In light of the recent V.W. and Audi emission scandal,how can we guarantee trucks also are not using rigged figures.?. 
There was some concern over ■■■■■■■ engines in the U.S. but the subject seems to have gone a bit quiet.
The bit I don’t get is if you’re going to use a defeat engine map in the ECU,that detects engine test conditions and alters the map accordingly.Then surely you’d also be bright enough to also use a defeat setting,that requires a factory encrypted code signal and refuses access to the mapping and wipes it out if the ECU is interrogated by anything other than a factory approved diagnostics device that can read the encrypted signal and sends back an ok signal. 
On that note all the emissions bs is just causing counterproductive effects regards fuel consumption and engine efficiency and I’d actually hope that the manufacturers are doing whatever it takes to tell the greens to zb off and deceive the zb’s at every opportunity.
So full marks to VW for trying but no cigar for not doing the job properly.
Although having said that why bother with all the aggro involved in cleaning up diesel emissions when it’s obvious that spark ignition and LPG is the way to go for trucks and probably any type of penny pinching car buyers who want to save a few bob in fuel costs over petrol.
There’s always steam?
Retired Old ■■■■:
There was some concern over ■■■■■■■ engines in the U.S. but the subject seems to have gone a bit quiet.
That’s an understatement! When ■■■■■■■ and the rest of them were caught manipulating things to pass the EPA03 regulations there was a major merde storm, the EPA then brought forward the next round of legislation to 07 and then 2010 as punishment.
EGR, which was necessary to bring down NOx wasn’t developed properly as a result and the engineers had to devote their time to getting ready for the next round, which added a DPF to the mix, instead of ironing out the flaws in the 03 compliant engines.
Unfortunately the biggest losers were the people buying the unreliable trucks with poor fuel economy and performance.
newmercman:
Retired Old ■■■■:
There was some concern over ■■■■■■■ engines in the U.S. but the subject seems to have gone a bit quiet.That’s an understatement! When ■■■■■■■ and the rest of them were caught manipulating things to pass the EPA03 regulations there was a major merde storm, the EPA then brought forward the next round of legislation to 07 and then 2010 as punishment.
EGR, which was necessary to bring down NOx wasn’t developed properly as a result and the engineers had to devote their time to getting ready for the next round, which added a DPF to the mix, instead of ironing out the flaws in the 03 compliant engines.
Unfortunately the biggest losers were the people buying the unreliable trucks with poor fuel economy and performance.
This suggests that the US makers are genuinely at odds with the regulations. I do not get that impression in Europe. The Euro regulations seem more in step with the needs of the industry, which are to sell as much superfluous junk as possible- junk which needs main dealer attention to maintain it, but can be designed and developed at a comfortable plod with a low risk of litigation. Is the US vehicle industry and Government at war over environmental legislation?
It started when the only economical way in engineering terms to reduce NOx was by higher temperatures, ergo EGR, which is about the worst thing you could do to a modern diesel engine, as you know, they thrive on a big gulps of cool dense clean air to aid combustion of the carefully metered fuel added by the ECU.
Adding hot dirty exhaust gases totally chokes the engine, the engineers fixed the problem by a bit of special mapping so that their engines would pass the EPA tests and them revert back to normal on highway trucks.
They got captured and the EPA brought all the compliance dates forward as punishment.
The whole thing is a complete travesty as the data they (the EPA) were using was flawed.
California has taken things to a whole new level and has outlawed pre EPA07 engines from the state completely and soon the 07 compliant engines will also be obsolete.
I would say it’s the best thing to happen to the manufacturers, with CAD, advanced manufacturing techniques and electronics they had made their engines reliable for well over a million miles, so why would anybody turn their trucks over on 3 or 4yr cycles?
Thanks to the EPA regulations they now have built in obsolescence that requires fleets to go back to buying new every few years. Plus they have all the parts and labour from the unreliability of the emission control systems.
The manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank…
Yes- that tallies almost exactly with my own semi-informed opinion. However, if ■■■■■■■ and the rest of them, as you say, were caught with their trousers down, it suggests that the legislation is not promoting as much bank-trip hilarity as we would have predicted. What has gone wrong?
^^^^
What has gone wrong?
Easy, you can’t buy a new Gardner powered lorry any longer!!! 
In spite of all the clag when it first started from cold, once warmed up the smoke test meter didn’t record anything.
[zb]
anorak:
Yes- that tallies almost exactly with my own semi-informed opinion. However, if ■■■■■■■ and the rest of them, as you say, were caught with their trousers down, it suggests that the legislation is not promoting as much bank-trip hilarity as we would have predicted. What has gone wrong?
The customer demands pre smog bs reliability and efficiency.The manufacturer can’t provide both that and pass the ridiculous emissions standards.The customer then deals with that problem by at least making sure that they don’t run the thing past its warranty period.Which then still leaves a load of pished of customers running inefficient trucks which have to spend more time off the road than they should.While the manufacturer gets the worst of all worlds situation of being responsible for the warranty claims and being blamed for the built in unreliability and inefficiency of the product.Not to mention the zb residual values when anyone in the used truck market with any sense buys a pre smog date glider and puts a nice new factory supplied ■■■■■■■ N14 crate engine in it.
IE the ‘bank trip hilarity’ would only work in an environment of no warranty responsibility regarding any faults which could be linked in any way with emissions controls and in which the customer has no other choice than to buy and pay for the built in unreliability and artificial ongoing obsolesence of the product.On that note broke customers don’t/can’t buy or run trucks.
cav551:
^^^^What has gone wrong?
Easy, you can’t buy a new Gardner powered lorry any longer!!!
In spite of all the clag when it first started from cold, once warmed up the smoke test meter didn’t record anything.
Very true cav551, All the Gardners that I drove or owned never had any problems at the Testing Station or anyway else for that matter, When following a wagon with a Gardner in all you could see was a heat haze, Exept for some old service buses they left a smoke screen behind wherever they went, Give me a Gardner Engine anytime, Regards Larry.
[zb]
anorak:
Yes- that tallies almost exactly with my own semi-informed opinion. However, if ■■■■■■■ and the rest of them, as you say, were caught with their trousers down, it suggests that the legislation is not promoting as much bank-trip hilarity as we would have predicted. What has gone wrong?
Warranty only lasts for year unless you pay for the extended version and that costs around 7 grand. There are lots (many thousands) of cases where problems have run into 5 figure repairs, do the maths…
I’m on the ground remember, I’m witnessing dealerships opening with 100 service bays, two week waiting lists for repair work.
Paccar, Freightliner and Navistar have also introduced new cabs in recent years and the development costs and tooling for these run into millions, if they were taking a hit on warranty claims then they would not be in a position to invest in new cabs and 100 bay service centers.
newmercman:
[zb]
anorak:
Yes- that tallies almost exactly with my own semi-informed opinion. However, if ■■■■■■■ and the rest of them, as you say, were caught with their trousers down, it suggests that the legislation is not promoting as much bank-trip hilarity as we would have predicted. What has gone wrong?Warranty only lasts for year unless you pay for the extended version and that costs around 7 grand. There are lots (many thousands) of cases where problems have run into 5 figure repairs, do the maths…
I’m on the ground remember, I’m witnessing dealerships opening with 100 service bays, two week waiting lists for repair work.
Paccar, Freightliner and Navistar have also introduced new cabs in recent years and the development costs and tooling for these run into millions, if they were taking a hit on warranty claims then they would not be in a position to invest in new cabs and 100 bay service centers.
Bearing in mind 5 figure repair costs v 7 grand extended warranties and/or lease/maintenance/ buy back contracts.Together with 100 bay service facilities with two week waiting lists.Together with an obvious situation in which the manufacturers ( rightly ) see a need to deal with that by trying to rig the emissions tests in favour of reducing their exposure to all the implications of ever increasing amounts of unreliable emissions hardware and resulting strangled engines.On the basis of the vicious circle of less NOX means more EGR and more PM which means more DPF which means higher back pressures which means higher cylinder temperatures which means more NOX .It looks like the manufacturers are taking just as much,probably more,of a hit as/than their customers.IE we’re probably looking at either a massive U turn regards emissions regs or the long drawn out end of the diesel as an automotive engine choice.
newmercman:
[zb]
anorak:
Yes- that tallies almost exactly with my own semi-informed opinion. However, if ■■■■■■■ and the rest of them, as you say, were caught with their trousers down, it suggests that the legislation is not promoting as much bank-trip hilarity as we would have predicted. What has gone wrong?Warranty only lasts for year unless you pay for the extended version and that costs around 7 grand. There are lots (many thousands) of cases where problems have run into 5 figure repairs, do the maths…
I’m on the ground remember, I’m witnessing dealerships opening with 100 service bays, two week waiting lists for repair work.
Paccar, Freightliner and Navistar have also introduced new cabs in recent years and the development costs and tooling for these run into millions, if they were taking a hit on warranty claims then they would not be in a position to invest in new cabs and 100 bay service centers.
Had to read this a few times for it to sink in. I had not realised that, as well as selling the extra hardware and enjoying an enforced shortened service life for their wares, the manufacturers were building servicing empires on it too. Anyone with a brain who cares for the environment would be disgusted by the whole scam, for it is a deliberate waste of natural (and human) resources.
Why do you think ■■■■■■■■ VW and Caterpillar (and whoever else) ended up in the mess? If the legislators and manufacturers were holding hands, how come such a large contingent of manufacturers trod in the wrong place? That is what complicates it, I think.
A lot of truck owners have fitted “Off-Road” software that deletes the need for ceramic filters and diesel exhaust fluid. Their engines are more powerful and give better mpg as well as being more reliable but now, in Canada, a new safety test is going to catch these trucks.
But surely if you use less fuel to do a job then you are cutting emissions? Also you cut down the emissions from the tow trucks.
ChrisArbon:
A lot of truck owners have fitted “Off-Road” software that deletes the need for ceramic filters and diesel exhaust fluid. Their engines are more powerful and give better mpg as well as being more reliable but now, in Canada, a new safety test is going to catch these trucks.But surely if you use less fuel to do a job then you are cutting emissions? Also you cut down the emissions from the tow trucks.
The regulations limit poisonous gases, at the expense of the wasted fuel. The level to which the restrictions extend depends on your point of view so, in one stroke, people with a genuine regard for matters green are rendered silent. Of course the regulations are bad. I hope the dodges continue.
The whole thing is a farce and you just have to follow the money to see who is behind it all.
R&D budgets have blown on trying to acieve the impossible, metaphorically speaking they’re trying to make an omlette without breaking an egg.
The climate change, global warming, greenhouse gas BS has forced us to lower emissions by adding all kinds of inefficient technology and yet the thing from which the pollutants originate has not had to change at all, apart from removing some of the sulphur in it, which also removed some of its BTUs.
So now we have trucks that are less efficient ecause of the emission control systems and they only control emissions when they’re functioning correctly, which they seldom do.
The systems themselves have to be produced and that requires e energy to get the raw materials and turn them into the finished product and then they need transporting between each stage of the manufacturing process which also uses energy.
The same applies to Adblue, it has to be produced, packaged and transported and all of this requires the burning of more fossil fuels.
So we have trucks using more fuel than they need to because of the addition of emission control systems, fuel being used in the manufacture, packaging and distribution of said systems and additional fluids.
There’s one big winner in all of this and to make matters worse it’s quite clear that none of this is being done to save the planet, if it was then the pre emission engines would all have been taken out of service, not exported to other countries where they can continue to get better mpg and be more reliable than the products that we’ve been forced into replacing them with…
Perhaps the problem is being seen from the wrong viewpoint; that of the x billion Joe Bloggs who populate the planet and have to pay for all this rubbish. We all need to see the bigger picture and appreciate the absolute over-riding principle that the massive multinational - multi billion £ corporations manufacturing this stuff, supplying the energy to do so and to move it around the world, and perhaps most important of all the financial institutions who speculate on its future value and loan the money, simply must trouser the lion’s share of everything. Without this how could governments survive? the tax-take must be enormous.
Enough short term wealth is created to “justify” the long term problems. The wealthiest group of people drive the decisions harder than the rest, because they have more power- the more money they make out of the rest, the faster the drum is encouraged to spin. The ratio of short term gain to long term loss is therefore a function of the ratio between the wealth of the richest and that of the poorest, it seems. You would need to be a bloody good economist to put numbers to that.
The aspect which intrigues me is the failure of some of the firms to meet the criteria. It is as if some risk was engineered into the rules, to make the stakes higher and, potentially, precipitate a cull in the number of competitors in the market. ■■■■■■■ and Caterpillars’ travails in the US point to the latter. Why should a behemoth like VW catch a cold, though? You would have thought it, along with the other global car companies, would have got things right. I detect the interference of the legal sector- they are just as evil as the banks. They thrive on conflict, and what better battleground than a raft of awkward legislation? Lawyers, advising the regulators in the Governments.
[zb]
anorak:
Enough short term wealth is created to “justify” the long term problems. The wealthiest group of people drive the decisions harder than the rest, because they have more power- the more money they make out of the rest, the faster the drum is encouraged to spin. The ratio of short term gain to long term loss is therefore a function of the ratio between the wealth of the richest and that of the poorest, it seems. You would need to be a bloody good economist to put numbers to that.The aspect which intrigues me is the failure of some of the firms to meet the criteria. It is as if some risk was engineered into the rules, to make the stakes higher and, potentially, precipitate a cull in the number of competitors in the market. ■■■■■■■ and Caterpillars’ travails in the US point to the latter. Why should a behemoth like VW catch a cold, though? You would have thought it, along with the other global car companies, would have got things right. I detect the interference of the legal sector- they are just as evil as the banks. They thrive on conflict, and what better battleground than a raft of awkward legislation? Lawyers, advising the regulators in the Governments.
You old cynic, you! But I like the theory. Robert 