# Looks like the EPA has finally had enough â€œdiesel tuningâ€...



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/ep...over-vehicle-emissions-control-defeat-devices

Looks like the camel finally got his nose inside the tent here, all the â€œcoal rollersâ€ finally got noticed by the EPA. That stuff has been dancing well past the line of legal for a long time now. This may end up being the end of emissions delete games before itâ€™s done with..


----------



## Knot Kidding (Jan 7, 2009)

I'm sure the "coal rollers" will chime in and cry about all the good they're doing to improve the quality of their performance vs EPA guide lines and how it's hurting the "long term" effects of their vehicles (even though I just switched to my 4th diesel with the last one over 452,000 mile with the factory DEF system still in place) when most of the either blow it up or pawn it off on some unsuspecting buyer that they've deleted everything for the good of mankind.


----------



## jimij (Jan 30, 2012)

*ðŸ'ðŸ'ðŸ'*

A big round of applause for reverend KK plz


----------



## sleepersilverado (Jun 27, 2011)

Happened a couple months ago. H&S was the first, then they got some other guys now sct. There will always be someone out there. 

Hell when the 17â€™s came out they were loading Mexico tunes in them.


----------



## Hayniedude24 (Jun 15, 2016)

jimij said:


> A big round of applause for reverend KK plz


Lol


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

sleepersilverado said:


> Happened a couple months ago. H&S was the first, then they got some other guys now sct. There will always be someone out there.
> 
> Hell when the 17â€™s came out they were loading Mexico tunes in them.


Derive just sent their dealers a letter in the last few days saying theyâ€™re locking down the software, and you have to get certified to different tiers of access: lowest tier will let you change tire size and such, then engine stuff that may affect emissions a bit, but is necessary for basic engine maintenance, then the last one is just â€œresearch and developmentâ€, that will let you delete components and such. I doubt a lot of coal rollers are going to qualify for that one..


----------



## Adobe 11SD (May 11, 2012)

jimij said:


> A big round of applause for reverend KK plz


:cheers:

Cause he knows that the reason everybody tuned their truck was to â€œroll coalâ€. There could have been absolutely no other reason than they wanted to damage the environment.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Adobe 11SD said:


> :cheers:
> 
> Cause he knows that the reason everybody tuned their truck was to â€œroll coalâ€. There could have been absolutely no other reason than they wanted to damage the environment.


 Thatâ€™s kind of similar to saying that tossing your whataburger wrapper out the window was okay since you had a reason to do it besides wanting to trash the roadways. As long as your truck gets clean, youâ€™re good, right?

Really, now, whatever your reasons, you had to know that this was coming, that the pile of EPA mandated stuff that you pulled out and threw into a pile on the garage floor was there for a reason other than to cramp your style, right? Sooner or later they were going to notice when you built an entire industry around openly, willingly, and blatantly violating their regulations...


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

They had to know this could happen. To each his own, I just never had a need for a truck that could pull a 40 year old oak out of the ground. 



These pesky Federal Laws affect us as drivers. A good example is ethanol in gasoline. The diesels have had their share too, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the trend continue to pursue diesel emissions.


----------



## mrsh978 (Apr 24, 2006)

Surprised that it didn't happen eons ago. I've had them ... got a 2017 f250. I just quit spending money - 900 ft lbs torque- can't say I need more and risk melting turbo and/ or eating trans with a hot tuner


----------



## dlbpjb (Oct 9, 2009)

mrsh978 said:


> Surprised that it didn't happen eons ago. I've had them ... got a 2017 f250. I just quit spending money - 900 ft lbs torque- can't say I need more and risk melting turbo and/ or eating trans with a hot tuner


Agreed,


----------



## Knot Kidding (Jan 7, 2009)

Adobe 11SD said:


> :cheers:
> 
> Cause he knows that the reason everybody tuned their truck was to â€œroll coalâ€. There could have been absolutely no other reason than they wanted to damage the environment.


No I completely understand that every high school kid wants their daily driver to be fast and loud. But you wouldn't strip the pollution devices off a gas vehicle (maybe add a chip) due to guidelines. I get it diesels haven't "ever" had those restrictions so companies have made millions convincing everyone that can do anything. The problem I see with that is rarely does anyone keep the stuff they pulled off, then when their tired of the truck (or more likely are having ongoing issues as a result and just want out) now they have a truck that the dealers don't want or so much has been done it that the new (unsuspecting) owner has to sort out their new headache. Removing the DEF, particulate filter, EGR and turning up the pump work great for a with a mild tune but everybody begins to think their 3/4 or 1ton is now a race truck so it gets turned up (that's when issues begin) as soon as a trans or rear end starts going bad....."dump it" on the market "advertised" $1000.00's spent on upgrades. (instead of saying "I'm tired of putting $$$ in it"!)


----------



## RockportRobert (Dec 29, 2006)

Whitebassfisher said:


> They had to know this could happen. To each his own, I just never had a need for a truck that could pull a 40 year old oak out of the ground. Your good fortune that you haven't, but you weren't in Rockport in the weeks/months following Harvey.
> 
> 
> These pesky Federal Laws affect us as drivers. A good example is ethanol in gasoline. The diesels have had their share too, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the trend continue to pursue diesel emissions.


No doubt on the last part!


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Knot Kidding said:


> No I completely understand that every high school kid wants their daily driver to be fast and loud. But you wouldn't strip the pollution devices off a gas vehicle (maybe add a chip) due to guidelines. I get it diesels haven't "ever" had those restrictions so companies have made millions convincing everyone that can do anything.


. Itâ€™s actually been illegal to tamper with any motor vehicle emissions equipment for pretty much ever: there was nothing in the clean air act that specified fuel. there just wasnâ€™t any significant enforcement for diesels, testing programs exempted them, etc... thatâ€™s all about to change, it seems.


----------



## Knot Kidding (Jan 7, 2009)

dwilliams35 said:


> . Itâ€™s actually been illegal to tamper with any motor vehicle emissions equipment for pretty much ever: there was nothing in the clean air act that specified fuel. there just wasnâ€™t any significant enforcement for diesels, testing programs exempted them, etc... thatâ€™s all about to change, it seems.


DOT roadside inspections look for missing parts (mainly the particulate filter)...get caught on that one with a load on your truck/trailer and I'm sure you'll feel it in your back pocket.


----------



## sleepersilverado (Jun 27, 2011)

When h&s got hit they started producing street tuners only. But someone had an algorithm you put the serial number in that made it a race tuner. 

As someone said the battle has been going on forever no matter the fuel type. I would bet most people on this thread have taken the cats off a gas motor some time in their life. 

Only way to stop it is emissions testing on diesels. Then there will always be someone that will have a work around. 

I am not a fan of all this stuff extending into the equipment and agriculture market.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Knot Kidding said:


> DOT roadside inspections look for missing parts (mainly the particulate filter)...get caught on that one with a load on your truck/trailer and I'm sure you'll feel it in your back pocket.


. That makes sense, youâ€™re illegally on the road without the stuff, no different than lights, brakes, etc..


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

sleepersilverado said:


> When h&s got hit they started producing street tuners only. But someone had an algorithm you put the serial number in that made it a race tuner.
> 
> As someone said the battle has been going on forever no matter the fuel type. I would bet most people on this thread have taken the cats off a gas motor some time in their life.
> 
> ...


 just depends on how they do it, I guess. If they end up with the hose on the tailpipe like gas inspections, itâ€™s pretty hard to get around that.


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

All I can say is F the EPA and F all the Gov control. If my 2012 emissions system costs 5600 to replace and delete costs 1200 that is a no brainer. What kills more people a car that does 200 from the factory, 0 to 60 in 3 sec or some coal rolling diesels. It is the endless pursuit of restrictions on your own property by the ever over reaching F tards at the EPA and Gov. If this offends you I'm sorry you voted for Beto and you can come hug my trees. Why is every heavy military vehicle made without emission controls and run on horribly polluting JP8? That is not something the EPA can control so they go after US citizens instead. Liberals will ruin us before we ever ruin the ozone. Soon your taxes will be paying for every low income immigrant non working pregnant non deserving failing non white or asain college grad.


----------



## Highflier (Jun 22, 2006)

lazytxfisher said:


> All I can say is F the EPA and F all the Gov control. If my 2012 emissions system costs 5600 to replace and delete costs 1200 that is a no brainer. What kills more people a car that does 200 from the factory, 0 to 60 in 3 sec or some coal rolling diesels. It is the endless pursuit of restrictions on your own property by the ever over reaching F tards at the EPA and Gov. If this offends you I'm sorry you voted for Beto and you can come hug my trees. Why is every heavy military vehicle made without emission controls and run on horribly polluting JP8? That is not something the EPA can control so they go after US citizens instead. Liberals will ruin us before we ever ruin the ozone. Soon your taxes will be paying for every low income immigrant non working pregnant non deserving failing non white or asain college grad.


U mad Bro??


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

Highflier said:


> U mad Bro??


If you own any large piece of land, any piece of land with a water resource or any land by a bay, river, creek, stream or pond one day you will deal with the EPA, the Army Corp of Engineers essentially is a wing of the EPA to harass land owners in Texas. Also if you own any shop the deals with molding boats from fiberglass the EPA will be up your A these are all issues widely discussed online by non tree hugging conservatives. These are just a couple of ways the EPA creates undue burden along with many others to US citizens in addition to the grossly restrictive Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and so one. The amount of money in surveys and studies it takes to deal with a EPA 404 permit is insane. The EPA won't even let you build a house if they think that the never been wet death valley of a wetland will hurt a bird or plant. I challenge you to buy river, lake or bayfront property and build without a 404 permit you will get smoked. This includes placing even one load of material not excavated from the land its self. Also you are not aloud to fill in ponds including those used for cattle or farming. Look online the EPA uses Google Earth to classify all bodies of water. If you think I'm wrong just call the USACE and ask if you can fill in a tank that is on ranch with no other water for 100 miles in either direction you will be shutdown. This is all just inline with the GOV restrictive posture against your personal property.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Rules*



lazytxfisher said:


> All I can say is F the EPA and F all the Gov control. If my 2012 emissions system costs 5600 to replace and delete costs 1200 that is a no brainer. What kills more people a car that does 200 from the factory, 0 to 60 in 3 sec or some coal rolling diesels. It is the endless pursuit of restrictions on your own property by the ever over reaching F tards at the EPA and Gov. If this offends you I'm sorry you voted for Beto and you can come hug my trees. Why is every heavy military vehicle made without emission controls and run on horribly polluting JP8? That is not something the EPA can control so they go after US citizens instead. Liberals will ruin us before we ever ruin the ozone. Soon your taxes will be paying for every low income immigrant non working pregnant non deserving failing non white or asain college grad.


While some of the rules and guidelines are whack tonsay the least, many others are needed. Sounds to me you are one of the reasons they are needed.


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

gater said:


> While some of the rules and guidelines are whack tonsay the least, many others are needed. Sounds to me you are one of the reasons they are needed.


Hahaha maybe. But that's issues for people like me and other commercial money making entities. You just stay in your lane and don't step out hate for you to understand the issues with people trying to develop large scale money making job providing projects.


----------



## kenny (May 21, 2004)

Ol' gater's developed a few large scale money making job providing projects, and done it according to the rules & regs.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

lazytxfisher said:


> Hahaha maybe. But that's issues for people like me and other commercial money making entities. You just stay in your lane and don't step out hate for you to understand the issues with people trying to develop large scale money making job providing projects.


. Okay, what other laws do you just ignore?


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

That's awesome I'm happy for him I'm sure he did a great job and everybody's real proud of it I could tell that you're especially Proud you're like a papa bear out to defend your little Cub


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

kenny said:


> Ol' gater's developed a few large scale money making job providing projects, and done it according to the rules & regs.





dwilliams35 said:


> . Okay, what other laws do you just ignore?


I never said I broke any laws that's just your assumption. Obviously any large scale projects have to abide by the laws at the EPA sets out place all I'm saying is that the laws are A little over reaching In particular for private citizens But also for large corporations as well like refineries and port terminals


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

lazytxfisher said:


> I never said I broke any laws that's just your assumption. Obviously any large scale projects have to abide by the laws at the EPA sets out place all I'm saying is that the laws are A little over reaching In particular for private citizens But also for large corporations as well like refineries and port terminals


Oh I did delete my diesel truck


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

lazytxfisher said:


> Oh I did delete my diesel truck


. Sorta like being kinda pregnant.


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

I get what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing wrong is wrong right is right laws are laws


----------



## BadBob (Dec 16, 2010)

lazytxfisher said:


> All I can say is F the EPA and F all the Gov control. If my 2012 *emissions system costs 5600 to replace* and delete costs 1200 that is a no brainer. What kills more people a car that does 200 from the factory, 0 to 60 in 3 sec or some coal rolling diesels. It is the endless pursuit of restrictions on your own property by the ever over reaching F tards at the EPA and Gov. If this offends you I'm sorry you voted for Beto and you can come hug my trees. Why is every heavy military vehicle made without emission controls and run on horribly polluting JP8? That is not something the EPA can control so they go after US citizens instead. Liberals will ruin us before we ever ruin the ozone. Soon your taxes will be paying for every low income immigrant non working pregnant non deserving failing non white or asain college grad.


why diesel trucks cost so much :headknock


----------



## owens33 (May 2, 2007)

I consider black smoke obnoxious and inconsiderate. I also intend to keep my '06 dodge/cummins for the rest of my life because it's exempt from these nanny laws. I consider the epa to be way too big and powerful


----------



## prokat (Jul 17, 2010)

owens33 said:


> I consider black smoke obnoxious and inconsiderate. I also intend to keep my '06 dodge/cummins for the rest of my life because it's exempt from these nanny laws. I consider the epa to be way too big and powerful


You might change your mind when or if that cp3 or injectors take a dump, talk about expensive.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## wbay2crowded (Jul 13, 2007)

Automotive engineers devote their careers to dialing in their products for a good combination of performance & longevity. They do so in order to sell more vehicles & make a better product than the next guy. 

I've had two 7.3's, a 6.4 (I think), and two 6.7's. No problems with any of them. But then again, I never considered re-engineering the engine. Leave 'em alone & they'll serve you well.


