Diesel Tuner Faces Year in Prison

Curtis,  I see your point that not all diesel tuning is created equal, and it's probably safe to assume that a mpg or power tune won't be as environmentally destructive as a coal rolling tune, but you're providing data about fuel economy, horsepower and torque  but nothing about the emissions performance of the tuned vehicle.  Recall the VW diesel scandal... those vehicles were factory tuned for improved performance and economy vs. a true EPA compliant tune,  they certainly were nowhere near "rolling coal" tunes, and IIRC, the "cheat tune" could emit up to 40X the legal amount of NOx. Without data, we won't know how bad (or not bad) a given tune is, but I struggle to accept that there's overlap between "responsible tuners" and what is a probably a >40X increase in emissions.  (Unless you're going to argue that the aftermarket 'dad's truck'  tune is more conservative than the OEM cheaty tune that VW put out...which is possible but very unlikely.) 

ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:

tuna55 said:

alfadriver said:

Why do people think the EPA is outside the Constitution?  They are bound like every other government thing. They are part of the Executive branch and have been given authorization to write laws by congress. That's how it works. 
Maybe because they win far more challenges than they lose?  Dunno. What that tells me is that they have a strong understanding of their bounds. In this case, it's about their bounds to go after companies, but not the customers. 
As for maritime rules, there are some pretty stringent treaties that cover maritime emissions outside of national boundaries. 
And there are tons of rules bounding emissions from stationary places, too. We are light years better than when I was a kid in the 70's - and that took a system approach as opposed to just looking at one thing. 
 

IMHO, the recent debate over CO2 is political vs science. Which it has been for +30 years in the US. There are real reasons that the international community is so frustrated with the US on that. 

We have disagreed on this topic before and we won't settle it now. I don't suppose it has much bearing on this anyway. Personally I believe that the EPA should have clearly bounded authority enumerated in the constitution. I'm a constitutionalist. This would also make the power unable to be swayed by the SCOTUS or the POTUS in either direction.

The founders obviously understood that a single static document shouldn't be the final and only word on issues they couldn't possibly anticipate 300 years in the future.  That's why we have a legislative process. The purpose of the Constitution is limit the role of government, not to give us explicit rights. 

Not at all. We have an amendment process. Use it. The constitution exists indeed to give explicit enumerated powers to the state, thus protecting freedom of the citizen in all other areas. It is my contention that the EPA would be better and more consistent if its authority was enumerated.

alfadriver said:

In reply to tuna55 :

So then you must want to pull back on the police and FBI, then, since neither of them are mentioned in the constitution, either. And both have the power of the death sentence.  The worst the EPA can do is fine and prison. 

Please reference:
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case Commonwealth v. Alger
SCOTUS
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
United States v. Lopez
United States v. Morrison

Anyway I am far off topic. My apologies to the OP. I maintain that things like this would be easier and more proper to enforce (and define) with a constitutional amendment.

In reply to tuna55 :

But doesn't a lot of the EPA'S authority come from the Clean Air Act which was passed by congress.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I did a quick search to see if there was any good data on the performance of a coal rolling tune Vs. a performance or MPG tune. No luck, but I ran across a lot of people mirroring what you said. I also saw on multiple forums that people asking for coal rolling tunes got about what you would expect of people looking for street races in school zones on this board. It was a very limited search, but backs up the notion that the small minority makes the whole community look bad. 

I am glad I am not the only one. I am genuinely curious, though I believe the answer to be obvious. I want a comparison of a few metrics, essentially miles/emissions

Scenario 1: Stock 

Scenario 2: Various mild tunes (improved fuel economy, undoubtedly some emissions increase)

Scenario 3: sooty awful mess that gives everyone a headache even with their windows up and their HVAC on recirc

I suspect, because OEMs are not filled with blithering idiots, that Scenario 1 is the best.

93EXCivic said:

In reply to tuna55 :

But doesn't a lot of the EPA'S authority come from the Clean Air Act which was passed by congress.

