Federal hypocrites



lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
19,515
Likes
3,537
Points
858
Location
Cavalier, ND
I have zero problems with this. If it was the USDA or BLM, I would have a problem with it. Not the military.
Would you like to explain to me why a military vehicle that is essentially identical to a civilian one is allowed to run without a system to clean emissions?
 

wslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2015
Posts
2,455
Likes
566
Points
373
If any emissions shit is going to be a hindrance to the performance of any military vehicles, I am for omitting whatever it may be. Reliability of vehicles is a priority for the safety of our troops. Can't imagine if had to sit and wait while your rig had to go thru its re-gen cycle to possibly get your ass out of harms way. Just my opinion. . .
 


lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
19,515
Likes
3,537
Points
858
Location
Cavalier, ND
If any emissions shit is going to be a hindrance to the performance of any military vehicles, I am for omitting whatever it may be. Reliability of vehicles is a priority for the safety of our troops. Can't imagine if had to sit and wait while your rig had to go thru its re-gen cycle to possibly get your ass out of harms way. Just my opinion. . .
I agree and I will go a little further in stating that def has been proven to also cuase the owners in this country to have unwanted costs caused by the def system. Hence the hypocrite in the title they know that def is a flawed system that shortens the life of a diesel engine significantly compared to those who have no emissions to clean their exhaust.
 

Eatsleeptrap

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2021
Posts
563
Likes
2,027
Points
520
Would you like to explain to me why a military vehicle that is essentially identical to a civilian one is allowed to run without a system to clean emissions?
What, are you running for governor of Californistan or something? This really should only need to be explained to dirty hippies or draft dodgers, but here we go. The military is made up of 100's of thousands of, basically, kids, Ok, young adults. Vehicle operators and mechanics included in that. The SIMPLER their lives are, the safer they are, and the safer we are. I work for a large government agency. All of our trucks have that BULLSHIT on them. It's a huge pain in the ass at times, but we are NOT getting SHOT AT OR HAVING MORTAR OR ARTILLERY ROUNDS DROPPED ON US. The world is full of double standards, this one is worth shutting up over. No offense. You asked for it.
 

svnmag

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
17,723
Likes
2,931
Points
783
Location
Here
What, are you running for governor of Californistan or something? This really should only need to be explained to dirty hippies or draft dodgers, but here we go. The military is made up of 100's of thousands of, basically, kids, Ok, young adults. Vehicle operators and mechanics included in that. The SIMPLER their lives are, the safer they are, and the safer we are. I work for a large government agency. All of our trucks have that BULLSHIT on them. It's a huge pain in the ass at times, but we are NOT getting SHOT AT OR HAVING MORTAR OR ARTILLERY ROUNDS DROPPED ON US. The world is full of double standards, this one is worth shutting up over. No offense. You asked for it.
I believe his point is DEF is bullshit. He's not worried about the Earth.
 

johnr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
20,332
Likes
4,369
Points
813
Location
Dickinson
I believe his point is DEF is bullshit. He's not worried about the Earth.
This DEF causes more problems for all of us then some clean burning diesel fuel does.

Its a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist, and likely creating a new problem.
 

lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
19,515
Likes
3,537
Points
858
Location
Cavalier, ND
What, are you running for governor of Californistan or something? This really should only need to be explained to dirty hippies or draft dodgers, but here we go. The military is made up of 100's of thousands of, basically, kids, Ok, young adults. Vehicle operators and mechanics included in that. The SIMPLER their lives are, the safer they are, and the safer we are. I work for a large government agency. All of our trucks have that BULLSHIT on them. It's a huge pain in the ass at times, but we are NOT getting SHOT AT OR HAVING MORTAR OR ARTILLERY ROUNDS DROPPED ON US. The world is full of double standards, this one is worth shutting up over. No offense. You asked for it.
This is an example of reading too much into a comment by someone looking for some sort of confrontation. I was merely looking for clarity and not wanting to assume what you were clearly assuming of me. We are on the same side here I too agree that our military should have the best, which if my memory serves me right wasn't the case especially when it came to equipment that was built to protect our troops from bombs and bullets. I just wanted to point out that our hypocritical federal government is willing to make exceptions to our environment, that I don't believe is there, while forcing people who rely on their vehicles to be as reliable as possible for the life of that vehicles. The government knows that def isn't beneficial to be reliable for our military but is willing to sacrifice that reliability and overall cost to maintain a system that cost not just the owners but in reality is passed on to consumers who buy the products that they transporting via delivery charges. We pay for that if I truck breaks down. We, consumers pay for that.
 


luvcatchingbass

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Posts
3,625
Likes
363
Points
333
Location
SE ND.
I will keep my 2004 Dodge 5.9 Cummins. Only for of emissions on that girl is a muffler that has now rotted through, snuck in I believe 1yr before the emission stuff started getting added. Probably should fix my muffler problem though
 

