Standard Reactions
Last October, President Obama’s executive branch [through the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Department
of Transportation (DOT), and
the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA)] proposed a new set of
greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel efficiency standards
for new medium- and heavy-duty trucks.
The program’s regulations begin to take effect in
2014. These rules are intended to reduce total
GHG emissions and fuel consumption of tractortrailers
by 20 percent by 2018. This new program
will also affect diesel pickups. We’re told to expect
a 15 percent decrease in GHG emissions
and fuel consumption compared to the 2010
models. I decided to check into this issue and
paraphrase what the big players think about it.
The EPA’s Reaction
“This comprehensive national program is projected
to reduce GHG emissions by about 250 million
metric tons and save 500 million barrels of oil
over the lives of the vehicles produced within the
program’s first five years. In addition to cutting
greenhouse gas pollution, greater fuel economy
will shrink fuel costs for small businesses that depend
on pickups and heavy-duty vehicles.”
The American Trucking
Association’s Reaction
“Through ATA’s ongoing dialogue with both the
EPA and DOT, we are encouraged that the proposal
takes into account the wide diversity of operations
within our industry, and the need to build flexibility
into the rulemaking process. We believe the
regulations proposed by the EPA and the NHTSA
can be attained through technologies currently
available to motor carriers with expected returns
on investments of between 12 to 24 months.”
Navistar’s Reaction
“While it’s too soon to evaluate all
elements of the proposed regulations, we are
committed to engaging with the EPA and DOT
on this issue. We look forward to working together
with government and industry leaders
in the months ahead to implement changes
that will benefit the customers and communities
we serve with cleaner, more fuel-efficient
commercial vehicles. For decades, Navistar
has demonstrated its commitment to clean
technologies that benefit the environment
and its customers. Navistar was the first original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) to release
the smokeless diesel engine and was the first
engine manufacturer to gain EPA certification
for meeting 2007 particulate and hydrocarbon
emissions standards—six years ahead
of schedule. Navistar was also the first OEM
to enter assembly line production of dieselhybrid
commercial trucks and school buses in
North America.”
Cummins ’ Rea ction
“For some time now, Cummins has advocated
for consistent and responsible regulations
that recognize the needs of business,
offer clear direction, and provide incentives
to companies that create innovative technologies
as well as jobs in this country. Today’s onhighway
diesel engines in the United States
emit 99 percent less particulate matter and
nitrogen oxides (NOx) than 30 years ago. Such
regulations also add real value to our customers,
as better fuel economy lowers their operating
costs while significantly benefiting the
environment. We look forward to working with
the EPA, DOT, and other stakeholders in developing
the final rule.”
Diesel Technolo gy
Forum’s Reaction
“More than 95 percent of all heavy-duty
trucks are diesel-powered, as are a majority
of medium-duty trucks. Diesel power is the
driving force of goods moved by trucks in our
economy. This proposal clearly envisions clean
diesel power as the centerpiece of freight
transportation in the clean-energy economy of
tomorrow. While not a new concept to diesel
engine and truck manufacturers, pursuit of
greater fuel efficiency has always been a key
driver of product development to meet customer
demands. As we learn more about the
details of the proposal, it is expected that the
proposed rule will likely expand the deployment
of existing technologies and demand
further innovation that recognizes the unique
considerations of the trucking industry and
commercial heavy-duty applications.”
My Reaction
I think the standards are too easy. If I were
in charge, I’d demand a 100 percent increase
in fuel efficiency, and I’d want the air coming
out the exhaust to be cleaner than the air going
into the engine. Of course, this is coming
from an automotive editor who drools over
the newest green-technology press releases
and dreams about reaching the thermal efficiency
Rudolf Diesel first predicted. Historically,
many automotive innovations were
decades ahead of their time, but it took legislation
to bring them (things like removing
lead from gasoline and sulfur from diesel) to
market. Sure, there are some growing pains,
but without challenges we don’t improve. It’s
ironic that the emissions regulations many
enthusiasts hate gave birth to the diesel performance
we have today. Common-rail injection,
VGT turbos, and 400hp clean-burning
trucks (with a warranty) wouldn’t have happened
if manufacturers didn’t need to meet
EPA regulations.
