By the way, here's the form you sign...
I got a kick out of the fact that it's tied to "customer_testimonials.cfm" <big grin>
Or, in otherwords, "Sign this here form and we'll send you a kit that'll make you smile all the way down the road! We Promise!"
OK, funny anecdote and then I'll shut up (for at least 5 minutes).
When I was a kid my family owned a 1979 Ford Van with a 460 V8 with one of those massive carburetors on it.
We'd bought the thing from an airport limousine service and rebuilt the engine (which interestingly was so well maintained that the hone marks were still in the cylinders, but it had a nasty rod knock).
Anyway, in 1979 these engines had more emission controls on them than you can shake a stick at. Smog pumps, vacuum lines running everywhere, you name it. Lot's & lot's of emission crap.
When my dad rebuilt the thing, he took all of them but the most necessary ones off (he couldn't remove the EGR Valve, they'd made that one too much a part of the system to remove it..the car wouldn't run right without it).
Anyway, so all of this stuff was removed and when he took it in to get the emissions done on it, it passed with flying colors....year after year too. The thing ran great! It had that low idle that those engines have & the guy's at the emission places swore up & down that it wasn't going to pass every year (because the idle was so low it just kind of "loped along"). But every year it did....
My point? Half the time the emission controls on a car were put on as afterthoughts (well, ok, a LOT of the time). Get rid of them, tune the engine up to run right and the engines can typically pass emissions just fine.
Now apart from this stupid NOx standard they just added to the emission standards, new modern diesels DO run clean...in fact, I'd venture to say EXTREMELY CLEAN! Unless you chip em, they're hard to even get em to smoke!
So, apart from this stupid NOx standard that they threw into Tier II Bin 5, I don't see why they had to raise the bar so damned high.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but gas engines put out a heck of a lot more pollutants than diesels to.
I dunno, I'm still just dumbfounded and amazed at the stupidity of the EPA in mandating something so tight that the engines now perform less than optimum and get worse mileage.
To me, that's a major disservice to the environment.
Anyway, that's not really the issue though here, I guess what's really needed is for some good, hard lobbying to be done at the steps of the capital to get Congress & the Senate to take a good hard look at what they've accomplished by putting these new standards through.
1) It raised diesel prices (because of ULSD)
2) It lowered fuel miles per gallon
3) It created a problem with Biodiesel use
Besides the higher diesel prices not being good for the economy (everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, you own at one point or another in it's life has been transported on a truck, boat, or train sometime in it's life...most likely with a diesel engine too).
By raising the standard, they've effectively added another variable to increasing inflation (because of lower fuel economy and higher diesel prices). All that so they could reduce NOx levels by a negligible amount.
Stupid, stupid, stupid!
OK, I'll quit...for at least 5 minutes anyway...
As I understand it, sulfuric acid rain is not good.
Thus low sulfur emissions on coal plants, and ultra low sulfur diesel.
As far as emissions.
Remember, DPF stands for Diesel Particulate Filter (the black soot coming from the exhaust pipes). It isn't a bad idea to work on reducing it. Whacking 25% of the gas mileage isn't wise in today's environment either.
As far as old engines.
When I first bought my 1967 Fiat 500, I thought it needed emission testing and took it to the testing center. Granted, I wasn't too good at tuning it at the time. However, it failed miserably. Thank God it was actually exempt. Since then I've looked at (but not purchased) catalytic kits for the car. Part of what the kit does is add an Oxygen sensor, and dynamically adjust the fuel air mix for optimum combustion, thus reducing about 80% of the NOX emissions before the CAT. And, it is supposed to actually improve the performance of the vehicle as well as the fuel mileage. And, I'm speculating that it will help it run better on E85 and alcohol mixes.
So, my conclusion is that not all the "SMOG Stuff" is bad.
As mentioned in an earlier post, I think we need a liaison between the EPA, UNECE, DOT, Car manufacturers, Congress, and perhaps local governments. A person or an agency that has some power to make sense out of this mess. This has been transformed as a "Car Czar" in the legislation, but I don't know if the person has any real teeth with the position.
Semi-Trucks have somewhere around 5 gallons of oil capacity, and are rated for about 30,000 miles per oil change.
Some people (with cars) think they can get away with "self changing oil" due to high consumption/leakage. However, after sludging up my Ranger, and replacing the oil pickup in a motel parking lot, I'm a bit skeptical, especially if not draining from the bottom of the sump.
Acid rain is produced from SO2, sulfur dioxide combining with water vapor in the air to form sulfuric acid, and it's quite bad for anything in the downwind plume of an SO2 emitter.
