Learned something about diesel today.

 We would get much further, faster, by going after large ocean shipping and cruise ships before ever making the car the scapegoat of modern pollution. Simply putting some regulations and proper exhaust systems in place for those large ships and especially cruise ships would give us a larger decrease in harmful particulates than any change in cars ever would.

Well, the main factor at play politically is that car owners are just hundreds of millions of individuals who only have thousands of dollars on the line in vague ways they don't understand. Their motive and likelihood to organize politically is almost zero. Now, if you target utilities or cruise lines or anything business related, you're talking about a relatively tiny number of people (in control) who have or can get a very clear sense of the dollar cost of regulation, and then can discretionarily spend a relatively huge amount of lobbying money in a very organized and focused way to influence a small number of congresspersons (probably usually less than 20, maybe as few as 1) to sink whatever thing it is they don't want. 

That is the basic reason why cars are extraordinarily regulated compared to bigger polluters. We the regular-ass people have almost no realistic ability to 'fight back' in Congress, whereas any small group of large business entities that face a common enemy will stand up a 'trade organization' or 'think tank' or several and invest millions of dollars of lobbying in opposing things with laser focus.

In reply to Vigo :

Well, you can vote.  The only reason corporations have any sway is that people believe what they say when they campaign for people.  If people looked into it, they might find out who they are actually going to vote for.

But, again, it's not as if all of the regulations are made in a vacuum- it's a participatory process, by law.  If we all don't choose to get involved, our voice will never be heard.

codrus said:

I take everything I read on Jalopnik with a grain of salt -- IMHO (as with most former gawker media products) they're much more interested in controversy and clicks than they are in truth and journalistic integrity.

Is that why he tried to make it about President Trump at the end of the article?

That article makes it seem as if DEF technology is a sham, that the cheating cars were only using it during testing, as a "cheater fluid." My understanding has been that the cheating was done (hilariously enough) to extend the time between DEF fill-ups by something like 20% so that it would match the oil change schedule. Which is it?

In reply to GameboyRMH :

It's not a sham, just not as robust as most would hope.  And yes, there is a STRONG desire to have it added when oil is changed- as one major issue is when or if the customer fills it back up.  For a while, there was a proposal to dual fuel a diesel- where you fill up with diesel and DEF at the same time from the same filler.  Never worked well enough to implement.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

DEF/SCR is not a sham. It works well at neutralizing NOx when it's fully operational. Using DEF during the tests was not "the cheat". Every other light duty diesel during that time (and since) has used SCR/DEF. "The cheat" VW was guilty of was that they were only using it enough to meet emissions regulations when the vehicles detected they were being tested. All other times the software was setup so that DEF usage was greatly reduced or completely shut off, leading to sky high NOx emissions.

It would be like a pro athlete on PEDs using somebody else's urine sample to pass a test.

In reply to GarageGorilla :

BS.  Total BS.  Nobody is trying to ban cars, nor mobility.  Not as if one reasonably could.

And if you think people at the EPA hate cars, you need to go there sometime and see the car enthusiasts that work there.  I've been to their annual car show, and I've raced right along with people who work there. There has been senior EPA people who have participated in the GRM Challenge. So stop spreading the kind of BS that only puts people at risk.

The EU is jailing people because they BROKE THE LAW.  That's how things are supposed to work- you break the law, you pay for it.  Unless you don't want to punish the person who punches you in the face becaue they just felt like it.

STM317 said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

DEF/SCR is not a sham. It works well at neutralizing NOx when it's fully operational. Using DEF during the tests was not "the cheat". Every other light duty diesel during that time (and since) has used SCR/DEF. "The cheat" VW was guilty of was that they were only using it enough to meet emissions regulations when the vehicles detected they were being tested. All other times the software was setup so that DEF usage was greatly reduced or completely shut off, leading to sky high NOx emissions.

It would be like a pro athlete on PEDs using somebody else's urine sample to pass a test.

VW's cheat was that they were NOT using DEF/SCR and pretending that they could pass.  Which was the super confusing part to the rest of the industry- and oddly enough, nobody really checked to see if it was real or not- that took a group of people doing some other research to see it.

In reply to GarageGorilla :

The crazy conspiracy theory thread is right here

alfadriver said:

STM317 said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

DEF/SCR is not a sham. It works well at neutralizing NOx when it's fully operational. Using DEF during the tests was not "the cheat". Every other light duty diesel during that time (and since) has used SCR/DEF. "The cheat" VW was guilty of was that they were only using it enough to meet emissions regulations when the vehicles detected they were being tested. All other times the software was setup so that DEF usage was greatly reduced or completely shut off, leading to sky high NOx emissions.