Got a different reaction? Send hate or praise
mail to: Jason.thompson@sorc.com
The Fallout
With the article in Diesel Power magazine i diagree with all of this crap because these new diesels seem to have half the power and get alot less mpg we have a 2004 highoutput 6spd dodge cummins that gets about 20 mpg but when u get in a new cummins everthing has electronics on it and gets about 15 mpg alot of owners of these new trucks have problem after problem so i think that they should not get in any hurry and work out the kincs in there own time so they can produce the power and reliability that the older diesels did.
Are you changing your title to; DIESELPOWER the voice of the E.P.A.? You call yourself an "automotive editor" well how about acting like one! How about asking some questions of the conglomerate of bureaucracy lording more regulations on us(without congressional oversight) instead of gushing like a teenage girl at a boy-band concert. Personally I think it will hurt Manufacturing,some of your vendors and just us workin' folks in ways we can't even calculate, making us again less competitive globally! I know a highway contractor who now has to decide whether to spend 10's of THOUSANDS on upgrading or scraping ,prematurely, good equipment because of the last round of regulation. Growing pains or real pain? I noticed Caterpillar was missing from your article, is it because they already threw in the towel and declared the US market not worth the trouble. Don't worry china will buy there excellent engines. Hey, they might as well move there manufacturing there as well, huh?
You would "DEMAND" 100% efficiency increase and cleaner than ambient exhaust? Well pass the di lithium crystals Scottie, This is exactly the pie in the sky naive thinking that has brought this country down from its heyday. The suggestion that the only innovation comes from demands of the government is exactly contrary to what made us great and is a direct insult to all the great innovators including most of your advertisers. Were you implying the automotive industry made no advancements until the CAFE standards in 1973?
I am all for improvement,innovation and the next real energy source. It's just not here yet and by over demanding the regulators are putting an undue burden on all of us. Lets face it, we breath cleaner air now than our hovel dwelling forefathers ever did and our lifespan is almost doubled since 1900. Our current oil supply will last over a hundred years! If we let them, the unchecked government bureaucracy will regulate us to the point of the USA being the first patient to die of "growing pains"!
Get your "greenie" head out of the "co2 choked clouds". Get your feet back on the ground. Realize no innovation ever comes before its time and report on the true effects of these intrusions on our lives on real people or get a job with the E.P.A.. By the way , thanks for the lowsulfer fuel. Now I have to add lubricant to every tank so I don't burn up my pump. Real helpful??
Hello, Jason -
Thanks for replying. I do think the manufacturers would have invested in common-rail if there was a demand and/or competition regarding the technology. Regarding why it took so long to remove lead from fuel is simply because engines run better and the federal government forced private companies to do so.
It is not that clean air sucks, and yes I have controlled asthma, it is that bureaucrats are trying to push an agenda and mandate strict regulations (cap and trade for instance) that will cripple this economy forcing more private companies to go south of the border and across the oceans. That said, I understand the importance of regulations, but I also understand the importance not to over regulate.
Regarding third-world countries and there contribution to pollution is quite concerning; however, it can be argued that the US is contributing to this due to the outlandish regulations that are imposed on private industry. As I stated earlier, moderate regulations -- not necessarily less of them is what regulatory entities need to focus on.
There is no where in the Constitution that states the federal government has the enumerated powers to use tax payer dollars to "bail" out a private industry regardless of its size. That said, the federal government now has the ability to mandate agenda on a private company because they partially own it.
I agree that new technology can provide cleaner and more powerful engines; however, it will reduce fuel economy due to strict catalyst and scrubber systems and other "clean" technologies. Therefore, I do not buy 1 ton diesel trucks to get the same fuel economy as a 5.7L Hemi 1/2 ton gas guzzler.
I think we can both agree that clean air and water is paramount, but we should also agree that to meet this does not require the iron fist of government. Instead, the country needs rational, logical regulations that small, medium, and large business can comply to without having to spend countless money and resources. Allow the market and the people to decide what they want out of diesels, and lets keep the government from medaling where they don't belong.
