EPA fines diesel tuning equipment supplier

[Ski in NC]

I could see a little latitude being given if emission system delete kits are being sold to vehicles late in their operating life. If bypassing those systems gives them a little longer useful life, then little harm in that. The population of those is pretty low.

But selling delete kits for new vehicles is just pretty dang blatant. Agree or not with the emission regs, that is looking for trouble blatant. No surprise it caught the authority's attention..

On a personal level, every time I see a modded diesel pickup (or even TDI) "rollin' coal", it pisses me off. It gives a bad name to diesel, it shows bad engineering (wasted fuel), bad manners and just general childessness. I'd have no problem with a law where if you puke black smoke, you get a ticket. Simple.

Now if you can tune a diesel for more hp and no extra smoke, who's gonna fuss over that?

 

[ldp787]

I could see a little latitude being given if emission system delete kits are being sold to vehicles late in their operating life. If bypassing those systems gives them a little longer useful life, then little harm in that. The population of those is pretty low.

But selling delete kits for new vehicles is just pretty dang blatant. Agree or not with the emission regs, that is looking for trouble blatant. No surprise it caught the authority's attention..

On a personal level, every time I see a modded diesel pickup (or even TDI) "rollin' coal", it pisses me off. It gives a bad name to diesel, it shows bad engineering (wasted fuel), bad manners and just general childessness. I'd have no problem with a law where if you puke black smoke, you get a ticket. Simple.

Now if you can tune a diesel for more hp and no extra smoke, who's gonna fuss over that?

A failing $1000+ DPF, dropping to 11mpg on the highway in regen and fuel diluted crankcase oil is and was more than enough reason to "think" about ending my relationship with a DPF. Do plenty of HD's over-fuel? Yes, they do. Unfortunately they are an easy target due to the visibility of soot and some of their marketing materials.

The 5 built tunes on my truck barely smoke and a good part of Duramax enthusiasts are not smokers. Most feel the same about it casting a "black cloud" if you will, over the diesel community.

 

[jkowalski]

Sigh - here we go again.
Yea, sure, everyone who ever wanted to modify the emissions on the diesel engine has wanted to roll coal, destroy the environment, cover other peoples cars in soot, etc etc.

Just to clarify: since the newer diesels come with DPF's, and since the DPF's are (to the people who agree with the EPA in cases like this) so amazing, IF you agree with the EPA but own an older TDI without a DPF, why don't you upgrade to a DPF-having TDI?
Why demonize people that want to remove DPF's and such?

 

[Lightflyer1]

Live within the rules or use legal methods to change them. Blatant disregard begs for the hammer fix. I could care less what anyone does, but don't complain when/if you are caught openly breaking the rules.

 

[flylow2]

Interesting debate. I am also angered by the total disregard for others when people feel it is their right to pollute the air I must breath. It is very similar to the smokers right debate. The smokers always feel their rights are being impinged but they are rarely concerned about the imposition their smoke has on the air I breath. Fortunately for me, the laws are favoring the right to breath clean air.

I love my clean diesel but only right up until the point it will start costing mega bucks. Are the clean diesel requirements over the top. Can we do better than before clean diesel rules but more cheaply and sustainably?

I do like the idea of being able to roll back on the equipment requirements when the vehicle gets a little old but never to the extent of "rolling coal". I would love to be able to report this when I see it along with every deleted gasser catalytic converter 4 banger with a fart muffler that is made obvious by the smell.

Why is it that so many other car manufacturers sell diesels in the rest of the world but not here? Part of it is they do not want to develop the expensive and unreliable equipment required. They may be waiting for others to pefect their systems before reverse engineering them. I know I would consider alternatives to VW because most other car manufacturers won't stick the consumers with their crap. VW is cutting edge technology but they simply don't stand behind their product. As people learn about diesels and the mileage they provide, there would be more interest especially if there is a greater variety to choose from. The other reason Americans tend to think of diesels as dirty and unreliable.

In addition to this, diesel is disincentivized by the road taxes. If diesel fuel was cheaper or equal to RUG in price, there would be more demand for diesel. This could be accomplished with a tax nuetral strategy that taxed gasoline at a higher rate than diesel. This is done is Europe and diesels are far more prevalent there. Of course Europe taxes fuel so highly, it comes dearly and creates the incentive for the most fuel efficient vehicle possible which greatly enhances diesel vehicle demand there.

 

[tditom]

...
Why is it that so many other car manufacturers sell diesels in the rest of the world but not here? Part of it is they do not want to develop the expensive and unreliable equipment required...

The new Euro emissions coming in the next couple of years will bring their requirements in line with EPA. So there should be no extra engineering involved.

Manufacturers do need to have each model and drivetrain combination certified by the EPA before selling a vehicle over here. There are costs involved in this and the Catch 22 is if the manufacturer doesn't think the demand of that particular vehicle will justify the expense of certification then they won't pay for it. Meanwhile the normal consumer over here is unaware of the advances of diesel technology and is brainwashed into thinking that the "coal rollers" are representative of current technology. Heck, many people might not even know what a 'tdi', or 'cdi' or 'd' badge on a vehicle stands for. So even though the example of clean diesel is right in front of them they are oblivious to the facts.

The other thing going in favor for more diesels coming over is the ever-increasing CAFE standards. Diesel will need to play a role in getting many manufacturers up to snuff.

 

[roostre]

It is very similar to the smokers right debate.

The events below are off topic (sorry) but show how easily pollution issues can escalate out of control:

Years ago when you could smoke at your desk during work, one person in the office who did not smoke and hated smoking would crumple up pieces of notebook paper to burn in their ashtray saying that they had as much right to pollute as the next person. They stopped doing this after being told they would be fired if it happened again. A few days later ashtrays started exploding around the office. Someone (wonder who) had mixed black powder with the existing ashes in ashtrays that had not been emptied the night before and when a live ash from a cigarette was flicked into these ashtrays the contents would blow out all over the person's desk. It was entertaining except for the people whose desks were covered in soot.

Disclaimer:
Don't try this in today's world, as the ATF and FBI would become involved and find the culprit.

 

[mrchill]

New vehicles can easily be improved for the sake of emissions. But some cannot afford new. For those...the emissions the car came with can be maintained even if one chooses to add power. I also believe that should someone want to to do the homework, current trucks with DPF's can be made to run more efficiently(ie better mileage) and retain the DPF. The EGR's on the trucks suck too...but there are aftermarket upgrades that all ow the use of the EGR without the failures. I feel that often the EPA goes way too far and does things that make absolutely no sense....but overall...we need to have emissions controls in place for the safety of our health and environment. This does not have to include severe punishments...but in some cases there is no other choice. The wording of the clean air act actually does not allow many refinements that would IMPROVE efficiency and emissions. I suspect that this is due to the ignorance of many of the people involved in the wording of the law.

If we could get these mouth breathers to consult with knowledgeable automotive enthusiasts and maybe even a few engineers (with relevant knowledge), I feel the wording can be altered to everyones benefit instead of baselessly denying any change whatsoever...or making it so expensive to certify a change that if a company is too small that it will never be brought to market...remember...often its the little guys with the big ideas....but not the big money.

 

[thebigarniedog]

The EPA has certainly received their money's worth with this enforcement action. It amazes me why some people still insist on disabling emissions equipment on new vehicles. Frankly, I am surprised the next wave has not yet hit (ie private actions by dis-satisfied buyers, suing former owners, who removed such equipment).

In any event, the current emissions regulations are what the majority of people in this Country supported by virtue of the existence of such regulations. Most of them do not make sense, but afterall, the road to h*ll is paved with the best of intentions .......

 

[LiLredTDI]

Rolling coal just to do so is really juvenile. If your hobby is making big power and you do so at events just for this I am OK with it. Gives diesels a bad name but still ok with it. People who complain about it are the same ones calling AR15's assault weapons. They clearly are kneejerkers who are uneducated on the subject and listen to the medias buzz words.

Funny............Cooking one cheese burger on a charcoal grill is equivalent to the emissions a heavy truck driving 140 miles.

