m7060 engine warning 50% power reduction

[Hay Dude]

Whoa.....lets back up a step here. We started by talking about older pre-emissions tractors and field equipment....But do we actually know that California has made laws against using that older tractors & equipment? I haven't heard anything on that.

As for taxes, I did look into that, and frankly for the average guy they don't seem all that high for what people get in return. Especially so compared to where I live. Maybe we ought to ask some Californians, there may be more to this. After all, it's their state. Not mine.

It's a sad thing about today's news and stories being so biased. I don't like to be cynical, but opinions are so emotionally loaded these days that I'm thinking something needs to change. Since it's most probably me who needs to change, I'm going to start right now to put the same effort into forming opinions as expressing them. That just makes common sense. Keep things neutral until I've had time to check into the facts & think about both sides.

Shucks, on this old equipment discussion we haven't yet heard anyone from California weigh in.
For all we know, this whole thing about California not allowing people to use older pre-emissions equipment may just be another social media/political rumor.

rScotty

The piece I bought was a backhoe. Is that considered older farm equipment? I don’t know. But I do know California enacted stricter pollution controls on diesel powered equipment years ago.
Many of us who operate equipment for a living also have seen tags on vehicles and equipment regarding “ California emissions “
These emissions are stricter than the rest of the country.
So to answer your Whoa question, yes, CA has stricter emissions standards.
I dont know if 1950’s antique Farmall tractors are part of that. I do know backhoes are

 

[deserteagle71]

From reading the entire document it seems that the use of pre-existing farm equipment will not be banned. But if you are a commercial farmer and use your equipment hard - how often can you rebuild it before it needs to be replaced? Here is a screen shot of the heading of the document:

 

[Rustyiron]

I've read years ago, like 4 or 5 what Hay Dude is talking about with construction equipment and hd trucks in Cali being scrapped or sold out of state OR retrofitted due to these regs. This is where the breaking point comes as the "retrofitting" costs did not make financial sense. This was in a national construction equipment TRADE MAGAZINE. I don't think they do a print version anymore.
Equipment Today | For Construction Pros

 

[rScotty]

I've read years ago, like 4 or 5 what Hay Dude is talking about with construction equipment and hd trucks in Cali being scrapped or sold out of state OR retrofitted due to these regs. This is where the breaking point comes as the "retrofitting" costs did not make financial sense. This was in a national construction equipment TRADE MAGAZINE. I don't think they do a print version anymore.
Equipment Today | For Construction Pros

Retrofitting looks better and better as the the alternatives look more ugly.

The alternative of going to go back to the old days of polluted air isn't going to work. Nobody wants that, so we can't go there.

And it seems like new equipment has a bunch of potential big dollar problems & downsides with their current mismash of pollution control equipment and regs.

So maybe a retrofit could work. Is anyone looking into it?
What if we just filter the carbon out of the exhaust and put it back in the ground? Does that work?
rScotty

 

[Hay Dude]

The retrofit options pretty much suck. Very few people opt for them.
The way I look at it, with tailpipe emissions down 90% since the 70’s, we have done an amazing job and as each pre tier 4 tractor or older vehicle is scrapped and replaced with a newer vehicle, it only gets better with each passing day.
Lets let that system work and not throw bricks through windows because a small minority of polluting equipment and vehicles remain.
Lets not force people to spend a years income to replace a vehicle because of emotional teenagers, unreasonable politicians and Ivy League professors.

 

[Fallon]

Retrofitting looks better and better as the the alternatives look more ugly.

The alternative of going to go back to the old days of polluted air isn't going to work. Nobody wants that, so we can't go there.

And it seems like new equipment has a bunch of potential big dollar problems & downsides with their current mismash of pollution control equipment and regs.

So maybe a retrofit could work. Is anyone looking into it?
What if we just filter the carbon out of the exhaust and put it back in the ground? Does that work?
rScotty

Modern emissions stuff really doesn't care about CO2 actually. Oxides of nitrogen (diesel & gas) or soot primarily. The oxides of nitrogen are the ones that create the brown smog clouds over cities. Soot is "just" particulate matter that hangs in the air & gets into lungs causing breating problems. Asthma issues, other breathing issues & stuff not unlike mild black lung.

 

[Rustyiron]

The retrofit options pretty much suck. Very few people opt for them.
The way I look at it, with tailpipe emissions down 90% since the 70’s, we have done an amazing job and as each pre tier 4 tractor or older vehicle is scrapped and replaced with a newer vehicle, it only gets better with each passing day.
Lets let that system work and not throw bricks through windows because a small minority of polluting equipment and vehicles remain.
Lets not force people to spend a years income to replace a vehicle because of emotional teenagers, unreasonable politicians and Ivy League professors.

Not to mention the massive so called "footprint" of turning how many tons of dirt into a modem 30 ton excavator. Then there's the wire, plastics, glass, paint, rubber etc., etc. That must be considered against the gain, but that doesn't contribute to their argument.
Same thing as obammys cars for cash fiasco.