“DEF deletes” means bypassing or removing the system that uses a special fluid to clean diesel exhaust. It can reduce costs or change performance, but it can also make the truck illegal to operate on public roads depending on where you live.
Concept
emissions compliance (legal perspective)
They’re talking about whether changing emissions systems on trucks is allowed by law. The rules can vary, and the truck may still need to meet emissions testing requirements.
Derating means the truck automatically makes less power. It usually happens when the emissions system senses a problem, and the truck limits performance to avoid damage or to stay within emissions limits.
EPA guidance is the government’s official clarification about how a rule should be followed. Here, it’s about how certain emissions monitoring/sensor setups are treated under the rules.
Term
deaf sensors
“Deaf sensors” is a term people use when they try to stop the truck’s emissions system from reacting normally to what the sensors report. The EPA guidance mentioned here is about how sensors are handled and what’s allowed.
These sensors check whether the DEF you’re using is “good enough” for the system to treat exhaust correctly. If the sensor can’t trust what it’s seeing, the truck may limit power so it can’t run in a way that would pollute more.
A derate means the truck won’t make full power anymore. It’s like the computer putting the engine into a “limited” mode because something in the emissions system isn’t working right.
NOx sensors are sensors in the exhaust that detect harmful exhaust gases from diesel engines. They help the car figure out how much pollution is coming out so it can reduce it.
EPA guidance is the agency’s explanation of how it plans to handle a regulation. It can signal what changes are coming, even before the final rules are written.
A proposed rule is the EPA’s “draft plan” for changing regulations. It usually comes before the final decision, after the agency lays out the reasoning and process.
Concept
formal rulemaking vs informal rulemaking
Rulemaking is how government agencies write new rules. The hosts are saying there are different legal “process types,” and the EPA can use them to change how requirements are enforced.
The Clean Air Act is a major U.S. law that sets rules for limiting air pollution. Here, the EPA is using that law to decide whether certain emissions requirements (like sensor mandates) should change.
Concept
EPA enforcement vs formal rulemaking
They’re explaining that EPA actions don’t always come as a brand-new law passed by Congress. Sometimes EPA issues guidance or rules, and enforcement can still depend on what the agency decides to treat as a violation.
Term
UQS sensors
UQS sensors are sensors that help the car/truck confirm its emissions system is working as intended. If someone deletes or changes them, it can make the vehicle fail emissions rules and may cause trouble.
They’re talking about diesel trucks that use an emissions system to keep exhaust cleaner. If you change or remove parts of that system, it can affect both legality and how the truck runs.
Company
SBA
SBA is mentioned as another group that was in the meeting with the EPA. The excerpt doesn’t clearly explain what SBA stands for here, but it’s being treated like a stakeholder in the discussion. The key point is that multiple agencies/groups were involved.
The ECU is the truck’s main computer. It uses sensor readings to decide what to do—like how much to inject or how to control emissions. Here, they’re talking about the computer using a “best guess” model when certain sensor data isn’t available.
Cummins is a major diesel engine manufacturer, and the segment references how Cummins handled sensor supply issues during COVID. The context implies Cummins later implemented strategies to manage emissions controls when sensors were unavailable or unreliable. This is relevant because the episode is about how OEMs respond to DEF/NOx sensor-related compliance challenges.
A D-Rate system is an emissions-related derate strategy used by some diesel manufacturers to reduce engine power when emissions faults are detected. The segment suggests that if the D-Rate system isn’t in place, the vehicle might throw a code instead of managing the fault via derating. This is part of how manufacturers keep compliance while handling sensor or emissions-system issues.
The Toyota Supra is a sports car made for fast driving and sporty handling. The podcast mention about “DEF” is about a system some diesel cars use to reduce pollution, and they’re talking about how often parts of that system might fail. If you own one, that can affect how expensive repairs are.
They’re talking about whether you can turn emissions equipment off for a short time. The key point is that it’s supposed to be temporary, not a permanent removal of the system.
An override is a way to force the emissions system to behave differently than it normally would. Whether it’s allowed depends on how it’s done and whether it’s meant to be temporary.
“Mobile source” just means vehicle emissions. They’re saying the rules/allowances for vehicles may be different from the rules for agriculture or other categories.
Concept
next administration comes in undoes this
This highlights how regulatory enforcement and policy can change with political leadership. For emissions-related modifications, that means today’s “legal” interpretation may not remain stable, affecting long-term legality and compliance strategy.
Concept
emissions compliance feedback loop (administration talking to the field)
They’re talking about regulators getting input from people who deal with these trucks every day. That helps them understand what’s actually happening and adjust the approach.
After-treatment is the part of a diesel that cleans the exhaust after the engine makes it. If it detects a problem, the truck may reduce power to stay within emissions rules.
The DEF sensor monitors conditions related to the diesel exhaust fluid system, such as fluid level and/or quality, so the vehicle can dose DEF correctly. If the sensor is stuck or inaccurate, the truck may think DEF isn’t available and trigger de-rating or other protective behavior.
An “endangerment finding” is basically a government conclusion that certain pollution is dangerous. The important nuance here is that the finding for climate pollution doesn’t automatically decide everything about other types of exhaust pollution.
Greenhouse gases are the emissions that contribute to climate change. The key point is that rules for climate pollution can be separate from rules for other types of air pollution.
Criteria pollutants are the main types of dirty air emissions regulators focus on for health reasons. The transcript is saying that climate-related findings don’t automatically settle how these other pollutants are regulated.
This is about regulatory compliance: whether a vehicle can be modified (or emissions equipment removed) while still meeting the emissions limits required by law. In practice, if the OEMs and certification process can’t achieve the required standards, it affects what’s legally and technically feasible for aftermarket changes.
A “tier” is like an emissions difficulty level set by regulators. If it’s “too high,” it means the rules are stricter than manufacturers can realistically meet right now.
