Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Tractor Talk Discussion Forum

O/T New EPA standards is a joke

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
john in la

01-27-2005 10:54:45




Report to Moderator

Please excuse me while I rant a little.

Got the new truck in Sunday. (class 8 pete) Looks nice and rides a lot better with the new suspension they have on these trucks.

The thing that gets me is this motor. Our last truck had a C14 Cat that is no longer available. It has been replaced by the C13 with twin turbo. While it is still new (less than 3000 miles) I can tell I hate this motor already.

It does not pull as good.
Weighs a lot more. (truck weighs 500 lbs more even with this new lighter suspension.
But the main thing that gets me is the fuel mileage. It is suppose to average 1 mpg less than the older motors.

We were getting 7.5 mpg with old truck and now get about 6.2 mpg. That should go up a little to 6.5 mpg which will put us right at the 1 mpg less it is suppose to get.

This makes us burn 15 gallons of fuel more now per day than before or about 5000 gallons per year.

So can some one tell me how I can burn 5000 gallons more fuel and still have less exhaust fumes? I have been thinking about this all week and can not get this straight in my mind. Sounds to me like the oil companies built these new motors and the EPA went right along with it.

I feel much better now.
Thanks

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

01-28-2005 03:27:56




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to john in la, 01-27-2005 10:54:45  
John: Ohhhh, but the experts will tell you, that you are actually putting out less harmful emmissions. HOGWASH. Man and other beings have adapted very well to harmful chemicals.

TRUTH is you are going to burn 5,000 gallons more fuel next year. It will require the same amount of oxygen per gallon to burn the extra 5000 as it did the initial gallons of fuel. At the beginning of the industrial revolution the oxygen content of our atmosphere was 40%. Today that figure is down to 18%. As I see it we will run out of oxygen before the fuel. The new bio fuels will still require oxygen to burn.

By the the way, it wasn't the smokers that reduced that oxygen content in the air.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
O2 Inhaler

01-28-2005 09:59:04




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to Hugh MacKay, 01-28-2005 03:27:56  
40% down to 18%? Me thinks this is a joke! The O2 concentration at sea level is (and has been for some time) about 21%. The concentration does lessen as you increase elevation.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

01-28-2005 13:39:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to O2 Inhaler, 01-28-2005 09:59:04  
Inhaler: We don't all live at sea level, and what the H#$% is 3 points in 2005. Lets compare with before the industrial revolution. I did read this article on the decline of oxygen in atmosphere. The decline is quite believeable. You just compare the amount of air one internal engine sucks in compared to man or beast.

Secondly our schools are full of young kids using inhalers. Never saw that when I went to school 50 years ago. I am talking about kids with breathing problems. Yes there were a few but damn few. I'm 63 year old, don't think I need worry too much. I just wonder what babies being born today are going to suck in before they reach my age.

My friend emissions are not the problem, lack of oxygen is.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hound

01-28-2005 13:04:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to O2 Inhaler, 01-28-2005 09:59:04  
...its 18%, the other 3% is "inert" gases. Hound



