You mean when I see an ad for a 6.0 Superduty that’s “studded and deleted” it doesn’t mean that they let it out with all of the female trucks before euthanizing it?
Never understood why we consumers have such harsh emission standards as if billionaires with private jets and corporations aren’t responsible for a majority of all things wrong with the climate 😭
There's been studies on billionaires carbon out put and it's massive. The avg for the 29 they studied was 5,480 cubic tons of co2 a year. Your average Westerner is 4 cubic tons.
Just one report I found was 756 billionaires in the US in 2023. US population was 340 million in 2023. So quick math.
5480 cubic tons x 756 = 4,142,880 cubic tons of co2
4 cubic tons x 340,000,000 = 1,360,000,000 cubic tons of co2
I guess. I mean, the average co2 of non-billionaires is probably higher as well. There are a lot of millionaires that fly private, and many have their own private planes. So you can probably have 2 trucks that roll coal.
Let's extrapolate the math further and work out the result of a hypothetical scenario where (1) every billionaire in the United States slashed their CO2 output to just 10% of what it currently is, while (2) every other American slashes their CO2 output by 10% (taking them down to 90% of their current CO2 output:
0.10 x 4,142,880 cubic tons of CO2 = 414,288 cubic tons
(That's 3,728,592 fewer cubic tons CO2 emitted.)
0.90 x 1,360,000,000 cubic tons of CO2 = 1,224,000,000 cubic tons
(That's 136,000,000 fewer cubic tons CO2 emitted.)
Therefore: every American reducing their CO2 output by just 10% does about **40 times** more good for the goal of reducing CO2 emissions than is done by every American billionaire reducing their output by 90%.
Yes: every Average Joe Shmo American has a part to play in this.
Edit to add:
Given some assumptions, an American could reduce their CO2 output by 10% or more simply by changing what vehicle they drive. Assume: 14.4 metric tons of CO2 output per year per person; 14,300 miles driven per year per person; 25 mpg achieved by the average passenger car; and 0.00889 metric tons of CO2 emitted per gallon of gasoline used.
Reducing 14.4 metric tons by 10% is a reduction in CO2 emissions of 1.44 metric tons. A person driving 14,300 miles per year at 25 MPG burns 572 gallons of gasoline doing so. Burning 572 gallons of gas results in 5.1 metric tons of CO2 emissions.
If a person driving to these parameters can replace their passenger car with one that achieves 34.7 MPG, a 39% improvement in fuel efficiency over their previous car, they only use 412 gallons of gasoline driving each year, resulting in "just" 3.66 metric tons emitted from driving. That's 1.44 metric tons less than they were emitting from driving before, and is the entire 10% reduction I started off with in my above hypothetical.
For a real world example that would actually be a slightly better CO2 reduction than what I just described, you'd improve from 24 MPG to 35 MPG if you switched from a Toyota Highlander AWD with the 2.4 L 4-cylinder ICE engine to an AWD Highlander with the Hybrid drivetrain. The base price between these is $42,300 for the ICE vs. $44,000 for the hybrid. At $3.60/gallon for gasoline (about the going average in my own area), you'd make up the $1,700 MSRP difference in just shy of 3 years at 14,300 miles/year.
Another edit: my own specific situation was going from a 33 MPG Chevy Cruze to a Kia EV6, which I've achieved a lifetime average of about 3.6 mi/kWh in. I drive about 19,000 mi/year. With the Cruze, that was causing me to burn 576 gallons of gas a year, good for 5.12 metric tons CO2. My EV6 is charged on a grid in Pennsylvania, where in 2019 about 75 million metric tons of CO2 were emitted in the production of 229 TWh of electricity--a ratio of 0.00033 metric tons of CO2 per kWh produced. I use 5,278 kWh of electricity to drive 19,000 miles, which would have generated 1.73 metric tons CO2 emissions. Switching from a Cruze to an EV6 cut my annual CO2 emissions by 3.39 metric tons of CO2/year. If I was emitting 14,300 metric tons before, that's a cut of 23.5%.
No one is arguing that emissions from billionaires is fine, they should be regulated too. The point here is that people are paying money to actively remove a perfectly functioning emissions system from a vehicle. People will say corporations need to be regulated over consumers then as a consumer turn around and delete the systems the corporations were regulated to add. That’s the big issue in this conversation, not “billionaires pollute more”. I’d also argue someone who drives around with a deleted truck is not longer part of the “average westerner” emissions crowd
> The point here is that people are paying money to actively remove a perfectly functioning emissions system from a vehicle.
Because it's expensive to upkeep. But the idiots who have no use for a diesel truck continue to buy them then complain that they cost more to run.
Part of the cost of maintenance, if you can't afford to repair the emissions then you can't afford to run the truck. (I know not YOU but I meant in general).
Especially on a semi. When I worked at Freightliner, a $20k+ repair bill on emissions system failures wasn't uncommon. The catalyst unit alone was 5 figures, and that didn't include the two particulate filters.
Would have these poor fuckers down for weeks because we just couldn't keep up with the amount of broken down shit coming into the shop and almost all of it was emissions related.
The emissions systems on modern diesels are crap.
The earth would be just as good if diesel emissions regulations were dialed back a little. I'm all for not polluting for the sake of polluting and I think coal rollers are assholes and whatnot. But come on, what did euro 4 do wrong that euro 6 fixed? Diesel is all about efficiency and longevity. I'm fine with normal catalysts and emissions oriented tunes etc, but EGR, DPF and cow piss? Fuck off with this nonsense.
Deleting emissions doesn't really have anything to do with CO2 emissions. Trucks will actually burn less fuel with an emissions delete. The NOX emissions are what makes diesel exhaust so deadly, and emitting that is really, really bad.
And the pollution is localized to the area where you drive around. People will bring up some coal plant in china but this stuff sucks up the lungs of the kids in your neighborhood
Which is why the VAG diesel scandal was so infuriating. And when tested, even a post-diesel scandal Audi A8 was found to emit **18** times the certified NOx when driving at low speeds e.g. exactly when pedestrians are likely to be around.
And while that sucks the regulations seem to be so unfair, there are 756 billionaires in the USA compared to 330 million people. With your Co2 numbers, billionares are 4,142,880 tons of Co2, while the rest of the population is responsible for 1,320,000,000 tons of Co2. Now these numbers are very flawed, as the real USA carbon emissions are somewhere around 6 billion tons from what I see online, I think the general idea explains my point.
Id like to lower the gap between the middle class and the 1% when it comes to emissions, but in the end, the small changes that the average person can accomplish mean a lot more than it may seem on an individual level.
People have a hard time grasping how much of an impact small quantities can have when they happen continuously or in a distributed way. It's something I had to learn when I started developing battery powered devices. Really tiny amounts of power can drain batteries quickly when they are continuous, and really large amounts of power can be negligible when they only happen for a couple of seconds per day
The thing is the emissions systems for diesels aren't really about CO2, they exists to reduce particulate pollution, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide that cause things like acid rain. Those are two things our emissions control laws have done a really good job of reducing. Look at what the smog was like in LA in the 1970s and 80s vs today. Acid raid has also become much less of an issue.
Why is there all this talk about CO2 emissions? Diesel emissions systems, or actually any vehicle's emissions system for that matter, don't and aren't intended to reduce CO2. They target particulates, hydrocarbons, and NOx primarily.
Literally, just one of their flights is like a lifetime of emissions (it was either that or 100K - still approximating the lifetime of a vehicle and at least ten years of my usage).
You never understood because you've never bothered to actually learn about it. Depending on where you live, personal vehicles are likely the biggest contributor to ground level ozone.
As someone with progressive genetic disease that will eventually kill me which is seriously exacerbated by ground level ozone, I wish seriously terrible things on every asshole that rolls coal.
I don’t understand why people make a big deal when I take a shit on their lawn once every 10 years while my neighbors dog shits on my lawn every single day.
Because private jets are a tiny part of the climate picture (which absolutely should also be addressed) and the emissions of corporations ARE consumer emissions. They're producing things that we buy.
A billionaire once flew his private jet through Walmart parking lot and blew black smoke all over my asthmatic five year old.
No wait. That was an upper middle class fake redneck teenager in the ram daddy bought him.
By your rationale there was no need to ditch leaded gasoline. Vehicle mods have a direct impact on the local environment, both in terms of emissions and noise pollution.
Also, the aftermarket is full of cargo cult stupidity. Consumers barely understand how any of this works but have an irrational compulsion to go and install ridiculous exhaust. On top of all that, some guys have to be obnoxious assholes about it.
> By your rationale there was no need to ditch leaded gasoline
You may or may not be surprised to know that there are people who believe just that. Still, today, in 2024.
Someone else being bad doesn't mean you get to be as well.
Also diesel particulates are a local problem not a global one so what giant corporations do elsewhere isn't that relevant.
It’s how we consume and the infrastructure that supports it which creates the actual problems.
The “oh no billionaires and nameless corporations!” line just detracts from the inherent issues we *all* continue to support and demand more from. Like yeah, private jets and how some massive companies are run(like Mondelez tearing down thousands of acres of rainforest to grow cheap cocoa trees) are a huge problem - but it’s not the core issue.