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

Cool story bro


----------



## jimij (Jan 30, 2012)

*Try this*



wbay2crowded said:


> Automotive engineers devote their careers to dialing in their products for a good combination of performance & longevity. They do so in order to sell more vehicles & make a better product than the next guy.
> 
> I've had two 7.3's, a 6.4 (I think), and two 6.7's. No problems with any of them. But then again, I never considered re-engineering the engine. Leave 'em alone & they'll serve you well.


Go to your local dealerships...Ford Chevy Dodge...and speak with the resident diesel guru mechanic. Have a conversation with these fellas about delete/tune. 
Report back. Thank you


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

I have to smog my 200 mph car every year and it hasn't killed anyone. F*** the coal rollers. I report every one of those douches I see as a gross polluter.


----------



## loco4fishn (May 17, 2010)

boom! said:


> I have to smog my 200 mph car every year and it hasn't killed anyone. F*** the coal rollers. I report every one of those douches I see as a gross polluter.


U suk!!!! Speed kills!!! Thatâ€™s a fact. I also drive a 06 dmax. Bone stock. For people like you, I wish I could blow more smoke into your 200mph convertible Barbie car.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

jimij said:


> Go to your local dealerships...Ford Chevy Dodge...and speak with the resident diesel guru mechanic. Have a conversation with these fellas about delete/tune.
> Report back. Thank you


. Youâ€™ll probably have to get them off the record now. Iâ€™m sure a lot of them are under gag rules on the subject now that it looks like theyâ€™re going to start fining some folks over it.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

loco4fishn said:


> U suk!!!! Speed kills!!! Thatâ€™s a fact. I also drive a 06 dmax. Bone stock. For people like you, I wish I could blow more smoke into your 200mph convertible Barbie car.


Well I have a bone stock 2017 6.7 as well and I bet you do wish you could! :wink:


----------



## hk (Oct 31, 2011)

boom! said:


> I have to smog my 200 mph car every year and it hasn't killed anyone. F*** the coal rollers. I report every one of those douches I see as a gross polluter.


Good job Boom.I report everyone of those I encounter also.Something mentally wrong with people who think thats cool.Inconsiderate IDIOTS.

Sent from my SM-G550T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

Hahahahaha another clueless liberal supporting big Gov. You report trucks for blowing black smoke? Don't step foot on any drilling or frac locations we don't want you sending reports. Also all the refinery flares and oilfield flares don't forget to report them too. You spend time reporting 0.0000000000000000001% of US polluting. Keep up the hard work dumb lib tard.


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

HK and Boom are actually EPA lackeys probably from California living on Gov checks that's why they have time to report diesel trucks blowing black smoke.


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

Reporting back mechanic says running without emission controls that heat your EGTs to 1000Â° probably extends your engine life by FORVER.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

lazytxfisher said:


> HK and Boom are actually EPA lackeys probably from California living on Gov checks that's why they have time to report diesel trucks blowing black smoke.


Uh, no, you're wrong. Boom aint no "libtard". You, though, come off as just a "tard" IMO. your 14 posts mean you know nada about who you bash on here and because you're butthurt because you broke the law and have been doing so and now beotch about it it and go all nuts shows you are likely the azzholey that loves spewing black, stinky smoke when you stomp the accelerator to show "you're cool". You aren't.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

There's a big difference between someone "rolling coal" and a well tuned, deleted truck. My 7.3 was prior to the emissions requirements and only made a small puff of smoke at the beginning of hard acceleration under load when the fueling was slightly ahead of the turbo spool up once it was tuned, that puff got even smaller with turbo and supporting upgrades and it was running almost a straight pipe from the turbo back.


If I had a deleted 6.7, it would also only be making a small puff of black smoke at the beginning of hard acceleration under load when properly tuned and it would be getting 2MPG better deleted than it did with the emissions in place.


Which brings up a question I've always wanted a definitive answer to. I agree that the trucks pollute less per gallon of fuel used with the emissions in place but, when you take into account the fact that they consume between 10% - 20% more fuel than they would without it, does requiring them really provide a net reduction of pollutants? Not only is the motor requiring more fuel to travel the same distance but, there's more fuel required to be refined and transported. Refining more means more power consumption and transportation means more diesel fuel consumed by semi trucks that are large enough to be exempt from the emissions rules so I'm not sure that the air is better with emissions requirements for diesel trucks. I'm not good enough at math to answer the question though.


I do know that the systems not only make the motors less efficient but are also hard on them. Diesels require heat and compression to operate efficiently and the EGR reduces heat in order to help in the reduction of Nox at the expense of fuel efficiency. Data I've looked at says that a straight diesel motor has less Nox emissions than a gas motor with emission systems, btw. The DPF requires the use of additional diesel fuel to heat the exhaust up high enough to burn off the particulate in the filter.


I think a legitimate case can be made that the requirements are too stringent. The fact that both VW and Dodge chose to code their diesel engines to "cheat" by only activating when being tested tells you just how difficult the auto makers are finding meeting the requirements while also producing a reliable motor that is fuel efficient. I've seen a couple of places that there may be a class action suit against Ford over the same issue but, I'm not sure if that claim is legit or not. Given the number of EGR failures and emissions problems in the 2003 - 2004 6.0 vs the 2005 - 2006, when they all but disappeared, I'd say there is a good chance that they took that strategy. 



We're all in favor of clean air but, we've got to be realistic about how we get there. When a heavy truck that travels hundreds of miles every day is exempt from the requirements and a light or medium duty truck that travels a couple of thousand miles a month is so restricted that it causes performance issues and reduces engine longevity, I'm not sure we've got our priorities right. I think it needs to be approached differently. Instead of the EPA saying this is the number, meet it, we should be saying what is the cleanest we can burn diesel in all motors, from a Jetta TDI to a Cat D11, without sacrificing fuel efficiency and engine longevity and aiming for that.


For the record, I think guys that "roll coal" are idiots. Diesel is too expensive to just dump out the exhaust like that. Or to be wasted in an active regen, for that matter...


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

Great post. Why are 2018 Glider semi trucks produced with pre emission motors and cost 50k more than factory motors? Because of fuel mileage, reliability and long term costs. But that is illegal to do in a 2018 F250 6.7. More than 10,000 glider pre emissions trucks are produced each year.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

lazytxfisher said:


> HK and Boom are actually EPA lackeys probably from California living on Gov checks that's why they have time to report diesel trucks blowing black smoke.


Govt checks sure be good brah. I think that I might just take the hybrid out today. ðŸ˜‚


----------



## Knot Kidding (Jan 7, 2009)

lazytxfisher said:


> *Reporting back mechanic says *running without emission controls that heat your EGTs to 1000Â° probably extends your engine life by FORVER.


Wait....your not chiming (crying) in with "first hand knowledge"? So your taking information from your mechanic (the same guy taking your money) or maybe yet ...don't even drive a diesel:headknock All this time you've been using "someone else's words" That little statement say more about you and maybe "why" you couldn't login? Probably drives Prius (with rims) and lives under a bridge with the other trolls!


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

loco4fishn said:


> U suk!!!! Speed kills!!! Thatâ€™s a fact. I also drive a 06 dmax. Bone stock. *For people like you, I wish I could blow more smoke into your 200mph convertible Barbie car.*


Wow! Okay.
I am of the belief that we are all better off with a certain amount of pollution laws in place. Yes, it can be inconvenient, but it also keeps us from poisoning ourselves to death, which would happen by those too selfish to care about others. Modern engineering has enabled us to still go fast or pull stumps, whichever you prefer, with much less pollution than before.