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
James2

01-27-2005 19:21:42




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to john in la, 01-27-2005 10:54:45  
You hit a giant nerve when you bring up EPA emissions standards. I am relatively new to the board so I don't know what has been said in the past but here is my response which requires a little history. The original EPA emissions covered just gasoline cars, light trucks and later heavier trucks. Eventually diesel engines were in the EPA's cross hairs. These diesel regulations are partially your own fault. They would have evolved eventually, but they came earlier and more restrictive, because drivers/operators disabled the air-fuel ratio control. The result was slightly improved engine response, and a whale of a lot of black smoke. By doing so you drew attention, the motorists complained, and the EPA reacted with nrw diesel engine regulations! The on-highway truck engine requlations include a transient emissions and smoke cycles. Theortically three urban city cycles were combined to form one basic cycle. However, from what I have seen it pretty much simulates Los Angeles driving conditions. In contrast the off-highway emissions cycle is steady-state operation but they do have to meet a similar transient smoke cycle. Now I don't want to devolve into a combustion development discussion, but one basic principle needs to be discussed. A diesel engine has two basic emissions problems, particulates and NOX. I'll focus on NOX. The amount of NOX generated is related to the heat/pressure during combustion. The higher the heat/pressure the more NOX. Unfortunately fuel economy is also related to these factors and in the opposite direction. Less heat/pressure lower fuel economy. Retarding timing has been a primary method to lower NOX, and it has a devastating effect on fuel consumption. There are others, such as lowering inlet air temperature using air-to-air cooling (which remarkably helped fuel consumption and emissions), but injection timing and fuel delivery still are the main variables. Now enter more advanced electronics in the 1980's. The OEM's were espressly prevented by the EPA from developing a electronics system which would allow the engine to "sense" and run a clean transient cycle, but on the road would run free. This was done by not allowing the OEM's to sense time and thereby determine the engine was on the emissions cycle. However with a little initiative, the OEM's did develop an electronics package which would sense fuel system position and advance injection timing when it was stable. For example, when you were barreling down the open road at a constant horsepower, the electronics would advance the injection timing giving much better fuel economy. The longer at steady state the further advanced the timing became (up to a certain point). The OEM's told the EPA they were working on this, however the attitude was it is OK as long as you don't directly measure time. In reality, it worked great because in the urban areas with constant throttle and speed changes, emissions would be low. On the open road where emissions are not such a big issue, fuel ecomony would be much better. However, all hell broke loose when a major off-highway engine/machine OEM wanted to offer enginees that would meet on=highway emissions. This manufacturer knew that off-highway emissions were eventually going to be almost as tough as on-highway, so they decided that they might as well jump in and develop the technology. Also a major objective was to improve sales volumes to spread the enormous development cost. Now the problem, this OEM tested their engines against the products available, and found their new engine's fuel economy sucked. They were no dummies and eventually found the reason. They confronted the EPA. In response the EPA back pedaled at about three times light speed, and big Janet Reno threw down the gauntlet. Basically the "offending" OEM's did not have to admit any guilt but had to agree to some fines and very unpalatable emissions requirements. These goals are so tough that fuel ecomony had to take a distant back seat to meeting the emissions standards while concurrently trying to maintain acceptable engine durability/reliability. The OEM's really didn't have a choice. You don't mess with the EPA when thy have you in the cross hairs. The end result is that we need to buy more scarce oil, refine it and transport it. On top of this, the rest of the world wants the USA to sign the Koyto Protocol which states that unless we reduce carbon dioxide emissions we have to pay a significant penalty/tax. Nothing like shooting ourselves in the foot with these fuel gozzling engines. I propose a better solution would be to optimize fuel consumption while maintaing reasonable emissions. Send this optimized technology to the third world, and improve their currently uncontrolled engines. The end result would be better for all mankind. Alas this will not be done. The EPA and reigning vocal consevationists have decided the diesel engine will eventually be replaced by fuel cells, and nothing will change this path. That's why most diesel OEM's are doing/supporting some fuel cell research.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mark - IN.

01-28-2005 05:48:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to James2, 01-27-2005 19:21:42  
And just how many of the countries that penned the Kyoto Treaty and are complaining (political fodder) that we won't have signed on to it themselves? To date, ZERO. Oughta tell everyone something. It sure does me.

Mark



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
NC Wayne

01-27-2005 19:20:39




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to john in la, 01-27-2005 10:54:45  
I've worked on old equipment for years and have been saying for years that this kind of thing is STUPID. Funny thing is very few people ever seem to think about things logically enough to realize just how stupid things are getting. Just like full on electric cars...true they won't have a engine, but how much electricity is gonna have to be made and sent through the lines to charge it's batteries, and aren't batteries considered hazardous waste??? How much extra pollution is being put in the air from all the extra manufacturing needed to take the old "junk" that lasted 30 years before wearing out and recycle it three of four times because the new junk only lasts 5 years before repeating the process??? Like the one post suggests the problem is there are too many "educated idiots" that have no real world experience with things us "normal people" do and as a result can't think past the end of their political,engineering, or whatever degree they happen to have....but because they have that esteemed piece of paper showing that degree they know more than the rest of us what's good for all of us..... ..

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
ChrisL

01-27-2005 17:04:30




Report to Moderator
 Think of the money you could make in reply to john in la, 01-27-2005 10:54:45  

If this new truck is going to lose you so much money every day you have it ..... WHY DID YOU BUY IT?

if you want to send a message to the people making these vehicles, tell them this is what I want - and when they come up with that truck then buy it-

all of the expenses you mentioned and the additional weight are only part of the cost.... did they trade you even up for your old truck?
what about the interest you could have made on that money for the trade every day you have this new truck.....