Concept
go back to something a little bit more reasonable
This is about changing the emissions rules to be less strict. If the rules get easier, manufacturers may be able to comply without needing as aggressive technology.
Calibration is the car computer’s settings for how it runs and how it manages emissions equipment. Changing calibration can change how clean the exhaust is and whether the car passes emissions rules.
They’re talking about making the car’s emissions match older legal limits. Since rules get stricter over the years, meeting an older standard doesn’t always mean the car is compliant with today’s requirements.
Concept
2007 vs 2012 emissions standards
They’re comparing older and newer emissions rules. Even if a diesel is cleaner than older limits, passing today’s inspection depends on what the car is actually doing and how it’s tested.
Smog testing is the official check to make sure your car isn’t polluting too much. On newer cars, the test can also look at whether the car’s emissions systems have been properly checked by the computer.
Readiness monitors are like the car’s self-check results for emissions systems. If the car hasn’t run (or can’t complete) those checks, the inspection computer may reject it even if it seems to be running normally.
Consent decrees are court-approved agreements that require certain rules to be followed. In emissions cases, they can strongly influence what changes are allowed to a vehicle’s emissions systems.
OBD is the car’s self-check system for emissions and other important parts. If you change things that affect how the car reports emissions data, it can cause legal trouble and may also affect inspections.
A tuner is a device that changes how the car’s computer runs the engine. It can make the car feel stronger, but it can also interfere with emissions systems and what the car reports during inspections.
Emission standards are the rules that limit how much pollution a vehicle is allowed to make. They affect how the car is designed and how it’s tested or monitored.
Aftermarket parts are made by companies other than the car maker. The discussion is basically saying aftermarket options shouldn’t automatically be viewed as bad—some can work well and help with emissions equipment.
Blanket prohibitions are rules that ban whole categories of changes without making exceptions for good solutions. The point here is that strict blanket rules may slow down progress on emissions fixes.
OEM parts are the same brand/spec as what came on the vehicle from the factory. Here, the point is that some places may require you to use factory-spec catalytic converters rather than cheaper aftermarket ones.
The Toyota Land Cruiser is a tough, long-lasting SUV. The hosts use it here because replacing catalytic converters on a Land Cruiser can be very expensive if you’re forced to buy OEM parts.
That sensor is how the truck checks whether the DEF system is working correctly. If it thinks something’s wrong, the truck can reduce power to push you to fix the emissions system.
OEMs are the automakers that make the truck and its emissions systems. They’re the ones who have to update the software and hardware to follow the rules.
The DEF system is the whole setup that stores DEF and injects it into the exhaust in the right amount. In this segment, they’re saying the injection behavior stays the same.
Knock sensors listen for signs that the engine is burning fuel in an abnormal way. If the ECU detects that, it can adjust engine operation to protect the engine.
DEF fluid is a special liquid diesel trucks use to clean up exhaust. If the truck doesn’t have enough DEF or the system thinks something is wrong, it will warn you and may eventually limit how far you can drive. That’s why you’ll see warnings like the check engine light.
The check engine light means the car’s computer found a problem. On diesel vehicles, it often relates to emissions systems, not just the engine itself. Sometimes the car will still run, but it may limit power or get worse over time.
Here, “boot” means a rubber connection in the turbo/boost piping. If it tears or leaks, the turbo can’t pressurize the air correctly. That can lead to other problems later, including emissions warnings.
A boost leak means the turbo’s pressurized air is escaping through a crack or loose connection. The engine doesn’t get the boost it expects, so it can run less efficiently. That inefficiency can also make the exhaust system work harder.
After the turbo compresses air, it usually goes to an intercooler to cool it down before it enters the engine. If there’s a leak in that route, the engine may not get the right amount of air. That can cause performance problems and can also affect emissions.
A DPF is a filter that catches soot from a diesel exhaust. If it gets too clogged and can’t clean itself, the fix can be replacing the whole filter, and that’s where the big repair cost comes from.
On a diesel, the exhaust system isn’t just the pipes—it also carries exhaust through the emissions equipment. If something goes wrong, the truck can end up needing major repairs and may not run.
If the exhaust pipes get clogged, exhaust can’t get out the way it should. Even if the engine is trying to push exhaust out, the blockage prevents flow, which can make the truck run badly or fail emissions-related checks.
Emissions systems are the parts that clean up exhaust so the vehicle meets pollution rules. They can wear out or get overwhelmed over time, especially if the engine is pushed hard.
Torqued to spec means the bolts were tightened to the exact tightness the manufacturer calls for. If they’re not, parts can loosen or not seal properly and cause trouble.
Warranty coverage is what the manufacturer agrees to pay for when a covered part breaks. The key point here is that warranties often cover the repair itself, but not the extra costs that happen because of the failure.
Consequential damages are costs that happen indirectly because of a failure—beyond the original broken part. In the transcript, the example is that an emissions-system failure can lead to other expensive outcomes (like additional repairs or downtime) that may not be covered even if the failed component itself is under warranty.
“Catastrophic drivetrain failure” means the vehicle’s main power system breaks in a big way—often involving the transmission or related parts. The point they’re making is that even if the broken part is covered, the extra fallout costs may not be.
The transcript discusses the need to rent a replacement vehicle when the primary truck is unavailable due to repairs or coverage disputes. It’s used to illustrate how out-of-pocket costs can arise beyond warranty coverage.
A warranty repair is when the manufacturer pays to fix something on the truck. But warranties often don’t pay for everything around the repair—like lost income or other knock-on expenses.
“Lost productivity time” refers to the economic impact of a vehicle being unavailable—such as downtime while waiting for repairs. The segment emphasizes that these indirect business impacts may not be covered by standard warranty repairs.
Supplemental insurance is extra coverage you buy to protect against costs that your main insurance or warranty won’t pay. It’s often used when you’re worried about gaps like downtime-related losses.
