EPA Says Don't Touch the Particulate Filter

DPF II

In a court settlement with the EPA, Edge Products, a manufacturer of electronic power modules for diesel engines, has agreed to pay a $500,000 fine for manufacturing and selling electronic devices that allowed owners of Chevy, GMC, Ford and Dodge/Ram diesel pickup trucks (2007 and later) to remove the programming for diesel particulate filters from their vehicles.

The Ogden, Utah, company is reported to have sold more than 9,000 units from January 2009 through April 2011. This is said to have resulted in an estimated 158 tons of excess particulate matter emissions — the equivalent of 422 new long-haul semitrailers operating for 29 years, according to the EPA.

The civil penalty of $500,000 is based on the United States’ determination that Edge Products has a limited ability to pay a penalty in this matter.

In addition to the fine, Edge Products is required to offer to buy back the devices. To sell the device back to the company, the truck from which the device came must be returned to its original factory programming. Edge Products is also required to spend at least $157,600 to implement an emission mitigation project to offset the excess particulate matter emissions it caused. Edge Products will use the additional funds to offer rebates to individuals who own old wood-burning stoves and wish to replace them with cleaner burning appliances such as new pellet stoves or EPA-certified wood stoves.

Shortly after the U.S. introduction of diesel particulate filters in the in 2007, a number of suppliers started offering DPF removal kits (also known as “DPF delete” kits). These kits allow for the removal of the DPF without triggering any engine trouble codes, with potential side benefits being improved vehicle mileage and performance. The kits were also popular with diesel truck racers who wanted to run their daily driver at the track.

Most of the kits targeted three-quarter- and one-ton turbodiesel engines (mostly Duramax and Powerstroke). The case against Edge Products appears to be the first instance of an enforcement action by the U.S. against the sales and installation of DPF delete kits.

To our knowledge, there are no companies selling these types of kits at this date. For more EPA information on the case and settlement, click here

 

Comments

guess i better get my delete kit before canada follows suit. I want a delete kit simply because i want the better mileage and the smog crap is actually bad for your engine, it clogs them up and causes problems, the dpf uses diesel fuel to clean itself, it lowers mileage ALOT, and with dpf the fuel works it way into your oil, thinned out oil is not good for an engine, mind you with oil changes every 3 to 5 k this almost doesnt effect anything but could if you go longer durations, i want to use synthetic on mine but wont until i get the delete as the diesel fuel mixing with the synthetic will just cause me to do an oil change the same amount as a regular oil product.
so there are ups and downs here both ways...
I just wonder if they did this too edge, doesn this mean H&S, bullydog, and spartan and all the others are next?

If you had been in Los
Angeles in the 60's. You would have a great admiration for the smog laws. It was like China is now.

I remember going to Disneyland down there as a young boy. Then Crying to coming home early because the air smelled like an exhaust pipe and my eyes and nose burnt like they were on fire. The air was just as thick as those pictures you see of China today. Growth in the City of L.A. was about to stop. It was sickening. That's why California started the Smog laws. Even the California central valley was getting unbearable.
There still Is a lot of dust particulates in the Central Valley air. But that is from farming and construction. The smog laws did miracles in California.

I cant imagine what an idiot takes a 55k truck that makes tons of power allready and goofing around with it- what a waste. I was in getting a smog check on my 11 Duramax the other day and the owner of the shop is telling another customer that he cant pass him and he has to put it back to stock. Guy starts his anti-government rant- pathetic.

I own a 2008 6.4 Powerstroke used for work day in and day out. It idles quite a bit and gets worked a lot. Started having issues with the DPF within 10,000 miles. Had it replaced under warranty. Issues returned at about 18,000 miles. Another replacement. Basically truck went into limp mode because the filter clogged. When it did Regen it ran like crap. EGR system caked up with soot after 30,000 miles. Engine crapped out after 60,000 miles with no warranty. Basically too much oil (result of regeneration putting diesel in oil) caused a hydrolock on Cylinder #2. Paid $11,000 to put new motor in. Did some research and immediately deleted DPF, CAT, EGR system, and added a better fuel filtration system. 130,000 miles later this truck runs as good as new. Do not run high tunes that dump soot...just near stock horsepower levels. Ford/Navistar could easily be blamed for producing a crappy emissions system, but from what I have heard basically everyone is having issues with these DPFs and EGRs. Personally I will never buy a post 2008 truck ever again until the problems are worked out. For now I break the law to keep my truck running. I ask that the EPA look at what is happening to these trucks with all that junk on. But its the government what do they care?