The weather man cannot predict weather two days away with 100% certinity so I cannot believe the global warming hoax.

We should however all use common sense with anything that can harm the environment. I am glad the days are mostly gone where every rural area had backyard junkyards that dumped oil and antifreeze on the ground. That kind of mindset have eliminated in most instances.

 

[tditom]

^^^ someone didn't get the memo in post #50...

 

[V-Rod]

Interesting debate. I am also angered by the total disregard for others when people feel it is their right to pollute the air I must breath. It is very similar to the smokers right debate. The smokers always feel their rights are being impinged but they are rarely concerned about the imposition their smoke has on the air I breath. Fortunately for me, the laws are favoring the right to breath clean air.

I love my clean diesel but only right up until the point it will start costing mega bucks. Are the clean diesel requirements over the top. Can we do better than before clean diesel rules but more cheaply and sustainably?

I do like the idea of being able to roll back on the equipment requirements when the vehicle gets a little old but never to the extent of "rolling coal". I would love to be able to report this when I see it along with every deleted gasser catalytic converter 4 banger with a fart muffler that is made obvious by the smell.

You say you love your clean diesle but only up to the point it will start costing you mega bucks.

Would you consider $40,000 Mega bucks?? Well when a over the road truck lost 2 mpg 40K was the increase in cost of fuel for 1 year.

A very large percentage of trucks/pickups doing deletes were having DPF problems. Doing a delete was the cheap way to get back on the road. Even when you have a warranty when your truck that makes you money is in the shop your loosing money.

Last time my truck broke down, I had to trade it off for a new one because I couldn't wait 3 weeks for it to even be looked at.

EPA has some crazy ideas, they even want to regulate the dust when I combine. Funny that don't care about the smoke from the new John Deere combines buring up in the fields because to the DPF's catching fire!!

 

[Ford_6L_E350]

My own suspicion is that the next generation of engine designs that have the emission control equipment designed in as part of the system, as opposed to added on, will have fewer side-effects and issues, thus (hopefully) reducing the demand to remove the emission control equipment.

The VW EA288 appears to be one example headed in this direction. The oxidizing catalyst and DPF and EGR cooler are integrated into the engine, the troublesome air-cooled intercooler goes away thus eliminating the intercooler-freezing headache, the integration of the EGR cooler eliminates the troublesome exhaust "throttle", etc.

The truck engines that I've seen, still don't appear to have the DPF close-coupled to the engine the way VW has done it. Do that, and the need for extra fuel burn to force regen goes down.

If Mazda's Skyactiv system works out, it eliminates the need for NOx aftertreatment. No diesel exhaust fluid for SCR, and no lean de-NOx catalyst that wants extra fuel now and again to regenerate itself.

Gasoline engine emission controls were troublesome in the beginning, too, but once the engineers figured out how to do them properly (and integrate them into the design of the engine!) most of the issues went away.

Thank you Brian!

When smog standards were first implemented there was an uproar and all agreed performance was dead. We have those smog requirements to thank for forcing car manufacturers to better understand the combustion processes and then to make today's cars that run better, get better mileage and make more power than older cars.

I remember LA in the 60's and 70's and the air that made my eyes burn and water.

I will gladly put up with my DPF filter and spend a few bucks on fuel to make sure our grandchildren will have better diesels and clean air to breath.

Mike

 

[Scott_DeWitt]

Sure, let those billowing smoke be reported by others. Violating someone's privacy and providing a nice list for threats, heckling, harassment and violence is not OK.

There are legal ways to convince people to not pollute.

People are forgetting that any modification to emission control equipment is in violation of law and EPA regs regardless if the emissions are visible or not. So tunes, turbos, nozzles etc are all violations. Even if the modifications keep emissions in compliance, it's a violation until the proper testing has been performed.

So the person changing nozzles are in violation just like coal rollers.

EPA usually goes after the companies as they have the money and fining them will be far more productive and easy than fining individuals, however it is within the EPA's power to fine individuals as well as organizations.

