Owners of ATS prove to be low life Rats

f-two-fiddy

Registered User
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Posts
2,960
Reaction score
5
Location
Duluth, Mn.
I Stole this off another diesel site:

Anne Wick
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 2242A)
Diesel Engine Consent Decree Coordinator
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460-0001

Dear Anne:

I would like to start by thanking you for speaking with Stewart Cables and myself at SEMA. You and your team did a very good job of preventing the meeting attendees from rioting!

As you may or may not be aware, ATS Diesel has been working on certain emission technologies to better our niche in the diesel community. Currently, we’re funding and developing a very expensive Diesel Particulate Filter ( DPF ) technology; this product will allow more efficient flow, resulting in better fuel mileage and lower emissions than today’s technology. ATS’ profits are funding the majority of this project’s development budget.

A serious concern that we have — and dramatically affects the development of our new high flow DPF -- is the presence of so-called “ DPF Delete Kits” on the market. Right now consumers are looking for a solution to the problematic factory DPF exhaust systems, and a few companies out there are manufacturing and/or selling these DPF delete kits for a very low margin.

As you’re aware, the main problem with DPF delete kits is this: for every illegal kit sold, research money is not invested into a real “fix” for the consumer’s problem. EPA has made it clear to the diesel manufacturing industry, in no uncertain terms, that DPF removal is illegal. However, at this time, EPA has been unable to enforce its regulations to get these illegal DPF delete kits off the street. When we spoke a few weeks ago, you mentioned that the EPA can only enforce so many of its regulations right now, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to track offenders (whether they be manufacturers, resellers, or end users).

ATS has prepared a list of the larger DPF Delete kit manufacturers and resellers, gleaned from our knowledge of the industry, for you. We’ve also included support documentation for your convenience. A few of these act as resellers (in place of manufacturers) in an attempt to hide behind a “shell corporation.” Performance Diesel, Inc. (“PDI”) in St. George, Utah is one of these companies. Jared Wittwer, the owner of PDI, is also the creator of H&S Performance, ( H & S Performance ). All of these kits are assembled at PDI in Utah and sold through PDI as though H&S Performance manufactures them. Attached is a copy of one of the receipts PDI invoices on; the part number should easily be used to help track down additional units that PDI or H&S have sold over the last year. We have been told by PDI’s manager that they sell over 100 units per month.

ATS is relying on the EPA to enforce its rules on this matter so we can generate enough revenue to properly manufacture a “fix” to the DPF problem. The word in our industry is that 1) if you don’t manufacture, you are allowed to resell, install, and use, and 2) manufacturers or resellers can hide behind the “Race Only’ labeling that the products are sold under. The fact is, and as I’m sure you know, nearly all of these kits are being used for on road trucks. Thank you for taking the time to listen.




Clint Cannon and Stewart Cables
for ATS Diesel Performance



I knew they pretty much abandoned Us, but ratting out the competition?

Low Life Rat ba#*@rds!
 

hesutton

The Anti-Anderson
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
8,200
Reaction score
738
Location
Bowling Green, KY
:dunno

Who knows if this is authentic or not...........this is the internet ya know. Anywho. If it is real........that's business and technically, ATS is correct....cutting out the DPF is illegal. I'm not agreeing with or siding with ATS, but I'm not surprised or upset either.

Heath
 

icanfixall

Official GMM hand model
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
25,858
Reaction score
673
Location
West coast
The pad mount diesel gen sets here in Ca. are having to install the filters on every motor. Even the big Cat diesel motors. Those filters are almost as big as the motors and a special support system needs to be fabricated to hold it. Really difficult when the original design gen set didn't plan for this in space availability. Oh... BTW.. They don't last too long either because they "DO SUCH A GREAT JOB OF TRAPPING SOOT AND PARTICULATE EXHAUST MATTER". Another Ca. EPA crappy bandaid idea for the short term.
 

icanfixall

Official GMM hand model
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
25,858
Reaction score
673
Location
West coast
I would install one on my truck but.... They better work.... They better not wear out in a short time.... They better not cause excess heat in my motor and my fuel mileage better go up... Now I'm all in for this... I remember seeing a Utube viedo about an o6 "flame thrower exhaust. From what I know of, this system requires a cylinder to be flooded with fuel and the extra passing thru the exhaust is burning off the particulate matter and soot on the PM filter. Thats how they self clean by the cpu running this cycle at preset times.... Sounds like anothr bandaid idea again... can't say for sure if this is what is really going on or not. Anybody know something....
 

tractorman86

Registered User
Joined
May 1, 2006
Posts
2,393
Reaction score
0
Location
Buckeye, AZ
if it is real i am not surpirsed, the epa dosen't politely ask things like this, they are HEAVILY pressuring them i'm sure. i will never run a DPF on my truck, think about all the extra heat, space taken up, restriction, extra fuel it will take to burn out... so on and so forth, no thank you sir!!!
 

GenLightening

Yeah, it's a CHEVY!
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Posts
1,917
Reaction score
1
Location
Pukalani, Hawaii
There's also this to think about:

12-12) 19:29 PST SACRAMENTO -- One million diesel exhaust-spewing big rigs on California's roads face the nation's strictest emissions restrictions under rules adopted Friday by the state air board, a move officials say is needed to save thousands of lives but that some truck drivers fear will put them out of business.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Images

View Larger Images

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More News


Scientists find 2,000-year-old brain in Britain 12.12.08
Illinois sinks deeper into chaos over scandal 12.12.08
California approves nation' strictest limits on diesel trucks 12.12.08
Physicists feast their eyes on flying dino fossil 12.12.08
******** type=text/javascript>// *********>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The regulations, approved one day after the California Air Resources Board's landmark vote to curb greenhouse gases, require all trucks and buses, whether or not they are registered in the state, to retrofit or replace their rigs starting in 2010.
Air board officials estimate the changes will cost the trucking industry $5.5 billion, causing some truckers to plead for financial assistance. They said they will offer truck owners $1 billion in help.
After hearing public comment for two days, the board voted unanimously in favor of the rule. Board Chair Mary Nichols said the decision was necessary because the trucking industry "has an enormous impact on the lives and health of the people of the state."
Air board officials estimate that the rule will save the lives of 9,400 people between 2011 and 2025. A related study by UC Berkeley and Harvard researchers concluded that truck drivers and dockworkers who breathe diesel soot on the job have higher rates of lung cancer and death than other workers.
During hearings Thursday and Friday, truck drivers and others concerned about their bottom line predicted dire economic consequences from the rules, while public-health advocates and air officials from around the state focused on people who suffer from asthma and other health risks associated with the pollution.
"This regulation is not something that you could do or should do, it's something you must do," said Bonnie Holmes-Gen, senior policy director for the American Lung Association of California.
But Doug Britton, who owns a Fresno County trucking company whose 10 trucks are 10 to 20 years old, said he is worried about whether he will be able to stay in business.
The cost of installing filters, which run about $12,000 per truck, and replacing old engines would "cause my debt to explode to 2 1/2 times the amount I've carried the last 20 years," Britton said. " That scares the heck out of me."
About 400,000 trucks are registered in the state, and about 500,000 from other states do business in California, according to the air board. The regulation applies to trucks that weigh more than 14,000 pounds, or those that are larger than a Ford F350 or GM 3500.
Truck owners would be required to install filters on their exhaust, and most would have to do so by 2014. Truckers also would have to replace their engines between 2o12 and 2022 or buy a new truck with an engine made with 2010 specifications. If a new or used replacement is not available, truckers will not have to buy a replacement.
Truckers who do not adhere to the rules could face fines of up to $1,000 per day per violation.
Air board officials said their top priority is public health, adding that failure to meet clean air standards in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California would put $2 billion in federal highway money at risk.
But the board agreed to let owners of small fleets, those with three or fewer trucks, wait until 2011 to comply with the new rules. The air agency will carry out an intensive campaign in the coming year to inform those owners of the new rules.The board also decided to let fleet owners delay retrofitting one vehicle for each one that is taken off the road.
Julie Sauls, spokeswoman for California Trucking Association, said the group will take a close look at the new rules and talk to its members.
The trucking industry offered an alternative plan, with different timelines, to ease some of the burden on truck drivers who could be saddled with vehicles they cannot legally drive or sell. But the board said the proposal did not meet the timeline for the federal requirements.
Air board members also voted to require people who drive their trucks long-distance to install more efficient tires and to outfit their rigs with aerodynamic features.
Board member Dr. John Balmes said after the vote that while the change might cost the industry more than $5 billion, the savings in public health costs are estimated at as much as $50 billion.
"It's a tough rule in a tough time, but there will be societal savings," he said.
 

92F350CC

Ford Man
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Posts
3,479
Reaction score
15
Location
Las Vegas
I think a boycott of ATS should be in order. I think hypermax turbos are about to become more popular
 

hesutton

The Anti-Anderson
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
8,200
Reaction score
738
Location
Bowling Green, KY
Heh he he .....:rotflmao

Save THOUSANDS of lives........LOL "diesel exhaust-spewing":D

California thinks it can save the world all by it self. It's like taking a leak in the ocean and thinking you'll cause a flood.cookoo

Unitl the BILLIONS in India and China start using ULSD, "Clean Coal," Hybrids, "Smart" cars, biofuels, low emisson vehicles, and blah, blah, blah......whatever we do here is not going to matter.
California and the entire US cannot expect to green up the rest of the world. It is just rediculous to me to read stuff like that...........some folks (Al Gore) need to get a perspective on the realitly of the "Green Movement".:rotflmao

Heath
 
Last edited:

robpreuss

Registered User
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Posts
1
Reaction score
0
Location
Lacrosse wi
The dpf actually uses another injector downwind of the the turbo to inject fuel into the exhaust to burn it off... it doesnt flood a cylinder.. and it only uses this when the heat from the motor is not up to temp.. its a good system but its longevity has yet to be proven...
 

Dsl_Dog_Treat

I lost my face to the jaws of a poodle
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Posts
7,191
Reaction score
160
Location
Decatur,MI
Heh he he .....:rotflmao

Save THOUSANDS of lives........LOL "diesel exhaust-spewing":D

California thinks it can save the world all by it self. It's like taking a leak in the ocean and thinking you'll cause a flood.cookoo

Unitl the BILLIONS in India and China start using ULSD, "Clean Coal," Hybrids, "Smart" cars, biofuels, low emisson vehicles, and blah, blah, blah......whatever we do here is not going to matter.
California and the entire US cannot expect to green up the rest of the world. It is just rediculous to me to read stuff like that...........some folks (Al Gore) need to get a perspective on the realitly of the "Green Movement".:rotflmao

Heath
And compiled with the current status of the economy..........
I can see THAT happening real quick.

I am for clean air, but Heath hit the nail on the head.
 

icanfixall

Official GMM hand model
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
25,858
Reaction score
673
Location
West coast
An extra injecter downwind is not surprising at all. Just thinking about what a flodded cylinder would do to how a motor is running scares me. I'm hoping what I read was wrong and the extra injecter is true. I'm not sure how we with the fully mechanical injection system could run this extra injecter. Maybe taking a head plug out and installing a temp sender. Then a small one command cpu???:dunno
 

david85

Full Access Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Posts
4,844
Reaction score
1,112
Location
Campbell River, B.C.
Don't worry, once california goes bankrupt, they won't be able to enforce any of these laws. As a side note, I think they are oversteping their authority when it comes to requiring vehicles registered outside the state to comply with their regulation. Could be something to fight in court.

If they really wanted to clean up the air, they should have kept the 2% zero emission mandate. It forced automakers to sell (or at least OFFER) a minimum of 2% electric vehicles instead of hybrid chevy tahoes that get 22.9999915 MPG (instead of the usualy 20). But putting regulation on older out of state registered vehicles is crossing the line.

I will never support emission controls on the tailpipe. The only research that should be done is to make the fuel burn better INSIDE THE ENGINE!!!!!!!!!!!

Emission controls and MPGs should not me mutually exclusive, but you can't reason with these folks.
 
Top