@ snowman... there is not a normal body on this planet.. excluding you obviusly since you are a left wing liberal wacko tree hugger that wouldnt remove a DPF for a 5mpg gain... You can sit here and say with a straight face that you love your DPF???? that you would not remove it to bump your 14-15 mpg up to 20??? Thats just stupid... and did I ever say anything about blowing black smoke... quite the contrary.. most people that remove the DPF do it for FUEL ECONOMY... yes there are some that do it for the simple fact of gaining the 15hp.. which doesn't matter at the end of the day.. but 16mpg over a 2k mile trip sure is better than 11mpg over a 2k mile trip... by the time you add that up over the life of the truck lets just say 300k miles...thats 8,522 gallons of diesel difference, assumimg that diesel is 4 bucks a gallon thats $34,000 in fuel savings... and if you are using your truck daily.. 500 miles a day.. you can rack up miles pretty quick... and could easeily pass 300k in less than 3 years..sit here and tell me that you would rather spend $34,000 dollars on fuel all in the name of the EPA and capturing the particulates that are only beeing targeted as a method of reducing the all ready prooven false claim of "Global Warming".... do you work for the EPA??? Go get a life.

@Dave Good post The number without healthcare actually gets widdled down to less than 10 million when you factor in people can already be covered by state and federal programs. The new health care law has never been about giving better or more health care. It's been about changing who the payment goes to.

How the 40 Million Breaks Down

Most of the 45% of the 40 million Americans who are without health insurance for less than four months during the year are between jobs and are temporarily without insurance until their new job begins. Like my personal situations described above, these people are covered or could be covered by health insurance retroactively through COBRA for up to three and a half months after leaving their job before a premium is due. So nearly half of the uninsured for all practical purposes are insured. There is no burning imperative for most of these Americans to obtain health insurance.

Well, what about the other 20 million or so Americans who go without health insurance for more than four months? The vast majority of this group can be separated into four categories: Medicaid undercount, Medicaid eligible, illegal aliens, and non-believers.

The CBO reported that the surveys of the uninsured undercount Medicaid enrollment by 4 to 5 million Americans. These individuals are erroneously classified as uninsured. This 4 to 5 million does not include those who are Medicaid eligible who have never had the need for any significant health service and consequently have never enrolled in Medicaid. For these people, Medicaid provides a form of conditional coverage. Such people can apply for Medicaid at the time they obtain care and receive retroactive coverage for their expenses. Nearly 3 million children fell into this category, which represents approximately one-third of the uninsured children.

The number of illegal aliens in this country has been estimated to be at least 10 million and they are overwhelmingly among those without health insurance. A recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies of immigrants from Mexico (no distinction was made whether they were legal or illegal immigrants) who have been in the US for less than 10 years demonstrated that 62.9% were uninsured. Illegal immigrants have been estimated to represent anywhere from 25% to 43% of the uninsured population.

The growth in the uninsured can be traced to the growth in the illegal alien population. The Center for Immigration Studies' analysis of Census Bureau data demonstrates that almost three-fourths of the increase in the uninsured population over the last 15 years is due to immigrants and their children.

Finally, 4 to 5 million of the uninsured Americans in the CBO study stated that they did not have health insurance because they did not need health insurance or they did not believe in health insurance. This is not an unreasonable position if you are either very wealthy, or very healthy and poor. After all, do you think it makes economic sense for Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to purchase health insurance? Or did it make sense for me to buy health insurance when I was a medical student, had no income, and had a negative net worth?

From: A Myth of Modern Medicine: 'There are 40 million Americans with No Access to Health Care'
http://www.enttoday.org/details/article/531807/A_Myth_of_Modern_Medicine_There_are_40_million_Americans_with_No_Access_to_Healt.html

It seems like everyone on here is pointing the finger at a "young reckless group of people that have no care for the environment" but working for a motor sports company i see modified diesel every day most of the people i have seen with DPF deletes on their trucks are mostly 35 + and use the vehilce for work. Pulling trailers daily, etc. And do it for the soul purpose of fuel mileage. The newer trucks in most cases do not blow huge clouds of black smoke, unless the driver sets it up to do so by turning the fuel up past the point where all of the fuel is burnt upon combustion.Which is dumb you are throwing dollar bills out the exhaust, and i would and have told many customers the same thing. but people who use them right go unnoticed all you folks whining about clouds of smoke probably don't even know the difference between truck that are equipped with a DPF and models without. I have seen 10,000 lbs trucks with 40" tires pulling a trailer with another truck on it, averaging 30 mpg on the high way. with no smoke what soever. getting a 99% burn rat on fuel. where as your stock diesel pick-up burns around 75-80% of fuel that goes through combustion. so how is that hurting the environment??? Yes i agree as i said some people do it for the wrong reasons. but a vast majority do it for the right reason but as always those who do good go unnoticed, because they aren't the kid burning tires and blowing smoke in the K-mart lot .

Lou needs to go back to his occupy protest.