NOx produces SMOG in congested urban areas, it's not a big problem outside big cities.
It's ridiculous that they apply the same emissions standards to all vehicles. NOx and most of the other emissions are only a problem in crowded city conditions.
The simple and fair solution would be IF one wanted to drive their vehicle into the smog zone then the vehicle needs a special tag on the bumper showing that the vehicle has passed the more stringent urban emissions standards.
If the EPA truly wanted to do something about urban pollution they would have rigorously strict pollution standards in cites , impose congestion taxes, and do something that actually made a meaningful difference. However that would pis$ off too many influential lobbyists, so it's much easier to adopt the traditional liberal tactic of appearing to do something while actually doing very little. This keeps the lobbyists happy, their money keeps flowing and the liberal urban voting bloc eats it up because they're too stupid to know $hit from shinola. Remember that among the urban liberal elite it's not what you do but what you appear to do; it's all about perception, not reality.
I have no idea what they cost.
When I worked the inspection/re-fuel lanes in a truck terminal one of the regulars had an Oil Mate system. The first time he asked me to fill the 5 gallon tank that was bolted to the back of the cab with lube oil I had to ask him all about it. He said it worked great.
I see it more as a price differential between oil and an engine rebuild. Oil analysis will tell you how well the system is working. I think the fuel contamination would help prevent sludge from forming in the first place but if you are still worried about it I see no reason why you couldn't do a traditional oil change occasionally.
It looks like the lube oil will become contaminated with fuel when running B100 in a post combustion regen DPF system. We are forced to either prevent it from happening in the first place with a DPF delete, or replace the oil when it becomes contaminated. I'm not trying to sell anyone on the Oil Mate system but it looks like a convenient way to replace the oil without generating hazardous waste. I personally don't like the idea of removing emissions devices or doing frequent oil changes.
The way they accomplish this in Utah is by enforcing stringent emission standards in the counties where the big cities are.
ie. Salt Lake County and the two surrounding counties.
If you happen to live outside of those counties, you don't have to have your vehicles emissioned (even if you drive into the "urban" counties).
I happen to live in a county where the emission standards are the most stringent (even more stringent than Salt Lake County; where our biggest city is).
In fact, in my county you're MANDATED to take your diesel vehicle to the county run emission testing station. This means they get to play "Hmmm....let's see what we can break on his truck today!" with your vehicle and you can't do a damn thing about it.
They look over the old diesels just as much as they do the new ones (they pulled my air cleaner off, looked under the truck, looked around with a flashlight under the engine, the works when I took in my Isuzu.)
It's amazing to see how thorough they are.
And, in our county, there's a program where you can rat out someone who you think has a "smoking car". You call their 1-800 hotline and tell them who you think is problematic and they'll send a notice to the driver that they have like 30 days to bring the car down & have it checked.
So......got a chipped out, tricked out Dodge that blows black smoke when ya step on it? Better not drive it through our county! Some motorist will rat you out & you'll be forced to take your truck in for an emission test AT YOUR EXPENSE. And, by the way, they use a tighter standard when they get called in....(ie. the smoke has to be even clearer than when you normally have it inspected).
For the most part, the program works and our smog in our county has gone down quite a bit, I just don't care for how "gestapo-ish" they are with it.
Oh yeah, on gas cars, about every 3 years you're forced to take your gasser in as well to their facility. On the other years you can still take it to a privately run emission station.
Each station's emission equipment is electronically connected to the county and when the test is run, it automatically sends the data, so a private station can't "fudge" the results.
Big brother? In Utah? Nah.....they'd NEVER do that.....(Yeah, right)
Wow that is one crazy set of flaming hoops and BS.
So Graydon when are you going to be running for County Council?
LOL!!! Now that's funny!
I'm too blunt to ever be political...
I'd make a miserable county councilman.
Good for them. That's an excellent way to focus on the pollution problem where it matters. I do think my suggestion would be more fair but at least they are making steps in the right direction. However I agree that the officious gestapo-like tactics are quite unnecessary. They could accomplish the same ends with a positive green focus that rewards people for keeping the air clean.
My question is:
How much would the smog have gone down if there was NO emission testing, and over time people just naturally replaced the pre-75 cars with the current cars built to Federal Emission standards?
Personally, I think the emission testing, while it probably does help a little, it is an extraordinarily expensive program to manage and maintain for very little benefit.
Say Salt Lake City spends $20 million/year (guess without data) on emission testing and auto repairs, and etc.
Wouldn't that money be better spent on research and development of eco-friendly fuels, and power sources, as well as R&D on eco-friendly home cooling systems. Perhaps having enough money left over to provide grants to put on solar panels and solar Hot Water systems.
