Glider, Pre-EGR and Passive DPF.

A couple of items for thought:
1. The current emissions technology has been in use in Europe for 10 or more years. So the argument that the OEM's in this country are overwhelmed by the fast pace of the changes in the US in not entirely true. All the engines/drivetrains are very similar to their European counterparts.
2. It is obvious from the last election that this trend is going to continue. Trucks are going to be more expensive to purchase and maintain on a per mile basis in the future. The rates will reflect this, usually on a delayed basis. Pick your business model accordingly. One thing you are not likely able to do is charge premium rates running anything other than the latest in safety, fuel economy and emissions.
3. The OEM's are having a heck of a time with new stuff, what makes you think that a smaller company can design, engineer and build an add on component such as a DPF for a 1998 truck when the rest of the engine was simply not designed with that in mind. Several have already gone bankrupt in the California market trying.

Making these predictions is not unique to the trucking industry. All businesspersons in this country have been remarking on the uncertainty of the business climate, and how it is affecting their strategic decisions. It is a risk/reward thing. There is no easy answer.

 

Just as with EOBR the answers lie with following the money trail........who gains or benefits from having a particular technology chosen as the winner by the govt. regulators versus the rest of the field......what's best for the public interest is merely a cover story...........greed, lies, corruption........it's the American Way!!

 

Game is over. Mechanic wins. Regular Joe can't fix his own car, or truck, anymore.

 

There is mention of court cases that say CARB can do this so I'm curious where there is a court case that says CARB rules and regs actually apply to trucks that are registered outside of the state and fulfils the EPA requirements for the date of manufacturer?

I have only found the ruling about the ports and a case that have been taken up by the ethanol produces in Iowa under the issue of unfair trade by circumventing the interstate commerce clause. The former case was turned down by the SC and the 9th district court ruled in favor of CARB but that isn't over with. The latter case is still being played out and hopefully will kill the idea that CARB rules our trucks. Both of these cases bring up the very issues that have to do with supremicy of federal laws and the Constitution that we directly operate under but more importantly gives the power to regulate interstate trucking.