Diesel Tuner Jailed

[Rp930]

No, I don't.

I also dont like having the government get in it's own way in the trying to make things more "clean" at the expense of fuel efficiency...so those that are running diesel engines are forced to buy and use more fuel to do things they used to be able to do more inexpensively previously. In my personal experience as an owner-operator trucker, fuel was far and away my biggest overhead expense and I didnt have one of the fancy engines that needed additives.

So that's why the sad face. Will that suffice for an explanation?

It’s a trade off. More fuel for better emissions. It’s no different than it was with gas engines in the mid to late 70’s. The cars were pigs, gutless and got worse mileage but polluted less. At that time many cities had big smog problems which although not perfect aren’t near as bad. It had to happen. Today’s population combined with those old cars would be a disaster today.

Sponsored

 

[Langwilliams]

at some point you reach diminishing returns in terms of reduction in emissions compared to the cost and complexity added. It would be nice if they built prototypes an studied the systems in the real world before mandating them.

If they do real world evaluations before requiring them they seem to accept crappy results.

 

[Rp930]

at some point you reach diminishing returns in terms of reduction in emissions compared to the cost and complexity added. It would be nice if they built prototypes an studied the systems in the real world before mandating them.

If they do real world evaluations before requiring them they seem to accept crappy results.

True but it’s come a long way. There is unbelievable performance available today from many manufacturers and they burn clean.

 

[Langwilliams]

True but it’s come a long way. There is unbelievable performance available today from many manufacturers and they burn clean.

Same story with EFI. I remember in 1987 thinking "WOW the new 5.0 Mustang has 235 HP!"

 

[got3fords]

The cars were pigs, gutless and got worse mileage but polluted less.

What?

 

[Rp930]

What?

Strange. But true.

 

[Cmar]

It is an interesting trade off.
EGR is there to reduce peak combustion temperature and therefore NOx production. However reducing peak combustion temperature also increases particulates because the fuel burn completeness is reduced, therefore you have to add a particulate filter to trap the soot.
And /or you reduce the compression ratio to the point where it won't fire when cold without the help of glow plugs, and this further increases particulates because of reduced combustion temperature and pressure.

But you can introduce computer controlled high pressure common rail injection which is much better at measuring fuel spray than the old mechanically injected diesels. and therefore making the fuel easier to light and burn and making multiple injections per cycle possible.
However they are expensive to build, and even more expensive to service, and are pretty fragile compared to the old mechanical systems. Even a trace of water and your HP pump and injectors are toast, and your whole fuel system has to be removed and carefully cleaned.

And you still don't catch all the Nox because now you need to add a turbocharger to make up for some of the lost fuel efficiency. Which increases the peak combustion pressure - which creates additional Nox. So you add SCR and add blue (urea) injection to reduce the NOx to nitrogen and water.

But urea is a nasty corrosive chemical which starts attacking the system responsible for delivering it from the first moment it is used. (that's why even stainless steel urinals often rust)

In the mean time the EGR is steadily gunking up your intake system, to the point that about every 160,000 Km or so you have to remove and clean out the intake manifold and ports or the whole engine begins to have the responsiveness of a drugged snail.
And the DPF is never 100% cleaned by a burn so eventually you have to replace it because it will block up with metallic ash from engine oil additives.
Which is why you have to use expensive special DPF friendly (low ash) oil which isn't as lubricating, so you increase engine wear, so your modern diesel needs better quality metal and bearings to have a reasonable life.
But now all manufacturers are pushing ridiculously long service intervals so that their fixed price service contracts actually make them more money so that increases engine wear again as well.

It's such a balancing act that no wonder manufacturers are not releasing many new diesels, just increasingly tweaking and strangling their older models.

Sorry mechanical rant over.

 

[JohnnyO]

This is why Congress needs to pass the REINS Act. Any regulation with a cost over $100 million must be voted on by Congress.

 

[got3fords]

Strange. But true.

Please prove it. This sounds like hogwash. You didn't successfully prove to me a high MPG diesel emits more carcinogenic emissions.

 

[Rp930]

Please prove it. This sounds like hogwash. You didn't successfully prove to me a high MPG diesel emits more carcinogenic emissions.

I’m not your secretary. The information is readily available. Do it yourself. Believe what you want I don't care. I REALLY don’t care.

 

[DukeCanBuildit]

It’s a trade off. More fuel for better emissions. It’s no different than it was with gas engines in the mid to late 70’s. The cars were pigs, gutless and got worse mileage but polluted less. At that time many cities had big smog problems which although not perfect aren’t near as bad. It had to happen. Today’s population combined with those old cars would be a disaster today.

I’m pretty sure my ‘70s Roadrunner had less hp than my Ranger and slower 1/4 mile times. Gas mileage? I don’t know - I was young and didn’t care because gas was probably 60¢ a gallon. Sure, it was quicker than a Plymouth Fury or a Ford LTD but it was still a pig - same as my brother’s ’Cuda and the neighbour’s Charger when you stack them up against today’s cars.

But, man they were cool!

 

[Chris M]

I’m pretty sure my ‘70s Roadrunner had less hp than my Ranger and slower 1/4 mile times. Gas mileage? I don’t know - I was young and didn’t care because gas was probably 60¢ a gallon. Sure, it was quicker than a Plymouth Fury or a Ford LTD but it was still a pig - same as my brother’s ’Cuda and the neighbour’s Charger when you stack them up against today’s cars.

But, man they were cool!

Those WERE the days!
My land yacht was a '74 Olds Cutlass Salon...had a factory 4bbl. And yeah, when I opened that up it did visibly move the fuel needle. It was a very nice car, and I traded it when gas hit 75 cents a gallon...for a Datsun B-210 hatchback (huge mistake!). But I saw gas prices continuing to rise and was about to get married and knew I needed to be more financially responsible.
But the Cutlass was SUCH a nice ride!

 

[DukeCanBuildit]

Those WERE the days!
My land yacht was a '74 Olds Cutlass Salon...had a factory 4bbl. And yeah, when I opened that up it did visibly move the fuel needle. It was a very nice car, and I traded it when gas hit 75 cents a gallon...for a Datsun B-210 hatchback (huge mistake!). But I saw gas prices continuing to rise and was about to get married and knew I needed to be more financially responsible.
But the Cutlass was SUCH a nice ride!

Very cool! Too bad about trading it but that B-210 turned out to be a bit of a classic of its own.

 

[awd.nv]

This is nuts. He wasn't a vehicle manufacturer skirting regulations in order to sell vehicles in the USA.

Many Rangers in here have a tune on their vehicles, Ford Performance even has their own tune on many of their vehicles, the difference is he was doing it on Diesel trucks and not gasoline engines and ends up in jail is nuts.

 

[Chris M]

Very cool! Too bad about trading it but that B-210 turned out to be a bit of a classic of its own.

It was an absolute shitbox, but thanks for trying to make me feel good about it!

Sponsored