Banning all old trucks after 2015?

Don't want to hijack this thread, but: this is one of the reasons IMHO aqueous fuels present such high potential. If you get you MEP in the cylinder by heating Nitrogen (i.e. air) you have the potential to waste a lot of the oxygen required for combustion since conditions are now right to for NOx compounds instead of the desired CO2 and H2O. If one chooses to get your cylinder pressure by heating some water, the pressure will rise when converting water to steam, but the temperature will not due to heat required for change of phase - thus leaving O2 free to burn fuel and eliminating (yes, you can almost ELIMINATE) NOx.

In other words, we are still searching around for the right solutions as to how to burn distillate fuels in CI engines - and IMHO we are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to how to achieve emission goals.

 

The PVC system came out of WW2 but wasn't used until 1960 or '61 in California. There was some research done on smog that proved draft tubes were the major cause of it and not much more. (we still have smog in LA, right?) It is listed as an option for many 50's cars for some reason while California enacted the law for 1961 cars, a few states asked for it to be added. The auto companies complied by adding it as standard equipment for California cars and made it an option (dealer or factory installed).

However the auto companies didn't want to continue research into pollution control devices and ended up being investigated by the justice department in 66 which ended in no charged being filed but a consent decree that they will for the next ten years independently but that didn't stop the government from enacting pollution control requirements for cars and safety equipment (in '68).

The EGR system was a result of that consent decree and started I think in 1969 or '70 on a couple cars but by '73 it appeared on a lot of cars.

 

PCV, not PVC. LOL.

and it was 62 in california. according to the emissions class i had to take to get certified back in 88. they also talked about cali wanting the EGR. cali also eliminated the vacuum advance on distributors. kept everyone at a 55 speed limit. and even banned vehicles from towing.

according to that emissions class. that was all before my time. so, who knows.

i don't see the air any cleaner now, though, then when i first started trucking 15 years ago.

and for all those who don't think old trucks might get banned. remember the cash for clunkers program not too long ago. to boost sales for new autos. when the bankrupcty thing happend. not saying that'll happen with trucks. but i wouldn't put it past the gooberment to do something to get rid of older models. that was a lot of old cars that ended up in heaven with froze up motors. i talked to one guy that owns a wrecking yard. they had to put glass beads in the motors and run em till they froze up. the gooberments safety clause to make sure those old motors were never put to use again.

 

Cash for clunkers did not ban vehicles that never got traded in under that program. There are still a lot of vehicles running around that would have fit under than program. The Cash For Clunkers deal was solely to promote new auto sales during the economic downturn. True, the cars that got traded in under that program were junked, but no one was forced to trade and existing vehicles that didn't get traded are still not banned.

 

I always wondered about the burning of more fuel causing a bigger potential for more undesirable emissions, nox and others. Even if you were cleaning it up to some extent. I guess I'm looking at it the wrong way. If you burn 10 gallons of fuel with less emissions, that's better than burning 7 gallons with more emissions to some extent. There's clearly some winners in that scenario, big oil companies and environmentalists. Not that there is anything wrong with cleaner air, like you and others are saying, looks like there are several better ways of getting it done. Next step, natural gas, it's been on the back burner for decades. Wonder when it will take over?

 

I have long said send those commies packing.

 

You are on the right track with Positive crankcase ventilation (PCV). The state of California was able to demonstrate to regulators in Washington DC starting in 1961 that their very peculiar set of geographic and atmospheric conditions, particularly in Southern California caused much higher levels of pollution and affected public health. They continued to add regulations, with some thinking they have gone too far, some not far enough.
Companies are beginning to vote with their $. Toyota just announced moving their HQ from California to Texas and taking 5000 jobs with them.
Several other areas, notably the northeast section of the country have attempted but failed to get the same still environmental regulations put in place. They have not been able to prove that they have a severe a set of conditions.
We will see if the EPA is able to force retrofits nationwide, in this divided political environment I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

Just what exactly did SAC do?

Out-of-State carriers get to run each truck up to 5000 miles a year with pre-CARB rigs....
NAFTA trucks have unlimited miles.....
Designated Bizzes have the choice of exemptions or low-interest loans...

The only ones who have to abide by CARB are the carriers who aren't in the above criteria....

 

So the UCR be dayumed Ray?....

 

I'll agree to that when states like OR follow the rules for O/D banners.....
When AL stops the bull shot of making 'Bedders being registered to haul coils in their jurisdiction and making us sign our permits in red ink.....