An E&O policy is insurance that helps protect a business from certain kinds of mistakes or failures that lead to financial claims. In this context, it’s mentioned as a way to cover losses when a truck issue affects business.
“Warranty failures” are repairs that a manufacturer might refuse to cover. The hosts are saying companies plan for situations where people try to save money in ways that can lead to expensive problems later.
“Emission systems” are the parts on a diesel that help reduce harmful exhaust. The point here is that they usually last a long time, but if you don’t maintain the truck, other problems can show up.
“Preemptive” (preventive) maintenance is proactive service done on a schedule to prevent failures before they happen. The hosts connect it to emissions-system durability and to the reality that some owners/operators can’t afford the upkeep needed to avoid expensive downstream problems.
This is about doing the bypass/removal before anything breaks, instead of waiting until the truck has an emissions problem. Some owners do it to avoid downtime and expensive repairs. But it can still be risky legally and environmentally.
The speaker is talking about a money decision: do you pay to fix the emissions equipment, or do you remove/bypass it instead. Repairs can be costly, so some people choose the cheaper option. The legal side then considers those costs when arguing sentencing.
An “aging fleet” means a company’s older trucks. Older vehicles often need more repairs, including emissions parts, so the hosts are discussing cost pressure as part of the decision-making.
EPA and DOJ are U.S. government agencies involved in enforcing environmental rules. The discussion here is about how their stance and enforcement priorities affect whether emissions deletes get prosecuted.
Concept
SCR (selective catalytic reduction)
SCR is the system that uses DEF to make diesel exhaust cleaner. It’s designed to cut down on nitrogen pollution that comes out of the tailpipe.
Emissions enforcement is how the government checks whether vehicles are meeting pollution rules. If enforcement gets stricter or changes, it can change the risk and consequences for people doing illegal emissions modifications.
This refers to a governance/oversight concept where one part of the government is expected to monitor and hold another part responsible for outcomes. In the context of emissions policy, it implies follow-through on regulatory actions and measurable improvements rather than vague promises. For listeners, it’s a reminder that policy enforcement and updates can change over time.
Concept
holding environmental criminals liable
This means the government can prosecute people for breaking environmental rules, not just issue warnings. With diesel vehicles, it can apply when emissions systems are bypassed or modified to cheat pollution controls.
Concept
buyout
A buyout is basically an offer for employees to leave their job and get paid to do so. If key people leave, the agency’s focus and enforcement approach can change.
The speaker is saying enforcement pressure may be moving from the federal government to individual states. That means the risk of getting in trouble for emissions deletes can depend on your state.
Here, “tampering” means messing with the emissions system on purpose. The concern is that the truck will pollute more than it’s supposed to.
Concept
state legal theory
A “state legal theory” is basically how a state argues its case in court using its own laws. So even if federal enforcement slows down, a state might still go after emissions cheating.
“Future enforcement” here means how aggressively regulators (like the EPA) will pursue violations related to emissions rules and modifications. The speaker suggests enforcement may become less extreme after agencies back off certain policies, which affects how risky DEF-related modifications may be.
Concept
regret in the agency
They’re saying the agency may feel bad about how some past cases were handled. That matters because it could lead to less strict enforcement going forward.
They’re discussing getting a diesel engine replacement fast, especially when you can’t wait for shipping or parts availability. They also mention that what you need can change if your truck is modified or if you tow a lot.
Concept
stock vs modified truck
They’re pointing out that if your truck is stock, it’s usually easier to replace parts with factory-compatible options. If it’s modified, you may need a different setup so everything works together.
LIVE
This episode is brought to you by Redfin.
You're listening to a podcast,
which means you're probably multitasking,
maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin,
saving homes without expecting to get them.
But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing.
It's built to help you find and own a home
with agents who close twice as many deals.
When you find the one,
you've got a real shot at getting it.
Get started at redfin.com.
Own the dream.
Welcome to the Diesel Podcast presented by DFC Diesel.
Corey and Stuart, welcome to the Diesel Podcast.
You guys are longtime veterans.
I've had you guys on individually,
but I thought it'd be great to bring you guys both together
so we could cover the legal perspective
of some of the emissions, DF stuff with trucks.
And then Corey, I mean, you're right in the thick of it
with your tuning company that you founded
and working to make change happen.
So welcome back, look forward to chatting with you guys today.
Yes, great to be back.
Great to be back.
Thanks for having us on.
Yeah, this little,
I think we should just start right off with you, Stuart.
And I'm not sure how long ago it was,
maybe a month or so ago.
There was a big announcement by Lee Zeldin, the EPA,
as far as with DF fluid and the issue with trucks derating
and it affecting trucks, equipment, farm equipment.
Can you just give us a kind of a synopsis
or a breakdown of what the EPA said about that?
Sure.
I'll leave the technical aspects of this to Corey
because he's the diesel truck engineer,
whatever you want to call him,
sort of a genius with the tuning and the repair side.
But I'll tell you what happened on the legal side.
So on March 26th, the EPA issued guidance
on deaf sensors specifically.
It's called a deaf quality monitoring
using alternate sensor technology.
And what this guidance seeks to address
is quality problems and failures
with what are called the UQS.
Won't be the first time that I butcher that acronym.
It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
But the UQS are the Urea quality sensors
and they're famously unreliable for diesel vehicles
because they can't actually accurately or consistently
or both determine what the quality of the Urea is
that's actually going to the SCR system.
And the EPA is attempting to address the concerns
with this sensor, which causes repeated failures
for diesels of all types, ag equipment, big trucks,
over the road trucks, normal light heavy duty applications.
What this guidance seeks to do
is it seeks to eliminate the requirement
that UQS are mandated on vehicles,
mandated to be used on vehicles to be operational.