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
john in la

01-27-2005 17:26:47




Report to Moderator
 Re: Think of the money you could make in reply to ChrisL, 01-27-2005 17:04:30  
The truck is a company truck so I have no control over if they buy one or not or what type they buy.

While I will lose money because my year end bonus is based on net profit for trucks under my control it does not affect my week to week pay at all. Well I guess it does because the company does not make as much so my cost of living raise will most likely be smaller.

We do NOT buy trucks. We lease them for a period of time that we figure the warranty will last and then turn them in for a new lease. The lease was up on the old truck so it goes.

Like I said I have not even gotten my first P&L statement to see what the monthly cost is on this truck.

The thing I was mentioning was (we) as in every truck you see on the road will one day be forced to replace it with a newer one causing them to burn more fuel for less power. EVERY THING in the US has been on a truck at least once so what is that going to do to the cost of things.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mark - IN.

01-27-2005 17:00:28




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to john in la, 01-27-2005 10:54:45  
Not sure that you can blame the oil companies initially, but maybe and probably are making off of it now.

Just posted about this elsewhere. Some years back, the government began making petrolium companies "re-formulate" gasoline sold in areas where populations exceeded ??? people. Typically larger areas and collar counties. This "re-formulated" gas costs quite a bit more to make, so is more expensive to purchase, and it wreaks havoc on small engines like lawn mowers. It gums up the carburators like crazy. In theory, gallon for gallon, it burns cleaner, but it's so impotent that you have to burn more of it to get the same power, and again, tears up those little engines. I know from experience.

Thing is, now the manufacturers are making it across the board, and not just for higher densely populated areas. Amoco has been doing it for years with their "Gold", which makes the Hog run like crap, so used Shell's premium. But now Shell re-formulated their premium, and call it V-something or other, and the Hog can't swallow that crap either. Maybe is a federal mandate.

Sooo, how are polluting less if now have to burn more of it, to do the same thing? And, you might think that the manufacturers are making more money for a more expensive product, and maybe they are, but that garbage also costs more to produce.

Thank Al Gore and his Earth Out Of Balance friends for that one, and toilets that don't flush, unless you flush them 150 times when only used to have to flush once. Smaller washing machines that hold less, so have to do more loads, and end up using more water. Yep, thank Uncle Albert and his unbalanced tree hugger friends.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
wdtom

01-27-2005 16:58:43




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to john in la, 01-27-2005 10:54:45  
The problem as I see it is that there is too many people with too little real life experience and too many degrees put in places of authority by people with too little real life experience (politicians). People don't get experience living in a box (apartment) driving a car so complicated they can't even find a sparkplug, and working in a box (office). So they don't even know they are electing such people to direct the incompetence we are seeing. I don't know what to do about it.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
thejdman01

01-27-2005 13:07:25




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to john in la, 01-27-2005 10:54:45  
thats just like there trying to get rid of 2cycle chain saws come on.what about the space shuttle? what about china and no pollution laws and mexico. i recently went to a cummins engine seminar and honest to god they told us that the air these new motors suck in is dirtier then the air they expel in high polution areas like california that is what they say. honest. you better hold your horses though. cummins has a prototype out that runs 240 degrees with no absolutly no water jackets its all insulated and ceramic coated. new garbage trucks are electric powered. they are using 48 volt systems. in the near future i would say in the next 5 years again they stated they have prototypes out but didnt tellus what they were finding they said with 48 volt systems very very soon you will start finding electric driven waterpumps and ac compressors. no more 100 dollar water pumps on these there talking 500 dollar+. i am trying to learn all i can about these new motors and so far i dont see much of a way w/o alot of work to "just reprogram it forget the polluition garbage and give me a real truck" that seems not an option. i dont understand how more fuel usage= less pollution in the long run but supposedly someone ahs done the math. if there so much cleaner and better running hotter beter burn why are they using more fuel is what i dont understand. also on your new kiddy try rebuilding the injectors. they are firing 3+ times now. a little fuel pre tdc to get the thing started a big charge and then a post charge little to finish it thats wahts getting your quieter motors not one big bang anymore. i do understand that about new motors

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
john in la

01-27-2005 14:21:32




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to thejdman01, 01-27-2005 13:07:25  
I have also heard they put out cleaner air than they take in.

While I have not gotten the amount this truck will cost per month yet I think it just has to be more than the old truck. I am thinking it is about the same per month but is for 12 more months.

Lets just sit that aside and look at the other cost.
I have to cut every load because this truck weighs more and I will burn more fuel. I figured the other day it will cost the bottom line $300 per week. Or company has over 100 trucks so that’s $30,000 a week.

So the new question will be..... .....
Who do you think will eat this $30,000 per week?

While my company will eat the cost for a while to stay competitive it will be passed on sooner or later. It has to be.

Then every one wants to know why every company in America that can is packing up and moving across the pond OR why companies from over there can offer products at a cheaper price.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
hay

01-27-2005 12:54:29




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to john in la, 01-27-2005 10:54:45  
just think if them gov't idiots did not make ridiculous laws and regs, then they would not have any thing to do or tax us for. makes sense, don't it?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
dr.sportster

01-27-2005 12:12:51




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to john in la, 01-27-2005 10:54:45  
John,I am not a trucker,but I read a free truckers magazine called Land Line.This apparently has slowed new truck sales severely.{however it has helped engine rebuilders]Im sure nobody wants less power and less mileage.At least not any owner operator type truckers.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
john in la

01-27-2005 14:02:45




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to dr.sportster, 01-27-2005 12:12:51  
Yes it created a big up swing in truck sales just before the new law went into effect also.

I begged to keep my old truck but the lease was up last July so it had to go. Our company gets rid of them when the warrenty runs out. The last motor had 500,000 warrenty so they had a 36 month lease. They let me go to 42 months and 650,000 miles but I knew it was comming sooner or later.

The best part is this motor has 750,000 mile warrenty so I have a 48 month lease on this truck.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RustyFarmall

01-27-2005 11:26:33




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to john in la, 01-27-2005 10:54:45  
The same thing happened back in the 70s when auto manufacturers first were required to reduce emissions. It was a total joke, performance was a total loss and the fuel consumption went way up. So, in a nutshell, the engine had much less horsepower, and used more fuel, yet the EPA tried to convince us that we were reducing pollution. It just didn't add up.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
paul

01-27-2005 11:02:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to john in la, 01-27-2005 10:54:45  
It's the same with all of these laws. I actually go along & support the _intent_ they had, but the implementation is just goofy.

Here in Minnesota we use a _lot_ of gravel & salt mix on our roads in winter. They have decided that the gravel is a pollution hazard, but the salt is just fine. Huh? So now they use salt solutions & spray on. Very little gravel. That's fine in a couple days when it soaks in, but no traction during the snow/ ice event. The roads are just white from salt. But that's no problem. The gravel was a pollution???

Livestock laws as well, and soil runoff & on & on. It's people sitting behind a desk with no experience & no concept of what is happening creating these laws.

--->Paul

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
JT

01-27-2005 12:34:13




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to paul, 01-27-2005 11:02:17  
Correct me if I am wrong, but gravel is a natural mineral mined out of the ground, and this is pollution????? Just got back from a Briggs and Stratton update seminar, gonna have to change the type of fuel line they use, type of plastic they use in fuel tanks and will have to start using a ratchet type fuel cap(like you car now has) in the year 2007. Fuel tanks and fuel lines have to be changes because????? your gonna love this one, the rubber fuel line will let gasoline leach through the rubber coating and into the atmosphere. grab your wallet, it is gonna get more expensive to have a lawn mower

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ol Gray A

01-27-2005 17:04:38




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke in reply to JT, 01-27-2005 12:34:13  
got another gov"t reg that is stupid. I hired a guy that lives in NC to work for me in Mississippi. Got inspected by the labor board and found out that he was classified as MIGRANT LABOR!!!!! !!!! I was firnishing him a place to stay and got into deep sssss t because of standing water in a drainage ditch that was within 100 feet of the mobile home. Paid a Big Fine for that and had to put in a 200 foot long culvert and cover it up. the ditch was on my neighbor"s property!!!!! !!!! He grinned about the free landscaping!!!!! !!!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy