Truck News


SPECIAL REPORT: Truck News investigation finds widespread tampering of emissions systems

TORONTO, Ont. -- An investigation by Truck News has found that engine tampering to defeat emissions controls mandated on new trucks over the past decade is widespread and easily attainable.

TORONTO, Ont. — An investigation by Truck News has found that engine tampering to defeat emissions controls mandated on new trucks over the past decade is widespread and easily attainable.

Frequently advertised as DPF Delete or EGR Delete kits, service providers offer to remove the emissions-reducing devices and then reprogram the engine for better performance at a cost of thousands of dollars, which shops claim will quickly be recovered through improved fuel economy and reliability. The procedure, however, effectively reverses the environmental gains resulting from the advent of EGR and DPF systems introduced in 2002 and 2007 respectively, and essentially restores the vehicle to EPA02 pollution levels.

An EPA02 engine had a regulated output of 2.5 grams NOx and 0.1 grams per brake horsepower hour of particulate matter. The current EPA10 limits are 0.2 grams NOx and 0.01 grams of particulate matter. That means an EPA10 engine is 12.5 times and 10 times cleaner than an EPA02 engine in terms of NOx and PM emissions, respectively.

In the US, there is enforcement at both the federal and state levels, which would impose massive fines on companies providing EGR/DPF Delete services or the operators who have the work done to their trucks.

Need proof of enforcement? Look no further than a $500,000 fine levied by EPA in January against Edge Products, an American company that sold more than 9,000 devices allowing owners of model year 2007 or later diesel pick-up trucks to operate without their factory-installed diesel particulate filters.

“The Department of Justice will continue to vigilantly protect America’s health and environment through the enforcement of the Clean Air Act standards governing emissions from vehicles and engines,” Ignacia Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division announced in a press release, clearly intended to scare providers of such services. “This settlement holds Edge Products accountable for selling devices that allow consumers to disable the emission controls on their vehicles by requiring the company to pay a penalty, buy back the devices, and perform a project to offset the air pollution resulting from the Clean Air Act violations.”

Here in Canada, however, the feds and provinces have, until recently, been at loggerheads just to determine who should be enforcing clean diesel regulations. The recent consensus was that the provinces are responsible, but enforcement to date has been non-existent. This black hole of enforcement has spawned the creation of a rapidly growing underground – and in some cases, not so underground – industry, which is profiting at the expense of the environment.

The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) is calling on the provinces to begin enforcing anti-tampering laws and would like to see the feds do their part as well.

“The issue here from a CTA perspective is two-fold. One, this is an image issue for our industry. It has come with a heavy cost, but we now have smog-free, near zero emissions engines,” Stephen Laskowski, vice-president of the Canadian Trucking Alliance told Truck News. “There are societal benefits to that and image benefits over time. If we’ve made that investment, we’re all forced to make that investment. The second aspect of that is a competitive playing field. If we are all using these engines, and these engines come with fuel efficiency restraints, if the restraints are shared by everyone, then that’s the reality of the sector. What we don’t want to have is folks who not only ruin the image of our industry but also compete with a tractor that’s more efficient because he’s tampered with his engine. You can’t have an economic advantage by going to a lawless carrier.”

The way the laws are currently written, Environment Canada relinquishes its authority over the vehicle once it’s manufactured to federal standards and delivered to the dealer or end user.

“It’s then left to the provinces to enforce,” Laskowski said. “We would ask: why wouldn’t you have joint federal penalties along with the provincial penalties for these types of offenses to discourage it even more? That’s an issue we’re raising in Ottawa. In the States, the EPA has tampering rules and they have state laws as well, but you face significant penalties in the US from the EPA when you tamper with emissions devices and you’re caught. We don’t have that federal penalty hanging over people, and we ask why not?”

The CTA is calling on provinces to go after the shops that are providing the service.

“The CTA’s position is this: let’s not go on a witch hunt at the scales throughout Canada, lifting up hoods and looking for things. Go after the guys that are offering this service and shut them down,” he said.

To find out just how prevalent and attainable these services are, Truck News’ on-road editor Harry Rudolfs conducted an investigation, calling numerous shops across Canada under the guise of an owner/operator or small fleet owner. He found many service providers openly advertising their services online. Some admitted the practice was illegal, others were of the opinion it’s legal in Canada and still others admitted they were “bending the rules.” The inconsistencies should not come as a surprise, given the lack of clarity from Ottawa.

With no more effort than a Google search and a couple of phone calls, Rudolfs found shops locally and across Canada willing to provide the service. Others provided referrals for shops that would do the job, revealing a broad network of well-connected service providers. Rudolfs also came across shop owners who refused to engage in the “unethical” procedure. (You can read about Rudolfs’ investigation on Tuesday). The inconsistencies in how the laws are interpreted, even by those performing the services, are understandable.

We polled government officials in Ontario and Alberta to get an idea of the level of enforcement that exists. In Ontario, the Ministry of Transportation referred our questions to the Ministry of the Environment.

Kate Jordan, spokesperson with the communications branch of the MoE, said “All vehicles must have the emission components that they came with from the manufacturer and these must be connected and in proper working condition. If a vehicle is found to be out of compliance with the ministry’s requirements, enforcement action is taken.”

Jordan said the MoE can issue warnings, tickets, summons and orders to the drivers and owners of the vehicles, and can even go so far as to seize licence plates and remove the trucks from the road. She said Ontario’s Drive Clean program, which requires trucks seven years of age and older to be tested for emissions every two years, should identify any trucks that have had their emissions systems modified.

