2008 fuel economy

[tankboot]

Start it brother, I'll be the first person on the bandwagon to bring suit against them.

[JBHT]

[quote=recycleman;1501679]

Originally Posted by tankboot

I just put a DPF Delete and SCT Livewire performance program in my 2009 F-250 SD, and I went from 11.6 MPG Highway, to 19.4 @ 70 mph. QUOTE]

It's stories like this that I'm seeing not just on this forum that makes me wonder what the EPA is thinking?

If the EPA allowed us to get rid of the DPF and increased our fuel mileage, I wonder how that would OFFSET the consumption of the amount of oil/fuel during the lifetime of the truck. You could also look at the Life Cycle of what CO2 output of drilling for oil to the pump is costing extra for our "poor" fuel mileage. I might be reaching but ya never know................

Are you serious ? They don't give a rats rear end about Fuel consumption, or CO2 , or the ozone, or anything else for that matter.
THEY WANT CONTROL !!!! THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOM !!!
They want your guns and your children ( to indoctrinate ), and your truck, and your mind.

[dgeesaman]

Originally Posted by recycleman

Hey tankboot, I'm thinking about contacting them and possibly doing a study or at least have them shoot down my thoughts on why fuel mileage would be better than hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) which contribute to smog, and carbon monoxide (CO) output.

I'm thinking about starting with this group.
Cleanup-Clean Air | Region 9 | US EPA

I'm both a greenie and a pragmatist. The cats make sense from emissions point of view but the DPF's don't seem like quite the home run.

Yes, DP is carrier of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, and I have an appreciation for that. On the other hand I can't find data saying *how* concentrated or toxic diesel soot really is, and how it gets into people to do them harm. The greenies are just saying it's bad and trust us we need to eliminate as much of it as possible. That's not good enough for me.

BTW the EPA doesn't think. It regulates and is motivated by political credit (votes). It's terribly unfortunate that poorly justified policies like this are offsetting some of the very great good the EPA has done in other areas.

Dave

[JBHT]

Originally Posted by dgeesaman

I'm both a greenie and a pragmatist. The cats make sense from emissions point of view but the DPF's don't seem like quite the home run.

Yes, DP is carrier of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, and I have an appreciation for that. On the other hand I can't find data saying *how* concentrated or toxic diesel soot really is, and how it gets into people to do them harm. The greenies are just saying it's bad and trust us we need to eliminate as much of it as possible. That's not good enough for me.

BTW the EPA doesn't think. It regulates and is motivated by political credit (votes). It's terribly unfortunate that poorly justified policies like this are offsetting some of the very great good the EPA has done in other areas.

Dave

The EPA hasn't EVER done anything but hassle freedom loving individuals.
Catalitic converters don't help anything ! They never have. It's a myth. DDT was outlawed by these freaks too. Thousands of innocent children, world wide die every year because a bunch of greeny weirdos care more about a fictitious danger to some extinct bird than they do humans.
Greenies are brain starved weirdos, that can't find anything else to do with their time than take something away from somebody else that just wants to live their life in piece and mind their own business. Get a life and quit ruining everybody else's.

[recycleman]

[quote=JBHT;1502064]

Originally Posted by recycleman

Are you serious ?

You should see the fuel I put into this thing. I'M DEAD SERIOUS.

If I didn't have the external fuel tank, I'd be at a gas station every other hour.

I have no probs with 10-12 miles per gallon but 4-6, c'mon. If Ford would have said that I was going to get around 5mpg with this thing, do you think I would have bought it?

24,500 lbs total weight. 7.3l 550 does the same type of work/weight and its pulling around 12mpg.

[dgeesaman]

Originally Posted by JBHT

The EPA hasn't EVER done anything but hassle freedom loving individuals.
Catalitic converters don't help anything ! They never have. It's a myth. DDT was outlawed by these freaks too. Thousands of innocent children, world wide die every year because a bunch of greeny weirdos care more about a fictitious danger to some extinct bird than they do humans.
Greenies are brain starved weirdos, that can't find anything else to do with their time than take something away from somebody else that just wants to live their life in piece and mind their own business. Get a life and quit ruining everybody else's.

Sadly, that's the kind of nonsense talk that gets moderates voting liberal. You gotta slow down and make a clear case.

Dave

[indy-1989]

Who do you think runs the epa, liberal people...... All laws look good on paper and when they are put to use in the real world, they give us diesels with fuel mileage. My truck gets 6-8 pulling a light weight toy hauler. I would like to see the epa put a dpf system on a volcano.
dennis

[n4hhe]

Originally Posted by dgeesaman

I'm both a greenie and a pragmatist. The cats make sense from emissions point of view but the DPF's don't seem like quite the home run.

Yes, seems silly to burn 10% to 30% more fuel just to eliminate C2 (carbon soot) solids. Converts C2 into C02, and makes 10% to 30% more in the process.

Yes, DP is carrier of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, and I have an appreciation for that. On the other hand I can't find data saying *how* concentrated or toxic diesel soot really is, and how it gets into people to do them harm. The greenies are just saying it's bad and trust us we need to eliminate as much of it as possible. That's not good enough for me.

Focus your research on Diesel emissions in Mexico City. Is still a stinker of a place but was in recent years much worse of a stinker. In such tight confines a DPF makes sense, but lack of opportunities to regenerate the DPF makes Diesel appear to be impractical in this situation.

[diesel daddy]

100 gallons of fuel is consumed to get 50 gallons to market Now drop that into my 6.4 pre tune and I was losing 20 gallons to regen. NOw you tell me who cares about the planet

[tankboot]

Hey guys, I have started a yahoo group dedicated to Alternative Diesel fuel, and it's development. In my garage I have a 6 step filtering system which take my used motor oil down to .05 microns, with live duplex magnetic screens and I am making my own alternative diesel fuel out of Used motor oil and Bio-Diesel mixed. I am filling my tank in my 2009 F-250 6.4 for $22.00 and driving 455 miles on one tank with this stuff. I think we should explore this further, and there is alot more to my process to explain, but I thought I would invite you guys to the Yahoo group and let's talk serious alternate fuels......

AlternativeDieselFuel : Alternative Automotive Fuels