# Clean diesel



## sesmith (May 24, 2015)

This pic. of the tailpipe on our 2015 Golf tdi (6500 mi.) pretty much sums it up.  Diesel's have come a long way.


----------



## velvetfoot (May 25, 2015)

Looks very clean, much more so than my 2000 VW Bug TDI.  Are the EGR valves still clogging up?


----------



## sesmith (May 25, 2015)

velvetfoot said:


> Looks very clean, much more so than my 2000 VW Bug TDI.  Are the EGR valves still clogging up?



Not known.  They've made the system even more complex, so that's got to be an improvement, right?


----------



## BrotherBart (May 25, 2015)

I just know that the 4 cylinder diesel tractor I bought last November is the cleanest burning diesel I have seen in my life. Without any electronic toys. A lot has to have to do with the low sulphur diesel these days.


----------



## begreen (May 25, 2015)

And perhaps some good Chinese tech?


----------



## johnny1720 (May 26, 2015)

My 2014 Jetta has the same clean exhaust pipe.  I have about 16k on it and the mileage seems to be increasing the more I drive.


----------



## maple1 (May 27, 2015)

That sure doesn't look like what the pipe on our '97 TD used to look like.

Bumper either.


----------



## Corey (May 27, 2015)

Just curious if this is running a DEF/SCR system?  Getting rid of soot (which you can see) is relatively easy.  Getting rid of NOx (which is 'invisible') is a little harder.


----------



## sesmith (May 27, 2015)

Corey said:


> Just curious if this is running a DEF/SCR system?  Getting rid of soot (which you can see) is relatively easy.  Getting rid of NOx (which is 'invisible') is a little harder.



Yes, so the car meets the new EPA tier 3, California LEV III emissions standards.  Some info on the engine and emissions system here:

http://carbuzzard.com/2014/09/volkswagen-has-new-2-0-liter-diesel-engine-for-2015-dubbed-ea288/

and here:

http://www.volkswagenag.com/content...n.html/binarystorageitem/file/VIAVISION_e.pdf

The second link is obviously vw propaganda, but it has some nice drawings of the scr system on pg 7.


----------



## velvetfoot (May 27, 2015)

Does it require replenishing a urea tank?


----------



## john193 (May 27, 2015)

velvetfoot said:


> Does it require replenishing a urea tank?


All 2015 TDI engines now use a urea spray in North America.


----------



## RSNovi (May 31, 2015)

I think all cars sold since around 2010 require urea.  I use about 5 gallons for every 20k miles I drive in a 2.1 L diesel.


----------



## johnny1720 (Jun 2, 2015)

velvetfoot said:


> Does it require replenishing a urea tank?



My 2014 Jetta does not


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 3, 2015)

I had heard it was only for the Passat, but that was a while a go.


----------



## prezes13 (Jun 21, 2015)

I know that my 2009 jetta didn't use urea.  I was under impression that vw's 4 cylinder td was clean enough and didn't require urea injection.  Maybe passat uses urea but I don't understand why it's the same motor that hoes to golfs and jettas


----------



## sesmith (Jun 23, 2015)

prezes13 said:


> I know that my 2009 jetta didn't use urea.  I was under impression that vw's 4 cylinder td was clean enough and didn't require urea injection.  Maybe passat uses urea but I don't understand why it's the same motor that hoes to golfs and jettas



This is the newest tdi engine (ea288).  It's being phased into all the lines (beginning in 2015).  To meet the latest, greatest emission standards (LEV 3) it includes the urea injection system.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 23, 2015)

Do people still 'chip' tdis?  I had a chip in my 2000 and had to put in a more heavy duty clutch.  Needless to say, chipping would lead to a clean tailpipe.


----------



## prezes13 (Jun 23, 2015)

I think the chip is just to put more boost.  I know the newest motor has 10hp more I was thinking that it's still the same motor just improved fuel management, but uparently I am wrong.  I was into vw long time ago till they started making them in Mexico.  My last good vw was my mk IV gti vr6.  Made in Germany.  It was 10 years old when I traded it in and it still had original battery in it.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 23, 2015)

My Beetle was made in Mexico and had 225k miles on it when I sold it, and it was still running great.  Shouldn't have sold it.  The programming I had changed the maps.  I also put in larger injectors though-maybe the combo caused the clutch to slip-memory's fading.  last I heard they were common rail, but I have no idea.


----------



## prezes13 (Jun 23, 2015)

My girlfriend back in 2000 had a 1998 beetle and it was one problem after another.  My 2009 Jetta blew a turbo right after the warranty expired.  I still think that vw makes great cars just do not make them in Mexico.  Their quality control is nowhere near what quality control should be, especially for German product.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 23, 2015)

Was there a bunch of smoke, etc,  with the blown turbo?


----------



## prezes13 (Jun 23, 2015)

No.  Just no power.  No one could figure it out what it was.  Check engine light on and limp mode.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 23, 2015)

There was something wrong with the vacuum to the turbo's actuator.  They got oil in them.  I recall little plastic check valves that go oil in them.  Other, easy, cheap stuff to fix, but the d.a. dealers always wanted to change out turbos.  It's been a while since I frequented Fred's www.tdiclub.com .

Edit:  I recall cracked vacuum hoses were an even more popular cause of limp turbos.


----------



## prezes13 (Jun 23, 2015)

I brought it to the dealer I bought it from they didn't know what it was.  Then I towed it to a vw dealer 35 miles away and they changed the turbo and everything was fine, but I got rid of it because from what I heard fuel pump would be next to go.  Too bad because I really liked driving it.


----------



## prezes13 (Jun 23, 2015)

On the other hand my buddy from work has a 1999 Jetta with with 350k on it and it still runs good.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 23, 2015)

You should've been a member of Fred's.


----------



## prezes13 (Jun 23, 2015)

I was on vw vortex.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 23, 2015)

LOL.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Jun 30, 2015)

I only see 2 good uses for Urea.  28% to apply to corn an d DEF to spray on hay as a foiliar inoculant.  Far as I'm concerned it's all cat pee.


----------



## RSNovi (Sep 18, 2015)

VW playing tricks with the emissions testing.  Maybe this is how they got by without using Urea.  The same thing happened to Navistar when they didn't use urea.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/1...s-over-emissions-software.html?_r=0&referrer=


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 18, 2015)

Last month, a full 85% of warranty and non warranty work going through our shop was emissions related.  DEF injection issues accounted for 90% of that 85% in emissions work.  The issue isn't the DEF injection, the issue is the lowest bidder cheap azzed components that fail.

