EPA letter to random test

[Rogues Gambit]

Let me get this straight:

• Clean Air Act specifies acceptable level of pollutants that gas/diesel vehicles must comply with in the United States.
• When purchasing a vehicle, you are also purchasing emissions compliance, power, mileage, etc.
• Multiple automobile companies were caught cheating emissions tests worldwide, and the EPA forced them to update their US vehicles to comply.
• As a result vehicles lost power/mileage

Regardless of how you feel about the Clean Air Act requirements or their results, why isn't everyone pissed at the automobile manufacturers? They're the ones that knowingly sold non-compliant vehicles. The reduction in power/mileage wouldn't have happened if they weren't cheating...

Govt is always the root of all Evil

Sponsored

 

[AnnDee4444]

So what, articles inaccurate and Douchellas and other Ev’s cant have their range reduced like an exploding samsung?

What.

Oh... no, the article is accurate. Tesla has been known to artificially lower and raise the range of their vehicles. But Tesla ≠ "Electric Vehicles". And the ability to upload files to a vehicle remotely is also not limited to electric vehicles either (uConnect).

 

[gpJL1156]

Let me get this straight:

• Clean Air Act specifies acceptable level of pollutants that gas/diesel vehicles must comply with in the United States.
• When purchasing a vehicle, you are also purchasing emissions compliance, power, mileage, etc.
• Multiple automobile companies were caught cheating emissions tests worldwide, and the EPA forced them to update their US vehicles to comply.
• As a result vehicles lost power/mileage

Regardless of how you feel about the Clean Air Act requirements or their results, why isn't everyone pissed at the automobile manufacturers? They're the ones that knowingly sold non-compliant vehicles. The reduction in power/mileage wouldn't have happened if they weren't cheating...

Excellent point actually!

As a community, we must demonstrate that diesel power plant is desirable by the drivers in its stock form with ALL emissions equipment. I believe that to be the case! EcoDiesel is a very pleasant vehicle to drive, right off the show room floor. One can argue that majority of people who go the "delete" route which makes EPA unhappy, due to the fact that unreliable equipment was engineered and sold. In reality, EPA likely had very vague regulations, FCA/Stellantis likely poorly designed some systems in the past, in practice some users decided to stay on the road by having "off-road" vehicle. I would argue that it's not user's fault, but users must push back harder on both car manufacturers and EPA to better serve their customers.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Govt is always the root of all Evil

I wouldn't give them that much credit.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

I wouldn't give them that much credit.

Doesn't matter who's in charge, unless they just leave us alone, they're just evil in my eyes

 

[oceanblue2019]

Let me get this straight:

• Clean Air Act specifies acceptable level of pollutants that gas/diesel vehicles must comply with in the United States.
• When purchasing a vehicle, you are also purchasing emissions compliance, power, mileage, etc.
• Multiple automobile companies were caught cheating emissions tests worldwide, and the EPA forced them to update their US vehicles to comply.
• As a result vehicles lost power/mileage

Regardless of how you feel about the Clean Air Act requirements or their results, why isn't everyone pissed at the automobile manufacturers? They're the ones that knowingly sold non-compliant vehicles. The reduction in power/mileage wouldn't have happened if they weren't cheating...

I will never buy another Audi or associated brand ever again.

In the Audi case the models that could not be tuned to be compliant were bought back and those people did pretty good as the buy-backs were at purchase price PLUS 4% cost of money over life of vehicle! So you were being paid 4% a year to drive it

Those of us who had newer models they could "fix" were the ones fu<ked over. This included many higher end models in the VW, Audi, and Porsche brands.

And the VW CEO did get prison time in Germany; as did some other executives, in return for the company escaping having to buy them all back.

 

[Whaler27]

Let me get this straight:

• Clean Air Act specifies acceptable level of pollutants that gas/diesel vehicles must comply with in the United States.
• When purchasing a vehicle, you are also purchasing emissions compliance, power, mileage, etc.
• Multiple automobile companies were caught cheating emissions tests worldwide, and the EPA forced them to update their US vehicles to comply.
• As a result vehicles lost power/mileage

Regardless of how you feel about the Clean Air Act requirements or their results, why isn't everyone pissed at the automobile manufacturers? They're the ones that knowingly sold non-compliant vehicles. The reduction in power/mileage wouldn't have happened if they weren't cheating...

Neanderthals like me have complete contempt for the Clean Air Act and the well-meaning idiots who designed it, so we’re happy with manufacturers who found a way to bypass the idiocy to produce safe, fuel efficient, environmentally responsible vehicles with decent power. I’m just sorry they got caught. That’s not because I don’t care about the environment. It’s because idiots continue to fashion legislation which purports to save the environment while actually doing greater harm and screwing me at the same time.

My diesel‘s fuel economy is 10% worse thanks to the “fix”, so I burn 10% more fuel to accomplish the same work. When they sample my emissions they’re not burning 10% more fuel to account for that, nor are they accounting for the additional environmental cost of producing, refining, and shipping 10% more diesel fuel.

My father went to work in the oil and gas business immediately after WW2, so he was there when the whole ethanol scam was introduced. He made money all the same, and he had no choice in the matter anyway, but he considered the move to ethanol-laden gasoline to be one of the great frauds perpetrated on the American people. The methanol mixes produce less power/work per gallon, so we have to burn more of it — a lot more of it — and the process of farming the corn to produce the ethanol has a LONG list of adverse environmental impacts. (We grew corn on our ranch too, so we benefited from the agricultural lobby that pushed ethanol for decades.) The politics that drove this whole process were an amusement to Pop, but there’s nobody in the business who actually thought ethanol was a net positive for the environment (or the vehicles and the many rubber parts involved in the vehicle fuel delivery systems).

I occasionally buy old fashioned "clear" gas, which is still legal here for boats, lawn equipment, etc. It smells better and the old machinery really loves it. Stores better too,

All of this reminds me of one of my least favorite earth-saving devices… the modern, over-engineered, spring-loaded, half-twist, environment-saving, portable gas can nozzles. The old version, which worked flawlessly between 1930 and 1980, at least, was a simple metal gas can with a twist-vent and a simple 1/2” diameter rubber hose. It was durable, cheap, and virtually idiot-proof. When you wanted to pour gas into the lawnmower you opened the vent, removed the plug from the hose tip, pinched the hose, inverted the can, and released the pinch. When the mower was nearly full you pinched the hose again and put the can down. I operated gas cans like that from the age of six or seven until sometime in my late 40s when I couldn’t find replacement cans or hoses anymore. I seldom spilled a drop. Now I’m forced to use the spring-activated nozzles and I spill gas almost every time. Also, some of the equipment I need to fuel won’t accommodate the new nozzles, so I have to remove the nozzle and use a funnel. It’s a huge pain in the ass, it’s more expensive, and it’s resulting in more harm to the environment — from the fuel we all spill on the ground and the additional fuel we have to manufacture to replace it. I thank our government's social engineering for that too. So glad the government has our backs.

My brother recently reminded me that the average IQ is 100, meaning there are a LOT of folks well below that unremarkable number. I think the folks below that line are working full-time trying to save me from myself (and killing us all in the process).

 

[Rogues Gambit]

Neanderthals like me have complete contempt for the Clean Air Act and the well-meaning idiots who designed it, so we’re happy with manufacturers who found a way to bypass the idiocy to produce safe, fuel efficient, environmentally responsible vehicles with decent power. I’m just sorry they got caught. That’s not because I don’t care about the environment. It’s because idiots continue to fashion legislation which purports to save the environment while actually doing greater harm and screwing me at the same time.

My diesel‘s fuel economy is 10% worse thanks to the “fix”, so I burn 10% more fuel to accomplish the same work. When they sample my emissions they’re not burning 10% more fuel to account for that, nor are they accounting for the additional environmental cost of producing, refining, and shipping 10% more diesel fuel.

My father went to work in the oil and gas business immediately after WW2, so he was there when the whole ethanol scam was introduced. He made money all the same, and he had no choice in the matter anyway, but he considered the move to ethanol-laden gasoline to be one of the great frauds perpetrated on the American people. The methanol mixes produce less power/work per gallon, so we have to burn more of it — a lot more of it — and the process of farming the corn to produce the ethanol has a LONG list of adverse environmental impacts. (We grew corn on our ranch too, so we benefited fro the agricultural lobby that pushed ethanol for decades.) The politics that drove this whole process we’re an amusement to Pop, but there’s nobody in the business who actually thought ethanol was a net positive for the environment (or the vehicles and the many rubber parts involved in the vehicle fuel delivery systems).

I occasionally buy old fashioned clear gas, which is still legal here for boats, lawn equipment, etc. It smells better and the old machinery really loves it. Stores better too,

All of this reminds me of one of my least favorite earth-saving devices… the modern, over-engineered, spring-loaded, half-twist, environment-saving, portable gas can nozzles. The old version, which worked flawlessly between 1930 and 1980, at least, was a simple metal gas can with a twist-vent and a simple 1/2” diameter rubber hose. It was durable, cheap, and virtually idiot-proof. When you wanted to pour gas into the lawnmower you opened the vent, removed the plug from the hose tip, pinched the hose, inverted the can, and released the pinch. When the mower was nearly full you pinched the hose again and put the can down. I managed to operated gas cans like that from the age of six or seven until sometime in my last 40s when I couldn’t find replacement cans or hoses anymore. I seldom spilled a drop. Now I’m forced to use the spring-activated nozzles and I spill gas almost every time. some of the equipment I need to fuel won’t accommodate the new nozzles, so I have to remove the nozzle and use a funnel. It’s a huge pain in the ass, it’s more expensive, and it’s resulting in more harm to the environment — from the fuel we all spill on the ground and the additional fuel we have to manufacture to replace it. I thank our government engineering for that too. So glad the government has our back.

My brother recently reminded me that the average IQ is 100, meaning there are a LOT of folks well below that unremarkable number. I think the folks below that line are working full-time trying to save me from myself (and killing us all in the process).

I'm sure somewhere on the internet, we can find the original ones.

Gotta find where I can get real gas, since the purer the better, why put this modern forced upon the masses crap in our babies.

I'd trust a dirty VW/Audi over whatever the Govt is pushing on us, and trying to get my friend to order his JLUD before it's too late

 

[Whaler27]

I'm sure somewhere on the internet, we can find the original ones.

If you find them please post a link.

I found a half-dozen pleated plastic gas can spouts on eBay about twenty years ago and bought them. They fit my old plastic cans, and I’m still using one of them, but they eventually crack and break. Of course, in an effort to discourage this kind of creativity, all of the new plastic gas cans have larger openings, so the last spouts I found won’t screw onto them. (The plastic spouts are still sold on eBay, but I’m not sure what they fit. Regardless, they’re a poor substitute for the simple “pinch-able” soft spouts of yesteryear.)

The only solution I’ve found, which will no doubt be outlawed soon, are the large fuel containers “for racing use” that all the dirt bikers use. I bought several of those, but they’re big and best carried in the back of the pickup. I think the government finally killed all the sensible options for cans smaller than five gallons.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Regardless of how you feel about the Clean Air Act requirements or their results

Neanderthals like me have complete contempt for the Clean Air Act and the well-meaning idiots who designed it

Either way... here's some fun info regarding ethanol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_by_country

"Brazil has the largest and most successful bio-fuel programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugarcane, and it is considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy."​

I guess the theory is that if the fuel source is renewable, the fuel mileage doesn't matter as much.


I thought this was interesting too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

"Ethanol use as fuel dates back to Henry Ford, who in 1896 designed his first car, the "Quadricycle" to run on pure ethanol. Then in 1908, he produced the famous Ford Model T capable of running on gasoline, ethanol or a combination of both. Ford continued to advocate for ethanol as fuel even during Prohibition."​

 

[Whaler27]

Either way... here's some fun info regarding ethanol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_by_country

"Brazil has the largest and most successful bio-fuel programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugarcane, and it is considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy."​

I guess the theory is that if the fuel source is renewable, the fuel mileage doesn't matter as much.