Michael... no one here believes you except for maybe the other 3 or 4 people on here so defiantly defending this crap. Go on youtube and look and all it is is some highschool kid or young person posting videos of "rolling coal" or pilot injection delete, lope tunes etc. Now maybe thats because the average delet-er doesnt care to post about it on youtube, but it is telling when most delete kits are paired with a tune that noticeably increases power and as a result smoke output. The overwhellmin gmajority of diesels I see everyday have a sky high lift on them that requires a 12inch drop hitch just to pull a normal trailer and about 2000lbs of accessories and they are usually blowing smoke like an old steam locomotive and sound like a 50gallon drum full of river rock attached to a paint shaker, and even if they dont blow smoke so abnoxiously the entire rear corner of the truck where the tailpipe exits (assuming they havent moved it) is usually black and covered with soot. Now imagine that you are rbreathing that in. If you think that is cool, thats your prerogative, but acting like this is some injustice inflicted by tyrants trying to stifle your desire for more fuel economy is just bogus and unfounded.

@toycrusher: EPA coming to an offroad vehicle near you. Only a matter of time until they get their claws into those as well (don't give them any ideas)

Enviornmental protections are necessary. Obviously we need to consider the cost of regulations, but anyone who wants to do away with pollution standards and controls because they view them as some sort of assault on "personal liberty" is being disingenuous and very short-sighted.

To all the EPA apologists and lovers of all the things a government can do because - they are the daddy and mommy and we must be the wayward children. There are many thousands of Federal employees trying to justify their existence everyday by coming up with ideas and edicts that make themselves ‘valuable and smart’ and well, ‘they work in Washington and that makes them special’. Well that is killing our collective drive and therefor our economic engine. The ideas that come out of Washington are usually - throw the baby out and all the bath water. They know no logic and moderation and I do not accept their all or nothing BS. And as long as we turn the other cheek and sit around waiting for these numbskulls to make logical decisions we will be in deep doo. The EPA bureaucrats can kiss my a$$.

@Big Al from Oz--Because of diesels that emit clouds of dark smelly sooty smoke are reasons why they have tighter regulations on diesels. There are many diesel trucks around where I live that you can literally taste the smoke. When people do not keep their diesels up or they bypass the emissions systems then it causes problems. I think that is why many people are opposed to diesels. I am not saying you cannot have clean diesels just that the few that allow their diesels to smoke because of poor maintenance or bypasses cause problems for everyone else. I think that is one reason why my wife gets sick when we follow a diesel vehicle. My commuter bus is diesel but it does not emit clouds of soot nor does it smell.

Anyone who says that the EPA is the proper way to regulate pollution is being disingenuous or dense. There has never been any proof of global environmental effects. Pollution tends to have environmental effects that are localized to the area of the pollution. Therefore pollution controls belong at levels of government more answerable to the people actually affected. A non-constitutional agency with a left wing agenda and all the power of a bloated federal bureaucracy has very little to do with environmental protection and everything to do with economic control.

DPF or not, today's diesels when managed correctly are far cleaner than many fast food chain's single store (or collectively cleaner than Algore's private jet). The claim that the few thousand trucks that pulled this filter and added a programmer created that much pollution sounds totally bunk.

It is the sole fault of the ignorant "I read it in a forum/saw it on YouTube/Fast and Furious" type idiots that ruin things for the majority of the population. Pillars of black smoke from your stacks might be fine for serious race trucks in officially sanctioned competition, but in most practical street applications, it shows nothing, and accomplishes nothing more than creating inspiration for some whiny citizen to complain to their Congressman about. Real diesels that do real work every day, day in and day out, don't leave apocalyptic black plums of smoke wafting down the street. That equates to wasted fuel, excessive heat, and blown money.
Doesn't it seem stupid though that the government pushes all these standards and regulations and half of them contract each other?

@devilsadvocate, you obviously do not know the slightest thing about diesels, tuners,or a DPF, considering i do this for a living i may know a little more. and how does a DPF work???? it is a filter that clogs up with soot. and what happens to the soot?? the trucks dump diesel into the DPF filter and burns it off with super heated exhaust gas. where does the byproducts go, into the atmosphere. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? NONE. So instead of a little smoke here a little smoke there. they save it all up and get rid of it ll at once. Instead of setting the trucks up to run more efficiently from the get go. which is very possible. and yes they they make more power but what does that have to do with smoke? Nothing at all. As i said smoke comes from over fueling the engine. If the truck is setup to burn the fuel that is coming in you don't have that. Also as i said 99% of you Liberal idiots on here that have no clue what you are talking about, and seem to think that if the truck blows smoke it must have a DPF delete you have no clue.

@Jason, you realy have no clue do you, sorry about your knowledge. 5 mpg gain from removing DPF , ya right. I am a diesel tech, i know how it all works, you are just spewing false numbers, so do some research and get a life young fella.

Michael... in the unlikely event that you really are a diesel mechanic, please go back to the tech school you went to and ask for your money back, and while your at it let me know where you work so I never send a friend to have their truck worked on at your shop. Here's the cool thing about the internet, you can read stuff and act smart and say whatever you want to without any proof.
Now I don't work on diesels so I guess I'm not so cool, and there certainly is some truth to what you said, I assume you read it on an internet forum somewhere about DPF regens. The computer does dump fuel into the exhaust to burn the soot out of the filter but it is not the same as that nasty oily so thick you can almost taste it cloud of diesel smoke from turbo lag on heavy acceleration or deliberate overfueling. The soot when it burns up all the un-burned/partially burned diesel and other harmful chemical byproducts in the soot and expels it as light relatively harmless ash (very different that diesel soot) out the tailpipe probably completely unknown to the driver. Ideally we would want to eliminate ash but it is definitely the lesser of two evils for now.
I dont necessarily think the EPA or the federal government is right on this either, but as it stands US diesel engines are horribly polutant compared to their European counterparts and the DPF serves a purpose to make it less so. People confuse fuel economy with clean but it is two issues only partially connected. Old diesels polluted far more than their added economy could ever balance out.
Now, I'm no diesel mechanic but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night and I think that makes my e-swagger trump you e-swagger.

There are people getting an honest 3 to 5 mpg increase. Do the research on the forums. They have nothing to gain from lying about mileage gains.

Thiis is one more reason to kick the EPA out of anything that relates to car/truck design. It’s bad enough to have trucks detuned in the name of environmentalism, it’s another to see the EPA mandate lower mileage due to a filter.

This is one of those liberal ideas that does the opposite of what was intended. Shovel ready jobs? I guess they weren't as shovel ready as I thought? Oops. Ethanol subsidies? What ethanol is bad for the environment and raises food prices? Oops. Cash for clunkers? Hurt the economy and the environment? Oops. Obamacare? It raises costs and less people will be insured? Ooops. Ooops. Ooops. I am sick of these people in Washington. The federal government was never supposed to be this involved in our lives. They are supposed to be in the background. The EPA really is out of control: toilets that cause you to flush more than once and use more water, light bulbs with mercury that don't work, filters that hurt the environment, performance and lower mpg, etc.

@dave, @Don - so now I am a liberal anti-business, tax business, socialist, ruin the country leftist Obama love child?

My comment about medical coverage was not aimed at steering the conversation in that direction but to counter Don's tax everyone to feed the lazy bums sitting at home belief which he thinks is ruining the USA.
That isn't exactly what he said but that was the intended message.
I was making a point about where USA tax payers money actually goes. It isn't health or social problems.

One of the biggest problems facing the USA are the extreme left and right views and no one seems to be willing to meet in the middle.
Novel concept - perhaps a blend of both views might actually work the best?

The USA has no choice but to increase taxes and it has nothing to do with all of those unemployed people sucking the coffers dry.
Wow.
Big business, and the wealthy elites sure have people bamboozled.
Greedy elites caused the financial crisis not some poor unemployed guy living in a slum.

Am I anti-business - no.
Am I socialist - no.
Am I Republican - no.
Am I Democrat - no.

I am pragmatic and logical.

If a current course of action does not work change it or fix it. Repubs were in power while the USA economy headed towards the epicenter of the toilet.
The toilet flushed while the government transitioned from Repubs to Dems and they are working on things BUT a pure tax and spend approach is not the answer either.

If you want to keep the topic on trucks, I'd love that. If you want to discuss politics, that is fun too.

At the end of the day, I like to see posts that make sense. I ain't seeing much of that related to trucks or politics.

The problem with both politics and trucks, people are blindly locked into their current views and cannot see the forest for the trees.

EPA and government agencies are highly politicized organizations. Like the chasm between Left and Right - there has to be a middle ground that works for everyone.


Everybody saying that the fuel economy gains are worse for the environment than the particles you can't even see must be forgetting about all the energy consumed and pollution created just to make that extra fuel that gets burned up. All the energy drilling, refining and transporting the fuel adds up. I bet the fuel economy gains add up to enough to take those 422 semis off the road.

Also, I don't know many teenagers able to afford a 60K truck that they're running around putting DPF delete on and blowing black smoke, so that argument doesn't really hold water.

I just love the way the right wing is so proud of what they did the have piss-ants on these sites to lie. The 2010 pollution laws were passed by a republican house, senate and President in 2004.
I have a 2008 Duramax, if you use it as a truck it very rarely has to regenerate. If you drive it as a daily grocery getter it may regenerate more often
International tried to make a strictly EGR engine that would not pass the 2010 laws and it does not work very well, it will be worth nothing after warrenty.
Be proud of what you do in life.

When the DEF/PDF system goes awry on these diesel engines, it usually results in a catastrophic engine failure. I think the EPA really overstepped its bounds here.

Let the free market decide!

@Michael - "I have seen 10,000 lbs trucks with 40" tires pulling a trailer with another truck on it, averaging 30 mpg on the high way"

You ever stop to think about the fact that the reason why that guys truck was getting 30 mpg had nothing to do with the DPF delete but everything to do with the 40" tires that caused a massive change in the speedometer reading?

