http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0102Diesel02.html

Gotta love this stuff.

So what is wrong with it? It is not a "ban", it is a "meet standards to stop polluting, or stop using to stop polluting".

Are the standards for emission testing out of line in some way?

Maybe I just don't "get it" this fine Friday morning...

what it really is is a chance for us non-AZ residents to go buy a used diesel for cheap.

A good friend of mine owns 1 truck(out of the seven total) that has to be "modified" at 1100 dollars he told me. It would suck to be some guys he knows that own several.

So let me get this straight. Phoenix is requiring emmission laws for diesel's is this the city in the same state that has no requirements for lifting, lowering shaving all forms of turn signals and brake lights. and has no emmission requirements for any vehicle and they also have drivers licenses valid for 45 years for 20 bucks. thats almost as retarded as their window tint law. Someone should drop the person who proposed and passed this law off at a gay bar and let them have at him. That is retarded.:D

Originally posted by obex26
So let me get this straight. Phoenix is requiring emmission laws for diesel's is this the city in the same state that has no requirements for lifting, lowering shaving all forms of turn signals and brake lights. and has no emmission requirements for any vehicle and they also have drivers licenses valid for 45 years for 20 bucks. thats almost as retarded as their window tint law. Someone should drop the person who proposed and passed this law off at a gay bar and let them have at him. That is retarded.:D

We do have emissions testing in Phoenix and Tucson. You're correct about the anything goes attitude regarding vehicle equipment though.

This law is :rainbow: because it only is targeting an ultra small percentage of vehicles on the road and any improvement to the air quality will be impossible to detect unless you're the guy driving behind that truck. However lightening of a lot of hard working truck drivers wallets will be significant.

I see it now. all of the truck drivers the ones who bring products in and the companies that own them are going to start boycotting the cities and when the trucks stop moving many things will go into a chain effect. Alot of the farms out there have multiple diesels that they use are they going to be exempt by this law? if not I can see the prices of livestock and produce being imported going up rapidly. But then again i had all of two minutes to think of these effects unlike the guy who had a brainfart and came up with this law.

Are the standards for emission testing out of line in some way?

Yes, they are asking them to upgrade their engines to modern standards. That is along the same lines as forcing everyone with a '69 big block Camaro to retrofit with EGR, and OBDII in order to license their vehicle.

Originally posted by Explorer


Yes, they are asking them to upgrade their engines to modern standards. That is along the same lines as forcing everyone with a '69 big block Camaro to retrofit with EGR, and OBDII in order to license their vehicle.

Are you telling me that those engines - when they were new - would not have met these standards?

Originally posted by DRM


Are you telling me that those engines - when they were new - would not have met these standards?

Correct. They are not polluting by the standards of the time they were built.

Originally posted by DevilJeep
A good friend of mine owns 1 truck(out of the seven total) that has to be "modified" at 1100 dollars he told me. It would suck to be some guys he knows that own several.

I'll agree $1,100 per vehicle is a lot of $$ to put out but it's a damn sight less than the $25k per the guy in the article talks about. Where did he get that figure from?

Originally posted by Explorer


Correct. They are not polluting by the standards of the time they were built.


That is not really what I asked.

When these trucks were new - would they have passed the NEW standards had they been in place at the time?

Originally posted by 85TrailToy
I'll agree $1,100 per vehicle is a lot of $$ to put out but it's a damn sight less than the $25k per the guy in the article talks about. Where did he get that figure from?
Out of his ass.

IMO, this law is a step in the right direction. Sure there are some "small guys" that are going to get hit in the wallet. Most of these trucks are used on a daily basis and are being driven "around town" for most of that day and throw more pollution in the air than 100 commuter econo-box's. The gov't has been focusing on passenger cars for so long that now 90% of the traffic only counts for 10% of the polution caused by traffic. The other 10% of the traffic is made up mostly of diesel trucks producing 90% of the polution.

Yes those numbers are "made up," but I'm sure that if someone were to do a study, they'd find that those numbers aren't far off the mark.

Now if we can just convince the Az Rep's that oxyginated fuels are causing more polution than they are preventing, as they are designed to reduce emmissions in carbureted vehicles not fuel injected ones... in fuel injected vehicles it increases emmissions.

Originally posted by DRM



That is not really what I asked.

When these trucks were new - would they have passed the NEW standards had they been in place at the time?

no probally not but when they were new the pollution standards were not as strick there for its punishing smaller opeators for owning older equipment. even if there say 1986 peterbuilt is bone stock and 100% orginal with all new parts.. it still will not pass todays standards.. and thats pretty much b/s i think..


as sum one said boycotts are a good chance.. i know if i was driving a older rig and i would be pissed.

as far as the 68 camaro.. in its day there was no smog.. would a 68 camaro pass the smog test today .. no i dont think so..
so now there tellin you to drive your 68 camaro you must reto fit all todays smog onto your 68.. i find that find that truely b/s


payton

Originally posted by DRM



That is not really what I asked.

When these trucks were new - would they have passed the NEW standards had they been in place at the time?

No, but by requiring the owners of said diesels to upgrade their older equipment to newer standards than for which the equipment was built to at the time when it was meeting the standards.

Would be akin to forcing a owner of that 68 camero to OBD-II and all the sensors/extra equipment that entails.

All cost differences aside in those two comparison. The principle of the concept is the same.

Now.. one thing I don't understand. I *thought*, meaning it may have been a myth, that diesel engines have historically produced less ozone depleting pollution than cars in the first place. :confused: That type of pollution is usually the type everyone is fighting against.

Originally posted by Travis Waldher




Now.. one thing I don't understand. I *thought*, meaning it may have been a myth, that diesel engines have historically produced less ozone depleting pollution than cars in the first place. :confused: That type of pollution is usually the type everyone is fighting against.

I'm guessing that Phoenix is trying to reduce particulate emissions to hopefully cut down on smog

Originally posted by AzWebMan

Out of his ass.

IMO, this law is a step in the right direction. Sure there are some "small guys" that are going to get hit in the wallet. Most of these trucks are used on a daily basis and are being driven "around town" for most of that day and throw more pollution in the air than 100 commuter econo-box's. The gov't has been focusing on passenger cars for so long that now 90% of the traffic only counts for 10% of the polution caused by traffic. The other 10% of the traffic is made up mostly of diesel trucks producing 90% of the polution.

Yes those numbers are "made up," but I'm sure that if someone were to do a study, they'd find that those numbers aren't far off the mark.

Now if we can just convince the Az Rep's that oxyginated fuels are causing more polution than they are preventing, as they are designed to reduce emmissions in carbureted vehicles not fuel injected ones... in fuel injected vehicles it increases emmissions.

Uhhhhmm the FACT that a Deisel usualy uses about HALF the amount of fue to do the same work as a Gas engine does doesn't account for anything?

Let me clue you in on who pushed for this. BIG BUISNESS and GASOLINE producers. Why? To take the heat off their polution and shift the blame.

Here is a prime documentable proof. In Atlanta they are cranking down on testing farther and farther out from the city. Thye are trying to get Floyd County to do emmsions testing because their polution is suposidly casing a problem in Atlanta (Over 50 miles away).

Guess who the largest poluter is in Atlanta responsible for 50% of the polution in Atlanta........It's the power company. Automobiles and light trucks account for less then 20% of Atlanta's polution problems but they are the heaviest target because big buisness has lobiests who's sole job is to shift blame. People in governement are getting kickbacks in some way or some form.


Also look at who AZ's neighbor is. Don't think the republick of Kalifornia wasn't a big influence on this.

Remember Electric cars are remote poluters. They produce just as much if not more indirect polution as the average SUV creates. Couse the Power company lobiest push shit like them because it looks PC while increasing the Power companies profit.

Originally posted by Travis Waldher
Would be akin to forcing a owner of that 68 camero to OBD-II and all the sensors/extra equipment that entails.

No that would be akin to forcing the owner of that 68 camero to pass the emmissions standards for a new car of the same emmissions classification. Which is not too hard to do; the last time I took my carberated 350 SBC powered Jeep through emmissions, it came out cleaner than the '95 Neon that I had at that time. Now my current Jeep has TBI instead of a Carb and it's even cleaner.

Originally posted by Travis Waldher
Now.. one thing I don't understand. I *thought*, meaning it may have been a myth, that diesel engines have historically produced less ozone depleting pollution than cars in the first place. :confused: That type of pollution is usually the type everyone is fighting against.
Diesel's create less greenhouse gases such as carbon-monoxide(CO) but more sulfates, hydrocarbons, and I think NOx.

The sulfates is what makes diesel exhaust stink like someone's dirty underwear burning in a camp fire. The NOx and the HC's is, if I remember correctly, what makes the air brown. CO is generally colorless and oderless, but it's bad for living things (plants & animals) and contributes to the "greenhouse" effect.

Originally posted by Grim Reaper
Uhhhhmm the FACT that a Deisel usualy uses about HALF the amount of fue to do the same work as a Gas engine does doesn't account for anything?
No it does count for something. I'm not suggesting replacing the diesel engine, just that the industry should start looking at the emissions of them and making them cleaner.

For the past 30 years, gasoline engines have been the target of environmental policies and emmission regulations. And they've been cleaned up A BUNCH.

Now is the time for that focus to be on diesel's. Diesel's have only relatively recently become the target of real emmission regulations and I think there is alot that can be done to clean them up.

Maybe 30 years from now cars and diesel's will be ultra clean and we can be sitting here discussing the new regulations on aircraft emmissions.

IMO, they started this emission's thing backward. They should have focused on diesel's first for two reasons:

1. Diesel's last alot longer. People tend to trade in and get newer cars often. The average age of a passenger car is like 5 years. The average age of a commercial diesel is probably closer to 15 or more. This makes the type of "hind-sight" regulations that Arizona has passed.

2. The amount of fuel consumed per engine is considerably higher in diesels. Plus there are a smaller number of diesel engines in operation than autos.

Anyhow that's hind-sight for you. I expect this to be the first of many new emmissions regulations reguarding diesels. And I expect the technology and industry will fully be able to step up and fullfull the requirements. And years from now we'll have cleaner, more efficient diesels.

We could immediately clean up diesel emissions AND put $$$ into the hands of american farmers by simply using biodiesel and biodiesel blends. The alt fuel with the biggest single immediate impact. Requires no conversion, can be mixed with dino-diesel so theres no need to find special stations etc.. and can run jet engines and interstate trucking. And to top it off has a higher cetane rating so it's not only cleaner its more effecient. Wont happen though because diesel fuel is "dirty"

wish theyd do that here to just the pick ups.

get tired of the noisey fuckers driving by at all hours

The REAL reason we have so much smog in the "Valley of the Sun" is Sky Harbor Airport and Construction.

As long as Sky Harbor is located in the center of the city we will have a smog problem from jet exhaust (which isn't much different then diesel exhaust is it?).

Construction kicks up TONS of particulates and all the construction site watering in the world isn't going to stop it.

It's funny that this idea is coming from the same city that setup "Smog Dogs" at freeway exits and entrances in order to "sniff" auto exhaust of moving vehicles. The program was in effect for a few years during which they had up to 10 stations set up at once. Each station required the use of 2 gasoline burning generators which ran continously all day... They finally found out that the generators at each station polluted as much as 1500 vehicles a day!! The generators don't use catalytic converters and are highly inefficant compared to a well tuned automobile engine.

Hell, maybe Governer Napolitano should start a program to buy these guys new trucks like Gov. Hull did for the SUV owners to help them buy alternative fuel vehicles:rolleyes: We know how well that worked

:D

When fully in effect, the engine ban is expected to cut particulate pollution by 1 ton a day. That's just a nick out of the 350 tons pumped daily into the Valley's air.

What a pointless fucking law, the reduction is not even one percent. Hell it is not even close. Is it really worth the $$ the guys are going to have to spend for such a small reduction.

"I feel air quality is very important," the Mesa resident said. "I feel there are a lot of vehicles running around, chucking out a lot of stuff, not necessarily mine."

How typical of a fucking greenie.....



These laws are the reasons my vehicles will be registered in the same city as my ranch, which as 26 people.

I dont know the facts on smog output or whats in it and how it works, but from personal experience, its a joke, a MONEY game for the govt.

I just smogged an OBD2 car to get tags, the cat was melted so I punched it out to get the car running, welded it empty right back on the car in case it got a visual, the check engine light was on because the purge can was plugged. Went to smog it, it failed. Took it to my uncles shop, ran it on his older machine that actually reads smog out the tailpipe, passed no problems.

I cleared the codes with the MT2500 and took it back over to the smog place, passed no problem.

The machine only failed it because the light was on, not because the failure actually caused a pollution issue.

Originally posted by JAG
I dont know the facts on smog output or whats in it and how it works, but from personal experience, its a joke, a MONEY game for the govt.

I just smogged an OBD2 car to get tags, the cat was melted so I punched it out to get the car running, welded it empty right back on the car in case it got a visual, the check engine light was on because the purge can was plugged. Went to smog it, it failed. Took it to my uncles shop, ran it on his older machine that actually reads smog out the tailpipe, passed no problems.

I cleared the codes with the MT2500 and took it back over to the smog place, passed no problem.

The machine only failed it because the light was on, not because the failure actually caused a pollution issue.

Let me clue you in about all that expensive emissions control crap on your car. Other then the EVap and the PCV it does nothing till the vehicle isn't running correctly. I have several years in a row ran my 1979 K5 with NO cats though emissions and had no problems passing the sniffer. Twice they failed to do the visual and passed it as a result. It didn't barely pass it actually put out less emsisons then my 1987 4cyl Fuel injected Merkur that had all of it's emissions gear. Then I put the cats on when they finnal noticed the missing cat and it got worse MPG.

They are finding that some of the stuff the cat puts off is every bit as bad for the atmosphere as the stuff it removes. It's all a crock of crap. /

This is just a step torward them doing this to diesel pickups. that is what will be next.:mad: :mad:

Read an article a few years ago. It stated that Industrial Pollution is up something like 80% and Auto polution is actually down.

Seems to me that we're focusing on the wrong area hear. Explorer and Grim are correct - The consumer, the American Citizen has been brainwashed into thinking that auto's are the trouble. They are not.

When California lifts a mandate to force all powercompanies to retrofit pollution controls, but then has a mandate that requires X% of cars to be electric by 2xxx, something's sorely wrong here.

It's just as bad as the "Global Warming" BS the greenies keep bitching about...

Originally posted by Pappa Smurf
This is just a step torward them doing this to diesel pickups. that is what will be next.:mad: :mad:
You are most likely correct. Individuals are a much easier target than large corporations and unions. However it will likely be much like the regular automotive industry where you'll just be "encouraged" to buy a newer truck. The Gov't will provide money to manufactures that will then in turn create rebates or trade-in incentives (in the guise of "brand loyalty"). The trucks will then likely be sold to boneyards to be parted out or sold for "overseas" resale only.

Originally posted by rockota
Read an article a few years ago. It stated that Industrial Pollution is up something like 80% and Auto polution is actually down.

Seems to me that we're focusing on the wrong area hear. Explorer and Grim are correct - The consumer, the American Citizen has been brainwashed into thinking that auto's are the trouble. They are not.
Once again this is because the individual is easier to take on than industry and unions. Power companies and "big business" have their hands in the polititians pockets and at the same time the Greenies are pushing the polititians to "do something" about the pollution. Who then is the easy target.

What we needed was a "consumer's union;" too late now.