This is an interesting paper from the epa

https://youtu.be/BIbsY5-z0BE
 

another diesel guy gets hits with fines and the. Rants about how inefficient ships are. 
 

let me distill this video for you. 

man from video says. " my business is predicated on breaking federal law, which I knew about.  Then they hit me with a fine and whaaaaaaaaasaaAaaaaaaaaaa"

his other argument. " these means of compliance with the epas standards are not reliable".    Ok maybe he has a point there, but that isn't the epas fault. They don't mandate how a manufacturer complies with their standards. Just the standards.   His anger is misdirected, enjoy your $180k fine. 

There's still a lot of "this only happens to other people" denial going on. Being active on social media doesn't exactly help a business stay under the radar :)

In reply to Keith Tanner :

You're joking?  Providing the police with video evidence of your crimes seems like a responsible thing to do. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Think of all the taxpayer money you're helping to save, recording your crimes like that. We should be thanking them!

If you think about it, the only reason that the systems are able to be unreliable is because the enforcement of their removal is so lax.  Most people I've met with newer diesels aren't scared of the emission system costs because they'll just straight pipe them once they do.  If there was actual sniffer testing for diesels, then people would refuse to buy until manufacturers made the systems better.   Maybe it would kill diesel, but maybe the parts would just get better. 

Mechanically, I don't think a DPF, DOC or SCR system is that complex, the issues come from high temps and high temp materials are getting better and better everyday, though increased nickel prices might drive up costs.  

In reply to rothwem :

The issues seem to come from iding and putting around, not high temp, though.  Sure the systems must tolerate high temps, but the people having a lot of problems are the people using it like a moped, and also idling it outside the store while they go shopping because it's bad juju to shut off a Diesel for some reason.

In reply to rothwem :

One thing to remember- enforcement of individuals making modifications is up to each state.  Enforcement of making parts that gets sold over state lines is up to the federal government.  So it's not such an easy blame.   If your state does not have an enforcement issue, then it would be very easy for an individual to install a straight pipe, and get away with it.

When it comes to OEM enforcement- it's pretty darned robust.  Vehicles are tested in use all of the time, which forces OEM's to in-use test their own cars, too.  That goes for diesel and gas.

rothwem said:

If you think about it, the only reason that the systems are able to be unreliable is because the enforcement of their removal is so lax.  Most people I've met with newer diesels aren't scared of the emission system costs because they'll just straight pipe them once they do.  If there was actual sniffer testing for diesels, then people would refuse to buy until manufacturers made the systems better.   Maybe it would kill diesel, but maybe the parts would just get better. 

Mechanically, I don't think a DPF, DOC or SCR system is that complex, the issues come from high temps and high temp materials are getting better and better everyday, though increased nickel prices might drive up costs.  

Interesting perspective.  That implies the the OEMs aren't doing as much as they can to make the systems reliable.  I'm not convinced that's true.  I've spent too much time working with OEMs to thing that reliability isn't a concern.  Also, despite the impression one might get from the internet it's not like every diesel after treatment system fails spectacularly and expensively.  I'm not saying that there's no room for improvement.  There clearly is, but there are many trucks that go several hundred thousand miles with the original after treatment systems intact.  My Dodge has just shy of 100k miles with zero issues (knocks on wood). 

My only complaint of any significance about my truck is the fuel mileage.  It's abysmal but, I'm willing to put up with that for the performance and clean air.  If my truck has an after treatment system failure I'm going to fix it rather than delete it.

On stuff like this I always wonder, "is it that big of a deal." It's a serious question,  I'm not trying to start an argument.

My question always comes around to is deleted diesels the lowest hanging fruit for cleaning up the air? I know over the last 50 or 60 years cars and diesels have become much cleaner, are they still the thing we should be focusing on?

Or is their a larger polluter that doesn't get near as much scrutiny that could be cleaned up and create a larger impact in overall pollution for less money?

The simplest way to put it, is if we've reduced automotive emissions by 60% should another 10% be the most important thing or is their something else we can reduce by 60% easily first.

Legitimately I'm asking, I don't know, it's just what I think about when I see a crackdown on a relatively small group

In reply to Opti :

The problem with that point of view is that it does not recognize that pretty much all sources are the target of reduction.  And there are actual crackdowns that apparently nobody is aware of.

Power plants to ships to law mowers- all have been reduced, and are being asked to reduce more.  I think the only one that still has few restrictions are planes, and I see them being the target, soon.   For the most part, commercial planes were hit by noise and smoke rules along with rising costs of fuel- forcing them to be more efficient.

The other thing, diesels are not a small group.

1988RedT2 said:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Coal Rollers, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Coal Roller

Then they came for me—a regular guy who was trying to squeeze a couple extra horsepower out of my Miata--and there was no one left to speak for me.

I realize this is an old comment from before the threadsurection for the latest discussion, but I have to answer it.  There's a major flaw in your logic here.  What you basically said was:

First they illegally came for a group they didn't like based on their legal personal beliefs.