It would be like a pro athlete on PEDs using somebody else's urine sample to pass a test.

VW's cheat was that they were NOT using DEF/SCR and pretending that they could pass.  Which was the super confusing part to the rest of the industry- and oddly enough, nobody really checked to see if it was real or not- that took a group of people doing some other research to see it.

I think that depended on the model year right? I'm not a VW person and it's been a couple of years now so the details aren't super fresh in my mind but I thought the oldest vehicles had no SCR. They couldn't realistically be retrofitted, so they were all bought back. But many of the newer ones had the SCR/DEF equipment and the ability but were underutilizing it in non-testing situations. These vehicles could be reflashed and put back on the road. Some customers could choose to keep the car with the reflash, or take the buyback money and go another direction. Many of these are now being sold through VW dealers at a discount as they're being processed and upgraded.

GarageGorilla said:

The marxist shocktroops in places like the EPA aim to eradicate the automobile industry 

Dude.. You should read this thread.  https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/forum-rules-welcome-to-the-party/104340/page1/

I also think you're very under informed on the subject.  Many folks here work with the EPA and have worked on diesel emissions projects directly(such as myself)..  

The last time cars relied on owners adding a special fluid (besides fuel) to keep their engines running properly, it didn't work out so well, either.

https://www.hagerty.com/articles-videos/articles/2016/10/07/under-this-hood

DEF is going to be the death of diesels, at least in the consumer market.  

For commercial/ industrial use, in my experience they've basically rolled it into their normal fueling procedures.  A diesel locomotive holds about 2000 gallons of diesel fuel; the DEF tank about 200 gallons.  The instruction is to fill DEF every time they fill diesel.  Usage rate of DEF: diesel is about 4-8%, so this tank sizing works well.  Assuming everything scaled the same on cars (a rough assumption, but on the same order of magnitude) the DEF tank would have to be roughly the same size as the fuel tank to allow DEF fillups to be done at every oil change.  That presents some, er, packaging difficulties.  

Here's the thing about DEF..   It works.  I will keep this simple.  Without out it , We wouldn't have 1000 lb-ft tq trucks from the factory as they would be stuck doing in cylinder type controls which would limit power greatly by reducing combustion temps.  If we do this through conventional means( timing, # of  fuel injection events, timing of fuel injection events, fuel pressure, etc), you wouldn't have a 1000 lb-ft 6 cylinder in a truck.. You'd have a 500 lb-ft truck that got worse mileage...

STM317 said:

alfadriver said:

STM317 said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

DEF/SCR is not a sham. It works well at neutralizing NOx when it's fully operational. Using DEF during the tests was not "the cheat". Every other light duty diesel during that time (and since) has used SCR/DEF. "The cheat" VW was guilty of was that they were only using it enough to meet emissions regulations when the vehicles detected they were being tested. All other times the software was setup so that DEF usage was greatly reduced or completely shut off, leading to sky high NOx emissions.

It would be like a pro athlete on PEDs using somebody else's urine sample to pass a test.

VW's cheat was that they were NOT using DEF/SCR and pretending that they could pass.  Which was the super confusing part to the rest of the industry- and oddly enough, nobody really checked to see if it was real or not- that took a group of people doing some other research to see it.

I think that depended on the model year right? I'm not a VW person and it's been a couple of years now so the details aren't super fresh in my mind but I thought the oldest vehicles had no SCR. They couldn't realistically be retrofitted, so they were all bought back. But many of the newer ones had the SCR/DEF equipment and the ability but were underutilizing it in non-testing situations. These vehicles could be reflashed and put back on the road. Some customers could choose to keep the car with the reflash, or take the buyback money and go another direction. Many of these are now being sold through VW dealers at a discount as they're being processed and upgraded.

I'd have to look back on it, but in terms of the retrofit, you are right.  But my memory is that none of the cars came with SCR/DEF, which was a major mystery to all of the rest of us trying to put a diesel into a small car or light truck.  As that inejction system/catalyst system broke the camel's back WRT the cost effectiveness.  And that was all made worse as we all perfected gas DI- which got *some* of the benefit (not nearly all, but some) at a MUCH lower cost than diesel.