However, the scofflaw garage owners Rudolfs spoke to boasted of their ability to delete the EGR/DPF systems and still pass the opacity tests conducted through Drive Clean.

In Alberta, installing a DPF delete kit itself is not a regulatory offence, according to Alberta Transportation spokesperson and public affairs officer Trent Bancarz. However, the annual Commercial Vehicle Inspection Program (CVIP) inspections conducted on all large trucks do require an OEM or equivalent exhaust system.

“This CVIP criteria comes from the National Safety Code Standard 11B, which all provinces have adopted,” he said. “If the only thing a vehicle owner has done is have a DPF Delete kit installed, then the vehicle should fail a CVIP inspection. The 11B criteria is being reviewed currently. It is expected the criteria pertaining to emission systems will be clearer, and a DPF Delete kit or removing emission systems will be a clear reje
ct criteria. When the 11B is updated, a commercial truck with a DPF Delete kit will not pass an Alberta CVIP inspection.”

This could spell trouble for owner/operators or fleet owners who’ve had such work done to their trucks. Reversing the process would also require purchasing a new particulate filter, which costs thousands of dollars on its own. (In some cases, the DPF is removed from the truck, but more often, it’s hollowed out so the truck appears to be in compliance during visual inspections. The hollowing out of a DPF renders it completely ineffective). It’s possible many drivers will be stuck with trucks they can no longer certify under the CVIP, without a costly reversal of the work they paid so dearly to have done.

All indications are that increased enforcement of the regulations is coming at the provincial level. Truck News learned the issue was discussed during a recent Canadian Canadian Council of the Ministers of Environment meeting. A crackdown could be imminent, putting an end to the service offerings or driving providers further underground.

OEMs, also, strongly advise against the practice.

Lou Wenzler, technical sales support director with Cummins, said it’s difficult to tell how widespread the issue of engine tampering is. However, he said “Cummins does not condone tampering with our products in any capacity at any time during the product’s life.”

Wenzler said Cummins has a corporate policy preventing its own distributors from engaging in the activity, and added “Cummins’ warranty policy specifically states that any failures caused by incorrect engine modifications are not covered by Cummins. Tampering with or disabling emissions control devices may also impact repair times.”

Wenzler suggested prospective buyers of used trucks that may have had their emissions systems modified should have those trucks first inspected by an authorized service location. Like Wenzler, Canadian officials have had difficulty ascertaining the reach of such practices. CTA’s Laskowski said: “There’s a smorgasbord as to what can be done out there. The degree to which people are taking advantage of it is unknown, but there are various creative garages doing various creative things to the environmental equipment in pursuit of improved fuel efficiency.”

Rudolfs’ unprecedented investigation, appearing in the April issues of Truck News and Truck West and on tomorrow, paints a clearer picture of just how widespread and easily attainable these services are in Canada.

Truck News

Truck News

Truck News is Canada's leading trucking newspaper - news and information for trucking companies, owner/operators, truck drivers and logistics professionals working in the Canadian trucking industry.
All posts by

Print this page
Related Articles

72 Comments » for SPECIAL REPORT: Truck News investigation finds widespread tampering of emissions systems
  1. Allan S says:

    Maybe if these systems weren’t causing people to go bankrupt, they wouldn’t be tampered with. The local International dealership has a 3 week wait for warranty work. These systems cause massive headaches for everyone in the supply chain.

    Until they get the systems sorted out, I’ll hold on to my 2002 truck as long as I can.

    • ryan says:

      after 2 blown, (dusted out) 2009 cat c-15 engines in two years,(would not warranty) i put a 2004 cat c-15 in my 2009 freight liner classic. still teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Checked online, the class action lawsuits against these companies are stalled.

    • Shawn says:

      Not only that it is a money grabbing government profit scandle imo! These Def tanks aswell lines are no good to us Canadians in winter weather! Between -30 and -50 weather these stupid def tanks and lines Crystalize therefore shutting the truck down completely! Then your stuck on the highway with no heat hoping and praying someone coming your way! Otherwise you freeze to death! Then what happened after that! I would sue the shit out of the government! These Def tanks are more of a hazard then anything! There gonna kill someone if it hadn’t already! Get rid of these def Tanks completely until they figured out how to fix every problem issue these Def tanks have! Weather it be warranty or weather issues! These things are garbage! Imo! More HAZARD then anything! Not for Canadian weather at all!

      • gary shirley says:

        i have a device on my car that has almost doubled my mileage. i also have one for a 14 litre semi engine. more power, improved mileage, zero emissions, and all it uses is 1 gallon of distilled water every 3 weeks. burns all the fuel on the combustion stroke. works with all carbon based fuels. works to – 70 below

  2. Kelly Prosser says:

    Not sure if they understand that trucks burning more fuel are polluting th environment even more. These trucks are burning up to a third more fuel. All the fuel has to be produced creating pollution in the process. It’s another government money grab.

  3. Rick Gregoire says:

    Why don’t they do what the auto makers did in the “70s” and just put a big old air pump into the exhaust manifold.The additional air was supposed to prolong the combustion of exhaust gases for a more complete burn,but all it really did was diluted those nasty pollutants by increasing the volume of O2 in relationship to the previous emission reading.There ya go,problem solved!