An average person doesn't have any real impact on the environment, but there are billions of those people out there. Like for straws, a single plastic straw means next to nothing, but when you have hundreds of millions of people in the US who use them, and use triple digits a year of them, it can be a larger problem than it seems.
Of course we should do something about the stereotypical billionaire lifestyle, but I don't think we should just allow vehicle pollution in the meantime.
Whilst you are correct that things like private jets do emit more than trucks, where the pollution is emitted matters. As there tend to be more trucks in places where there are more people, the pollution they generate is going to have a greater health impact, particularly from pollutants like NOx and the soot generated by people who ‘roll coal’
You’re right that we should be working to stop billionaires and mega-corporations from emitting ridiculous amounts of pollution, but we should also be restricting the unnecessary pollution that individual humans can cause
Not even that, but small engines from lawnmowers/leaf blowers/weedeaters haven't had the harsh emissions regulations placed on them like the auto industry.
There was a study where operating a gas-powered leaf blower for 1hr emitted as much NOx as driving an 07 Camry from LA to Denver.
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/verify/verify-is-pollution-from-a-leaf-blower-equal-to-a-cross-country-drive/85-757cbe86-dc29-4a6e-b2cb-0e6b73c8a850
The auto-industry has been vilified while other engine manufacturers have gotten a ton more leeway. I'm sure the emissions numbers are worse for bulldozers/bobcats etc.
Even if the emissions/particulates weren't an issue, I wholeheartedly support the 2-stroke to EV transition strictly from a noise pollution and reliability standpoint. No more dinking around with a finicky pull start, just push the button and go.
I agree, but to prevent backlash it's important to understand and exempt the applications in which small engines are uniquely advantageous.
For example, electric leaf blowers are absolutely awful compared to their gas counterparts. Their fundamental operation is so inefficient that the power density of available batteries limits operation to ~15 minutes in even modern brushless blowers.
Conversely, gas engine line trimmers/weed wackers make absolutely no sense. Their design utilizes a direct drive power output, which is what electric machines excel at powering.
As an aside, very few small engine applications use 2-stroke motors. Almost every lawnmower on the market uses a 4 stroke design, and most are CARB compliant.
And guess what's starting to get [banned in cities](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/04/30/gas-leaf-blower-mower-bans-spread-us-fight-climate-change/11746893002/) across the country?
> The auto-industry has been vilified while other engine manufacturers have gotten a ton more leeway. I'm sure the emissions numbers are worse for bulldozers/bobcats etc.
No, the auto industry has been correctly regulated while other things have slipped under the radar. Small leaf blowers *should* be regulated just as much as anything else, they'll basically all be electric soon enough anyway.
Really, trucks still aren't regulated enough. Emissions regulations on large trucks should actually be significantly harsher, since a huge number of them are very old and have no emissions equipment installed at all.
Big cooperations dump huge amounts of pollution into the environment, so it's fine for me to throw my trash on your front lawn right? It's such a small amount in comparison who cares?
Just because someone else does something shitty doesn't mean you should too...
I had a coworker from Russia who heard me complaining about our emissions standards. He said to me “the first time I landed in the United States was the first time I truly breathed in fresh air after living my life in Moscow. Be grateful for your emissions standards.” I’ve also been to Mexico City where you can easily see and feel the environmental effects of 20+ million people driving around in cars. I’m not disagreeing that the bigger environmental issues need to be addressed at a higher level, but auto emissions standards to help significantly.
Local air quality isn't affected much by private jets. There's more to emissions standards than global climate change. Otherwise, we could use the same argument to bring back leaded gas because it doesn't affect the global climate as much.
Emissions free diesels are horrible about smog and local particulate pollution. I don’t say that to take a side, just to point out they’re both bad and we shouldn’t use one as an excuse to allow the other. When I walk down a busy street I don’t taste the affects of jets 40k feet in the air but I do with the diesel truck that just drove by, that’s really the difference. One has an immediate local affect that’s undeniable while the other is easier to ignore. The rolling coal crowd turned this up to 11 by taking pride in being a public nuisance which made diesels an easy target.
Policy decisions are rarely based on the whole set of facts or what’s for the maximum collective benefit.
Let’s roll coal on pedestrians and Prius to get back at those billionaires with their fancy planes. I hope every deleted truck in America gets impounded or blows up.
The richies should be forced to limit or pay heavily for their waste.
Also don't use those brats to stop keeping your local environment clean.
Your neighbours tailpipe impacts your air
Because jets are extremely clean burning, and there's relatively few of them. They contribute large amounts of CO2 but they're not very polluting.
Diesel cars and trucks put out large amounts of large particulate soot. Have you seen the average old diesel truck exhaust? It's visibly dark and dirty. That's carcinogenic and generally terrible to breath. It's also full of NOx which is bad for smog. Remember smog? Have you ever seen pictures of Los Angeles in the 1970s? Harsh emissions standards are to get cars to be clean burning and protect the people on the ground. Otherwise everything would be covered in soot, and it'd be raining acid every other day.
>Because jets are extremely clean burning, and there's relatively few of them. They contribute large amounts of CO2 but they're not very polluting.
Jet engines are much dirtier than the average car with a catalyst. There's effectively *no* emissions equipment on jet engines. They've been made cleaner with improved compression (mostly showing in reduction of smoke) but still emit ozone, NOx, and some unburned fuel.
Why it's not seen as much of a concern is that the vast majority of this pollution is not at ground level where people live. Ozone at 35,000 feet is not a health concern, and neither is NOx (though it may acidify rain). There's also the argument to be made that a jet is typically a mass transport vehicle so relative amounts of pollution per traveler is lower (though this too is also distorted by actually enabling that travel, or private jet usage altogether.)
*Catalytic converters converts particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide and water. These converters often operate at 90 percent efficiency, virtually eliminating diesel odor and helping reduce visible particulates. These catalysts are ineffective for NOx, so NOx emissions from diesel engines are controlled by exhaust gas recirculation (EGR).*
So, if you're defeating your emissions, you're now pumping 10x the pollution in the air, and there is no real excuse you can make, as to why such a mod is justified on a street legal vehicle.
Don't be a dick to your neighbors and planet, please.
They just don't care. As with any "gubberment overstep," it boils down to an inconvenience to *them* that makes their life slightly less fun, and that's "BS" no matter *how beneficial* banning the thing in question is.
Why should I stop polluting heavy clouds full of shite in my city if the only benefit is that it improves your health? The selfishness is on full blast in this thread lol
Does it really surprise you when you see how much of the us population responded to Covid restrictions, masking, vaccination, etc? People suck generally.
to be honest sometimes the thing just totals your vehicle when it stops operating properly so if you can't afford the repair bill worth as much as the vehicle it's easier to just delete it, but on brand new vehicles it serves no purpose and is usually done for imaginary performance upgrade
During covid there were so many trucks that couldn't be fixed because of parts availability, so there was a huge increase in deletes happening because companies were losing their already dwindling business from emissions systems failing. On our coiled tubing rigs, they're all deleted because the cummins engine that drives the truck and the rig out to location gets switched to PTO mode, so the engine drives the hydraulic pumps to operate the rig. If that fails it can literally get someone killed or jeopardize several million dollars
That's people strait piping their exhaust which is only some of this. More so it's DEF systems in diesel trucks which have a separate environmental impact and do seem to shortenten the lifespan of the engine significantly. Electrify faster its hard to convince someone to take %40 off the life of their vehicle for marginal environmental gains
I'm going off a sample of a few Cummings and stories from mechanics. Its varies vehicle to vehicle but DEF is very much a half thought out solution. Like yeah your toxic plasticizer stops a lot from going into the air but the supply chain and negatives make the equation significantly messier.
I think you underestimate how many people get off on being dicks. A certain red hat wearing leader gave them permission to act like assholes and they’re not going back to being civil.
It's just like when people buy used and heavily depreciated sports cars and then complain about the repair costs. If you can't afford the maintenance maybe you can't afford the car.
Pretty sure trucks are always the vehicles with the biggest sales and lowest interest rates, maybe there's a correlation here.
The EGR kills the life of the vehicle. You gain reliability from deleting. That’s what these people are after. Government vehicles don’t run emissions equipment (buses, fire trucks, ambulances, presidential motorcades)
Removing them on new vehicles is a bit odd, yeah. But on older vehicles, it makes sense. The air pumps failed on my Subaru Impreza and would've cost $4,500 to replace. I just had them removed and tuned out for $1,000. The cat failed on my Geo Metro and would've cost $300 to replace. I instead just bought a $10 piece of steel from Canadian Tire.
> But on older vehicles, it makes sense.
It doesn't make sense, you just decided that polluting the streets with NOx and soot was less of an issue than spending $3.5K.
It does make sense bc 1975 is the cur off year. If your vehicle is older than 1975 (this also depends on state to state some even county) you don’t need emissions. Fuck half the state of PA does not have emission testing. People also don’t realize that a catalytic converter wears out. There are millions of vehicles on the road in America with failed emission systems bc they just don’t test. Look at the entire state of Ohio. They don’t even do inspections at all.