Because when a UQS sensor fails,
what happens is that it derates the vehicle
and then whoever is driving that vehicle
is stuck doing whatever they're doing,
whether they're driving to school
or operating in a field with big ag equipment
or they're on a long haul truck.
You know, trip, whatever.
So the EPA has issued guidance.
It's not a law that says that they have a concern
about the UQS system and that they are seeking
to initiate a formal rulemaking session
where a UQS sensors are no longer required on vehicles,
meaning that they're going to be relying on the,
and this is the other thing that I'm trying to find here,
the NOx sensors, instead.
So you have your NOx sensors,
which actually keep track of the NOx
that is emitted by diesel vehicles
and then you have the UQS.
And they're saying the UQS does not work properly
and therefore we are not going to continue to mandate these.
We're gonna issue guidance saying
there is a problem with these.
So the way that it works legally
is the EPA issues guidance on what they're gonna do
and then they seek to create what's called a proposed rule.
And I know a lot of times on the podcast
we've talked about formal rulemaking, informal rulemaking.
You know, the EPA is a governmental administrative agency
has the authority to create formal rules
where they're interpreting the law.
And in this case, the law, as we know, is the Clean Air Act.
And when they are interpreting this specific requirement
for the Clean Air Act,
they want to make a rule that says
that they are no longer going to mandate the UQS
on diesel vehicles on the SCR systems
because it's unreliable and it causes problems
for people around the country, all over the place.
The formal rule, which is closer to a law,
it's not actually legislation that goes through Congress
but it's closer to a law and generally it's treated as a law.
That has not occurred yet.
The EPA intends to issue a formal rule
related to the UQS sensors soon.
There's no defined timeline.
But for now, the way that I interpret this guidance is,
and I think that this is what Corey will talk about,
is that if you remove or alter the UQS on your vehicle
in order to make sure that your vehicle is performing
and make sure that the SCR system is going to perform
so that you're not stuck somewhere
and you don't break down,
then the EPA is not going to consider that
to be a violation of the Clean Air Act
and they're not going to enforce on it.
Hey diesel fans, our friends over at Kershaw Knives
have a 20% off code for you.
If you go to kershaw.kaiusa.com and use code 20TD8FR26,
you get 20% off your cart and free shipping over $50.
So if you're in the market for a new EDC knife,
something for hunting, fishing around the job site,
around the house, they've got you covered
with a whole bunch of different choices
for blade steel, blade shape, different opening mechanisms,
different handle designs, and it's great
when you save some money and get some cool gear.
Again, go to kershaw.kaiusa.com,
use code 20TD8FR26 and get 20% off your cart
and free shipping over $50.
Corey, to kind of set the stage for you
and your perspective on it,
once that happened, I heard a ton of,
there saw a lot on YouTube and Facebook, Instagram,
TikTok from people, probably millions of plays.
It was like, all right, boys, we talked about it,
we can delete DEF stuff now,
you just rip that stuff off the truck.
That's why I wanted to bring you guys together
to talk about what it actually means.
So with what Stuart just laid out,
your perspective as the founder of PPI,
someone's involved in motorsports for a decade plus,
what you do, what does it mean
for someone who's got a diesel truck right now
and they've just heard about this?
Well, we actually had a meeting with EPA and SBA
and some others yesterday on this topic,
and realistically, it means nothing.
In the real world, it means nothing.
On paper, it sounds really great.
The OEM, and the reason is this,
is because the Urea Quality Sensor,
while that may have been one of the top reported
failure items, what they're gonna do
is they're basically gonna create a model in the ECU,
kind of like they did during COVID
whenever they couldn't get sensors, if you recall that,
and Cummins dealt with all that later on, right?
But they create this model,
but that model assumes that our NOx sensors
are working properly and all the other things.
And if we don't have a D-Rate system in place,
then the vehicle might throw a code.
If it has a NOx error, then it's gonna turn back around,
it's gonna start dosing a ton of EGR back into the system.
And the thing is, is this does not remove
the diesel exhaust fluid.
So the big complaint that I think EPA is starting
to really understand, SBA definitely gets it,
and I think EPA is starting to understand,
is that people are not just looking
to not have a problem on their vehicle,
but also not pay the expensive fee
for the diesel exhaust fluid
that you put in your trucks.
So if we have a quality sensor issue, and that goes out,
but we still have to put fluid in the truck,
that's still a problem.
We still have to pay for fluid,
and that assumes that no other system
has failed on the vehicle.
So in reality where it says,
well, most of these failures are the UQS sensor.
Okay, that's fine, but at the same time,
if that's a 90% failure item on the DEF system, so to speak,
but we have an 88% failure item right behind it
that's gonna contradict the UQS trick,
the model that they're doing,
you're kinda getting nowhere.
And the big thing is, is there is no guidance.
So we reached out to EPA,
we're waiting on them to get back with us.
We sent quite a few responses and we got one back.
And it was basically saying that
we don't have an answer for you
for how the aftermarket industry can play into this,
but we're working on it and we'll get back with you soon.
And so as far as tuning and aftermarket industry,
what has been done and what can we do,
I have it from the horse's mouth to the EPA,
you can do nothing.
Now, on the agriculture side of things,
you notice where they said that
you can use any tool, any system
to basically override and temporarily disable these systems
so that way they can still work.
The key word in there was they said any tools
and it's a temporary override.
Now what people do and will they install it back on later?
I'm not really sure,
but that is not the same provision we're working with
right now on the mobile source side of things.
Cause they're just saying we basically just,
we're gonna create a new model for the UQS
and then the OEMs would be able to update it,
but still there's no OEMs that's updated it.
This stuff has to get really, really tight
and before even OEMs jump on to it.
Cause like Stuart said before,
the next administration comes in undoes this.
This is way too much R and D and everything
for them to be able to just get undone.
So something is, and I think that the,
and I've got to give the administration a ton of credit.
I mean, they're actually talking to people out in the field
like, you know, it's like, like Stuart, like us,
we never had a voice before,
where now they're doing things and they can get feedback
and we were able to give them feedback
as to what the public perception is,
what the temperature in the room is,
and then possible ways of going forward.
One thing for sure is that the administration wants
to tackle the whole after-treatment issue.
It's just, how do you get there?
And how can you unravel things in such a way
that gives people a little bit of relief?
Not having the vehicles going to D-rate
and actually getting that activated
even with after-treatment still there
is a really good thing,
because someone's going to the hospital
and their truck would potentially de-rate out
and it didn't, well, the exhaust may be stuffed as a potato
and the level sensor stuck on the DEF sensor,
but if it's not de-rating it,
at least you can get someone to safety.
So I think it's a really big deal,
the steps that they're going,
and it's not like, Stuart can talk to this,
it's not like they have a switch
that they could just say, okay, this is all legal now.
Like they would just be met with lawsuits
and that would be the saga for the next four years.
So there's a system that they have to go through
to be able to unravel these things that don't make sense.
But one thing that came up yesterday
that I think is really important was,
then whole endangerment, finding things coming to the head
and what is that, Stuart,
about Monday or Tuesday next week?
So on the 20th, is it?
So my anniversary.
Imagine that, the 420.
But yeah, being able to,
once we can establish, like the endangerment finding,
that's for greenhouse gases,
which doesn't have anything to do necessarily
with the criteria pollutants,
but what is very important is the way
that the endangerment finding came about,
the history of it was a bunch of nonsense.
We just connected the dots that the nonsense
for this criteria polluted, our deal,
isn't too terribly far from the same source.
So when someone asks, what can we do?
Can we delete a vehicle right now?
Can we remove the emissions and meet current standards?
The answer is no.
And the reason for that is because the OEMs aren't even able
to actually obtain the current standards.
And whenever they were going onto the new standards
that thankfully this administration got rid of,
the manufacturers basically said,
well, we can't meet that, so we're going all electric.
So we're literally at the benchmark
of where they were gonna be
before they had to go electric,
because we can't even achieve it anymore.
And the reality is, is the benchmark of emissions right now,
the current tier is too high for the manufacturers to hit.
So we have to go back to something
a little bit more reasonable.
The reasonable thing on that, in my opinion,
is what we're sending out to other countries
and the military already.
The manufacturers already have that protocol.
They already have that standard done.
It's not like it has no emission system in the calibration.
The calibration's even done in a way
that it would meet emissions to 2007 levels or earlier.
But the vehicle's so clean on modern technology
that it's actually surpassing 2012 standards,
where the vehicles were in 2012.
And that's with a modern vehicle without aftertreatment.
And it's also convenient because they pass smog testing.
So you'd be able to go to your local place, get smogged.
None of us want a dirty vehicle or smelly vehicle on the road.
So it'll pass smog and everything without emissions,
even on a current vehicle.
You just won't pass the readiness monitors.
So that's something the administration would have to look at.
But I think in the grand scheme of things, if we could take,
go back.
You got to get smog tested.
Get your inspection sticker.
If you pass smog, press go.
Don't pay $6,000 for DPF.
Yeah, just to piggyback on something you said,
I think it's really important that the current administration
of the EPA are not treating the aftermarket as the enemy.
That's what's been happening for the last ever since 2010
or whatever you want to call it.
Many, many of the consent decrees that we did earlier on,
and I know that this is something that Cori's
had to deal with directly, they don't want you to even
be able to touch or modify the OBD, which is ridiculous.
You can go out and you can buy a tuner for a gas vehicle.
You can go out and you can buy a chip for pretty much
any vehicle on the road.
And a lot of the issues that we were facing with the EPA
over the course of that decade, the 2010 decade,
really had to do with them treating the aftermarket
as a whole like it was the enemy.
And instead of working with the aftermarket,
which is full of really brilliant engineers
and really brilliant people who work on these vehicles,
hands on, you're listening to what EPA environmental engineers
are saying about the emission standards
and particulate matter and NOx and everything else.
So by engaging in a dialogue with the aftermarket
with people like Cori, I think that the EPA,
I don't see that changing too much,
even if there is a new administration coming through,
because this administration and even a lot of the EPA employees
that I've been working with, they see a lot of value
in working with the aftermarket in a productive way
and not just putting these blanket prohibitions down
where you're not allowed to replace an exhaust.
You must use OEM catalytic converters,
for example, in Colorado, they have to be OEM.
Well, my wife had a Land Cruiser, 2006 Land Cruiser.
We want to replace the catalytic converters.
It has two of them, $5,600.
You can buy aftermarket ones that work great for $1,000 a piece.
So, you know, not treating the aftermarket in general
like the enemy and working hand in hand with the aftermarket
to try to get some positive movement on after-treatment systems,
emission systems, EGR systems,
I think is a big step that will be embraced
by future administrations.
Yeah, I completely agree with Stuart.
And that's what I was saying earlier,
where we're actually having conversations,
us and some other engineers,
and we're having real conversations.
And it's not, for the first time ever,
we're not, EPA and DOJ is not just trying to attack us.
They're like, in your expertise, in your field,
what is it that you see?
What are a lot of calls you get?
What are a lot of failure points?
Do you think that technology could be updated
to meet current standards?
If not, what standards could it meet?
So, you're seeing this vast array
from the administration basically saying,
hey, we want to help figure things out.
But obviously, look at, as Stuart knows,
look how far back and how deeply entrenched this all is.
That's why none of us, we had a lot of faith,
but really, could we even get to where we are right now?
I'm honestly surprised.
We're moving forward.
This administration's moving forward.
And them being able to talk to actual people
in the field, when Trump issues an EO,
and you see a lot of those random people
standing by him and everything,
that's people that's been working with the administration
doing kind of like what me and Stu's been doing nonstop
with them to try to hammer this through,
get direction, get proper language.
And ultimately, just understanding
of how things could work or how things should work.
Where before, you're pretty much left on red
with a broad interpretation,
and that's what allowed people to get in such high water.
What's really interesting is like the idea
for this conversation, I was chatting with Stuart
because I'm not even a novice at this.
Most of what I learn is from either following you
on social media, Corey, or the podcast we've done
or with you, Stuart.
And I just saw this influx of content,
and I think it's diesel enthusiasts
or people who have diesel trucks.
Ultimately, we wanna buy a 2026 truck
that's like a 2003, five, nine, or an LB7,
or a 73 Powerstroke, right?
That's ultimately what they want.
So you have this enthusiasm,
but then I'm talking with Stuart
and he's like, not much has really changed,
like what are we gonna talk about here?
And he brought up something that I wanna relate back
is he said, you know, with this sensor,
if it's not reading the quality of the DF fluid,
you've gotta make up for it in other parts of the system,
whether that's EGR or something else,
but I'm not an expert in that.
Maybe we can have Corey on.
So I wanted to talk with you a bit about that, Corey,
because I think the first thing someone's gonna think is,
okay, I'm not gonna get derated by my DF sensor,
but in order for the OEMs to meet this standard,
what's gonna happen with my EGRs
to get more aggressive to my regen's increase?
Like that's what the end user
is probably gonna be thinking and wondering about.
Yeah, so theoretically, nothing should change
because nothing changed on the DEF system,
how it functions, how much it doses, when it doses,
everything remains the same.
All they're basically trying to do is say,
we're not gonna have this sensor measuring the quality.
Instead, we're gonna make an assumption
on the quality based on the feedback of other sensors,
and then everything else stays normal operation.
So theoretically, which the OEMs haven't developed
a calibration for this yet, so this is theory, right?
But the theory of how that would work
would be the system operates as normal, everything's good.
If the knock sensors or something starts giving it feedback
that indicate that there may be a quality issue
on the DEF fluid, then it would still actually throw
a check engine light, it would get pissed off,
but it should give you an extended timeframe
before it actually leaves you on the side of the road
instead of just saying, hey, you're screwing
just a few minutes, right?
And so that's where it's currently at.
And it's a step in the right direction
because they're coming out and saying,
we recognize there's a problem.
And I really think that they're just now starting
to really understand the whole things a problem.
Yesterday, I gave an example of like a boot coming,
like this is a very common thing,
everyone's seen it before in the industry
or involved in a vehicle, driving down the road,
your vehicle's 10 years old, it's a great day.
And then you hear just like, well, psss, sound, right?
A little boost leak, you're freaking your 10 year old boot
on the turbo to the intercooler,
maybe that has a small leak in it.
Well, by the time you pull over at the gas station
and a check engine light came on,
the DPF is filled up with soot.
So you would try to get it cleaned.
If you can't get it cleaned out,
now it's a $4,000 to $6,000 DPF replacement.
So explaining these situations to the government,
it's like the DPF and the emission systems
actually work pretty well.
It's normally not of a fault of their own that they go out.
The fault actually relies on mechanical systems break
sometimes, and if a boot comes off,
you're driving down the road
and you've got a basic emissions component on it,
that's not gonna cost you anything
besides a $10 boot replacement.
But now that you had a boot come off,
it just cost you a $6,000 exhaust system
that might be three months back ordered
and now your truck can't run.
So, and another thing as well
that we tried to demonstrate through was these pipes,
when they stop up, it's like putting a potato in the exhaust.
You can get air in through the intake,
but if you can't move air out of the engine,
it's like taking a straw and just stopping the end up.
You can blow as hard as you want,
but nothing's gonna happen.
So, when these things stop up.
Yeah, you got a hundred pounds of boost.
Like everything in between the intake
and the exhaust might fail.
Yeah, you go from having say,
if you've got 20 pounds of boost,
maybe only 25 pounds of back pressure,
now you got 20 pounds of boost
and 100 pounds of back pressure.
So, the heads, everything but the weakest point
is where the pressure's gonna wanna go.
So, that's how a lot of those problems come about,
whether that be the heads or whatever.
So, so many other issues,
but it's like when the manufacturers come out
and say, well, the exhaust,
like the emissions systems themselves are pretty good.
In a perfect world, they actually aren't that bad.
But unfortunately, as vehicles get older
and even brand new ones, the world's not perfect.
And I've had a brand new vehicle pop a boot
from the manufacturer simply
because they didn't have it all the way torqued to spec.
Or it had a little bit too much oil inside the boot
whenever they were doing it.
Like life happens.
And the thing is is when life happens,
which it happens to everybody,
we shouldn't have to pay a $4,000 to $6,000 penalty
or have to wait four months of an inoperable vehicle
to then pay the penalty.
So, these are the things I think the administration
is really starting to take into account.
Well, and there is some merit to,
there's a lot of merit to that argument.
And that's a really good way to put it
because there's a lot of protection
that consumers have with regard to warranty issues, right?
There is not protection that consumers have
with regard to what we call consequential damages.
And consequential damages are just what they sound like.
They're damages that occur as a result of a failure
of whatever it may be, okay?
So say that your boot comes off,
it results in a catastrophic emissions component failure
whether it's a DPF or whatever,
or a catastrophic drivetrain failure,
transmission, engine, whatever.
You may have warranty coverage for that,
but what you don't have is coverage
for all of the expenses and the associated costs
related to what happens after that.
What if you need to rent a car?
What if you don't, what if you have the general insurance
or some other subpar insurance company
because that's all you can afford, right?
Those insurance companies are not gonna be covering
the other expenses that are related to,
or if you have a business
and you're relying on that truck,
which most of our clients and most of the people that I know,
they're relying on a diesel for business.
There's only a few people out there who,
they like to spend 120 grand on a truck
because it's a really sweet truck, right?