    • Freebs says:

      All the air pump ever did was dilute the air coming out of the tailpipe. They were never useful in any way. The main argument against the emissions systems is people still think it’s cool to have a big diesel barrelling out black smoke to show off how much power they’re sitting on.
      I personally am a fan of the emissions system mainly because of the fact that my very expensive camper has zero black soot on it after 200km behind my duramax. I’ve had some issues but it’s all part of the growing pains of advancement.
      Get used to it cuz it ain’t going anywhere

  4. Mickey Roy says:

    Though we don’t engage in the delete process (EGR/DPF) I would really like to! So far in 2013 we have experinced serious down time on tractors due to EGR/DPF issues costing the company thousands of $$$ in repairs and down time….how do you spell “Bankrupt” and the dealers are jammed for days dealing with all the issues!

    When I look around the world and see the pollution other countries blow in the air the EGR/DPF delete seems like a way to avoid going bankrupt, get better mileage per gallon and have more power to pull the goods we bring to market!

    Just saying!

  5. Vincent M says:

    Let me see if I get this straight.We now run cleaner trucks that cost more due to additional engine components.Many additional complex,unreliable sensors and parts that consistently fail and contribute to increased downtime, poor fuel mileage and higher maintenance costs.We run clean but burn more fuel.Schneiders,yes the orange guys, believes so much in new technology,that they ordered hundreds of new glider kits and installed pre emission motors in them.Hows that for ya?Pretty clear message.Sensors fail out on the road.Dealers can’t get you in for days.No wonder we are finding ways to avoid this unreliable product.Whats unethical is this technology.New motors should have two year warranties.As far as the CTA goes,are we bottom feeders really a threat to to the Kings,Ladies,Lords and Princes?If you guys have so much power to influence the lawmakers,could you not influence them to mandate reliable technology?Do your jobs to protect the interest of the industry.That is why you are there,right?

    • Gworge says:

      The real point is that it’s a license to print money by manufacturers if governments put the money into the backs of manufacturers to warranty for millions of miles we would get reliable product as it ow stands there is no incentive for manufacturers to build a good product

      A class action lawsuit against government and manufactures is needed

  6. Timothy R... says:

    I am making payments on a $60,000 diesel pickup.
    It is MY truck. MY name on the ownership.
    I am paying for it, including the fuel.
    I want to make sure this truck lasts me a long time, and gets me the best fuel economy and reliability.

    Nobody, including the damn Government or Ontario, can tell me how to maintain and work on my OWN truck. Leaving those systems on there, is a ticking time bomb.

    Especially the 6.4 Powerstroke guys. 13MPG and a 150,000km life-span is NOT GOOD! The second the truck had no warranty……guess what comes off!

    6.7L Cummins? You are not even supposed to idle the trucks because the EGR and DPF can clog. TAKE IT OFF!

    Now the damn things use Urea or DEF. Another expense that makes more pollution to produce, than it does in actually reducing the vehicles tailpipe emissions.

    As long as the vehicle is in my name and I am paying for it. I will do what I need to do in order to get 18+MPG and 500,000km out of it scott free.

    If I am ordered to put the crap back on the truck, I will give the bills and ownership to the MoE, and they can pay for my truck seeing as they want to tell me what to do with it.

    Ain’t gonna happen……

    • Bob says:

      Yep. It’s YOUR truck. But it’s their warranty so if something goes wrong it’s your money to fix it.

    • Bill Saloka says:

      as soon as you put that license plate on your vehicle it becomes a ward of that state or province, sorry Tim.

      • Kevin says:

        That’s the problem lets start taking back our power by making individuals more powerful then government or cooperation unless a death or a theft is involved

    • David youngs says:

      I’m stuck with a truck with the DPF delete 6.4 Ford. I got a fine and an order to comply, the truck came from Ontario Chrysler like that to my partner l now own it , and they want $6500 plus to restore it at a friend’s shop . Right now this truck runs great . There should be some recourse legally to address my dilemma , as l use this truck everyday.and can’t afford this change order

      • Tyler says:

        if you put the emissions shit back on your 6.4 it will blow up and it will fail with in 100,000. the 6.4 is a ticking time bomb with the dpf and egr even more so than any 6.0. my advice is go to the wrecker put on the emissions shit and then remove it as soon as possible leaving the sleeve of the dpf so it looks like there is one there. the egr you can upgrade if you want to leave it on but overall its better to take it off

  7. Paul Lambert says:

    The DEF has to be stored in a heated space. At -11 it freezes and apparentley renders it useless after that. Diesel anti gel products for the diesel fuel is not to be used with a truck outfitted with this DPF system either. So for operators in northern working environments, delete kits should be made legal and available from the OEM as far as im concerned.

    • Freebs says:

      Ran my duramax all winter in -30celsius and below. Zero issues. If def freezes its then thaws back to the same condition. It was designed in this way. A lot of these excuses are from people who have no clue what they are talking about. I’m not saying the dpf is without many flaws. To many people look up stuff in these forums and take it as fact. An example is people doing a intake heater delete. They do it with claims of better fuel mileage and less stress on the charging system. Then they turn around and complain when they have a multitude of other issues. If you don’t like the emissions changes buy a gasser

  8. Robert D. Scheper says:

    Fifteen years ago, when the laws were originally introduced, the promoters “guarenteed” it wouldn’t negatively affect the indutry. They painted lovely roses on the environmental impact and called the opposition “naysayers” demonizing their “lack of progress” and “industry vision”. For the last half decade the truth is painfully clear on who the wise ones were. It’s also clear who the flat out liers were (see climate gate). As for the “unethical” garages let me just say… they may be unlawful but they are NOT unethical. Saying the garages are unethical is like saying the underground railroad was unethical because it broke the law (of slavery). One perspective was based on truth, fact, and personal compassion, the other on manipulation and abuse… using a twisted legal system for selfish irrational national and personal gain. Environmental extremists were succesful in the production of flat out lies to produce their own industry of manipulation. Lies are no longer limited to small white ones, they can be BIG business, with BIG BIG money… just ask those who invested in Bernie Madoff!

