EPA Says Don't Touch the Particulate Filter


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



@Jeff S
Oil heating is another classic protected market. 25% of the US's crude oil cut is directed to the industrial and domestic heating oil market.

If money was spent on infrastructure to bring gas to homes instead of Solyndra and other failed "green" technologies the US will be polluting less right now.

The US has used the reasoning we need to secure our energy future, but the policies and regulations don't support that view.

When I was in the States over Christmas people were more concerned about how big a magazine they could have with a rifle rather than the future of the country.

We have some guys who have added LPG gas injection on their diesels at work.

From what they say the newer diesels don't benefit as much because the engine provide a more complete burn. I haven't read anything on this, I only listened to what the guys were talking about.

When a diesel is chipped the black smoke you see is unburnt fuel. The gas is supposed to burn the fuel more completely, hence providing more power and torque.

I would think using gas would increase NOx levels as well by increasing combustion pressures and temperature.

Who would think that the Republicans/ Conservatives would have to lie, and blame the Liberals, for passing these laws, it was passed in 2004, that was a complete Republican government. Google it!
You should be proud of what you did, the economy falling into the ditch, the EPA, no wage increase for the 90%, why would you want to lie about the results of you policies.

@Big Al from Oz--I agree. With all the natural gas that is being discovered its best and most efficient use is for heating and cooking. It is more efficient to pipe it directly to the consummer (homeowner or business). The money spent of the infrastructure to provide natural gas directly to all consumers would be a long term investment and would be a major contributor to clean energy and energy independence. This would be a much better use of natural gas rather than running vehicles on it. Plentiful and affordable energy has more impact on the average person than magazines for automatic weapons. The US has an abundance of natural gas and should full utilize this as an energy source.

@L ou-I would have to agree with your assessments, but "the wild west" investment strategies will resurface again with a different derivative from mortgages. It will be another easy money snake oil sales approach that will appeal to those looking for a get rich quick approach. You are also correct that the big money buys politicians.

Over 30 years ago I worked for a group of local oil companies and one of my duties was to keep track of company campaign contributions. Campaign contributions are considered an investment. If you can imagine have 16 land based oil drilling rigs in Louisiana and other scattered throughout the South and the Rockies and knowing that a huge campaign contribution to re-elect one of the most corrupt governors that you do not even like was necessary just to keep your rigs operating and to keep any of your rigs operating in the future. This was just one state not counting the other states, local, and federal office holders you support to keep your business operating smoothly. My eyes were openned and I never had the same view toward politics.

Why should we have to have air full of soot. If everyone would be responsible we would not need all the maze of laws to enforce what people should do. Every problem that the US, Canada, and NA has is solveable. We can have clean running diesels and clean and abundant energy. We could have a health system that actual is affordable and takes care of people. We can have decent roads and bridges. Pure capitalism or pure socialism are not the answer. This is just something to think about and discuss in an intelligent manner regardless if you are a Ram, Ford, Chevy, Toyota, or fan of any other truck. We all share the same olanet.

@JeffS - ideology whether it be politics or pickups f--ks up all sorts of things. I just started reading the Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. He tries to explain why we believe in what we believe, and why others don't have the same political or religious worldviews.
Maybe I can figure out how to deal with the trolls. LOL

In relation to natural gas for heat, it is a cop-out for USA government not to develope infrastructure that would provide gas to rural areas. We have gas piped into some fairly small towns and even houses that are somewhat rural.

@Lou--That sounds like a good read. I will have to read that. You are right ideology gets in the way of taking action. One question to ask yourself is "A hundred years from now is it going to make any difference?" Most of the things that we as humans get bothered about are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Just because you prefer a certain truck, or live in a different country, or have other differences doesn't mean we cannot get along and be civilized. Don't get me wrong Lou, I am not saying this about you this is just a general statement that applies to a lot of people on this site and in life in general. Many times I learn something new if I take the time to listen and consider another's viewpoint. We are never too old to learn.