But most people are relying on their,
and you don't get lost productivity time
as part of a warranty repair.
You don't get lost wages as a warranty repair.
You don't get all of those consequential damages
as part of a warranty repair
are not going to be covered either
unless you have supplemental insurance,
which costs a lot of money,
or you have some kind of a business E&O policy, right?
And those are really expensive.
So in this day and age
where people are really looking at saving money,
cutting their costs,
it is really important to think about
what an OEM might do in order to protect a consumer
from these types of warranty failures.
Like Corey says, the emission systems,
especially nowadays, they're pretty good.
You're not going to run into too many pattern failures
of an emission system that's been on the road
for anywhere between 15 and 20 years, right?
But, or it's been designed for that long
and improved upon for that long.
What you are going to run into
are other issues related to downtime
that have to do specifically with consequential damages.
And those are not going to be covered by warranty.
And those are not going to be covered by people, honestly,
who don't have the money to be able to do
all the preemptive maintenance
or all the preventative maintenance
that you might have to do on a work vehicle.
Yeah, and I imagine Stu can see similar trends, you know?
Like you'll see the low income and lower middle income,
but at least from our customer base,
those guys when they actually were deleting the trucks,
they were deleting them
because they couldn't afford anything else.
Like that's what they had to resort to.
And then you take your upper middle income,
upper middle income and then upper income,
those guys are the guys that would generally delete it
in advance so that way they never had the problem.
So I see it from the lowest income range to the highest,
you know, this guy gets hurt and has to,
this guy does it so he doesn't get hurt.
It's just the traditional thing.
That's exactly right.
With the criminal practice,
which thank God is not there anymore,
at least on the diesel side,
on the criminal practice,
I would say at least 75% of my sentencing arguments
had to do with the cost of deleting
versus the cost of replacement.
And I had people who were being convicted of felony,
they had felony convictions for 11 vehicles,
17 vehicles, nine vehicles in a fleet.
And they're like,
I would have replaced the DPF if I could get my hands on it
or I would have replaced the DPF if I could afford it.
They're deleting because it is the cheapest,
easiest way to keep their aging fleet operation.
And that is something that you make an argument to a court.
And actually the federal judges were very sympathetic
and receptive to that argument.
They're like, okay, well, that makes sense actually.
So that's something that happened.
You're right, I've got a lot of experience with that.
And I think that what you're saying is spot on.
Is that the change that you guys have both seen
is the reception to the EPA or DOJ
or just the government in general of understanding
or talking to you guys and understanding,
this isn't just I wanna blow black coal
and make YouTube videos and get likes on it.
This is actually a financial burn.
It depends who it is.
It depends where they are.
It depends where it depends on what their,
what their, frankly, what state they're in, okay?
So I've got cases in certain red states, blue collar states,
even blue states that have like a large population
of blue collar workers.
And like I write an email to a prosecutor or a judge
and I say, hey, we want you to hold off
in collecting this penalty because the law has changed
and the interpretation of the law has changed.
And a lot of times they will be really receptive to it.
A big issue that's happening in the EPA
and the government right now is you have pockets
of resistance in the EPA and the DOJ of people
who do not want to follow what this administration is doing.
And those people are, I mean, it's almost like,
it's almost like insubordination or a mutiny
where people are saying, I'm not gonna do that.
I don't care what the Trump administration wants me to do.
I'm not gonna do that because that's not environmentally
conscious or that's not why the EPA is here
or whatever it is or DOJ employees.
And they're like, no, we already got our conviction.
We're not gonna look at it again.
And so we have to, we, meaning myself and my colleagues
and people like Corey who are going to Washington,
we're going over their head
and we're going to the White House directly
and we're going to senators and Congress people directly
and we're going to DOJ, senior DOJ employees directly.
And we're saying, hey, we're basically tattling on them.
Yes.
And saying so-and-so in this jurisdiction
is not following your directive.
What are you gonna do about it?
And then they write an email or they make a phone call
and then all of a sudden, you know,
a week later you get an email, oh, we changed our mind.
So there is a significant resistance
within the government to the Trump administration's
priorities.
Maybe these people are expecting that there's gonna be
a democratic administration soon.
I don't know.
Maybe they really are taking their own opinion
of a moral high ground on it.
But there is a lot of governmental resistance
and infighting that we're seeing on a daily basis.
Yeah, it's like I've kind of hinted like high levels.
I'm like, it's a massive war behind the scenes
and like it's exactly what Stu's talking about.
It's nasty.
I don't, this is like Stu's world with all that.
I was like, I won't get it.
I'm like, oh, people just want data.
I'm in that position.
Look, I'm not personally an especially conservative person.
Like I'm not liberal,
but I'm not an especially conservative guy.
Okay, I'm older.
There's a lot of liberals here.
I live in Colorado.
There's a lot of liberals here.
You know, that's just kind of my world here.
But I'll tell you what, my dad worked for the government
for 35 years and he worked through several administrations.
He worked through Reagan.
He worked through Bush one, Clinton, Bush two
and at the end Obama.
And he never ever revolted or in-fought
with regard to what an administration wanted to do.
It was his job, he was a regional administrator
for the U.S. Forest Service.
It was his job to administer the agency the way
that the presidential administration wanted it done.
Okay, that was his job.
It wasn't his job to say,
no, we're not gonna do this and we're not gonna do that.
If you don't want that job, you can quit, right?
And it is a massive war behind the scenes
between people who don't,
they just don't want to do what the Trump administration
wants for them to do.
And people like me and Corey
and some of the other close colleagues we have
are right on the front line of trying to find
the right person to talk to about so-and-so in Texas
or so-and-so in Florida or so-and-so in California.
People who just aren't doing what they're supposed to do.
I wanna take that just a little bit farther
and ask you guys a question with that.