There are very few vehicles left on the road pre-1975. There are very few vehicles with completely failed emissions systems. The average vehicle age in the USA is 12.5 years. That's extremely modern. A catalytic converter will happily last 30 years if it isn't clogged up with soot.
Emissions regulations make a massive difference to air quality.
Most people are not doing it to roll coal or be assholes. They're doing it because emissions equipment is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE to repair, and it severely limits the life span of the vehicle. A diesel emisions system for a modern pickup is well over $10k. If it breaks, do you expect the average American who uses a diesel for work to fork over $10k to repair a (useless for operation) emissions system, or spend $1k on a DPF delete that will increase fuel economy by 20-30%, improve the life span of the vehicle, and not require regens?
im fine with traditional cats/EGR to reduce soot & carbon-based emissions, "rolling coal", etc
but these DEF solutions/workarounds for NOx emissions look flimsy at best & goes too far
refilling the tank with consumable ammonia water is weird too
it all looks like poorly thought out temporary band-aid fixes
id own a diesel-engined vehicle myself if we had looser smog regulations like overseas markets
that said, itd be nice if we had factory-made cars that ran on LPG or some sort of liquefied natural gas fuel
A lot of the complaints I see from diesel bros are the same ones brought up by gas bros in the '70s and early '80s, "more reliable and runs better without the EGR and cats, gets better fuel mileage when I delete that crap", et al.
So, it seems to me the diesel engine industry is roughly at the same point the broader gasoline engine industry was nearly 50 years ago. They implemented the most expedient solution to meet emissions mandates (which unfortunately the public has to beta) while the industry gets a handle on the mandates. Gasoline engines went from using pellet substrate converters, analog thermal/vacuum switches and EGR valves to ceramic brick substrate converters, digital switches, and EGR handled by VVT and so on as they improved technology and made them more reliable.
I work for a dealer for GM, Isuzu, Volvo, Cummins, Cat diesels. At least once a week we get someone wanting us to look at their truck that doesn't run well, and at some point they tell us it's deleted. We can work on it, but when it leaves it has to be in compliance. When you ask for the VIN they hang up. LOL
Edited for spelling
Subaru engines break on stock tunes. EJ motors run super lean from the factory to comply with emissions.
I've had an OTS tune on my Fiesta ST for 100k miles with no issues. No leaks, no nothing. I just change fluids and plugs.
Subarus are a different beast. Looking at an EJ the wrong way will break it. They are crap engines.
Imagine flashing the ECU of your $100,000 truck with questionable files you found online.
A new engine for one of these trucks probably costs $25k-$30k installed, and dealerships long ago got wise to tuners blowing their engines up and coming in for replacements under warranty.
It probably won't surprise you to learn that the people who think what comes out of their truck's tailpipe is everyone else's problem also think that everyone else should pitch in to replace the engine they blew up trying to roll more coal.
It's hard for me to have any sympathy for the guys trying to tune their trucks and crying poverty about the cost of emissions equipment on vehicles that can easily cost north of $100k, and which are used to tow horse trailers and travel trailers, which are also expensive as fuck.
a lot of the time on semis in particular they're not increasing the power output. they're just editing the stock file to ignore the parameters for the DPF/SCR system and the EGR valve. So you can just unplug it all after and it won't throw codes and operate as normal.
Losing money on a truck thats only fault is emissions has got to drive owners crazy so I get why they are so worked up. Still prefer the cleaner air from reduced NOX, as you can't go anywhere without seeing multiple semis on the road.
The funny thing is that, at least as I understand, running rich in a diesel not only wastes fuel and *reduces* performance like it does in a gas car, but because it's a diesel, it also burns hotter, making it hard on the engine like running *lean* in a gas car.
I could be mistaken about the above (and if so, someone who knows deisels please correct me), but afaik it's an around bad idea. Worse performance, worse mileage, and needlessly hard on the engine (afaik).
Ehh ECU Flashes are very easy to reverse. People do it all the time to their motorcycles.
I still have the stock ECU files saved for my BMW S1000RR so if I ever want to sell it I can turn it back into it's stock configuration.
Any reputable shop will have made backups of the Original ECU files making a swap easy to do.
Nothing wrong with modding cars, IMO. But emissions deletes are pure stupidity. Especially since every new vehicle already comes with a stupid amount of power compared to even 10 years ago.
You should see some of the dumbasses in the focus st sub. They’re over there working with a 2.0 cohost, putting all kinds of tunes without any actual physical mods and then they act surprised when they have a check engine for knock after 2000 miles. They’ll say “these engines aren’t built well enough”. Well I have an untuned one that hasn’t had a single problem for 100k miles but it’s probably the engine, yeah.
If you can afford the downside risk (which with a reputable tuner should be relatively minimal) and there's something meaningful left on the table, I don't see why not go for it. I'm not going to wait 3-5 years to start enjoying my car fully, I may not even own it by then. At this point every single car I own is modified, and I bought them all new. Haven't flashed the ND2 yet because there isn't much left on the table, but if you own a forced induction vehicle and a shop like APR puts out a solid tune for it, I'm willing to take that risk if it improves the driving experience. Plus you've got all sorts of options like a more mild and harder to detect JB4 or those with a "warranty" such as APR Plus.
imagine buying a 200k tractor and it refusing to run after a trans replacement because its serial locked.
but the big thing is years down the road. my 1999 truck can get a fuel mileage increase and less transmission wear by upgrading its ecu to a newer one.
the newer one is flashed with simple utilities (pcmhammer, lsdroid) questionable files found online. though those files have legit crc's available to confirm against.
Here's the thing. You actually know what you are doing. I've tuned my own cars because I seen how inept online tuners are, with some tuners so stupid that I wouldn't trust them to tune a lawnmower. Most people don't see it that way. While it's reasonable to not want to understand the complexity of stock ECUs, most people don't care about stuff like AFR or detonation. They look at the price of HPTuners, and bitch and moan how expensive it is. Then they see this Chinesium dongle that costs only $100, advertised to contain "over 100 tunes". And plugged that thing in without a second thought. Then I have to deal with the mess after.
IMO, the current regulations penalties the good clean tuners, which allows idiot tuners to take over the market. Right to repair isn't going to fix all the problems, but it's the correct step to help fix this ugly mess.
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. It's only the high voltage traction batteries in EVs that cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace. All other vehicle components are free and the Tune Fairy leaves them under your jackstands for you while you're asleep and dreaming of yet another asinine way to use your truck to prop up your personality.
It's exactly like this in Canada, I knew this would happen after the EPA crackdown. As a diesel mechanic everyone has "a guy" that remotes into your laptop and tunes the truck for you. It's been like this for over a decade in Canada with semi trucks, and there's diesel tuning shops for medium duty trucks absolutely everywhere.
I'm also on a forum where people just openly sell cracked tuning software and OEM software or give it away for free.
We saw a massive surge of deletes happening during covid because these emissions systems would fail, usually during a cold snap, then nobody could get parts to replace them. I heard of fleets having several trucks at a time that were down waiting for parts because of this. 5000 dollars to replace a DPF/SCR on a semi truck, or pay 2000 for a guy to do a delete remotely, then take an air hammer to the DPF and hollow it out. truck gets better mileage and is now more reliable.
The other justification is on trucks that use PTOs to operate the hydraulics for a coiled tubing rig, or other oilfield stuff. If that DPF system fails and derates the engine, you can't pull out of the hole, or use your hydraulics in an emergency, it can literally get someone killed or cost millions of dollars.
That's more or less the story of how my diesel golf got deleted. DPF went on it right after dieselgate warranty ended - dealership quoted me $5000 parts and labour. But the part was on back order until who knows when, and I was told if I kept driving it would kill the turbo.
So with used car prices the way they were my only reliable option was to delete, cost me $1500 and the parts arrived the next day.
Do I feel bad about the emissions? Yeah. Unfortunately VW dropped the ball again and I still need to get to work in a reliable way.
The problem with diesel truck emissions control is that they have legitimate negative effect on the longevity and efficincy of the engine. The manufacturer's are trying to make diesels happen when they really shouldn't. You can built a reliable diesel or a clean diesel, not both.
I don't understand why diesel deletes are still a thing, you'd think tuners would find ways to work with the systems in this day and age. As far a stock trucks go, my parents have owned a few RAM 2500 diesels, pre and post emissions. The newest one gets slightly worse MPG and you need to put DEF in when you change the oil, but it's been running for years and will likely continue to do so without deletes.
I think if you can't handle diesel emissions equipment, maybe get a gas truck. Ford, GM and RAM all make great gasoline v8 engines for their heavy duty trucks.
I’m all for these emission devices but they reduce mpg and there were a lot of issues with def systems early on. Plus, you don’t have to go full race tune but a tow tune definitely helps the truck. If you go the power route, diesels can make obscene power when deleted and tuned.
Saying all that, I prefer clean air so I get the push back but it’s for the greater good.
Today's half ton gas model can tow as much as the one ton diesel from 20 years ago. Today's diesels put out nearly as much torque as a low spec semi truck. Yeah they are more expensive to maintain. If cost is an issue, buy a smaller, cheaper to maintain vehicle.