    • Yawn says:

      All arguments have always been based on law. Stop being sheep, laws are written words and nothing more. Stop collectively paying your taxes and they’ll get the hint

  9. Barry Hassard says:

    As the Friendly Giant used to say “Look up, look way up”. Those huge vapour trails left by giant airliners carrying people on vacation are almost certainly causing a lot more emissions than the truck traffic ever will. How do you think the public would feel if they climbed on board a shiny new jet just equipped with EGR and DEF knowing that it is as reliable as a new transport truck. My bet is the public would have a completely different view on pollution control then, as would the politician that use air travel. Perhaps someone should do a study on the emissions levels of all the air traffic in North America compared to that of trucks to see which is actually ther largest contributor of greenhouse gases ( I’m betting on the air traffic).
    I am quite confused as to how burning more fuel because of pollution control devices to achieve the same objective is good for the environment or the trucking industry. If fuel economy was the end result of these devices as well as emission reductions then it would make sense. But as it is now, all you are doing is reducing the amount of GHG per litre burned but burning more diesel which seems counter productive. But hey, as a simple small business owner and truck driver, I am obviously not mentally equipped to understand the intracacies of pollution control, just forced to live by ridiculous rules. Always glad we have such smart people to look out for us less intelligent minions.

    • Doug says:

      Airliners are probably the least of the polluters. Now the ships are a real polluter. Once they get a certain distance from shore, they are allowed to switch to and burn a thicker oil/fuel mixture. Canada is also supplying 2% of the world pollution, way behind China and the U.S., yet our Fedral and provincial governments now want to introduce a “Carbon Tax” tax grab, like that will contribute to the worldwide anti greenhouse/climate change effort. When do you think China will do the same, or the U. S.? Meanwhile the pollution from both will drift on over here, and they will face no tax from Canada.

    • Yawn says:

      Air has more money than you, and that’s why they’ll do what they want, unregulated.

    • Ivan Maric says:


  10. Pat Hancox says:

    I am inclined to agree with most of the comments, for the following reasons. If you ask Environment Canada how to calculate greenhouse gas impact from fuel saving measures, they will instruct you to use a formula that is based on pounds of fuel consumed. So, even for us simple wrench pullers and truck drivers it seems to me that if we had carried on from the 8 – 12 mpg that we saw in the late ’90s (good luck seeing 8 today) and had worked it from that end we would be averaging closer to the 20mpg spectrum and reducing greenhouse gas by virtue of burning less fuel. This in turn leaves more funds available for innovation both by the transport industry and their customers to pursue the other methods of reducing fuel consumption and emissions, boosting our economy in the process. But as another writer put it, I guess we on the ground don’t have the mental capacity to understand the value of what is being forced upon us. I am all for protecting the environment, but in sustainable ways that do not shut down the country in the process.

  11. paul says:

    I agree with Timothy R.,the government seems to think that the average diesel P/U owner or an owner operator of a big truck have their pockets lined with Gold and can afford all of these changes.

  12. dualquadpete says:

    MOE was doing roadside inspections all last summer on some of the older cars & handing out fines of apprx. $365 per missing piece of emm. equipment ie EGR valves, AIR pumps, charcoal cannisters etc.They even started checking engine #’s& stated that if a engine swap had taken place then all the emm, equip. for that yr. engine had to be in place even if the vehicle never had Emm. system!!! So don’t think they won’t start checking the “big Rigs” when they see a CASH COW they certainly go after it!!!!!!

    • Yawn says:

      They’re not checking big rigs. Big trucking won’t allow it and they have money. People in cars don’t and will be fined as such

  13. Ken Bastien says:

    I will keep my 01 Diesel F350 running as long as possible and switch to natural gas. Of course almost all the public (CNG)natural gas stations have been closed and our CNG service truck has to be driven to Toronto for fuel. Suggesting a fuel without refueling infrastructure in place is typical of government. Some fleets of course are starting to convert to CNG with their own on site refueling. CNG is cheap to run and almost 0 emission. But still impractical for most. Hopefully the reliability of diesel will improve by the time my truck or our customers trucks must(MUST)be replaced with newer units. So far older trucks are the clear winners. Two words – rust proofing!!

  14. Jerry Coffey says:

    CTA made up of rats who don’t even drive trucks for a living. They are turncoat sellout SOBs. I have had it with these government lackies and stooges I am sellingy trucks and retiring and these bastards can all go to Hell.

  15. Drk Zog says:

    90% of the problems posted on diesel discussion boards are related to emissions equipment. Simply put, outside the lab, SCR/DPF technology doesn’t work. People do deletes just to rid themselves of relentless reliability issues. Constantly replacing, repairing, driving back and forth to the dealer, down time at work etc. Sorry EPA, that harms MY environment.