Tier 4 is a PITA for the consumer and a goldmine for shops like ours.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 19, 2015)

I expect more than few folks will elect not to have VW change the software to cut out the emissions bypass software and there will probably be a good market for ECUs that haven't been modified. Over the years the government has busted "superchip" suppliers for selling "off road/racing" chips that effectively do the same thing as the VW chips.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 19, 2015)

There is and has been a great aftermarket for chips and tuners.  It's an easy upgrade.  Good example is my '97 Ford 7.3 diesel.  I've removed all the emissions componentry from the engine.  With every change, it ran better and delivered better fuel mileage.  With a simple reprogramming of the ECM through a piggyback chip, I incresed the horsepower over 100 ponies (verifiied on a dyno).  It's easy and painless.  All it takes is the will and a wallet.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 19, 2015)

One other (not widely publicized) aspect of altering the emissions hardware and software is, it increases the engine's useable lifespan.  Emissions hardware especially, puts an added heat load on an engine and heat is any internal combustion engine's worst enemy.  Tier 4 engines run much hotter than their counterparts (which is why engine builders are turning increasely to ceramic internal parts.  Ceramics can withstand the additional heat better than conventional metallic alloys but the basic components will always be metal so reduction in heat output (which is, in reality a total waste because it excess heat don't produce useable power, it's parasitic loss) will always extend component life.

Thats how it works.

Again, the big issue with Tier 4 compliant diesel engines we see in the shop isn't mechanical failure, it's emissions related component failure brought about by the 'buy from the lowest bidder and sell at the highest price' philosophy.  Keep in mind that there isn't any new 'rocket science' in Tier 4 engines.  Everyone, and I mean everyone, shares the same 'lowest bidder' components.

The biggest issue with DEF injection relates to the emulsified and suspended salts in DEF.  Urea in liquid form has a high concentration of suspended salts.  What occurs is, those suspended salts, crystalize at the injection point and render the system inoperable with the resultant error codes and power deration.

Every engine builder (automotive and truck, any engine with DEF injection deals with the same issue.  What really brought on the issues was the technology wasn't ready for prime time (and still isn't really) and cheap components.  Guess what, in the end, the consumer (you) pays for that lack of engineering time.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 19, 2015)

In today's climate of Tier 4 compliant diesels, in actuality, you are better off with a gasser.  That technology has caught up and surpassed gummit regs, but then, gasoline engine builders have had 3 decades to perfect the emissions componentry.


----------



## begreen (Sep 19, 2015)

Are there no emissions regs in Europe where they have had decades of experience with diesels?


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 19, 2015)

Sure there are and they are also having the same issues concerning DEF.  The DEF is a world wide pancea for emissions reduction, well, maybe not wprldwide, China conveniently ignores the standard...

Until Tier 4, everyone, worldwide was Tier 3 or less.  Actually, at present, most builders are at Tier 4 interem.  Tier 4 final is even more stringent.  Great things coming....


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 19, 2015)

Keep in mind, that also includes solid fuel burning appliances.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 19, 2015)

The answer is, and there is an answer, is for technology to advance enough to mitigate most of the components...  and it will, eventually, that and better reliability in the components that will still be required.

Just take a step back to the 60's with gasoline smog motors in cars, wasn't that a fond memory...not.  When you opened the hood, you were greeted with what appeared to be miles of hoses, air pumps, 3 way catalyists and none of it worked all that well, in fact, if you turned your engine off and it was hot....  It kept on running... wasn't that called 'dieseling'??  Engines were sick, lacked power and got terrible mileage, but all that is gone now, because technology caught up.  Now you can buy cars with gas engines that run better, are more efficient and deliver better fuel mileage than they did even before the 'smog motor' era.

Same thing will occur in diesels but in the interem, owners will be shackled with engines wth issues...

I believe at some point in the future, DEF injection will disappear from 4 stroke diesel engines entirely.  Cannot come too soon however.

Why I will not buy any equipment with a blue (def) fuel cap.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 20, 2015)

RSNovi said:


> VW playing tricks with the emissions testing.  Maybe this is how they got by without using Urea.  The same thing happened to Navistar when they didn't use urea.
> 
> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/1...s-over-emissions-software.html?_r=0&referrer=



I think the VW recall is a big deal.  500,000 newish cars that need to have their computers reflashed to get legal emissions.  After they do that, performance will be noticeably worse.

A few questions:
--If you have a safety/defect recall, you take it in for repairs.  In this case, many will opt not to take it in, b/c they care more about performance than NOx.  I suppose all recalled vehicles will be automatically failed on their next emission test unless a proof of recall/reprogramming has occurred (easy).  Or will the emission control software be updated to detect the defeat device (hard)?  After the failure, the car will get reprogrammed.
--After the car has been fixed, with degraded performance (power, not just mpg), how many will blame the EPA, and how many will blame VW, now the world's largest car company?
--Both GM and Toyota for their safety defects, that resulted in dozens of lost lives, were fined ~$1B.  Apparently the laws on the books allow fines in the VW case of up to $18B.  For comparison, it looks like the number of premature deaths in the US because of all NOx emissions is estimated to be ~15,000/yr.  This number of course includes power plants and agricultural emissions, as well as diesel.  Someone will come up with an estimate for the number of premature US deaths due to this little software feature...over the last 6 years  it could easily be in the _thousands_.  Remember that most ag and power plant emissions are far removed from population centers, while the VW NOx is right in urban areas.
--In the GM/Toyota cases, we had execs that could claim to be 'unsure what was going on', their info was anecdotal and after the fact about defects. In the VW case, the entire defect was put in in a premeditated way, they knew that higher NOx emissions would result AND the relationship between NOx, smog and premature death was established decades ago (as the rationale for the regs they were cheating).  In other words, a corporation made a premeditated illegal action that they knew would result in thousands of premature deaths in other countries. Oh well, I guess tobacco companies probably kill more people before lunch every day.  Of course, car companies like to crow about the importance of keeping you safe.
--Unlike the GM/Toyota cases, there will be no crying moms holding press conferences...just statisticians making reports.
--As much as folks hate class action suits...if you have this car, and its decrease in mpg and performance causes its cost of ownership to go up $1000, and its resale to go down $1000, are you mad enough to sign up for the suit?  At a couple $k per owner, it will be a $1B suit.
--After the recalls, both GM and Toyota sales took a noticeable hit.  VW sales are already cr@ppy in the US, will the media attention to VW killing thousands of americans to make some $$ basically kill their sales in the US for years?  I think it is possible.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 20, 2015)

begreen said:


> Are there no emissions regs in Europe where they have had decades of experience with diesels?



http://www.greencarreports.com/news...esels-actually-not-nearly-as-clean-as-claimed

Given the history of the company, not sure if this is appropriate or inappropriate:


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 20, 2015)

First off. unless you need a heavy duty high torque engine for specialized use (like pulling your tandem axle travel trailer or a gooseneck or you are in business and need a truck for hauling, there is no reason to own a diesel, especially a small displacemennt diesel in a passanger car.  There is no logical reason, at all. especially considering the up front cost and the lowered mileage (diesel fuel costs more as well) of a diesxel engine compared to a gasoline engine.

So why do people buy them?   Because it's 'cool' to have a diesel car......  thats why.....

Any production diesel below 5 liters, the gasoline counterpart is more efficient, produces more power, costs initially less and the fuel is cheaper, but people aren't rational anyway/.