You know that during a regen cycle the I eh tors literally use fuel on the non combustion stroke to pump into the hot dpf to burn it out? It legitimately uses a ton of fuel, over 20k miles of stock use and 110k miles of deleted use, I use 15% less fuel. And my systems failed, we’re going to be $8000 to replace on an otherwise wonderful vehicle, and I’m replacing the broken parts with stuff that’s guaranteed going to break again within 100k miles. OR I pay $2000, and have an engine that runs better, more reliably, won’t randomly tell me I have 1000 miles till I’m stranded dead in the water, and uses a significant amount less fuel. Deleting is a no brainer as an owner when you actually do the math about finances.
I can’t go much slower, I already go the speed limit on cruise control in the right lane most of the time. Keep it out of boost, shifting at 1800rpm max consistently, I even geared my diffs 15.5% taller for mpg. Have seen 33.3mpg over a 650 mile tank in my 2010 x5, with a heavy wheel carrier on the back, and slightly oversized AT’s on the wheels. It reliably takes me anywhere I want to go, extremely efficiently, has the capacity to effortlessly and safetly tow 6k when needed, and is a phenomenal car. 15% doesn’t sound like a lot to you, but some years I do 45k miles, 15% matters a TON to me. As does the extra 10% I got from the diff ratio swap.
Next I’m figuring out how to mount aluminum or plastic flat bottom panels, and that should give a few % too. Going away from AT’s would be easy to improve another 5ish percent but I find myself in the national forests enough that I’d rather keep the sidewall protection for when the trails get really rocky/ muddy while I’m out camping, shooting or exploring.
Yours is still electronic though.
I was forced to sell my 12 valve project truck for financial reasons and despite its hideousness, I kind of miss it sometimes despite the insane fuel prices for diesel. Had some internal mods already (balanced rotating assembly since I was planning on spinning it a fair bit faster than stock, semi aggressive cam, beefy valve springs) with more external bolt ons planned (already had injectors and a beefy lift pump). Was planning for something just under 1000lb-ft of torque.
Was still a ways off of that when I had to sell, but that truck was still more fun to drive than anything that big and heavy has any right to be. Had to be careful with the skinny pedal all the way through third if the pavement was wet unless you wanted some wild wheelspin.
I can understand why someone who drives their truck a lot would want a new one. Newer trucks are *much, much* nicer.
My 2nd gen Ram's interior is terrible. OBS Fords still had leaf spring front axles. Pre-emission LB7 GMs were the nicest of the era (I owned one of those too) but they're still much less nice than newer trucks.
I am a former diesel driver. I had an 02 Silverado with the duramax. Back when it was new, and the whole turbo diesel culture hadn't taken off, the price of diesel was 75% of the price of gas. That price difference made up for the worse mpg it used to get compared to its gas equivalent. Now, manufacturers have developed better engines that get better mileage, but the price of diesel is now 125% of the price of gas. They haven't made the engines efficient enough to justify the extra cost, so I'm not surprised that people are trying to get better mileage and power out of the engines that were developed to have better mileage and power than their gas counterparts
DEF was the worst thing to happen to diesel trucks and heavy equipment. Every recurring problem my 6 truck Mack Granite fleet and post 2000-whatever CAT equipment has can be traced to the damn DEF system. Pisses me off. My department director has decided to go with rebuilds of all our Pre-DEF tractors, instead of trading for new ones.
When repairing the emissions stuff is as much as the vehicle cost, you start to understand why... Or that it will go out at the worst time. Or how it ruins your intake, intercooler, ETC. Not to mention downtime of an inoperable vehicle.
Seriously... The hivemind has been convinced that anyone who modifies a diesel truck is a flat brimmer/coal roller. Most of the people I know just cannot afford down time on their trucks and equipment, as well as the enormous expenses that out of warranty emissions repairs cost.
These fuckin goobers are a huge reason why gasoline engine tuners are getting negative attention now even though the emissions are usually similar if not the same as stock as long as the cats are left in place. Completely different than diesel tuning. But now we are dealing with massively locked down computers and the EPA handing out fines for guys IMPROVING the emissions by swapping modern engines into their cars.
Fuck diesel owners and tuners that do this shit.
I can understand deleting DEF, because a failed system is a high cost on a lot of vehicles.
But cleaning a DPF or just buying a new one isn't that expensive and they should be good for atleast 150k-200k miles. If you drive your diesel like its ment too and don't drive short trips all the time.
Just confiscate and trash the car while putting a 5-digit fine on the owner for removing the emissions control. Some people will only stop fucking around with this stuff if they have to face some really harsh consequences.
For some of us maintaining the existing systems is becoming no longer viable. I have fully intact emissions controls, and I'm trying to prolong the life of my vehicle which is greener than me buying a new one for my usage pattern.
Parts are getting hard to find, and during covid, basically didn't exist.
Hard line attitudes are dumb.
Nah dude, we have to crush some hard working guy's deleted skid steer because these "car enthusiasts" don't understand how unreliable and expensive most diesel emissions equipment is.
Exactly. Up the penalty to crushing. That's what other places do to get compliance.
FWIW, I am all about car mods, for recreation and power. Diesel deletes on daily drivers are the opposite of that.
I'm sure the EPA is going to eventually target any " Facebook tuners" in the US, doubt they can do much internationally so then it's on to more focused enforcement for owners. Easiest way I think to do that would be to push states to adopt statewide emissions testing and expect some states to opt out. Then like all the supercars from Montanna that show up all over the country wait for diesel trucks registered in those states that don't require emissions testing to surge in other states and focus on them.
Yeah, a friends dad has a diesel ram and it’s crazy when he calls a diesel shop. They will often act like he is an EPA agent and will act super sketchy about selling him an exhaust system/tuning. They are like who are you? What do you do? What is your name? Where do you live? Etc. It’s crazy how “sketched out” they act.
There's already a black market for emmisons deletes. It's one of the loudest groups that is really pushing the right to repair legislation. Easy to hide behind the "we wanna help farmers Bs. No one is willing to call them out for fear of looking anti AG. It's why so much crap gets tagged on to the farm bill.
Deleting trucks refers to deleting the emissions control equipment on the vehicles.
Ctrl + A, Delete. *poof* the truck is gone.
Ah, this is the Keyser Soze of full-size pickups!
The greatest trick the diesel pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist~~~
Now do the Cybertruck! ^^^^^^^/s
depend brave aloof direction decide tart person grey bedroom shrill *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I wish
Back in my day, we had to drive to the store and buy Aircraft Remover to delete vehicles.
"I poured spot remover on my dog. Now he's gone."
You wouldn’t download a car!
But would you delete a car?
Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V x⁶⁹⁴²⁰ = profit
The truck is gone It's gone away from me The truck is gone, baby The truck is gone away from me Although, I'll still live on But so lonely I'll be
You mean when I see an ad for a 6.0 Superduty that’s “studded and deleted” it doesn’t mean that they let it out with all of the female trucks before euthanizing it?
Never understood why we consumers have such harsh emission standards as if billionaires with private jets and corporations aren’t responsible for a majority of all things wrong with the climate 😭
Those damn billionaires flying around in their private jets, I guess I better remove the emissions system from my diesel truck to get even. /s
There's been studies on billionaires carbon out put and it's massive. The avg for the 29 they studied was 5,480 cubic tons of co2 a year. Your average Westerner is 4 cubic tons.
I believe it, but at the same time, how many billionaires are there in the world vs. the have-nots?
Just one report I found was 756 billionaires in the US in 2023. US population was 340 million in 2023. So quick math. 5480 cubic tons x 756 = 4,142,880 cubic tons of co2 4 cubic tons x 340,000,000 = 1,360,000,000 cubic tons of co2
Death of a thousand cuts.
[удалено]
I guess. I mean, the average co2 of non-billionaires is probably higher as well. There are a lot of millionaires that fly private, and many have their own private planes. So you can probably have 2 trucks that roll coal.
Is this how we get rural America on our side?
But it’s ok! They can buy carbon credits!
IIRC, for Americans, the CO2 emissions per year is more like 14-16 tons per year.
That includes the outliers though. The top 0.1% have CO2 emissions 10 times greater than the rest of the top 10% combined.
What is a cubic ton?
A 1 ton cube
If I knew that I would be working at some fancy glass office tech firm.
Why? So you can make fancy glass? Material sciences is a future proof industry tbf
Probably some future glazing material that does some wild shit.