I thought this was interesting too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

"Ethanol use as fuel dates back to Henry Ford, who in 1896 designed his first car, the "Quadricycle" to run on pure ethanol. Then in 1908, he produced the famous Ford Model T capable of running on gasoline, ethanol or a combination of both. Ford continued to advocate for ethanol as fuel even during Prohibition."​

Renewable fuel is a great concept -- as long as it's renewable without adverse environmental impacts that are worse than the evil they seek to avoid.

Ethanol is not new, though the first automotive fuel was actually ligroin, a petroleum solvent sold in apothecaries in the late 1800s.

Of course, most of the pro-ethanol, and pro-electric advocacy folks neglect the environmental costs of the alternatives they prefer. Consider ethanol: An acre of corn produces about 330 gallons of ethanol. Sound great? Maybe, until you realize that it costs about 130 to 150 galloons of fossil fuel per acre to grow, process, and ferment that corn. Then there's the use of land that might otherwise be producing higher value foods and products, and the adverse environmental impact of the corn-protecting-and-accelerating fertilizers and pesticides, most of which are lost to the environment via wind and run-off. (Check out the related pollution pouring into the Mississippi delta region.) Then there's the resulting loss in combustion efficiency that comes with adding ethanol, which everybody recognizes but few mention during advocacy. (Yes, we can run automobiles on ethanol, or ligroin, or other products, but there are good reasons for the industry choice to land on gasoline and diesel for generations.) What is the real net value of E10 or E15 if your vehicle is burning 10% more of the mixture to go the same distance it would run on a gallon of clear gas? (There's also the matter of the corrosive nature of ethanol and the great variance in ethanol percentage. BMW motorcycles were having problems with American fuels even though the modern bikes were engineered to tolerate low ethanol levels, so they tested random samples of ethanol mixtures and found dramatic variance.)

How about hybrid/battery technology? Do a little reading about the environmental costs associated with mining the metals used in battery production, and then consider the environmental costs associated with battery disposal when they reach end of life. These are significant and growing environmental challenges that will multiply in importance after another twenty years of growth in electric vehicle use and the continuing proliferation of home solar systems. Mark my words, we'll all be freaking out about battery disposal in twenty or thirty years -- as if the challenge caught everybody by surprise (like the storage of nuclear fuel rods)..

In spite of all the obvious risks and challenges, I suspect nuclear power is the energy source with the lowest net environmental impact. The rest of the "first world" seems to have recognized that, as nuclear power plants are all over Europe and much of the rest of the world. But "nuclear" is a scary word for our Birkenstock Bolsheviks, so the folks who brought us ethanol and toxic battery components will rail against proliferation of nuclear power, no matter what the science says. As a country, we prefer riding the bandwagon with trendy concepts -- preferably concepts that fit on bumper stickers, like "No Nukes!"

 

[BDinTX]

About 15 years ago my dad worked at Cummins as a networking guy. I don't remember the engine they were testing at the time but it was shortly before the introduction of DEF.

Anyway, they had a semi that was used to test engines and they wanted to upfit the trailer with a small server room to collect data. In addition to the engine telemetry, they wanted constant air quality and environmental sampling in front of the semi and behind from a trail ing vehicle wirelessly reporting to the servers. My dad helped set up the network portion of it.

Apparently, they found the air behind the semi was cleaner than the air behind the semi most of the time. They were eventually able to correlate the dirtier air to when the semi was going around corners. The additional particulates were rubber from the tires scrubbing on the concrete.

Tying that into this thread... I really don't see how hobbling the engines to burn a fraction of a percent "cleaner" at the expense of 10% or more fuel consumption along with all of the pollution tied to DEF production and distribution adds up.

Adding to what @Whaler27 said about batteries, that collection of raw materials is also primarily occurring outside the US. China has got to be laughing all the way to the bank with our green initiatives.

Sponsored