Yes! And that was a good thing for the legislature to do. The issue is interesting, and again pretty off topic. I know a small amount of information on this latest SCOTUS action on power plant emissions. I used to work for GE, and we were always tailoring the orders for the jurisdiction who had authority where they were going. When the statute was "You have to use the best emissions available", things got really ugly. Let me make an analogy. Let's assume cars were the same way. You could order a car with or without a catalyst. You could order with or without DEF. You could order with or without cold start emissions control. With or without an air pump. With or without valve seals. Anything you can think of. Now someone comes in and orders a car and says "I want every emissions control equipment you sell on this car", and you naturally say something like "Hey pal, we can package a lot of this together, but things like an improved ignition timing curve and DEF are mutually exclusive. You can't have everything on one car." That's sort of the situation they placed themselves in. It wasn't a reasonable position to hold. We technically offered a catalyst for a natural gas turbine, but it would be insane since it was meant for a liquid fuel turbine. That sort of thing.

So if the EPA was given some amount of authority under the constituion, and we worked through exactly what that looked like, and exactly what oversight that falls under, I contend that life would be easier for everyone.

Of course, as an anecdote, the EPA was established by that bleeding heart liberal Richard M. Nixon.

STM317 said:

Opti said:

In reply to Tk8398 :

A good example of this is the 6.0/6.4 which is generally considered on of the least reliable modern big diesels in passenger trucks. In busses where they are exempt from emissions, reports are these things are workhorses and very hard to kill

Buses are not exempt from emissions at all. They'd have to pass the same "on highway, heavy duty" tests as an HD pickup. But it's pretty likely that the bus engine is tuned in a way that emphasizes area under the curve, fuel efficiency, and/or longevity rather than just focusing on peak numbers that can be bragged about in a commercial.

For example, the current Cummins 6.7 from a Ram truck has 370hp and up to 1000ft-lbs. The same basic 6.7 for a bus is more likely to have ~280hp/550 ft-lbs.

They also have a lot more engine bay room, which means more radiator, less heatsoak of components.

In terms of modifications, there is a well defined legal process to make "tunes". Had they gone that path, it would be just fine. It's not easy or free, but it is legal. 
 

And because of that, the legal aftermarket is probably pretty happy with how this is turning out. As a former part of the OEM system, who spent a lot of time and money making clean and efficient vehicles, they are getting what they deserve. 
 

BTW, if this seems harsh for the volume, compare the original fine to VWs fine. This one is considerably smaller- $4.5M vs almost $1B. 

Just would like to point out that lots of people who live up north (like myself), who would normally just leave everything stock, are on the "delete" bandwagon simply because DEF more often than not makes your vehicle a worthless brick below 20 degrees when it's system heater fails. At colder temps is doesn't even matter in some cases.

Parking in a heated garage and never letting the truck get cold while its out of that garage is not an option for most people. Neither is a non functional vehicle for 3+ months out of the year.

I'd say this...probably quite large portion of the "delete" consumer has nothing other than a tune that turns the DEF system off and small MPG or towing adjustment. And on certain applications with know problems the elimination of the EGR cooler system for increased reliability.

Asphalt_Gundam said:

Just would like to point out that lots of people who live up north (like myself), who would normally just leave everything stock, are on the "delete" bandwagon simply because DEF more often than not makes your vehicle a worthless brick below 20 degrees when it's system heater fails. At colder temps is doesn't even matter in some cases.

Parking in a heated garage and never letting the truck get cold while its out of that garage is not an option for most people. Neither is a non functional vehicle for 3+ months out of the year.

I'd say this...probably quite large portion of the "delete" consumer has nothing other than a tune that turns the DEF system off and small MPG or towing adjustment. And on certain applications with know problems the elimination of the EGR cooler system for increased reliability.

But the DEF is what neutralizes NOx. Modern diesels are able to run much dirtier combustion (creating more power) than pre emissions diesels because the emissions equipment is so effective (assuming it's fully functional). That's how you get 1000ft-lbs with a warranty. So, if you delete that emissions equipment, and don't neuter the engine's performance, you get an engine that's spewing out much higher NOx, CO, CO2, and PM than the pre-emissions diesels. And that's before you go trying to add any power, etc.

Same is true for EGR. EGR leads to cooler combustion and lower NOx production. Disabling or removing it is going to cause your NOx emissions to skyrocket.

Just because you don't see a bunch of stuff coming out of the tailpipe doesn't mean that you're running a "clean" tune or being responsible. The emissions of various gases and particulates can literally be hundreds of times what is allowed by law even if you're not able to see anything coming out of the tailpipe.

People don't want to hear it, but we're at a point where you shouldn't be buying a diesel if you have to do a delete for it to function. A new gasser will outwork a diesel from 15 years ago and do it for much less money and hassle. Diesels really should just be for use cases where heavy work is mission critical.

One thing that I don't think many people grasp is that when diesels were first required to meet emissions standards the US regulating agencies made a deliberate choice to target smog forming emissions rather than GHGs because smog forming emissions directly affect air quality and human health while GHGs really don't. The EU took the opposite approach and it lead to major cities with E36 M3ty air quality and bans on ICEs to try and combat it. When you disable or delete the emissions equipment on your diesel, it's hurting your neighbors, your kids, etc. It's also hastening the elimination of ICEs altogether.

STM317 said:

Asphalt_Gundam said:

Just would like to point out that lots of people who live up north (like myself), who would normally just leave everything stock, are on the "delete" bandwagon simply because DEF more often than not makes your vehicle a worthless brick below 20 degrees when it's system heater fails. At colder temps is doesn't even matter in some cases.

Parking in a heated garage and never letting the truck get cold while its out of that garage is not an option for most people. Neither is a non functional vehicle for 3+ months out of the year.

I'd say this...probably quite large portion of the "delete" consumer has nothing other than a tune that turns the DEF system off and small MPG or towing adjustment. And on certain applications with know problems the elimination of the EGR cooler system for increased reliability.

But the DEF is what neutralizes NOx. Modern diesels are able to run much dirtier combustion (creating more power) than pre emissions diesels because the emissions equipment is so effective (assuming it's fully functional). That's how you get 1000ft-lbs with a warranty. So, if you delete that emissions equipment, and don't neuter the engine's performance, you get an engine that's spewing out much higher NOx, CO, CO2, and PM than the pre-emissions diesels. And that's before you go trying to add any power, etc.

Same is true for EGR. EGR leads to cooler combustion and lower NOx production. Disabling or removing it is going to cause your NOx emissions to skyrocket.

Just because you don't see a bunch of stuff coming out of the tailpipe doesn't mean that you're running a "clean" tune or being responsible. The emissions of various gases and particulates can literally be hundreds of times what is allowed by law even if you're not able to see anything coming out of the tailpipe.

People don't want to hear it, but we're at a point where you shouldn't be buying a diesel if you have to do a delete for it to function. A new gasser will outwork a diesel from 15 years ago and do it for much less money and hassle. Diesels really should just be for use cases where heavy work is mission critical.

 

One thing that I don't think many people grasp is that when diesels were first required to meet emissions standards the US regulating agencies made a deliberate choice to target smog forming emissions rather than GHGs because smog forming emissions directly affect air quality and human health while GHGs really don't. The EU took the opposite approach and it lead to major cities with E36 M3ty air quality and bans on ICEs to try and combat it. When you disable or delete the emissions equipment on your diesel, it's hurting your neighbors, your kids, etc. It's also hastening the elimination of ICEs altogether.

I think this is very well put

tuna55 said:

ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:

tuna55 said:

alfadriver said:

Why do people think the EPA is outside the Constitution?  They are bound like every other government thing. They are part of the Executive branch and have been given authorization to write laws by congress. That's how it works. 
Maybe because they win far more challenges than they lose?  Dunno. What that tells me is that they have a strong understanding of their bounds. In this case, it's about their bounds to go after companies, but not the customers. 
As for maritime rules, there are some pretty stringent treaties that cover maritime emissions outside of national boundaries. 
And there are tons of rules bounding emissions from stationary places, too. We are light years better than when I was a kid in the 70's - and that took a system approach as opposed to just looking at one thing. 
 

IMHO, the recent debate over CO2 is political vs science. Which it has been for +30 years in the US. There are real reasons that the international community is so frustrated with the US on that. 

We have disagreed on this topic before and we won't settle it now. I don't suppose it has much bearing on this anyway. Personally I believe that the EPA should have clearly bounded authority enumerated in the constitution. I'm a constitutionalist. This would also make the power unable to be swayed by the SCOTUS or the POTUS in either direction.

The founders obviously understood that a single static document shouldn't be the final and only word on issues they couldn't possibly anticipate 300 years in the future.  That's why we have a legislative process. The purpose of the Constitution is limit the role of government, not to give us explicit rights. 

Not at all. We have an amendment process. Use it. The constitution exists indeed to give explicit enumerated powers to the state, thus protecting freedom of the citizen in all other areas. It is my contention that the EPA would be better and more consistent if its authority was enumerated.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Thomas Jefferson

Having run a modern VAG diesel for 60k miles I've gotta say I don't mind all the emissions stuff on it at all.  Have had very few issues with it, even running it in single digit winter temps.  I like it to the point that I wish toyota had brought their land cruiser over here with the V8 twin turbo diesel they sell in the rest of the world

In reply to STM317 :

You can't spew any extra emissions from a truc... that doesn't run because the DEF is frozen. Unless you've dealt this that kind of cold, you have no idea. I don't like it, and the easy button would be to fix the DEF heater, but that's not always possible or practical, especially in remote parts of North America.

flat4_5spd said:

Curtis,  I see your point that not all diesel tuning is created equal, and it's probably safe to assume that a mpg or power tune won't be as environmentally destructive as a coal rolling tune, but you're providing data about fuel economy, horsepower and torque  but nothing about the emissions performance of the tuned vehicle.  Recall the VW diesel scandal... those vehicles were factory tuned for improved performance and economy vs. a true EPA compliant tune,  they certainly were nowhere near "rolling coal" tunes, and IIRC, the "cheat tune" could emit up to 40X the legal amount of NOx. Without data, we won't know how bad (or not bad) a given tune is, but I struggle to accept that there's overlap between "responsible tuners" and what is a probably a >40X increase in emissions.  (Unless you're going to argue that the aftermarket 'dad's truck'  tune is more conservative than the OEM cheaty tune that VW put out...which is possible but very unlikely.) 

You are not incorrect.  I'm sure Dad's tune is likely outside the emissions spec for 04, but you have to look at it in perspective.  The max allowable of any given emission component set by the EPA and/or CARB allows for a HUGE margin of emissions.  Like my HC emissions on my 96 Impala SS were in the mid 80s ppm but the max allowable was 363 ppm.  Actual emissions from a tailpipe can change wildly with small changes to engine parameters, but if you failed (for instance) the HC portion of a smog test, it means something is way off.

People tend to think of emissions as a linear thing, but it isn't.  It's not as if you pass a smog test if you're only within 5% of EPA/CARB limits.  The limits are huge, sometimes 200-300% higher than what you're actually putting out.  Dad's truck might be putting out 300% more NOx than it did in stock form, but that doesn't mean it is out of compliance based on the allowable limits.

The question basically comes down to legal/permissible vs moral/ethical in some of these situations.  Having never put Dad's Dmax on a sniffer, I have no idea if it conforms to either legal limits or moral ones.  My point was more to differentiate between performance/mpg tunes and coal rollers.

The other thing that so many people don't get (excluding most of us car-loving folks) is that you only notice the bad apples and therefore conflate them.  I was with an environmental-nut friend who wanted to try out my new-to-me Mercedes.  We were on the 110 in the valley.  Directly in front of us was a Bluetec Benz.  A couple cars ahead and in the right lane was a TDI.  There was an F250 behind us with a Powerstroke.  In the HOV lane, an older Benz diesel cruised by leaving little wisps of black smoke and my friend launched into a tirade about how diesel is awful and it's guys like HIM that ruin the environment for all of us.

I politely pointed out the three other diesels around us... not to mention the OM606 diesel he was currently driving in my car.  He didn't notice the fact that he was surrounded by diesels (and driving one) and therefore didn't even know they were diesels.  He instead saw the old diesel and pointed it out as evidence that all diesels are awful.

There's a term for it in film/theater called "The 3-sided wall," which is a variation on the "Tilt."  It's when someone comments, notices, or becomes irked at a flamboyantly gay character without realizing that half the people on the stage/screen are homosexual.  They just notice that the CHARACTER is gay, regardless of the orientation of the actor playing it.  Same goes with diesel.  You only see the obvious diesel and conflate it without realizing that there are dozens of diesel cars around you that aren't playing a sooty character.  Sometimes, including the very car in which you're sitting.

In reply to Appleseed :

You can't spew any extra emissions from a truc... that doesn't run because the DEF is frozen. Unless you've dealt this that kind of cold, you have no idea. I don't like it, and the easy button would be to fix the DEF heater, but that's not always possible or practical, especially in remote parts of North America.

I was waiting for someone to catch on. Asphalt_Gundam clearly said that at the very start of his post. Not only did the reply completely ignore what he said, but at this point it has received 8 thumbs up.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

I have a problem with statements like this. What you are talking about when asking questions is called framing and it isn't just "anti science people" that do this, It's everyone, including "pro science" people.

It's a common tactic in debate, to walk someone through the train of thought that led you to a conclusion, and they may come to the same conclusion. Its effective because many people are very defensive of their ideas/positions and won't hear anything that runs contrary to them, any movement on the idea hasn to come from inside, not an outside source.

Just like everything else (statistics/accounting/debate/etc) things can be omitted or skewed to show a particular position, but to say this a tactic specific to "anti science people" is intellectually dishonest. 

If "settled science" can't stand up to someone asking pointed questions (even to further an agenda) then maybe it isn't as settled as people like to think. Framed questions can still be debated. 

Science isn't a democracy, and many things in science that were found to be wrong, were the consensus, right up until they werent.

Appleseed said:

In reply to STM317 :

You can't spew any extra emissions from a truc... that doesn't run because the DEF is frozen. Unless you've dealt this that kind of cold, you have no idea. I don't like it, and the easy button would be to fix the DEF heater, but that's not always possible or practical, especially in remote parts of North America.

Right. My point was that maybe a lot of those people shouldn't be buying a diesel in the first place if they have to do illegal things to use it. And, the general tone of the post was that of downplaying the  impact of deletes as if deleting just to improve reliability or to add just a bit of power for towing purposes is somehow justifiable vs a coal rolling tune.

I think it's important for people to fully understand the consequences of their actions so they can make informed choices. The differences in emissions between a "clean" tune after a delete and a coal rolling tune are not very large, and in some ways the coal rolling tune may actually have lower emissions for certain harmful pollutants than the "clean" tune (injecting extra fuel obviously leads to higher HCs and PM, but cools combustion and reduces NOx).

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

A tricky part about this specific debate is its all based on the fringes. The vast vast majority of these diesels are emissions compliant. 550k deleted diesels is a big number and I think people get hung up on that. At the macro level we are talking about the fringes here, a small minority of people. That's the whole basis of my opinion. 

I'm prepared to be wrong, maybe in 5 years all the deleted diesels will be gone and real emissions totals will drop in a meaningful way. I doubt it though, considering we are at (2020 info) essentially the same emissions levels we were in 1990 (and that's even considering transportation emissions plummeted because of the pandemic).

To me it looks like the only place we made a meaningful reduction in emissions was electricity production, which at the time had a pretty leveled demand, we were actually cleaner at making the same amount of energy. It better get even cleaner because if this push for electric cars is really going to happen, it's going to matter even more.

In reply to Opti :

Keep in mind that the US diesel emissions regulations targeted reducing smog forming emissions rather than GHGs. It shouldn't be a surprise that there is no significant decrease in GHGs, because that wasn't the focus of the regulations. Now that it's pretty well understood how to reduce smog forming pollutants, GHGs are becoming a larger priority in diesel emissions regulations in the US..

Opti, your graph is greenhouse gas emissions, ie. CO2.  (Which pretty much correlates to fuel economy.) That's got little if anything to do with particulates, carbon monoxide, NOx, etc. 

Looks like STM317 got there first. +1. 

In reply to STM317 :

Here is the next chart, also from the EPA.

Notice they count NOx as a GHG and is included in the first chart.

In reply to Opti :

NOx compounds are a family of gaseous compounds. While Nitrous Oxide (N2O) does fall into that family, NO is the most abundant NOx compound in diesel exhaust by a very large margin. So a chart that only shows N2O isn't going to reflect diesel emissions very well.

In reply to STM317 :

You're right. NOx is more than just N2O. Looking at your chart we can see all the good the 85% compliance rate with tighter and tighter regulation has done.

The EPA says these deleted trucks will account for about 570k excess tons of NOx over their ENTIRE life. Let's say that expected life is 5 years (which is a very low estimation based on the way they calculated survival rates). That's about 115k tons of excess NOx a year. Transportation alone (which I think accounts for around half of our NOx) emits about 4 millions tons. So let's say we magically get to 100 percent compliance (taking out that the very real fact that people are still going to people) that would account for a less than 3% reduction in yearly NOx emission from ONLY transportation. In reality since we won't get to 100 percent and their expected life is probably much longer it will have an even smaller (see also: immaterial) effect on yearly total NOx emissions.

People shouldn't delete diesels, but that doesn't mean this vendetta against them will lead to a real difference.