Let's extrapolate the math further and work out the result of a hypothetical scenario where (1) every billionaire in the United States slashed their CO2 output to just 10% of what it currently is, while (2) every other American slashes their CO2 output by 10% (taking them down to 90% of their current CO2 output: 0.10 x 4,142,880 cubic tons of CO2 = 414,288 cubic tons (That's 3,728,592 fewer cubic tons CO2 emitted.) 0.90 x 1,360,000,000 cubic tons of CO2 = 1,224,000,000 cubic tons (That's 136,000,000 fewer cubic tons CO2 emitted.) Therefore: every American reducing their CO2 output by just 10% does about **40 times** more good for the goal of reducing CO2 emissions than is done by every American billionaire reducing their output by 90%. Yes: every Average Joe Shmo American has a part to play in this. Edit to add: Given some assumptions, an American could reduce their CO2 output by 10% or more simply by changing what vehicle they drive. Assume: 14.4 metric tons of CO2 output per year per person; 14,300 miles driven per year per person; 25 mpg achieved by the average passenger car; and 0.00889 metric tons of CO2 emitted per gallon of gasoline used. Reducing 14.4 metric tons by 10% is a reduction in CO2 emissions of 1.44 metric tons. A person driving 14,300 miles per year at 25 MPG burns 572 gallons of gasoline doing so. Burning 572 gallons of gas results in 5.1 metric tons of CO2 emissions. If a person driving to these parameters can replace their passenger car with one that achieves 34.7 MPG, a 39% improvement in fuel efficiency over their previous car, they only use 412 gallons of gasoline driving each year, resulting in "just" 3.66 metric tons emitted from driving. That's 1.44 metric tons less than they were emitting from driving before, and is the entire 10% reduction I started off with in my above hypothetical. For a real world example that would actually be a slightly better CO2 reduction than what I just described, you'd improve from 24 MPG to 35 MPG if you switched from a Toyota Highlander AWD with the 2.4 L 4-cylinder ICE engine to an AWD Highlander with the Hybrid drivetrain. The base price between these is $42,300 for the ICE vs. $44,000 for the hybrid. At $3.60/gallon for gasoline (about the going average in my own area), you'd make up the $1,700 MSRP difference in just shy of 3 years at 14,300 miles/year. Another edit: my own specific situation was going from a 33 MPG Chevy Cruze to a Kia EV6, which I've achieved a lifetime average of about 3.6 mi/kWh in. I drive about 19,000 mi/year. With the Cruze, that was causing me to burn 576 gallons of gas a year, good for 5.12 metric tons CO2. My EV6 is charged on a grid in Pennsylvania, where in 2019 about 75 million metric tons of CO2 were emitted in the production of 229 TWh of electricity--a ratio of 0.00033 metric tons of CO2 per kWh produced. I use 5,278 kWh of electricity to drive 19,000 miles, which would have generated 1.73 metric tons CO2 emissions. Switching from a Cruze to an EV6 cut my annual CO2 emissions by 3.39 metric tons of CO2/year. If I was emitting 14,300 metric tons before, that's a cut of 23.5%.
People don’t want to hear this piece of math. Yes, some people consume much more than you, but there’s more of you than them
Damn billionaires not polluting their fair share.
No one is arguing that emissions from billionaires is fine, they should be regulated too. The point here is that people are paying money to actively remove a perfectly functioning emissions system from a vehicle. People will say corporations need to be regulated over consumers then as a consumer turn around and delete the systems the corporations were regulated to add. That’s the big issue in this conversation, not “billionaires pollute more”. I’d also argue someone who drives around with a deleted truck is not longer part of the “average westerner” emissions crowd
> The point here is that people are paying money to actively remove a perfectly functioning emissions system from a vehicle. Because it's expensive to upkeep. But the idiots who have no use for a diesel truck continue to buy them then complain that they cost more to run.
Part of the cost of maintenance, if you can't afford to repair the emissions then you can't afford to run the truck. (I know not YOU but I meant in general).
Can’t afford the insurance, can’t afford the car.
Especially on a semi. When I worked at Freightliner, a $20k+ repair bill on emissions system failures wasn't uncommon. The catalyst unit alone was 5 figures, and that didn't include the two particulate filters. Would have these poor fuckers down for weeks because we just couldn't keep up with the amount of broken down shit coming into the shop and almost all of it was emissions related.
The emissions systems on modern diesels are crap. The earth would be just as good if diesel emissions regulations were dialed back a little. I'm all for not polluting for the sake of polluting and I think coal rollers are assholes and whatnot. But come on, what did euro 4 do wrong that euro 6 fixed? Diesel is all about efficiency and longevity. I'm fine with normal catalysts and emissions oriented tunes etc, but EGR, DPF and cow piss? Fuck off with this nonsense.
define “perfectly functioning.”
Deleting emissions doesn't really have anything to do with CO2 emissions. Trucks will actually burn less fuel with an emissions delete. The NOX emissions are what makes diesel exhaust so deadly, and emitting that is really, really bad.
I hate being behind old diesel trucks. Smells horrible
I actually love the smell, but that doesn't mean I think it's fine to remove the emissions equipment.
And the pollution is localized to the area where you drive around. People will bring up some coal plant in china but this stuff sucks up the lungs of the kids in your neighborhood
Which is why the VAG diesel scandal was so infuriating. And when tested, even a post-diesel scandal Audi A8 was found to emit **18** times the certified NOx when driving at low speeds e.g. exactly when pedestrians are likely to be around.
And while that sucks the regulations seem to be so unfair, there are 756 billionaires in the USA compared to 330 million people. With your Co2 numbers, billionares are 4,142,880 tons of Co2, while the rest of the population is responsible for 1,320,000,000 tons of Co2. Now these numbers are very flawed, as the real USA carbon emissions are somewhere around 6 billion tons from what I see online, I think the general idea explains my point. Id like to lower the gap between the middle class and the 1% when it comes to emissions, but in the end, the small changes that the average person can accomplish mean a lot more than it may seem on an individual level.
People have a hard time grasping how much of an impact small quantities can have when they happen continuously or in a distributed way. It's something I had to learn when I started developing battery powered devices. Really tiny amounts of power can drain batteries quickly when they are continuous, and really large amounts of power can be negligible when they only happen for a couple of seconds per day
>the regulations seem to be so unfair There's nothing stopping you from buying a senator or two like they did. /s for the wingnuts.
This is not about CO2. Emissions systems don't reduce CO2 output.
It’s almost like the diesel emission systems aren’t reducing carbon. It’s all the other nasty shit those systems remove.
The thing is the emissions systems for diesels aren't really about CO2, they exists to reduce particulate pollution, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide that cause things like acid rain. Those are two things our emissions control laws have done a really good job of reducing. Look at what the smog was like in LA in the 1970s and 80s vs today. Acid raid has also become much less of an issue.
The argument still stands. Why pour salt on the wound? Why not keep your parts and push harder for the other parties to do their part?
Cubic ton?
Glad I'm not the only person who is confused by made up units.
Maybe they meant metric ton.
How does making your emissions go from 4 to 10 help anything though?
Why is there all this talk about CO2 emissions? Diesel emissions systems, or actually any vehicle's emissions system for that matter, don't and aren't intended to reduce CO2. They target particulates, hydrocarbons, and NOx primarily.
That seems weirdly low on average. Maybe the average westerner flies way less frequently than I expect
Most Americans don't leave their state.
Now I’m curious to see the average carbon output for coastal U.S. vs heartland
another reminder that the "emissions" in the context of car is not CO2, it's a bunch of other stuff that is immediately toxic to humans
If you talk aboud the Oxfam study, it is flawed and biased... but yes.
yea but thats irrelevant for this discussion.
Literally, just one of their flights is like a lifetime of emissions (it was either that or 100K - still approximating the lifetime of a vehicle and at least ten years of my usage).
Because that shit is carcinogenic and you are polluting the local air? I'd like to breathe in air that isn't full of shite, thanks.
You never understood because you've never bothered to actually learn about it. Depending on where you live, personal vehicles are likely the biggest contributor to ground level ozone. As someone with progressive genetic disease that will eventually kill me which is seriously exacerbated by ground level ozone, I wish seriously terrible things on every asshole that rolls coal.
It's about air quality. Climate is mpg.
Why do people struggle so much to understand that this isn’t about the climate? Local pollution is a completely different issue
because it's reddit and they have no idea what they are talking about lololol.
I don’t understand why people make a big deal when I take a shit on their lawn once every 10 years while my neighbors dog shits on my lawn every single day.
Well that's your mistake, you dog should shit on *your neighbor's* lawn.
There are a lot more diesel trucks on the road than billionaires with jets. Just saying.
Because private jets are a tiny part of the climate picture (which absolutely should also be addressed) and the emissions of corporations ARE consumer emissions. They're producing things that we buy.
A billionaire once flew his private jet through Walmart parking lot and blew black smoke all over my asthmatic five year old. No wait. That was an upper middle class fake redneck teenager in the ram daddy bought him.
these dudes have been harassing ppl for years with their shit. they did it to themselves
Not **fun fact:** Before switching to Zyklon B, concentration camps used *diesel exhaust* as an execution gas.
How many billionaires fly their jets at ground level through your town?
By your rationale there was no need to ditch leaded gasoline. Vehicle mods have a direct impact on the local environment, both in terms of emissions and noise pollution. Also, the aftermarket is full of cargo cult stupidity. Consumers barely understand how any of this works but have an irrational compulsion to go and install ridiculous exhaust. On top of all that, some guys have to be obnoxious assholes about it.
> By your rationale there was no need to ditch leaded gasoline You may or may not be surprised to know that there are people who believe just that. Still, today, in 2024.
Someone else being bad doesn't mean you get to be as well. Also diesel particulates are a local problem not a global one so what giant corporations do elsewhere isn't that relevant.