  16. frank schram says:

    amazing, simply amazing,how unfair it is for someone to make money doing something that is probably better for the enviorment, saving a large amount of fuel and still being able to meet emission standards without all the useless, unreliable technology that the bureaucrats have been swindled into believing is the only way to go. just think the government is missing out on all the tax dollars they could collect in increased profits from all those big carriers if they could increase fuel milage reduce down time and eliminate the repair costs.the tax revenue to the various governments would go along way to pay their entitlements. but then again we do have to think about the big oil and mfgs they have to have an avenue to rip us off some how.

  17. westmanguy says:

    The issue will be that when you go to trade or sell the vehicle that has any emmission tampering,be it a complete DEF or DPf illimination that it will not pass a provincial safety,be it a commercial vehicle or a private vehicle,thus making that vehicle completely worthless as a trade.

  18. Marty says:

    My 2005 EGR engine blew an average of 15.0% Opacity before i got the delete kit installed. The next opacity snap test averaged a 4.2% with the EGR delete kit installed.

    This is the honest truth.

    My fuel mileage improved and the horsepower increase was significant.

    i’m just sayin’

  19. Curious George says:

    Ummm…Why aren’t there any cases from owner operators documented in this article? Perhaps ask some that are getting it down now, and some that have had it done for some years?

    Just saying, would be nice to hear the story from experience rather than from just a “legal” or outsiders moral stance. If owners are getting burned by doing this, I’m sure they’d be more than happy to comment in your article on the record about it.

    I can’t help but wonder why you’d ask the biggest players (aka richest) what they think, but not a worthwhile peep from from any of the lone gunmen on the road.

    please follow up on the story from owner operators who’ve had this done so we KNOW what’s up, rather than “THINK” what’s up.

    Thanks! Have a banana 😉

  20. Bob says:

    Wow I can’t believe all the comments on here. I guess money trumps everything including your well being and health. While I agree its unfair to the truckers who are trying to earn a living, but its equally unfair to the population that has to breathe in the pollution.

    If the owners can’t pay for these changes on their own, then maybe the government should force the engine manufacturers and oil companies to dish out the expense from their own pocket, that would be a fair solution. We all know the oil companies make loads of money they are hoarding. This would be pocket change to them, but even that is too much. I don’t get it, why can’t they do a good thing for a change, oh wait…they can’t… So the rest of us are stuck breathing in all that black smoke. Oh well…

    • Tami says:

      Bob, you are convinced because you don’t see all the waste and extra pollution the mechanical systems and additions are causing. Besides the extra fuel consumption, the garbage created by the packages of enviro fluids (box and plastic for one jug- a truck takes 7+ per week – NOT RECYCLABLE), the broken parts thrown away, the extra energy consumed to manufacture the parts, the extra people and equipment on the road to distribute hundreds of thousands of gallons of fluids and parts… it’s an industry, Bob. A money making industry.

    • James says:

      I work bush hauls….remote areas often…..down time caused by emission system failures coud not only bankrupt me but could also put my well being in jeapordy….as I understand it the Canadian armed forces are not using dpf or Def systems in their equipment….if this is true I would venture to guess that they understand how unreliable these systems are

  21. Bill says:

    How about operating a def system in explosive environments like a 9 billion dollar upgrader. Does the Enviroment board want to risk these lawsuits and deaths pertaining to the failed systems that whe have shoved down our throat that don’t work in cold weather?? Talk to me!!

    • gary shirley says:

      my friends, i have a pure hydrogen fuel system for large tractor units. works to -70. I have the mini version on my car, 50 % increased mileage. lifetime warranty. no emissions from my car. oil is staying clean as well. way more power. this is not the cheap junk sold on ebay. this unit uses no stainless steel. it has not ever worked very long. do draining,, no flushing. tested running for over 1 year operating 24/7. water allways clean.

      • Butch hilman says:

        I’ll buy that get me a price and email it to me please,I was working on something similar 20 years ago .!!

  22. Tami says:

    This going green movement is the worst ‘new economy’ to ever be invented for profit. Why don’t we just invent new ways to tax the large base of workers and deliver the dollars to the top few percent. All those jugs piled at garbage bins and along the highways plus the cost of making and producing the fluids and equipment.

  23. Tami says:

    This going green movement is the worst ‘new economy’ to ever be invented for profit. Why don’t we just invent new ways to tax the large base of workers and deliver the dollars to the top few percent. All those jugs piled at garbage bins and along the highways plus the extra fuel spent and the cost of making and producing the fluids and equipment more than offset whatever NOx gains are supposed to be helping our air.

  24. Mark says:

    I “deleted” my 6.7 cummins that I recently sold. I got higher fuel economy with a lift and 35 inch tires then the thing got stock with normal tires and all the emmission garbage. (18-22 mpg not stock) (14-16 stock)

    People have no ****ing clue how emmission process even works on new diesels. It literally injects diesel into the dpf superheats and ignites which “cleans” the dpf. And on top of that left over diesel from process gets dumped
    Into crank case mixing with your oil reducing oil change intervals.

    The EGR valve recycles combusted air into the engine which gets clogged with sutt and reduces Power and efficiency of truck.

    DEF as many others have stated is another issue in itself.

    Since CO2 is the main greenhouse gas the world is worried about why are we wasting millions of litres of fuel, oil, plastic each year on crap that pollutes clearly more than NoX…. Personally i don’t stand behind or down wind of diesel emissions and I’m around it everyday
    In construction. However I still support this small amount of pollution over WASTED unneeded pollution.

    People want “green” crap no pipelines and all this garbage but are complete hypocrits and use just as much oil as everyone else and don’t change there lifestyle. Government and this EPA garbage can fuck off.

