By: imsolidstate

imsolidstate — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:41:59 +0000

Thanks for your comment. I also agree that emissions ratings have little value. As for MPG on the 7.3 vs the 6.0, have you seen the actual fuel economy numbers for the twin-turbo 6.4? It’s even less than the 6.0. Not sure about Ford’s brand new engine. Fuel economy in diesel is actually moving backwards thanks to ever tighter emission standards.
The one that I always think about is how much equivalent emissions it took to actually make any particular vehicle. People pat themselves on the back for trading in their “clunker” for a more fuel efficient car, but I have a hunch that the actual total emissions might be higher than sticking with one car for a while.
That and I always get a kick out of people bragging about MPG on their new car, when they always drive like they are in a big hurry. So much for saving that fuel. That number on the window sticker feels good though.
I grew up in a big old farmhouse that we heated exclusively with a wood stove in the winter. It was very efficient, largely because the pipe that carried the smoke outside had to go up all the way through both stories and the attic. There wasn’t too much heat left in the stack by the time it went outside. Most of it was radiated into the house by the pipe.

By: Frank H

Frank H — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:02:52 +0000

Interesting reading, I have thoughts on EPA standards, it would be nice to know that in the long run emmissions would be lower out of newer diesel engine, I have my doubts. I own a 1993 7.3l diesel it gets 19-21 mpg, and has operated flawlessly for 300k. The emmisions could be calculated on this engine with out to much variable data.I have a 2003 6.0l diesel it gets 13-18mpg and does not operate flawless (right now I have a electronic problem,this is how google led me to your site) right now the timing changes to 12btdc and dumps a tonne of unburnt fuel this could amount to days months of emmissions out of my constant 1993 7.3L I dont know? There are many issues over the life of these engines that have to be included in the EPA emmissions that are not counted.More fuel = more diesel and delevery more refining more breakdowns and a shorter engine life meaning more manufacturing should have been added in the data but troubled engines likely were not included.
We heat our house with wood approx. 12-13 facecord will kept the house quite warm. Old style airtight with damper in flue. We put a new EPA low emmission stove in, yes it visible burns better. But way less heat is transfered to the house and the rises out the flue . approx.19-20 face cord burnt and the house is just tollerable not warm. This extra wood needs to be added to EPA standard and the extra fuel to cut and the extra fuel to transport and extra live trees removed from the forest.
I would hope EPA would consider all the varibles but I think not, and numbers can be twisted to look good just some of my thoughts for you to consider, hope you dont mind me stopping at your site.
Frank

Comments on: Diesel, sulfur, NOx, and EGR

By: imsolidstate

By: Frank H