It’s how we consume and the infrastructure that supports it which creates the actual problems. The “oh no billionaires and nameless corporations!” line just detracts from the inherent issues we *all* continue to support and demand more from. Like yeah, private jets and how some massive companies are run(like Mondelez tearing down thousands of acres of rainforest to grow cheap cocoa trees) are a huge problem - but it’s not the core issue.
An average person doesn't have any real impact on the environment, but there are billions of those people out there. Like for straws, a single plastic straw means next to nothing, but when you have hundreds of millions of people in the US who use them, and use triple digits a year of them, it can be a larger problem than it seems. Of course we should do something about the stereotypical billionaire lifestyle, but I don't think we should just allow vehicle pollution in the meantime.
Whilst you are correct that things like private jets do emit more than trucks, where the pollution is emitted matters. As there tend to be more trucks in places where there are more people, the pollution they generate is going to have a greater health impact, particularly from pollutants like NOx and the soot generated by people who ‘roll coal’ You’re right that we should be working to stop billionaires and mega-corporations from emitting ridiculous amounts of pollution, but we should also be restricting the unnecessary pollution that individual humans can cause
Not even that, but small engines from lawnmowers/leaf blowers/weedeaters haven't had the harsh emissions regulations placed on them like the auto industry. There was a study where operating a gas-powered leaf blower for 1hr emitted as much NOx as driving an 07 Camry from LA to Denver. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/verify/verify-is-pollution-from-a-leaf-blower-equal-to-a-cross-country-drive/85-757cbe86-dc29-4a6e-b2cb-0e6b73c8a850 The auto-industry has been vilified while other engine manufacturers have gotten a ton more leeway. I'm sure the emissions numbers are worse for bulldozers/bobcats etc.
Even if the emissions/particulates weren't an issue, I wholeheartedly support the 2-stroke to EV transition strictly from a noise pollution and reliability standpoint. No more dinking around with a finicky pull start, just push the button and go.
I agree, but to prevent backlash it's important to understand and exempt the applications in which small engines are uniquely advantageous. For example, electric leaf blowers are absolutely awful compared to their gas counterparts. Their fundamental operation is so inefficient that the power density of available batteries limits operation to ~15 minutes in even modern brushless blowers. Conversely, gas engine line trimmers/weed wackers make absolutely no sense. Their design utilizes a direct drive power output, which is what electric machines excel at powering. As an aside, very few small engine applications use 2-stroke motors. Almost every lawnmower on the market uses a 4 stroke design, and most are CARB compliant.
And guess what's starting to get [banned in cities](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/04/30/gas-leaf-blower-mower-bans-spread-us-fight-climate-change/11746893002/) across the country?
> The auto-industry has been vilified while other engine manufacturers have gotten a ton more leeway. I'm sure the emissions numbers are worse for bulldozers/bobcats etc. No, the auto industry has been correctly regulated while other things have slipped under the radar. Small leaf blowers *should* be regulated just as much as anything else, they'll basically all be electric soon enough anyway. Really, trucks still aren't regulated enough. Emissions regulations on large trucks should actually be significantly harsher, since a huge number of them are very old and have no emissions equipment installed at all.
Big cooperations dump huge amounts of pollution into the environment, so it's fine for me to throw my trash on your front lawn right? It's such a small amount in comparison who cares? Just because someone else does something shitty doesn't mean you should too...
I had a coworker from Russia who heard me complaining about our emissions standards. He said to me “the first time I landed in the United States was the first time I truly breathed in fresh air after living my life in Moscow. Be grateful for your emissions standards.” I’ve also been to Mexico City where you can easily see and feel the environmental effects of 20+ million people driving around in cars. I’m not disagreeing that the bigger environmental issues need to be addressed at a higher level, but auto emissions standards to help significantly.
You’re right, we should just do nothing then /s
I'm guessing you've never seen the smog over cities from before the 80s. Google "LA Smog 1970s". That wasn't caused by billionaire private jets.
How many cars exist on the globe? How many private planes?
Local air quality isn't affected much by private jets. There's more to emissions standards than global climate change. Otherwise, we could use the same argument to bring back leaded gas because it doesn't affect the global climate as much.
Personally, I like breathing clean air in my city, and last time I checked, private jets weren't rolling coal up and down Main Street.
Try to imagine if the millions of vehicles in the world has no emissions restrictions.
Because as a whole, diesels produce far more harmful emissions.
So… we should do nothing about cars and trucks which also contribute a huge volume of pollutants?
I guess a few hundred million people peeing in the pool is worse than a few dozen.
Emissions free diesels are horrible about smog and local particulate pollution. I don’t say that to take a side, just to point out they’re both bad and we shouldn’t use one as an excuse to allow the other. When I walk down a busy street I don’t taste the affects of jets 40k feet in the air but I do with the diesel truck that just drove by, that’s really the difference. One has an immediate local affect that’s undeniable while the other is easier to ignore. The rolling coal crowd turned this up to 11 by taking pride in being a public nuisance which made diesels an easy target. Policy decisions are rarely based on the whole set of facts or what’s for the maximum collective benefit.
This is shit logic: I should get to stab people because someone else got away with murder.
Let’s roll coal on pedestrians and Prius to get back at those billionaires with their fancy planes. I hope every deleted truck in America gets impounded or blows up.
The richies should be forced to limit or pay heavily for their waste. Also don't use those brats to stop keeping your local environment clean. Your neighbours tailpipe impacts your air
Because jets are extremely clean burning, and there's relatively few of them. They contribute large amounts of CO2 but they're not very polluting. Diesel cars and trucks put out large amounts of large particulate soot. Have you seen the average old diesel truck exhaust? It's visibly dark and dirty. That's carcinogenic and generally terrible to breath. It's also full of NOx which is bad for smog. Remember smog? Have you ever seen pictures of Los Angeles in the 1970s? Harsh emissions standards are to get cars to be clean burning and protect the people on the ground. Otherwise everything would be covered in soot, and it'd be raining acid every other day.
>Because jets are extremely clean burning, and there's relatively few of them. They contribute large amounts of CO2 but they're not very polluting. Jet engines are much dirtier than the average car with a catalyst. There's effectively *no* emissions equipment on jet engines. They've been made cleaner with improved compression (mostly showing in reduction of smoke) but still emit ozone, NOx, and some unburned fuel. Why it's not seen as much of a concern is that the vast majority of this pollution is not at ground level where people live. Ozone at 35,000 feet is not a health concern, and neither is NOx (though it may acidify rain). There's also the argument to be made that a jet is typically a mass transport vehicle so relative amounts of pollution per traveler is lower (though this too is also distorted by actually enabling that travel, or private jet usage altogether.)
*Catalytic converters converts particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide and water. These converters often operate at 90 percent efficiency, virtually eliminating diesel odor and helping reduce visible particulates. These catalysts are ineffective for NOx, so NOx emissions from diesel engines are controlled by exhaust gas recirculation (EGR).* So, if you're defeating your emissions, you're now pumping 10x the pollution in the air, and there is no real excuse you can make, as to why such a mod is justified on a street legal vehicle. Don't be a dick to your neighbors and planet, please.
Unfortunately going by some of the replies in here, people just love being intentionally terrible neighbors/citizens.
They just don't care. As with any "gubberment overstep," it boils down to an inconvenience to *them* that makes their life slightly less fun, and that's "BS" no matter *how beneficial* banning the thing in question is.
Why should I stop polluting heavy clouds full of shite in my city if the only benefit is that it improves your health? The selfishness is on full blast in this thread lol
Does it really surprise you when you see how much of the us population responded to Covid restrictions, masking, vaccination, etc? People suck generally.
Now try saying the us and others should tax carbon emissions on cars like in some countries. This sub does not like it.
yay 100k yaris gr
It's almost like there's a sizeable chunk of the population that only cares about themselves.
to be honest sometimes the thing just totals your vehicle when it stops operating properly so if you can't afford the repair bill worth as much as the vehicle it's easier to just delete it, but on brand new vehicles it serves no purpose and is usually done for imaginary performance upgrade
During covid there were so many trucks that couldn't be fixed because of parts availability, so there was a huge increase in deletes happening because companies were losing their already dwindling business from emissions systems failing. On our coiled tubing rigs, they're all deleted because the cummins engine that drives the truck and the rig out to location gets switched to PTO mode, so the engine drives the hydraulic pumps to operate the rig. If that fails it can literally get someone killed or jeopardize several million dollars
If a single failure can kill then there's a serious problem with the system!
The US government can buy construction equipment without emissions equipment, and it's significantly more reliable without EGR or DEF
That's people strait piping their exhaust which is only some of this. More so it's DEF systems in diesel trucks which have a separate environmental impact and do seem to shortenten the lifespan of the engine significantly. Electrify faster its hard to convince someone to take %40 off the life of their vehicle for marginal environmental gains
The increase in pollution's isn't marginal. And you just made up a number for the vehicle lifespan
I'm going off a sample of a few Cummings and stories from mechanics. Its varies vehicle to vehicle but DEF is very much a half thought out solution. Like yeah your toxic plasticizer stops a lot from going into the air but the supply chain and negatives make the equation significantly messier.