I chuckled  reading the article about France doing away with diesel entirely in their country.....  I've never considered Frenchmen to be very intellegent and they are pigs, France is a dirty, littered country (I've been there btw).  I wonder how they expect to get their hard goods delivered....  no diesel trucks....  thats laughable.  Bicycle basket maybe...lol

In reality, we (meaning the whole globe minus China of course) wouldn't be going through this crap if it wasn't for tree huggers and 'climate change....oh, and global warming, none of which I personally ascribe to.

I guess you reap what you sow....


----------



## begreen (Sep 20, 2015)

Historically diesel fuel cost less. In the past decade it started costing more until recently in the past year where it now frequently costs less again.  Diesel engines (going back pre-2000) were also known for lower service interval and reliability. Diesel Mercedes and VW owners loved the clatterboxes. Torque is another reason they have been favored. Diesel vans make great campers even though they have under much under 5 liter motors.

The opinion of France is provincial, xenophobic, unnecessary and quite in error, though I suppose they could easily say the same about US using that criteria.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 20, 2015)

SidecarFlip said:


> In reality, we (meaning the whole globe minus China of course) wouldn't be going through this crap if it wasn't for tree huggers and 'climate change....oh, and global warming, none of which I personally ascribe to.
> 
> I guess you reap what you sow....



As I understand it, this is *not* about CO2/global warming as much as good old fashioned pollution: soot (C nanoparticles), VOCs and NOx.  All of which make smog and ozone and hurt people close to where they are emitted (i.e. 99% in the same country).  I think we are all old enough to remember when the US air was in places nearly as dirty as China's is now, and also to know that (courtesy of Nixon and Bush Sr) the Clean Air Act has helped that and saved lives.

Do you personally ascribe to the anti-smog provisions of the Clean Air Act, separate from any current CO2 provisions?

FYI, I have been following your technical info re the diesel tech in the field with great interest.

French/EU ban link: http://www.greencarreports.com/news...els-in-europe-france-to-phase-out-diesel-fuel


----------



## jharkin (Sep 20, 2015)

SidecarFlip said:


> First off. unless you need a heavy duty high torque engine for specialized use (like pulling your tandem axle travel trailer or a gooseneck or you are in business and need a truck for hauling, there is no reason to own a diesel, especially a small displacemennt diesel in a passanger car.  There is no logical reason, at all. especially considering the up front cost and the lowered mileage (diesel fuel costs more as well) of a diesxel engine compared to a gasoline engine.
> 
> So why do people buy them?   Because it's 'cool' to have a diesel car......  thats why.....
> 
> ...



Hey I think you missed a couple folks.. Might be some remote group somewhere you haven't yet insulted.

Its you life, if you want to live it with your head in the sand..........


----------



## begreen (Sep 20, 2015)

Times they are a changing in Europe where the govt has the heath costs of particulate pollution to pay for as well. It looks like what is happening in France could be the beginning of a larger trend. The last French car I leased was a Peugeot 407which had a gas ICE and it was a dream to drive. More recently we rented a diesel BMW Mini Cooper-wagon in Italy. It was right sized for their ancient towns but not so much fun to drive. In particular I didn't like the uneveness of the turbo-boost and choppy freeway ride.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 20, 2015)

jharkin said:


> Hey I think you missed a couple folks.. Might be some remote group somewhere you haven't yet insulted.
> 
> Its you life, if you want to live it with your head in the sand..........


 
My head is far from the sand....  I'm old but not senile and as far as insulting you, I wasn't directing my comment5s at anyone in partucular, just commenting on what I deal with everyday at my job / profession.

I don't care what you drive even if it's a bicycle because you paid for it, not me.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 20, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> As I understand it, this is *not* about CO2/global warming as much as good old fashioned pollution: soot (C nanoparticles), VOCs and NOx.  All of which make smog and ozone and hurt people close to where they are emitted (i.e. 99% in the same country).  I think we are all old enough to remember when the US air was in places nearly as dirty as China's is now, and also to know that (courtesy of Nixon and Bush Sr) the Clean Air Act has helped that and saved lives.
> 
> *Do you personally ascribe to the anti-smog provisions of the Clean Air Act, separate from any current CO2 provisions?*
> 
> ...


 
Thats a hard one to answer.  Candidly, I don't know if I do or not.  I do know the Tier 4 mandates and the continuing tightening of the standards perpetuates my job.  My personal vehicles and tractors that are diesel are all pre-Tier 3 and I don't ever expect to purchase a Tier 4 + engine, so I guess my reply would ber no, I don't.

Additionally, I believe there are some aspects of the CAM that aren't good, like the ethanol mandate.  E plants cannot exist without gunnit subsidies and that means I'm as a taxpayer are keeping them afloat and buying their product too.  Something basically wrong with that.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 20, 2015)

begreen said:


> Times they are a changing in Europe where the govt has the heath costs of particulate pollution to pay for as well. It looks like what is happening in France could be the beginning of a larger trend. The last French car I leased was a Peugeot 407which had a gas ICE and it was a dream to drive. More recently we rented a diesel BMW Mini Cooper-wagon in Italy. It was right sized for their ancient towns but not so much fun to drive. In particular I didn't like the uneveness of the turbo-boost and choppy freeway ride.


 
I was under the impression that Mini-Cooper was Brtitish Leyland, not BMW but then I'm not a fan of them at all.  I don't believe I've owned a car in the last decade that was 'fun' to drive...  I look at motor vehicles as tools that makes life easier.  I think the last fun car I had was a 66 Vette Stingray Convertible with a 427/390 and a 4 speed, that was a 'fun' car.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 20, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> http://www.greencarreports.com/news...esels-actually-not-nearly-as-clean-as-claimed
> 
> Given the history of the company, not sure if this is appropriate or inappropriate:




It's funny if not anything else....

I have the book Thinking Small by Andrea Hiott.  It's a good read btw.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 20, 2015)

The big emissions bogey for a diesel is NOx. There are two sources of NOx in any combustion device, fuel bound NOx and thermal NOx. Not much of an option for fuel bound NOx, whatever is in the fuel goes out the tailpipe, Thermal NOx is related to combustion temperature, Nitrogen in the combustion air starts to combine with oxygen as the flame temperature rises. The manufacturers are regulated on CO and NOx, one of the ways CO forms is the temps are too low so its a trade off, burn too cold to cut thermal NOx  and CO rises, burn hot to cut CO and NOx rises.  Diesel runs hotter than gas engines and will generate more atmospheric NOx. There are all sorts of tricks to try to reduce the flame temp like Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) but that reduces the power output. The alternative is to install downstream CO and NOx catalysts and the NOx catalyst requires ammonia to remove the NOx. The engine can be tuned for a hotter flame and things that impact performance like EGR can be removed so the engine runs better. Urea is converted to ammonia in the emissions equipment and as noted it can be problematical to deal with. The nice thing about urea is that its relatively safe if its spilled when stored and transported compared to the alternatives which are aqueous ammonia or anhydrous ammonia.

I could guess that VW was using EGR on their diesels and the chip was bypassing EGR when the throttle was used aggressively. A lot of the old superchips did that trick.  By the way most manufacturers design their cars around emissions, many smaller cars are set up so the part throttle performance is somewhat constrained by the emissions controls, when the throttle is applied aggressively into the higher revs than the test would require, the upper rev band is lot more powerful. Many standards have keep the throttle cranked up a bit after an aggressive shift in order to burn off excess emissions caused by the load change in the motor. My Fiesta currently has an emissions recall on my EGR system and I expect that the cure is they will reprogram the chip to have it applied more aggressively. I don't plan to have it done.   

One major commercial diesel engine manufacturer bet their company on designing truck and stationary engines without NOx catalysts a few years ago and they lost the bet, it cost them millions as their engines couldn't pass emissions. Looks like VW may have done the same.

I deal with large stationary engines on occasion, some companies offer two versions, one version uses all the tricks to avoid a CO and NOx catalyst and the other version has a CO NOx catalyst, inevitably the one with the catalysts are higher efficiency and easier to tune. The state of Mass has some of the toughest limits for CO and NOx in the country and there are no companies selling non catalyst versions.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 20, 2015)

One major commercial diesel engine manufacturer bet their company on designing truck and stationary engines without NOx catalysts a few years ago and they lost the bet, it cost them millions as their engines couldn't pass emissions. Looks like

Lets not mention that brand name.  That name has become the scorn of owners countrywide...  and the company won't back any warranty claims or provide OEM parts support now.  Of course that company also launched their own truck with their own new design (and built by another company) engine in it.....

Thats big business and how it works I guess.

I still prefer their pre Tier 3 emissions engines. especially the NZ series.  I know people who are buying NZ engines and storing them.  It's quite possible and reliable to turn an NZ to over 1000 flywheel horsepower with no dertimental effects to the engine.

Their final attempt at an emissions compliant engine didn't even really look like an engine at all.  Looked more like a mass of hoses, wires and sensors and what self respecting manufacturer would install a 'furnace' with a spark plug on a diesel engine anyway???

When they come in the shop all the techs gimmace.  A real PITA to work on.


----------



## jharkin (Sep 20, 2015)

SidecarFlip said:


> My head is far from the sand....  I'm old but not senile and as far as insulting you, I wasn't directing my comment5s at anyone in partucular, just commenting on what I deal with everyday at my job / profession.
> 
> I don't care what you drive even if it's a bicycle because you paid for it, not me.



I never claimed you insulted me personally... you just insulted the entire nation of France and anyone who has ever tried to do right by our natural environment....


moving on...


----------



## begreen (Sep 20, 2015)

SidecarFlip said:


> I was under the impression that Mini-Cooper was Brtitish Leyland, not BMW but then I'm not a fan of them at all.  I don't believe I've owned a car in the last decade that was 'fun' to drive...  I look at motor vehicles as tools that makes life easier.  I think the last fun car I had was a 66 Vette Stingray Convertible with a 427/390 and a 4 speed, that was a 'fun' car.


BMW has owned the Mini unit since 1994. Our Volt is the most fun car I've owned in awhile. Handles great and I get to go joy riding on juice from the sun.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 21, 2015)

An interesting wrinkle in the EPA case against VW:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/business/international/volkswagen-shares-recall.html?_r=0

Like @SidecarFlip, I often wonder why people buy diesel passenger vehicles when you can buy a pretty comparable MPG gas vehicle for thousands less. Gas is also cheaper than diesel in the great state of Ohio. The last time I looked you would need to keep a diesel car approximately 125k miles just to break even on the added up charge.


----------



## begreen (Sep 21, 2015)

Frugality and maybe higher resale value? Torque is also a factor for those towing small rv trailer, boats, etc..


----------



## maple1 (Sep 21, 2015)

sloeffle said:


> An interesting wrinkle in the EPA case against VW:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/business/international/volkswagen-shares-recall.html?_r=0
> 
> Like @SidecarFlip, I often wonder why people buy diesel passenger vehicles when you can buy a comparable gas vehicle for thousands less. Gas is cheaper than diesel in the great state of Ohio. The last time I looked you would need to keep a diesel car approximately 125k miles just to break even on the added up charge.


 
That's why we bought a Civic when the transmission went south on our VW TD 9 years ago. Which happened to be one year after the turbo gave it up.

9 years & 420,000 kms later & it still works like new (doesn't quite look like new anymore though).


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 22, 2015)

I have gone through the economics a couple of times and end up with gas engine econoboxes. Things I run into

Cold weather gelling of diesel - A car owner is at the mercy of the gas station on this, in very cold weather the fuel is blended and has some additives to keep the fuel from gelling. If there is sharp cold spell, the mix may not keep up and once the fuel is gelled in a car, it has to be towed to warm garage and let sit for several hours. I now folks who proactively add cans of additive in cold weather but that stuff isn't cheap. Sure you can plut them in and VWs have fuel heaters but they still gell up.

VWs reliability record and nearest dealer - VWs are not particularly reliable unless they get maintained frequently, the nearest dealer is 60 miles and my friends with VWs have a favorite tow truck driver to call.  They usually would buy them and after few years got sick of the tow bills. Local mechanics wont go near them.

Up front cost - NH has high excise taxes on cars and for five years its based on sticker price, Diesels generally have a 20% premium over an equivalent gas car so I get to pay extra for five years.

Fuel prices - The worldwide demand for diesel is higher than for gas and the pricing reflects it in normal markets. RIght now its on par with gas but generally its a premium. The premium frequently eats up the gas savings.

I do have diesel in the yard, a Mercedes Unimog, 16000 pounds and a 130 HP engine. I think it may have 250 foot pounds of torque. Mechanical injection and not once piece of electronics. It will gladly run with the batteries turned off.


----------



## semipro (Sep 22, 2015)

peakbagger said:


> diesel in the yard, a Mercedes Unimog


What a beast!  What are you planning for?


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 22, 2015)

Its a loader backhoe based on Unimog 406 chassis. Cheaper than a new Kubota with a lot more capacity and road legal.

Would make a nice plow truck if I drop the accessories in winter.

Of course for the paranoid its all prepped for the inevitable EMP


----------



## begreen (Sep 22, 2015)

Things are spiraling downhill at VW quickly. Their diesel software deception is in all vehicles with the EA 189 engine, about 11 million worldwide. According to the Guardian the company has lost $28 billion in stock value so far.  They are setting aside $7.2B to fix the software and regain public trust.

Could be this be the beginning of the end for diesel cars? Britain and France called for a Europe-wide investigation into all diesel cars to reassure the public. In Great Britain the UK campaign group Transport & Environment (T&E) warned that millions of cars could be recalled. 

_"T&E’s diesel expert, Jos Dings, said: “Our latest report demonstrated that almost 90% of diesel vehicles didn’t meet emission limits when they drive on the road. We are talking millions of vehicles.”"_
http://www.theguardian.com/business...al-escalates-volkswagen-11m-vehicles-involved


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 22, 2015)

I have a diesel and have altered the programming. In fact I use a 6 position adjustable computer that allows six different programs with one of them being bone stock for emissions testing if I were to ever have to do that.

I can't figure out from reading the writing of non-diesel savvy journalists what exactly VW did here. It is entirely possible to optimize the programming so that when being tested under the specified test protocol that your car passes but when being driven outside of the parameters, it doesn't. I expect this and we see it with stoves that are designed to pass the EPA test. The somewhat crappy journalism by ignorant writers makes it sound like there are two programs,  one secretly used for testing and then a "switch" to a second retail program.

If the VW programming is just optimized for test passing but still pollutes too much (in somebody's opinion) then it is the EPA that needs to change their test protocol.

If VW really did change the program between test and retail then bad on VW.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 22, 2015)

Nice truck @peakbagger


----------



## john193 (Sep 22, 2015)

VW already admitted to using software to cheat the emissions test. 

The researchers from WVU found NOx levels significantly out of line under normal driving conditions. Identical tests on a BMW X5 diesel revealed no variation between test and normal mode.


----------



## jharkin (Sep 22, 2015)

Highbeam said:


> I have a diesel and have altered the programming. In fact I use a 6 position adjustable computer that allows six different programs with one of them being bone stock for emissions testing if I were to ever have to do that.
> 
> I can't figure out from reading the writing of non-diesel savvy journalists what exactly VW did here. It is entirely possible to optimize the programming so that when being tested under the specified test protocol that your car passes but when being driven outside of the parameters, it doesn't. I expect this and we see it with stoves that are designed to pass the EPA test. The somewhat crappy journalism by ignorant writers makes it sound like there are two programs,  one secretly used for testing and then a "switch" to a second retail program.
> 
> ...



The reporting Ive heard all claims that VW has explicity admitting placing a "defeat device" in the software that detect when its in the test cycle and enables  emissions controls that are turned off in regular driving.

There was a lengthy segment on it on NPR this evening. Apparently the testing in Europe is much more lax and conducted entirely in MFG labs by staff that are on the MFG payroll... Apparently its trivially easy to cheat over there and it was only the stricter EPA testing regimen  that caught them.

Its gonna go beyond just fines.  If its as bad as is being claimed I suspect some VW execs might be going to jail over this one.  They bet the company on a lie, 

and got caught.


----------



## maple1 (Sep 23, 2015)

VW dealers here have been ordered to stop selling diesels - I suspect that's a world-wide company thing.

I was thinking it wasn't that bad when I heard the first short news blurb last week, but I think that was a wrong thought. This has huge doo-doo potential. Maybe I should run out & buy a used one to get in on the class-action action.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 23, 2015)

maple1 said:


> Maybe I should run out & buy a used one to get in on the class-action action.



Or get one before the new program screws them up. Hard to say what this will do to the used market.

Of course, people have been changing the programming on diesels ever since there was programming on diesels. Heck, they even changed the settings on the fuel pumps when things were all mechanical.

This whole thing might present opportunity for cheap TDI cars after the owners get the cars back with crappy programming but aren't willing to reprogram them.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 23, 2015)

Highbeam said:


> Or get one before the new program screws them up. Hard to say what this will do to the used market.
> 
> .....................
> 
> This whole thing might present opportunity for cheap TDI cars after the owners get the cars back with crappy programming but aren't willing to reprogram them.



VW says they will no longer sell the cars in their 'certified pre-owned' program.


----------



## begreen (Sep 23, 2015)

In Salt Lake City they are dealing with serious long winter temperature inversions. Instead of going after the main polluters which is soot from cars and trucks, they are trying to stop wood burning. Greater particulate pollution is in part why we have winter burn bans in our county. Increasing this pollution for personal gain is definitely against the law. Not trying to single anyone out. I know several folks that have hacked their diesels, some good friends too. But it seems a bit anti-social, like peeing in the pool. We're all on this tiny marble together and have to breathe the same air.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 23, 2015)

First crude estimates of the (premature) death toll from the VW mobile NOx factories.:

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/23/9383641/volkswagen-scandal-pollution

Works out to 20-100 deaths in the US over 6 years, or up to 3000 worldwide.


----------



## kennyp2339 (Sep 23, 2015)

begreen said:


> In Salt Lake City they are dealing with serious long winter temperature inversions. Instead of going after the main polluters which is soot from cars and trucks, they are trying to stop wood burning. Greater particulate pollution is in part why we have winter burn bans in our county. Increasing this pollution for personal gain is definitely against the law. Not trying to single anyone out. I know several folks that have hacked their diesels, some good friends too. But it seems a bit anti-social, like peeing in the pool. We're all on this tiny marble together and have to breathe the same air.



I definitely have a lot of respect for you and I'm not challenging you either when I say this. In the big picture of things, what's the trade off between cleaner emissions and the cost of fuel economy? I own a 2011 2500 diesel that gets 13 miles a gallon, the same truck in the 2008 edition has the same power & torque but gets 24 miles to the gallon. The only difference is the emission devices, and the restrictions that were put on them from the emission devices.
I feel (and just my opinion) that the def reburn / reduction of nox and particulates should only be on the commercial chassis trucks, not pick up trucks or cars.
Or even make a stipulation / exemption that if you can make a vehicle that can travel and get of 50 miles a gallon, the savings in fuel / resources would out weigh, imo the benefit of air pollution reduction.
Right now there's a cross roads going on, the are certain places to buy software to bypass the emissions and make your motor work better, while boosting power. This is were you get the immature people that select there tuners to the highest level and "roll coal"  (black smoke on purpose) I have one of those devices, not installed yet, but I will soon be because I want fuel economy, not the black smoke.


----------



## pastera (Sep 23, 2015)

Highbeam said:


> I have a diesel and have altered the programming. In fact I use a 6 position adjustable computer that allows six different programs with one of them being bone stock for emissions testing if I were to ever have to do that.
> 
> I can't figure out from reading the writing of non-diesel savvy journalists what exactly VW did here. It is entirely possible to optimize the programming so that when being tested under the specified test protocol that your car passes but when being driven outside of the parameters, it doesn't. I expect this and we see it with stoves that are designed to pass the EPA test. The somewhat crappy journalism by ignorant writers makes it sound like there are two programs,  one secretly used for testing and then a "switch" to a second retail program.
> 
> ...


I also believe this is what they did.
Shame on the epa if their test protocol doesn't actually simulate real conditions.

Same thing as power generation regulations, they don't care if they cripple or destroy the country as long as  their regulations are followed.


----------



## jharkin (Sep 23, 2015)

VW _admitted_ they cheated, how again is this in any way the EPA's fault ?


----------



## jharkin (Sep 23, 2015)

begreen said:


> In Salt Lake City they are dealing with serious long winter temperature inversions. Instead of going after the main polluters which is soot from cars and trucks, they are trying to stop wood burning. Greater particulate pollution is in part why we have winter burn bans in our county. Increasing this pollution for personal gain is definitely against the law. Not trying to single anyone out. I know several folks that have hacked their diesels, some good friends too. But it seems a bit anti-social, like peeing in the pool. We're all on this tiny marble together and have to breathe the same air.


----------



## jharkin (Sep 23, 2015)

Highbeam said:


> Or get one before the new program screws them up. Hard to say what this will do to the used market.
> 
> Of course, people have been changing the programming on diesels ever since there was programming on diesels. Heck, they even changed the settings on the fuel pumps when things were all mechanical.
> 
> This whole thing might present opportunity for cheap TDI cars after the owners get the cars back with crappy programming but aren't willing to reprogram them.




Question - how easy are they to reprogram?

I dont know anything about diesels, but Im aware that in gas cars some are as easy as ordering a programmer box and plugging it into the OBD port, while others have protections so strong you need a specialist to open up the ECU and physically modify the board before it can be programmed.

The former for example is true of Subaru's  - Cobb tuning makes a DIY programmer that for a few hundred and 5 minutes can get you an extra 50whp on one of the turbo models.... Whereas with Honda's if you want to do anything you have to remove the ECU and send it to a specialist like Hondata who charges a grand just to modify the ECU to accept programming.  And then you are lucky to get 10-20hp gains at best since Honda factory programs are typically higly optimized and they dont use turbos leaving not much to change.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 23, 2015)

jharkin said:


> Question - how easy are they to reprogram?



Very easy. Some require only plugging a box into the OBD port under the dash. Some require plugging your box into an underhood port. No diesel that I've seen requires sending away the PCM for jailbreaking. I have sent away a gas engine PCM to be reprogrammed and in that case they send you a new reprogrammed one and you send back your old one for a core. All of these are a couple hundred bucks and change all sorts of things like power, speed limiters, transmission shifting strategies, and of course increase mpg. On diesels, the best programs are specifically not to increase black smoke. Black smoke is wasted fuel and wasted power.




jharkin said:


> VW admitted they cheated, how again is this in any way the EPA's fault ?





Highbeam said:


> If the VW programming is just optimized for test passing but still pollutes too much (in somebody's opinion) then it is the EPA that needs to change their test protocol.



I thought I was clear. "Cheating" is a fluffy word and means different things to different people. Statements from VW at this point are for damage control.

It is very easy, with  computer controlled diesel to do simple things like really crank up the fuel rate after a certain % of throttle application, in a non-linear fashion that may create excess pollution. So if the EPA test is flawed enough to be specified as 50% throttle only then I would program my diesel to be super clean at 50% throttle and then at 55% throttle return to a normal progression. It's not cheating but optimization to pass a specific test. Some groups might call it cheating, I say the EPA should have a better test.


----------



## hoverwheel (Sep 24, 2015)

.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 24, 2015)

Death.  I get it.

Here's the problem.  How do you decide what to regulate?  The stereotype is some nameless bureaucrat coming up with a number 'just because' with no reference to what is physically possible, financially possible, or beneficial.  Just read back a ways on this thread, or any one of a number of similar VW threads at other fora...there is a big group of folks who just think the entire enterprise of regulation is pointless and stupid.  There are plenty of people who are gleeful to roll coal in their conviction **that they will hurt no one**, confident that anyone that says otherwise is simply a tool with an overpaid govt job, and who used to be a treehugger hippie.

Some people after being told that cigarette smoke was dangerous 50 years ago used to blow smoke in their kids faces, supremely confident that the kid would not keel over and die.  See?  What a bunch of nonsense.

So, how do you respond to that **willful ignorance**?

1. You point out that some regs are about saving energy while saving money at the same time, like regs to foster LED bulbs, heat pump water heaters and more efficient wood stoves.  Those govt nerds are actually trying to figure chit out and find opportunities for a better outcome that the marketplace does not seem to be getting around to. And they play a long game.  They work hard to figure out a timeline working with the manufacturers and outside experts to come up with targets and timelines that are technically and financially feasible.  A lot of folks can understand that, at least after you take away the old tech and they have grudgingly put in the new, only to discover that it isn't bullchit and it DOES save them money.  Will wonders never cease?

2. And then there are other cases where the reg DOES cost money.  Why do it?  Its about harm.  Do the govt nerds decide that all "pollution is bad" and simply ban all of it overnight in some wave of job killing regulation?  Nope.  They get out their pencils and talk to the companies about tech, and to the doctors about who gets sick and where, and they try to figure out which pollution is killing the most people, and how much it would cost society to fix that problem.  And then they assign a value to human life and they start making regs again, in a long game, only regulating the pollution that can most cheaply (to business and consumers) improve human health.  That is their mandate from Dick Nixon.

The 2009 NOx rules that VW apparently choked on, while enforced by Obama's EPA, where decided many years before, as part of revisions to the Clean Air act put in by Bush Sr.  VW had close to 20 years to figure out how to meet that target, and apparently they blurfed, while several other manufacturers managed to hit it.

So, let's review.....

Those govt nerds will tell you that air pollution in China causes a million+ premature deaths a year.  Is that enough to get your attention or concern?  They will also tell you that pre 1970, the figure in the US was comparable (in that it was hundreds of thousands a year). The 2009 rule is the grandchild of the Act created to address that problem in the 1970s.  An Act that clearly worked, whether we care to remember it or not.

The EPA thinks NOx pollution kills 15000 americans/yr nowadays, and they think there is some low hanging fruit there.  I still get plenty of ozone alert days per year that I can **feel** and **see**, not in a way that makes me afraid, because I am young and healthy, but in a way that makes me sure the ozone thing is not bull.  And NOx is the major source of ozone.

So, death comes for all of us.  I don't have to be happy about that.  What are some big killers?  How about Cancer, Heart disease, Accidents, Violence, and Dementia.  Accidents have been reduced hugely by safety regs.  The other four have all been linked to **air pollution**.   It now appears that tailpipe emissions of VOCs, mostly benzene, decades ago upped all our cancer rates significantly in a way that will continue kill folks for a couple more decades.  The benzene is now removed at the refinery, which costs **almost nothing**.  Cardiovascular disease is made worse by a variety of air pollutants including ozone, SO2, NOx, CO and C nanoparticles, that are all combustion products, now all much reduced by the Clean Air Act.  The surge in violent crime in the 70s, 80s and 90s is now accepted to be the result of lead poisoning of children 10 years earlier, mostly urban kids getting the lead from tailpipe emissions.  Now violent crime rates are way down.  Alzheimer's is a complex disease that is increasing in incidence as people get older.  Emerging science suggests that some people are genetically more susceptible that others, and the disease is triggered by brain injury, like a concussion. Others have shown that Alzheimers patients often have the base of their brains loaded with combustion nanoparticles, just like those from diesel engines and rolling coal.  They have recently shown that the particles lodge in nasal membranes (the nose is a filter) and then are trafficked by olfactory nerve cells directly to the base of the brain.  Fascinating.

Don't like helicopter parents?  Think kids today are all wimps?  Don't like it? Me neither.  But don't confuse that with a properly functioning public safety system.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 24, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> VW had close to 20 years to figure out how to meet that target, and apparently they blurfed, while several other manufacturers managed to hit it.



Here is where you make some assumptions that might be false. VW hit the target just fine. Their engines passed EPA tests with flying colors. Like any computer controlled diesel out there the tuning can be altered after the test to give back some power that was removed for testing. We don't know if the tuning was altered after testing or if the tuning was skillfully written to pass the test criteria but then also pollute excessively at higher output levels that were not part of the test. To compare, we can take that BMW diesel that also passed the test and adjust the tuning for more power and better mpg but it will not pass the test anymore.

VW can revise the tuning to be compliant and retest. The technology is fine. This derating will result in less power output which will make their cars less desirable. VW just added the performance tune that so many of their customers were adding anyways.

The VW failure here in my opinion is that VW should have /could have designed a bigger and higher reving engine that could be run at reduced output to pass the tests and still provide enough power to be competitive.


----------



## jharkin (Sep 24, 2015)

Im sorry, but I just dont buy that "tuning to the test parameters" result in the real world road driving results emitting 40 times as much as the test.  Especially considering they admitted to incorporating a defeat device.  I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

And for what its worth, I dont agree it makes it right because 'lots' of drivers are installing aftermarket tunes anyway.  Those are mostly road illegal.  Just because its not enforced is no escuse.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 24, 2015)

Highbeam said:


> The VW failure here in my opinion is that VW should have /could have designed a bigger and higher reving engine that could be run at reduced output to pass the tests and still provide enough power to be competitive.



I agree with you that this is the road not taken.  They did indeed make an engine that could meet EPA specs in road use, they just felt that the resulting lower power would be undesireable to customers.  They could either cheat the emissions to get the power back, or they could sell a larger engine that passes the emissions.  It is noteworthy that VW's 3.0L and larger engines did not cheat, only the smaller ones.  It is also noteworthy that VW took the more profitable route.

Your earlier comment makes no sense to me given the actual EPA test protocol is to run at all the power levels and speeds expected to be seen in actual road use.  Sure, if the EPA only cared about emissions at 20 mph on a dyno, and in corresponding real life situations with similar speed and power it does the same thing, then the EPA designed a dumb (non-real world) test and VW didn't cheat.

In fact, I think the EPA is much more rigorous about the 'real world' nature of its test versus its overseas counterparts.  For example, the mpg of many cars are rated significantly higher overseas, because the EPA assumes a higher average speed and more stop and go than those other agencies.  For EVs, the EPA rates mileage ~20% lower than the overseas agencies, no small effect.


----------



## jharkin (Sep 24, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> In fact, I think the EPA is much more rigorous about the 'real world' nature of its test versus its overseas counterparts.  For example, the mpg of many cars are rated significantly higher overseas, because the EPA assumes a higher average speed and more stop and go than those other agencies.  For EVs, the EPA rates mileage ~20% lower than the overseas agencies, no small effect.



I have heard the same... The other night NPR was running a story on this and stated that the emissions testing in much of Europe is a lot more lax and the automakers are allowed to do it all in their own facility using staff that are on their payroll, with little or no govt. oversight.



Back to the first point, the other thing I read is that all these VW small diesels dont use Urea injection.  That was the claimed big innovation of "VW clean diesel" that they managed to deliver clean emissions with power and economy without using urea.  BMW and Mercedes chose to go the Urea route as the market segments they sell in can bear the extra cost.  There seems to be some thinking that if the VW engine was redesigned with Urea injection they could meet the standards without having to detune power but they chose to cheat instead because the cost of urea injection ($5k more per car I read) wouldn't sell well in a Jetta or Golf.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 24, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> Your earlier comment makes no sense to me given the actual EPA test protocol is to run at all the power levels and speeds expected to be seen in actual road use.  Sure, if the EPA only cared about emissions at 20 mph on a dyno, and in corresponding real life situations with similar speed and power it does the same thing, then the EPA designed a dumb (non-real world) test and VW didn't cheat.



I'm glad you know about the EPA protocol, I don't know the specifics of the test. Historically, these tests did not include full throttle runs. If this new EPA test included all power levels, likely also "snap" tests, then it would be nearly impossible to write a program that both passed the tests but still polluted excessively. Instead, a separate program would have to be created for emissions and then after the test, the regular program would be utilized. That's cheating.

These programs could both be loaded on the computer simultaneously and selected as needed. My computerized diesel has 6 programs and I can switch between them while driving down the road. These cheats are not hardware cheats, it's not because somebody swamped in a dummy cat converter, electronic diesels are pretty amazing in what you can control from the computer.


----------



## Jags (Sep 24, 2015)

Highbeam said:


> Instead, a separate program would have to be created for emissions and then after the test, the regular program would be utilized. That's cheating.



From my understanding, that is precisely what was done.  The engine recognized when it was plugged in for testing and ran completely different code during the test.


----------



## begreen (Sep 24, 2015)

Correct. The EPA charges against VW are very serious. They were not made lightly. This is not a simple programming mode. Rather it is a sophisticated set of tests noting whether the steering wheel is moving, brakes applied, how long the car had been running, speed, and atmospheric pressure. In other words a program that conducts a multipoint query to determine if the car is under test conditions and not moving on the road.

In other news, more tests on diesels are starting to happen. In Europe the BMW X3 failed today though it has not been determined if this was due to intentional programming or not.


----------



## Grateful11 (Sep 24, 2015)

SidecarFlip said:


> First off. unless you need a heavy duty high torque engine for specialized use (like pulling your tandem axle travel trailer or a gooseneck or you are in business and need a truck for hauling, there is no reason to own a diesel, especially a small displacemennt diesel in a passanger car.  There is no logical reason, at all. especially considering the up front cost and the lowered mileage (diesel fuel costs more as well) of a diesxel engine compared to a gasoline engine.
> 
> So why do people buy them?   Because it's 'cool' to have a diesel car......  thats why.....
> 
> ...



I agree. That's why we bought a Toyota Tundra 5.7L. The most it'll probably ever tow is a 14' cattle trailer with maybe 7-8 six month old calves, numerous times per year. We crunched the numbers and with a 3/4 ton diesel pushing $60K or more it just didn't make sense. The Tundra has 5500 miles on it so far and empty it's getting 16.8-17.2 mpg by a calculator not the onboard computer. We paid a little over $37K for a Double Cab SR5 with the TRD package, 381hp and 401 ft lbs. of torque. Never thought we'd buy a Toyota truck until we drove about everything including the Dodge Ram Eco-Diesel, which is about as gutless as it can get. Ford, Ram and GM all came in over $45K.

We're no stranger to diesels as there's 5 diesel tractors here, ranging from a 70's IH 686 with an M&W aftermarket turbo to a 2014 Kubota MX5100 that's interim Tier 4.


----------



## begreen (Sep 25, 2015)

Highbeam said:


> These programs could both be loaded on the computer simultaneously and selected as needed. My computerized diesel has 6 programs and I can switch between them while driving down the road. These cheats are not hardware cheats, it's not because somebody swamped in a dummy cat converter, electronic diesels are pretty amazing in what you can control from the computer.


 I hear about re-programming for diesels. Just to clarify. Are these chips or re-progammers legal? If no, what is the penalty? Does the computer store a record of each reprogramming event for a later service check? If yes, does this void the vehicle warranty?


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 25, 2015)

Don't know. I don't think I've ever owned a vehicle with a warranty.


----------



## begreen (Sep 25, 2015)

I've read that maybe 40% of diesels are tampered with. Is this legal?


----------



## blades (Sep 25, 2015)

Course not cause the EPA says so.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 25, 2015)

begreen said:


> I've read that maybe 40% of diesels are tampered with. Is this legal?



Sometimes it is legal. One of the pioneers of the diesel performance market is banks. Their 5 position programmer has CARB approval for four out of five. 

Really though, it's probably not legal to change your tire size from what your door jamb sticker specifies. Or replace your muffler with non oem parts.


----------



## jharkin (Sep 26, 2015)

When I was younger and driving my Acura and hanging around with guys heavily into modding cars, autocross and such... I remember all those aftermarket tunes for gasoline road cars had "legal for off road use only"  warnings on them.  Did not stop anyone.

The deal is they theoretically "can" be legal so long as the modified program still is under the smog limits for CO, NOx, particulates, etc.  Many current cars, gasoline cars at least measure well under the legal limits in OEM form that you still have room to modify and pass the test.  I think the major stumbling block is the hassle of going through the testing procedure for the aftermarket supplier to get it certified..... So probably not many do.

The guys where where running tunes that would fail the smog test would just flash back the factory program on the day they needed to get tested for an emissions sticker, and then flash back the performance tune after.


----------



## jharkin (Sep 26, 2015)

I have a question for all of you that hate the EPA.


You do realize that without the work of the EPA, we would all be living like this.  Is that *really* what you want?





Ive been there (both India and China) and breathed it first hand. I know BeGreen has seen it as well.  Its not fun... you cough the moment you walk out the door, basically feel like you have a sinus cold_ all _the time,  and you can never get the smell out of your clothes... takes a few weeks and a couple washes after returning back home before you are really rid of it.


----------



## RSNovi (Sep 26, 2015)

jharkin said:


> I have a question for all of you that hate the EPA.
> 
> 
> You do realize that without the work of the EPA, we would all be living like this.  Is that *really* what you want?
> ...


I couldn't agree more!


----------



## jebatty (Sep 26, 2015)

Areas of the US were visibly like the picture, and much of the US was heavily polluted with invisible pollutants before the EPA. In the early 1960's I remember the drives through east Chicago and Gary Indiana that looked exactly like the picture. Eyes and lungs burned throughout the drive through the area and beyond, even when visible air cleared up. With whatever EPA faults a person might want to highlight, I am thankful for the work the EPA has accomplished and agree that more work needs to be to assure clean air, water and soil for our children and for us.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 26, 2015)

It's not either or. The epa can do a better job. For instance they allow fireplaces with no emissions requirements but hold woodstoves to very low limits. 

Our epa does important work. All too often they throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## hoverwheel (Sep 26, 2015)

The epa is much like the unions.

They DID do important work. 

Cured or at least alleviated a lot of evil in the world. 

Both have gone past that and are now as corrupt and useless as the problems they were conceived to fix.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 27, 2015)

Highbeam said:


> It's not either or. The epa can do a better job. For instance they allow fireplaces with no emissions requirements but hold woodstoves to very low limits.
> 
> Our epa does important work. All too often they throw the baby out with the bathwater.



Show me the people with 6 cords of wood in their yard, who are going to burn it all in a fireplace.  And show me how they are going to build a huge smoldering fire in the fireplace that is going to send a lot of that mass up the stack as CO and VOCs, the way the old, banked pre-EPA stove easily could (if used improperly).

A lot of new construction doesn't have a fireplace.  

The EPA is never going to be able to ban fireplaces in existing dwellings, politically.

They do what they can do, crossed with what they think can be done affordably and technically, and plan on change taking decades (as the stove and car fleets turn over).


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 27, 2015)

hoverwheel said:


> The epa is much like the unions.
> 
> They DID do important work.
> 
> ...



I am going to leave unions aside as OT.

The clean air act, its revisions, and the 'lightbulb ban' were new law 40, 25 and 10 years ago.  Now that the benefits of these policies are seen, all are very popular.

Most people's current view of the EPA is correlated to their view of global warming, and new policies such as the clean power plan, CPP.  IF you think AGW is bunk, and the CPP will destroy the economy, you think about the EPA differently than if you think the opposite about AGW and the CPP.

Hoverwheel, if you have complaints about air pollution regs other than the CPP, please elaborate.  IF you have problems with the CPP, please start a new thread.


----------



## hoverwheel (Sep 27, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> ...
> Hoverwheel, if you have complaints about air pollution regs other than the CPP, please elaborate.  IF you have problems with the CPP, please start a new thread.



I didn't bring up air pollution and cpp. What are you smoking? I said the EPA has outlived it's usefulness, which is topical in this discussion. Disagree all you want. I'm secure enough not to need people to agree with me. [emoji3]


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 27, 2015)

Thanks for the clarification....what functions of the EPA have outlived their usefulness?


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 27, 2015)

When was the last time a river caught on fire? Didn't the epa cause the last big river kill?

If conditions back when the epa was created were as good as they are now I doubt we would have an epa. I think that's what hoverwheel is saying. The job is done. It will never be perfect.


----------



## begreen (Sep 27, 2015)

Last I checked the topic was clean diesel.


----------



## jharkin (Sep 27, 2015)

Highbeam said:


> When was the last time a river caught on fire? Didn't the *epa cause the last big river kil*l?



Im going to assume you are referring to the Animas River Spill.  Its true a mistake by the EPA attempting to clean up the waste leaked it into the River.  However whats left out in all the disinformation spread about this incident  is that *EPA did not create the waste* - a mining company that went out of business decades ago before did.  EPA is just try to clean up their mess.  Maybe if we funded them better they might do a better job ?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/12/opinions/pagel-animas-river-pollution/




Highbeam said:


> If conditions back when the epa was created were as good as they are now I doubt we would have an epa. I think that's what hoverwheel is saying. The job is done. It will never be perfect.



On the topic of environmental lead, particulates, VOC,etc I'd tend to agree - we are into the realm of diminishing returns.  However on climate change we are a long way off from even slowing down the damage, much less cleaning up.  The ship is still sinking, just not as fast.


----------



## begreen (Sep 28, 2015)




----------



## begreen (Sep 29, 2015)

Tulsa, OK, before the clean air act.


----------