I work on heavy trucks for a living! We see a lot of DPF issues! It's a proven fact that pre-07 engines could achieve higher MPG's then those equipped with DPF's. If a trucks DPF soot load gets to high and requires a manual regen, the aftertreatment system alone can burn up to 4 gllons/hour to clean the DPF. So along with worse economy, we have to burn more fuel, thus emitting more emissions to keep them clean. How does this make sense? I am sure we will see engine manufactures producing clean engines that will not require DPF's down the road! Edge should maybe focus on programming the engine to make more power with no smoke!

I did google it. The amenment in 2004 was an amendment that gave California the right to make their own standards as long as they were as stringent as the federal and to enforce the standards that were already in place prior to 2003.
See page 418, Sect428: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ199/pdf/PLAW-108publ199.pdf

The 2004 amendment had nothing to do with the filters and the EPA fining people for removing them.

These standards we are talking about in this article started in the 1990's. The standards for the diesels was submitted by the EPA in 1998. The standards were then put into effect in February 2000 and to be phased in in 2004. They didn't need to pass any new laws. It was already a done deal in 1998 (Clinton led EPA.)

See this report...EPA submitted this report to Congress in August 1998, concluding that further emission reductions were needed and that technology to achieve such reductions was available and cost-effective. Tier 2 standards, requiring emission reductions of 77% to 95% from cars and light trucks were promulgated in February 2000, and are being phased in over the 2004-2009 model years. To facilitate the use
of more effective emission controls, the standards also require a more than 90% reduction in the sulfur content of gasoline, beginning in 2004.

Oh, yeah the 1990 amendment which led to the 1998 diesel standards was during a dem controlled house and senate. And just because someone has an R next to their name doesn't mean they are conservative. The people coming up with this crap are in both parites and are phony masterminds and their experts, who sit around and play with our lives and our lifestyles, as if they know something. These fools don’t know anything. See cash for clunkers for the latest example: hurt the environment and the economy. The sooner you wake up to this the better off we will be!

Do you really work with big trucks? If you do, do you understand your job or how engines work?

There are people on this site who make alot of claims, which can't be proven.

Why is it that US diesels are having problems gaining better fuel economy?

Your diesel technology as I pointed out is behind the Europeans, that includes heavy truck diesels. They might be reliable, but like your V8s of old, your manufacturers don't invest money to create better products. Why? Because everyone wants the biggest and cheapest. You pay for what you get.

Have a look at your diesel fuel, it is 15ppm, Europe has 10ppm. Your EPA regulations clamp down on NOx quite hard and inequitably in comparison to gasoline, why to protect the Big 3 and protect the US from Euro diesel imports.

The new 3.2 Duratorque that is going into the Transit can't be used in Europe because it can't be made to meet Euro V or VI. But it can be used in the US. Why? Because your emission regulations concentrate on NOx, just increase Add Blue and pump in more fuel to get more power.

Your diesel regulations aren't their to protect the environment, because CO2 is the real big killer and your regulations are protecting larger and higher carbon producers, both gasoline and diesel.

Your vehicle industry has so many anomalies regarding the use of regulations to protect it, it will eventually go broke again.

Your diesel technology will only go so far and the required technology will be imported. Add Blue technology is from the 50s and there will eventually be a "work around".

Your regulations do support an increase in power with no smoke compared to the Europeans, just increase carbon output.

Why not do what the Europeans do and increase power with less fuel? But that is to hard and will cost money.

EPA IS A TAX SCAM, why is it that if u put a ERG Deliete and Particulate filter delete you get better mpg? EPA is a scam

So to begin, im an avid diesel enthusiast with more knowledge than some here, the dpf isnt the reason that these trucks get terrible mileage, all the dpf is is a catalytic convertor with more filtering materials in it, the main reason the first dpf equipped trucks got 10-12 mpg was because of how the manufactures had the computers programmed to clean these filters, I.e. regeneration. the regeneration process on most of the trucks leaves fuel injectors open for a predetermined time based on how clogged/dirty the dpf is. Thats why the trucks didnt get very good fuel mileage, the increase in power when the dpf is removed is from a freer flowing exhaust system, where diesels benefit from having an exhaust system with as little flow restrictions as possible. Ford 6.4L benefits extremely from the dpf delete for more than just mileage or power but also reliability. The diesel truck drivers that are blowing black smoke(rolling coal) on the roads are idiots, leave the black smoke and race tunes for the race track, thats what they were meant for. If you delete your dpf get proper tuning to where the truck doesnt smoke, black smoke means worse fuel economy.

