Is DEF that bad?

[pmsmechanic]

Nobody needs 400+HP.
Nobody

True... But it sure is nice and makes a vehicle a lot more fun to drive .

 

[wolc123]

Yes, even worse actually. Your way better off with an older tractor that didn’t need it. That’s the main thing that is keeping the prices way up on low-hour pre-emissions tractor’s.

 

[Hay Dude]

Yes, even worse actually. Your way better off with an older tractor that didn’t need it. That’s the main thing that is keeping the prices way up on low-hour pre-emissions tractor’s.

It’s crazy how all my equipment is worth more than I paid for it 5+ years ago.
However, it sucks on the other end and you need to buy something, it’s outrageous expensive.

 

[rockinbbar]

Yes, even worse actually. Your way better off with an older tractor that didn’t need it. That’s the main thing that is keeping the prices way up on low-hour pre-emissions tractor’s.

That's part of it.

Another reason is the huge taxpayer funded govt incentives for trading in older tractors that don't have DEF or DPF emissions systems.
Lots of people don't know it, but the govt subsidies on those older tractors can be worth much more than the tractor itself. (Remember the "Cash for Clunkers" program?)

The subsidies are administered per state.

https://www.epa.gov/dera/state

It would shock you how much you can get for an older tractor via taxpayer money. For example: a 2002 100 horsepower tractor is worth $90,127 under the program.

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/air-quality/terp/rebate/rebate-23-agricultural-tractors.pdf

 

[TimberFarm]

That's part of it.

Another reason is the huge taxpayer funded govt incentives for trading in older tractors that don't have DEF or DPF emissions systems.
Lots of people don't know it, but the govt subsidies on those older tractors can be worth much more than the tractor itself. (Remember the "Cash for Clunkers" program?)

The subsidies are administered per state.

https://www.epa.gov/dera/state

It would shock you how much you can get for an older tractor via taxpayer money. For example: a 2002 100 horsepower tractor is worth $90,127 under the program.

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/air-quality/terp/rebate/rebate-23-agricultural-tractors.pdf

I'd like to see what NC offers. I have an old tractor I would like to upgrade. I would be more than happy to unload if I could get a grant to buy a new one.

 

[5030]

It would shock you how much you can get for an older tractor via taxpayer money. For example: a 2002 100 horsepower tractor is worth $90,127 under the program.

I just read and downloaded the entire document and nowhere in it did it give the amount you posted. In fact it never stated any amounts at all.

I guess if I were to believe you and sitting on two Pre 4, actually T3 Interim tractors that are both factory rated at 87 horsepower and a 1997 Ford 7.3 diesel pickup truck with NO emissions on it what so ever, I could cash in to the tune of about 240,000 bucks.

I don't believe it but I will check it out with people that actually know.

Problem with that is, I'd have to replace them with the troublesome T4 junk and in my case have to use DEF as well.

Both my Pre 3 tractors are of 2002 vintage FYI and neither one gives me any trouble either.

 

[ning]

your body has hlmultiple ways of removing that soot whereas the chemicals absorb and cause DNA changes faster.

I also doubt that the burn-off is purely co2, but the whole reason that sub-2.5um particulates are so bad is that they penetrate deep into the lungs and cause significant irritation and the lungs can not easily get rid of the ultra fine particles. Some of them are so fine that they actually get absorbed directly into the blood as well.

DPFs do very good work.
Once again, DEF is an entirely separate system than the DPF+regen, though your truck during regen is still pumping DEF which I'm sure contributes to that stink as well.

Like it or not, the internal combustion engine sucks, it's terribly inefficient and seriously dirty in every way. I don't know that we have a better system in EVs right now but that doesn't mean your (and my) precious diesels are faultless.

 

[rockinbbar]

It would shock you how much you can get for an older tractor via taxpayer money. For example: a 2002 100 horsepower tractor is worth $90,127 under the program.

I just read and downloaded the entire document and nowhere in it did it give the amount you posted. In fact it never stated any amounts at all.

I guess if I were to believe you and sitting on two Pre 4, actually T3 Interim tractors that are both factory rated at 87 horsepower and a 1997 Ford 7.3 diesel pickup truck with NO emissions on it what so ever, I could cash in to the tune of about 240,000 bucks.

I don't believe it but I will check it out with people that actually know.

Problem with that is, I'd have to replace them with the troublesome T4 junk and in my case have to use DEF as well.

Both my Pre 3 tractors are of 2002 vintage FYI and neither one gives me any trouble either.

You know, I don't know who you are, but I'm beginning to get a bit tired of you calling me a liar.

First it was over freezing point of DEF. Now you are calling me a liar about mentioning govt programs providing grants to trade in old diesel equipment.

