4 ms·

A quick primer on what diesel shops are selling with these: There are 3 main methods of emissions controls on modern diesels - EGR (Exhaust Gas Return) which

A quick primer on what diesel shops are selling with these: There are 3 main methods of emissions controls on modern diesels - EGR (Exhaust Gas Return) which takes already burned (hot) exhaust and reinjects it into the intake tract. This causes soot and cokes the intake valves, grid heater, etc. - DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) which collects soot until it’s restricted, then burns fuel in the exhaust to cook the soot into ash. - Catalytic converters & SCR (selective catalytic conversion) which injects corrosive DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid/ cow piss) into the exhaust. If you remove these systems from your vehicle, it won’t run, because the OEMs engine controls say if the DEF tank is empty or it’s throwing codes for EGR or DPF, it won’t get full power. These shops sell a way to get around that, so you can take all these systems off your engine that kill longevity and efficiency, while not caring about the soot and NOx you’re emitting. A pre-emissions diesel will easily go for 300-400k miles without a rebuild, the modern ones break in really really expensive ways right about the time your warranty ends (60k) I drive a modern diesel, I race motorcycles and I’ve got a heavy rig to tow to the track, and I’ve left my emissions in place. I don’t love the trade off, it does seem like the manufacturers took the easy way out and tuned their components for timed obsolescence just like the incandescent lightbulb. What these shops are doing is filling a request from owners in states that don’t emissions control these engines, but I guess federally they are breaking the law. Seems grey to me. The manufacturers are only selling the emissions controlled engines to comply with CA and MA and others, while the middle of the country doesn’t control these things.

omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago
Tampering/defeating emissions systems isn't a grey area. Anyone can likely get away with it in the same way they can get away with dumping all kinds of pollutants into the air/water/soil. The federal government also regulates nox, ppm, etc... https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php CARB has more stringent regulations, but I believe most of the companies selling defeat devices are removing the emissions components, not tuning a truck that complies with 2024 CARB standards to instead comply with 2024 federal standards. I think anything built before 1970, or whatever the specific year is, can be legally modified however you want. It's just not legal to take something newer and remove some/all the emissions equipment
- MarkMarine 2y ago
  IF companies wanted to make vehicles that complied with the diesel emissions requirements of say Michigan, they could make a fully unrestricted diesel. The federal government buys Fords with diesel engines with factory EGR block off plates and no DPF for example. Do as I say, not as I do. Consumer diesel engines had no controls up to around 1999 I think
  - omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago
    Of course they could, but they won't because it breaks federal law. Tactical/emergency/etc vehicles can be exempted from federal and state emissions for obvious reasons, but most federal vehicles are not exempt. > Contrary to past practices, vehicles owned and operated by the Federal government are not automatically exempt from having to under emissions testing and obtains proof of that testing. Some states, in their state regulations exempt classes of Federal motor vehicles, usually those for tactical use. https://www.fedcenter.gov/assistance/facilitytour/vehicle/emissions/index.cfm?&printable=1 https://www.fedcenter.gov/assistance/facilitytour/vehicle/em...
mschuster91 2y ago
> - Catalytic converters & SCR (selective catalytic conversion) which injects corrosive DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid/ cow piss) into the exhaust. DEF is urea, yes, but that urea doesn't come from piss, it's synthetic - urea production was the first synthesis of an organic compound in fact, made possible at scale after the Haber-Bosch process was invented that produced the precursor ammonia.
wokwokwok 2y ago
You still seem to be able to get these online. What does stamping on a company like this that’s selling them locally actually achieve? ? Are they particularly difficult to install?
- blactuary 2y ago
  It achieves punishing the overgrown little boys who want cooler toys at the expense of our health and the planet?
ragingroosevelt 2y ago
I work at a b2b diesel vehicle oem and our vehicles routinely do in excess of 130k miles per year. The first owners usually keep them for 3-5 years before selling them. They don't, generally, require rebuilds for the first few owners. If you're experiencing that sort of issue, it is not specifically because of the emissions devices. It's because of poor design or cheap parts.
- MarkMarine 2y ago
  Pretty well understood in the community that drives consumer diesel vehicles (Ford, Ram, GM) that the main failure modes are emissions systems (or the CP4 pump) The costs are astronomical as well. $7k for a DPF. What vehicles are you selling that aren't seeing issues?
pif 2y ago
The part I personally hate about these devices is how the engines became slow and sloppy, and they lost any responsiveness. Especially when you are at a low regime, cranking it up is painful.
- USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
  And that's an issue why exactly? Lamenting something that's contributing to climate change (so already killing people) is insane.
arghwhat 2y ago
One thing that is quite important to note is that the EGR is a necessary combustion temperature regulator, and removing it isn’t good for anything, including fuel economy. The engine deposits people blame on it is usually from the PCV. Only downside to it is that it occasionally need to get cleaned, and in tiny cars it tends to be in a stupid position. Now, DPF and cats are a bit more black and white, but a bit of horsepower for not giving people lung cancer and worsening the whole environmental situation is an easy trade. It’s ridiculous that it’s not federal as is - stuff that harms everyone around you shouldn’t be your decision. If one doesn’t like these trade-offs, look into technologies that don’t require them like hydrogen or electric. The trade-offs there tends aren’t as controversial, just personal financial ones like range, weight and charge/fuel supply. And they are getting better. As an aside, looking at how Edison Motors channel (US company trying to make electric trucks) drools over Scania engines, it seems like US truck engines are quite underpowered yet thirsty compared to the EU. :/
- consp 2y ago
  > not giving people lung cancer I've seen far less reports of soot and smog in recent years (though it's still there), and it's the same with vaccines: People don't remember how bad it was and then argue against the thing preventing it. Also: smog and soot deposits don't care about state borders.
- pif 2y ago
  > EGR is a necessary [...], and removing it isn’t good for anything EGR is what killed responsiveness in internal combustion engines. I'm not advocating breaking the law, but it would be nice if people remembered what we are missing and started pushing for having it back.
  - arghwhat 2y ago
    I don't see how the EGR could possibly affect perceived responsiveness. What "killed responsiveness" in my opinion is heavy turbocharging with long spool-up times, with engines so small that they cannot even maintain highway speeds at full throttle without boost pressure. Or, if only naturally aspirated engines are responsive enough for you, boost altogether. The EGR only opens when the cylinders are running too hot and there is is no request for power. It is fully closed during normal driving, and even when it is open it will slam shut the moment you touch the throttle. Heck, you might not even experience it opening at all during some driving sessions. "driving 4 answers" has a pretty good video on EGR (note that the particular format of the video requires sticking around for the "debunk"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnpj4eIo6nI&t=1637s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnpj4eIo6nI&t=1637s > but it would be nice if people remembered what we are missing and started pushing for having it back. We got something far, far more responsive: Electric. Combustion engine don't even make it to the leader board, and with some of the electric options out there, the speed of your throttle foot ends up being a significant bottleneck.
namdnay 2y ago
> the modern ones break in really really expensive ways right about the time your warranty ends (60k) bullshit, common rail turbodiesels with EGR+DPF have been around for decades. they had some issues at the start (like all new tech) but now the longevity is similar to modern turbo petrols
stavros 2y ago
My diesel has 200k km on it and still running perfectly.

omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago

Tampering/defeating emissions systems isn't a grey area. Anyone can likely get away with it in the same way they can get away with dumping all kinds of pollutants into the air/water/soil. The federal government also regulates nox, ppm, etc... https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php CARB has more stringent regulations, but I believe most of the companies selling defeat devices are removing the emissions components, not tuning a truck that complies with 2024 CARB standards to instead comply with 2024 federal standards. I think anything built before 1970, or whatever the specific year is, can be legally modified however you want. It's just not legal to take something newer and remove some/all the emissions equipment

MarkMarine 2y ago
IF companies wanted to make vehicles that complied with the diesel emissions requirements of say Michigan, they could make a fully unrestricted diesel. The federal government buys Fords with diesel engines with factory EGR block off plates and no DPF for example. Do as I say, not as I do. Consumer diesel engines had no controls up to around 1999 I think
- omgwtfbyobbq 2y ago
  Of course they could, but they won't because it breaks federal law. Tactical/emergency/etc vehicles can be exempted from federal and state emissions for obvious reasons, but most federal vehicles are not exempt. > Contrary to past practices, vehicles owned and operated by the Federal government are not automatically exempt from having to under emissions testing and obtains proof of that testing. Some states, in their state regulations exempt classes of Federal motor vehicles, usually those for tactical use. https://www.fedcenter.gov/assistance/facilitytour/vehicle/emissions/index.cfm?&printable=1 https://www.fedcenter.gov/assistance/facilitytour/vehicle/em...