I personaly belive that there needs to be a balance between the environment and freedom. if we make everything supper clean in industry than industry will move over seas to areas that have no emissions standards, like china resulting in a net job loss for our country. we need to make it so thae air is safe to breath but not stifle growth. i think in a few years the technology will be there for the power gains with lower emisions.
i think our truck market is looking at it in the wrong way. VW disels have continued to imporve in milage even after adding urea DFE etc. my mom went from an 04 jetta manual TDI that got 42 to a Passat manual 2012 TDI that she gets in the 50mpg range, in a bigger heavier car with better performance. why have pick ups not been able to keep up with the MPG improvments? it appears that truck owners and manufactures belive that we need more power, which isn't necissarily true. look at a 2002 f250 powerstroke 7.3l 250 hp and 500 ft·lbf of torque 2012 6.7L is rated at400 hp and 800 lb·ft of torque. the trucks weigh about the same, most camper trailers and boats havent gone up, so are people just paying for the luxary of faster acceleration? i dont know about you but i rather have a smaller motor putting out the same power of the 7.3 and get a few MPGs improvement, i would gladly buy a Ford ranger wildtrack TDI manual if it ever came to the states, or even if they just brought the motor and put it into the f150 it would be a winner. i see lots of HD trucks being driven around empty or in low speed fleet use on job sites, im sure many people would perfer an efficent disel option, as i have seen many fleets switch to gassers.

People wonder why diesels have such strict emissions, well now you know! There are people that spoil it for the others. After reading quite a few of these posts, many of you are those that give diesels a bad name and the severity of how strict the epa is with them.

Honestly, they should be testing in every state, as there are too many late model diesels and current diesels that aren't "legal". For one thing... you really shouldn't be able to smoke out an entire lane when accelerating.

Very simple example: You can buy an after market exhaust system for your motorcycle that doesn't meet State Regulated Decibel Standards. Then in States where the motorcycles are safety inspected every year, the bike won't pass the State mandated decibel level and the same dealer that sold you the exhaust does the inspection and won't pass the bike. So many times we put the cart before the horse.

@John Cressy - good example. I used to ride sport bikes and many of the guys would pipe and chip their bikes. Some of them would wonder why my stock YZF1000 would still kill them in a drag race. I used to tell some of the guys that instead of buying a 600 get a 750 if the power wasn't enough. If their 750 wasn't enough get a litre bike. if that wasn't enough get their head examined or turn pro.
When is 400 hp and 800 lbft of torque not enough?

Diesel power is nice, but is it worth all the headaches? All the additional and high maintenance? Price of fuel? What about the $8,000 price of admission???

Utility companies do just fine with gas powered V8 & V10 F-series all the way up to F-650 boom & buckets. They've done the math for us.

Environmental Rules Threaten Gulf Coast Businesses With Jail, Fines
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/25/study-finds-gulf-states-are-biggest-targets-government-overcriminalization/
This story just tonight on FOXNEWS.com
This is the bull a lot of us are talking about-
It's grossly heavy handed, it's un-American and it's BS. Wake up folks.

To the small minority that agree with the EPA decision....thanks!
The amount of soot producing diesel trucks are slowly being phased out for good reason, no more gobs of raw fuel billowing out at intersections.

trucks that blow smoke are usually a cummins, a modifed brand X engine with exhaust mods and tuning, a pre dpf/computerized brand X engine and the one thing they all have in common is? drum roll.....................some idiot that made it that way cause he thinks its cool to blow smoke ! ....people in gas powered vechicles have been doing similar stunts for years with high powered cars doing burn outs, racing around, over fueled carbs running rich for more power when they stomp on it, so dont single out diesels for smoke, when you mix humans with anything you will get idiots making things stand out on radar and get the bleeding hearts crying and labeling the few as the many.

before the dodge/ram boys get their panties in a knot, i say cummins because its easy to get them to smoke plain and simple, the majority of trucks spewing black clouds of smoke are cummins, go to to U-tube and watch all the proud idiots showing all the smoke they have laid.
any new engine no matter what brand it is can be modified via tuning and parts to make smoke, there is not benefit to doing that other than for "stupid people" to show off and think they are cool, or to be fair some racing diesels and pullers will blow a major amount of smoke but thats just the nature of their industry
pre dps and computer diesel engines did smoke a little, I dont think they so as much any more due to the ultra low sulphur fuel used nowadays, but thats due to older technology for emissions, but hey they got way better mileage !!!

If air containing soot particles harmed people statistical research of populations in polluted cities vs clean air cities could prove exposure to soot leads to certain health problems. Instead since science cannot prove what the EPA wants, they create fraudulent studies to scare people into thinking we need the EPA to protect us. Why else would the EPA use elderly people with pre-existing health conditions AND expose them to abnormally concentrated diesel exhaust fumes in their study? Which they are being sued for right now! Any doctor will tell you that the fats in your diet, lack of exercise, and genetics are your risk factors for heart disease. Only the EPA can tell you that 3,500 people per year die from soot particle related heart disease (approx. number from their data if I remember correct) Did these fictional deaths result from only exposure to soot, they ate perfectly healthy all their life and the soot just did them in. I could go on but you get the point...Obama has over funded the EPA to the point it has to make up problems and then go after our economy to "solve" them.