 

[idt1.9]

The EPA is an anti-business, anti-America agency bent on punishing companies and individuals who dare to not believe as they do.

Emissions control crap on late model diesel cars and trucks reduced fuel efficiency, tremendously increases the fuel burned, and causes sooting issues in the cars and trucks burdened with the crap equipment.

Screw the epa and the administration which empowered it.

My thoughts exactly.

Fining a private company that provides jobs and services for many employees and customers for the "sake of the environment"? How is this not a money grab for the EPA? Tell me again how this fixed anything... how many people are really going to return their Edge tuners for that federally mandated refund? The EPA could have sent Edge a notice saying by a certain date they will enforce the law about selling emissions defeating equipment, thus at least giving them a fair chance to comply. The way this was done looks way too much like a big cash grab, for what exactly? How come is it evil for a company to make lots of money (usually by being the best or most efficient at what they do) but when the government takes large amounts of cash from private industry without adding any real value anywhere, nobody raises and eyebrow? Is it just me or has the green/environmental/whatever movement been exploited by the government to no end?

Not necessarily defending the "coal rollers" but in many cases folks are buying these products to defeat the horribly inefficient factory emissions systems in order to save money/fuel and increase efficiency! While rolling coal looks horribly polluting, I would guess that over fueled diesels contribute far less to pollution problems than many other industries. Just because it looks evil doesn't prove it is.

In a large city where smog is a major problem, I could see the importance of emissions controls on vehicles that are close to or in the city. However, this whole emissions thing has been pushed beyond absurdity by the EPA and other organizations.

One reason I bought my TDI PD was because diesel cars were emissions inspection exempt in NY state, where I unfortunately still live for the time being. However, last summer that changed and diesels now have to pass OBD emission inspection in NY just like any other vehicle. Right now I have inspection coming up on a gasoline car with a bad SAI. Going to college I cannot see how it is worth my very limited funds to throw cash at this equipment that provides no useful function or purpose to my car and at the tune of hundreds of dollars. I can think of many other areas where that money would benefit others or myself. Car insurance is high in NY as well as taxes everywhere. And I'm not even close to NYC, this is rural upstate western NY. When will the madness end? It's time to get out of this state.

Guess I better end my rant here. If you disagree with my way of looking at things thats ok, I have friends who don't see these issues the way I do and I try to see it their way too. I'm just tired of this government/environmental/tax bs getting in the way and hurting small business and local jobs as time goes on.

 

[bluesmoker]

this is for all of you guys who think the EPA should be abolished,

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/asia/gallery/beijing-smog/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

BTW if you haven't heard, China is not exactly the home of the "free"

this being said I agree that the current emission controls are unreliable, and should be warrantied for at least 100, 000 miles, and this means every component, including the DPF, EGR, etc. Handing a car owner a $3000 bill just after the warranty period is an obvious incentive to do an exhaust delete. The other alternative is to scrap the car.

the story behind the diesel DPF is simple, the EPA has a violent fetish with NOx emissions, the only way to reduce the NOx was to massively increase the EGR rate which in turn lead to opacity (unburned fuel) in the exhaust. Its called the law of unintended consequences, solve one problem by creating another.

Just take a look at a egr deleted ALH engine with its cat converter intact, unless its way over tuned there is virtually no smoke, but the NOx is over the EPA limit.

If the diesels were given a break by the EPA for NOx a lot of these emission reliability problems (and cost) would disappear

 

[bhtooefr]

I could maybe see a system where you have to be emissions certified to enter a NAAQS non-attainment area or a high population density area.

That'd probably be a reasonable compromise for many people - saving those stuck in rural areas the cost, where their emissions cause less problems.

 

[Powder Hound]

... reasonable compromise ...

The entire reason why your very good suggestion will never see the light of day. Sigh...

I really do think it is a good suggestion, BTW.

 

[D_Bill]

PM emissions

I met an engineer that had a few thoughts about particulate emissions.