    • gary shirley says:

      my younger brother was around diesel engines all his life as well, cranes. now he has been tested for COPD. the docs told him, it was the industry you were in, breathing in all the Deisel engine particles. i have pure hydrogen fuel saving system. test for 1 year running 24/7. water never ever was changed or flushed. and was always crystal clear. works to -70. more power, improved mileage, increased oil change intervals. burns all the fuel in the cylinder on the combustion stroke. zero emissions.

  25. kw man says:

    If its so illegal then y is there a sticker on my new 2013 kw that says. This vehicle is meant for export only and is therefore exempt from all u.s emissions standards and related requirment. So I deleted it the day after I bought it. I get good milage awsome power with no trouble. Hammer down boys

  26. Confused says:

    There seems to be a lot more comments against these systems than for. First of all if you research the amount of emission gases put into the air by the transport industry you will find it is less than 1 % of the worlds emissions. Second if you were to take an exhaust emissions test on a truck doing a dpf burn off you would be sick with the resaults. It is a government rule placed on engine manufacturers to pressure them to clean up the air because they were volnerable. Bottom line is we are picking on the industry that keeps our economy going while there are some manufacturing countries in the world that the air is so bad their kids can’t go outside. But let’s keep picking on the poor o/os that keep food on our shelves.

  27. Rick Blatter says:

    Reading the comments following your articles should give you an idea of the REAL problem. I know your magazine is heavily financed by manufacturers so this might be hard for you to openly admit.

    The market will eventually correct itself.

    EVERYONE wants clean air, efficiency, yadda, yadda.

    The REAL PROBLEM is that all the manufacturers having their DEFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY REMOVED sold DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS. Some, such as International in the USA, are being sued.

    Cummins and all the rest need to be sued also because they have the same/ similar problems (read DEFECTS).

    The REAL SOLUTION would be to make the MANUFACTURERS OF THESE DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS recall their crap and fix it. Truckers and trucking companies are going out of business because of DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS that are always in the shop. The good news I guess is that parked trucks make 0 pollution. However, they also produce 0 revenue, and even worse, they suck the driver/ owner dry but produce nothing except headaches and BILLS.

    These DEFECTS were hidden and/or denied when the DEFECTIVE PRODUCT was sold. These problems are still denied despite EVERYONE EXPERIENCING THEM, and the costs of correcting and/or sustaining this DEFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY is being passed on to the unsuspecting victims: the owners. These owner victims are often told they are doing something wrong, it is somehow their fault.

    I noticed no one is “modifying” Freightliner Cascadia trucks. Daimler seems to have produced the MOST EFFICIENT and COST EFFECTIVE engine.

    Many companies I know are switching to these trucks and letting all those you mentioned go at GREAT LOSSES. They are all DEFECTIVE. I could and should use more explicit terms, but I won’t. Read the comments following your articles.

    Navistar has several lawsuits against them so far, but I know Cummins and the others you mentioned ALL have SERIOUS PROBLEMS. They were ALL sold under false pretenses: that the DEFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY actually worked. It doesn’t. And THEY, (the delinquent manufacturers), not the unsuspecting victim/ consumer should be responsible for CORRECTING THE MANUFACTURER’S MISTAKES and paying and paying and paying these people to fidle with DEFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY that they themselves have not figured out how to fix/ correct.

    All the manufacturers you mentioned need to be held accountable for the DEFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY they produced.

    Recalls are in order and THEY NEED TO FIX IT AT THEIR COST, or they need to be sued, or they need to go out of business by losing all their clients who WILL PURCHASE technology that does work.

    Class-action lawsuit accuses Navistar of knowingly selling defective engines:

    • Mitch says:

      Its hard to keep up with the constantly changing environmental requirements and still make your engine competitive so they end up releasing it with defects because they cant be competitive, clean and reliable, you have to take what you can get… I buy cummins and then delete the dpf and take off the cat as

  28. Raj says:

    Hello guys trucker should get together and go on strike every trucker in Canada or u .s I think we should give transport minister 2014 truck to drive for 2 months and let see how he servive and then we should ask him should we delete egr and dpf or no

  29. crgslster2 says:

    I agree the trucks are crap and that also the emission controls do not really work.
    WHat the EPA has done, ( following Europe ), is mandate that your truck operate an onboard emmisions measuring lab. When the onboard lab test fails, you SHALL not drive the truck.(Limp mode).

    86,000 km ( 54000 mi) on my 2008 Dodge 6.7 dually that has only carried my camper .. not worked hard. We do hit the highway often enough to do REGEN propertly.

    1. at 59.000 km it went into limp mode out of cell range. ‘Limped’ to the summit of the mountain pass and coasted to the nearest Dodge dealer in Washington state. DPF filter and all exhaust temp sensors were replaced.

    2. 69,000 km check engine light and exhaust code showed up. Drove to BC oil patch and had it looked at. Light out, 200 km later light back on.
    I said ‘screw it’ and drove to Whitehorse, Yukon.. DPF filter was shot, truck blowing black smoke. Dealership in Whitehorse takes 3 WEEKS to repair the truck by replacing the filter and temperature sensors.

    3. Mileage runs around 14 miles per Imperial gallon which is 1/6 more fuel than a US gallon. Not what I expected from a Cummins. A mech engineer friend has a 2006 5.9 for his camper, that got 22-24 miles per Imperial gallon right out of the box.