But it does keep the cars that aren't running well off the road...at least a part of the cars (those registered in the counties where the programs are).
Probably very little, people are generally lazy slackers. They won't do what they don't want to unless society forces them for the greater societal good.
I don't think they would have a choice.
And the "lazy" people will be the ones leaving the factory stuff in place.
Emission systems have changed on the cars.
My 76 AMC pretty much just had an air pump that blew air into the exhaust manifold, and no CAT. Perhaps oxidizing some Carbon monoxide, but it didn't seem to do much, and wasn't well integrated into the car as a whole.
The 84 Renault was a significant step up in complication. By the time it had 200K miles, something was not quite right. Perhaps a bad "computer", but the car ran fine (just had a heck of a time passing emissions).
Now the newer cars all have plug-in diagnostics, and many will just fail to start if a sensor isn't functioning right. That is the reason one can't just whack out the DPF... too integrated into the whole system.
Anyway, while I think many Americans are skeptical about the emission stuff in the cars, many of them can barely find the dipstick, and wouldn't consider tinkering around with any sensors even if the instructions were clearly written out for them.
I would have to think that over 90% of the cars get through emission testing just fine. But, it just becomes a nightmare for that last 10%. Yet, I would have to think that the overall benefit to society by putting that last 10% of the car owners through the ringer is very minimal. And, one must support an enormous government infrastructure just to pick up those few cars.
And, at least in St. Louis, the "safety inspection system" is so corrupt.
Then the obvious solution is to deal with the corruption rampant is so many of your systems, not to throw out the system. Maybe the refusal to deal with corruption is why corruption exists at all levels.
Also not everyone buys new cars, and that is going to become even more the case as the economy further deteriorates. The simple solution as I noted above is to simply require strict emission standards on cars driven into smog zones, with stickers to indicate compliance, and don't bother testing the rest. Get caught driving an un-stickered car in a smog zone and it's impounded. Simple, easy, cost effective.
Hello and Merry Christmas!
Just to let you know...the manufacturers did not adjust for the use of bio diesel in their engineering of vehicles from 2007 on, because of the emission changes required. Nor have they for older vehicles, because of the vague testing practices of home brewers and bio fuel corporate manufacturers.
Some have their bio tested and certified, however quality of WVO is never the same, day to day, partially due to climate and change of seasons. We all know to titrate before each batch, when you do a batch! Plus we have difference in methods of brewing bio. Your method may work, your fuel (or oil we call it) maybe certified, however, it still might be wrong. It has to be as close to Diesel oil as possible.
The only company that has engineered for bio is John Deere. Unfortunately they make tractors. You could use some of their components to a point. You could use O-rings and cylinder compression rings, that might solve some of the problems. If you could find the right sizes, or do expensive machining to fit the components. Your ECM or PCM (engine management system) is always going to be a problem thanks to the new emissions standards. Diesel is more caustic. Bio however is not caustic, it does produce more NOx(oxides of nitrogen)and particulate matter, and that is what their testing for NOx and particulate matter. The emissions laws are vague even for the use of bio, they are testing bio. yet, their bio is not the same as our bio, and they are not using the same % of fuel and bio mix that we use, everybody is different.
1999 F-250 Running B-50 and getting over 24 miles per Gallon. and getting +/- 380 ftlbs of torque from modifications HA HA HEH! OOH! RAH! Semper Fi!
I believe New Holland also certifies their equipment for B100.
New Holland does allow B100 in all of their bigger tractors which are Cummins powered. Same for Case IH, Cummins powered.
1992 F350 w/Cummins
2004 F250 w/Edge Platinum
both on B100
John Deere does what is popular for the farmers. And Biodiesel is a big marketing thing.
I looked up their website:
I'm seeing quite a few bigger notes on the New Holland website:
Case International seems to also support B100.
It appears if John Deere is trailing the pack on BD support.
But, I have no doubt that farmers will push them harder, and within a year or two they'll come around too.
It would not be good for a company like John Deere to Piss off their clients.
Feasible, yes. Practicle? probably not. There are a few vehicles that use these engines (motorhomes) But the VT-903 and VT-555 are pretty big V8 engines. That is what is commonly found in agricultural equipment. There are a few V6 versions of these as well. The smaller inline sixes and fours are already in on road vehicles. The NH inline six is very common in semi trucks. Then the 8.3L line six in busses. The monsterous V12 and V16 engines are of course for stationary or marine power.
Blessings. Joe 1999 Chevy Suburban w/new optimizer 6500 TD and 1995 Chevy Cube van 6.5L. WWW.RillaBioFuels.com
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 33|