SVreX said:But since when is there a distinction between "particulate matter" and "pollution"? Smog IS particulate matter.
Usually diesel emissions talk about two big contributers. NOx is one and the other is particulate matter. The PM are littearlly tiny pieces of ash for lack of a better word. SMog isn't particulate matter. Smog is fog laden with particulate matter.
It's a poorly written article.. but railing against the media is 2016.. now we just do our own research..
Theoretical question...
What could eventually be the impact on organizations that sponsor events that routinely attract cars with compromised emissions systems?
Like the GRM Challenge...
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I stand corrected.
Looks like we agree it is poorly written.
At the moment, competition only vehicles are not being targeted. That's a different political discussion, and one that has been ongoing for a couple of years. As long as the Challenge cars are no longer street vehicles and will never be street vehicles again, no problem.
Note that Targa Newfoundland cars have had to run cats for at least 12 years. It's in the rule book.
Just this week I said out loud "I'd have a hard time not killing someone that did that to me.": rolling coal into my window.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
I hear you, but I think that varies by state.
In South GA, I had no enforcement of emission compliance. I routinely brought cars to the Challenge that were not emissions compliant (but were legal in my local area).
I suspect a rather larger percentage of Challenge vehicles (more than half?) still intend to be driven on the street.
Javelin said:It's not hard to maintain emissions compliance and still have good performance with modern cars.
So yeah, Berk those guys.
Exactly! If you need to remove emission devices to gain more performance, change hobbies.
There are so many aftermarket parts that DO meet EPA standards for street use that there really isn't a need for ones that don't.
And to coal roll someone else because they drive a Prius or Tesla or ?? just makes you a dick and you deserve what the law throws at you.
The rules do not vary by state, the EPA is federal. Whether GA decides to actually do any enforcement is another matter. But just because they're not enforcing it doesn't mean it's legal. Pulling a cat off a car is illegal in any state.
The EPA has stated that they're going after the source, not the customers. But if GRM is encouraging competitors to defeat emissions devices, that's not good. Still, we're talking about a few dozen cars per year, unlikely to show up on the EPA's radar unless something is done to draw attention to it. Like a TV show highlighting coal rolling.
If GRM wants to protect themselves from unwanted attention, you may see rules put into place where the cars can no longer be street cars. It's unlikely that GRM will actually require more than a signed statement from competitors to this effect.
I'm not worried about the challenge at all. The rules already say that registering your car for the street is optional. How you get your car to the challenge is also optional. Similar events where both kids of cars are present would probably handle similarly.
If you do register your car, that's between you and the state. If you don't, don't drive it on the street.
Too simple?
Keith Tanner said:The rules do not vary by state, the EPA is federal. Whether GA decides to actually do any enforcement is another matter. But just because they're not enforcing it doesn't mean it's legal. Pulling a cat off a car is illegal in any state.
Nailed it. You're also right they won't go after consumers. It would not be worthwhile.
SVreX said:"36 times more pollution and 21 times more particulate matter..." OK, I'll admit I'm no expert here, and welcome anyone who is. But since when is there a distinction between "particulate matter" and "pollution"? Smog IS particulate matter.
And what does 36X more pollution than "with proper emissions systems" mean?Does that mean the output is 36X more than from the factory? Or 36X more than what could potentially be achieved?
If the truck they bought was a 2019 model year, 36X the OEM output may not be a gigantic actual quantity. If the truck was a 1990 model, then 36X OEM output could be enormous.
Since they have already separated "pollution" from "particulate matter", I am assuming "pollution" must mean non-particulate matter. Gaseous?
If diesel emissions outputs are primarily particulate matter, perhaps there is a very minute quantity of gaseous output? Is 36X significant?
This is a complex topic, so I apologize for the lengthy response. "Emissions" is a vague term that covers anything created during combustion. Could be invisible gaseous stuff like NOx, CO2, or Hydrocarbons and it could be particulates that you can see. The NOx and particulates are the ones that are particularly bad for human health, while CO2 is the primary focus these days from an environmental perspective.
NOx causes smog and makes breathing difficult. It's formed by high temps in the combustion chamber. Therefore, lean combustion increases NOx. This is why diesels in particular have high NOx emissions compared to gasoline cars. There are generally three ways to cool combustion: reducing compression ratio, altering fuel timing/quantity, and adding EGR. You might notice that there's a trade off here, where you can improve fuel economy and reduce hydrocarbon emissions, but that creates more harmful NOx. You can increase compression and improve power, but that increases NOx emissions. You can use less EGR and get more of both, but that creates more NOx.
Hydrocarbons (HC) are basically fuel. Burning more fuel cools combustion, which reduces NOx but hurts fuel economy and increases particulates and HC emissions. The earliest diesel emissions standards focused on reducing NOx and resulted in loss of fuel economy, and implementation of particulate filters in the exhaust as companies just added more fuel to the combustion process or in some cases power was reduced via decreasing compression too. Basically, they tried to meet emissions standards by cleaning up the combustion process, and it worked until standards tightened.
Particulates come from burning more fuel. This results in cooler combustion temps, and lower NOx, but increased HCs. They're nasty because they burrow deep into lungs and like to cause cancer.
Over time, emissions standards tightened and manufacturers added additional tech to remain compliant. Now, modern diesel uses an aftertreatment system composed of different parts. There's a catalyst that converts hydrocarbons, a particulate filter that catches soot, and an SCR that neutralizes NOx by spraying DEF into the exhaust. There's also EGR and variable turbos that work on the engine to impact emissions. Together, these systems are good enough that a manufacturer can run a dirtier combustion process, and rely on the aftertreatments to clean them up enough to meet today's standards. In fact, the combustion process and aggressive fuel timing has allowed dirty enough combustion that we now have 1000ft-lbs trucks sold to the general public with full warranties.
So, it's entirely possible that a 2019 3/4 ton truck with deleted or modified emissions devices is emitting more than a 2001 3/4 ton truck that had no emissions rules at all. But without knowing exactly what was modified or deleted completely, and how the ECU was tuned after the fact, it's hard to say exactly how the claimed "emissions" increases break down. Generally, diesels struggle with NOx and Particulates, so I'd guess that the article stipulating "emissions" is referring to NOx emissions, but it could also be HCs or CO2. It's also possible (perhaps even likely) that all of them are higher than current standards at the same time.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Plenty of enthusiasts chip their cars & trucks for more power, drivability, and efficiency. I'd guess this represents <2% of the cars you see on the road (diesel trucks excluded). The overall impact is minimal, and 99% of the time is completely under the radar w/minimal impact. The 1% that broadcasts their over-the-top violations on TV will impact everyone else.
We don't see any need for a rule stating Challenge cars can't be driven on the street because it's not a street event, it's a competition for race cars held on a race track.
I see the pitchfork mafia has arrived in full swing here.
Anyways - question for Keith: How does stuff like this affect your ability to sell a race header that is for off-road use only?
These guys were essentially the equivalent of the idiot in the E36 M3box Honda Civic doing burnouts at the nice car meet: Everybody suffers as a result.
. Even when the filters and catalysts remain on the truck, EPA testing has shown that simply using a tuner to recalibrate the engine (for the purpose of improving fuel economy) can triple emissions of NOx.
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/performance-diesel-inc-clean-air-act-settlement-information-sheet
In reply to NickD :
More like the Fast and the Furious.
Like my insurance agent used to say, everything was fine until that stupid movie came out
Are these the guys with the big beards and big muscles? I think I've seen promos on TV for the show but have never watched it.
I think we can all agree (unless you're a brodozer) that brodozers and their coal-rollers suck.
But randomly hating all diesels because of a small handful of bum-lickers roll coal is not a logical conclusion. As of 2008 (translated: most of the passenger diesels on the road today) have to comply with the same EPA emissions limits as gas cars. Diesel also has a higher energy density, it is lighter weight so it requires less energy to distribute, and typically provides far better MPGs. It also contains fewer volatile compounds so there is less pre-combustion stuff (evaporation). You can't just say "I hate diesel because it smells bad," without ignoring the significant benefits it provides. What comes out the tailpipe is only a tiny fraction of its footprint.
Just because you think it smells funny doesn't mean it's bad. This is like the argument that "it's natural so it must be good for me." I don't see those people eating night shade or drinking hemlock.
So, just cause i only mess with older stuff:
How will this effect it? Will this get rifld of megasquirt and holly carbs? What about single plane intakes? Bolt on efi? Chinesium speed parts for more universal applications?
Seems like the linked discussion and this one are talking primarily about 15 year old and newer cars. Only one of mine meets that, and its my daily. After 15 years, lots and lots of the examples are gone from lots and lots of the country. Remaining cars should be exempted or done tailpipe style. After all, i cannot get a factory cat converter for my 95 Silverado. Does the aftermarket now have to certify the replacement for my exact spec truck?
Fueled by Caffeine said:Keith Tanner said:The rules do not vary by state, the EPA is federal. Whether GA decides to actually do any enforcement is another matter. But just because they're not enforcing it doesn't mean it's legal. Pulling a cat off a car is illegal in any state.
Nailed it. You're also right they won't go after consumers. It would not be worthwhile.
I've actually asked, and the EPA will never go directly after consumers- it's not in their charter. They can only go after companies, and ones that their business crosses state lines.
States can, since they are the ones required to make sure the air quality meeds the federal regulations.
My 2 DDs are a 94 and a 96.
EPA and even CARB laws are pretty much set up to be interpretive. If you can't get specific EO cats for your truck, there will be alternatives and common sense leniency. When I was in CA, I was planning on a Viper V10 swap in an LT1 car. The referee and I had about a 15 minute conversation in which he outlined incredibly common sense solutions that he wanted to see before he certified it.
Not to mention, if you put universal cats in, no one will notice. Many CARB-EO emissions parts (like the cats for my 96 Impala) are the exact same part with a different part number and an EO stamp that says they're legal. They just charge more for that part number because they had to pay the additional certification money for CA. I replaced mine with cheap, performance-type universal cats from Summit and it passed for 7 years (4 tests) in CA when I lived there.
alfadriver said:Fueled by Caffeine said:Keith Tanner said:The rules do not vary by state, the EPA is federal. Whether GA decides to actually do any enforcement is another matter. But just because they're not enforcing it doesn't mean it's legal. Pulling a cat off a car is illegal in any state.
Nailed it. You're also right they won't go after consumers. It would not be worthwhile.
I've actually asked, and the EPA will never go directly after consumers- it's not in their charter. They can only go after companies, and ones that their business crosses state lines.
States can, since they are the ones required to make sure the air quality meeds the federal regulations.
Correct. The EPA is not an enforcement agency. There aren't EPA cops. They punt to states for enforcement.
In reply to STM317 :
Excellent feedback. Thanks.
Curtis73 said:I think we can all agree (unless you're a brodozer) that brodozers and their coal-rollers suck.
But randomly hating all diesels because of a small handful of bum-lickers roll coal is not a logical conclusion. As of 2008 (translated: most of the passenger diesels on the road today) have to comply with the same EPA emissions limits as gas cars. Diesel also has a higher energy density, it is lighter weight so it requires less energy to distribute, and typically provides far better MPGs. It also contains fewer volatile compounds so there is less pre-combustion stuff (evaporation). You can't just say "I hate diesel because it smells bad," without ignoring the significant benefits it provides. What comes out the tailpipe is only a tiny fraction of its footprint.
Just because you think it smells funny doesn't mean it's bad. This is like the argument that "it's natural so it must be good for me." I don't see those people eating night shade or drinking hemlock.
I think people are really upset that the diesel aftermarket community is basically runing the scene for all of us. Not that diesel in general sucks (although it does... ;)).
BTW, diesel may get better gas mileage, but since it contains a lot more carbon in it, that net benefit is offset by the higher carbon content. Sort of like an extreme example of coal v natural gas.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
