DPF Deletes and Feds

[kstruckcountry]

Something else, we all know how powerful the chemical company lobby is. You think just MAYBE that has something to do with how the government is mandating you to add DEF (which is only around 30% urea, the rest is deionized water BTW) to a diesel engine. You're PAYING to pump MOSTLY WATER into your EXHAUST!!!

[doverarjim]

We paid for years to pump fresh air into the exhaust on cars and trucks!!

[CKNSLS]

Something else, we all know how powerful the chemical company lobby is. You think just MAYBE that has something to do with how the government is mandating you to add DEF (which is only around 30% urea, the rest is deionized water BTW) to a diesel engine. You're PAYING to pump MOSTLY WATER into your EXHAUST!!!

A little homework is in order-

 

It does contain water but the whole system reduces pollution. You are paying so I don't have to breath dirty air. And quite frankly, if you can afford a diesel pickup you can afford to buy DEF.

[Carder09]

I want to know if you are breathing air off the floor. Particulates settle. Though DEF is probably here to stay, get use to it until further tests prove its more harmful down the road.

[CKNSLS]

Although relatively new to North America, SCR is a proven technology
that has been in use in Europe since 2006 with over 600,000 SCR equipped
commercial vehicles in service over hundreds of millions of miles. In
addition, more than 30 million test miles were run in the U.S. before
SCR was released to the market.

 

Doesn't seem to create issues.

[kstruckcountry]

What the tests didn't look at was how DPF equipped vehicles burned more fuel than those without, negating whatever positive effects of pollution control the systems provide.

[CKNSLS]

What the tests didn't look at was how DPF equipped vehicles burned more fuel than those without, negating whatever positive effects of pollution control the systems provide.

 

I am aware that mpg is slightly down with DEF. But now you have to prove the slightly less mpg negates the effect since more fuel is burned; equals more NET pollution with the new system.

 

You made the claim-now prove it. I am waiting.....

[redwngr]

I want to know if you are breathing air off the floor. Particulates settle. Though DEF is probably here to stay, get use to it until further tests prove its more harmful down the road.

The def is for Nox. The dpf is for the particulate. The previous generation (LMM's from 07.5 til end of '10) dealt only with the particulate part.

[MPCOA]

 

 

A little homework is in order-

 

It does contain water but the whole system reduces pollution. You are paying so I don't have to breath dirty air. And quite frankly, if you can afford a diesel pickup you can afford to buy DEF.

 

 

Quite frankly it shouldn't matter to you what someone can afford, take your wealth redistribution crap to the "clean" air of Europe if you care so much.

[kstruckcountry]

First off, a truck that puts out black smoke actually produces less NOx than one that doesn't. NOx is produced by the truck running lean to insure all the fuel burns.

 

Secondly, why do I have to prove anything? What needs to be proven is that the lower NOx production at the tailpipe is actually worth all the resources used to refine, manufacture, and transport the fluid and the loss in efficiency the use of these systems causes. I haven't seen any company that produces DEF or a vehicle manufacturer prove that it is worth it.

[doverarjim]

Danny, since the first emission trys in the 60's to today the American public has spent millions to clean the air up in our country. But this pales in comparsion to what the auto companys have spent to meet what epa says that we need to reduce this time. I am not standing up for the epa because some of their stuff is dumb. But if the overall affects our country in a positive way then we should each be willing to do our small part.

If you could come up with some way to reduce emissions and increase fuel milage I will find the money to sell this system and we will make Bill Gates look like a poor kid.

[kstruckcountry]

That's my problem Jim, do we know that the overall positive effects outweigh the negative?

 

And that's what I'm in school for.

[Chris]

That's my problem Jim, do we know that the overall positive effects outweigh the negative?

And that's what I'm in school for.

Before you tackle emissions, make a hard drive that wont die and remember to back everything up

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Pro

[kstruckcountry]

Sounds like a job for someone in ECE Chris.

[CKNSLS]

First off, a truck that puts out black smoke actually produces less NOx than one that doesn't. NOx is produced by the truck running lean to insure all the fuel burns.

 

Secondly, why do I have to prove anything? What needs to be proven is that the lower NOx production at the tailpipe is actually worth all the resources used to refine, manufacture, and transport the fluid and the loss in efficiency the use of these systems causes. I haven't seen any company that produces DEF or a vehicle manufacturer prove that it is worth it.

With all due respect Danny this is the exact same argument when pollution controls first started to appear in the late 60s and early 70s. (Your not old enough to know this). I have personally lived through this and grew up in The Los Angeles basin back in the day when it had the worst air in the country. Now you can count the number of "bad air days" on one hand. (And California has the most registered cars in the country). Now, I am in Utah and it's like turning back the clock 40 years because they don't have a handle on air quality in the Salt Lake County area (same geography as So. Cal-surrounded by mountains on three sides - but no ocean breezes). So yes, I am now having to live it all over again. If we dug deep enough we could probably find the benefits of this system through Europe's statistics seeing how they have been ahead of the ball on this by several years.

 

Don't fight it Danny, it's here to stay and is in all likelihood cleaning the air.