DPF DEF Delete

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

This myth has been around for quite a while. Your National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has published articles on it. Estimates range from 60 to 90 times the emissions coming from human activities as all volcanic activity.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...man-activities

These articles all refer to a comparison of Carbon Dioxide emissions not the topic pollutants. Likewise the supposed myths refer to carbon dioxide as well. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is a critical component of the atmosphere and is vital the to the biological life cycle.

Larry is not too far off with his original question in that volcanoes do in fact release a significant amount of particulates and no end of noxious gasses in very large and significant quantities. I may post a follow up for a comparison.

[Tim A.]

The particulates from volcanic eruptions and large wildfires often rise so far in the atmosphere that they reflect the sun's rays. The result is that they can contribute to a reduction in surface temperatures ("volcanic winter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter). That is quite different than the effects of particulates and pollution emitted at and remaining near the earth's surface.

Tim

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

These articles all refer to a comparison of Carbon Dioxide emissions not the topic pollutants. Likewise the supposed myths refer to carbon dioxide as well. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is a critical component of the atmosphere and is vital the to the biological life cycle.

Larry is not too far off with his original question in that volcanoes do in fact release a significant amount of particulates and no end of noxious gasses in very large and significant quantities. I may post a follow up for a comparison.

Yes, I saw your post above about how carbon dioxide is the food of life. I couldn't task it seriously, so didn't respond.

Water is important for life as well. People still drown.

CO2 is critical, but the costs of rapid changes in its concentration in our atmosphere have an enormous impact. An economist would know that.

[lsbrodsky]

This has morphed into climate change so I am going to get my 5 cents in before it is closed. BS! The climate has always changed! Man has not been capable of accurately modelling this. Alarmists look at 10 or 20 or 50 years of data and forecast doom based on their projections. Remember how we were going to have a new ice age in the 70's? Now, because the Earth is warmer, it is all due to man and we are going to incinerate the Earth! Please! Just have your favorite iced beverage and chill out. Meanwhile keep paying for your DEF.
Larry

[jcl]

Originally Posted by lsbrodsky

This has morphed into climate change so I am going to get my 5 cents in before it is closed. BS! The climate has always changed! Man has not been capable of accurately modelling this. Alarmists look at 10 or 20 or 50 years of data and forecast doom based on their projections. Remember how we were going to have a new ice age in the 70's? Now, because the Earth is warmer, it is all due to man and we are going to incinerate the Earth! Please! Just have your favorite iced beverage and chill out. Meanwhile keep paying for your DEF.
Larry

If/when it is closed, posts will be removed, so not sure it makes sense to get in under the wire.

I think any discussion on removing pollution controls is fairly closely aligned with discussions on our natural environment. I don't think it should be a political discussion.

Yes, the climate has always changed. That isn't in dispute. The discussion is on anthropogenic climate change, that which is impacted by humans. The issue isn't so much that it is changing, but how fast it is changing.

"Alarmists" is pejorative. How about we call them scientists?

We were never going to have another ice age in the 1970s. Magazine covers do not a scientific consensus make.

Absolutely, keep putting in DEF fluid. It isn't a solution, but as noted above, if individuals are going to impact the commons, like air and water, then pricing mechanisms are one way to manage that.

I'll go have a cold one now. Cheers!

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by jcl

A few mentions above of the GHG emissions of the Australian fires. They are huge. But the real story is that years of emitting GHGs have impacted the climate, with longer and hotter dry spells, and the droughts in Australia have made the fires (which occur regularly and are not individually caused by climate change) far worse, and that in turn makes for more climate change. We have climate change causing climate change. We will look back and talk about tipping points.

Properly managed forests don’t burn as often.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

CO2 is critical, but the costs of rapid changes in its concentration in our atmosphere have an enormous impact. An economist would know that.

As an Economist, I know that if the Alarmists are correct about warming, and its effects that adaptation and mitigation is many 100's of times less costly to society than prevention.

Fortunately I am also an environmental engineer well versed in the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere and ocean systems. I realize the alarmists are wrong about their assumptions and their models. As Larry indicated, the observable facts of changing global temperatures are far better explained by natural variation.

So we should focus on the noxious chemicals that impact local regions and not waste any effort on preventing a non-problem.

[Lafitte]

The op asked about deleting his DEF heater......
Talk about "A Tempest in a Teapot"..................:

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

Properly managed forests don’t burn as often.

Indeed the primary cause of the large fires was failure to properly manage the forest areas. Non-adjusted, non-doctored average high temperatures in Australia have risen less than 1/4 degree in the last 70 years. There is no objective data to support the hypothesis that warming temperature lead to weather extremes. Furthermore data clearly demonstrates weather extremes are far less common today than in the 1940's.

Again I would admonish us to stay focused on solving clear and present problems rather than speculating on the future. Nobody has a crystal ball.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

Properly managed forests don’t burn as often.

Forest management practices can’t stop the heat and drought caused by the climate crisis but they may lengthen the amount of time that humans will be able to live in fire-prone areas

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

As an Economist, I know that if the Alarmists are correct about warming, and its effects that adaptation and mitigation is many 100's of times less costly to society than prevention.

That is what is called economic alarmism

[ITSNO60]

If you Google "Ducted Fuel Injection" you can learn about the next technology that hopefully will arrive to the market soon, reducing or eliminating the need for troublesome and expensive exhaust after treatment systems. Ford and Caterpillar have already invested in the research.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

Forest management practices can’t stop the heat and drought caused by the climate crisis but they may lengthen the amount of time that humans will be able to live in fire-prone areas

Extreme Heat and drought frequency and severity were both much greater in the 1940's than in the past decade, this is a demonstrable fact. Proper application of the scientific method would declare your narrative falsified.


In economic theory, an unencumbered free market optimizes production and minimizes cost. The fact that free people have not acted to reduce CO2 tells us all we need to know about the merits of adaptation and mitigation over prevention. This is also a fact, and facts are stubborn things.

Human ingenuity and a free markets have solved every technical challenge faced thus far. It will produce better emission controls and it will prevent us from ever damaging things beyond repair.

[swilly43]

Let’s not forget providence. Amen

[HRTKD]

Originally Posted by wulfraat

In my county here in Colorado they will not renew your registration unless you have passed immersions. They also have automated / mobile emissions measurement stations they setup and they can also determine if you are out of compliance simply by you driving past the parked / mobile sampling station.

There was a Rolling Coal law passed a couple years ago here in Colorado. An officer can issue you a ticket if the vehicle produces a visible soot cloud. Emissions testing is required on the front range. The Rolling Coal law applies statewide I believe.

Regarding the OP's question, there are no reputable sources that will produce the necessary tune for a delete. On the Ford-Trucks.com forum the general response is, "Good luck with that!" A recent post there had a guy that bought all the hardware necessary for the delete, installed it all, then found out his "tuner" only worked with emissions hardware intact.

I'm firmly in the "keep the emissions hardware intact" crowd. I'm recovering from throat cancer and can't stand to be around diesel vehicles that don't have emissions equipment. On my 2017 F-350 6.7L I can stand by the tailpipe and not smell a whiff of diesel soot. I like it that way. At 925 lb/ft of torque my truck has plenty of power.

[Bill M.]

Did you do the delete? Or replace the heater? Or can you simply wait until almost cold weather to decide?

[andyherman]

Timely discussion as my 2015 Sierra 2500HD has been sitting out in my drive for the past several months after the dreaded "check Def System - 100 miles before speed limited" alert came on. I haven't taken it in yet as I don't drive that truck in the winter (just 4 season tires) and my Sierra 1500 has 4 studded winter tires - thank goodness for the 1500!
I would argue that no one purchases a diesel truck with the expectation they are going to face a $2,500.00 repair bill for the DEF system - particularly after forking out $65K plus. (I have no idea what "my" problem is, but would seriously consider trading the 2500 diesel for a new 2500 gasser if the bill approaches $2,500.00.) How often is this nasty occurrence going to happen over the life of the vehicle - my 2500 only has 37,000 miles on it.

There are so many posts about issues with the DEF systems on the various brand forums - it's seems this "solution" wasn't/isn't ready for prime time.

[Hemicrazy]

Good luck finding a tuner and a shop to do the work. The EPA has handed down several multi million dollar fines recently. Edge, Banks and several other tuner manufacturers have shut down production. Selling only CARB compliant units. Several “tuner” shops have been targeted as well. Dodge has even posted on their web sight that they will no longer work on any deleted trucks, regardless of work needed, going so far as towing not driving them off premises.
If you google diesel tuning or EPA diesel crackdown you will find plenty.
I was going to delete but I changed my mind, going with CARB compliant tuner.

http://www.trucktrend.com/how-to/eng...el-tuning-dead

[Hemicrazy]

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/set...selling-diesel

From the EPA website. They are getting customer databases from manufacturers and going so far as contacting end users.
I do believe the CARB compliant tuners are even VIN locked, meaning they will only work on original paired vehicle.

[Hemicrazy]

For those that were using the “off-road” loop hole they are after that as well.

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/nati...es-and-engines