Glider, Pre-EGR and Passive DPF.

The writing is on the wall as far as CARB goes. It's just a matter of WHEN not IF the rest of the country follows suit. These conversations about how to evade emmisions controls on trucks remind me the same conversations I heard about car emmisions in the 1970's. Every backyard mechanic thought they had an answer. And what did they accomplish? Nothing. I mean honestly, does anybody mess with the emmisions equipment on their car anymore? Only if they're stupid. And cars today run better, last longer, and pollute less than their forerunners in the 70's. Just give it up. The game is over. I can't wait to hear the blowback from the backyard mechanic bunch.

 

Todays trucks have greatly improved from just 15 years. Used to always see trucks belching black smoke today it is greatly reduced. Remember all the whining on going to ulsd and how its not going to fly. Well its the standard today so don't say never with the gov.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2

 

Well said. Unfortunately those guys will be around for another 10 years before they either accept it or go broke avoiding the states and ports that require pollution control. In reality the Federal government will adopt CARB's rules (they already have Federal laws regarding tampering with pollution control devices and ALL new trucks have it). First impressions last a long time and the first impression of EGR and DPF was not a good one.

To your point about cars, in fact many people buy old 60's cars and put new drivetrains in them... Seems opposite from what the trucking industry does. Wait till someone builds a class 8 engine that gets 15MPG. You'll see 90's trucks putting new engines in them.

 

Well, when we have almost 30 years of refinement in emissions technology on heavy duty diesel engines, then it may be right that no one will have any issues buying a class 8 truck with the latest emissions technology. But until then, the avoidance of this stuff or bypassing it will continue. Everything done in life is based on the reward it gets. I have no problem letting the fleets and others be guinea pigs until all the bugs are worked out of emissions components. And those of us doing this have nothing to worry about regarding freight and such if we were diligent enough to see this coming from a long way off and develop an operation that makes it easy to avoid CA, ports, etc that this stuff is pushed. Those that rely on spot market stuff, they will have a more difficult time unless they go with emissions laden trucks.

I bought a glider with pre-emission engine late last year. No regrets. And it will give me quite a few years more to let the technology to get better on emission trucks. When, and if, it comes time to buy another truck, then I might just consider a new production truck with emissions devices. We'll just have to see what transpires in the next few years. Personally, I know that this emission stuff can be done sensibly and the technology will allow for engines that get good mpg, and experience few problems associated with emissions devices. But there is also the government and how it feels it can best decide how this is done. It really isn't like the OEM's are in full control of how to reduce emissions. What should have happened was just the mandates to reduce emissions, and then let the OEM's have full control over how it is done, with no government interference except in the results. As long as government hacks are the final arbiters of what is allowed to be used on an engine to get the results, we will have problems. I prefer to let all this settle out and let those who choose to roll the dice with this stuff and hope for the best take all the risks.

Guess that is why I held onto my '68 Camaro and '72 Nova for as long as I did and let the problems be worked out with emissions on cars. True, I have no problem with the emissions stuff on cars now, but I did not waste my time and money during the early years of emissions stuff and the problems were worked out.

 

AFAIK, the EPA did only regulate what comes out the tail pipe and not the methodology. Everybody used DPF, EGR, DEF, etc. because that is where technology is at currently. Some folks tried something without DEF, BUT that seems to work better, etc. Nobody has come up with any radical way to move beyond these technologies, at least not yet, again, AFAIK, EPA didn't say put EGR and a DPF on every truck, what they did say was limit your particulates and your NoX, etc.

TS

 

Correct,sir.

EPA'10 and EURO 6 are about the same.(EURO 6 is a little strickter but not much)
Volvo's EPA'10 is EGR,Variable turbo and DEF.
Now most were expecting Volvo to use their North American engine in Europe (as did Mercedes with the DD and Paccar with the MX).
They didn't.
The Volvo EURO6 is a fixed turbo(old school) NON EGR engine with DEF.
This means that in theory you can have a EPA10 compliant engine without EGR and with fixed turbo.

 

Spot on my friend and I live in CA but my old 2002 Century with the nice little 7mpg DDECIV 12.7 500hp is gonna stay this way and I will continue to rebuild it......I will park my truck in Vegas and fly home or drive if need be, plus my transportation to and from the truck is all write off......Thanks CARB for helping me reduce my net taxable income!! mmmmm yea, dinner at Emeril's or Ruth's Chris, a little vino and a nice cab ride to the airport, a little R&R on the plane ride to Sac.......then back again......I'm liking this more and more........

 

True to a point. The EPA does have a very heavy hand in what is used to get the job done. For instance, they will only approve SCR using DEF (notice I did NOT say that they would only approve SCR and nothing else.. stay focused class), but they will not approve of SCR using cartridges of solidified urea in a matrix, that has been shown to do the identical job, is easier to manage, and only needs changed out during a normal service interval. Extra cartridges could be carried on the truck with no mess or risk of corrosive effects. Driver would only need to worry about the other stuff like fueling. A company called Amminex (a Dutch outfit) developed this cartridge solution a few years ago, and it is used quite a bit in Europe. And those Euro regulations can be a little tough also.

With ease of use, ease of storage, no risk of running out of DEF, been extensively tested and being used outside the U.S., no issues with freezing like with DEF, then why is the EPA not only approving, but encouraging the use of this type of technology? Ah, the customer would benefit, and we can't have that now, can we? Or maybe because all those DEF tanks had to be installed at the major fuel stops, and that is one more thing the EPA regulators will need to watch. In other words, job security? Humm. And the cartridge does such a good job at reducing NOx, that the EGR could be virtually eliminated on ALL internal combustion engines! Even the gassers would benefit. Oops, there is that nasty idea again.... the customer would benefit and wouldn't be worshiping at the EPA alter.

To be a little fair here, Amminex, along with some heavy capital from Navistar, is trying to get this technology approved for the U.S. market. But, as we all know, the red tape and such involving government agencies can be quite frustrating. That might be the surprise when they reintroduce the Maxxforce heavy engines again. And the saga continues....