@mitch - are you an epidemiologist? or do you know the difference between relative and actual risk? Fine particulate, smog etc exert a greater and more noticible effect on the elderly, frail, and inferm because they do not have the same physiological reserves to cope with the damage and/or stress. It is no different that why cancer is more prevelant in children or elderly.
What are you going to say next? There is not evidence that smoking causes disease?

The diesel engine manufactures are going through the same "growing pains" as the gas engines went through when unleaded gas was introduced. Very unreliable and poor fuel mileage. They figured it out over time and the darn things are very reliable and we're seeing fuel like we never seen before.
The diesel engine manufactures will figure this out over time just like the gas engines.
The EPA's approach should be more gradual rather then these huge leaps that create nothing but havoc on companies and the consumer who own the products.
The part of the article that stunned me was:
Edge Products will use the additional funds to offer rebates to individuals who own old wood-burning stoves and wish to replace them with cleaner burning appliances such as new pellet stoves or EPA-certified wood stoves.
Their going a little to far with their punishment in my opinion.

W T F !!!!!

This just in...

Judge rules EPA can’t mandate use of nonexistent biofuels
Daily Caller ^ | 1/26/2013 | Michael Bastasch

A federal court delivered a serious blow to the Environmental Protection Agency’s renewable fuel agenda, ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by mandating refiners use cellulosic biofuels, which isn’t commercially available.

The court sided with the country’s chief oil and gas lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, in striking down the 2012 EPA mandate that would have forced refineries to purchase more than $8 million in credits for 8.65 million of gallons of the cellulosic biofuel. However, none of the biofuel is commercially available.

“[W]e agree with API that EPA’s 2012 projection of cellulosic biofuel production was in excess of the agency’s statutory authority,” reads the court decision.

API said refiners were forced to purchase biofuel credits for nonexistent gallons of cellulosic biofuel to meet the EPA’s mandate, reports the Hill.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/26/judge-rules-epa-cant-mandate-use-of-nonexistent-biofuels

The thing that disturbs me about all this is that it even had to go to court.

What kind of power mad bureaucrat decrees that a company MUST use something that does not exist and then fines them when they don’t use it?

Well duh! A power mad EPA bureaucrat of course.

Alternate fuels from corn or cellulose are inefficient. Cellulose is hard to break down and convert to an alcohol. It would be more efficient to use waste wood fibre as hog fuel in industrial boilers and in co-generation plants.
Biodiesel from natural sources is most likely more cost effective than alcohol.
South American countries with large amounts of sugar cane are about the only ones with an efficient source of vehicle grade alcohol.
I was talking to a HD mechanic who knows a guy running natural gas in conjunction with diesel in his OTR Tractor. It increases his power when he uses it and extends his range. The guy has a home pumping station to fuel the tanks on his rig.
I doublechecked the internet and natural gas/diesel engine conversions are available in 2013.
http://www.cummins.com/cmi/navigationAction.do?nodeId=128&siteId=1&nodeName=Natural+Gas+Engines&menuId=1050

@Mark Williams - how about a story on natural gas for diesel engines?

@ devilsadvocate When the soot is burned up from the DPF, no ash is released to the atmoshere. When the soot is burned, you get the usual types of diesel exhaust that goes out the tail pipe. The ash remains in the DPF. As others have said the DPF is a filter and like all filters it is designed so that solid particales will not pass through. This includes soot and the ash left behind when the soot is burned up. DPF's do not last forever, their efficeincy decreases with every mile you drive as it has to store the ash left behind. the more ash it has to store the less soot it can trap so the more ofter it will have to regenerate. This continues untill the DPF no longer functions. On a cummins (Ram) that will take about 250-280k kms. I'm not sure how long the Ford and GM systems are supposed to last. When the filter is full you have two options, replace it or have it cleaned. Not sure how much a cleaning costs but the replacement will set you back thousands.
There are legitamate reasons for having DPF deletes. We service and repair many oil field trucks and nearly all these companies are removing the DPF's. Not just for fuel savings. A lot of the trucks sit and idle. Whether its a forman doing his rounds or a truck with a PTO moving pipe or running power tongs. The trucks plug up and although they are capable of doing a regen at idle its not always a good thing. If your parked in a dry area you really dont want your truck going into a regen while parked. Then theres the issue of how much space the DPF's take up under the truck. There isn't much room for a PTO on a 4x4 truck with a DPF. Not everyone who has one installed is doing it to blow smoke all the time.