    4. The engine oil level INCREASES after an oil change. I have had a dealership do the oil change properly with the Cummins required 30 minute drain time and then had them document the change upwards in oil level a month’s driving later. They wont say why it happens. One dealership in Manitoba actually drained oil out after checking it for me. I had the oil analyzed at Caterpillar and the result did not show abnormal diesel conatmination in the oil. My guess? large amounts of soot in the oil from EGR operation. Just a guess.

    So… you DO get 20 or 30 percent less mileage using a DPF.
    You DO get unexplained problems with oil contamination using modern pollution ‘control’ technology.

    You DO have huge expense dealing with this useless technology.

    At the same time, the Dodge has:
    1. Had its drive shaft replaced ( vibration).
    2. Had a wheel bearing replaced, Crown bearing on front differential replaced, both for noise above 30 km/hr but did not fix.
    3. Has an intermittent ‘bucking’ problem that throws you back and forth in your seat. Dealership never found the problem.

    So yes, the pollution controls probably dont really work when you include all the emissions created by manufacturing and transporting new parts that need replacing when they shouldnt, plus the lower fuel burn efficiency (mileage) caused by restricting the exhaust flow and burning off the clogging soot .

    And.. Yes.. the truck manufacturer is making a crap product beyond the emission controls.

  30. Aaron VanderWerf says:

    How does the EPA not understand that a 5-10% reduction in exhaust gasses does not justify a 20-30% increase in fuel usage? I really don’t understand what they don’t understand…..Not to mention the down time required to fix these trucks when they break. I worked for a CAT dealership in FL, and the parking lot was always lined with Ranger Construction dump trucks sporting C-9’s with the regen systems. It was always a manual regen, new dpf, ard head, broken venturi tube, blah blah. If it takes more fuel to burn up excess unburned fuel……..hmm. How could anyone not know that it would be a counterproductive system?

  31. Jeremy Mendes says:

    I question the effectiveness of emissions control technology by it’s excessive malfunction. The plume of white/bluish smoke belching from the stacks of the companies fleet of ’12 International ProStar+ on a regular basis is disturbing.

  32. Will says:

    Funny how in NZ the government is considering conducting trials on several models of big rigs with emission systems removed. This was prompted by the delete of a cm871 egr/dpf emission systems where the company experienced a 12.5% decrease in fuel consumption. Yes the urea system actually works, however the EGR system not only wrecks your turbo and top of your motor but has no impact on the carbon footprint at all. (although it may help burn a tiny bit of unburned fuel) The DPF system is such a fallacy it stretches the mind and points to obvious cash cow syndrome. Lets use our brains for a second, Once carbon lands on the ground and gets rained or snowed on it effectively becomes non-dangerous. So lets filter them out of the exhaust then burn them off at extremely high temperatures creating smaller particles? Wont they stay airborne longer????? —– YES!!!! How many ways is there to spell “CASH COW”???

  33. Lonny says:

    Good day all, I wish to make what I feel a valid opinion and it’s a short one. So when we add all this environmental technology, we are doing two things. We are reducing immediate emissions but also increasing fuel consumption. So, let’s say of my 120 liter tank of diesel I must burn the %14-17 more diesel then I do after I remove the DPF and EGR. So what? Well multiply that times all the diesel trucks on the road in Canada, so some quick math. 500 000 trucks in Canada X 15 litres extra needed to burn through emissions equipment. That’s
    7 500 000 more litres needed to be mined, refined and transported weekly. Now these numbers are crude but actually on the low side. And don’t forget. These emission numbers you seeing are based on a vehicle on a Dino machine where there is minimal demand on that vehicle. I have removed all this equipment from my truck and aside from the odvious HP gains I can drive 780 km off a full tank as compared to 630 km prior to removal and there’s no smoke in those numbers. No guilt here and I don’t think fines should be given until a third party unbiased study is done on the end results based on the emission produced from the time the crude come from the ground, till the time it leaves my tail pipe.

    Cheers all
    Lonny B

  34. Tim says:

    is it any wonder why we need wholesale change in the federal govt ? this is the same system of govt that brought you Obama care , the VA hospital scandals etc etc etc The feds will not be satisfied til every citizen is out of work due to either going broke as a self employed truck , fleet or business owner or employee of a Co. forced to quit business due to needless over regulation , Hillary will not improve this situation , you do the math people

  35. Puzty says:

    I’m a Owner op of a couple hwy trucks haulin coast to coast we’re running very well maintained 1999 pete & kw trucks equipped with n14 cummins no bullshit motor average fuel economy is about 7.8mpg give or take …last year one of my younger drivers whining says he wants new truck .great driver .so looked into getting 2 kenworth gave me 2 demos for 2 weeks ..#1 used more fuel same trip as older trucks nothin changed #2
    One truck broke down 36hrs for a 85$ censor telling the engine it had def fluid lol #3 there $186000 trucks wow crazy I own my trucks there payed for I can put a new motor new trans drive line in every year and still be ahead …there’s more junk whisles crap on these new rigs it’s unbelievable. …old school all the way all the time. ..

  36. Andreas Reimer says:

    All the whiners complaining about the deletes; how about, you pay 100$ per kilo of beef steak and 50$ a gallon of milk? Cause cows produce a lot more emissions than the trucks do. If we tax the sheit out of beef, hardly anybody will afford it, hence farmer will rather raise pigs and sheep. Gees… I’m all about environment. Never seen any living thing dying because of polluted air. (Yes, in a closed room it would. But outside we got trees.) But I’m sure you’ve seen dead dolphins and fish etc on the news? Million living things die annually cause of some oil spills. Especially in canada with all the fracking we have no right to act as if we care about living things. If we did, let’s start with upping the price of beef and milk… will see how many would support this BS..

