Is there such a thing as a regen inhibit?
- Thread starter BabyD08
- Start date
Personally, I'd probably look into suing the 'epa' for all losses... Might not go anywhere, but considering the garbage they're shoving down our throats caused a significant monetary loss for you and your neighbors, maybe with a good lawyer, it might, or at least be a 'ding' against them... (Wishful thinking, maybe....). They're around the bend, off the rails BSC and need to be stopped. Barring that, if it was me, I'd be likely 'honey, we're getting rid of this pos and getting a LBZ'. But that's me. I have an 04 LBZ, and while the new trucks are nice, I have ZERO interest in them. I'll keep my truck until the wheels fall off. And then I might put them back on.
Considering it sounds like the 20k you mentioned doesn't include your losses in burned product, I'd most likely push the thing off a cliff or invite Kentucky Ballistics to use it for target practice... You seem more patient/forgiving then me...
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I was considering that but I have heard from a very reliable source that a major company is working on a touch screen monitor/data logger and will be able to log up to 30 parameters at a rate of 600hz. The monitor is supposed to be fully customisable using a computer and have the ability to monitor a crazy number of parameters I cant remember how many he said but I know it was over 200
It sounds expensive and the Outlook does not look good but it would sure be fun. I could always bring up the point that the fire caused by the emissions put more pollution into the air than a deleted truck will over its entire life. There were lots of Plastics in the neighbor's barn it seriously look like somebody was burning a stack of tires the size of an 18 wheeler
The thought crossed my mind and I probably would have but I found out about pending legislation that if passed as written currently if you get caught driving a truck like that on a public Highway it will be confiscated and disposed of they're wanting to treat it just like drugs or an illegal unregistered machine gun not to mention the felony charge and the enormous fines I'll have to look up the exact numbers but I think it was 5 years in prison and $50,000 Max hopefully it will not get passed. I have not had a lick of trouble out of anything on the truck since I've owned it and that's been almost a year and I've put 24,000 miles on it and it has a total of just shy of 180,000. So if I can get my buddy to program the whatever so a message pops up on the DIC telling me it's in a regen so I don't pull out on the field until it has time to cool sounds like a safer and cheaper way to go. Now if this legislation is voted down and since Arkansas has a law that makes it where you have to wait a certain amount of time which I think is 3 years before you can bring it back up before state congress I guess that's so if they vote something down people don't just keep bringing it up and choking up the system and they can move on to other things instead of just having to listen to the same piece of legislation over and over with only slight changes which means if it is voted down it will be 3 years before I have to worry about it again and as many miles as I put on a truck I probably wouldn't have the same truck so this one might go down the really bumpy road that makes Parts fall off.
the real problem with this is the EPA doesn't mandate specific emissions equipment but rather emissions levels. it's up to the manufacturer to figure out how to comply. so really you would have to sue GM but they would blame the EPA so it would go in circles and get thrown out. but with the new ruling from the supreme court that may change soon
I agree a LBZ would be a much better option but she likes the truck and I do have to say it rides so much smoother than my lb7 which I will keep until I run out of duct tape putting Parts back on. The $20,000 I mentioned includes the fuel I burned in the tractors cutting it raking and rolling, all the labor I paid to the guy that helps, and the cost of the neighbors barn. But it does not include lost profit or what I'm going to lose as far as production for the year because everything that burned is now stunted and won't start growing again for a couple of weeks which means I'll probably get one less cut this year. Depending on weather conditions across the country especially in Texas a cut of hay that yields 200 rolls could be as much as 25,000 if Texas has another bad year where they're sending 18 wheelers all the way here to buy every roll of hay they can find. A few years ago I had a couple of guys that sent trucks 12 1/2 hours one way to get hay from me because I had some. By the end of that year they were sending trucks all the way to Iowa to buy rolled corn stalks. When it's like that they will offer very high prices to make sure it doesn't get sold out from under them and they lose the investment of sending a truck with fuel prices as high as they are you send a 18-wheeler 600 miles one way and the truck only gets 6 miles to the gallon that's 100 gallons of fuel at 5:25 a gallon that's quite a bit of money only to find out there's no hay to pick up.
That's no doubt... Let's also not forget reports from members with deleted/tuned trucks (years ago, LB7/LLY IIRC) that when put on an actual sniffer, tested CLEANER than factory tuned, emissions intact trucks... ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS. The 2001 LB7 was orders of magnitude cleaner than the diesels of the 80's, and emissions in general (not just diesels) were cleaner in the early 2000's than the rest of the world is now..... And emissions equipment on gasoline vehicles hasn't changed much, if at all, in the last 25 or so years... My 2019 CT6 has the same emissions equipment my 1995 Cougar has... Scratch that, the CT6 doesnt have EGR, but it does has VVT, which can accomplish 'EGR' without a discrete EGR circuit.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
That's a very good idea you have just achieved the level of absolute genius in my book. By the way I was just informed there was another fire started the same way today this one burned a house down luckily nobody was hurt.
Yeah, you're probably right. But the other problem is they 'mandate certain levels', but don't take into effect negative issues... The ash thst escapes from DPFs ( and you can be sure it DOES) is FAR worse for human health then the soot its meantvto prevent. The ash is FAR finer than the soot, so it can remain in suspension in the air longer than soot, it can actually be absorbed through the skin, it can get deeper into soft tissue like lungs... Nobody wants to talk about that. Soot is carbon. It can settle down to the ground, much faster than ash, and be broken down back into nature. Nobody wants to talk about that. The ash is more harmful and basically end of line - inert. Nobody wants to talk about that.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Just more proof that those idiots have no idea of what they're doing they just have to come up with something to justify having a job it seems like I read a report somewhere about when new and clean dose reduce carbon emmissions however as the system starts to age and carbon starts to build up the reduction in air flow which essentially makes the mixture richer calls is it to lose effectiveness and it only required 15% reduction in airflow before it was the same emission output as not having the system and when it exceeded that 15% it was actually dirtier them without the system. And if it got to 50% reduction I think it put out the same amount of emissions as three engines without the system don't hold me to all that that's coming from a very small brain that is very poorly organized. But I do distinctly remember the report and I was quite surprised by its findings but I cannot for Life me remember what specific emissions component it was testing.
Of course nobody wants to talk about it they would have to start the conversation with well all this crap we're making people put on vehicles and costing the owners all this money to make the air that is way up in the atmosphere cleaner is making the air down here that we actually breathe much dirtier. Not only that this new type of pollution we're causing is far worse than what we're trying to reduce because not only can this new form of pollution go into your respiratory system and calls great harm microscopic pieces that cannot be seen will go through your skin and cause great harm. But we did reduce the stuff you can see and walk away from so you don't breathe it and in doing so the air at the edge of the atmosphere that no one will ever breathe is a very small amount cleaner. Wouldn't that be about like cutting off an arm to fix paper cut
Absolutely. Like most of the government. They need to do 'something' to justify their existence (or try to).
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Not to mention I think I read that the material DPFs are made of is a very severe carcinogen and as the DPF ages the material starts to break down and is released
not quite correct. the ash is what is forever trapped as it doesn't get burnt during the regeneration process. the soot that burns get turned into a gas which can now pass into the lungs and into the blood stream. the ash will remain unless the DPF gets washed or replaced. this ultimately determines the life of the DPF
While most ash does remain in the DPF unless it is cleaned, you can 'rest assured' that some percentage does escape. There's no such thing as a filter that will capture 100% of all particulate matter. And if/when a DPF cracks, then it's likely to dump a whole lot more ash into the air.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
well yeah, but without a DPF that ash goes into the air anyways. at least the DPF captures most of it
Well, no. Without a DPF, you don't get ash, you get soot, which is an entirely different animal. I wouldn't want to sit there and breathe concentrated soot any more than I'd want to breathe ash, but the soot drops out of the air faster because it's bigger and heavier and can then be broken down.
The bottom line is this junk that's been forced on us because of 'EPA mandates' is worse in every conceivable way than the original 'problem'.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
I'll agree with your bottom line. doesn't make any sense to me to burn more fuel to reduce emissions. from what I've observed on the sniffers at a smog shop, a less restricted Duramax engine tuned properly without any emissions equipment burns cleaner then a comparable equivalent year gas vehicle with emissions equipment intact. I used to have a friend who ran a "Star" certified smog shop and we played around with my LB7 and compared it to a 6.0 vortex of the same year. all were well below the limit except, If I remember right, CO2 was close but still under
The ash is also more harmful to the environment. It smothers Plant Life and sits on top of water so it kills Life below the water as well.
I forget the University but they did a study on it and showed how the ash was far more harmful to the environment. As mentioned the "black" soot can be absorbed much easier by nature. Where as the Grey Soot from the regen can not.
Same with the DEF... The long term effects of the waste sitting in the landfills is probably going to be another issue.
Not mention the carbon foot print to produce said fluid....