However, just my opinion, BG in #46 makes some pretty good sense. I don't know the answer, but you are trying to look at the big picture, rather than just be selfish.

I have never owned a diesel, but I have read similar exhaust emissions testing that indicates diesels aren't as bad as they look, and often times aren't as bad as gasoline engines. Some of the bad stuff coming out of gasoline engine exhaust isn't visible.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

boom! said:


> Govt checks sure be good brah. I think that I might just take the hybrid out today. ðŸ˜‚


The blond or brunette hybrid?


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

bg said:


> There's a big difference between someone "rolling coal" and a well tuned, deleted truck. My 7.3 was prior to the emissions requirements and only made a small puff of smoke at the beginning of hard acceleration under load when the fueling was slightly ahead of the turbo spool up once it was tuned, that puff got even smaller with turbo and supporting upgrades and it was running almost a straight pipe from the turbo back.
> 
> If I had a deleted 6.7, it would also only be making a small puff of black smoke at the beginning of hard acceleration under load when properly tuned and it would be getting 2MPG better deleted than it did with the emissions in place.
> 
> ...


100% agree with this. Remember that it was the coal rollers that ruined it for everyone. Now the rollers will go out and buy 5.0 Barbie cars that are out of their driving abilities and kill some kids and they will come after my group. We need a civil war so we can start culling. ðŸ˜‚


----------



## Sgrem (Oct 5, 2005)

Whitebassfisher said:


> Wow! Okay.
> I am of the belief that we are all better off with a certain amount of pollution laws in place. Yes, it can be inconvenient, but it also keeps us from poisoning ourselves to death, which would happen by those too selfish to care about others. Modern engineering has enabled us to still go fast or pull stumps, whichever you prefer, with much less pollution than before.
> 
> However, just my opinion, BG in #46 makes some pretty good sense. I don't know the answer, but you are trying to look at the big picture, rather than just be selfish.
> ...


One second of a volcano erruption puts more pollutants in the air than all the pollution combined since the invention of the internal combustion engine....

But yes most man made pollution is avoidable....at a cost....


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

bg said:


> There's a big difference between someone "rolling coal" and a well tuned, deleted truck. My 7.3 was prior to the emissions requirements and only made a small puff of smoke at the beginning of hard acceleration under load when the fueling was slightly ahead of the turbo spool up once it was tuned, that puff got even smaller with turbo and supporting upgrades and it was running almost a straight pipe from the turbo back.
> 
> If I had a deleted 6.7, it would also only be making a small puff of black smoke at the beginning of hard acceleration under load when properly tuned and it would be getting 2MPG better deleted than it did with the emissions in place.
> 
> ...


Would agree, my 2014 6.7 is deleted, tuned and almost impossible to make it "roll coal".

Might want to add the pollution to refine DEF for use. It does not come out of the pee hole ready to be used.


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

I stirred the pot good on this one. It definitely exposed the tree hugging lib tards lmfao


----------



## texcajun (Feb 22, 2009)

I wanna see 'em put lead back in our gasoline, paint and bird shot. And while we're at it, what was so bad about asbestos? Heck, mah sister still has it on de side of her 100 year old home. Let's see Hardi plank last dat long!


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Whitebassfisher said:


> Wow! Okay.
> I am of the belief that we are all better off with a certain amount of pollution laws in place. Yes, it can be inconvenient, but it also keeps us from poisoning ourselves to death, which would happen by those too selfish to care about others. Modern engineering has enabled us to still go fast or pull stumps, whichever you prefer, with much less pollution than before.
> 
> However, just my opinion, BG in #46 makes some pretty good sense. I don't know the answer, but you are trying to look at the big picture, rather than just be selfish.
> ...


I've got 7 diesel engines:

2018 Kubota diesel ZD1011 mower, they keep this at 19HP to be exempt from Tier 4

2006 New Holland TC40DA tractor, pre Tier 4 - 1800 hours

200x John Deere 17D mini-ex, under the HP limit for Tier 4 - 2200 hours

1989 International S1700 dump truck with a DTA360 that I recently overhauled

2002 Ford F250 7.3 that I'd still be driving if it hadn't gotten totalled - 307,000 miles

2008 Mercedes ML320 CDI that might have the EGR coded out to increase EGT and reduce active regens, which may have resulted in a HP bump and a gain of about 2MPG - 130,000 miles

2014 Ford F450 that was a couple hundred pounds lighter than it left the factory when I bought it - 172,000 miles / 4500 hours

I can say that my experience is that diesel engines without the emissions equipment burn less fuel, require fewer repairs and last longer than those with it.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

lazytxfisher said:


> I stirred the pot good on this one. It definitely exposed the tree hugging lib tards lmfao


Yes, we are all in awe over how cool you are. :wink:


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

Whitebassfisher said:


> Yes, we are all in awe over how cool you are. :wink:


What am I gonna do with my bed tailpipe stacks now? Dayumm. They looked so cool with the balls hanging off my bumper hitch. sad_smiles


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

My 6.7 is deleted with a tune. Its set on the lowest tow tune. Also has an upgraded turbo since my factory turbo took a ****. It runs fantastic. I don't abuse it or race it. I don't roll coal either, Not all tuned trucks roll coal.


----------



## Knot Kidding (Jan 7, 2009)

lazytxfisher said:


> I stirred the pot good on this one. It definitely exposed the tree hugging lib tards lmfao


Exactly what a "Troll" does.


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

I'm one of those trolls with cool shape able hair. I'm kind of short but I'm super nice and enjoy life.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Everyone that doesn't like massive clouds of nasty chit being blown in their face is a lib? Yeah that an excellent argument. Trolls usually end up getting kicked off this site pretty quick.


----------



## texcajun (Feb 22, 2009)

Excellent point sir!



poppadawg said:


> Everyone that doesn't like massive clouds of nasty chit being blown in their face is a lib? Yeah that an excellent argument. Trolls usually end up getting kicked off this site pretty quick.


----------



## dk2429 (Mar 27, 2015)

Welp, looks like I'm a illegal. No EGR, no CAT, no muffler, nothing. And no I'm not a coal roller. The EGR costed me a turbo at 12,000 miles ago. All that **** recirculating back through everything took a toll on it.

I was getting 16-17 highway before the delete, I now average 19-20 and have seen 21. That **** chokes those diesels down.. More air flow.

The coal rollers are the reason for this bs.

Thing that gets me is that the "coal" you see don't exactly go up in the air, but rather the ground.. you could sweep it up with a broom and dust pan


----------



## prokat (Jul 17, 2010)

boom! said:


> I have to smog my 200 mph car every year and it hasn't killed anyone. F*** the coal rollers. I report every one of those douches I see as a gross polluter.


If you have long tube headers they are illegal, they just didn't do a visual. You can't move the cats..legally

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## Bull Fish (Nov 15, 2006)

I have owned and ran a few diesel trucks. None of which were late model i might add. Plenty of friends have spent fortunes to keep theirs running with the cat in place. I am in the machinery business. The technology has advanced considerably over the years, but with that it has come with the cost of reliability. For years we have seen older equipment being repaired time and time again to get everything out of it that you can. Those days will continue with those units. The current "Junk" will go to the scrap yard early on.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

prokat said:


> If you have long tube headers they are illegal, they just didn't do a visual. You can't move the cats..legally
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


Factory car(s). And I donâ€™t roll coal......