Eatsleeptrap

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2021
Posts
563
Likes
2,027
Points
520
This is an example of reading too much into a comment by someone looking for some sort of confrontation. I was merely looking for clarity and not wanting to assume what you were clearly assuming of me. We are on the same side here I too agree that our military should have the best, which if my memory serves me right wasn't the case especially when it came to equipment that was built to protect our troops from bombs and bullets. I just wanted to point out that our hypocritical federal government is willing to make exceptions to our environment, that I don't believe is there, while forcing people who rely on their vehicles to be as reliable as possible for the life of that vehicles. The government knows that def isn't beneficial to be reliable for our military but is willing to sacrifice that reliability and overall cost to maintain a system that cost not just the owners but in reality is passed on to consumers who buy the products that they transporting via delivery charges. We pay for that if I truck breaks down. We, consumers pay for that.
I should have known better than to even respond to a thread posted by you with an article, written by a guy who has written about the automotive industry for a whopping 5 years, who's article was based on a tic tok post. Did anyone else read the comments section of the posted article? Pretty much the same as this thread. Both are garbage posts, but I'm looking for confrontation. Sorry I fell for it. Well played.
 

sweeney

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Posts
2,803
Likes
157
Points
323
Location
mandan
. It's a huge pain in the ass at times, but we are NOT getting SHOT AT OR HAVING MORTAR OR ARTILLERY ROUNDS DROPPED ON US. The world is full of double standards, this one is worth shutting up over. No offense. You asked for it.
It's the air force, they are using them to get lattes ...rofl...
 


lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
19,515
Likes
3,537
Points
858
Location
Cavalier, ND
I should have known better than to even respond to a thread posted by you with an article, written by a guy who has written about the automotive industry for a whopping 5 years, who's article was based on a tic tok post. Did anyone else read the comments section of the posted article? Pretty much the same as this thread. Both are garbage posts, but I'm looking for confrontation. Sorry I fell for it. Well played.
So the guy who wrote the article is wrong that the military does use def on their diesel engines? What does only have 5 years have anything to do with informing the public that our government is running diesel trucks without def or is he misinformed in what he is telling us? I'm confused as to what you are insinuating since I believe the government is providing the military with diesel engines that are not using def. 🤔
 

Allen

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,705
Likes
1,756
Points
658
Location
Lincoln, kinda...
Write your congressional representatives if you want to restrict the military to lower dependability, off-the-shelf technology. While you're at it, you can also propose they only be allowed weaponry available to private citizens. You know, only semi-automatic or bolt action rifles, no rockets, missiles, or bombers either.

Feel free to stop in any AMVETS or American Legion with this position and let me know how that goes for you.
 

johnr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
20,332
Likes
4,369
Points
813
Location
Dickinson
Write your congressional representatives if you want to restrict the military to lower dependability, off-the-shelf technology. While you're at it, you can also propose they only be allowed weaponry available to private citizens. You know, only semi-automatic or bolt action rifles, no rockets, missiles, or bombers either.

Feel free to stop in any AMVETS or American Legion with this position and let me know how that goes for you.
This is not what he meant, or at least not how I took it.

We the people paying the bills are stuck with DEF, and forced to its limiting and horrible repercussions. But the government itself can excuse its use for the military, knowing having to use it sucks shit.

None of us should be forced to use this product, they know it is shit, to the point it would kill our soldiers, but we the people can be riddled with it.
 

Allen

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,705
Likes
1,756
Points
658
Location
Lincoln, kinda...
This is not what he meant, or at least not how I took it.

We the people paying the bills are stuck with DEF, and forced to its limiting and horrible repercussions. But the government itself can excuse its use for the military, knowing having to use it sucks shit.

None of us should be forced to use this product, they know it is shit, to the point it would kill our soldiers, but we the people can be riddled with it.

johnr,

It is no secret that the military, in the name of national defence, is widely exempt from nearly all environmental regulations that the rest of us have to follow. This is non-news, and has been since around 1776. That doesn't mean the military can go willy-nilly contaminating the planet, but this is just one example of their not needing to follow the same rules as civilians.

I enjoy DEF about as much as everyone else that has to use it and I am still ok with the military getting special dispensation. As far as I know, government owned diesel powered vehicles for civilian agencies all have to use DEF. This is a topic specific to the U.S. military. Hence the similarly absurd reference to requiring our military to only use weapons available to the general public.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 300
  • This month: 168
  • This month: 156
  • This month: 118
  • This month: 92
  • This month: 86
  • This month: 81
  • This month: 67
  • This month: 62
  • This month: 61
Top Bottom