Light duty diesels-emission tests now and in the future

[savedbyzero]

Having lived in Cali all my life I have to agree with some of the other posters comments....however, that being said there isn't another state I would live in...

OK....we have the smog police here, and being the owner of an on road diesel, it gripes me that Cali is considering smogging the early ,99 and above trucks. This is one of the reasons I bought a diesel. I only own 1 car now that requires smog.
I just don't see how they are going to smog these trucks. First off my truck didn't come from the factory with a cat, or EGR...let alone a DPF. It's even got an open crankcase breather pipe from the factory. So I meet all the requirements for that year. The reason Cali is starting with the 99 year is because Dodge/Cummins went to electronic injection pump controls from 98 1/2 on...and I believe Ford had an EGR around then. But we still have open crankcases...I wouldn't own a truck newer than 06 just because of the emission controls they choke them to death with...just look at the lack of fuel mileage these new trucks get. But then they do have some power/torque....but that's another topic....


My Cummins powered weedeater
Cummins powered lawn tractor
And yet another diesel capable of blocking the sun, and smokin the ricers...

 

[RobertN]

Me too.

And, I remember when they started enforcing smog, and testing, what about 1980 or so?

My '69 LTD was a stock big block car. Ran great for a big car. It did not have a smog pump or cats or anything. It still had to go thru the smog test. I do remember, it had to have a plug put on the vacuum advance to the distributor.

They will probably start testing the same way. Even for vehicles with just very basic or no equipment, they will have to meet the requirement for the model year.

I am guessing it will not be long before they add motorcycles to the list too. I ride a Harley, mostly stock. I can just imagine the effect on all those guys running huge cams, big pipes, cams ect that did not save their original equipment. I remember guys trying to find smog pumps and hoses for their Mustangs and Camaro's back around '80 when they started testing gas motors!

I don't think they will make light trucks add equipment; I think it will be just like when they started testing cars.

Heavy equipment is another story, as is already being seen.

Having lived in Cali all my life

I just don't see how they are going to smog these trucks. First off my truck didn't come from the factory with a cat, or EGR...let alone a DPF. It's even got an open crankcase breather pipe from the factory. So I meet all the requirements for that year. The reason Cali is starting with the 99 year is because Dodge/Cummins went to electronic injection pump controls from 98 1/2 on...and I believe Ford had an EGR around then. But we still have open crankcases...I wouldn't own a truck newer than 06 just because of the emission controls they choke them to death with...just look at the lack of fuel mileage these new trucks get. But then they do have some power/torque....but that's another topic....

 

[Diamondpilot]

One other thought on the F-350 with the V-10. Go for a 2005 or newer. 3 reasons. First they upped the power. Second they went to coil spring front suspension and in turn makes much tighter turns. Thirdly they put the Torque Shift tranny behind it from the diesel. All in all makes a much better package.

Chris

 

[flusher]

Thanks again for the input.

If I go with something like a 2005 F350 SRW V-10 4WD automatic, I'd be in the $17K+ price range for one in excellent condition. This changes my strategy since at that price pretty much maxes out my budget. My plan was to get a 1997-00 Ram 3500 with the 5.9L CTD for $7-9K (probably from craigslist) and use it exclusively for towing. My everyday vehicle would be either my current 01 F150 (short cab-long bed, 4.6L gasser) or something like a 2-year old Ford Focus or Hyundai Elantra. I saw several of these econoboxes at CarMax in the $9-10K range.

So that V-10 would have to be my everyday vehicle as well as my occasional towing rig. I'd be putting 10-12 Kmiles per year on it (4-5K miles towing, 7-8K without the trailer). I don't have the figures handy, but I don't think that the V-10 is noted for fuel economy compared to something like a Cummins 5.9L turbodiesel or to a Focus or an Elantra. Something tells me that a 6-cyl diesel with pretty good mileage capability would be a better move than a 10-cyl gasser with not so good mileage --- just on cylinder count alone. However, I may be wrong.

 

[Highbeam]

The fords didn't have EGR until the 2003/2004 switch to the 6.0 liter engine. No cat on my 2000 model either. The 99 models and up did have a crankcase vent vented to the intake system though even though the IH truck applications just blew the crankcase fumes onto the ground.

I think they picked 1999 model year because that was 10 years ago.

 

[Skyco]

Actually the 96 Ford Powerstrokes have the crankcase vent back into the air intake too.
I added an aftercooler to my 96 and kept having trouble with the hoses blowing off under high boost due to the oil vapor in the intake air lubing them up.
Mine now vents out to the atmosphere, no more blown off hoses
Really stinks right after an oil change for a few hundred miles until some of the lighter components in the oil cook off

 

[JasG]

This link is just some intersting information about CARB, the eco-freaks who we can thanks for the emissions rules and testing. Most if not all of this stuff starts in CA. Just keep in mind this is a Blog, but I do believe the information.



Construction Equipment blog

 

[themichelob]

Yeah, don't you just hate those guys who insist on drinking clean water and breathing clean air? Even worse, some of 'em suggest we leave an inhabitable for our grandchildren!! **** those "freaks"!! Regards, Mike

 

[ultrarunner]

Yeah, don't you just hate those guys who insist on drinking clean water and breathing clean air? Even worse, some of 'em suggest we leave an inhabitable for our grandchildren!! **** those "freaks"!! Regards, Mike

I don't know anyone for dirty water and dirty air and I hope someday to have grandchildren...

As I see it the problem is with implementation... The United States has long had a system of protections that Grandfather's usage or delays implementation until sale/purchase.

Apparently this is no longer good enough because the reality is perfectly good, serviceable low hour equipment is being forced into retirement... unless the equipment is owned by a goverment entity...

If it was really about clean water and clean air the burden would not fall almost soley on the private sector and would not target equipment operating and maintained as designed by private individuals.

How is it my 1995 60 hp chipper that is used less than 10 hours a year doing mandatory fuel-load reduction is a threat to anyone?

When CA first rolled out the mandatory smog retro-fit program in the 1960's it only applied at time of transfer/sale...

I have a problem with forced retirement without compensation no matter what the guise...

 

[JasG]

Yeah, don't you just hate those guys who insist on drinking clean water and breathing clean air? Even worse, some of 'em suggest we leave an inhabitable for our grandchildren!! **** those "freaks"!! Regards, Mike

Before you respond just maybe you should do a little research. How is burning 50% more fuel going to "save the planet"? That is what is happening for these engines to meet the 2007 spec's and 2010 is only going to get worse. How is (if you had read on the subject) using false data to justify a point going to help the planet?? How is using EGR which in a Diesel makes the engine produce more soot and reduce engine life by 20-50% going to save the planet? How is putting equipment only a couple of years old our to pasture going to save the planet?

Why isn't the airline industry or the military have to follow these laws?

Your responce shows that you didn't even look at the link. Or even know what is going on with this subject.

Caterpillar sued the EPA back the late 90's due to they had better way of getting to cleaner engines. Courts rules the EPA and CARB could dictate not only the emissions, but how they had to made to get there. How is doing it the "government" way ever been the most efficent way?

Show me anyone who wants to have dirty water or air??

CARB is about eco freaks who want us to go back to bikes making these rules and timetables. It has never been about saving the planet.