mschuster91 2y ago

> - Catalytic converters & SCR (selective catalytic conversion) which injects corrosive DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid/ cow piss) into the exhaust. DEF is urea, yes, but that urea doesn't come from piss, it's synthetic - urea production was the first synthesis of an organic compound in fact, made possible at scale after the Haber-Bosch process was invented that produced the precursor ammonia.

wokwokwok 2y ago

You still seem to be able to get these online. What does stamping on a company like this that’s selling them locally actually achieve? ? Are they particularly difficult to install?

blactuary 2y ago
It achieves punishing the overgrown little boys who want cooler toys at the expense of our health and the planet?

ragingroosevelt 2y ago

I work at a b2b diesel vehicle oem and our vehicles routinely do in excess of 130k miles per year. The first owners usually keep them for 3-5 years before selling them. They don't, generally, require rebuilds for the first few owners. If you're experiencing that sort of issue, it is not specifically because of the emissions devices. It's because of poor design or cheap parts.

MarkMarine 2y ago
Pretty well understood in the community that drives consumer diesel vehicles (Ford, Ram, GM) that the main failure modes are emissions systems (or the CP4 pump) The costs are astronomical as well. $7k for a DPF. What vehicles are you selling that aren't seeing issues?

pif 2y ago

The part I personally hate about these devices is how the engines became slow and sloppy, and they lost any responsiveness. Especially when you are at a low regime, cranking it up is painful.

USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
And that's an issue why exactly? Lamenting something that's contributing to climate change (so already killing people) is insane.

arghwhat 2y ago

One thing that is quite important to note is that the EGR is a necessary combustion temperature regulator, and removing it isn’t good for anything, including fuel economy. The engine deposits people blame on it is usually from the PCV. Only downside to it is that it occasionally need to get cleaned, and in tiny cars it tends to be in a stupid position. Now, DPF and cats are a bit more black and white, but a bit of horsepower for not giving people lung cancer and worsening the whole environmental situation is an easy trade. It’s ridiculous that it’s not federal as is - stuff that harms everyone around you shouldn’t be your decision. If one doesn’t like these trade-offs, look into technologies that don’t require them like hydrogen or electric. The trade-offs there tends aren’t as controversial, just personal financial ones like range, weight and charge/fuel supply. And they are getting better. As an aside, looking at how Edison Motors channel (US company trying to make electric trucks) drools over Scania engines, it seems like US truck engines are quite underpowered yet thirsty compared to the EU. :/

consp 2y ago
> not giving people lung cancer I've seen far less reports of soot and smog in recent years (though it's still there), and it's the same with vaccines: People don't remember how bad it was and then argue against the thing preventing it. Also: smog and soot deposits don't care about state borders.
pif 2y ago
> EGR is a necessary [...], and removing it isn’t good for anything EGR is what killed responsiveness in internal combustion engines. I'm not advocating breaking the law, but it would be nice if people remembered what we are missing and started pushing for having it back.
- arghwhat 2y ago
  I don't see how the EGR could possibly affect perceived responsiveness. What "killed responsiveness" in my opinion is heavy turbocharging with long spool-up times, with engines so small that they cannot even maintain highway speeds at full throttle without boost pressure. Or, if only naturally aspirated engines are responsive enough for you, boost altogether. The EGR only opens when the cylinders are running too hot and there is is no request for power. It is fully closed during normal driving, and even when it is open it will slam shut the moment you touch the throttle. Heck, you might not even experience it opening at all during some driving sessions. "driving 4 answers" has a pretty good video on EGR (note that the particular format of the video requires sticking around for the "debunk"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnpj4eIo6nI&t=1637s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnpj4eIo6nI&t=1637s > but it would be nice if people remembered what we are missing and started pushing for having it back. We got something far, far more responsive: Electric. Combustion engine don't even make it to the leader board, and with some of the electric options out there, the speed of your throttle foot ends up being a significant bottleneck.

namdnay 2y ago

> the modern ones break in really really expensive ways right about the time your warranty ends (60k) bullshit, common rail turbodiesels with EGR+DPF have been around for decades. they had some issues at the start (like all new tech) but now the longevity is similar to modern turbo petrols

stavros 2y ago

My diesel has 200k km on it and still running perfectly.