It's really not my fault you are too stupid to open the pdf file I attached for the amounts you say aren't there. But they are there... I'll take a picture so you don't have to bother following the link provided earlier. Here ya go, from the link I posted:

Here's that link again, in case you care to try it yourself. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/air-quality/terp/rebate/rebate-23-agricultural-tractors.pdf

Frankly, I don't GAF whether you believe me or not. Don't care what your state applications are to the federal program either. I just posted some facts and backed them up with some pretty simple links so that anyone who cares to, can check into that, or at least see that the govt is incentivizing getting rid of older diesels. Your state may vary, but the federal program has existed for years, and I have a good friend who got a nice, new Case 105hp cab tractor from it when he traded his old, broke down POS in under the program.

Do us both a favor and in my future posts, please know in advance, they weren't in any way intended for you.

Have a nice day.

 

[workinonit]

It would shock you how much you can get for an older tractor via taxpayer money. For example: a 2002 100 horsepower tractor is worth $90,127 under the program.

I just read and downloaded the entire document and nowhere in it did it give the amount you posted. In fact it never stated any amounts at all.

I guess if I were to believe you and sitting on two Pre 4, actually T3 Interim tractors that are both factory rated at 87 horsepower and a 1997 Ford 7.3 diesel pickup truck with NO emissions on it what so ever, I could cash in to the tune of about 240,000 bucks.

I don't believe it but I will check it out with people that actually know.

Problem with that is, I'd have to replace them with the troublesome T4 junk and in my case have to use DEF as well.

Both my Pre 3 tractors are of 2002 vintage FYI and neither one gives me any trouble either.

Not sure where you came up with $240K. Your 87 HP tractors aren't worth as much as the higher HP. Depending on what year yours are they would be worth south of $100K together in this program. Unless they are older than 2003.

 

[Atypical_decorum]

I also doubt that the burn-off is purely co2, but the whole reason that sub-2.5um particulates are so bad is that they penetrate deep into the lungs and cause significant irritation and the lungs can not easily get rid of the ultra fine particles. Some of them are so fine that they actually get absorbed directly into the blood as well.

DPFs do very good work.
Once again, DEF is an entirely separate system than the DPF+regen, though your truck during regen is still pumping DEF which I'm sure contributes to that stink as well.

Like it or not, the internal combustion engine sucks, it's terribly inefficient and seriously dirty in every way. I don't know that we have a better system in EVs right now but that doesn't mean your (and my) precious diesels are faultless.

You keep saying deep into the lungs. You don't exchange that much air "deep into the lungs" unless you're really huffin and puffin. And mucus nor cillia don't care what the um is of the particle. They move out bacteria and viruses the same way.

If you were chronically dehydrated sitting behind an exhaust stack belching black smoke for years while you were breathing deeply and you had had already or were concurrently frying your goblet cells and cilia because you're also a smoker, then yes, you would be correct. However, chemical vapor don't work the same way. It 100% goes to wherever the air travels to and is absorbed into the cells to cause DNA damage.

In the event that soot particulate gets lodged in a cell, the immune system will try to gobble it up or the cell will try to push it out. If the cell survives and the two former things failed, the damage the particulate causes is what can cause the cell to act a fool.

There's a few other ways, but I'm not explaining them to you. Go get your own medical degrees.

EV is likely worse. Look up lithium mines and its battery production pollution. Look up the few economical methods of charging that junk. How do they produce that power?

Finally, what carcinogens come out of the the infallible burn cycle you're touting as the it's saving grace/what's the ash particulate size?

 

[RSR]

You keep saying deep into the lungs. You don't exchange that much air "deep into the lungs" unless you're really huffin and puffin. And mucus nor cillia don't care what the um is of the particle. They move out bacteria and viruses the same way.

If you were chronically dehydrated sitting behind an exhaust stack belching black smoke for years while you were breathing deeply and you had had already or were concurrently frying your goblet cells and cilia because you're also a smoker, then yes, you would be correct. However, chemical vapor don't work the same way. It 100% goes to wherever the air travels to and is absorbed into the cells to cause DNA damage.

In the event that soot particulate gets lodged in a cell, the immune system will try to gobble it up or the cell will try to push it out. If the cell survives and the two former things failed, the damage the particulate causes is what can cause the cell to act a fool.

There's a few other ways, but I'm not explaining them to you. Go get your own medical degrees.

EV is likely worse. Look up lithium mines and its battery production pollution. Look up the few economical methods of charging that junk. How do they produce that power?

Finally, what carcinogens come out of the the infallible burn cycle you're touting as the it's saving grace/what's the ash particulate size?

I'm afraid Ning is right, and you're wrong, about PM2.5 incursion into the body and bloodstream. I'm not saying chemicals don't also cause problems, but ignoring the dangerous consequences of PM2.5 on personal health is naive.

See, for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014765131630029X

 

[ericm979]

This paper is a good summary (with tons of references) on the various damages caused by PM2.5: Recent Insights into Particulate Matter (PM2.5)-Mediated Toxicity in Humans: An Overview

 

[TimberFarm]

You know, I don't know who you are, but I'm beginning to get a bit tired of you calling me a liar.

First it was over freezing point of DEF. Now you are calling me a liar about mentioning govt programs providing grants to trade in old diesel equipment.

It's really not my fault you are too stupid to open the pdf file I attached for the amounts you say aren't there. But they are there... I'll take a picture so you don't have to bother following the link provided earlier. Here ya go, from the link I posted:

Here's that link again, in case you care to try it yourself. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/air-quality/terp/rebate/rebate-23-agricultural-tractors.pdf

Frankly, I don't GAF whether you believe me or not. Don't care what your state applications are to the federal program either. I just posted some facts and backed them up with some pretty simple links so that anyone who cares to, can check into that, or at least see that the govt is incentivizing getting rid of older diesels. Your state may vary, but the federal program has existed for years, and I have a good friend who got a nice, new Case 105hp cab tractor from it when he traded his old, broke down POS in under the program.

Do us both a favor and in my future posts, please know in advance, they weren't in any way intended for you.

Have a nice day.

Does the dealer have this grant info?
I would seriously like to see more of the details.
I have a 2005 Jinma 35hp that I paid $6000 for new. I would love to get a grant for a new cab tractor. I bought a new LS MT573 last year and the A/C has me spoiled. I still need a small tractor to do light duty work around the property.
I am surprised dealers don't publicize this program.

 

[Paystar]

Finally, what carcinogens come out of the the infallible burn cycle you're touting as the it's saving grace/what's the ash particulate size?

The 2013 Western Star dump I ran couldn't work an 8 hour day without calling for a parked regen. The DataStar display on the dash showed real time fuel useage. It would burn 5 US GALLONS of fuel per regen.

So tell me there is no pollution coming out of that stack while it uses 5 gallons of fuel to burn all the particulates off. LOL

Same with my Cat loader at the mine. When it's doing a regen as I'm working you almost can't be in the cab because it burns the eyeballs right out of your head.

 

[Atypical_decorum]

I'm afraid Ning is right, and you're wrong, about PM2.5 incursion into the body and bloodstream. I'm not saying chemicals don't also cause problems, but ignoring the dangerous consequences of PM2.5 on personal health is naive.

See, for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014765131630029X

I don't recall saying it doesn't infiltrate cells. As a matter of fact I recall saying it can, in an entire truncated paragraph! However, walking through a plume or two of smoke won't give you cancer.

I also said the chemicals are just as dangerous if not more so. Trading one danger for another is not wise. If you're going to quote my intentions, do it correctly.

Why not illustrate the actual incorrect information in my post you found instead of throwing mud at a wall hoping something will stick like "those" people do.... If I am wrong, so be it. But you need a better point then showing an article that says the dangers of soot, which is common knowledge.

 

[5030]

Not sure where you came up with $240K. Your 87 HP tractors aren't worth as much as the higher HP. Depending on what year yours are they would be worth south of $100K together in this program. Unless they are older than 2003.

Just had both appraised by my Kubota dealer and the 2002 cab unit, he told me was worth 56 grand outright sale and the OS was worth 35 grand outright sale and he also told me he could sell them both in less than a week. I paid 52 new for the cab unit and 16 for the OS used. The OS is a 2003 and has been very completely gone through by my personal friend and Kubota head technician at the dealership.. Both are T3 Interim and in reality I'd never sell them as I don't want to deal with the EPA mandated crap. he's told me in that past that all the new stuff is a constant PITA and he really don't like fiddling with them either but he has to as it is his job.

I did download the complete document and carefully read it and again, I see nowhere where there is any 'value' applied. Gonna give a copy to my dealer when I get called into work next week. I'm sure he has a few new units that need to be delivered or implements to be delivered as well.

Mine ARE NOT going anywhere soon is all I can say, no matter what the gummit says, so long as I can get ORD for them as well as consumable parts, they stay right here.

I found the post interesting (why I downloaded and read the entire document) but not gonna happen here.

 

[5030]

... and I do know for a fact that Kubota Tractor Corporation has a policy concerning reman engines installed in tractors where the original engine had a catastrophic failure and need to be replaced. Their policy is that the original engine (no matter what the issue was that caused the catastrophic failure), that engine MUST be destroyed by putting a hole in the block before Kubota Tractor will issue a new engine, warranty or not, regardless. Dennis has destroyed a few, he uses his Smith 44 magnum to 'ventilate' the block and pictures of that have to be forwarded to Kubota Tractor as well. I did read in the document where their 'proof of destruction' is a 3" diameter hole in the block.

The whole thing reminds me of the 'Cash for Clunkers' debacle where perfectly good vehicles were destroyed by adding a sand / oil mixture to the crankcase and the running the motor wide open until it self destructed. All that did in reality was make used cars increase in value and make it more difficult for people that could not afford a new vehicle, keep their old one longer. Nothing more and I will say that during that debacle, I had a 'so called clunker car' that I didn't destroy because it was perfectly viable for me as a second vehicle and when I did sell it to a private owner, he was elated to get it.

The whole thing stinks far as I'm concerned and all I can see by doing it is, it will only increase the rate of inflation as more money out there in 'fantasy land' does.

Probably a lot of posters weren't around back then but I was.

Said before and will say again, the EPA is staffed by a bunch of college people with no real practical experience. All they do is come up with mandates the industry has to adhere to and all at the consumers expense.

Why I'll never own anything diesel powered that is T4 final or better. You realize that this T4 mandate is only a stop on the road to eliminating diesel engines entirely I hope.

 

[RSR]

I don't recall saying it doesn't infiltrate cells. As a matter of fact I recall saying it can, in an entire truncated paragraph! However, walking through a plume or two of smoke won't give you cancer.

I also said the chemicals are just as dangerous if not more so. Trading one danger for another is not wise. If you're going to quote my intentions, do it correctly.

Why not illustrate the actual incorrect information in my post you found instead of throwing mud at a wall hoping something will stick like "those" people do.... If I am wrong, so be it. But you need a better point then showing an article that says the dangers of soot, which is common knowledge.

Ummm, your first paragraph, which was the premise of your entire post. To refresh your mind, Ning stated PM2.5 particles were bad because they penetrated deep into the lungs, and could enter the bloodstream. You responded,

"You keep saying deep into the lungs. You don't exchange that much air "deep into the lungs" unless you're really huffin and puffin. And mucus nor cillia don't care what the um is of the particle. They move out bacteria and viruses the same way."

You clearly state PM2.5 is only a concern if you are huffing and puffing. This is incorrect. It can/will still penetrate into the lungs.

You also claimed the cilia will remove any particles that enter, irrespective of their diameter. That is also incorrect. Cilia are very ineffective at clearing PM2.5 and smaller. That is precisely why they can so easily end up in the bloodstream and cause all sorts of problems, which you then tried to downplay.

 

[Atypical_decorum]

Ummm, your first paragraph, which was the premise of your entire post. To refresh your mind, Ning stated PM2.5 particles were bad because they penetrated deep into the lungs, and could enter the bloodstream. You responded,

"You keep saying deep into the lungs. You don't exchange that much air "deep into the lungs" unless you're really huffin and puffin. And mucus nor cillia don't care what the um is of the particle. They move out bacteria and viruses the same way."

You clearly state PM2.5 is only a concern if you are huffing and puffing. This is incorrect. It can/will still penetrate into the lungs.

You also claimed the cilia will remove any particles that enter, irrespective of their diameter. That is also incorrect. Cilia are very ineffective at clearing PM2.5 and smaller. That is precisely why they can so easily end up in the bloodstream and cause all sorts of problems, which you then tried to downplay.

Resting tidal volume won't circulate much air "deep" into the lungs. Argue that if you want, but look where most primary lung cancers form. That was and is my point, which I see was a bit above your reading comprehension. Your poignent brain power is adding the the wrong emphAsis to the wrong syllAble.

You contradicted your self there, too, champ. I didn't say any. I said the particulate that doesn't get swept gets absorbed where it can cause issue. Please reread what I wrote, or at least read the entirety of what I wrote prior to your condemning and accusatory resposes.

I'm not backing off because you are incorrect on your premise. You're trying to twist my words then say it's incorrect while leaving out other context I've also written. Luckily it's all still on the forum for other to read.

While my specialty isn't oncology, my patients are also frequently cancer patients. None of them developed cancer from a single 2.5um particule deep in a lung. If it wasn't purely genetic, it was repeated exposure to the irritant/carcinogen.

 

[Atypical_decorum]

Ummm, your first paragraph, which was the premise of your entire post. To refresh your mind, Ning stated PM2.5 particles were bad because they penetrated deep into the lungs, and could enter the bloodstream. You responded,

"You keep saying deep into the lungs. You don't exchange that much air "deep into the lungs" unless you're really huffin and puffin. And mucus nor cillia don't care what the um is of the particle. They move out bacteria and viruses the same way."

You clearly state PM2.5 is only a concern if you are huffing and puffing. This is incorrect. It can/will still penetrate into the lungs.

You also claimed the cilia will remove any particles that enter, irrespective of their diameter. That is also incorrect. Cilia are very ineffective at clearing PM2.5 and smaller. That is precisely why they can so easily end up in the bloodstream and cause all sorts of problems, which you then tried to downplay.

I think you should go get an electric tractor and give all your diesel powered equiptment to me. Save the world and condemn me. 2 birds with 1 stone.