4 ms·

A late model diesel truck capable of "rolling coal" almost certainly has an emissions defeat device or tune, or has otherwise been modified. These devices are n

by bedast 4y ago

A late model diesel truck capable of "rolling coal" almost certainly has an emissions defeat device or tune, or has otherwise been modified. These devices are not always about trying to extract the performance lost to emissions control. These larping ranchers also want to be able to produce thick black clouds because it's funny to them to mess up someone's day, possibly even their health. It's a point of pride. Hitting one of the sources of this technology is great. I just wish law enforcement would also go after the offenders buying them and using them on public roads as well. The unfortunate truth is I suspect the venn diagram of people who would buy this for the lolz and cops who have the same mentality has significant overlap.

googlryas 4y ago
It's annoying that my state(Colorado) government actually did something about it, but they decided it would be a $100 fine, but first the government will ask you nicely to "fix" your truck(as if anything is broken, vs intentionally modified) first.
no-s 4y ago
> A late model diesel truck capable of "rolling coal" almost certainly has an emissions defeat device or tune, or has otherwise been modified. These devices are not always about trying to extract the performance lost to emissions control. However I tuned my diesel pickup to increase efficiency and torque which included what is known as an “EGR Defeat” and a “Texas Cat”. It’s registered outside of an enforcement area, however just for grins I ran it through an emissions check and dyno and it passed with flying colors without tweaking it for emissions. That’s because between the “tune”, the turbo, and now-mandatory everywhere low-sulfur diesel the emissions are way reduced. Mine is a pre-DEF model. I imagine it will produce substantial NOx if I gun it on a hot day with a heavy load, but that also results in 3MPG performance so I just don’t do that except when absolutely necessary. Not everyone is trying to choke people with black smoke, some of us “ranchers" just want to stop strangling on pointless micro-regulation that doesn’t fit the situation.
- jamespo 4y ago
  What do you need a pickup for?
  - thowawayacount1 4y ago
  - no-s 4y ago
    > What do you need a pickup for? At my age the time wasted by not having the right tool at hand stings bitterly. Especially when the job is absolutely necessary. Mostly use the truck for getting around to rural property off the paved roads where 4x4 and high clearance are necessary, or when hauling stuff is necessary (and diesel torque is often a virtue then). Another use is for trips when a lot of items (maybe additionally dogs and/or horses) have to come along. I often bring a bicycle to facilitate mobility and save on fuel economy (short trips are wasteful). I do a small amount of local driving, but it’s not unusual to only use the truck every other day or two. I might get an EV for short trips if the cost/utility model is favorable. I picked a model that was fairly common, durable, produced in large quantity, known for easy serviceability, and various other qualities I deemed relevant to me personally.
- bedast 4y ago
  I've repeatedly seen the argument that diesels are cleaner than gasoline engines. The problem is, their pollutants are just different. In Texas, diesel trucks don't even go through smog testing. Soot and NOx are toxic. NOx are greenhouse gases and contribute to pollution and climate change. You may not be trying to choke people, but you're doing it anyway by defeating emissions controls. You can justify it all you want, just make sure you understand the consequences. Those "micro-regulations" as you call them exist for a reason.
  - no-s 4y ago
    > You may not be trying to choke people, but you're doing it anyway by defeating emissions controls. You can justify it all you want, just make sure you understand the consequences.Those "micro-regulations" as you call them exist for a reason. But that’s my point. I had my vehicle tested using the applicable defined protocols and it’s not violating the standard. I don’t think the regs are an adequate standard on NOx for urban areas, but it still passed when tested under simulated driving conditions. I didn’t defeat the sensor output (OBD-II interface) to pass testing, I just tuned it to report all the deleted gear was still in place (this turns out to be a feature in the vehicle config, so I didn’t have to hack anything). Otherwise it wouldn’t have progressed through the test. I wasn’t doing all that to get an emissions cert because I don’t need one, I just wanted to verify I wasn’t creating a monster...
Gigachad 4y ago
It’s just plain assault. I’d rather be slapped in the face than blasted with carcinogenic smoke. And there are so many videos of truck drivers assaulting people like this quite obviously intentionally.
LinuxBender 4y ago
Here [1] is some discussion on why someone might want to delete their truck with pros and cons. Here [2] is a diesel mechanic looking at some performance and economy statistics before and after a delete. I think an interesting discussion would be around fuel consumption and the irony of added emissions and fuel consumption from vehicles with emissions controls on them. I am not a fan of people rollin' coal. It is quite dangerous if someone does this in front of another person as it can block their view of the road. That said, I was at the end of my driveway talking to neighbors. His wife drove by and rolled coal. He was upset but I get it. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Tik1yJ1HU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Tik1yJ1HU [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTbPC_c1yos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTbPC_c1yos
