I'm having a really difficult time understanding something. In 2007 they implemented more stringent emission standards. This was to improve the air we breath and reverse damage we've done to the environment.

I own a 2006 Dodge Ram 3500 CTD that gets ~ 20mpg on the highway. I have no DPF, my exhaust is clear. I understand the carbon is there, lets call that quantity X.

My father has a 2008 version of my truck with the DPF and the 6.7 CTD. He is not able to break 15mpg. His exhaust is also clear. Lets say the DPF does an okay job of removing the contaminates, say 50%. So the carbon released = 0.5X.

He is however using 25% more fuel to accomplish the same task as my truck. Refining emissions to refine Crude into road worthy diesel fuel is the same regardless of what truck its for, so that can be added to the formula above. 0.5X x 1.25 =0.625X

Consider the delivery of the additional fuel as well..

Something tells me the answer is to burn the fuel as efficiently as possible, gear the trucks for the best mileage possible and leave it at that. I personally feel we are doing more harm now that we were before.

 

Dont you like paying the fuel companies more??

 

yea remember that most of the politicians who are making this happen are invested heavily in oil.

Alot of what happens in Washington is money related rather than constituent related. Sucks but its the truth. At the hospital we are understaffed and do not have all the resources we need. We have to run additional tests/cultures/scans to prevent being sued personally for thousands or even millions. Somehow the politicians have people thinking the waste is our fault, not the manufacturers or insurance companies. I work harder there than any manual labor job ive had

 

I did my 4H speech this year on how our democracy is really an oligarchy, and this is directly pertinent. Ethanol fuel goes down the same lines as this. Government takes more time giving the illusion that they are helping when really they are not.
Also, why not factor in building a new vehicle (iron ore, plastics, mahinery, delivery, etc) when they urge us to buy 'newer vehicles to help the environment'?

 

Less effiency = hotter burn. Hotter burn - cleaner emissions.

Only way they could meet emission standards without having to goto DEF like the Powerjoke and Duracrap had to.

I'm not saying it makes sense at all though. That's just the reasoning behind the design. These new diesel emission standards are crap.

 

We are fighting the same war in the Ag. world. Now our tractors have exhaust filters instead of mufflers. Some inject fuel into the filter, others are using DEF (diesel exhaust fluid)

So many sensors and extra crap on the engine. It's all well and good when things work right....when they don't it sucks.

Might as well get used to it.....it's only going to get worse. On a plus note, the power levels these new eco-friendly engine put it is impressive.

 

This is why I'm thankful I live in an area that doesn't require yearly emissions testing.

 

May not require the testing, but the vehicles are all still built with the same eco friendly mechanisms...

 

Yup but you can remove such systems and then win!

Or drive an older 5.9 that was from before all this nonsense.

It's not about what you take from the ground but what you put in the air when it comes to these enviro nuts. If that means burning more to put out less then sign them up.

 

I'm actually not sure how to answer that Weedahoe... I work for a major oil company. :S