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

[shade]

This has everything to do with it. Might as well load the guns in the diesel truck and surrender them all at the same time.

I knew this was a Bilderbergian conspiracy.

 

[shade]

That was in regards to your recommendation, not in regards to regulations of which the :law" has little to do with.

Regarding the regulations, how many decimal places out for the various emissions do you go before they are safe......01%, .001%, .0001%.........000000001%?

Major reductions have been made in the last 30 years. Tailpipe emissions are damn near zero.

Just curious.

Oh, and is CO2 a pollutant in your opinion?

Those regulations are the law. Whether you agree with them is immaterial to their legal status.

I'm not arguing for or against the regulations, and I'm not in a position to say what emission levels should be. Are you?

Tailpipe emissions are hardly "damn near zero", but they have been reduced dramatically in recent decades. Is that bad?

CO2 can certainly be a pollutant, just as most anything can. What's your point?

 

[lucilius]

Interesting to see folks commenting on this issue. Is it a question of law or instead of individual perspective/preferences regarding what local, state and federal laws one agrees with and chooses to follow. Most don't consider it a quandary to be a vocal supporter of the right to break an EPA law about pickup truck emissions standards/equipment but demand, for example, that foreigners comply with immigration laws...and of course, vice versa. One could of course break with the popular tribes and champion both the right to roll coal and open borders (laws don't matter) and the converse: banning the rolling of coal and similarly demanding that all foreigners obey immigration law (primacy of law), but strangely enough these seem to be the outlier (damned anarchists and big government sheep) positions and likely offensive to the galvanized cherry pickers. Logical compromise seems to be a shrinking dot on the horizon.

 

[shade]

Interesting to see folks commenting on this issue. Is it a question of law or instead of individual perspective/preferences regarding what local, state and federal laws one agrees with and chooses to follow. Most don't consider it a quandary to be a vocal supporter of the right to break an EPA law about pickup truck emissions standards/equipment but demand, for example, that foreigners comply with immigration laws...and of course, vice versa. One could of course break with the popular tribes and champion both the right to roll coal and open borders (laws don't matter) and the converse: banning the rolling of coal and similarly demanding that all foreigners obey immigration law (primacy of law), but strangely enough these seem to be the outlier (damned anarchists and big government sheep) positions and likely offensive to the galvanized cherry pickers. Logical compromise seems to be a shrinking dot on the horizon.

In my opinion, a law should either be enforced, modified, or repealed. When laws are ignored but left in force, subjectivity reigns, and there's often a bad outcome. Individuals - knowingly or unknowingly - paint themselves into legal corners, sometimes with disastrous results.

This topic reminds me of the Montana LLC registration dodge that's starting to see a crackdown, too.

 

[kahos]

It's always possible that an aftermarket tuner will gain EPA approval. With enough on-board monitoring and intelligence, maybe a company will develop an add-on system that can stay within the emission bounds and still deliver better performance for a specific engine, as opposed to the more generic tuning OEMs need do for large numbers of vehicles.

I don't think some guy with EFI live and a laptop will be able to outdo the top engineers at some of the largest automotive OEMs AND come in under EPA targets. It'll be even more of a challenge considering the expanding efforts from OEMs to lock down their ECM using encryption.

With all the attention over VW and FCA getting busted for their vastly superior "real world" numbers vs their EPA submissions, I doubt it.
The resources needed to submit to enough testing to live up to that scrutiny sounds astronomical and out of reach.

 

[shade]

I don't think some guy with EFI live and a laptop will be able to outdo the top engineers at some of the largest automotive OEMs AND come in under EPA targets. It'll be even more of a challenge considering the expanding efforts from OEMs to lock down their ECM using encryption.

With all the attention over VW and FCA getting busted for their vastly superior "real world" numbers vs their EPA submissions, I doubt it.
The resources needed to submit to enough testing to live up to that scrutiny sounds astronomical and out of reach.

Probably so, but there are a few rare exceptions. Speaking of VW, Uwe Ross has a long history of doing what was supposed to be impossible with OEM software.

 

[ttengineer]

In my opinion, a law should either be enforced, modified, or repealed. When laws are ignored but left in force, subjectivity reigns, and there's often a bad outcome. Individuals - knowingly or unknowingly - paint themselves into legal corners, sometimes with disastrous results.

This topic reminds me of the Montana LLC registration dodge that's starting to see a crackdown, too.

Georgia just recently impounded several dozens of vehicles that were dodging tax in the state through that loophole.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

There’s no way to put 2020 parts on an old truck in any way that actually is a benefit. You’d be VIN swapping. Which is fraud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Leave the VIN alone and you can mix and match to your little hearts content.

Most locales are fine with powertrain swaps the model year of the vehicle or newer as long as they at least meet the vehicles original emission requirements.

Hence you can drop an injected 2015 5.3 into your '87 Chevy pickup with all the emissions stuff. I have heard people even make 49 or 50 state legal swap kits for them.

Try to drop a '87 305 into your '15 Silverado... yeah they are going to get grumpy.

 

[Bayou Boy]

Leave the VIN alone and you can mix and match to your little hearts content.

Most locales are fine with powertrain swaps the model year of the vehicle or newer as long as they at least meet the vehicles original emission requirements.

Hence you can drop an injected 2015 5.3 into your '87 Chevy pickup with all the emissions stuff. I have heard people even make 49 or 50 state legal swap kits for them.

Try to drop a '87 305 into your '15 Silverado... yeah they are going to get grumpy.

Are you seriously suggesting someone is going to attempt to swap a current model Cummins or Powerstroke into a 1980s truck? And that will become a viable way to skirt the diesel regulations? Because that’s what this conversation is about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DaveInDenver]

I don't think some guy with EFI live and a laptop will be able to outdo the top engineers at some of the largest automotive OEMs AND come in under EPA targets.

Companies like Roush and AMG are capable of finding power that the OEM left on the table and still come in under the EPA rules imposed. They have the backing of the factory to do that but engine tuning isn't top secret rocket surgery. Lots of engineers have the knowledge and access to information and not all of them work for a major company, which comes with plenty of shackles.

They have several interests at stake. They are required to follow EPA and DOT rules, which are themselves somewhat arbitrary because not all regulatory bodies around the world have the exact same emissions or safety requirements. But OEMs also must meet profit goals, which filters down to how much time an engineer can spend developing his design and how much it'll cost to make.

They are perfectly happy shooting the engineers and going to production when they reach the "good enough" level. They don't want to spend any more NRE money than they have to, every minute not spent on design is bottom line for the company. So they stop when the schedule and budget tells them to, not when the design has been iterated to find even lower emissions or more power, economy or drivability or whatever other metric you might be after.

 

[JaSAn]

Are you seriously suggesting someone is going to attempt to swap a current model Cummins or Powerstroke into a 1980s truck? And that will become a viable way to skirt the diesel regulations? Because that’s what this conversation is about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. It is done a lot.
Cummins into old iron; keeping the (then) Cummins emission controls keeps it legal.
I know of at least 8 Cummins 4BT and four Ram 6 cylinder diesels into original ('46 - 73) Dodge Power Wagons, perfectly legal in most of US.

 

[Bayou Boy]

Yep. It is done a lot.
Cummins into old iron; keeping the (then) Cummins emission controls keeps it legal.
I know of at least 8 Cummins 4BT and four Ram 6 cylinder diesels into original ('46 - 73) Dodge Power Wagons, perfectly legal in most of US.

We are talking about current trucks and the suggestion was made to swap EVERYTHING over so you essentially have a new truck with an old VIN. Read back. Nobody is swapping a DEF equipped Cummins into an old truck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[plumber mike]

We are talking about current trucks and the suggestion was made to swap EVERYTHING over so you essentially have a new truck with an old VIN. Read back. Nobody is swapping a DEF equipped Cummins into an old truck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps I typed that wrong yesterday. People who swap the stuff don’t want EVERYTHING, otherwise it is just easier to run a new truck. But how about the Mahindra Roxor? That is, best I can tell, just a vin swap.
But new trucks are a good source of usable parts. If the crackdown is a success, just look at how many good sewer trucks will likely become parts.

 

[Dalko43]

While I get it, I am not a fan of more government over-reach.

I believe this to be a case of "do as I say, not as I do"
The amount of pollution the US government puts out is HUGE. They DGAF.

Also, what is the actual percentage of private citizens that delete their diesel emissions equipment? I would wager maybe 1-2%.

First the gubment outlaws diesel mods, next it's your larger aftermarket tires as they increases fuel consumption, next it's your steel ARB bumper as it's a hazard to other motorists. Etc. Etc.

But yes I agree, Coal rollers are retarded.

Also, diesel sucks anyway unless you need to tow more than 15k pounds regularly.

A Ford 7.3 or 6.2 makes waaay more sense than a 1050 ft lb diesel for 99% of people.

This sentiment is unique to USA and USA alone. Everywhere else in the world, diesels are preferred for trucks and 4x4’s over gasoline...it’s not even close.

I just finished driving a diesel Hilux several thousand km’s around southern Africa; the driving experience and range was so much better than anything by a gasoline Tacoma or Ranger would have offered. The low torque makes driving over rough roads a breeze and the range meant that I didn’t have to fret over fuel stops.

Americans have come to think of diesels as useful only for towing big loads, but that’s a mindset born out of ignorance. The reality is that any moderately built up 4x4 or truck, big or small, handles itself much better with a diesel. Only exception might come down to highway passing, but that really comes down to knowing your vehicle’s optimal rpm range.

7.3l v8 by Ford is nothing special...sure it will have decent torque, as do any number of other gasser v8’s, but fuel economy will be mediocre at best. It’s laughable to suggest that someone is going to be more eco friendly buying a gas guzzling v8 instead of an emissions intact diesel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

This sentiment is unique to USA and USA alone. Everywhere else in the world, diesels are preferred for trucks and 4x4’s over gasoline...it’s not even close.

I just finished driving a diesel Hilux several thousand km’s around southern Africa; the driving experience and range was so much better than anything by a gasoline Tacoma or Ranger would have offered. The low torque makes driving over rough roads a breeze and the range meant that I didn’t have to fret over fuel stops.

Americans have come to think of diesels as useful only for towing big loads, but that’s a mindset born out of ignorance. The reality is that any moderately built up 4x4 or truck, big or small, handles itself much better with a diesel. Only exception might come down to highway passing, but that really comes down to knowing your vehicle’s optimal rpm range.

7.3l v8 by Ford is nothing special...sure it will have decent torque, as do any number of other gasser v8’s, but fuel economy will be mediocre at best. It’s laughable to suggest that someone is going to be more eco friendly buying a gas guzzling v8 instead of an emissions intact diesel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think GM in the 80’s kinda hosed diesels reputation and set back any decent advances for light diesels in the US for a long time. They were trying to stuff their 350 diesel in everything and they would not stay together, a lot of people got burned by that engine. Just when they started getting interesting in the early 00’s the EPA had to crash the party. Oddly enough DEF has kinda helped some of the silliness go away.

If the 6.0 wasn’t a time bomb for its first couple years the 7.3 would have been the new 6.9. But as people kept putting headgaskets and turbos and wiring and coolers and everything else on the 6.0... the ol’ 7.3 they traded in a year or two before that only ever leaked oil everywhere and asked for a glow plug once in awhile started looking pretty good. 6.4 while not as bad as the 6.0 had some growing pains out of the gate and struggled to get much better mileage than the V10... so more gas on the 7.3 fire.

Plus the 7.3 just sounds good. The VGT on the 6 liter sounds cool too. After that diesels got scared to sound like a diesel...