The cars that were destroyed had no solution them, but there were a handful that could be retrofited.   Last I heard, none of them could actually be reflashed and be a satisfactory car.  I could be wrong, but I do know that those silly Jetson's EV commercials are also a direct result of this cheating (it says that in the ad)

Lest we forget, this whole debacle meant that VW totally walked away from diesel..... 

Fueled by Caffeine said:

GarageGorilla said:

The marxist shocktroops in places like the EPA aim to eradicate the automobile industry 

Dude.. You should read this thread.  https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/forum-rules-welcome-to-the-party/104340/page1/

 

I also think you're very under informed on the subject.  Many folks here work with the EPA and have worked on diesel emissions projects directly(such as myself)..  

 

Given that the EPA's mandate is to protect us- just like our military does- why they are labeled socialist?  Seems like a label someone want to stick to them so that they can pollute....

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Understood.  Still, we're talking about a tiny % of the truck market that's even going to buy the thing, and then a tiny % of those who actually use any significant portion of that capability.  I saw a brand new Dodge dually towing a 5 (yeah, _five_) car wedge the other day, fully loaded.  I can't think of any other modern diesel full ton truck I've seen used to that capacity.

So, that being said, Ford's rolling out a new 7.3 gasser engine.  With cylinder deactivation and no need for any special fluid, likely cheaper maintenance and several thousand dollars cheaper upfront.  It makes essentially the same torque as the 7.3 diesel of the early 2000's and operating costs/mile will likely be lower.  

Diesel...who?

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

The big HD gasoline engines (GM's 6.6L, Ram's 6.4L and Ford's 7.3) make a lot of sense, for a lot of people, especially for fleets of service trucks, etc. Diesel is still king for people that spend most of their time towing/hauling things 10k lbs or more, and those who want to look like they spend most of their time towing/hauling things 10k lbs or more.

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

The new 7.3 does not have variable displacement...  At least that I know of....

alfadriver said:

In reply to GarageGorilla :

BS.  Total BS.  Nobody is trying to ban cars, nor mobility.  Not as if one reasonably could.

And if you think people at the EPA hate cars, you need to go there sometime and see the car enthusiasts that work there.  I've been to their annual car show, and I've raced right along with people who work there. There has been senior EPA people who have participated in the GRM Challenge. So stop spreading the kind of BS that only puts people at risk.

The EU is jailing people because they BROKE THE LAW.  That's how things are supposed to work- you break the law, you pay for it.  Unless you don't want to punish the person who punches you in the face becaue they just felt like it.

LOL.

I worked in DC for a decade. I know the type that works for the EPA. They share none of my values and would gladly put a bullet in the back of my head for pulling the cats off my car. Screw them and the EPA.

In reply to GarageGorilla :

Just go the berkeley away. Seriously, log the berkeley out and go find somewhere else. VwVortex might be more your speed, just get the berkeley out of here.

In reply to GarageGorilla :

No, you don't.  Pretty clearly that you don't.  And in spite of working in DC for a decade, you also don't seem to know how they make new regulations.  Some of us do- as it's part of our jobs.

The idea that anyone would do any physical harm to you for a modification is idiotic. 

If you want to think that, that's your anger, but it's a waste of your energy to be mad at people who are not nearly what you make them out to be.  Especially the racers that actually do work at the EPA.  So on their behalf, screw you.

GarageGorilla said:

alfadriver said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

GarageGorilla said:

The marxist shocktroops in places like the EPA aim to eradicate the automobile industry 

Dude.. You should read this thread.  https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/forum-rules-welcome-to-the-party/104340/page1/

 

I also think you're very under informed on the subject.  Many folks here work with the EPA and have worked on diesel emissions projects directly(such as myself)..  

 

Given that the EPA's mandate is to protect us- just like our military does- why they are labeled socialist?  Seems like a label someone want to stick to them so that they can pollute....

Geez, you are a piece of work. The EPA is staffed by leftist zealots. The fact that you would compare the EPA to the US military makes my stomach turn. You are quisling for car enthusiasts - a traitor amongst our midst.

Are you really that kind of a person?  Yes, the EPA does protect our lives just as the military does.  If that makes your stomach turn, you can go off into a corner and throw up.  That does not make it any less real.

And why do car enthusiasts have to be anti-environment???  That's pretty short sided, if you ask me.  Unless you are the kind of person who is happy that people dump their trash, and waste fluids, and exhaust into your yard.... 

People like you make me sad.

EPA is much like any other agency.  Power and control are their mandates.