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:
Kubota MX 4900 DPF delete kit
- Thread starter Mason Bradley
- Start date
We vistited City of Rocks a few years ago in my gasser:
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.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.
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?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.
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?
All of my Kubota’s have been pre emissions. When I was looking for a M6060 or M7060 found a deal on a M6040 I couldn’t pass up.
For my uses a pre emissions might be better but having the ability to do a forced parked regen it might not be an issue with the emission models.
When I bought my 6.7 F250 it was stock and I gave it two chances. Have had some smaller items that I replaced/fixed. But guess which two cost the most? As in over 1k each. Couldn’t regen with a faulty sensor and the soot level was at 90 percent it was just a short drive from being limited to 25mph or less.
Been almost 3 years since and not a single issue leaving it on a heavy tow tune.
Pre emission big trucks hold their value and are constantly being rebuilt as needed instead of replaced. Just look at everything that’s over 750HP that doesn’t require DEF or DPF. Heavy machinery or large boats and cargo ships and such.
Or everything made for the military that doesn’t have emissions from the factory.
For my uses a pre emissions might be better but having the ability to do a forced parked regen it might not be an issue with the emission models.
When I bought my 6.7 F250 it was stock and I gave it two chances. Have had some smaller items that I replaced/fixed. But guess which two cost the most? As in over 1k each. Couldn’t regen with a faulty sensor and the soot level was at 90 percent it was just a short drive from being limited to 25mph or less.
Been almost 3 years since and not a single issue leaving it on a heavy tow tune.
Pre emission big trucks hold their value and are constantly being rebuilt as needed instead of replaced. Just look at everything that’s over 750HP that doesn’t require DEF or DPF. Heavy machinery or large boats and cargo ships and such.
Or everything made for the military that doesn’t have emissions from the factory.
@McMXi
What you are suggesting is that emissions regs have not accomplished much if. at all. But you may not have driven into Los Angeles back in the late ‘70s when you could cross over the mountains coming into town…. and All you could see was a Brown-Fog with a few taller bldgs sticking up thru it.
You are apparently arguing ag-vehicle emissions… and your previous objection was to. what you consider poor-oversight because you observed an older Road-Vehicle which preceded the regs making smoke… and seemed to support addt’l rules to make current standards retro-active … because you (erroneously) are arguing that since older vehicles still smoke …Modern equipment emission-controls are ineffective.
I think in your frustration you are being short-sighted and ignoring the benefits modern controls have produced. Kids with asthma and their parents would disagree with you.
Growing up and living in Houston I definitely disagree.
What you are suggesting is that emissions regs have not accomplished much if. at all. But you may not have driven into Los Angeles back in the late ‘70s when you could cross over the mountains coming into town…. and All you could see was a Brown-Fog with a few taller bldgs sticking up thru it.
You are apparently arguing ag-vehicle emissions… and your previous objection was to. what you consider poor-oversight because you observed an older Road-Vehicle which preceded the regs making smoke… and seemed to support addt’l rules to make current standards retro-active … because you (erroneously) are arguing that since older vehicles still smoke …Modern equipment emission-controls are ineffective.
I think in your frustration you are being short-sighted and ignoring the benefits modern controls have produced. Kids with asthma and their parents would disagree with you.
Growing up and living in Houston I definitely disagree.
Go hybrid and save money by drilling holes in the sides of the DPF canister.
That's not what I'm arguing at all, and your comment re LA shows your total lack of understanding and nuance by applying a micro environmental phenomena to a macro one.
Look at CO2 levels that are monitored up near the top of Mauna Loa on the Big Island of Hawaii. I've been to the observatory there many times and CO2 levels are continuing to increase despite all of the supposed emission regulations.
My point re the truck spewing out soot is that passing on significant cost to hobby tractor owners both up front and on the back end does absolutely nothing of any significance for the environment on a macro scale. That was always my point, and the truck ahead was to illustrate the fact that until the big emitters are eliminated, nothing will get better. I am in favor or a healthy environment and want the powers that be to make significant and meaningful changes, rather than simply give the impression that they're doing so.
But McMXI….they HAVE addressed the “big emitters”…. It’s why I”m pizzedoff at all the emissions on my new truck!
But I realize I AM the one who decided to burn fuel that contributes to the problem… SO I AM the one who should not ADD to it when I buy Addt’l and New equipment.
HOwever I would never suggest that You have to put a cat-converter on your ‘57 Chevy! Or your pre-2000 workhorse that earns your living.
Not looking to argue.…just mentioning how your post came across about a guy who bought that smoker 15 years ago and still earning his bread with it. (and CO2 at the top of a volcano is hardly under our control)
As for your accusation I was “applying a micro environmental phenomena to a macro one.”
That is a misunderstanding of what I meant.
LA in the ‘70 was Not a “macro”…nor was Houston, Mobile, NYC, and many others, … All of whom are greatly improved to the benefit of Millions of citizens.
I agree that hobby-farmers should be exempt due to the low-quantity over-all they pollute. But Big Construction and such commercial activity certainly should not Add to the problem., IMO. (After-all, ..ultimately it’s the consumers they serve to whom that cost and benefit acrues.)
But I realize I AM the one who decided to burn fuel that contributes to the problem… SO I AM the one who should not ADD to it when I buy Addt’l and New equipment.
HOwever I would never suggest that You have to put a cat-converter on your ‘57 Chevy! Or your pre-2000 workhorse that earns your living.
Not looking to argue.…just mentioning how your post came across about a guy who bought that smoker 15 years ago and still earning his bread with it. (and CO2 at the top of a volcano is hardly under our control)
As for your accusation I was “applying a micro environmental phenomena to a macro one.”
That is a misunderstanding of what I meant.
LA in the ‘70 was Not a “macro”…nor was Houston, Mobile, NYC, and many others, … All of whom are greatly improved to the benefit of Millions of citizens.
I agree that hobby-farmers should be exempt due to the low-quantity over-all they pollute. But Big Construction and such commercial activity certainly should not Add to the problem., IMO. (After-all, ..ultimately it’s the consumers they serve to whom that cost and benefit acrues.)
Last edited: