Community Forums

Don Rob · 09-03-2013, 09:31 AM

In 2003 I tried RVing full time, in a Class C. But, I would cabin fever in a short period of time. I talked with RVers and came to the conclusion a diesel pickup and a 5er would be a great way to full time. Diesel pickups were expensive, but got better mpg and lasted a long time and held their resale. They could also pull a large RV, necessary to full time.

But, after 2007, the prices diesel trucks went up and the availability went down. After 2007, diesel fuel was used to burn up the exhaust emissions, which is one reason mpg dropped. Diesel trucks are now much more costly, more complex, less reliable and far more expensive to repair and maintain. Caterpillar even stopped making on-road diesel engines and laid people off. Decreasing competition in the market and reducing choices for RVs.

I think RVing is an energy efficient lifestyle. RVer have less living space to heat or cool and spend a lot time in a temperate climate. Like FL in winter and MI in summer, using less energy. I realize you can still buy a 3/4 ton truck and a 5er. But, a heavy duty gas pickup gets real low mpg, like 7-8. My conclusion is that these new emission regs didn't do the environment a bit of good. Just like a lot of regs put in place by the EPA and other such organizations. They have to keep regulating to maintain their budget. Real effort to help the environment seems like a secondary concern, to me anyway.

Selah · 09-03-2013, 10:27 AM

I'd be remiss if I didn't ask why you think the emission standards are not doing the environment any good. Before the EPA, cities like LA and Chicago had such high levels of pollution you could actually see it. In 1969 Cleveland polluted the Cayuga River so badly that it actually caught fire. Before the EPA cracked down, Chicago's idea of a sewer system was to dump thier raw sewage directly into Lake Michigan.
As our population grows we have to start doing some things differently. The world is a finite place and can only absorb so much of mans refuse and waste. Could we build engines much more cheaply, absolutely; but what is the real cost to our children and our children's children?
Don't get me wrong, I think the EPA, like most government agencies, gets a little squirrelly now and again but in the long run they are needed.

Don Rob · 09-03-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Selah

I'd be remiss if I didn't ask why you think the emission standards are not doing the environment any good. Before the EPA, cities like LA and Chicago had such high levels of pollution you could actually see it. In 1969 Cleveland polluted the Cayuga River so badly that it actually caught fire. Before the EPA cracked down, Chicago's idea of a sewer system was to dump raw sewage directly into Lake Michigan.

I think efforts to improve the environment, started out as very legitimate. As you have pointed out. However, it has gone beyond that at this point. Cities in CA have always had a haze covering them at times. It was a natural thing in that part of the US. Improving technology helped more complete burning of fuel, which has been a good thing. But, they now have gone so far with some of these regulations, that it has hurt the economy and the auto industry. You also have CARB, in CA having the ability to force standards on the rest of the US. Because CA is such a big part of the US market. Yet, no one did nothing about 2 cycle engines that were a problem. Because the intake port and exhaust port are both open, for a instant during each revolution of the engine.

So, 2 cycles did pollute a lot. You could see the bubbles of unburned oil, coming to the surface, from an outboard motor. I owned a jet ski in the past, you could see unburned fuel mixture (2 cycles mix oil & gas before burning it), spewing out the exhaust. Particularly at low RPMs. Yet, the EPA did nothing about all this for many yrs. It was 2006 before regs were passed to clean up 2 cycles. Basically the EPA did nothing for 30 yrs, after they passed emission on cars. Despite 2 cycles being an obvious problem......just my 2 cents worth.
But, I think EPA priorities are a bit off.

caissiel · 09-03-2013, 09:41 PM

A diesel mag suggested that EPA in America did a hug mistake in reporting the diesel numbers and now the American industry has been forced to do changes that actually hurts the diesel industry. Europe has it right and over 50% are diesels with great efficiency. And we canadians have to follow with our diesel formulation closer to Europe for the VW that have been very popular here while rejected in US for years. Also our fuel is better for Bosh pumps on Ford and GM trucks. We have non ethenol gasoline available everywhere due government equipment not using it for better performance and maintenance.

The electronic fuel and spark controls for all engines have done wonders for cleaning the air. Even my programed 6.0l runs perfectly clean compared to my naturaly aspired 90 GM diesel. EGR problems are rare and sparkplug last over 100k while burning fuel. Very efficiently. EPA just causes us to burn more to do less.

VanDiemen23 · 09-03-2013, 09:50 PM

Because 2-strokes were a tiny part of the original problem - until they cleaned up car emissions to the point where 2-strokes became an issue. Used to be you cut your own grass and edged it with a mechanical tool or an electric weed-eater. Now lots of people and most businesses have professional gardeners - lots of two strokes. The PWC industry must have put 10 times as many two strokes on the water as boats.

Same thing with the diesels for the most part. Diesels and aircraft emissions were nothing compared to automobiles in the 70s. Then with the airline and trucking industries de-regulated, over-the-road trucking and airline transportation EXPLODED - and diesel and turbine emissions started to show up as big contributors. Same thing with off-road diesels - Huge development projects means lots of dozers and scrapers and pretty soon it becomes noticeable.

wa8yxm · 09-04-2013, 09:13 AM

I am not an expert on diesel issues, Though I do know about Sulfuric Acid (A component in high sulfur diesel exhaust)

I do, however, agree with those who are questioning the current standards..

When it comes to gasoline engines and the addition of contaminates (Alcohol) to the gas. Some Alcohol in the winter in the great white (Frozen) north.. A good idea, 1 or two percent, but this E-10 and up stuff.

Alcohol is clean burning, I'll admit that (By products are all harmless like water and CO2) but it takes a lot of oil to make a gallon of booze, and Alcohol has not the "Punch" of gasoline, so we end up buring more still. In short. I think Gas-a-hol is making things worse, not better.

I suspect the same on the Diesel side, but as I said, not an expert.

Daveinet · 01-11-2014, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Rob

So, 2 cycles did pollute a lot. You could see the bubbles of unburned oil, coming to the surface, from an outboard motor. I owned a jet ski in the past, you could see unburned fuel mixture (2 cycles mix oil & gas before burning it), spewing out the exhaust. Particularly at low RPMs. Yet, the EPA did nothing about all this for many yrs. It was 2006 before regs were passed to clean up 2 cycles. Basically the EPA did nothing for 30 yrs, after they passed emission on cars. Despite 2 cycles being an obvious problem......just my 2 cents worth.
But, I think EPA priorities are a bit off.

2 strokes are not anywhere near as bad as you think. While you may see oil on the water, oil and water do not and can not mix. While a little oil spill on the water might be a localized issue, in that it coats the water, it does not contaminate the water and eventually evaporates. The smoke from 2 strokes looks worse than it actually is.

caissiel · 01-11-2014, 08:19 PM

I have a convertable and I did notice that there can be 10 cars or trucks waiting at a red light and if there is one man smoking, it's the cigarette smoke that smells the most.
Did you ever walk across a parking lot. And notice the smell of cars compared to smokers at the door.