Some of the new inserts are KISS. No user input whatsoever, you can't even control the air, only supplementary air on a timer. If I knew then what I know now I would've never bought the POS. I really wanted to get a regency insert and we drove 120miles one way with a 5 day old baby to go look at one. I called them first to make sure they would come out this far to install it. Went and looked at it, said we liked it, asked them to come down and give us a quote. Never heard back from them.
K.I.S.S......
- Thread starter Seanbear
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
Do you know what? I think I'm going to adopt this KISS philosophy, I'm going to remove the diesel oxidizing catalyst, diesel particulate filter, selective oxidation catalyst and exhaust gas recirculation system from my pickup. Should make it more fuel efficient, reliable and simple. Not to mention I'll get the nostalgic feel when inhaling all the diesel fumes.
clux
Member
And in addition to all those good thing you can sell the catalyst to some poor soul that has to live with emissions testing and got theirs stolen and put about $1000 in your pocket.
Bonus!
I’d keep the SCR because it actually does work and does benefit the environment. I really do not think the particulate filters do us any good. When they regenerate they burn all the soot. The result is particles so fine, that when inhaled, go right in our bloodstream. I can’t imagine that being good for you. I’ll take the heavy soot particles over that any day. That stuff just settles down, and gets washed off leaves/ etc. Soot is mainly carbon so it’s not nearly as bad for you, since it settles fairly quickly. I think. That’s my opinion on the whole emissions deal at least.
If you really want to be green then convert your diesel to run on natural gas. You don’t produce Nox so no need for an SCR and there is no soot either.
Sorry to hear about the service you got from the furance place. I have bad luck with contractors period....I do things myself usually, but if can afford to hire someone, I would too.
You guys are funny! Id never buy a diesel due to the HIGH price of it. I buy heating oil like once a year. Its STEEP!!
clux
Member
Depends on your location.
If you're driving across central Iowa destroying urea that was created using fossil fuels to keep your deisel engine from emitting nitrates, while farmland in every direction for hundreds of miles is having nitrates that were created using fossil fuels applied to them, you're not really benefitting the environment, you're in net harming it.
It's like tire 2 emissions on farm tractors, you're required to spend money and ultimately fossil fuels to limit the nitrate emissions from the stack of the piece of equipment you're using to spread nitrate fertilizer on your farm. It's silly government regulation.
Emissions systems like SCR's are solely made to improve urban environments for humans, not the environment in general.
Last edited:
Uhh pollution is pollution it gets in the air in the water in the crops etc. I will agree some of the regulations are not instituted well. But saying pollution doesn't matter if you are doing it in the Midwest just doesn't make sense
clux
Member
We burn fossil fuels to make millions of tons of nitrates for fertilizer. They'er not a pollutant in the right context and place.
clux
Member
Using urea to prevent nitrate emission is a net negative for the environment in some contexts and places.
That would be true if def wasn't produced almost exclusively from byproducts of fossil fuel production and or use that would otherwise have to be disposed of.
I like KISS. It's why I bought our stove. PE has had the same design with minor modifications for over 2 decades. It's built tough and simple which means less maintenance and cost for me and ease of use for the family.
clux
Member
Ok but regardless fossil fuels are generally not burned for the sole purpose of creating def
clux
Member
But they are burned for the sole purpose of creating nitrogen fertilizer, of which urea is one.
Ok that is certainly possible I don't know I havnt checked. But I don't understand why that would mean eliminating emissions equipment on diesel engines is ok.
Regardless this discussion (which I am a part of) has nothing to do with the original topic . I will gladly discuss it further but start a thread in the green forum for that please
clux
Member
I said that some emissions equipment is unnecessary and a net loss for the in environment in certain contexts. I didn't say it was ok to remove it, just implied that it may be failed technology by trying to apply a one size fits all standard.
Engine emissions focus on what's coming out the tailpipe at peak power production without regard for overall efficiency of the unit. IMO that's wrong thinking.
We lost about 20% fuel economy in diesel engines when tier 2 emission regulations hit. I've not seen research but I doubt that was a net gain for the environment.
clux
Member
As for driving most could KISS by driving less. Yes I know people have to drive to work or for work. I have a PU with no catalytic converter and put out a lot less pollution because it doesn't get driven 3k mi. per year. It gets used when I need a truck which is for towing and hauling. And no I don't live in a city or even in town.
Now Im lost, lol....all I meant was I like a simple little cast iron stove, nothing more or less. I know mine is basically junk, but it got me thru the winter last year and Im sure it will again. I know nothing about all the stuff on that kind of motor either, im lost.
Vg3200p
Minister of Fire
Was a diesel mechanic for 10yrs. About half of our 90 bus fleet was pre emissions 24v cummins. They were old. The other half had dpf egr src all that junk. They were newer. I bet the newer half of the fleet cause 80% of the problems. And I'd be willing to bet fossil fuels were used to make the parts we had to replace. Not to mention the shipping to get us those parts. Also the pre emission busses got about 20% better fuel mileage. Regen cycles inject fuel into the cyl. On the exhaust stroke with sends unburnt fuel to the dpf with super heats it to burn the crap out. Much like a catalyst on a stove. So your quite literally burning more fuel just to burn those same emmiosion back into the air. Emissions on diesels ought to be outlawed. Horrible horrible things. They have cost us billions of dollars. Everything you buy at the store is more expensive because of dpf/src/egr. Higher repair bill for fleet equals higher shipping costs. Rant over
Yes I'm aware of how they work. I was an engineer on board ocean going ships, and the very smallest engines we dealt with were CAT C32's, as harbor generator. Not any kind of emissions stuff on those engines. I happen to have a truck with the same engine you're talking about, a 24v cummins. Hasn't let me down yet
