Tier 4 is comming... now is the time to get off the fence!

[Hollow]

IMO it would be better to VOTE this year for those in favor of less regulations especially those coming from the EPA. Like most federal agencies they have done some good but they can't control themselves either and are making all of us suffer the consequences of their actions. End of rant.

Amen!

 

[dave1949]

Cummins Every Time - Off-Highway - Tier 4 Off-Highway - Tier 4 Final

http://www.empire-cat.com/cm/upload...stems/Emissions_Solutions/Empire_Tier4Mlr.pdf

CAT and Cummins claim a 4 or 5 percent increase in fuel efficiency in Tier 4 Final. Deere says it will be the same as Tier 3.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

Cummins Every Time - Off-Highway - Tier 4 Off-Highway - Tier 4 Final

http://www.empire-cat.com/cm/upload...stems/Emissions_Solutions/Empire_Tier4Mlr.pdf

CAT and Cummins claim a 4 or 5 percent increase in fuel efficiency in Tier 4 Final. Deere says it will be the same as Tier 3.

Deere's response is a sales pitch of their weird type of Tier4. (they went a different route than everyone else). Anyone running a DEF system is getting a real fuel gain that Deere may not want to admit. They are changing course on that now.

 

[crazyal]

Cummins Every Time - Off-Highway - Tier 4 Off-Highway - Tier 4 Final

http://www.empire-cat.com/cm/upload...stems/Emissions_Solutions/Empire_Tier4Mlr.pdf

CAT and Cummins claim a 4 or 5 percent increase in fuel efficiency in Tier 4 Final. Deere says it will be the same as Tier 3.

I read the Cummings statement and all I read was that customers will see a increase in fuel efficiency between Tier 4 interm and tier 4 final. Also they talk about an increase in efficiency between tier 3 and tier 4. But I failed to find where Cummings is saying that tier 4 is as good as before these standards came out.

The CAT pr release I stopped reading when they tried to say that equipment operators would be fined by local and state agencies for using equipment made before these requirements came out. I laughed when they actually tried to say owners of older equipment could face legal challenges unless they upgraded.

If you want proof just go over to the truck and trailer section of TBN and ask what people have found out in the real world operation of diesel trucks. I have a coworker that the day his warranty ran out he modified his 2008 F250. He went from 11.5 mpg up to 16 mpg. To me seeing the average fuel mileage increase after the modifications is more proof than a company press release saying how much better off you will be with the new engines.

 

[D7E]

Deere's response is a sales pitch of their weird type of Tier4. (they went a different route than everyone else). Anyone running a DEF system is getting a real fuel gain that Deere may not want to admit. They are changing course on that now.

Not the first time deere have done that either is it !

 

[davewade]

Sorry. As I approach my sixth decade, I realize that anybody that wants to hop in a time machine and go back to the good ol' days has their glasses smogged up.

In the 70's cars didn't start in the winter, the cities were smogged something awful, lead was spewed into the air, jets airplanes were deafeningly loud, full of cigarette smoke with crashes in the news on a regular basis.

Thank god for Tricky Nixon, who created the EPA.

 

[CBW1999]

Sorry. As I approach my sixth decade, I realize that anybody that wants to hop in a time machine and go back to the good ol' days has their glasses smogged up.

In the 70's cars didn't start in the winter, the cities were smogged something awful, lead was spewed into the air, jets airplanes were deafeningly loud, full of cigarette smoke with crashes in the news on a regular basis.

Thank god for Tricky Nixon, who created the EPA.

Good points. I believe that everyone has their own interpretation of "the good ol' days" based on...well........the GOOD 'ol days. Important to remember all aspects of history, good and bad. Fits well with the statement- Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it-

I think we also need to look back in context at WHY the EPA was created and if it is still following that mission. EPA aside, there can be a lot of discussion on organizations that have broadened their scope of interest and action while losing site of the original objective.

 

[oldballs]

Sorry. As I approach my sixth decade, I realize that anybody that wants to hop in a time machine and go back to the good ol' days has their glasses smogged up.

In the 70's cars didn't start in the winter, the cities were smogged something awful, lead was spewed into the air, jets airplanes were deafeningly loud, full of cigarette smoke with crashes in the news on a regular basis.

Golly, I'm 80 and our old clunkers and newer ones started year 'round. We lived by the steel mill and railroad switch yards and burned coal as well in the house with some soot true, yet the air was pretty clean. And our house was painted with the lead, but we didn't try to eat the house. There weren't any jets, the airport was right down town. Cigarettes were a means to learn tolerance of our neighbor/parents...as though I, myself had no bad habits. A few crashes around town and on the US hyways did occur but hours long pile ups didn't happen. And finally, murder was rare as well as the fact that kids played in the street and anywhere else without molestation. I'll take the good ole days anytime...along with a few of the improvements.

 

[dave1949]

This public health EPA origins and overview, written in 1988, is interesting.
Looking Backward: A Historical Perspective on Environmental Regulations | About EPA | US EPA

To some extent, questioning the "mission" of the EPA is a political foil for avoiding the message contained in the science. Recent administrations also politicized science by appointing political operatives to head federal agencies, who in-turn loaded up their staffs with like minded people. The actual scientists were not even allowed to publish or comment on their work without it being cleared by their politically motivated managers. I am not certain if that has improved, I hope so.

Whatever your personal leanings on the issues surrounding the EPA, tax payers have paid for and deserve factual science, not politically filtered science. We can discuss the implications of the science and make our choices--if we know what the true facts are. Making decisions on "flavored" and "filtered" facts is national suicide.

 

[Ductape]

Whatever your personal leanings on the issues surrounding the EPA, tax payers have paid for and deserve factual science, not politically filtered science. We can discuss the implications of the science and make our choices--if we know what the true facts are. Making decisions on "flavored" and "filtered" facts is national suicide.

I couldn't agree with you more. The problem is....... I can't recall much 'recent' science that is NOT politically motivated. Science doesn't seem to be very black and white anymore.