@ snowman.. weve don the research... the truck in question a 2008 GMC Sierra 3500HD was getting 9mpg hotshotting RV's removed the DPF blocked EGR and walla... now averageing 14-15mpg.. pure numbers buddy... you get a life... It is just like a moron liberal as your self to deny the number put before... Doesn't matter.. you could remove your DPF and Get atleast 4-5mpg better, see the numbers your self... right in front of you face and tell everyone that you got worse mpg... just to stick with your liberal wacko beliefs... you simply just have no clue what you are talking about.. ive done it... and done it with out blowing your all so awefull pume of black smoke.. which I am against by the way, cuz its wasted fuel and just washes the cylinder walls.. but wait i might have just given you more info that you can process.... have a good night.

@ Lou

I does not matter who I am...the point is if their is no statistical link between cancer and soot then we should not punish ourselves via poorly thought out rules. Cancer happens and you don't leave this life alive. Nearly everything impacts your risk for cancer should we require sun filters on all bicycles? No we don't do that b/c a bike is not of the targeted class. If you defend the EPA on this one you do not own a truck with this filter, it is crap and turns a fuel efficient engine into one that uses a quart of fuel at a time to regen and sometimes it regens three times in a row if the conditions are not perfect for a regen.

Just because engineers can dream up a solution to meet EPA mandates does not mean it will work in the real world.

Thank all that is good about driving and trucks there are so many commenters on this site that seem to have brains and have not succumbed to the out and out brain washing by our federal government, the teachers unions and the so called news journalists and media of this once great Republic.
This is not an either/or debate or argument. We can have better air than we did decades ago without this gestapo style force coming from Washington affecting more and more of our lives every day.
I fear many younger Americans will never know how we really worked and got things done in this country before so much lording over us and overreach was in our lives.
Let the markets work and solve problems without so many rules, regulations, restrictions and strangling concern about everything and watch our economy and therefor country soar again.
And to the quivering worried readers – I did NOT write let’s have NO rules and regulations – OK?
We used to invent things and make things that rocketed our progress. Now, not so much.
Bureaucrats have never understood business or being in business and their scope, size and power worries and troubles business. That’s NOT what the federal government is supposed to be doing.

@mitch - reread my post - I wasn't just talking about cancer. Perhaps I should of been more clear.
The elderly and very young are more vunerable. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ie. asthma, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema are all exacerbated and/or caused by elevated fine particulate. There is a clear corrolation. If one brings cancer into the picture, there is also a clear correlation. Do you work or know anyone who works in health care? ER visits and admissions to hospital increase under high polution/fine particulate levels.
Direct proof?
That is where things such as relative or absolute risk come into play.
Here is one studies findings "Results Fine particulate and sulfur oxide–related pollution were associated with all-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality. Each 10-µg/m3 elevation in fine particulate air pollution was associated with approximately a 4%, 6%, and 8% increased risk of all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, respectively."
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=194704#qundefined
COPD, cardiovascular disease, and cancer do happen but these diseases can be reduced to a bare minimum by the choices we make. We could reduce morbitity and mortality drastically by the choices we make.
Tell someone going through active chemo and/or radiation that "cancer happens" and I should be able to do what the f--k I want with my truck!

JordanL was the only guy so far that presented a reasonable explanation as to why there may be benefit to a DPF delete kit. In relation to what Jordan L is talking about, Fort MacMurray and the oilsands are not heavily populated. Even the rest of the "oil patch" are not heavily populated. Other than the urban centres of Edmonton, and Calgary, Alberta has a pretty low population density.

The USA is becoming increasingly populated. Larger urban centres and more densily populated areas are especially vunerable. Big Al from Oz has pointed out that many areas of the USA are heavily dependant upon heating oil (basically light diesel) for heat. If the USA government had its sh-t together they could try to eliminate that source of polution by going to cleaner and cheeper alternatives like natural gas.

One has to start somewhere - the EPA could do things better but we've seen time and time again, freedom is a right but if its use and/or misuse impacts the rights of others, where do we draw the line?
Who's rights matter more?
You the driver or the person who's developed COPD, CAD, cancer etc from you chosing to drive a diesel truck without emission devices?

For all those who voted for Obama you cannot complain as this is his plan ! He is a far left wing nut !

Diesel trucks are going to drop off the face of the earth,nobody will buy them !!

And for guys who want a Diesel half ton...WHY !!!

You will get 10-14 mpg ina Diesel F-150/GM 1500 or RAM 1500 Diesel !!!

A gas engine from GM/Ford/Chrysler get 15-19 average mpg with the GM 5.3/Ford's Ecoboost 3.5,5.0 V-8/Chrysler's 3.6,4.7,5.7 Hemi !

People who buy Diesel trucks dont buy them for gas mileage anymore,just towing capability,so a 1/2 ton Diesel will be a slow seller,higher purchase price and low mpg,plus filling up eurea all the time gets expensive !

@Lou,

I am not a Diesel fan,but the epa has a political agenda..Radical far left environmentalists control it..