Then they illegally came for a group they didn't like who were legally members of a legal organization they didn't like.

Then they legally came for a group doing something illegal using existing laws.

Big big difference there.

In reply to alfadriver :

Well I see your point. Anecdotally I have seen the most push on cars. I have an old ass lawnmower with no emissions equipment that I run regularly. I ran old ass heavy equipment with no emission equipment. I fly in old planes with no emission equipment.

Something like 5 millions gas mowers are sold every year.

Hagerty says something like 5 million classic cars are on the road in the us

There are 285 million cars registered in the US and estimated half a million deleted diesels, which equates to another 5 million cars, which relatively isn't much.

2 strokes of all kinds.

I've got a gas heater and gas water heater.

No one seems to care about anything except the cars I drive, and only the newest already cleanest running ones.

That what draws my skepticism, I'm not saying it's one way or the other, just makes me think about it

In reply to Opti :

Legally, you can't go after emitters if they were built before the law.  So your mower does not have standards, whereas now ones do, and have had them for quite a while now.  Same goes for classic cars- anything before 1968 has nothing against it.  

The only things that get any attention are the ones that have laws applied to them.  That's it.

Your 1967 Diesel Ford truck (that's the general "you" as I know they existed) may be 1000x worse than a new truck, and even worse than coal rollers.  But there's no legal way to apply laws to it vs. the new coal rollers- where the basis of the law dates back to the Clean Air Act.

As for the diesels- you seem to think that "small" should not be looked at- what is "small"?  Where do you draw the line?  Since you can't, the law needs to be applied to everyone, equally.   Two stroke engines do have laws applied to them- which is why you see DI on many new 2 stroke snow mobiles.  

Oh they most certainly have gone after small engines.  Sure you don't see EFI and a converter on a push mower, but when was the last time you saw a new flathead engined mower?

Those fuel cans that never work right because the O-rings swell up and stop working?  That is an emissions related push, to cut down on evaporative emissions from sitting in the garage, or spills on refueling.  If you told me that a significant percentage of the average lawn mower's total HC pollution came from the gas can used to transport fuel home, I wouldn't doubt it.

It's interesting to read the list of EPA cases. Covers a very wide range of devices and industries from tuners to cattle farms. You only hear about the cars because it is more likely to affect you directly, especially if you want to actually remove the emissions devices. 

In reply to alfadriver :

I'm not saying the small shouldn't be looking at, I'm saying is looking at the small the most effective way to actually reduce emissions, or did some senator get upset because he got coal rolled and made it his personal mission.

Don't get me wrong I don't own a diesel and I think they are dumb for 99 percent of the people that buy them, I'm from TX and the vast majority here are just cowboy Cadillacs.

And yes deleted diesels are relatively small. With 285 million cars on the road and half a million being deleted diesels that's pretty small. I believe they said it was like 5 million more cars on the road even then its less than 2 percent of the actual cars on the road.

If it is the most efficient way to reduce emissions by going  after deleted diesels, then cool.

The other question is will they actually be able to affect behavior enough to change that number or are they just wasting time and resources? We are looking at assuming that number will actually go down or to zero. People do lots of things that are already illegal.

alfadriver said:

I think the only one that still has few restrictions are planes, and I see them being the target, soon.   For the most part, commercial planes were hit by noise and smoke rules along with rising costs of fuel- forcing them to be more efficient.

As in EPA regulation?

Many countries/airlines/etc. are focusing on sustainability with respect to planes already.  One convenient thing about planes is the fuel costs of operating one is so high that there is a huge financial incentive to burn less fuel even without taking into account environmental reasons.

Of course the downside of that is, physics is working against them and they are always going to produce tons(literall) more CO2 than their ground based competition.

In reply to Opti :

Again, just because you only see the spotlight on diesels does not mean that everything is not being looked at.   

Same goes for the volume- just because you see the diesels being gone after does not mean other parts of the market are not being looked at.   BTW, I would make a deleted diesel far more than 10x a car- closer to 50-100x worse than a new car.  But, IMHO, that's of no matter- companies are breaking the law taking stuff off vehicles that we put on (as an industry).  One, 100, 1000, 100000- doesn't matter much to me.  There is an enforcement branch of the EPA that can deal with that, and other parts concentrate on other things.

Maybe that's the other confusing thing- there are multiple parts of the EPA and CARB- both of which have enforcement groups that can deal with what they are allowed to do.  As well as groups that do modeling, health studies, law writing, etc.  It's not just small group of people doing the whole thing.  They are capable of covering the whole gambit.  

In reply to ProDarwin :

Yes, there will probably be an EPA regulation, although I'd bet that it will be more of an international agreement, much like ships.

It is a problem if they spend a bunch of time and resources trying to reduce emissions and not actually reducing them because they went after too small a population or they can't actually change behavior.

Example, modifying gas engines and removing emissions equipment from them for street use has been illegal for a long time. They are cracking down on it even more now. It has barely changed behavior. You can still get tunes and delete cats, EGR, and evaluate and tune it out and pass most states inspections. Of the relatively large group of people I know into cars, the tightening of restrictions hasnt changed behavior one bit.

