and efficiency in the engine, so they are putting BIGGER engines in to overcome this...which i guess in turn will use MORE fuel, just because of the size increase....how ironic. Wow...the EPA, what joke....problem solvers, these guys.

 

Without reasonable controls, the air would be a constant grey. That is not a maybe but a certainty. Death from polution would be the number one problem in the world today.

I can see 20 miles from my roof to the city of Dallas most days. I could not see 2 miles if there were no catalytic converters and the cleaner burning power plants and manufacturing plants.

Say what you want. I am not going to complain about clean air. There are better cleaner solutions but I am not so sure shrinking populations and horses are going to be an option that many people would want.

 

Ag Ford, it is only known to cause cancer in CA though.

Dspencer, have you any idea how much polution is produced making 1 gallon of fuel? After reading your post, it is appearant that you do not. If all OTR trucks were getting 10 MPG instead of 5 mpg and all light truck Diesels got 30 instead of 17 mpg, it would save the envionment way more than particulate filters, egr valves, and ulsd combined, also with the money the big 3 saved by not putting this crap on our trucks, they could have built 7 new state of the art emmission friendly refineries, or probably 30 bio diesel refineries. I guess as long as you can see 20 miles to Dallas, thats good enough though, don't want to push the envelope. Cars in europe don't have c.c's on them, and PCB's are not hazardous over there. Makes me wonder sometimes about the EPA, and the sheep that believe what they say.

Ryan

 

Your mpg numbers are dreamed up of course. The non pollution controlled older diesels like mine do not get the number you speak of. Pollution controls devices on light trucks have only recently been added. The highest mpg diesel that I know of that is a full sized truck is the older dodges. No 30 mpg trucks there and they were pigs compared to the 300 plus horsepower trucks of today.
I'm sure if your analysis were valid there would be somebody of knowledge that would bring these numbers forward. Don't you? That the total pollution produced today is higher because of all the controls we have? You would win a prize of some sort but that is only if it had some merit. I cannot read one scientific study or reliable source that would agree with you. Sierra club? Greenies? Are they all in the dark as well and you can straighten them out?

Cars in Europe have been using 50ppm diesel for the last number of years and today we have just started using the ulsd that is 15ppm. Before this June the American standard was 500 ppm. The high sulphur makes PM traps unusable as they clog them up so now its going to get better, cleaner.


Catalytic Converters have been a requirement in Europe since 1986. At least that is what I just read on two sources I googled up.

Its not just the EPA. I have not read much in the way of reducing pollution by removing pollution control devices. Try to get some reading on that, I think you will have a short read.

Oh yeah, I tried to find something on PCB's in Europe and all I could find said they have stopped using them. There are high levels is fish and wildlife, as well as breast milk. PCB's are used in circuit boards and I'm no expert but from what I read it seems that much of the pollution from that is when old electronics are dumped.

I don't see much of what you said in the way of any scientists or intellectuals writing about it. I don't know where you get your information and I am by no means an expert on this subject but I do believe if your argument had some merit there would be a movement to do away with pollution controls. I will wait and see.

I don't think I am a sheep and I don't listen to one source. I do try to deduce from the mass of sources available to me the logical answer to my questions. In this case I think I will stay on the pollution control side.

 

How do you know the technology doesn't exist? OTR trucks used to get close to that before the new emissions laws. Let me make it a little more simple for you. Say their goal was to reduce emissions in the OTR trucks 25% by this year with the roll out of the ULSD and the controls they put in place starting 3 years ago. Now that same truck uses twice the fuel, therefore actually putting out more emisssions than it did without the emisions crap. Let alone the emissions (that is not governed by the EPA, of course you knew this though right?) and energy used to make the additional fuel. Do some real reading about the levels of nOX and the other gasses they are trying to reduce. Then look at the actual numbers. (you know kinda like the EPA estimated gas mileage sticker!!), I remember not to long ago Hot Rod magazine did a story on a 1976 350 chevy motor in new stock trim, and then they built it like you would for a hot rod. They had the CHP sniff both of them. The built motor was far less polutant than the stock motor. Hence the treehuggers were sent into shock and the CARB was formed. They now can use performance enhancing parts that help clean up emissions.


Ryan

 

No...OTR trucks never got anywhere near 10mpg.

The pollution information I have read has never compared pollution per gallon but compared with or without a device or fuel change. They do measure total pollution for the vehicle, not for the gallon. Both your posts have mentioned pollution as if its measured at per gallon....never ever read that one.

Particulate traps can be as efficient as 99 percent. That means that on a diesel like my Dodge which gets 20 miles per gallon, you have one that needs to get 1/5 mile per gallon to be comparable. I think they are going to do better than that, don't you.

I doubt seriously if you are not just making your case up as you go. Do some reading, plenty to be done on the web.

Airborne pollution in the US is lower than 30 years ago. The number of vehicles in the US has more than tripled in the same time period. How did that happen? Mostly by emission controls.

 

Got some bad news for ya, I had a 76 LNT9000 ford with a 290hp cummins in it that got 8mpg, I currently drive a 2005 volvo with egr valves etc that gets 5.5-6 so for a 25% increase in the amount of fuel I burn I get to reduce the emissions by .05% (the actual numbers that were put out by EPA on how much these new emissions controls will reduce the amount of actual pollution put out by OTR trucks, although I see that particular number has been recently deleted and replaced with something along the lines of considerable reduction in polution) They used to claim that the reduction in sulfar in the fuel was to reduce sulfar dioxide emission until it was pointed out enough times that Mt St Helens produced more sulfar dioxide on May 18th 1980 than all the internal combustion engines of any type ever produced have put out in all of history. They also claimed that NOx emissions were a ozone depleting gas, yet now it's a ozone precursor, sorry it can't be both a depleting gas and a gas that makes ozone at the same time. And the statement by Volvo on the big trucks is to expect a 10-15% reduction in fuel economy on the new engines so thats even more fuel that will be burned, lets put this into prospective for you, there are approx 2million OTR trucks in this country and to round things out they burn approx 100 gallons of fuel per day average so thats 200 million gallons of fuel per day and you are going to increase that amount by 10-15% (that is if ever truck was to instantly convert we know it won't happen but this is the end result of what epa is mandating) so your increasing the fuel that has to be refined, and is then burnt by 20-30 million gallons a day thats 7.3 - 10.95 BILLION gallons per year.
As far as sieara club knowing anything, yeah right, read closely what they believe, first and formost is do anything possible to completly stop all internal combustion engines using any science with it's proved correct or proved wrong or not proved at all as long as it supports thier cause. they also have stated that all states west of the Mississippi with the exception of California should be returned to nature and man should be forced to leave the area. They also believe that all industry should be shut down because it is destroying the world and has been stated by one senior member that the best thing that can happen to planet earth is for man to become extinct. I have dealt with those idiots for over 20 yrs and heard all of thier rants etc, they really do believe that man is the scourage of the earth and should be irradicated and will use any method wether legit or not to accomplish the goal of putting us back into the dark ages. Talk about a group with an agenda.

 

Oh I want to point out some more science for you, it was studied and found out that we have reduced particulate emission in the atmosphere to a level that is less than in anytime since we started measuring it, and guess what the reduction in atmospheric particals is reducing the amount of radiation from the sun that is reflected back into space and is a major player in global warming, this was discovered by one of the "scientist" that is trying to prove man is causing the end of the world, bet you didn't hear that one in the news, it's kinda been buried but you can still find it. also did you know that even before the latest round of emissions controls for gas motors that the air that went into the aircleaner was dirtier than what comes out that tail pipe, and it's not good enough. Guess what it will never be good enough as long as man is still moving around and has a economy at all.

Here is one source for some of that info I just posted, you will notice that guy that started it was ignored for many, many years.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2.../keen-dimming/

 

First of all and the easiest way to dispute your most untrue claim that the air going in is dirtier than the air going out.......Fill a room and breath it for a while. I don't think I'll bite on that one. Should be easy enough to check out though. Find the emissions limits to a vehicle and compare it to air...I'm not sure but I doubt the raw air is dirtier but I'll wait on your data.

While the diesel engines on the road account for approximately 6 percent of miles driven they also account for one quarter of smog causing pollution and one half of the soot. The total emissions that are now being done are to reduce the pollution from diesel engines by reducing by 95 percent of the Nitrogen oxides and 90 percent of the soot. Much cleaner.

I am not in the trucking business but know a couple including my neighbor down the street who has been in the business for 30 years and operates 4 trucks. I will ask him. When I was in college many years ago I thought a 6.5mpg truck was golden. Maybe I was wrong but 8 and 10 is still a big difference. A friend of mine who drives a gravel hauler said he used to drive a long haul Volvo that would get 7 but I though he was just bragging.



What your numbers for efficiency say is that 10-15 percent reduction in mpg at 2 million vehicles running 100 mpg per day so you are burning 10-15 more gallons to reduce pollution by 90 to 95 percent....

I still have heard no answer about how with the numbers of cars on the road today and the amount of fuel being burned how the air is cleaner if not for pollution control devices along with cleaner fuels. It doesn't just happen. Something had to do it.

 

first off, were in the world did you get the 90% reduction for the diesel engines, and even if it reduced a diesel engines production of emissions by 99.999999% it still don't mean squat go look up what percentage diesel engines produce on total pollution in this country and you will fint it is less than 1% of the total so you are increasing the 10 billion gallons per year fuel usage for less than a 1% reduction in total pollution, yep that makes good sense, expecially since refinaries account for 8% of the total pollution produced in this country and you want ot increase thier output by burning more fuel thus you will save by your numbers .9% out of the trucks and increase by 2% the pollution from refinaries. This is typical of short sighted type of things the EPA and searra club puts out.
As far as pollution put out vs input into the engine. look at the allowable pollutants out the tail pipe, then go look at the air quality report for LA and you will see exactly what I mean, while you are at it look up attempted suicides by car and you will find huge numbers of people that tried to commit suicide by running a car in a closed garage and weren't succesfull, why you ask cause the exhaust is not fatal anymore and all that happens is they get a killer headache and get sick but not dead.
There comes a point of diminisiioning returns, and the epa has reached it and surpassed it by a long shot. When you waste huge amounts of natural recourses and money to achieve a minor less than 1% reduction you are not bieng efficient. You want effiecent take away the red tape involved in building new more effiecent and cleaner refinaries and provide some incentives to do this and you will see more than a 1% reduction in total emission in this country. Or how about this make military vehicles meet emissions requirements, or how about jets, ever see how much pollution comes out the back of a 767 on take off, give you a hint more than a semi will produce all year, and thats just one take off or worse yet say a F15 that puts out more pollution on one take off than a 747 will in an entire trans pacific flight. This is the pont they are costing american people billions of dollars per year for very minimal gains at this point instead of actually doing anything. Then there is always the point that right now we are the cleanest nation on the face of the planet, yet we are the only ones that are required to clean up at whatever the cost, got news for you does the term GLOBAL warming mean anything to you, like it's a GLOBAL PROBLEM (if you actually believe the junk science used to prove it)
Yes emissions controls have helped clean things up, but don't keep looking for more and more when the amount put out by cars and trucks is such a small percentage of the total as to not really make a blip on the statistics while increasing thier use of fuel that is drilled, refined, hauled (ever see how much pollution a fuel oil ship puts out?) that puts out way more pollution than all the trucks in this country combined yet you are perfectly ok with burning more fuel evne though it statically will actually increase the total production of pollution by several times the amount it will reduce it.

 

http://www.dieselnet.com/papers/9812mayer.html

http://www.dieselnet.com/papers/9812mayer.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...esel-rule.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...cks-buses.html

Here's why
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148403,00.html

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/...contentid=4490

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/101/106041.htm

http://www.catf.us/publications/view/83

 

I know better than get into these enviromental aurguments. The statistics used are pretty well twisted, and changed to meet the agenda's
I have just one thing to say, we the american people are going to pay big time to little benifit, yet have you ever watched the space shuttle take off? Or a volcano erupt? I have in both cases (I was less than 50 mile away from mt st helens when it blew it's top)