EPA fines diesel tuning equipment supplier

[john.jackson9213]

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.

I am old enough to remember when California got into the auto emissions thing. The first state requirement was a PCV device (Positive Crankcase Vent) about 1962. There was a huge number of people who claimed this would do all kinds of terrible things to cars. When I was 17 and got my first car (1953 Studebaker V8) the car had to be retrofitted with a PCV. Well, smog/emissions and testing has come a VERY long way since then. And our cars actually are better for it. My 85 Mustang GT with a factory 4 bbl carb was a rocket ship at sea level. But at 8500 feet, it had a very bad case of congestive lung failure. On the other hand my 1990 Mazda B2200 had fuel injection and ran just the same at 8500 feet as sea level - with a bit less power.
My point? The first Smog checks were visual - Is there a PCV? By 1990 we had real tail pipe sniffers. It will come to diesel emissions also and much quicker.
One more thing - Our engine's have gotten much, much better in the same time. My 53 Studebaker burned oil like crazy with only 43k original miles. I had to add oil every single time I filled with gas. My 96 Passat with 236K, still does not use oil. 100K miles used to be a mark of long life. No longer.

 

[romad]

I am old enough to remember when California got into the auto emissions thing. The first state requirement was a PCV device (Positive Crankcase Vent) about 1962. There was a huge number of people who claimed this would do all kinds of terrible things to cars. When I was 17 and got my first car (1953 Studebaker V8) the car had to be retrofitted with a PCV. Well, smog/emissions and testing has come a VERY long way since then. And our cars actually are better for it. My 85 Mustang GT with a factory 4 bbl carb was a rocket ship at sea level. But at 8500 feet, it had a very bad case of congestive lung failure. On the other hand my 1990 Mazda B2200 had fuel injection and ran just the same at 8500 feet as sea level - with a bit less power.
My point? The first Smog checks were visual - Is there a PCV? By 1990 we had real tail pipe sniffers. It will come to diesel emissions also and much quicker.
One more thing - Our engine's have gotten much, much better in the same time. My 53 Studebaker burned oil like crazy with only 43k original miles. I had to add oil every single time I filled with gas. My 96 Passat with 236K, still does not use oil. 100K miles used to be a mark of long life. No longer.

Do you remember the retrofit debacle back in the, IIRC, early 70s? It was just in the SoCal region and resulted in a lot of blown engines and the taxpayers paying for them. I can't recall what the emissions equipment that was required to be retrofit to car engines not designed for such systems, but the good result was that new emissions equipment would only be installed on new model year vehicles at the factory. A friend of mine was one who almost lost an engine.

CARB is starting to do the same thing again with stationary diesel engines but is also giving the option for the owner to completely replace these engines at at few multi-thousand of dollars a pop. The CPR agriculture economy is one place that is going to take a major hit so prepare for much higher food prices.

Oh the first PCV test was functional, John: the tester would remove the oil filler cap, and place his palm over the opening to see if the PCV was working.

 

[romad]

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.

Won't happen here in the CPR; CARB would lose all the fees they extort from equipment manufacturers. CARB doesn't really care about the actual tailpipe emissions; just making equipment manufacturers jump through hoops and pay big bucks. Afterall, if emissions was the target, who cares what equipment is used as long as what comes out of the tailpipe meets the rule?

 

[romad]

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.

As of 1 Jan 2013 that is the same test for 2000+ OBDII gassers (sans the opacity test). My smog tech told me that he had seen a lot of cars pass the OBD II part but not the sniffer part previously, so he expects a rise in pollutants being released with the "new, improved" test.

 

[romad]

Lets all go back to leaded gas!

Yes, it was actually cheaper!

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

Early emissions equipment did kill engines. Burned valves, blown head gaskets, and some of the worst starting and running engines imaginable were the norm in the 70s. I remember people shutting cars and walking away while the car would happily continue to detonate away. It was a terrible time. One of our colleagues was looking at late 70s MGs: what had been a 100 HP engine pre-emissions was down to 56 HP by the time they stopped production in 1980.

I fear that Diesels are now going through some of those same evolutionary pains. We may come out better at the other end, but the process is difficult.

 

[bhtooefr]

The thing is, last time, gasoline engines were by far the norm, and nothing was able to compete (thank you, GM). Nothing to replace gassers, so they didn't die as a technology.

This time around, gasoline engines are even more the norm, electrics are also in the mix, and this will make diesels unable to compete again. Diesels being extremely niche, it could kill the diesel in the US market entirely. Which, I could be convinced is an attempt to kill good to force everyone to "perfect" (even when perfect has some significant downsides) - make diesels and the most efficient gassers unable to compete, so you get to choose between a simple but inefficient gasser, and an electric.

 

[scdevon]

What needs to be addressed is the potential cost of keeping high mileage cars emissions compliant in stock form.

The attitude of "well.......my DPF is shot so it's time to either disable it or pay more than the car is worth to replace the DPF" needs to go away. If the EPA is serious about emissions, they also need to get serious with car companies and lean on them to supply replacement parts and service that are reasonably priced.

It's worse on the environment to junk otherwise good cars in neeed of expensive repairs. The least environmental impact occurs when older vehicles are easily and cheaply repaired and restored to original stock emission performance. There should be an EPA mandated cap on replacement emissions parts prices (or a dollar-for-dollar income tax writeoff for emission control parts purchases or emission control repairs performed).

Most if not all of the economic temptation needs to go away for people to disable emission control parts when they fail. There needs to be an economic incentive for maintaining stock emission controls.

 

[bhtooefr]

Mind you, list price for a brand new cat+DPF for a CKRA is $15.40 more than the list price for a remanufactured (so, not including the $125 core charge) downpipe+cat for an ALH.

I'm not sure if that says more about the CKRA DPF being a really good price, or the ALH cat being an absolutely atrocious price.

 

[scdevon]

This time around, gasoline engines are even more the norm, .

The issue is that gas engines are becoming more efficient. Some gas engines are approaching 14(!!!) to 1 compression ratios. They are direct injection. They are almost semi-diesels themselves because of excellent compression ratios and direct injection. Gasoline emissions are easier to deal with than diesel emissions. Gasoline engines are lighter and easier to produce and cheaper to produce. You can get 300,000 miles easily out of current generation gas engines.

I disagree with those who say that Diesels are ready to explode in popularity. Gas engines could surpass Diesels in efficiency very soon because gas engines get the lion's share of engineering improvements due to increased popularity.

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

Gasoline emissions are "easier" because our regulations are biased towards them and against diesels. This dates back to the CARB chariman who hated diesels so he made the regs difficult for diesels to meet. Then 4 other states adopted them, which lead to those states (including Massachusetts) to not have TDIs from '03 to '09, and to the current complex emissions systems we now have on diesels to make them 50 state compliant.

Other countries measure emissions differently, including C02 emissions. Diesels have less trouble meeting some of those regulations. Our system needs to be revamped, but don't hold your breath (no pun intended). I think most regulators would just as soon have us drive hybrids.

 

[bhtooefr]

Electrics and bicycles.

Which is the way we eventually need to go, but perfect is the enemy of good.

 

[romad]

Gasoline emissions are "easier" because our regulations are biased towards them and against diesels. This dates back to the CARB chariman who hated diesels so he made the regs difficult for diesels to meet. Then 4 other states adopted them, which lead to those states (including Massachusetts) to not have TDIs from '03 to '09, and to the current complex emissions systems we now have on diesels to make them 50 state compliant.

Other countries measure emissions differently, including C02 emissions. Diesels have less trouble meeting some of those regulations. Our system needs to be revamped, but don't hold your breath (no pun intended). I think most regulators would just as soon have us drive hybrids.

Proof that CARB/EPA aren't really concerned about reducing emissions but about raising revenue

 

[VeeDubTDI]

Proof that CARB/EPA aren't really concerned about reducing emissions but about raising revenue

I'm not so sure about that - they're just misguided and/or ignorant and/or incompetent.

 

[bhtooefr]

Well, there's willful ignorance of the whole weekend effect thing...

Oh, and one thing that would be nice is emission credits. Emit less of one thing, be allowed to emit more of other things (obviously the equivalency formulas would have to be set up right, but even if they were off, it'd help). That could balance things out better.

 

[wxman]

Well, there's willful ignorance of the whole weekend effect thing...

There seems to be some irrational loathing in general by regulatory agencies of anything diesel powered.

For example, the South Coast Air Quality Management Divisions (SCAQMD - which is responsible for air quality in the Los Angeles area and South Coast Air Basin) submitted a set of comments on California's "Low Carbon Fuel Standard" proposal in 2009. They (SCAQMD) devoted over a page about their concern with the possibility that the standard would encourage light-duty diesels and increase light-duty dieselization. That would result in their view in a disaster for air quality in Southern California (PM in particular). Again, this was 2009, after the LD regulations (Tier 2/LEV II) effectively required DPF on all diesel vehicles. Even CARB acknowledged that LD diesels with DPF had PM emissions that were a fraction of typical gasoline PM emissions (http://business.highbeam.com/61474/...tells-auto-engineers-diesel-can-beat-gasoline).

I agree with IndigoBlueWagon, it appears that the LEV II regs were intentionally designed initially to make it difficult if not impossible for LD diesel vehicles to meet in order to keep diesel vehicles out of California.

Oh, and one thing that would be nice is emission credits. Emit less of one thing, be allowed to emit more of other things (obviously the equivalency formulas would have to be set up right, but even if they were off, it'd help). That could balance things out better.

I completely agree, and the emission credits should look at the entire well-to-wheels emission profiles (e.g., diesels should be given credit for the tiny fraction of VOCs that is produced compared to gasoline in the fuel production, distribution and storage stages).

 

[velociT]

Dayum, they got off cheap !!!!!

Good thing the EPA is focusing on the irresponsible who yield this:

Yeah, that truck isn't on a road. Offroad means offroad.

All the members falling over themselves for the EPA are going to be really butthurt when the EPA makes diesels extinct.

 

[bhtooefr]

The end game is to make internal combustion extinct. Not sure I agree with the strategy that they're using (basically, declaring good the enemy of perfect, and attacking everything that makes internal combustion more efficient, when we've got an energy crisis on our hands, and electric not YET able to compete on equal footing), but ultimately, it'll end up better for everyone.

 

[bhtooefr]

Well, when your own decisions are screwing everyone in the world over in the long term...

Mind you, like I said, I disagree with the "good is the enemy of perfect" mentality. Encourage the best efficiency that we have NOW in the present, while pushing for better things in the future (and encourage those that want to be guinea pigs, as well - this helps the economies of scale kick off). Once those better things are proven, encourage them over the older, less efficient things.

In my world, port injected gassers would be nearly extinct, and it'd be a mix of DI gassers and diesels, hybridized as appropriate, with EVs also being promoted.

 

[tditom]

Spoken like a true CARB member!

"We know what is best for you and you WILL like it. What makes you think you should make your own decisions?"

Yeah, you're probably right. It would be better for us consumers and taxpayers to decide what is best for our environment instead of science leading the way.

 

[40X40]

Yeah, you're probably right. It would be better for us consumers and taxpayers to decide what is best for our environment instead of science leading the way.

Carb is a political entity. If carb rules were science based, diesel would be the predominant fuel and they would be making sure that the particles coming out of tailpipes/smokestacks were sized too big to inhale.

Gritty, but safer.

Bill

 

[tditom]

I'm not saying CARB or the EPA is perfect by any means. But I do think they do not have evil intentions. I think they will be forced to re-evaluate diesel as it becomes cleaner.

We need oversight on things impacting the environment. The decisions we make today impact the generations to come, so just having self regulation by the industry or using consumer/voter collective conscience is not going to cut it. Hence the need for science based decisions. I think CARB will need to come around in the near future to reconsidering clean diesel.

 

[romad]

I think CARB will need to come around in the near future to reconsidering clean diesel.

If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. Perhaps you should move here so you can enjoy the "benefits" of CARB: higher priced fuel, higher priced repair parts, etc. Sounds like you would fit in perfectly as a subject of the CPR.

 

[TNriverjet]

I'm not saying CARB or the EPA is perfect by any means. But I do think they do not have evil intentions. I think they will be forced to re-evaluate diesel as it becomes cleaner.

We need oversight on things impacting the environment. The decisions we make today impact the generations to come, so just having self regulation by the industry or using consumer/voter collective conscience is not going to cut it. Hence the need for science based decisions. I think CARB will need to come around in the near future to reconsidering clean diesel.

Can someone please interpret this? It sounds like we are all to dumb to be able to make our own decisions. But, I could be reading it wrong.

 

[tditom]

Not dumb, but most of us are ignorant of all the facts to be considered when it comes to long term impact on the environment.

 

[TNriverjet]

Not dumb, but most of us are ignorant of all the facts to be considered when it comes to long term impact on the environment.

I'm sure we all are...

 

[tditom]

...It sounds like we are all to dumb to be able to make our own decisions...

Let me ask:
What criteria would you use for making your own decisions when it comes to air quality? And our you ok with living with every other individuals own decisions for the same?

 

[bhtooefr]

There's also the tragedy of the commons factor at play.

I can do things that don't negatively affect myself, but instead negatively affect others and future generations. If there aren't restrictions on those actions, others can get hurt badly by my actions, even if there was no malice intended.

 

[VWBeamer]

Amazing how some will impose restrictions on person just wanting to improve the efficiency of his car, but support Al Gore or another liberal activist that will put more pollution in the air flying their private jet on one trip than the average car owner will in a life time.

I work on airplanes, have you ever witness the particle emmisions from a jet the size of AirForce one when it takes off? Obama going on Vacation to Hawaii did more damage to the environment in that one trip than I ever will in my little 1.9 liter diesel.

But I'm the bad guy because i have aftermarket tuning on my car....

 

[bhtooefr]

Mind you, my car's emissions systems aren't stock. I do think the details of how things are focused right now are wrong, but I feel that emissions control in itself is a good idea.

A president's travel is, unfortunately, going to use tons of resources and put out tons of emissions, no matter who the president is (and, suggesting that a president should never take vacations is, quite frankly, ridiculous - that's one of the more stressful jobs out there). The level of security needed nowadays, ESPECIALLY when such a president dares to be of a race that is hated by a segment of the population, requires it.

I do think that those advocating that we reduce usage should practice what they preach, though. While the POTUS's job duties requires fast response to situations (and therefore the use of Air Force One), people advocating that we should use less should use less themselves, unlike Al Gore - minimize travel, and when traveling, do it in the most efficient way (a fully loaded bus would be in the 300 pmpg ballpark, and a fully loaded Amtrak train would be in the 190 pmpg ballpark (shockingly low, actually - I suspect equipment issues might be to blame here)).