  37. Rick says:

    Hello all I am a truck driver and have had my own trucks I all so have a 2007 f350 with a 6.0 there was a law suit against ford and navistar and we won ya right I went to dealer and my truck is not covered they said because it’s from the U S A these motors are a night mare for ford owners I use my truck to pull my rv but right now it sits as I can’t afford to fix it I will delete every thing that I have to to keep my truck I can’t afford to buy another one and then have the same problems the government is a joke and should have stepped in and helped with these problems but I’m just fooling myself when I can afford to fix my truck I will and do what I need to do

  38. Maria says:

    We have a 2009 Ford Diesel truck. This makes no sense to me that we can be fined or have to spend thousands of further dollars if we do the dpf delete on our truck. Our truck constantly smokes blue and grey smoke and is dangerous to the people driving behind me all the times. It blows out for a minute or two and makes a huge mess behind me and the drivers cannot see. I am constantly getting fingered, horns blaring at me and being cut off from people being upset at me, when this is not my fault. How can this blowing unsafe smoke be any better for the environment. I am sick and tired of this happening and want to do the delete I have no further choice in the matter. Ford can’t and won’t do anything to fix it either. Even under the warranty there is nothing they will do about it.

    • ray bremner says:

      Read my post on the ford 6.4 diesel, if you don’t delete the dpf, at 180km ish the engine will be cooked and its 20 thousand to replace that motor! delete the dpf early so you can get decent mileage and a engine that last . This was a poor ass design by Ford and its proven to have catastrophic engine failure early on. read the forums on this, cant believe there isn’t a class action law suit on this shitty design.

  39. Rob says:

    Here’s an idea. Take these people that insist it’s such a great thing to have. Put them in a vehicle that does a maximum of 8 kph, at least 200 miles from from any city or large town capable of getting the repairs done. Do it in the winter with icy roads and hills that will require applying tire chains (and removing them) repeatedly when it is at least -30 degrees out. Just like when a truck derates itself. Make them pay all expenses, including any towing and the repairs to get the vehicle functional again. Do this to them at least two or three times each winter. Do not let them pick when, of course. If they still think dpf is so great, THEN keep them, and they can pay for our repairs and downtime. This, of course includes the writer of this article.

  40. Alex says:

    One of the biggest things not mentioned about DPF DOC EGR SCR deletes is how these shops have no idea what they are doing. They have no access to the high level software needed to properly calibrate the TENS OF THOUSANDS of parameters of the engine. These “Tuners” always cause severe ENGINE DAMAGE because besides just the engine running very badly, the Exaust Gas Temp go from 580 with EGR reduced temps to 1100 to 1400, destroying major engine components, and emergency turn offs like low oil pressure and extreamly high EGT temperture are completely removed from the ECM code. They dont have the ability to change these variables, so they remove the emergency shutdowns all together, cause engine failures so extream that it can be nearly impossible to diagnose what happened. Often a shop that does recongise the failure caused by the delete wont tell the owner because none of these shops will admit to the problems caused by deletes, even when the “work” was done by someone else, if they are also a shop that does or has done deletes. Instead of the government cracking down on deletes, they should be trying to educate owners how to clean and maintain exhaust components.

  41. Darcy Umbach says:

    I Drove a 2011 Peterbilt with a C13 Cat with the emissions package [ including ART head]. What apiece of crap. Every 6 months my boss had to have it serviced because the computer would shut it down. Tow it to Stahl Peterbilt in Edmonton, Have the computer reset, Dpf filter cleaned etc. After doing this for 2 yrs my boss got tired of this and had a tuner and DPF delete done. What a difference. More power, Mileage had improved to almost double and no more computer shutdowns. In Just over 4 yrs I put 900,000 kms on the truck. Go into any Cat service shop and all the peterbilts there are there for emissions. Bunch of garbage

  42. Cal says:

    Alex appears to be a little confused and possibly a little insecure. The reality is many things that have evolved with the internal combustion engine have come from individuals willing to solve problems caused by poor engineering. For Alex to say “these shops have no idea what they are doing” is categorically false. Many, not all, actually repair poor engineering or programming that is rushed to market without proper testing in all conditions. Ask Volkswagen and a few others that have had to cheat the system.

  43. ray bremner says:

    I own a Ford 6.4 diesel, in order for this engine to stay alive the dpf has to be deleted, if regulation makes me put this back on then maybe you can tell me who is going to replace my burnt out 6.4? no friggen way is this shitty design of a pollution control ever going back on my truck not to mention the shitty fuel mileage from this barbecue of a burner . Class action law suit will be in the horizon guaranteed!

  44. Robbie says:

    I have personally phone for Duramax powered vehicles my latest is of 2017 GMC 3500 with a new L5P Duramax engine. I tow frequently and currently this new emissions equipped vehicle is costing me six to $800 more a month than any of my previous Duramax powered vehicles. Without a load this new 2017 currently gets around 15 miles per gallon the second that you put a load behind it miles per gallon drops to 5.6. Pulling 12,000 pounds. The truck is continually and burn off and not only is fuel economy greatly reduced but CEO in CO2 in missions production is double if not triple how is this helping me and varmint how is having a DPF filter reducing omissions reducing CO CO two which is causing the glaciers to milk and baby seals to die it’s a fucking scam

Have your say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *