EPA Diesel Engine “Delete Tuning” Crackdown...Is It Here Now?

[calicamper]

That’s not how fuel works.

All the octane rating does it tell you how resistant the fuel is to early ignition.

It does not make an engine perform any better than a lower grade unless the engine is tuned for a specific ignition timing like a high performance sports car.

If you run premium fuel in your engine that is tuned for 87, you’re literally wasting your money. Only a few engines are actually made to run higher octane fuel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Modern engines especially the turbo ones dial back power especially the Ecoboost ones. You put more stable fuel in them and they dial up the power. Nothing new
Run 91 in a NA Subaru yup all you did was waste money.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Modern engines especially the turbo ones dial back power especially the Ecoboost ones. You put more stable fuel in them and they dial up the power. Nothing new
Run 91 in a NA Subaru yup all you did was waist money.

If you want to have some fun... get an E85 tune for a new dual injected EcoBoost. They will make more power than a port injected EcoBoost on just premium.

 

[shade]

I am not a greenie or an environmental whacko, but I do have a degree of common sense and can think logically. Filtering what comes out of the tail pipe of a Dodge diesel truck, is NOT the solution. Severely reducing consumption, development, exploding populations, home and commercial building, burning bunker oil/coal, and freeways choked with traffic for many hours each day, is.

While I agree with your comments on consumerism, I disagree with your position on cleaning up diesel emissions.

There is no single solution to reducing pollution, and there's absolutely no reason it can't be addressed on multiple fronts simultaneously. Gasoline engines have seen dramatic reductions in their emissions, from the family sedan to lawnmowers. There's no reason diesel power should be ignored because other energy sources create pollution, too.

As someone mentioned earlier, diesel emission systems currently have some similarity with the gasoline emission systems of the '70s-'80s, with complicated components and the like. Over time, it's possible that those systems will progress along a path similar to the way gasoline emissions have, with them being largely transparent to users. Even if that doesn't occur, that's not an excuse for diesel engines to pollute if viable alternatives are available.

 

[shade]

Didn't say it was. Almost every discussion has various levels of facts and opinions (mining of rare earth minerals for batteries isn't exactly eco-friendly). At one point the world was flat and there was "proof". This whole thread has turned into nonsense and people trying to argue their point which overshadows some of the good information in it. Diesel has it place and EV has it's place. Neither one are saving the planet and each has it flaws.

I was just providing a counterpoint, same as you.

There's some interesting discussion mixed in with the nonsense, so I still think the thread has merit. I have no plans to own a diesel engine, but I'm interested in where the tech stands today.

 

[Paddler Ed]

Further, studies have shown that emissions from diesel passenger cars and trucks only contribute a small fraction of the actual contaminants, claimed to be polluting the atmosphere. Power generation is nearly a third (30%), manufacturing exceeds 20% and all transportation, including jets, trains, 18 wheelers, ships bringing millions of tons of crap from China everyday and even buses and taxis, make up about 25% of the total.

I've only pulled out what I feel is the pertinent part, and whilst I do not disagree with the total proportions you've mentioned, the issue is the concentration of these pollutants in different areas; for example, it is rare that there is a coal fired power plant or a large manufacturing facility in the central business district of a metropolitan area - but there is likely to be a number of diesel powered vehicles there, and this increase in particulate matter is not good for those breathing that air. I would hypothesise that the amount of pollutants emitted by diesel engined vehicles (including trains and road vehicles) in that environment would be in excess of 75%, so at that rate it's worth reducing the contaminants.

 

[DzlToy]

If diesel emissions and particulate matter are truly the concern of the automakers and "the regulators", then we should be using Brown's gas instead of DEF and expensive, unreliable hardware such as SCR systems.

How Hydrogen Is Making Diesel Better

Alternative powertrains are the future, but ultra low-emission diesel engines could help us clean up our act in the meantime.

www.popularmechanics.com

Effect of Hydrogen HHO on emissions. Hydrogen generators in diesel

Adding HHO results in a more complete combustion of the fuel. Reduction of NOx, CO2 Carbon Dioxide, CO Carbon Monoxide, PM Particulate Matter

www.hho-1.com

In addition to the hundreds of articles similar to the ones linked above, I remember reading about a similar system, maybe a decade ago, that proposed injected Reformulated Unleaded Gasoline (RUG), into the combustion chamber, along with diesel. Harmful emissions all but disappeared. Why add expensive, complex equipment to already expensive new cars, especially when that equipment increases maintenance, service costs, and warranty claims, whilst decreasing reliability? Why not use another system instead, especially one that is proven to produce superior results without the so-called 'side-effects'?

