"Complete" Diesel Emissions comparison
- Thread starter chevyburnout1
- Start date
I find it weird that NJ has less emissions for diesels than Kali, usually they are cohorts on ruining fun.
For me I don't get inspected or have a sticker, but I think I am subject to an opacity test if pulled into a mobile inspection test, how they test that.. no clue.
For me I don't get inspected or have a sticker, but I think I am subject to an opacity test if pulled into a mobile inspection test, how they test that.. no clue.
Truthfully that idea may not be too far from reality. If the EPA is cracking down on particulates, which is less of an issue than NOx, then I can bet NOx control is in the works as well. The possibility of DPF/Urea retrofit kits is probably closer than we think. Then it turns back into the old hotrod days of running exhaust cut outs for the track.
I doubt we would see retrofit mandates for light trucks but yeah, for MD and up I wouldn't be surprised.
What ever happened to "Government ran by the people"??? It seems more and more it’s the other way around and there seems to be no end in sight. One of the issues is simply our own damn fault... It’s called complacency! We bitch and bitch about new regs/rules/laws/ect but then we do nothing to stop it.
Mark these words... If we continue to do nothing, eventually our hoods will be effectively sealed. Seems farfetched but then again they have been going for this since the start of OBD2.
I hate to say this but we are living on limited time for our hobby. Eventually it will be dead. Only way to stop or prolong this from happening is to get involved and demand change.
On the topic of our big smokeless tunes being cleaner.... I really don’t think so... To make more power you either need to increase efficiency or add more fuel/air. Obviously you can only go so far with the first (timing changes/raise fuel pressure/ect), the other is what ends up happening regardless. If we are adding more fuel then we are not cleaner... PERIOD! Personally, I think particulates don’t pose much harm at all to the air since they are just that... particulates... They are a solid and not a gas and therefore have more density and weight. This causes them to very quickly fall to the ground or be washed from the atmosphere when it rains. What they do to our grounds/streams.... Different topic....
Now before anyone thinks I am pro emissions... Let me make clear I am not! I freaking hate them and feel that at this point they are nearly pointless anymore. Today’s vehicles are more efficient, cleaner, and run better than we ever thought would be possible in the 80's. Want proof? Our air is visibly cleaner than it has been since the 60/70's and this is despite the huge increase of vehicles on the road.
Here’s a great topic... Global warming.... As I have a scientific mind I have to acknowledge that our vehicles may play a part in this, however, I have done a lot of thinking on this topic and I just can’t fully believe that this is the cause of our rise in avg. air temp across the globe. What I do believe though has more effect on this is our implementation of roads/building and the materials we use to build them. Want proof? Air temp measured at 12" above the ground on a grassy field will measure 2-3 degrees cooler than temps at 60" in the same location. The reason for this is during the chemical process that takes place when grass converts CO2 to O2 there is a cooling effect. Grass is indeed natures AC machine. Now if you where to go to a parking lot of the same size as the field mentioned earlier and perform the same test... The results are staggering! At no point are you able to measure temps that will record cooler than the temp at say 60" above the ground. In fact, you would need to elevate yourself to a height of 22' or more to be able to read a temp similar to that taken on the grassy field. This is even further a problem at night.... Once the sun is down, temps on the grassy field fall very quickly and temps on the parking lot fall very slowly and never get to even close the low temp of the grassy field.
If you want proof of any of this all you need to do is watch your local weather station. Air temps in the city never fall to the lows that rural areas see and never fail to be hotter than those rural areas too.
With all this being said, don’t you think it’s at least plausible to say that our building of roads/buildings is contributing more to global warming (if it even exists) than our vehicles do? I say "if it exists" because I don’t believe we know enough about our planets long term temperature changes to be able to say that we are causing this problem and that it’s not just part of the natural cycle of the earth. Just my 2 cents.
So why do we see the implementation of emissions equipment/testing and so on and not the change of building materials??? Impact and cost.... It’s easier to burden the common public with the increased cost of emissions, emissions testing, updates, ect. than it is to force all the builders of homes/buildings/roads to update.. Don’t believe me? Well, you don’t have to... This is all my theory. But my theory does have some proof behind it. For instance, when the move to OBD2 went into effect people were forced to either comply or get a new vehicle that did. The result, there was a huge surge in new/newer car sales after 1994. Now nearly 95% of the vehicles on the road today are OBD2 compliant. This not only showed the EPA that they did in fact have the power to do this but it also drove the economy which then got the EPA further government backing.
If we were to force builders to start looking for better building materials this would slow the economy greatly. Plus, I just don’t think we have as many options in our building materials as we would like. Therefore there just isn’t any money in trying to make that industry change.
