New Engines - Detroit, Cummins, or PACCAR? or maybe Volvo? Maybe?

Duck

Quack
Supporter
- The OEMs had to meet tailpipe emissions, OBD requirements and have monitoring to insure the systems are working. They also had to improve fuel economy to remain competitive.

- Trust me if the old engine architectures were capable of meeting the emissions, economy and durability requirements they would not have spent the BILLIONS developing new engine platforms. One thing a lot of people don't understand is the amount of effort goes into "in cylinder emissions reductions", meaning they shape how the combustion event occurs to avoid producing the emissions so they don't have to be treated. Can you imagine how many trucks the OEM must sell just to cover the development costs before they start making a profit???
**** 'em. Let them go bankrupt or go the way Caterpillar did. When nobody is building engines at all because they have too much pride to put their name on a piece of machinery they KNOW is junk, the ATA member fleets that embraced the new regulations might actually decide to use their clout to lobby for the repeal of this bullshit so someday, reliable truck engines may be built again.
 

Fageol

Old acid hauler but not too caustic
**** 'em. Let them go bankrupt or go the way Caterpillar did. When nobody is building engines at all because they have too much pride to put their name on a piece of machinery they KNOW is junk, the ATA member fleets that embraced the new regulations might actually decide to use their clout to lobby for the repeal of this bullshit so someday, reliable truck engines may be built again.
Regarding a principal reason for the emissions requirements in the first place, I'm happy to quote an old friend who was raised in the SF Bay Area worked in Viet Nam and several other countries, got straight A's in Math when I knew him at Cal, has a Ph. D. in Statistics, and who moved to Kiev, Ukraine because he thinks the present ethical and financial situation is not sustainable, i.e. those things are past their tipping points. In a brief FB exchange about ocean acidification and carbon sequestration, he writes:

By my own calculations, there is seven times as much carbon already dissolved in the ocean as is now in the air and remains in the earth's fossil fuel endowment. In other words, if all of the CO2 now in the atmosphere and remaining to be burned got into the oceans, it would increase their acidity by about 1/7. But even the IPCC's worst fear mongers say that we cannot ever extract more than 40%, or 2,000,000,000,000 tons.

800,000 million tons in the air
5,000,000 million tons in fossil fuels
40,000,000 million tons already in the oceans

That's what I hate about these Facebook fear mongers. They want to scare you to death about ocean acidification and rising sea levels, to take the two recent examples, knowing nothing about the science behind them.


In an earlier part of that exchange, it was posited that ocean acidification is going to reduce quantities of fish in the Indian and Pacific (specifically the ocean around Micronesia). The latest data I could find about fish catches in the Indian Ocean did not support that point. I found nothing about fish catches in the waters off Micronesia. However here in Alaska, we saw the greatest return ever of sockeye into Bristol Bay. As he said, fear mongering is alive and well; it extends far beyond Facebook.

With the aid of bought-off or stupid politicians, some folks are: 1. Making bank from fixing ginned up environmental stuff we see bandied about, and in doing so 2. Pissing away resources that would better the lives of truckers and lots of other folks.
 

Latest posts

Top