Some have gotten older and don't want a stinky car with no cats anymore. but it had nothing to do with regulations or fines.

Going after the people already willing to circumvent the law isn't the smart way to do it, if the goal is to actually reduce emissions. Just make the 99 percent of cars on the road that don't get modified better.

Think about speeding. It's illegal to speed, how many people has that stopped? Guess what you might get a fine IF your caught. 

My position is behavior is hard to change, people that want to modify cars will modify them.

In reply to Opti :

"Emissions" is a vague term. There are tons of things that come out of tailpipes and they have different impacts when they're out in the world. "Emissions" generally breaks down into two basic categories:

1) Smog forming emissions-- These are bad for human health and result in higher rates of asthma, COPD, cancer and general breathing problems. These come from combustion and tend to stay pretty localized. Things like fossil fuel power plants, transportation, wildfires, etc are the big sources. If your area ever has low air quality days, it's likely these pollutants are high. Typical smog forming compounds are NOx, hydrocarbons, sulfer and particulates. Over 55% of the NOx in the US comes from the transportation sector:

https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/smog-soot-and-local-air-pollution

Diesels naturally struggle with NOx and particulates more than gas engines thanks to the lean fuel mix  and higher combustion temps, so that's why the regulatory focus seems to be more focused on diesels. The EPA estimates a "fully deleted" modern diesel pickup puts out 310 times the NOx of it's compliant counterpart, 1140 times the hydrocarbons, 40 X the PM and 120 X the CO. And the levels of the "clean" diesel are higher than a typical gas car. So taking one deleted diesel off the road probably has the same impact as taking several dozen or even hundreds of modified gas cars off the road. And by extension several hundred or even thousands of unmodified gas cars. IF you can cutoff the supply of 'delete' parts and software, then you're talking about keeping hundreds or thousands of deleted diesels off the road each year which could be equivalent to eliminating the smog forming and GHG emissions from 10s of thousands of modern gas vehicles.

2) GHG emissions. These rise into the atmosphere and come from myriad sources both man made and natural. This is your "carbon footprint". It has more direct impact on the environment than human health. This is really most often a measure of consumption. The transportation sector is the single largest contributor to GHGs in the US at 29%:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Here' s a sort of "Year in review" highlights for what the EPA's crackdown in 2020 did:

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/national-compliance-initiative-stopping-aftermarket-defeat-devices-vehicles-and-engines

Also, it's been discussed in other threads here lately but one should not assume that this type of renewed regulatory focus will remain primarily in the diesel truck world. The regulators are simply going after the worst offenders that are likely to have the biggest impact first. They're already going after other sources as well. There will likely be a time in a few years when all of the car guys you know will only be buying parts for their cars that have been tested and approved to remain within limits for emissions. Or they'll have to switch to cars that pre-date emissions regulations.

In reply to STM317 :

If you read their year review, outside of 31 cases they didnt do anything. They dont talk about how they stopped the 18.2 million pounds of emissions outside of the cases. They had state and company level meetings. Those things do little to change behavior of the consumer level people.

I can say with utmost certainty If I had a diesel and wanted it deleted I could pay SOMEONE ELSE and have it done. You can still get the parts and tune. I still know people getting their stuff deleted, do I agree with them? No. Do they care at all about any of this? Also no. Will these regulations have a material affect on consumer behavior resulting in an actual decrease in admissions? doubt it.

You have a small population doing it, and many of them dont care about this, how are you actually going to stop the end user?

In reply to Opti :

The companies that get fined also have to stop producing/selling the products that they're fined for. Sure, there are still companies that do it, but that number gets smaller every day. Lots of reputable aftermarket companies are already stopping selling emissions defeat devices. Places like Flyin' Miata, or APR in the VW world have already stopped. It won't be long before the Edelbrocks and Holley's of the world follow suit if they haven't already. Summit and Jegs won't want to sell these products anymore, and if they did they probably won't be able to get them from their suppliers. Most small businesses aren't willing to risk a 6 figure fine to sell some defeat devices. Those that continue to do so will be increasingly easy to find.

Sure, a guy in a machine shop can probably whip something up with enough knowledge and motivation but things that held very little risk of punishment in the past are clearly changing into things with pretty serious financial repercussions now. The cost/benefit calculation has changed a lot in the last 18-24 months.

In reply to STM317 :

Companies outside the US have no problem with it\

If the demand is there its plenty easy to set up a company, do the R&D here and send it overseas to be manufactured and "sold" by a company in a different country

In reply to Opti :

You may be able to find one, but they risk heavy penalties for doing it.  So when you see these guys whining on whatever platform about being some kind of target and it's unfar- that's complete BS.  Not knowing the laws is not an excuse for breaking it.  Any company that is willing to remove emissions devices risks heavy penalties, including going to jail.  

Suggesting that "small ones" don't get penalized isn't really a good way forward.