Everyone needs and with a little effort has the ability to buy a "newer" more reliable car, but most people are stuck with the homes they have... Even if they don’t own them.
Sorry for the long post but this is my opinion.<O
></O>
Mark these words... If we continue to do nothing, eventually our hoods will be effectively sealed. Seems farfetched but then again they have been going for this since the start of OBD2.
I hate to say this but we are living on limited time for our hobby. Eventually it will be dead. Only way to stop or prolong this from happening is to get involved and demand change.
On the topic of our big smokeless tunes being cleaner.... I really don’t think so... To make more power you either need to increase efficiency or add more fuel/air. Obviously you can only go so far with the first (timing changes/raise fuel pressure/ect), the other is what ends up happening regardless. If we are adding more fuel then we are not cleaner... PERIOD! Personally, I think particulates don’t pose much harm at all to the air since they are just that... particulates... They are a solid and not a gas and therefore have more density and weight. This causes them to very quickly fall to the ground or be washed from the atmosphere when it rains. What they do to our grounds/streams.... Different topic....
Now before anyone thinks I am pro emissions... Let me make clear I am not! I freaking hate them and feel that at this point they are nearly pointless anymore. Today’s vehicles are more efficient, cleaner, and run better than we ever thought would be possible in the 80's. Want proof? Our air is visibly cleaner than it has been since the 60/70's and this is despite the huge increase of vehicles on the road.
Here’s a great topic... Global warming.... As I have a scientific mind I have to acknowledge that our vehicles may play a part in this, however, I have done a lot of thinking on this topic and I just can’t fully believe that this is the cause of our rise in avg. air temp across the globe. What I do believe though has more effect on this is our implementation of roads/building and the materials we use to build them. Want proof? Air temp measured at 12" above the ground on a grassy field will measure 2-3 degrees cooler than temps at 60" in the same location. The reason for this is during the chemical process that takes place when grass converts CO2 to O2 there is a cooling effect. Grass is indeed natures AC machine. Now if you where to go to a parking lot of the same size as the field mentioned earlier and perform the same test... The results are staggering! At no point are you able to measure temps that will record cooler than the temp at say 60" above the ground. In fact, you would need to elevate yourself to a height of 22' or more to be able to read a temp similar to that taken on the grassy field. This is even further a problem at night.... Once the sun is down, temps on the grassy field fall very quickly and temps on the parking lot fall very slowly and never get to even close the low temp of the grassy field.
If you want proof of any of this all you need to do is watch your local weather station. Air temps in the city never fall to the lows that rural areas see and never fail to be hotter than those rural areas too.
With all this being said, don’t you think it’s at least plausible to say that our building of roads/buildings is contributing more to global warming (if it even exists) than our vehicles do? I say "if it exists" because I don’t believe we know enough about our planets long term temperature changes to be able to say that we are causing this problem and that it’s not just part of the natural cycle of the earth. Just my 2 cents.
So why do we see the implementation of emissions equipment/testing and so on and not the change of building materials??? Impact and cost.... It’s easier to burden the common public with the increased cost of emissions, emissions testing, updates, ect. than it is to force all the builders of homes/buildings/roads to update.. Don’t believe me? Well, you don’t have to... This is all my theory. But my theory does have some proof behind it. For instance, when the move to OBD2 went into effect people were forced to either comply or get a new vehicle that did. The result, there was a huge surge in new/newer car sales after 1994. Now nearly 95% of the vehicles on the road today are OBD2 compliant. This not only showed the EPA that they did in fact have the power to do this but it also drove the economy which then got the EPA further government backing.
If we were to force builders to start looking for better building materials this would slow the economy greatly. Plus, I just don’t think we have as many options in our building materials as we would like. Therefore there just isn’t any money in trying to make that industry change.
Everyone needs and with a little effort has the ability to buy a "newer" more reliable car, but most people are stuck with the homes they have... Even if they don’t own them.
Sorry for the long post but this is my opinion.<O
></O>You say a govt ran by the people, but I bet if you went out and asked people on the street if a truck should be able to roal coal or even smoke, 80-90% would say it should be illegal. People can't see nox, so they don't care about it nearly as much even though that is what they should worry about. I just wish the epa would set a standard and forget the visual inspection crap, let us figure out how to make performance street trucks comply
Come on, share some numbers! You don't have to say who's tuning
Do you have numbers on a stock truck vs. a delete vs. tune? I am curious how much of a difference it makes, if nothing else but for my inner nerd.
I'd run my truck if someone had the equipment. Play with the RoadRunner and watch main timing & pilot timing vs. NOx for example. Could be enlightening.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2