The added fuel to the catalytic converter is decreased when it is at the optimum operating temperature. When the temperature of the catalytic converter is at the correct temperature it only need Add Blue (urea) to start the catalytic conversion of the NOx.

Most diesel is injected into the catalytic converter during the initial starting of the engine.

This is also when most of the particulates are "trapped", when the engine is cold.

Hence, modern diesels work best if driven at least 12 miles or so, this will allow the catalytic process to work efficiently without the additional fuel.

Also, US diesel isn't "clean" enough to use Euro diesel tech to its fullest. There are some on this site who find this contentous.

It should read maintain the catalytic process,
1st para, 2nd sentence.


We have Add Blue here in Australia and I haven't heard of any issue regarding fuel economy.

Does Ford's SCRs in the HD's have a design flaw? If so is Ford going to rectify the problem?

It shouldn't be that hard a problem to solve.

As some one that had a dpf delete on my powerstroke let me tell you that the truck gets over 20 mpg and is much more powerful. This is a joke I am burning half the fuel I would normally burn so in that way I am helping to conserve resources and the environment.

It's your crazy CAFE/EPA regulations causing this.

We can achieve similar work with diesels and emit less NOx and CO2 than your pickup trucks. And get at least 30mpg or more per gallon.

Remember, you have many groups lobbying the US government to have their ideals imposed on the public.

You need new refineries, but the environmentalist stop this or make it near impossible.

You need to pipe natural gas around the country more so normal people can access a more affordable energy. But money is diverted to EVs, Hybrids, Solyndra, wind and solar, corn and dairy farmers etc. Converting to gas will reduce the US's reliance on crude by at least 15-20%.

Like the Chinese now the US used to put infrastructure first, to build a nation. Infrastructure now plays second fiddle.

The Big 3 can't compete effectively with global competition, so regulations are created to stiffle imports. It goes on and on.

The US isn't the only country like this, Europe and the Japanese are similar and then look at the countries that are having economic problems.

The US, Europe and the Japanese are still using modelling from post WWII in managing their economies, and the world has change significantly and the power bases are shifting.

While we, the people of the "West" try and maintain this facade and not implement the necessary changes we will be left behind with our arrogance.

I have been reading many people having the same troubles that I have had with the DPF. The cleanings require a trip to the dealer every three to four months - and a tow truck or replacement if you get caught in the middle of a trip away from home.
The cleaning process doesn't seem to be ready for the market. It doesn't clean itself as intended. Requires many extra miles (especially if you live over 30 miles from the nearest dealership like me) just to have it cleaned/replaced. The decrease in fuel mileage with the DPF is real and noticeable.
I'm supportive of cleaner air, but the extra miles and reduced fuel mileage seem to counteract the purpose of the DPF...

The "catalytic process" or regeneration process I was referring to is pre-scr or pre-urea injection systems. From what I have seen since the introduction of scr systems on trucks has been very reliable thus far.

You need to make a correction in your article. At the time of your article there were at least 3 other companies selling this type of product on the market. Edge Products is only the first one to be pursued by the EPA.

The article said the programmer got "more power and better mileage" Why would anyone be against this?

DPF & DEF, sure makes a case for CNG/LNG and fuel cells.

soot = smog
NOx= bad health
look it up
i wish your big 3 would make a smaller hp new truck that would get 40+ mpg
we will see if they can meet 2016 emissions/mpg yes it is comming
aftermarket crap you get what you pay for

Talk about smoke .NASCAR winners do 47 @ donut burnouts EPA outlaw that.

I think its funny how you Americans are angry at this.

In Europe we use these filters for a much longer time and to say that diesel engines suffer because of this filter is BS or you Americans are to stupid to make a working one.

BTW the most powerful production semi-truck is made by Volvo
and got more power with this filter than American trucks without this filter.

I love my DPF. Here is why I only get 15 mpg daily. When I pull at trailer I get 8 mpg. I say everybody need one of this trucks and get rid of gasoline then see the EPA get bent out of shape by having to drill more in the United States to keep up with the fuel that is lost and the 4 gals of oil that has to be changed every 3000-5000 miles. The EPA can take that and put it in their pipes and smoke that.

I Got 2 words for the EPA

FU$$ YOU !

just bought my edge cts and delete kit !!

I love canada !!!!

Ok so everyone against the dpf deletes here know sooo much about diesel trucks ,then do you know what happens when one of these dpf 's fail . They put out tons and tons more smoke , cause turbo and engine failures , can cause the truck to catch fire, pretty much render the truck useless until it is removed or replaced at a insane cost . The gov is in bed with all the Diesel engine companies and the truck manufactures so they can make more money to have all this junk fail and be replaced . If you give $50,000 for a new super duty ,you should be able to do whatever you want to the stupid truck as long as it don't affect dot laws . I think people need to realize who's really incharge of the world here . WE ARE ! Without us tax paying Americans there would be nothing . We are the ones using our hard earned money buying these over priced trucks ,to move livestock for food, we are the ones hauling equipment to go out and build roads for everyone to drive on, we are the ones that pay for $4 a gal diesel so all the Foreign oil companies can get richer . WE THE PEOPLE . You don't need a collage education to understand this we are having everything taken away until there is nothing left. Now that I'm off topic the dpf kits DO work all the clowns you see that are rolling black smoke all the time are the ones wasting their own money by overfueling the engine and the black smoke you see is unburnt fuel . With these truck tuned properly they will work the same if not better than they did from the factory . As a service tech any truck with a dpf ,after 50k to 70k miles will likely have a dpf related issue . It's a very costly repair and I'm sure that the farmer or company owner has better things to do with his money than buying a $3,000 dpf . The case against edge should be thrown out of court . All this is doing is making it harder for the ones that keep this county floating .

this is all interesting. I am a tech as well and I must say, when I get customers in who need to spend 4 to 6000.00 just to keep everyone happy except them, then I cry foul. first of all, if vehicles from the 50's to 70's can get up to 30 mpg, then why all this bragging about32 mpg almost 40 years later.
any engine built properly and well maintained will give exactly what it was designed to do without all this technology. my ol naturally aspirated 7.3 diesel pre computer gets almost 30 mpg and pulls fine. all theses convertors and dpf cans do is clean up the impossible to delete emissions of a diesel or gas engine. we really do have the technology to get the most out of an engine but this cannot happen as automakers are still trying to push horsepower on the everyday driver. don't want high emissions? then don't use diesels for the commuter vehicles, keep them where they belong, on a WORK vehicle.

Just a little late to this discussion but the EPA is a over funded tax scam.

Budget FY 2010 8.74 billion with 17,200 employees

Department of education FY 2010 budget 46.7 billion in the U.S. with a lot more than 17,200 employees.

With this in mind a good quality education and quality food is less important but diesel emissions are. As I just graduated High School and can not afford college now because of obamcare. As such this minor crap is way more important than the youths future and the well being of 'Murica.

If it improves my gas mileage and power i'll do it. Thats my own problem. The E.P.A. killed so many good vehicles. Push the pedal and watch the gas gauge drop...

By the way, i ride a motorcycle as an every day driver because of fuel costs. I can save more to put it to use in my toys.

So whatever happend to the American dream of working hard and trying to make it to the top? I am a 23 year old welder and I work hard with hopes that one day I will be able to afford a nice new diesel truck, the problem is the government butting in where they don't belong. I've been reading up on the new diesels and they sound like a $40,000-60,000 turd. I understand that pollution is bad but so is a truck you can't keep running because all the emissions b.s. less government and less regulations is what America needs. This country wasn't built by the government, it was built by hard work and competition in the private sector..... That's just my viewpoint anyway

I say if you buy it it's yours and there shouldn't be any body to tell you what you can't do to your own property so if you like it keep it if not take that junky crap off

I currently driving a 2006 Dodge Cummins that I bought one month ago with 230,000 miles on it I have put ten thousand miles on the truck about 5,000 miles ago I took off the converter it use to blow double the black smoke that it does now with a converter off I no longer get the black soot caked to the rear of my bumper that I used to and it doesn't even blow black smoke anymore and this engine is tuned up with around 600 horsepower I don't understand how that converter works but why would it blow more soot if it cuts down on emissions

Show me a battery anywhere that is capable of towing a 30,000 pound trailer at 70mph. I highly doubt you will find one. Diesel falls to the ground and is not harmful and is just a by-product of gasoline. The Nickel mined in Canada for Toyota's Prius is so bad on the environment that NASA has declared the area as a dead zone (an area where no vegetation can sustain life.) It's actually worse on the environment to drive a Hybrid that it is to drive a 8.1L Hummer H2 over the course of 300,000 miles. Nickel is minded in Canada and the batteries are produced in China to bypass United States emission laws. If you are really concerned about trucks efficiency than talk to your congressman about DPF and EGR removal on the newer trucks. Sure they keep the truck from black smoking but they also hurt the truck efficiency making it burn way more diesel fuel. Guys on the fullsize LML's (2011-2014) see about 12mpg with all of the emission equipment on as opposed to 21-23 when the emission equipment is removed. People need to understand is these trucks will be driven 300,000+ miles easily! So with emission equipment on the truck will burn 25,000 gallons of diesel fuel as opposed to approximately 13,000 to 14,000 United States gallons of fuel in it's life. Do the math guy's. The government is responsible for "your health concern's" James!

The EPA needs to regulate the prices to repair these systems. $2000 for a plastic adblue tank? $5000 for a DPF? There has to be like 400% markup. It really makes owning a diesel unappealing. The warranties on these parts need to be at least 10 years and 135,000 miles. Any shorter and you may as well drive gas.

All I have to says is Cow Farts.

I own a 2009 peterbilt with an isx cummins. My motivation in removing the dpf and associated hardware is simply to keep it out of the shop. The system uses the turbo to create the heat. At 500 degrees fuel is added behind the turbo and raises the temp to 1200 degrees. Turbos were never designed for this kind of purpose. It is a complicated system that takes quite a bit of money to repair when it fails. The other issue is the time it takes to troubleshoot and repair. If the truck is in the shop I'm not making any money. No agencies have offered to help me and my little business when the system fails. Tomorrow morning I am taking my truck to cummins for another dpf issue. This is the second time this year. Where is my bail out? You are welcome to think what you'd like but the way I see it is simple. If you have a problematic system it needs to be removed.

Going after Edge is like going after Glock (gun manufacturer) for shootings. We need to take responsibility for our OWN actions. Go after the ones who used the delete kits for on-road trucks (since they are sold for off-road use only). But they didn't. Instead they went after the mfg who was an easy settlement of $500k which did nothing to really fix the environment. Don't get me wrong I'm for these deletes. They have their place. I just believe this sets a bad precedence going after the mfg instead of the people who are ACTUALLY breaking the law -- the users. Its NOT about saving the environment. Its about money.

I've read all the postings and must confess I'm confused. Let's all put aside personal and ideology thinking for just a moment. I have a 2009 F-250 6.4, I'm not looking for performance or increased fuel economy, all I know is that it cost $1700.00 at the local dealership to replace the DPF. I am not a liberal or environmentalist but I do want clean air...etc. but I do support the rights Americans have not to be regulated to death. By the way why doesn't the US Military have to follow EPA regulations? If the environment needs protecting. I suggest and reason if the DPF does indeed help the environment, fine, I just ask that the EPA pay for the DPF when in need of replacing.

Save the world - eat an EPA nazi.


This is one more example of the government making up the facts as they go along. The only use for all that junk on the truck is to allow the government to manage fuel mileage. Every good tuner knows the moment you undo all that junk the first thing that goes up is your fuel mileage. This administration manipulated the law and stopped Edge from marketing a good product and actually helped the environment.

Lot of interesting comments and emotions in here. I understand that many feel diesel tuners are a toy used by kids and inconsiderate individuals; and, I also understand the argument that the Fed Gov is overreaching not only this niche market, but through excessive regulation.

In my opinion, both perceptions have merit. I have a number of years serving in the US Army. One thing I've learned during these 23 years is that the Army is a testbed for US society. I cannot recall the number of mandatory training sessions I've attended resulting from the bad actions of others, not to mention the draconian rule developed to prevent an immature or stupid act from occurring again. The old saying about "one bad apple" ruining a good thing is spot on. But, that is the Army, an organization that must maintain discipline for the good of the nation.

I see some of this "knee jerk reaction" in the regulation of medium duty trucks. I say this because the effect of the EPA's rules on an individual and his property. Specifically, these rules significantly decrease the efficiency, and, I believe, the service life of the diesel engines that have all of new anti-pollution equipment bolted to it. The EGR re-directs the pollutants into the engine crank case, using the "life blood" of the engine itself, the engine oil, as a pre-filter. At the end of a 3 to 4 month service time (which is significantly less that the interval that diesel engines without the EGR affixed obtain), the oil literally globs out of the oil drain. All of these particulates obviously increase the friction in the engine, which defeats the oil's purpose. The EGR directly effects the service interval, shortening it significantly. Not all those who have deleted their diesel vehicles are the inconsiderate kids blowing black smoke on the roads. Some are actually attempting to protect their investments.

Many will agree that this effect is positive, limiting the amount of pollutants in the atmosphere, and aver that the "buyer beware." But, I question the amount of pollutants produced by the increase in the service interval. Bringing engine oil to the market is not an insignificant stream of pollution. Combine that with increase in fuel usage to both counteract the EGR and other components on the vehicle, and to burn off the soot collected in Diesel Particulate Filter - and any reasonable person should begin to question the overall effectiveness of the EPA's new regulations on medium duty diesel trucks. Another factor in play is that the EPA enacted these rules as a non-legislative action. That is, the public did not and does not have a choice. That is "un-Amerikan," and should elicit more discussion than it has.

Some of us don't like to be ruled without representation, and disagree with all the arguably arbitrary rules that our Government place on us.

Was the pollution generated during regeneration cycles taken into consideration when figuring out how much theoretical pollution was created by removing the emissions devices?

How about the 11-up trucks? There have been no conclusive studies regarding the effects of burning aqueous urea to the environment or it's inhabitants. This is troubling.

Ok I don't agree with the dpf filters I had a 09 ram 2500 with the 6.7 cummins that only got 15 mpg on a good day and God forbid you put a trailer behind it towing something so I traded it for a 06 ram 2500 with the 5.9 cummins. I have put a Bullydog programmer on it and a Bullydog cold air intake as well an a 5" cat back exhaust from mbrp. I get 24-27mpg with it and guess what NO BLACK SMOKE. Not only does the dpf filter hurt your mpg but it kills the motor a diesel doesn't need that much back pressure it causes a host of problems for example turbo failure it can't "breath" so to speak. Normal turbo operating temp is 1,200 max and the filter restricts air flow out of the turbo causing excessive temps reaching up to 1,450 causing premature turbo failure.So no I do not support the dpf filter nor the def fluid.

Here's something for all you EPA fanboys to consider. My first diesel was a 1997 Ford F250 Power Stroke, which came with a catalytic converter due to emissions standards. I struggled with the idea of removing it due to having to have the truck inspected "sniffed" every other year. I'm one that saves everything and so I saved all the inspection reports for years. When I finally did remove the "kitty" I noticed that my particulate measurements did not increase very much at all and that the standards were so high that it made no difference whether I had the converter on or not. So I'm one that believes that this issue is more about revenue and control then it is about the environment. I believe that the standards are such that any diesel engine, old or new, would pass emission standards without any of this Catalytic Converter/EGR/DPF nonsense installed.

The comments to this entry are closed.