When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
i guess what happens is that the rigs run at higher power because it takes more power to push the exhaust through the cleaning crap, thus taking more fuel to make more power to make cleaner emissions. i think i confused myself.
Ther thing is through all the new emission crap even though more fuel being burnt it is all burnt, rather then a older motor not all the fuels are burnt. Instead of burning the fuel the reminents are simply thrown into the aomsphere.
Like everything I say this is what I would assume, I don't do research on this kinda crap like other people.
The powers that make the rules want clean stuff coming out the back and if it means burning more fuel to do it they dont care. What a crock - I would like to stir the pot enough to get the 'extreme environmental lobbyists' scrapping! It would be sweet to see friction internally for them about this more fuel vs cleaner emissions reality. Dont get me wrong - I think changes need to be made so we dont impact the environment as harshly as we have in the past. Did anyone hear the comments made on Barrett Jackson last night by Jay Leno regarding the demise of performance vehicles that may happen because of something like CAFE 35 or something like that. They were talking about the supercharged vette and how this may be the last of the high performance era????
once again i say... good points, but do we really think governments and oil companies want us to durastically lower our fuel consumption?? no. valuable $$$ will be lost temporarialy until they raise taxes or something. i laugh at saskenergy last year, and i quote "due to the decrease in consumption we've been forced to apply for a rate increase of 15%" uummmhmmm. so why in the heck do we all buy energy efficient appliances if they aren't going to save us a penny??? rant over...probably makes no sense anyway, but thanks.
With the price of oil pretty much at 100 bucks a barrel, they want the demand to stay high and collect on it - the governments too, royalties and everything.
----still makes absolutely no sense, more fuel burnt and the emissions are lower! In the long run, I wonder if the measured pollutants off the exhaust would be more or less when compared to previous diesels; I mean say over a year both vehicles and total emissions. We already know the new trucks will burn more fuel...
either way, we'll never hear about it cause the minute someone set up a legit system to measure and record such data they'd be squashed i'm sure. the powers that be are happy with the way they can manipulate things to their financial benifet. look at al gore...
100 bucks a barrell i crazy i tell yeah my dad remembers it being 20-25 bucks a barrell when he was in the oil field that was like 10 years ago maybe less
The European diesel engines are so much ahead of us. I beleive they inject urea (a form of nitrogen fertilizer) into the exhaust - some chemistry occurs - and the byproducts of combustion are okay. (cant remember any high school or university chemistry but you remember how that works). The urea is a service item that gets topped up at normal service intervals! Honda has something called Bluetec or something like that where nothing needs to be added - doesnt surprise me that they are even further ahead!
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.