- bedast 4y ago
  I was hoping for some actual lab testing and data showing how these emissions controls affect power, mileage, and emissions. Instead, one video makes wild claims with absolutely no data, and the other video takes a very subjective approach to extremely limited testing outside of controlled conditions and admits part of the desire for the change is aesthetic (sound). I would love to see real testing in a controlled environment with repeatable testing and real data being collected. You know, what auto manufacturers spend a lot of time and money doing. Rolling coal isn't a harmless smoke screen. This can literally harm some people. Sure, losing visibility can result in a crash. Asthma also exists. Some people have ended up with permanent lung damage and reduced lung capacity from covid-19. And before reaching for the cabin air filter preventing problems, motorcyclists exist, and some people like rolling their windows down on nice days or don't have a functioning a/c. To some, this isn't just an annoying problem, but can actually cause real harm. I won't argue whether there's benefits to be had making these modifications. It's absolutely true. However, at what point do these benefits outweigh dumping substantially more toxins into the environment?
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    I too would love to see some lab testing. The data from Dark Iron Diesel is probably sufficient for fuel economy and my own personal anecdotal data on deleting the EGR confirms in my mind the damage done to the engine oil and thereby the engine from additional friction is quite noticeable. With the EGR my engine oil is black before 3k miles. Without it the viscosity and color are dramatically different. I suppose I could send oil samples off to a lab but it would just confirm what I can visually see. I also had to rebuild my engine at 250k miles. I am curious to see how many more miles I can get without the EGR. You know, what auto manufacturers spend a lot of time and money doing. I do not believe I would trust anything coming from manufacturers. They have a serious vested interest in people using more fuel, adding corrosive materials to their oil, burning up engines and buying new vehicles. The oil industry would also love to see people using 30%+ more fuel and having to change their engine oil on a very regular basis to compensate for the damaging highly abrasive exhaust being blown back into the crank case. I think it might be a challenge to get some empirical data for the other numbers on diesel engines as the locations that have smog checks and bi-annual testing will not have many people deleting their emissions systems. Conversely locations that do not test such as my state will not have the necessary smog testing equipment to get accurate numbers. I think the best we can get is the limited smog data from the ECU unless someone wants to take their offroad racing truck to a smog center but I suspect those numbers will be off due to racing specific tuning. As for dumping more toxins in the environment I don't think it's super simple to break this down. The smog systems on diesels are just breaking up the particles to make them smaller but at the same time dramatically increasing fuel consumption. I don't like the particles being made smaller. Sure, less irritation to the throat but now those particles can get past the defenses in my lungs and get directly into the blood. This was noticeable when people were testing benzine excretion before and after using isothiocyanates. Anyway using more fuel can only create more particulates even if they are smaller. The particles emitted by a diesel without emissions controls are basically soot which is heavy and falls to the ground. The treated emissions are lighter than air and tend to float in the sky. This is noticeable in places like San Jose from the observatory. If one drives up to the top of the mountain they can not see the city any more from the smog. People are breathing those toxins and to my knowledge there is no debate that smog affects peoples long term mortality and health span. Soot on the other hand would just end up on the ground and on the walls of underpasses with some of it potentially being kicked back up from traffic but would be filtered by the vehicle cab filter assuming one has the windows up. I would be curious how much more dangerous that soot really is than say brake dust. Anyway, all interesting points and maybe some day we can get some empirical data on this provided that manufacturers do not tamper with testing and are not in any way involved. In the mean time I will just do whatever prolongs the life of the engine, gives me back fuel economy and keeps the vehicle reliable.
ck2 4y ago
Want to add: While "rolling coal" is definitely emission bypass, not all emission bypass is as obvious as "rolling coal" Virtually all the trucks on the way to the local construction sites here each morning very obviously are using some kind of defeat either improve mpg or just be "tough guy" with a louder exhaust - they aren't billowing smoke, but definitely smell/sound way worse than a stock truck Imagine if there are a million trucks on the road right now with those bypass and they put out twenty times the pollution of a stock truck. Destruction spread out so it's not obvious but adds up fast.