That, dear reader, is for you to decide.

Incidentally, injecting propane into the combustion chamber, produces similar results to the HHO injection. It may not be the ideal solution, but it does not come at the expense of expensive filters, tail pipe fires and decreased reliability, all of which saddle new diesel trucks and SUVs.

A close friend owns a new-ish diesel Grand Cherokee. When new, mixed driving produced 30 MPG. It has been "tuned" or "reflashed" by the dealer on several occasions throughout its life and now gets about 20-22 MPG. So, you are burning 50% more diesel to go XYZ miles, and I am supposed to believe that overall big picture emissions are LOWER?

If a delete kit or an aftermarket tune allowed a 20 MPG truck to get 40 MPG, wouldn't it stand to reason that DOUBLING your fuel economy would be good in more ways than one? Reduction of consumption of fuel, especially if you think we are running out of oil, is of paramount importance.

Gasoline-diesel cocktail: a potent recipe for cleaner, more efficient engines

news.wisc.edu

Combining gas and diesel engines could yield best of both worlds | Argonne National Laboratory

www.anl.gov

A Cocktail of Diesel and Gasoline Runs 20 Percent More Efficiently Than Either One Alone

A team of gearheads at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have developed an engine that can handle a blend of gasoline and diesel fuel. It outputs low emissions, and offers up to 20 percent greater fuel efficiency.

www.popsci.com

Using a Diesel-Gasoline Blend to Reduce NOx and Smoke Emissions and Improve High-Efficiency Range of LTC Engine

Researchers from Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the University of Michigan report on the use a “dieseline” blend—an 80:20 blend of diesel and gasoline—for the simultaneous reduction of NOx and smoke emissions in a Low Temperature Combustion (LTC) mode and the extension of low-emission and...

www.greencarcongress.com

Government corporations, just like all other massive corporations, have zero interest in doing what is right, efficient, logical or beneficial for the customer, the people or end user. They have an interest in controlling people, increasing their market, power/reach and making lots and lots of money on your back. Burdensome emissions regulations, allow all of those to proliferate, the costs of which are passed along to the consumer. Go back in time 20 years and tell your Y2K self that people would pay 80 to 100 thousand dollars for a Ford, GM or Dodge pickup truck in 2018-2019 and your Y2K self, would have a heart attack and die, right then and there. It's lunacy. That truck should have the best of every component and system ever made, be perfectly reliable and have nearly zero emissions. But, it doesn't and the public is to blame.

There are proven, off the shelf solutions, to the emissions and efficiency issues plaguing modern diesel vehicles, plain and simple. If the goal is pollution reduction, then those should be implemented, post haste.

 

[calicamper]

While I agree with your comments on consumerism, I disagree with your position on cleaning up diesel emissions.

There is no single solution to reducing pollution, and there's absolutely no reason it can't be addressed on multiple fronts simultaneously. Gasoline engines have seen dramatic reductions in their emissions, from the family sedan to lawnmowers. There's no reason diesel power should be ignored because other energy sources create pollution, too.

As someone mentioned earlier, diesel emission systems currently have some similarity with the gasoline emission systems of the '70s-'80s, with complicated components and the like. Over time, it's possible that those systems will progress along a path similar to the way gasoline emissions have, with them being largely transparent to users. Even if that doesn't occur, that's not an excuse for diesel engines to pollute if viable alternatives are available.

I met a Diesel engine designer several years ago while on a flight. He explained that the emissions challenge will be a combined engine and fuel modernization and emissions design. He said people don’t realize how little money and engine development has been done on diesel vs gas. Literally billions spent on gas engine development and production where as diesel has seen a mer millions. As such he pointed out generational wise the Diesel engine is just exiting the 1980’s vs the Gas engines with the di technology and more advanced turbo technology is decades ahead of the current Diesels simply because there hasn’t been a whole lot of money and design thrown at them like gas engines. He was pretty confident that modern Diesel engines could be clean enough that emissions systems would be simplified, but that was with “modern” engines not as he explained decade old diesel stuff which is essentially what we have today.

 

[luthj]

SCR has no effect on particulate. SCR reduces NOx using urea as the agent of action. SCR systems allow the engines to run at higher combustion temps/pressures at partial load, and to use much less EGR flow. This increases NOx production by large margins. Which the SCR system effectively neutralizes. SCR systems are more expensive then EGR and other tuning methods though.

So why use SCR? Well the same techniques which reduce NOx tend to increase particulate. So the SCR system allows for reduced particulate (much improved DPF life) and simultaneously lower NOx emissions.


There are very significant practical issues to hydrogen addition. The hydrogen addition approach can actually increase NOx production. It also consumes considerable power to hydrolyze water at significant rates. Its a favored idea among the DIY crowds. Mostly because its possible to build a generator yourself, and it generally doesn't harm the engine. The idea of gas production is also fairly easy to grasp vs more complex systems.

A close friend owns a new-ish diesel Grand Cherokee. When new, mixed driving produced 30 MPG. It has been "tuned" or "reflashed" by the dealer on several occasions throughout its life and now gets about 20-22 MPG. So, you are burning 50% more diesel to go XYZ miles, and I am supposed to believe that overall big picture emissions are LOWER?

You are trying to set up a straw man which implies that the OEMs don't know what they are doing. In that case of that cherokee, do you have proof that other issues are not reducing the fuel economy? Did the driving regime change? etc. Regardless it is completely possible to have lower particulate and NOx by a significant margin even with lower fuel economy. The charts I posted previously showed 10x increase in pollutants without DPF and SCR after treatment. Obviously CO2 emissions would increase with reduced fuel economy.

It seems fairly obvious what the goal of this argument is. You are trying to generate uncertainty and doubt in the OEMs approach. You believe that if you can undermine the efficacy of these systems, you can justify bypassing and removing them. Your dismissive tone also implies that the OEMs are incompetent. I assure you the opposite is the case. Stating that there are perfectly good emissions control schemes that are obvious only to a small group of fringe internet sites is ridiculous, and bordering on conspiracy theory level. Billions of dollars in research and development by multiple companies independently decided upon similar approaches.

Regardless of how you feel about these systems and their impact on your beloved diesel trucks, it does not justify removing them. Full Stop. If diesel engines cannot be made reliable, low emissions, and affordable, that is not the air breathing public's (our) problem. The onus of the additional cost is on the owners of the vehicles. It is wrong to justify bypassing the law because of weak arguments, shady moral relativism, and anger. With a healthy dose of anti-intellectualism and anti-expert sentiment thrown on top.

 

[DzlToy]

OEMs are not incompetent by any means. They are however motivated by bean counters, lobbyists, profits, market share and their board or share holders. None of that is conspiratorial in any way. That said, the fact that they are not motivated to find the BEST solution to the problem, only the 'right now" solution, as evidenced by many year over year changes in hundreds of makes and models of diesel vehicles.

Nothing else changed in the diesel Cherokee. It is a daily driven commuter and the MPG changes directly coincided with trips to the dealer for a "reflash" per Chrysler or a TSB or some other such nonsense. Again, no conspiracy here, just facts from an owner who has been around cars, worked on them and built them for more than 20 years.

Many OEMs and "mainstream" engineers are "in the box" and are thus not interested in anything other than what their boss, whomever that may be, says or what the department meeting was about. For these reasons we have brand new 30-40k automobiles, sold in this country with "poor" crash test ratings on the 35 MPH off set frontal impact test. Do you honestly believe that any large car maker does NOT know how to make a car pass that test with flying colours? Nope, but they chose not to do that.

Do you think that Chrysler does not know what it takes to keep a track bar bracket from tearing off the frame of a new, street driven JL Wrangler? They sure do, but they chose another path. While this does not directly relate to emissions, it relates absolutely to the mentality of the OEMs. Funny how a guy in a garage with a home made HHO machine can improve diesel fuel emissions and economy, along with other very simple technologies, confirmed by a report from Argonne National Laboratories, but the OEMs with 1000 engineers and billions of dollars in the bank, cannot do the same. Conspiratorial? Maybe, but it seems pretty black and white to me. When you look at the facts and take the emotion and BS out, there isn't much wiggle room, IMO.

What are manufacturers selling the MOST of right now? Trucks and SUVs. By nature, and this has been happening for years, those vehicles are much less fuel efficient than cars. Additionally, SUVs have become the bread and butter of most automakers, with massive profit margins, compared to cars, egging on production. Again, not directly related to emissions, but absolutely related to current practises, motivation, budgeting, marekting, R&D, etc.