He acknowledged that diesels had visible ( and you could touch feel ) particulates in the exhaust . His point was that they were large enough to precipitate out of the air ( you'd see them - thin film of dust - on cars in the morning in heavy use areas ) ; and, large enough that through the normal act of coughing by a person, the particulates would be expelled from our respiratory tracts .

His study of gas engines was not so good . Gasoline combustion creates micro particulates - according to him . They are far smaller and thus more insidious - they lodge in the tissues of our respiratory systems and are too small to be expelled - so way more likely to cause health related problems .

The point - when I look at the EPA emissions guidelines for light duty vehicles I see PM standards only for diesel engines ( footnote b - for diesel engines only ) . If this is true - Why ?

And if true and if EPA's stated guidelines are to bring parity between diesel and gas emissions they certainly seem to be violating that clause somewhere that says - equal treatment under the law .

I must be missing something - maybe someone might clear this up for me . . .

 

[bluesmoker]

I met an engineer that had a few thoughts about particulate emissions.

He acknowledged that diesels had visible ( and you could touch feel ) particulates in the exhaust . His point was that they were large enough to precipitate out of the air ( you'd see them - thin film of dust - on cars in the morning in heavy use areas ) ; and, large enough that through the normal act of coughing by a person, the particulates would be expelled from our respiratory tracts .

His study of gas engines was not so good . Gasoline combustion creates micro particulates - according to him . They are far smaller and thus more insidious - they lodge in the tissues of our respiratory systems and are too small to be expelled - so way more likely to cause health related problems .

The point - when I look at the EPA emissions guidelines for light duty vehicles I see PM standards only for diesel engines ( footnote b - for diesel engines only ) . If this is true - Why ?

And if true and if EPA's stated guidelines are to bring parity between diesel and gas emissions they certainly seem to be violating that clause somewhere that says - equal treatment under the law .

I must be missing something - maybe someone might clear this up for me . . .

the issue is between (2.5 um) and (over 10 um) particles

the ultra fine PM2.5 particles can act as gasses and directly enter the blood stream

larger particles do not

interestingly there have been studies posted indicating direct injection gas engines produce a disproportionate volume of ultra fine particles compared to diesels equipped with DPFs

http://www.swri.org/3pubs/ttoday/Summer11/PDFs/ParticleEmissions.pdf

http://www.cambridgeparticlemeeting...tions/2009/PPrice(UOxford)_2009_GDI_PM(I).pdf

 

[scdevon]

reasonable compromise

"Reasonable compromise" would be forcing car companies to supply emission control parts at reasonable prices for at least 25 years after the part was last installed on a vehicle.
The main reason people disable emission control parts is because they're f'ing EXPENSIVE as hell and often unavailable from the carmaker after a certain number of years.
Reasonable = doesn't exceed the book value of the car to replace a major exhaust system component after 7 to 10 years.

A DPF should cost a few hundred dollars brand new from VW FOREVER. Someone in the supply chain is making a hell of a killing on list prices on these parts. You can hardly blame people who look for a workaround once these parts start to fail and become obsolete.

The government is already good at mandating emission levels, they need to start mandating against insane parts replacement costs and the length of time replacement parts are available brand new from the car companies.

 

[tditom]

How much is clean air worth to you? I don't know why these components are so darn expensive, but here is what the EPA lists as benefits of full implementation of modern emission controls for diesels:

Once this action is fully implemented:

2.6 million tons of smog-causing nitrogen oxide emissions will be reduced each year.
Soot or particulate matter will be reduced by 110,000 tons a year.
An estimated 8,300 premature deaths, 5,500 cases of chronic bronchitis and 17,600 cases of acute bronchitis in children will be prevented annually.
An estimated 360,000 asthma attacks and 386,000 cases of respiratory symptoms in asthmatic children will also be avoided every year.
1.5 million lost work days, 7,100 hospital visits and 2,400 emergency room visits for asthma will be prevented.

 

[scdevon]

How much is clean air worth to you?

Clean air is worth a lot and the CR is a really clean running platform. There's just no way that a key clean diesel component should cost $3k, (or whatever).

The EPA should hold some leverage with carmakers over how much emission replacement parts should cost. You can't argue that a DPF is worth anywhere near $3k.