They did these regulations for non existant global warming,there is no proof of global warming/climate change..fact is Europe is under a deep freeze snow ect...In 2000 the lefty nutts said the U.K will never see snow again...lol..it snowed there several times in the past 13 years...

As for Diesels causing cancer,could be,in Europe they have alot of diesel cars and they are clamping down on them,but as with everything most of the Diesel cancer scare is extreme scare tactics ! Like smoking now they say if you smoke and quit at 40 you will have no long term effects,no cancer and same life span as a non smoker..So you see years ago they said if you smoke at any age you die of cancer..Fact is most cancer runs in your gene pool !

Did you know most so-called green technology causes more pollution !!!! The pollution went down in the U.S even canada because of Natural Gas !!

If the epa was truly concerned about health and climate we would have cars run on natural gas,it really runs clean !! Not a fan of the power loss and more fuel ussage but its alot cleaner !

Most left wing government policies hurt the environment more,and are knee jerk reactions...Case in point..Ethanol !! That is a total joke !

By the way you are greedy when you go to work and get paid...You work for profit as everyone else does..Just stop it with the greedy bit,its a bit old...Poor people/Middle calss are greedy,they take deductions every year to pay less income tax and are totally greedy when they pay none or get money back..PURE GREED ! Companies and richer people also take deductions if possible and the rich for example pay 63% of their income straight to the government in tax.....By the way if the ndp get in B.C is done (they bankrupted BC before and lied,lied,lied)!

Good-Day,fellow Canadian !

I am off to do a burnout in my modified V-8 truck ,so suck on that epa !

@R/T..R/S..GT - there is a big difference between greed and expecting a fair wage.

The government executives that changed the rules so a "wild west" investment market could exist which lead to the housing market collapse and banking collapse and auto indiustry collapse, the political parties who spend 6 billion dollars to get elected, the private individauls and big business who paid out that 6 billion, did it all out of the goodness of their hearts?

Greed - An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

That about sums it up!

Call it what you want, greed is greed.

@R/T..R/S..GT
I think you do need to have faith in science/engineering and not believe the gossip at your local pub or bar.

I have seen both sides of politics create debt. I actually lean to the right, but I do believe that subsidisation has to be removed or reduced significantly before you can restructure social benefits.

The US's troubles started prior to WWII. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were destined to eventually fail. The reduced interest rates on home loans has to be paid. The difference was meet by the government. Someone has to pay tax for this to work.

Look at the agricultural subsidises in the US. Corn is a classic example. Corn flows into most every industry in the US. Ethanol (energy), livestock feed, food production ie corn syrup. Someone has to pay tax for this.

If an industry as large as the corn agri-business requires subsidies then it is destined to eventually fail. If ethanol would increase the price of gasoline then so be it.

I believe in a sink or swim approach. Farms are business and if a farmer is bad at business then he should sell out, just like a restaurant or any other business.

The CAFE/EPA regulations are in place to reduce pollutants. But they also have been designed as trade barriers to protect the US auto industry from competition, it will eventually have more financial problems. Vehicle manufactures live on subsidies or bailouts. Someone has to pay tax for this.

Look at this article, the US doesn't manufacture high technology diesels, why should you. You have no real competition with diesel technology.

Some of the comments in this article verge on the ridiculous, especially the mpg arguments. Why didn't Detroit make 5 litre diesels that put out 350hp and 650ftlb of torque? They will be more than adequate to move an HD.

Because it will cost money to research the required technology. Why not import it from Europe, like a large proportion of your vehicle technology.

Most OECD economies have to restructure (reduce standards of living), but no one is prepared to pay the costs. The rich want the poor to pay and poor want the rich to pay, but everyone has to pay.

@Big Al - I agree. Subsidization doesn't work. The valid question is who pays for it? If taxes don't go up then one will face the "fiscal cliff" talked about in the USA.
I do agree that our technology is lacking. Earlier I had mentioned a conversation with a HD mechanic. He told me about a guy with CNG on his Cummins diesel powered commercial tractor. He gets better mpg when using the CNG and more power. His engine even has Cummins warranty.
If the system works as well as this guy said, it would make sense to use such a system for a power boost on diesels as opposed to tuner kits and DPF deletes.
EPA and NHSTA rules are trade barriers. It would be cheeper for the USA to globalize standards but the auto industry would probably collapse due to the competition.

@Justin I feel sorry for you having to spend that kind of money on a new engine. This is a good case for Ram's and chevy's 100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Lots of ford guys say you don,t need it. Hope they don't have to pay like you did.

@Big Al--The only way that America will get off of heating oil is if the areas that present do not have access to natural gas are given that access. Bottled gas is to expensive for most. A government program combined with the natural gas industry to make natural gas assessible to everyone would take away the market for heating oil and thus make more oil available for the production of diesel. Many who are on heating oil would rather have natural gas (gas is cleaner and cheaper).



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us