by bedast 4y ago

googlryas 4y ago

It's annoying that my state(Colorado) government actually did something about it, but they decided it would be a $100 fine, but first the government will ask you nicely to "fix" your truck(as if anything is broken, vs intentionally modified) first.

no-s 4y ago

> A late model diesel truck capable of "rolling coal" almost certainly has an emissions defeat device or tune, or has otherwise been modified. These devices are not always about trying to extract the performance lost to emissions control. However I tuned my diesel pickup to increase efficiency and torque which included what is known as an “EGR Defeat” and a “Texas Cat”. It’s registered outside of an enforcement area, however just for grins I ran it through an emissions check and dyno and it passed with flying colors without tweaking it for emissions. That’s because between the “tune”, the turbo, and now-mandatory everywhere low-sulfur diesel the emissions are way reduced. Mine is a pre-DEF model. I imagine it will produce substantial NOx if I gun it on a hot day with a heavy load, but that also results in 3MPG performance so I just don’t do that except when absolutely necessary. Not everyone is trying to choke people with black smoke, some of us “ranchers" just want to stop strangling on pointless micro-regulation that doesn’t fit the situation.

jamespo 4y ago
What do you need a pickup for?
- thowawayacount1 4y ago
- no-s 4y ago
  > What do you need a pickup for? At my age the time wasted by not having the right tool at hand stings bitterly. Especially when the job is absolutely necessary. Mostly use the truck for getting around to rural property off the paved roads where 4x4 and high clearance are necessary, or when hauling stuff is necessary (and diesel torque is often a virtue then). Another use is for trips when a lot of items (maybe additionally dogs and/or horses) have to come along. I often bring a bicycle to facilitate mobility and save on fuel economy (short trips are wasteful). I do a small amount of local driving, but it’s not unusual to only use the truck every other day or two. I might get an EV for short trips if the cost/utility model is favorable. I picked a model that was fairly common, durable, produced in large quantity, known for easy serviceability, and various other qualities I deemed relevant to me personally.
bedast 4y ago
I've repeatedly seen the argument that diesels are cleaner than gasoline engines. The problem is, their pollutants are just different. In Texas, diesel trucks don't even go through smog testing. Soot and NOx are toxic. NOx are greenhouse gases and contribute to pollution and climate change. You may not be trying to choke people, but you're doing it anyway by defeating emissions controls. You can justify it all you want, just make sure you understand the consequences. Those "micro-regulations" as you call them exist for a reason.
- no-s 4y ago
  > You may not be trying to choke people, but you're doing it anyway by defeating emissions controls. You can justify it all you want, just make sure you understand the consequences.Those "micro-regulations" as you call them exist for a reason. But that’s my point. I had my vehicle tested using the applicable defined protocols and it’s not violating the standard. I don’t think the regs are an adequate standard on NOx for urban areas, but it still passed when tested under simulated driving conditions. I didn’t defeat the sensor output (OBD-II interface) to pass testing, I just tuned it to report all the deleted gear was still in place (this turns out to be a feature in the vehicle config, so I didn’t have to hack anything). Otherwise it wouldn’t have progressed through the test. I wasn’t doing all that to get an emissions cert because I don’t need one, I just wanted to verify I wasn’t creating a monster...

Gigachad 4y ago

It’s just plain assault. I’d rather be slapped in the face than blasted with carcinogenic smoke. And there are so many videos of truck drivers assaulting people like this quite obviously intentionally.

LinuxBender 4y ago

Here [1] is some discussion on why someone might want to delete their truck with pros and cons. Here [2] is a diesel mechanic looking at some performance and economy statistics before and after a delete. I think an interesting discussion would be around fuel consumption and the irony of added emissions and fuel consumption from vehicles with emissions controls on them. I am not a fan of people rollin' coal. It is quite dangerous if someone does this in front of another person as it can block their view of the road. That said, I was at the end of my driveway talking to neighbors. His wife drove by and rolled coal. He was upset but I get it. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Tik1yJ1HU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Tik1yJ1HU [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTbPC_c1yos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTbPC_c1yos

bedast 4y ago
I was hoping for some actual lab testing and data showing how these emissions controls affect power, mileage, and emissions. Instead, one video makes wild claims with absolutely no data, and the other video takes a very subjective approach to extremely limited testing outside of controlled conditions and admits part of the desire for the change is aesthetic (sound). I would love to see real testing in a controlled environment with repeatable testing and real data being collected. You know, what auto manufacturers spend a lot of time and money doing. Rolling coal isn't a harmless smoke screen. This can literally harm some people. Sure, losing visibility can result in a crash. Asthma also exists. Some people have ended up with permanent lung damage and reduced lung capacity from covid-19. And before reaching for the cabin air filter preventing problems, motorcyclists exist, and some people like rolling their windows down on nice days or don't have a functioning a/c. To some, this isn't just an annoying problem, but can actually cause real harm. I won't argue whether there's benefits to be had making these modifications. It's absolutely true. However, at what point do these benefits outweigh dumping substantially more toxins into the environment?
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  I too would love to see some lab testing. The data from Dark Iron Diesel is probably sufficient for fuel economy and my own personal anecdotal data on deleting the EGR confirms in my mind the damage done to the engine oil and thereby the engine from additional friction is quite noticeable. With the EGR my engine oil is black before 3k miles. Without it the viscosity and color are dramatically different. I suppose I could send oil samples off to a lab but it would just confirm what I can visually see. I also had to rebuild my engine at 250k miles. I am curious to see how many more miles I can get without the EGR. You know, what auto manufacturers spend a lot of time and money doing. I do not believe I would trust anything coming from manufacturers. They have a serious vested interest in people using more fuel, adding corrosive materials to their oil, burning up engines and buying new vehicles. The oil industry would also love to see people using 30%+ more fuel and having to change their engine oil on a very regular basis to compensate for the damaging highly abrasive exhaust being blown back into the crank case. I think it might be a challenge to get some empirical data for the other numbers on diesel engines as the locations that have smog checks and bi-annual testing will not have many people deleting their emissions systems. Conversely locations that do not test such as my state will not have the necessary smog testing equipment to get accurate numbers. I think the best we can get is the limited smog data from the ECU unless someone wants to take their offroad racing truck to a smog center but I suspect those numbers will be off due to racing specific tuning. As for dumping more toxins in the environment I don't think it's super simple to break this down. The smog systems on diesels are just breaking up the particles to make them smaller but at the same time dramatically increasing fuel consumption. I don't like the particles being made smaller. Sure, less irritation to the throat but now those particles can get past the defenses in my lungs and get directly into the blood. This was noticeable when people were testing benzine excretion before and after using isothiocyanates. Anyway using more fuel can only create more particulates even if they are smaller. The particles emitted by a diesel without emissions controls are basically soot which is heavy and falls to the ground. The treated emissions are lighter than air and tend to float in the sky. This is noticeable in places like San Jose from the observatory. If one drives up to the top of the mountain they can not see the city any more from the smog. People are breathing those toxins and to my knowledge there is no debate that smog affects peoples long term mortality and health span. Soot on the other hand would just end up on the ground and on the walls of underpasses with some of it potentially being kicked back up from traffic but would be filtered by the vehicle cab filter assuming one has the windows up. I would be curious how much more dangerous that soot really is than say brake dust. Anyway, all interesting points and maybe some day we can get some empirical data on this provided that manufacturers do not tamper with testing and are not in any way involved. In the mean time I will just do whatever prolongs the life of the engine, gives me back fuel economy and keeps the vehicle reliable.

ck2 4y ago

Want to add: While "rolling coal" is definitely emission bypass, not all emission bypass is as obvious as "rolling coal" Virtually all the trucks on the way to the local construction sites here each morning very obviously are using some kind of defeat either improve mpg or just be "tough guy" with a louder exhaust - they aren't billowing smoke, but definitely smell/sound way worse than a stock truck Imagine if there are a million trucks on the road right now with those bypass and they put out twenty times the pollution of a stock truck. Destruction spread out so it's not obvious but adds up fast.