Yes, I understand how business works. I understand R&D costs. I understand manufacturing costs. I understand transportation and distribution costs. I also understand human nature to disable a DPF once it's shot and the owner is facing a repair bill that exceeds the realistic value of the car.

Welcome to the new generation of vehicles. They're worth too much to scrap
and too expensive to fix. That's been a problem for quite a while, actually.

 

[bhtooefr]

One thing that the few emissions counties in Ohio do is, they actually pay you a small amount towards repairing the car if it fails emissions (I think $300).

Maybe that approach could be extended to the sales of emissions parts - if you're buying one to repair a vehicle that is not complying with emissions, then you get a government subsidy.

 

[tditom]

^^^good idea. Maybe even a tax write-off?

 

[Thermo1223]

One reason I bought my TDI PD was because diesel cars were emissions inspection exempt in NY state, where I unfortunately still live for the time being. However, last summer that changed and diesels now have to pass OBD emission inspection in NY just like any other vehicle. Right now I have inspection coming up on a gasoline car with a bad SAI. Going to college I cannot see how it is worth my very limited funds to throw cash at this equipment that provides no useful function or purpose to my car and at the tune of hundreds of dollars. I can think of many other areas where that money would benefit others or myself. Car insurance is high in NY as well as taxes everywhere. And I'm not even close to NYC, this is rural upstate western NY. When will the madness end? It's time to get out of this state.

Actually you are wrong, it does provide a useful function and has a purpose. It's sole purpose to inject air into a cold cat on a cold start. Therefore bringing emission levels down reasonably quicker than without. It stokes the fire sorta speak. Junkyards and forums online are your friend for this. While it seems a nuisance not having the car smell like a riding lawn mower in the morning for the first few miles makes sense to me.

Isn't replacing a cat just as much of a nuisance? Lets all go back to leaded gas!

 

[thebigarniedog]

How much is clean air worth to you? I don't know why these components are so darn expensive, but here is what the EPA lists as benefits of full implementation of modern emission controls for diesels:

Emission and Fuel Economy should be measured from the well to the end user vehicle.

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

This is an interesting thread, and the EPA's actions, whether you agree with them or not, has got to be making tuners nervous. Many of us here are somewhat hypocritical about emissions: On one hand we stand tall because we're consuming a fraction of the fuel per mile that many other drivers consume, but on the other hand we willingly disable emissions equipment we feel is unnecessary, harmful, or negatively impacts our cars' performance. And we add hardware (bigger nozzles and turbos, etc.) that increase emissions. And we point the finger at truck drivers who want to roll coal, but I've seen at least one thread here in the past 24 hours where a newbie is asking how he can do same with his TDI.

I would feel more comfortable all around if agencies could actually measure diesel emissions, not just check for OBD compliance. That way we could modify the cars intelligently and still know we aren't creating undue harm.

 

[bhtooefr]

To be fair, we usually flame the crap out of those that want to roll coal with a TDI, too.

 

[SuperAdellic]

This is an interesting thread, and the EPA's actions, whether you agree with them or not, has got to be making tuners nervous. Many of us here are somewhat hypocritical about emissions: On one hand we stand tall because we're consuming a fraction of the fuel per mile that many other drivers consume, but on the other hand we willingly disable emissions equipment we feel is unnecessary, harmful, or negatively impacts our cars' performance. And we add hardware (bigger nozzles and turbos, etc.) that increase emissions. And we point the finger at truck drivers who want to roll coal, but I've seen at least one thread here in the past 24 hours where a newbie is asking how he can do same with his TDI.

I would feel more comfortable all around if agencies could actually measure diesel emissions, not just check for OBD compliance. That way we could modify the cars intelligently and still know we aren't creating undue harm.

I agree that we, as a community, are somewhat hypocritical about this subject.

Some states actually do comprehensive emission testing on diesels. Kind of rare but I have been through opacity tests and a sniffer before. Now I'm in California where they rely on the calibrated mark 1 eyeball to tell me if I'm polluting too much. What a joke.