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?
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.
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.
This DEF causes more problems for all of us then some clean burning diesel fuel does.
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.
It's the air force, they are using them to get lattes
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.
This is not what he meant, or at least not how I took it.