What is the incentive to make a 60 MPG diesel sedan, which Mercedes sells in Europe, for the USDM, when you can sell millions of SUVs at a huge profit, even though they only get 15 or 20 MPG? Now, I ask you dear reader, is a 60 MPG sedan with slightly higher emissions levels preferable over a 15 MPG SUV with stricter emissions, but burning four times the amount of diesel fuel to go a mile? Once again, logic and common sense win. No conspiracy necessary.

If fuel economy and emissions were sincerely and honestly the focus, that is what the automakers would be producing. Those are not the focii.

 

[AbleGuy]

In my time on this earth I've been told by "scientists" that we are facing an ice age, nope wait it's global warming.

Fire and Ice

BY ROBERT FROST
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.

From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great

And would suffice

 

[calicamper]

OEMs are not incompetent by any means. They are however motivated by bean counters, lobbyists, profits, market share and their board or share holders. None of that is conspiratorial in any way. That said, the fact that they are not motivated to find the BEST solution to the problem, only the 'right now" solution, as evidenced by many year over year changes in hundreds of makes and models of diesel vehicles.

Nothing else changed in the diesel Cherokee. It is a daily driven commuter and the MPG changes directly coincided with trips to the dealer for a "reflash" per Chrysler or a TSB or some other such nonsense. Again, no conspiracy here, just facts from an owner who has been around cars, worked on them and built them for more than 20 years.

Many OEMs and "mainstream" engineers are "in the box" and are thus not interested in anything other than what their boss, whomever that may be, says or what the department meeting was about. For these reasons we have brand new 30-40k automobiles, sold in this country with "poor" crash test ratings on the 35 MPH off set frontal impact test. Do you honestly believe that any large car maker does NOT know how to make a car pass that test with flying colours? Nope, but they chose not to do that.

Do you think that Chrysler does not know what it takes to keep a track bar bracket from tearing off the frame of a new, street driven JL Wrangler? They sure do, but they chose another path. While this does not directly relate to emissions, it relates absolutely to the mentality of the OEMs. Funny how a guy in a garage with a home made HHO machine can improve diesel fuel emissions and economy, along with other very simple technologies, confirmed by a report from Argonne National Laboratories, but the OEMs with 1000 engineers and billions of dollars in the bank, cannot do the same. Conspiratorial? Maybe, but it seems pretty black and white to me. When you look at the facts and take the emotion and BS out, there isn't much wiggle room, IMO.

What are manufacturers selling the MOST of right now? Trucks and SUVs. By nature, and this has been happening for years, those vehicles are much less fuel efficient than cars. Additionally, SUVs have become the bread and butter of most automakers, with massive profit margins, compared to cars, egging on production. Again, not directly related to emissions, but absolutely related to current practises, motivation, budgeting, marekting, R&D, etc.

What is the incentive to make a 60 MPG diesel sedan, which Mercedes sells in Europe, for the USDM, when you can sell millions of SUVs at a huge profit, even though they only get 15 or 20 MPG? Now, I ask you dear reader, is a 60 MPG sedan with slightly higher emissions levels preferable over a 15 MPG SUV with stricter emissions, but burning four times the amount of diesel fuel to go a mile? Once again, logic and common sense win. No conspiracy necessary.

If fuel economy and emissions were sincerely and honestly the focus, that is what the automakers would be producing. Those are not the focii.

Umm my wifes Ford Sedan over 65,000 miles has an average mileage of 70mpg. Its an awesome car. Not Diesel either, as such we have zero diesel emissions equipment issues to bother with.

I just bought a Expedition went from 14-16mpg to 18-23mpg couldn’t wait any longer for the plugin hybrid Expedition my 2006 Sequoia needed to be replaced. I wanted a plugin hybrid truck/suv. The new Explorer failed and was tops on my list. Why did it fail? For one interior space was super disappointing and the biggie no plugin hybrid.
Why plugin hybrid? My short local trips hauling kids to swim practice, basketball practice, Volleyball practice etc easily can be all EV mode. I could do 2-3 weeks easily during our typical sports and school weeks without burning a drop of gas. Yup and I have solar on my house which I installed my self it had a 3yr pay off that was 2.5yrs ago, I’m on year 2.5 of no electric costs at all. Its great.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

OEMs are not incompetent by any means. They are however motivated by bean counters, lobbyists, profits, market share and their board or share holders. None of that is conspiratorial in any way. That said, the fact that they are not motivated to find the BEST solution to the problem, only the 'right now" solution, as evidenced by many year over year changes in hundreds of makes and models of diesel vehicles.

Nothing else changed in the diesel Cherokee. It is a daily driven commuter and the MPG changes directly coincided with trips to the dealer for a "reflash" per Chrysler or a TSB or some other such nonsense. Again, no conspiracy here, just facts from an owner who has been around cars, worked on them and built them for more than 20 years.

Many OEMs and "mainstream" engineers are "in the box" and are thus not interested in anything other than what their boss, whomever that may be, says or what the department meeting was about. For these reasons we have brand new 30-40k automobiles, sold in this country with "poor" crash test ratings on the 35 MPH off set frontal impact test. Do you honestly believe that any large car maker does NOT know how to make a car pass that test with flying colours? Nope, but they chose not to do that.

Do you think that Chrysler does not know what it takes to keep a track bar bracket from tearing off the frame of a new, street driven JL Wrangler? They sure do, but they chose another path. While this does not directly relate to emissions, it relates absolutely to the mentality of the OEMs. Funny how a guy in a garage with a home made HHO machine can improve diesel fuel emissions and economy, along with other very simple technologies, confirmed by a report from Argonne National Laboratories, but the OEMs with 1000 engineers and billions of dollars in the bank, cannot do the same. Conspiratorial? Maybe, but it seems pretty black and white to me. When you look at the facts and take the emotion and BS out, there isn't much wiggle room, IMO.

What are manufacturers selling the MOST of right now? Trucks and SUVs. By nature, and this has been happening for years, those vehicles are much less fuel efficient than cars. Additionally, SUVs have become the bread and butter of most automakers, with massive profit margins, compared to cars, egging on production. Again, not directly related to emissions, but absolutely related to current practises, motivation, budgeting, marekting, R&D, etc.

What is the incentive to make a 60 MPG diesel sedan, which Mercedes sells in Europe, for the USDM, when you can sell millions of SUVs at a huge profit, even though they only get 15 or 20 MPG? Now, I ask you dear reader, is a 60 MPG sedan with slightly higher emissions levels preferable over a 15 MPG SUV with stricter emissions, but burning four times the amount of diesel fuel to go a mile? Once again, logic and common sense win. No conspiracy necessary.

If fuel economy and emissions were sincerely and honestly the focus, that is what the automakers would be producing. Those are not the focii.

They make what people buy.

If I had a car last winter I would have been driving my tractor to work for at least two months straight between the snow and the mud. I have 0 interest in a car.

 

[AbleGuy]

As far as other diesel emissions news goes, the EPA is poised today to issue for further comment new Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions rules for heavy duty trucks.

The EPA is developing an updated plan to lower heavy-duty truck emissions. NOx standards for highway heavy-duty trucks and engines were last toughened in 2000 and the EPA seems to now feel that old those standards need too be updated.

This move might have originated or at least been encouraged by a push from CARB (California Air Resources Board) to tighten up these NOx standard, as that state really wants to see these rules be nationally applied because 60% of heavy truck travel in California originates from trucks registered in other states.

The EPA is working on a plan to cut heavy-duty truck emissions

The EPA is seeking public input as it works on new rules to significantly decrease emissions of smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) and other pollutants from heavy-duty trucks.

www.autoblog.com

”Over 100 million people in the United States live in areas of non-attainment for ozone and particulate matter, the EPA noted, adding heavy-duty vehicles are one of the largest contributors to NOx emissions — a precursor of ozone and particulate matter formation — from the transportation sector. NOx emissions are linked to significant health impacts and can exacerbate asthma attacks, the EPA has said”

It might surprise you to hear that The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, whose members include companies Cummins Inc, Navistar International Corp and Daimler Trucks North America, actually supports the new push to raise these emissions standards. The EPA claims that the changed standards will only apply to future truck models though.

 

[shade]

It might surprise you to hear that The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, whose members include companies Cummins Inc, Navistar International Corp and Daimler Trucks North America, actually supports the new push to raise these emissions standards. The EPA claims that the changed standards will only apply to future truck models though.

A cynic might think that they want to sell new trucks and emission related parts, so new regulations will help make that happen, and that those companies have better emissions tech to exploit than their competition.

An optimist might think that they already have a pretty good idea about what's possible, and that they care enough about the environment to see that reduced emissions are good for everyone.

I think the truth lies somewhere between the two.

 

[Buddha.]

Diesel Brothers Hit With $850,000 Fine for Tampering With Truck Emissions

The TV hosts were found guilty of violating the Clean Air Act.

www.thedrive.com