Shawn
I guess I'll bring the hate on your latest piece. in your world I guess the free markets are not allowed to work? if what the government mandates is so great "we" the consumer would have demanded it from the manufactures a long time ago. don't you think? or do you subscribe to the theory that the government knows best, and they will tell us what we want. like General Motors, and Chrysler vehicles. Had the produced what the market wanted they would not have been in the trouble they were in. could you agree?
You may know your way around medium sized trucks but class 8's you know not. the emission technology that has placed on these motors has been horrible. let know one tell you different. talk to a few owner operators, and let them tell you about how well these EGR motors work...after the 5th replacement of so-said technology. This stuff is a nightmare. Nobody knows how to get it right cause thanks to the government it was rushed into production without proper trial and era. Now they want to place mileage standards on them. Wait till you see what happens now. keep plenty of fuel in your truck; cause your going to have to go to the warehouse and get it yourself.
But hey!!! thanks for reading
Hi Jason, just got done with your article on US emission standards. While I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying, how come none of the other countries of the world follow suit pertaining to our stringent emissions? Other countries get all sorts of cool new cars and trucks, gas and diesel that don't meet US standards, while we set a good example. Places like China put a billion new cars on the road with little concern for economy or pollution every year. When the countries all come together for ghg summits, there should be some talk of every carmaker using our emissions standards. I am all for efficiency as I am self-employed and rely almost 100% on my diesel trucks. My girlfriend drives a dismal Grand Cherokee with the 5.2, getting worse mileage than my 01 Dodge diesel pulling a trailered car behind it. Something should be done as you said about fuel economy.
Many Thanks for a Great Magazine, Roger Nocerini,
Eagle River, WI
Hello, Jason –
Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge do not need the EPA to mandate/force private entities (wait . . . they have been taken over unconstitutionally by the Federal government) to provide stricter emission regulations based on an unproven science aka global warming. What the feds need to do is stay out of the private sector and allow these companies to compete with each other based upon what the diesel consumer wants - and the consumer wants power, fuel economy, and safety. Therefore, by regulating emissions, it is not uncommon to decrease fuel economy (my 2008 F350 DRW shows this compared to say a 2002 7.3L) and safety due to the necessity of having to eventually lighten the vehicle to meet these ridiculous standards. That said, it is silly to assume that without the federal government, in this case, the EPA, that “clean-burning trucks (with a warranty) wouldn’t have happened if manufacturers didn’t need to meet EPA regulations.” I personally believe that if environmental fascism was on the mind of the everyday trucker and/or diesel enthusiast, Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge would have been focusing more on designing, engineering, and building light, unsafe, water-vapor emitting (the main cause of global warming) diesels instead of super-duty, powerful towing, black smoke emitting machines.
It is good to know that you are not in control of the ever-growing bureaucracy that is expanding the nanny state. However, there are a few things regarding Diesel Power that are quite the contradiction of your article; that is the performance parts that you advertise – they seem to be in direct conflict of what you and the EPA have in mind. The good news, however, is that I am about to move to a county in Colorado that does not require my 2008 F350 DRW to get emissions so I can remove all the EPA bull crap and replace it with those cool parts that your magazine advertises so I can get more than 12 mpg and 8 mpg towing -- sounds like a damn gas engine – doesn’t it?
Shawn
Hello Jason.
First I would like to say I enjoyed your article but would like to give you a little feedback on my experience with “Clean Diesel”. I had a 2001 Dodge Ram with the 245 hp Cummins HO and NV5600. It was loud and not as refined as my 2008 Ram 6.7 but it never, never broke. I performed regular maintenance, brake jobs, etc. and that was about it. I traded it in for a 2008 Dodge Ram hoping for the same kind of reliability and understood that I might suffer a slight decrease in fuel economy. The first year and a half I had the truck it was in the shop for emissions related problems twice a month. The first trip to diagnose/order parts and the second to actually work on the truck. I was assured by the mechanic that we would get it right. I finally called Dodge cust. service and demanded they buy the truck back. The system is defective as designed and built for a daily driver. The fuel economy penalty I suffered worked out to a 25-30% reduction. Driving conservatively with a CEL on most of the time netted me a best of 15 mpg. Practicing the “Drive It Like Ya Stole It” method recommended by Dodge to work around the deficiencies of the system netted me a 13 mpg average and still a check engine light most of the time not to mention the additional wear and tear on the truck.
I read some of the EPA propaganda and it stated that “We Feel” ____ insert whatever their goal was. They feel???? Where is the research??? All I hear about is increased fuel economy combined with low emissions… while injecting fuel during and exhaust stroke to blow it out the exhaust and burn off soot created in large part by NOx reduction??? How is that efficient? An EGR system that contributes up to 40% of total intake volume according to Cummins decreasing efficiency even further and increasing the concentration of soot in the exhaust feeding soot on top of soot. How is that efficient? My DPF inlet measured up to 7 psi of back pressure and I guess that is efficient. The DPF is capable of flowing with little back pressure up to about 1500 rpm with no load, if I dropped down into 5th and picked up the revs, the back pressure jumped up, if I shifted down to 4th, it jumped up again to about 3 psi no load. I believe the system was a band aid installed to satisfy a bureaucratic agency more concerned with keeping their jobs than fuel efficiency.
Yes, we do need to clean up but at what cost.
Each of the proposed decreases in emissions has a “FUEL PENALTY” attached to it. So what are the claims of fuel economy? Lies…
1. Decrease NOX… fuel penalty in the form of decreased timing to reduce peak cylinder pressures and EGR to cool combustion. Cool Combustion…. Cold Fire…hmmm, sounds like a government idea.
2. Inject fuel during the exhaust stroke to burn off the soot produced or increased by the above EGR and retarded timing. When I simply unplugged my EGR, I gained about 2.5 mpg and only went through regeneration once a tank instead of every trip to town or about 5-7 times a tank. They have taken a relatively clean running engine fed it soot and retarded injection timing causing it to produce an over abundance of soot which has to be trapped by a DPF and burned off by wasting fuel. How the hell is that efficient?
3. Now let’s get to the trips to the shop.. Take my hourly wage wasted on two trips a month, three turbochargers, two DPF’s, a catalytic converter, O2 sensors, cleanings and the $7500.00 Dodge paid me and my lawyer to keep from buying the truck back and was that reduction in NOx and cleaning up the soot they created worth it?
Somehow I think there should have been a better way or at least they could be truthful about it. But I guess if they told you up front you were going to be a guinea pig for an experimental system you might not have bought the truck. If they had told me I would have to take it in for repairs twice a month indefinitely I probably wouldn’t have bought the truck. If they told me that all the fuel economy claims were totally false, I probably wouldn’t have bought the truck.
They have built a vehicle that only the government can afford to operate because they are spending our money and not theirs. If I had to pay out of pocket for all the repairs, I would have gone broke owning this truck. I would have had to dump it at a huge loss or park it because I couldn’t afford the repairs.
My solution, remove the defective parts, enjoy the reliability, longevity and fuel economy you expect out of a diesel but drive a vehicle that is illegal and risk having the emissions Nazi’s haul me off in handcuffs for increasing my fuel economy by 30%.
Soot has always been a bad thing in any engine to my knowledge but now that the Government says it’s ok I guess things have changed. Soot laden oil isn’t a detriment to engine longevity anymore now that the government agency says it isn’t. Don’t confuse the issue with the facts.
I have included a document backed up by actual research instead of the EPA’s “Feelings” about the fuel penalty involved in their approach to emissions.
It seems there are more efficient ways to control emissions, namely “Lean NOx Reduction” instead of the method we are currently using.
The current approach creates a problem in itself with the increase in soot concentration causing plugged DPF, turbo sooting and cat plugging unless you run the hell out of them.
I also think it strange that a component that relies so heavily on heat to function properly is placed as far from the heat source as possible allowing it to run too cool to function without supplemental fuel to burn off soot.
If the government or Cummins would like to buy the truck from me, I will gladly sell it to them with all the emissions equipment re-installed and functional and they can fight it.
Thanks for your time.
Have a wonderful day,
Glen Logan