Kubota MX 4900 DPF delete kit

[GeoHorn]

One thing you have probably already noticed is that the mpg reduction when towing or hauling is very minor with a diesel compared to a diesel. If you have any questions about visiting NM or AZ hit me up.

Going to an airplane type-club convention in Wilcox. We’ll hit other things coming/going.
We vistited City of Rocks a few years ago in my gasser:

 

[McMXi]

You should consider that the trucks which “roll coal” are sometimes grand-father trucks. Because they are heavy-duty pre-emission vehicles they are still common on the road.

The EPA mandated equipment aren’t one’s you notice.

My point is that if truly reducing harmful emissions is the goal, then it makes sense to go after the ones that are putting most of the crap into the environment and not the ones that aren't. Trucks that are on the road 8 to 10 hours a day, 300 plus days a year should be near the top of the list rather than little tractors that are used 100 to 500 hours per year. But it's all smoke and mirrors where the impression of what's being done is way more important than the reality of what's being done.

 

[GeoHorn]

My point is that if truly reducing harmful emissions is the goal, then it makes sense to go after the ones that are putting most of the crap into the environment and not the ones that aren't. Trucks that are on the road 8 to 10 hours a day, 300 plus days a year should be near the top of the list rather than little tractors that are used 100 to 500 hours per year. But it's all smoke and mirrors where the impression of what's being done is way more important than the reality of what's being done.

Would You be agreeable if EPA put additional controls on a vehicle you bought years ago when it already met the regs contemporary to that time?

I didn’t think so.

 

[McMXi]

Would You be agreeable if EPA put additional controls on a vehicle you bought years ago when it already met the regs contemporary to that time?

I didn’t think so.

You ask a question and then answer it for me? Kind of presumptive don't you think?

It doesn't matter if I agree or not. This happens all the time whether it's commercial aircraft, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, children's toys, and on an on. When new information or data comes to light, changes are put into affect, and sometimes retroactive changes. If the intention is to end up with a healthier environment, then the roadmap should have meaningful objectives and a process by which to achieve them.

As it is, all of the cost of a completely meaningless, ineffective and disingenuous mission statement gets shoved onto manufactures such as Kubota, who passes much if not all of that cost to the customer. The customer is then burdened with any downstream costs, both for the emission system and any deleterious side effects on other components as a direct result of those emission systems.

If all of this actually made a significance difference I'd be all for it. As it is, I'm not.

My current boss was a John Deere engineer for decades. He ended his career at JD being in charge of hundreds of engineers. He told me that the entire contribution to "bad" emissions in the US from all agriculture is less than 3% of the total produced. Can you imagine what percentage of that 3% is due to hobby tractors?