Is DEF that bad?

[RSR]

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.

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.

My 5 year old has better reading comprehension than you. Go back and read Nings post. Slowly. He says nothing of cancer. He talks about irritants and pollutants from PM2.5 that can cause all sorts of health problems. You appear to have somehow interpreted this to mean PM2.5 only causes lung cancer, which is a laughable conclusion, or position, from which to make your argument.

It's pretty telling that in your attempt to disparage my intelligence, the very sentence and post in which you do so is littered with spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.

 

[5030]

the very sentence and post in which you do so is littered with spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.

That seems to be the norm on this website across all posts and comments no matter what sub forum they are in.

 

[Atypical_decorum]

My 5 year old has better reading comprehension than you. Go back and read Nings post. Slowly. He says nothing of cancer. He talks about irritants and pollutants from PM2.5 that can cause all sorts of health problems. You appear to have somehow interpreted this to mean PM2.5 only causes lung cancer, which is a laughable conclusion, or position, from which to make your argument.

It's pretty telling that in your attempt to disparage my intelligence, the very sentence and post in which you do so is littered with spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.

You caught me. I'm typing on my phone inbetween seeing patients. Very telling indeed...

Though, you didn't say anything of substance. Only throwing mud.


Do you actually have anything to add or just here to be a troll?

 

[RSR]

You caught me. I'm typing on my phone inbetween seeing patients. Very telling indeed...

Though, you didn't say anything of substance. Only throwing mud.


Do you actually have anything to add or just here to be a troll?

Gee, I hope you don't always make such simple mistakes when distracted. I sure wouldn't want a Doctor with that lack of focus and inability to pay attention to detail treating me for any reason. THAT is an example of trolling.

You know, kind of like saying

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

or

"... throwing mud at a wall hoping something will stick like "those" people do...."

My first post wasn't trolling. It was merely to point out that your stated reasons for dismissing Ning's post about the importance of PM2.5 were incorrect.

 

[Atypical_decorum]

Gee, I hope you don't always make such simple mistakes when distracted. I sure wouldn't want a Doctor with that lack of focus and inability to pay attention to detail treating me for any reason. THAT is an example of trolling.

You know, kind of like saying

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

or

"... throwing mud at a wall hoping something will stick like "those" people do...."

My first post wasn't trolling. It was merely to point out that your stated reasons for dismissing Ning's post about the importance of PM2.5 were incorrect.

I don't know that you've added anything to the discussion yet. Please do if you're able.

 

[RSR]

I don't know that you've added anything to the discussion yet. Please do if you're able.

You're right again.

Justifying my point by citing a peer-reviewed journal article that has been cited over 700 times in the literature about the effects of PM2.5 doesn't add anything to the conversation. (Did you bother to read the article, or the subsequent one that was posted by ericm979?)

Clearly conjecture and unsupported opinions add more to the conversation. How foolish of me to think otherwise.

 

[Atypical_decorum]

You're right again.

Justifying my point by citing a peer-reviewed journal article that has been cited over 700 times in the literature about the effects of PM2.5 doesn't add anything to the conversation. (Did you bother to read the article, or the subsequent one that was posted by ericm979?)

Clearly conjecture and unsupported opinions add more to the conversation. How foolish of me to think otherwise.

This is a tractor forum. I'm not looking to discuss the mechanics of COPD, cancer, or other ailments with you, particularly with your vastly superior intillect of which I stand in awe.

I asked about DEF/DPF systems because I found a tractor I liked, but had questionable EPA mandated junk on it.

Do you have anything to add, or have you exhausted Wikipedia and Google scholar?

 

[XSKIER]

I do. Both my 2017 and my 2024 have the Duramax 6.6L with 445HP and 910 pounds of torque. Because that was the only diesel option available.

The 2024 is 470/975, and kinda thirsty. I average 12.5 in my 2500 empty and towing over 6000 miles.

 

[WM75Guy]

My bad, I was looking at the 2017 and 2023 specs. The 2024 Duramax is 470/975, so more bragging rights. Fuel mileage is less than what I had hoped for, but I didn't buy it for that. Headed out in the morning to get 110 square bales of coastal to stock up for the winter.

 

[Hay Dude]

My bad, I was looking at the 2017 and 2023 specs. The 2024 Duramax is 470/975, so more bragging rights. Fuel mileage is less than what I had hoped for, but I didn't buy it for that. Headed out in the morning to get 110 square bales of coastal to stock up for the winter.

The 2024 is 470/975, and kinda thirsty. I average 12.5 in my 2500 empty and towing over 6000 miles.

Thats another thing that makes me laugh about these ridiculous, unnecessary power numbers.
A 3/4-1 ton truck can’t tow enough to come close to utilizing all that power.

A good place to start increasing fuel efficiency would be to stop the HP wars.

 

[Rustyiron]

..... yeah but they sure can do it fast!
I wish all the efforts (emissions) were put into a compromise between economy and power. It just seems to me that gallons you don't consume (economy) are much cleaner than any "treated" gallons used to make excessive power.
To put it another way, if all the brain power, tech and science were put into mpg's reducing the fuel consumed..... most of us would be very happy with 300hp and a steady 20-30? mpg. I would.

 

[Hay Dude]

A 475HP diesel single rear wheel pickup doesn’t have the pin weight capacity or stopping power to tow a trailer matched to it’s HP power ratings.

 

[pmsmechanic]

What some of you are saying doesn't make sense. More HP does not equal less fuel economy. We have fuel economy records on 2 different TDI Jettas. One with 120 Hp and one with 160-170 HP. The higher HP Jetta consistently delivers 5-7 mpg more than the lower one did. My wife drives about 45 miles one way to work so it's easy to get very real numbers on calculated fuel economy. We have approximately 6-7 years of records for the lower hp Jetta. The higher hp Jetta was purchased used this spring so obviously we don't have as much data on that car but from what we've seen so far....

I think lower mileage is caused by heavier weights of newer vehicles and excessive strangling of engines by emissions controls. EGR is very detrimental for engine reliability and a lot of fuel mileage is lost with the DPF system. Just remember that emission standards are met in the cheapest way possible for the manufacturers. I'm sure there is better technology available. It just costs more and unreliability is paid for by the customer.

 

[5030]

The more junk you hang on Rudy's engine. the less efficient it becomes and face the facts, that 'Junk' is all lowest bidder junk. While I don't track fuel consumption, real world fuel usage with my M9 cab tractor running my new round bailer producing 4x5 net rounds, I can run almost 2 days on 30 gallons of ORD. During a typical hay season for me 3 cuts), I use maybe 200 gallons of diesel total. That is cut with the rotary disc bine, rake with the Kuhn Masterdrive Rotary and bail in rounds plus load the semi's, with the idle tractor. I don't ever get my panties in a wad over fuel usage as I bundle the fuel usage, maintenance and everything else related to it into the cost per bale produced or should I say, mi wife does.

She's the one that determines how much the per bale price is after she rolls everything in, not me, I'm terrible with that, always have been.

When it's hot out, I never shut off the climate controlled cab unit, it idles all the time except when here parked. I like being cool on a hot day.

T4 tractors give me the creeps anyway. Too much stuff to fail at an inopportune time.

Lately, it seems that most of the in shop repairs at the Kubota dealership where I work part time has been emissions hardware related or owners not reading their supplied manual and not performing the regeneration properly and putting the unit into 'limp mode' and then having to come to the shop to reset everything and/or having the DPF cannister cleaned or replaced because it's loaded with unburned soot.

Of course the 'stupid mistake' stuff still comes in. Latest one was a large M series FWA unit that the owner somehow ripped off a gearbox hard feed line underneath the cab and kept on trucking until the gearbox ran dry and that was that. 15 grand in parts alone and there isn't any warranty on stupid either.

Far as getting cancer or some other affliction from diesel exhaust, I could care less and besides, everyone has been breathing in air borne pollutants all their lives anyway. Me included and at 73, I believe I've done pretty good anyway.

 

[Rustyiron]

I think lower mileage is caused by heavier weights of newer vehicles and excessive strangling of engines by emissions controls. EGR is very detrimental for engine reliability and a lot of fuel mileage is lost with the DPF system. Just remember that emission standards are met in the cheapest way possible for the manufacturers. I'm sure there is better technology available. It just costs more and unreliability is paid for by

^^^ This is part of what I was trying to describe above.
It's the "bigger picture" that I was trying to illustrate that seems to be invisible to the religion of green.
Example;
Engine A delivers 300 hp and average economy of 28 mpg and is equipped with only minimal exhaust treatment but with all the electronic fuel and timing managment equipment.

Engine B with 450 hp and all of the present day smog equipment and delivers 14mpg average.

In 100k miles engine B has used twice the gallons of fuel (7143g) as engine A.(3672) that's how much cleaner in total than 50% (3672g) less fuel through a lesser treatment?
That's 3672 gallons that didn't get burned, so in my thinking engine A should have a 3672 gallon "credit" of any pollution measurement against the highly "smogged" but tier 4 approved engine B.
Did I explain "the big picture" ok?
I questioned this big picture thing back with cash for clunkers program. All of those "dirty" vehicles have what I think is called "inherent energy", this is the energy that is consumed in the production of the steel, glass, copper, plastics.... everything including trucking. Were the new "clean" cars clean enough to offset these already built cars that probably have 5 years of life expectancy left? Was there any net gain environmentally?

 

[5030]

Was there any net gain environmentally?

Of course not but tell the greenies that.

 

[4570Man]

A 475HP diesel single rear wheel pickup doesn’t have the pin weight capacity or stopping power to tow a trailer matched to it’s HP power ratings.

Even if you push the legal numbers aside and load the wagon you’ll start breaking stuff. I expect the computer will derate in the lower gears to help prevent that problem. Heavy duty trucks that actually put down that power have way bigger drive components. Even medium duty trucks with less power still have a lot heavier duty drive components.

 

[Rustyiron]

Of course not but tell the greenies that.

That's what I think, but I truly would like to know these answers (environmentally) to my "big picture" end results.
"They're" blind faith in their beliefs (or is it an agenda) and obviously avoiding any and all of the consequences. Some of them are my big picture (with diesel emissions) but there are many others like lithium mining (batteries), solar (farms) efficiencies and eventual disposal. The same for wind. Mention any of these in a discussion and they've immediately label you and the discussion is now a useless argument. The same goes for carbon and global (insert term of the day here).
And "they" wonder why we're skeptical.

 

[Hay Dude]

That's what I think, but I truly would like to know these answers (environmentally) to my "big picture" end results.
"They're" blind faith in their beliefs (or is it an agenda) and obviously avoiding any and all of the consequences. Some of them are my big picture (with diesel emissions) but there are many others like lithium mining (batteries), solar (farms) efficiencies and eventual disposal. The same for wind. Mention any of these in a discussion and they've immediately label you and the discussion is now a useless argument. The same goes for carbon and global (insert term of the day here).
And "they" wonder why we're skeptical.

If they revealed the truth, their entire theory would go down the tubes And China would be awfully mad that their EV/battery/solar panel takeover of the world would come to a halt.

 

[Paystar]

This is a tractor forum. I'm not looking to discuss the mechanics of COPD, cancer, or other ailments with you, particularly with your vastly superior intillect of which I stand in awe.

I asked about DEF/DPF systems because I found a tractor I liked, but had questionable EPA mandated junk on it.

Do you have anything to add, or have you exhausted Wikipedia and Google scholar?

Since this is going right off the rails again, LOL, here's what I'll say to your question as you just defined it.
If you found a tractor you like, and you have a good dealer for that tractor, go ahead and buy it. The emissions system will likely work. Just be aware that at some point years down the road if you keep it, you MAY have to spend some money on it. And there may be times you MIGHT have to leave it running after you are done your chore if it's in the idle of a regen.
AND you have to adapt to it by learning to not leave it sit idling.