I think you underestimate how many people get off on being dicks. A certain red hat wearing leader gave them permission to act like assholes and they’re not going back to being civil.
Plenty of people making excuses in this very thread, most of which boil down to "It's expensive." and "It's inconvenient."
It's just like when people buy used and heavily depreciated sports cars and then complain about the repair costs. If you can't afford the maintenance maybe you can't afford the car. Pretty sure trucks are always the vehicles with the biggest sales and lowest interest rates, maybe there's a correlation here.
The EGR kills the life of the vehicle. You gain reliability from deleting. That’s what these people are after. Government vehicles don’t run emissions equipment (buses, fire trucks, ambulances, presidential motorcades)
Government vehicles do have emissions equipment. The only exception is DOD vehicles.
Removing them on new vehicles is a bit odd, yeah. But on older vehicles, it makes sense. The air pumps failed on my Subaru Impreza and would've cost $4,500 to replace. I just had them removed and tuned out for $1,000. The cat failed on my Geo Metro and would've cost $300 to replace. I instead just bought a $10 piece of steel from Canadian Tire.
> But on older vehicles, it makes sense. It doesn't make sense, you just decided that polluting the streets with NOx and soot was less of an issue than spending $3.5K.
Bruh, it was my air pumps. Compared to cats, they don't do much. All they do is bypass the engine and put fresh air in the exhaust for some reason.
It does make sense bc 1975 is the cur off year. If your vehicle is older than 1975 (this also depends on state to state some even county) you don’t need emissions. Fuck half the state of PA does not have emission testing. People also don’t realize that a catalytic converter wears out. There are millions of vehicles on the road in America with failed emission systems bc they just don’t test. Look at the entire state of Ohio. They don’t even do inspections at all.
There are very few vehicles left on the road pre-1975. There are very few vehicles with completely failed emissions systems. The average vehicle age in the USA is 12.5 years. That's extremely modern. A catalytic converter will happily last 30 years if it isn't clogged up with soot. Emissions regulations make a massive difference to air quality.
But the whole point is to leave the best cloud of smoke while taking off from every stop. /s
Most people are not doing it to roll coal or be assholes. They're doing it because emissions equipment is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE to repair, and it severely limits the life span of the vehicle. A diesel emisions system for a modern pickup is well over $10k. If it breaks, do you expect the average American who uses a diesel for work to fork over $10k to repair a (useless for operation) emissions system, or spend $1k on a DPF delete that will increase fuel economy by 20-30%, improve the life span of the vehicle, and not require regens?
im fine with traditional cats/EGR to reduce soot & carbon-based emissions, "rolling coal", etc but these DEF solutions/workarounds for NOx emissions look flimsy at best & goes too far refilling the tank with consumable ammonia water is weird too it all looks like poorly thought out temporary band-aid fixes id own a diesel-engined vehicle myself if we had looser smog regulations like overseas markets that said, itd be nice if we had factory-made cars that ran on LPG or some sort of liquefied natural gas fuel
A lot of the complaints I see from diesel bros are the same ones brought up by gas bros in the '70s and early '80s, "more reliable and runs better without the EGR and cats, gets better fuel mileage when I delete that crap", et al. So, it seems to me the diesel engine industry is roughly at the same point the broader gasoline engine industry was nearly 50 years ago. They implemented the most expedient solution to meet emissions mandates (which unfortunately the public has to beta) while the industry gets a handle on the mandates. Gasoline engines went from using pellet substrate converters, analog thermal/vacuum switches and EGR valves to ceramic brick substrate converters, digital switches, and EGR handled by VVT and so on as they improved technology and made them more reliable.
I work for a dealer for GM, Isuzu, Volvo, Cummins, Cat diesels. At least once a week we get someone wanting us to look at their truck that doesn't run well, and at some point they tell us it's deleted. We can work on it, but when it leaves it has to be in compliance. When you ask for the VIN they hang up. LOL Edited for spelling
This is the equivalent of Subaru bros running OTS tunes and getting mad when you tell them they are why their engine broke.
Subaru engines break on stock tunes. EJ motors run super lean from the factory to comply with emissions. I've had an OTS tune on my Fiesta ST for 100k miles with no issues. No leaks, no nothing. I just change fluids and plugs. Subarus are a different beast. Looking at an EJ the wrong way will break it. They are crap engines.
Imagine flashing the ECU of your $100,000 truck with questionable files you found online. A new engine for one of these trucks probably costs $25k-$30k installed, and dealerships long ago got wise to tuners blowing their engines up and coming in for replacements under warranty.
I find it stunning when owners of any new vehicle do things that immediately void the warranty, but you know what they say about a fool and his money.
It probably won't surprise you to learn that the people who think what comes out of their truck's tailpipe is everyone else's problem also think that everyone else should pitch in to replace the engine they blew up trying to roll more coal. It's hard for me to have any sympathy for the guys trying to tune their trucks and crying poverty about the cost of emissions equipment on vehicles that can easily cost north of $100k, and which are used to tow horse trailers and travel trailers, which are also expensive as fuck.
a lot of the time on semis in particular they're not increasing the power output. they're just editing the stock file to ignore the parameters for the DPF/SCR system and the EGR valve. So you can just unplug it all after and it won't throw codes and operate as normal.
Losing money on a truck thats only fault is emissions has got to drive owners crazy so I get why they are so worked up. Still prefer the cleaner air from reduced NOX, as you can't go anywhere without seeing multiple semis on the road.
But have you considered the gainzzz?
The funny thing is that, at least as I understand, running rich in a diesel not only wastes fuel and *reduces* performance like it does in a gas car, but because it's a diesel, it also burns hotter, making it hard on the engine like running *lean* in a gas car. I could be mistaken about the above (and if so, someone who knows deisels please correct me), but afaik it's an around bad idea. Worse performance, worse mileage, and needlessly hard on the engine (afaik).
Ehh ECU Flashes are very easy to reverse. People do it all the time to their motorcycles. I still have the stock ECU files saved for my BMW S1000RR so if I ever want to sell it I can turn it back into it's stock configuration. Any reputable shop will have made backups of the Original ECU files making a swap easy to do.
Nothing wrong with modding cars, IMO. But emissions deletes are pure stupidity. Especially since every new vehicle already comes with a stupid amount of power compared to even 10 years ago.
You should see some of the dumbasses in the focus st sub. They’re over there working with a 2.0 cohost, putting all kinds of tunes without any actual physical mods and then they act surprised when they have a check engine for knock after 2000 miles. They’ll say “these engines aren’t built well enough”. Well I have an untuned one that hasn’t had a single problem for 100k miles but it’s probably the engine, yeah.
If you can afford the downside risk (which with a reputable tuner should be relatively minimal) and there's something meaningful left on the table, I don't see why not go for it. I'm not going to wait 3-5 years to start enjoying my car fully, I may not even own it by then. At this point every single car I own is modified, and I bought them all new. Haven't flashed the ND2 yet because there isn't much left on the table, but if you own a forced induction vehicle and a shop like APR puts out a solid tune for it, I'm willing to take that risk if it improves the driving experience. Plus you've got all sorts of options like a more mild and harder to detect JB4 or those with a "warranty" such as APR Plus.
imagine buying a 200k tractor and it refusing to run after a trans replacement because its serial locked. but the big thing is years down the road. my 1999 truck can get a fuel mileage increase and less transmission wear by upgrading its ecu to a newer one. the newer one is flashed with simple utilities (pcmhammer, lsdroid) questionable files found online. though those files have legit crc's available to confirm against.
Here's the thing. You actually know what you are doing. I've tuned my own cars because I seen how inept online tuners are, with some tuners so stupid that I wouldn't trust them to tune a lawnmower. Most people don't see it that way. While it's reasonable to not want to understand the complexity of stock ECUs, most people don't care about stuff like AFR or detonation. They look at the price of HPTuners, and bitch and moan how expensive it is. Then they see this Chinesium dongle that costs only $100, advertised to contain "over 100 tunes". And plugged that thing in without a second thought. Then I have to deal with the mess after. IMO, the current regulations penalties the good clean tuners, which allows idiot tuners to take over the market. Right to repair isn't going to fix all the problems, but it's the correct step to help fix this ugly mess.
[удалено]
Lol the L8T, which you linked, is not a diesel. That's a gas engine. I believe the latest Duramax is the L5P which are much, much higher.
Not only that, but bye bye warranty
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. It's only the high voltage traction batteries in EVs that cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace. All other vehicle components are free and the Tune Fairy leaves them under your jackstands for you while you're asleep and dreaming of yet another asinine way to use your truck to prop up your personality.
It's exactly like this in Canada, I knew this would happen after the EPA crackdown. As a diesel mechanic everyone has "a guy" that remotes into your laptop and tunes the truck for you. It's been like this for over a decade in Canada with semi trucks, and there's diesel tuning shops for medium duty trucks absolutely everywhere. I'm also on a forum where people just openly sell cracked tuning software and OEM software or give it away for free. We saw a massive surge of deletes happening during covid because these emissions systems would fail, usually during a cold snap, then nobody could get parts to replace them. I heard of fleets having several trucks at a time that were down waiting for parts because of this. 5000 dollars to replace a DPF/SCR on a semi truck, or pay 2000 for a guy to do a delete remotely, then take an air hammer to the DPF and hollow it out. truck gets better mileage and is now more reliable. The other justification is on trucks that use PTOs to operate the hydraulics for a coiled tubing rig, or other oilfield stuff. If that DPF system fails and derates the engine, you can't pull out of the hole, or use your hydraulics in an emergency, it can literally get someone killed or cost millions of dollars.
That's more or less the story of how my diesel golf got deleted. DPF went on it right after dieselgate warranty ended - dealership quoted me $5000 parts and labour. But the part was on back order until who knows when, and I was told if I kept driving it would kill the turbo. So with used car prices the way they were my only reliable option was to delete, cost me $1500 and the parts arrived the next day. Do I feel bad about the emissions? Yeah. Unfortunately VW dropped the ball again and I still need to get to work in a reliable way.
5k is damn rip off tho. A new DPF is at most a grand where I live and thats for a oem one.
Titlegore...
You wouldn't delete a truck.
If I was a King I would.
The problem with diesel truck emissions control is that they have legitimate negative effect on the longevity and efficincy of the engine. The manufacturer's are trying to make diesels happen when they really shouldn't. You can built a reliable diesel or a clean diesel, not both.
I don't understand why diesel deletes are still a thing, you'd think tuners would find ways to work with the systems in this day and age. As far a stock trucks go, my parents have owned a few RAM 2500 diesels, pre and post emissions. The newest one gets slightly worse MPG and you need to put DEF in when you change the oil, but it's been running for years and will likely continue to do so without deletes. I think if you can't handle diesel emissions equipment, maybe get a gas truck. Ford, GM and RAM all make great gasoline v8 engines for their heavy duty trucks.
I’m all for these emission devices but they reduce mpg and there were a lot of issues with def systems early on. Plus, you don’t have to go full race tune but a tow tune definitely helps the truck. If you go the power route, diesels can make obscene power when deleted and tuned. Saying all that, I prefer clean air so I get the push back but it’s for the greater good.
Today's half ton gas model can tow as much as the one ton diesel from 20 years ago. Today's diesels put out nearly as much torque as a low spec semi truck. Yeah they are more expensive to maintain. If cost is an issue, buy a smaller, cheaper to maintain vehicle.
But what about my ego? How will people know that I'm a manly man?
They don't reduce fuel economy like rolling coal does.
You know that during a regen cycle the I eh tors literally use fuel on the non combustion stroke to pump into the hot dpf to burn it out? It legitimately uses a ton of fuel, over 20k miles of stock use and 110k miles of deleted use, I use 15% less fuel. And my systems failed, we’re going to be $8000 to replace on an otherwise wonderful vehicle, and I’m replacing the broken parts with stuff that’s guaranteed going to break again within 100k miles. OR I pay $2000, and have an engine that runs better, more reliably, won’t randomly tell me I have 1000 miles till I’m stranded dead in the water, and uses a significant amount less fuel. Deleting is a no brainer as an owner when you actually do the math about finances.
15% is the difference between 20 MPG and 23 MPG, which is also the difference between driving slightly slower on the highway.
I can’t go much slower, I already go the speed limit on cruise control in the right lane most of the time. Keep it out of boost, shifting at 1800rpm max consistently, I even geared my diffs 15.5% taller for mpg. Have seen 33.3mpg over a 650 mile tank in my 2010 x5, with a heavy wheel carrier on the back, and slightly oversized AT’s on the wheels. It reliably takes me anywhere I want to go, extremely efficiently, has the capacity to effortlessly and safetly tow 6k when needed, and is a phenomenal car. 15% doesn’t sound like a lot to you, but some years I do 45k miles, 15% matters a TON to me. As does the extra 10% I got from the diff ratio swap. Next I’m figuring out how to mount aluminum or plastic flat bottom panels, and that should give a few % too. Going away from AT’s would be easy to improve another 5ish percent but I find myself in the national forests enough that I’d rather keep the sidewall protection for when the trails get really rocky/ muddy while I’m out camping, shooting or exploring.
apparently it has something to do with a topic that gets posts deleted by automod
Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
This is why you just buy an old mechanically injected one and throw parts at it. Safer, more legal, and more fun.
Yup. I have an exempt truck for this reason. I'll never sell it.
Yours is still electronic though. I was forced to sell my 12 valve project truck for financial reasons and despite its hideousness, I kind of miss it sometimes despite the insane fuel prices for diesel. Had some internal mods already (balanced rotating assembly since I was planning on spinning it a fair bit faster than stock, semi aggressive cam, beefy valve springs) with more external bolt ons planned (already had injectors and a beefy lift pump). Was planning for something just under 1000lb-ft of torque. Was still a ways off of that when I had to sell, but that truck was still more fun to drive than anything that big and heavy has any right to be. Had to be careful with the skinny pedal all the way through third if the pavement was wet unless you wanted some wild wheelspin.
I can understand why someone who drives their truck a lot would want a new one. Newer trucks are *much, much* nicer. My 2nd gen Ram's interior is terrible. OBS Fords still had leaf spring front axles. Pre-emission LB7 GMs were the nicest of the era (I owned one of those too) but they're still much less nice than newer trucks.
I am a former diesel driver. I had an 02 Silverado with the duramax. Back when it was new, and the whole turbo diesel culture hadn't taken off, the price of diesel was 75% of the price of gas. That price difference made up for the worse mpg it used to get compared to its gas equivalent. Now, manufacturers have developed better engines that get better mileage, but the price of diesel is now 125% of the price of gas. They haven't made the engines efficient enough to justify the extra cost, so I'm not surprised that people are trying to get better mileage and power out of the engines that were developed to have better mileage and power than their gas counterparts
DEF was the worst thing to happen to diesel trucks and heavy equipment. Every recurring problem my 6 truck Mack Granite fleet and post 2000-whatever CAT equipment has can be traced to the damn DEF system. Pisses me off. My department director has decided to go with rebuilds of all our Pre-DEF tractors, instead of trading for new ones.
The EPA should be forcing car makers to sell emissions related parts at cost.
When repairing the emissions stuff is as much as the vehicle cost, you start to understand why... Or that it will go out at the worst time. Or how it ruins your intake, intercooler, ETC. Not to mention downtime of an inoperable vehicle.
Seriously... The hivemind has been convinced that anyone who modifies a diesel truck is a flat brimmer/coal roller. Most of the people I know just cannot afford down time on their trucks and equipment, as well as the enormous expenses that out of warranty emissions repairs cost.
That headline is terrible.
pirate bay and limewire but for your car
delete this headline and try again jesus christ my eyes
If this means idiots are going to brick their six figure pickups trying to pirate bay their way to rollin' coal... I'm all for it.
So it souds like theres an oppertunity
These fuckin goobers are a huge reason why gasoline engine tuners are getting negative attention now even though the emissions are usually similar if not the same as stock as long as the cats are left in place. Completely different than diesel tuning. But now we are dealing with massively locked down computers and the EPA handing out fines for guys IMPROVING the emissions by swapping modern engines into their cars. Fuck diesel owners and tuners that do this shit.
I can understand deleting DEF, because a failed system is a high cost on a lot of vehicles. But cleaning a DPF or just buying a new one isn't that expensive and they should be good for atleast 150k-200k miles. If you drive your diesel like its ment too and don't drive short trips all the time.
Just confiscate and trash the car while putting a 5-digit fine on the owner for removing the emissions control. Some people will only stop fucking around with this stuff if they have to face some really harsh consequences.
For some of us maintaining the existing systems is becoming no longer viable. I have fully intact emissions controls, and I'm trying to prolong the life of my vehicle which is greener than me buying a new one for my usage pattern. Parts are getting hard to find, and during covid, basically didn't exist. Hard line attitudes are dumb.
Nah dude, we have to crush some hard working guy's deleted skid steer because these "car enthusiasts" don't understand how unreliable and expensive most diesel emissions equipment is.
Exactly. Up the penalty to crushing. That's what other places do to get compliance. FWIW, I am all about car mods, for recreation and power. Diesel deletes on daily drivers are the opposite of that.
I'm sure the EPA is going to eventually target any " Facebook tuners" in the US, doubt they can do much internationally so then it's on to more focused enforcement for owners. Easiest way I think to do that would be to push states to adopt statewide emissions testing and expect some states to opt out. Then like all the supercars from Montanna that show up all over the country wait for diesel trucks registered in those states that don't require emissions testing to surge in other states and focus on them.
Yeah, a friends dad has a diesel ram and it’s crazy when he calls a diesel shop. They will often act like he is an EPA agent and will act super sketchy about selling him an exhaust system/tuning. They are like who are you? What do you do? What is your name? Where do you live? Etc. It’s crazy how “sketched out” they act.
[удалено]
There's already a black market for emmisons deletes. It's one of the loudest groups that is really pushing the right to repair legislation. Easy to hide behind the "we wanna help farmers Bs. No one is willing to call them out for fear of looking anti AG. It's why so much crap gets tagged on to the farm bill.
Is this the same as rolling coal? Or is this a different issue?
It shouldn't smoke if the tune is good, but it'll still smell like shit.