----------



## prokat (Jul 17, 2010)

boom! said:


> Factory car(s). And I donâ€™t roll coal......


My bad,I saw 200mph car and was assuming it wasn't stock..I recently found this out the hard way.lol. ***** state inspector

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

prokat said:


> My bad,I saw 200mph car and was assuming it wasn't stock..I recently found this out the hard way.lol. ***** state inspector
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


Iâ€™ve heard stories of state troopers sliding under cars in traffic stops.


----------



## Knot Kidding (Jan 7, 2009)

prokat said:


> If you have long tube headers they are illegal, they just didn't do a visual. You can't move the cats..legally
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


Why would "moving the cats" be illegal if the machine gets the reading it needs to pass? The only reason I question it is that I watched Dave Kindig do it two days ago on a car they previously put "long pipe headers"...They had to upgrade to a better quality of Cats but they made it work.


----------



## yep (Jul 25, 2006)

So will pre-ban tuners be worth more now?


----------



## prokat (Jul 17, 2010)

Knot Kidding said:


> Why would "moving the cats" be illegal if the machine gets the reading it needs to pass? The only reason I question it is that I watched Dave Kindig do it two days ago on a car they previously put "long pipe headers"...They had to upgrade to a better quality of Cats but they made it work.


Epa/carb regs

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

yep said:


> So will pre-ban tuners be worth more now?


No, they're married to a vehicle so you'd have to divorce the vehicle and then get tunes for the vehicle you put it on. Most of the tunes are VIN locked.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wedge (Apr 29, 2005)

Cant wait until the 6.2 gas delete comes out and unleash the beast in these 1/2 ton Chevrolets.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Knot Kidding said:


> Why would "moving the cats" be illegal if the machine gets the reading it needs to pass? The only reason I question it is that I watched Dave Kindig do it two days ago on a car they previously put "long pipe headers"...They had to upgrade to a better quality of Cats but they made it work.


. Itâ€™s the same reason all the diesel deletes are illegal: itâ€™s simply against EPA regulations to remove or modify emissions equipment. The vehicle passed spec with that stuff on it, so itâ€™s got to stay like that. Take it off and you have to go through a recertification, which often is going to cost you more than the car is worth.


----------



## H2 (Jan 11, 2005)

No need to delete and or modify my 2015 VW TD as the manufacture modified it for me and paid a huge fine to keep it that way.LOL


But I believe that it puts out no more emissions into the environment than my stock 2017 F-350 6.7 TD.


----------



## prokat (Jul 17, 2010)

Those full service inspections places will find a way to get your money, took my vette to one with illegal exhaust no front blinkers and no license plate lite..he said I needed a new drive belt for $100. I said ok and he passed it..lol sham artist.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## sleepersilverado (Jun 27, 2011)

I got stuck out in the middle of no where and we had to idle for 15 hours so we did not get hypothermia. I did not have the high idle on my truck at the time. We got lucky that we got ahold of someone who could find us just in time. Truck was loaded up and when we finally got out started billowing white smoke. 
Deleted truck would have been no issue.

By the way, stock eco boost motors â€œroll coalâ€ when the are loading up before the air catches up.


----------



## barronj (Sep 30, 2013)

sleepersilverado said:


> I got stuck out in the middle of no where and we had to idle for 15 hours so we did not get hypothermia. I did not have the high idle on my truck at the time. We got lucky that we got ahold of someone who could find us just in time. Truck was loaded up and when we finally got out started billowing white smoke.
> Deleted truck would have been no issue.


Are you saying that you had fuel, but were low on DEF, and you might have shut down and risked safety if the DEF hadn't been added?


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

barronj said:


> Are you saying that you had fuel, but were low on DEF, and you might have shut down and risked safety if the DEF hadn't been added?


No, idling is really hard on the DPF. It can't get hot enough to burn off the particulate, if it had completely clogged, it would have shut the truck down.

DEF is injected into the exhaust to reduce Nox it doesn't have anything to do with the DPF, that's cleaned by adding fuel to the exhaust to superheat it.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

bg said:


> No, idling is really hard on the DPF. It can't get hot enough to burn off the particulate, if it had completely clogged, it would have shut the truck down.
> 
> DEF is injected into the exhaust to reduce Nox it doesn't have anything to do with the DPF, that's cleaned by adding fuel to the exhaust to superheat it.
> 
> Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


. Sure am glad Iâ€™m currently able to get away with not having a vehicle that is that freakinâ€™ neurotic..


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

dwilliams35 said:


> . Sure am glad Iâ€™m currently able to get away with not having a vehicle that is that freakinâ€™ neurotic..


That's just it though, the vast majority of that neurosis is due to regulations. The emissions systems on diesels are not passive like they are in cars, they actively affect the motor and are the main cause of major repairs, along with reducing mileage. That's why there is such a big industry for removing or bypassing them and why older, pre Tier 4 equipment is so desirable.

Check out prices on a clean 1999-2002 Ford Superduty with a 7.3 and you'll see it. They range from $12,000 to $25,000, with $15,000 or so being the norm, because that motor was the last one to be built without the emissions systems. Now look at the 2003-2006 6.0 trucks, they're all around $8,000 - $10,000 with a few trucks priced a little higher if they've been verifiably "bullet proofed," a big part of which is removing the emissions components.

I said before, we all agree that clean air is a worthy goal but, I don't think we've gone about it correctly with diesels.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

bg said:


> Which brings up a question I've always wanted a definitive answer to. I agree that the trucks pollute less per gallon of fuel used with the emissions in place but, when you take into account the fact that they consume between 10% - 20% more fuel than they would without it, does requiring them really provide a net reduction of pollutants?


The answer is, yes, especially when it comes to concentration.

I'm no defender of the EPA to say the least. I'm a chemical engineer that works in O&G. I see them do some things that really makes you scratch your head (catalytic converters on wood burning stoves? Really?). But other things that they do make perfect sense, such as the OOOO rule in the oil patch. I don't see them as the villain I once did, at least not on the whole. That of course is not to say they cannot be villainous at times.

But back to your question, when it comes to pollutants, it's not just the total amount. The concentration matters too, so the location of the "source" is important.

For the largest emitters of NOx, SOx, what the Clean Air Act calls HAPs (hazardous air pollutants), particulate matter, and so forth; these tend to be stationary sources. The volume of emissions and concentration of pollutants nearby can be tightly controlled and monitored, and the sources tend to not be in the middle of say, neighborhoods.

For diesel pick ups, you are driving around town, spreading those emissions in and among people. The DPF is there to reduce particulate matter. EGR is there to cool the combustion in the cylinder, thereby reducing NOx. The catalytic converter is there to ensure complete combustion of everything coming out the pipe (and reduce NOx for a three-way converter). Each piece has a purpose, and it is to reduce the concentration of those pollutants in the air, especially in urban areas.

We can say all we want that cars and light trucks (i.e. non-stationary sources) don't have an impact in the grand scheme of things, but _the impacts on local areas are indisputable_. That's why you guys have to have your car emissions tested every year down in Houston. We don't have anything like that up here in Brazos county.

Now, you can argue that the thresholds EPA sets are too stringent. In many cases, I think that they are (example: ground level ozone). But we cannot pretend that emissions from cars and trucks have a negligible impact on localized environments.

As others here have stated, I have been surprised that the DPF deletes, tuners, etc. have had a blind eye turned to them for so long. So I'm not at all surprised that EPA has finally woken up.

BTW, I drive a 2012 RAM with a 6.7L Cummins. It still has all of the emissions controls, and I will be spending Saturday replacing the CCV filter and cleaning the EGR valve and cooler. All of that maintenance is caused by the EPA. Would I rather spend my Saturday doing something else? Sure. But it is what it is.


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

bg said:


> That's just it though, the vast majority of that neurosis is due to regulations. The emissions systems on diesels are not passive like they are in cars, they actively affect the motor and are the main cause of major repairs, along with reducing mileage. That's why there is such a big industry for removing or bypassing them and why older, pre Tier 4 equipment is so desirable.
> 
> Check out prices on a clean 1999-2002 Ford Superduty with a 7.3 and you'll see it. They range from $12,000 to $25,000, with $15,000 or so being the norm, because that motor was the last one to be built without the emissions systems. Now look at the 2003-2006 6.0 trucks, they're all around $8,000 - $10,000 with a few trucks priced a little higher if they've been verifiably "bullet proofed," a big part of which is removing the emissions components.
> 
> ...


By the nature of the fuel and combustion cycle, diesels will always create more NOx, CO, non-combusted hydrocarbons, and particulate matter as compared to gasoline engines. This is why diesels have the additional required controls.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

goatchze said:


> The answer is, yes, especially when it comes to concentration.
> 
> I'm no defender of the EPA to say the least. I'm a chemical engineer that works in O&G. I see them do some things that really makes you scratch your head (catalytic converters on wood burning stoves? Really?). But other things that they do make perfect sense, such as the OOOO rule in the oil patch. I don't see them as the villain I once did, at least not on the whole. That of course is not to say they cannot be villainous at times.
> 
> ...


If concentration is the concern, then why require the systems on ag tractors or heavy equipment? It seems silly that we should be worried about a tractor plowing a 3,000 acre corn field...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

I have an M-B R350 Blutec Diesel. The exhaust gasses are recycled back into the intake manifold where, over time, gums up the tumble swirl valve at the back of the intake manifold. The tumble swirl valve redirects the air into the combustion chambers depending on the load of the engine, to get more complete combustion. The tumble swirl valve has plastic vanes and if they get too gummed up, can break and go into your engine costing thousands in repairs. So every 50K you have to have your intake manifold replaced. It is a one piece component that also contains the tumble swirl valve and the part alone was about $1K.

The system relies on two NOx sensors, one pre-cat and one post-cat. Those are notorious for gumming up and setting off the check engine light. 

Last week the check engine light came on again. Took it in to my repair guy and this time he cleaned the DEF injector. So far, no more check engine light. 

The 3.0L Turbo puts out 410 ft/lbs of torque, more than many gas V-8's, and gets +-32 mph on the highway, driving 85-90 mph. Outstanding mileage for a large 5100 lb. AWD car. 

I'll put out the money to keep it on the road. My worry is that I may not get the longevity that diesels traditionally get. 

And yes, I was thinking about having someone delete the air pollution equipment, but I guess I can forget about that now.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

bg said:


> If concentration is the concern, then why require the systems on ag tractors or heavy equipment? It seems silly that we should be worried about a tractor plowing a 3,000 acre corn field...
> 
> Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


 are they burning different air? Pollutants are pollutants, consistency would require some of the same on Ag vehicles.. thereâ€™s certainly something to be said for concentrations thereof, but emissions are emissions, if you want to take the epaâ€™s mandate seriously.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

dwilliams35 said:


> are they burning different air? Pollutants are pollutants, consistency would require some of the same on Ag vehicles.. thereâ€™s certainly something to be said for concentrations thereof, but emissions are emissions, if you want to take the epaâ€™s mandate seriously.


And then we come back to is it really a net reduction when you consider everything that is required for these things? There's a lot of additional consumption and emissions needed to manufacture and support diesel emmissions controls. The motors produced now are considered almost throw away because of the controls. As was mentioned above, older, pre-emissions equipment is repaired indefinitely whereas newer equipment is scrapped and replaced. There are a lot of emissions needed to produce the steel needed to build all that replacement equipment.

His argument was it is a net reduction because those emissions happen in less populated areas. If that's the reason why, then the same reasoning should apply to ag tractors, farm trucks, etc.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## bwguardian (Aug 30, 2005)

I say do away with dino diesel fuel and go with biodiesel. It's better for the engine and the environment...plus smells better!


----------



## SeaIsleDweller (Jun 27, 2013)

I have a 2016 6.7 Powerstroke with emissions intact and would like to not have all that junk on my motor/exhaust but have not pulled the trigger on doing it because I knew that sooner rather than later the EPA/Harris county will push for stricter diesel emissions testing. My question is regarding to longevity with emissions equipment in tact does anybody on here have real world experiencing with running a 6.7 Powerstroke or Cummins into the 200k+ range bone stock? When you read about it online people make you think the motor will just crumble at 100k miles if you don't delete it. I know that all the hot shot DOT regulated drivers have to leave all emissions controls in place etc and they put hundreds of thousand miles on trucks per year ... is the DPF/EGR taking a "Dump" on them all the time or is it just hype? I know that the higher exhaust gases etc do take away from the "longevity" over time on the turbo and motor itself but if you can achieve high miles without MAJOR failure I don't see the huge deal. Not everyone is going to cling onto a 1999 7.3 for 40 more years because its the only "reliable" way to go. 

My truck does not go into regen very often but I do pull regularly and drive on the highway where the motor gets up to temp etc ... I can see if you only drive around town and idle a lot on a job site the particulate filter getting clogged because your engine is not getting hot enough to burn it off.


----------



## MarkU (Jun 3, 2013)

I have just under 15k on my '18 6.7. It's never gone in Regen mode. More than 1/2 the miles are hwy. Is it supposed to go into regen?


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

MarkU said:


> I have just under 15k on my '18 6.7. It's never gone in Regen mode. More than 1/2 the miles are hwy. Is it supposed to go into regen?


Not a regen as some in the past where they idle up, and have a regen cycle. Ford does it while driving. It will burn extra diesel to heat the exhaust trapped in the filter when you are driving. At times it may tell you "drive to clean". When it starts doing this, and it will in time. Be ready to replace the filter.


----------



## SeaIsleDweller (Jun 27, 2013)

MarkU said:


> I have just under 15k on my '18 6.7. It's never gone in Regen mode. More than 1/2 the miles are hwy. Is it supposed to go into regen?


mine will say "cleaning exhaust filter" when it does but it is not very often.


----------



## ibtbone (Oct 7, 2013)

Knot Kidding said:


> Why would "moving the cats" be illegal if the machine gets the reading it needs to pass? The only reason I question it is that I watched Dave Kindig do it two days ago on a car they previously put "long pipe headers"...They had to upgrade to a better quality of Cats but they made it work.


i think the reason is tempature related. cats need to be hot to function most efficiently. moving them further from the engine an cause the temperature to drop below efficient \ optimum operation, that would cause more tail pipe emissions.


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

The 17-19 do not show the cleaning feature. It will tell you to drive to clean if you don't drive it enough when cleaning is needed.


----------



## prokat (Jul 17, 2010)

ibtbone said:


> i think the reason is tempature related. cats need to be hot to function most efficiently. moving them further from the engine an cause the temperature to drop below efficient \ optimum operation, that would cause more tail pipe emissions.


That's right,they are bolted directly to the stock manifold. Long tubes extend them to far away.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk


----------



## Highflier (Jun 22, 2006)

As much as I love my '01 F350 and it's 7.3, it has nowhere near the power of my 6.4 or 6.7. 

I deleted my 6.4 but decided not to delete the 6.7.


I learned from a good powerstroke diesel shop that if I stopped my habit of idling my truck for extended periods, I would reduce the active regens which add diesel to the cylinders.
The added diesel into the cylinders washes into the oil and raises the oil level, which in turn allows oil to be introduced into the turbo once the level gets too high.
It can go downhill from there.
My shop gave me two solutions, stop sitting around idling or delete.
I deleted the 6.4 at 150k and have over 200 now.
If I were to do it again, I would have changed my idling habit sooner.
It sucks that diesels are so managed now, I'd rather adapt instead of being mad all day about it.


----------



## Sgrem (Oct 5, 2005)

Idk how they think they can go after the tuner manufacturers like that. Every aftermarket tuner kit and mod component says "For off road use only". So it should be the consumer they are going after. Right? Am i reading the OP article wrong?


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

I can't answer on the Ford/Dodge/Chevy but, we did have to replace the DPF on my wife's Mercedes diesel at about 100k, to the tune of just under $5,000. Ford's DPF is supposed to be good to like 150k - 200k before it needs replacement.

When we did the DPF on my wife's car, we coded out the EGR. It gave her a slight performance bump along with about a 2MPG gain and less frequent regens.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## sleepersilverado (Jun 27, 2011)

barronj said:


> Are you saying that you had fuel, but were low on DEF, and you might have shut down and risked safety if the DEF hadn't been added?


No truck had fuel and def, the DPF was loaded up from idling. The truck had message to drive, and well we were stuck. If we did not get out I could have probably used the gas pedal to high idle it for a little while. Ultimately I don't know what would have happened. Once out I was looking in the mirror and my buddy who was closing the gate was hunched over heaving because the truck was billowing so much rancid smoke.



bg said:


> No, idling is really hard on the DPF. It can't get hot enough to burn off the particulate, if it had completely clogged, it would have shut the truck down.
> 
> DEF is injected into the exhaust to reduce Nox it doesn't have anything to do with the DPF, that's cleaned by adding fuel to the exhaust to superheat it.
> 
> Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


The modern diesel engines are not supposed to be idled more than 30 minutes with out being idled to at least 1200 rpm. My 17 will actually shut down after 30 minutes of idle unless you are in it and select to over ride the shut down or have the high idle active.


----------



## sleepersilverado (Jun 27, 2011)

sgrem said:


> Idk how they think they can go after the tuner manufacturers like that. Every aftermarket tuner kit and mod component says "For off road use only". So it should be the consumer they are going after. Right? Am i reading the OP article wrong?


No sir, they did the same thing to H&S. Here is a list form an article I found.


*Casper's Electronics Inc.* (2007) involved an "oxygen sensor simulator," which overrides the check engine light related to catalytic converter malfunctions on automobiles. 
 EPA alleged that the sensor simulator caused excess emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide. The company agreed to recall the product, destroy all inventory, and pay an $80,000 fine. 
*Edge Products LLC* (2012) involved electronic "tuning devices" for diesel pickup trucks that override the check engine light related to the diesel particulate filter. 
 The company argued that these devices were only intended for off-road or non-road use, in particular racing. EPA alleged the devices caused excess particulate emissions. The company agreed to offer to buy back the devices, pay a $500,000 fine, and fund a mitigation project for at least $157,000 to replace old wood-burning stoves in areas with identified issues with particulate emissions pollution. 
*H&S Performance *(2015) involved electronic tuning devices and other alterations for diesel pickup trucks. 
 EPA alleged that the tuning devices caused excess NOx, particulate matter, and hydrocarbon emissions. The company agreed to destroy all of the devices, refrain from providing technical assistance to owners relating to the tuning devices, and pay a $1 million fine and fund a $400,000 mitigation project to retrofit wood-burning stoves. 
*Harley-Davidson *(2016) involved both electronic tuning devices and alleged improper certification of motorcycles sold in the US EPA alleged that the tuning devices caused excess NOx and hydrocarbon emissions. 
The company agreed to stop selling the devices, buy back all inventory from its dealers, pay a $12 million penalty, and give $3 million to the American Lung Association to replace wood-burning stoves. In 2017, DOJ amended the consent decree to remove the $3 million project, citing a June 2017 memorandum from Attorney General Sessions that prohibited third-party payments as a condition of settlement (the Sessions Memo). 
 Litigation over the modified settlement is still ongoing. 
*Trick Trucks* *Settlements* (2017) involved a variety of electronic tuning devices, engine control module reprogrammers that disabled emissions control systems, and exhaust pipe components that deleted or bypassed aftertreatment on diesel pickup trucks. 
EPA settled administratively with six different companies that installed the equipment. The total fine for all six companies was $109,461.


----------



## goatchze (Aug 1, 2006)

bg said:


> And then we come back to is it really a net reduction when you consider everything that is required for these things? There's a lot of additional consumption and emissions needed to manufacture and support diesel emissions controls. The motors produced now are considered almost throw away because of the controls. As was mentioned above, older, pre-emissions equipment is repaired indefinitely whereas newer equipment is scrapped and replaced. There are a lot of emissions needed to produce the steel needed to build all that replacement equipment.
> 
> His argument was it is a net reduction because those emissions happen in less populated areas. If that's the reason why, then the same reasoning should apply to ag tractors, farm trucks, etc.
> 
> Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


What I stated is that the answer is yes, _especially _when you look at concentration.

It is both concentration and total amount (total amount matters as it changes the concentration on a broader area).

If you look at an air permit for, say, a gas plant, there will be limits on both the total amount of a particular pollutant as well as a concentration.

My guess (and it's a guess, I don't know how they come to some of their conclusions) is they decided that even though they have tightened down on some "non stationary sources", it is not enough to limit whatever is they are trying to limit for a larger area, like a county or state. I'm not that familiar with what they are doing in the off-road arena.

If you reduce NOx emissions for a single source by several orders of magnitude, it more than makes up for a small percentage loss of fuel economy. That is all part of the "calculation" they did when creating the rule. It is a net reduction.


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

/


----------



## pipeliner24 (Apr 10, 2013)

saltwatersensations said:


> My 6.7 is deleted with a tune. Its set on the lowest tow tune. Also has an upgraded turbo since my factory turbo took a ****. It runs fantastic. I don't abuse it or race it. I don't roll coal either, Not all tuned trucks roll coal.


My 6.7 is deleted and tuned also but I have it turned up hi and drive like an old man.I went from 15mpg on the highway to around 20mpg.I rarely drive over 70mph and average about 35,000 miles a year.My deleted and tuned truck is saving the environment by about 500-600 gallons a year ðŸ'ðŸ¼


----------



## yep (Jul 25, 2006)

sleepersilverado said:


> No truck had fuel and def, the DPF was loaded up from idling. The truck had message to drive, and well we were stuck. If we did not get out I could have probably used the gas pedal to high idle it for a little while. Ultimately I don't know what would have happened. Once out I was looking in the mirror and my buddy who was closing the gate was hunched over heaving because the truck was billowing so much rancid smoke.
> 
> The modern diesel engines are not supposed to be idled more than 30 minutes with out being idled to at least 1200 rpm. My 17 will actually shut down after 30 minutes of idle unless you are in it and select to over ride the shut down or have the high idle active.


So that $70k truck can't idle for more than a few minutes? Seems ridiculous to me. I have a recently deleted truck and really like it. Not rolling coal, and I agree that the yahoos belching that **** out every time they touch the throttle ruined it for the rest of us. Ford wanted about $2k to replace the egr, delete and tune was $1300 and I won't have to fool with it.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

lazytxfisher said:


> All I can say is F the EPA and F all the Gov control. If my 2012 emissions system costs 5600 to replace and delete costs 1200 that is a no brainer. What kills more people a car that does 200 from the factory, 0 to 60 in 3 sec or some coal rolling diesels. It is the endless pursuit of restrictions on your own property by the ever over reaching F tards at the EPA and Gov. If this offends you I'm sorry you voted for Beto and you can come hug my trees. Why is every heavy military vehicle made without emission controls and run on horribly polluting JP8? That is not something the EPA can control so they go after US citizens instead. Liberals will ruin us before we ever ruin the ozone. Soon your taxes will be paying for every low income immigrant non working pregnant non deserving failing non white or asain college grad.


You remind me of my dad when they used to come inspect his spray guns at his paint and body shop lol


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

Your dad is awesome.


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

Also getting my new to me truck deleted today! Ready to hear that turbo work and GM trucks def fill spot is ridiculous they should put them somewhere convenient like Ford.


----------



## StinkyFingerMullet (Jan 25, 2017)

"I know a Guy" that has his truck tuned and deleted, very clean tune, rarely any smoke. The coal rollers tunes are junk, black smoke is just unburned fuel. Get your timing right!! 



Wonder how much more emissions are put in the atmosphere from manufacturing, transporting and disposing the DEF fluid. :dance:


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

StinkyFingerMullet said:


> "I know a Guy" that has his truck tuned and deleted, very clean tune, rarely any smoke. The coal rollers tunes are junk, black smoke is just unburned fuel. Get your timing right!!
> 
> *Wonder how much more emissions are put in the atmosphere from manufacturing, transporting and disposing the DEF fluid.* :dance:


And the additional refining to cover the loss in fuel efficiency, and the manufacturing and shipping of the emissions components, and so on and so on. That's what I've been referencing when I keep asking if it's really a net reduction in emissions.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

bg said:


> And the additional refining to cover the loss in fuel efficiency, and the manufacturing and shipping of the emissions components, and so on and so on. That's what I've been referencing when I keep asking if it's really a net reduction in emissions.


In some ways, a tail pipe test would be best, _if the standards were reasonable_. A worn out junker that burns a lot of oil shouldn't pass, but an efficient engine should.


----------



## lazytxfisher (Oct 18, 2018)

I am getting a tow tune. Only blows a puff of smoke when there is a delay to down shift. That's when diesels are least efficient. I don't want DOT to have a reason to pull me over. I should also note that I have a Kenworth T700 deleted as well and it almost never blows smoke.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

lazytxfisher said:


> I am getting a tow tune. Only blows a puff of smoke when there is a delay to down shift. That's when diesels are least efficient. I don't want DOT to have a reason to pull me over. I should also note that I have a Kenworth T700 deleted as well and it almost never blows smoke.


If it's available for your truck, the switch on the fly tunes are nice to have. I find that the higher HP tunes give better mileage than the lower settings, assuming you drive reasonably. Then you can switch to a low HP tune when towing without having to reflash the truck.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## barronj (Sep 30, 2013)

I installed the 5 setting w/ EFI Live, switch on the fly, for my truck. Asked for the cleanest tunes I could get. Was assured that setting #3, “street”, would be almost smoke free. I was disappointed.

Settings offered are stock, tow, street, hot street, and race.


----------



## manwitaplan (Dec 9, 2005)

sgrem said:


> Idk how they think they can go after the tuner manufacturers like that. Every aftermarket tuner kit and mod component says "For off road use only". So it should be the consumer they are going after. Right? Am i reading the OP article wrong?


Talking to the guy at my shop here is what he said. Because the shops purchased the tuners and offer performance upgrades the EPA automatically assumes they installed them. My shop owner said if you were to buy all the components on amazon and do it yourself or have a shop install you are in the clear.

BTW he got audited by EPA and found guilty of 36 cases at 50,000 apiece fine. He will be shutting his doors soon.


----------



## Adobe 11SD (May 11, 2012)

*Ss*



dwilliams35 said:


> Thatâ€™s kind of similar to saying that tossing your whataburger wrapper out the window was okay since you had a reason to do it besides wanting to trash the roadways. As long as your truck gets clean, youâ€™re good, right?
> 
> Really, now, whatever your reasons, you had to know that this was coming, that the pile of EPA mandated stuff that you pulled out and threw into a pile on the garage floor was there for a reason other than to cramp your style, right? Sooner or later they were going to notice when you built an entire industry around openly, willingly, and blatantly violating their regulations...


For your information I don't eat Whataburger and the parts are stacked in the front yard between the old travel trailer that I have my step kids living in and the hazardous waste pile.

I try to keep the garage uncluttered cause i use that space to run the puppy mill business out of. Get your facts right.


----------



## Adobe 11SD (May 11, 2012)

Knot Kidding said:


> No I completely understand that every high school kid wants their daily driver to be fast and loud. But you wouldn't strip the pollution devices off a gas vehicle (maybe add a chip) due to guidelines. I get it diesels haven't "ever" had those restrictions so companies have made millions convincing everyone that can do anything. The problem I see with that is rarely does anyone keep the stuff they pulled off, then when their tired of the truck (or more likely are having ongoing issues as a result and just want out) now they have a truck that the dealers don't want or so much has been done it that the new (unsuspecting) owner has to sort out their new headache. Removing the DEF, particulate filter, EGR and turning up the pump work great for a with a mild tune but everybody begins to think their 3/4 or 1ton is now a race truck so it gets turned up (that's when issues begin) as soon as a trans or rear end starts going bad....."dump it" on the market "advertised" $1000.00's spent on upgrades. (instead of saying "I'm tired of putting $$$ in it"!)


Assume much?


----------



## owens33 (May 2, 2007)

got an edge "juice" tuner some years back. installed it myself. has wires going everywhere and added an egt indication. 5 settings with one locked. only ever used "street" or "tow". only time I ever see smoke is if I make a bad traffic decision and romp on it a little. figure that's better than getting in someone's way. this is an '06 ram 5.9. otherwise stock. 225k now and still runs like new. a replacement is over $60k for what I consider and inferior truck, so I intend to keep fixing whatever goes wrong.


----------



## 2slick (Dec 5, 2008)

Pretty sure this is my last diesel. I have had hell with DEF system. Injection pump cratered at 52,000 miles. I would delete but am involved in a class action on those crappy Bosch CP4 pumps. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