Is we're a year, a little over a year
into this administration and time goes by fast.
And I think both of you in the podcast that I've done
have talked about the changes over the years
with enforcement, like with you Stuart,
some of the things that have happened Corey,
as that's evolved.
Is there enough time left before late 2027, 2028
to be able to progress this particular part of emissions
to a better point?
Like, it just seems like there might not be enough time
to be able to get all this stuff done
in the next two and a half years
as it relates to emissions.
I'm optimistic, we're having conversations
that are dang near getting to be bi-weekly.
And with seeing how aggressive,
and now the big thing is for me,
Stu may have a different opinion,
but for me the way that I see it is,
is like, what is your aggressiveness on the topic?
Are you getting hit?
Is it a hot topic?
Because if it's a hot topic that gets hits,
then you'll see it become a campaign thing in the long run.
We've got a lot of really good indicators on that,
and then there hasn't been an influencer team
necessarily come out with necessary messaging.
To be honest, we're getting that messaging
figured out now, but once we have the messaging necessary,
and we get the proper influencers with the right messaging
and understand there's a pathway,
and you start getting 100 million views a day,
rapidly you'll see things change,
and I think that would be the codifier
that the administration would need.
From a legal perspective,
Stu could speak on that a little better,
but seeing the optimism,
the amount of questions they're asking,
and feedback that they're taking in,
and seeing more and different people involved
in a lot of these meetings,
and likewise whenever, like Stu was saying,
if EPA is not doing something right,
and we get with the SBA,
and then SBA asks EPA what's going on,
there's like a, what's the word I'm looking for?
There's accountability between the administration,
and this one will hold this one accountable,
this one will hold this one accountable.
We've never seen that before,
but like I'll get a text message with a follow-up
of like, hey, has anything gotten better in this regard?
So with seeing how aggressive they are
to wanting to fix the problem,
want to understand the problem,
while still protecting the environment obviously,
and protecting everything,
I'm extremely hopeful,
and I'm gonna continue to invest this time
and energy into it,
because I really think it can happen.
If I put a percentage on it, I'm north of 75.
So I generally agree with that,
and I might have a little different perspective,
but I think it's just with regard to my job.
So I think, and this is my personal opinion,
this is not something that anybody
with the EPA has shared with me,
I think that the EPA and the DOJ knows
that they went too far, okay?
And holding environmental criminals liable,
having these felonies holding them liable
for these huge penalties,
or these small penalties,
and even taking their rights away
with felony convictions,
I think that even the more left-leaning people
that I've talked to agree
that the EPA and the DOJ went too far
in the 2020 to 2024 timeframe,
and that even if,
I mean, we're really talking about a year, right?
Because it's not two years,
because if the Democrats win the house back
in November, which traditionally happens,
regardless of what the politics are, right?
The incumbent president usually loses the house
in his first two years.
I still don't think that there's going to be
a big move with Democrats
to try to go back to where they were,
because I think that they realized
how much of that they were hurting
normal, hardworking Americans.
And the Democrats lost the election,
recent elections,
not to get too political about this,
because they were not paying attention
to what was happening with normal people,
normal blue-collar Americans
who want to work for a living
and they just want the government off their ass, right?
So when I talk to people in the EPA,
I usually am having a conversation about,
first of all, most of the people
that I was working with in the EPA are gone.
They're not working there anymore,
because they either took the government buyout,
the Doge buyout, which happened last year,
or they don't agree with the direction of the agency
and so they moved on to a different job, right?
But the people that I am talking about,
I'm really getting the perspective
with the DOJ and the EPA
that they think that these criminal cases
were not worth prosecuting in the first place.
And that they're not really interested
in this heavy-handed enforcement anymore,
because the amount of work and energy
it took up for them, okay?
So what I've seen is that this very heavy-handed movement
is migrating to the states.
Washington State just created a new law
with regard to environmental enforcement
that has to do with criminal liability
for Clean Air Act violations,
the Washington Clean Air Act, okay?
And it has to do with tampering
and it has to do with emissions.
I don't know if it's passed their Congress yet,
but it was a bill that was endorsed
and I think it's been moving through Congress.
And look, if you want to live in a liberal state
like California or Colorado
or New York or Washington State,
and you do have potential criminal liability
under a state legal theory
for violating a state clean air act, right?
You know, it's not ideal,
but at least you have a choice, right?
You could always move to Texas or Louisiana or Florida
or wherever, right?
And so I don't, I'm hopeful.
I'm hopeful about the prospects of future enforcement
because I think that there is a real regret
in the agency and with government employees
about how a large number of these cases were handled.
And they're not going to come right out
and admit it that they were wrong,
but you do see them backing off
a lot of these really extreme policies
that we've seen in the past.
And I think that that's going to stick around.
That's my opinion.
Yeah, that's solid.
I agree with all that.
Common question we get from you guys a lot is,
hey, I need a diesel engine.
I either, you know, I can't wait this long to get one
or normal place I get stuff from it.
It just takes too long or I don't,
they don't have the parts in it that I need.
Maybe my truck's not stock or I tow heavy with it.
I don't want to go back with just a stock engine.
DFC Diesel is a sponsor of the podcast.
We worked with them hand in hand on doing episodes
answering technical questions.
They have a complete lineup of Cummins Duramax
and Powerstroke remanufactured engines
that are set to a standard of ISO 9001 2015 standards,
which is a huge deal in the aftermarket.
And there's certain levels of quality testing validation
that are required for that.
So, you know, when you get one of those engines,
the type of quality that's built behind it
with an industry leading warranty,
that's really comprehensive.
And, you know, the other thing with that is,
you know, sometimes the options that are out there,
it's just, it's a basic OEM engine.
You want a little bit more.
You don't want to have the same failure again.
So, there's a bunch of different series of engines
that they have from core, street, tow haul,
and also the speed of air series,
which we've covered on the podcast before.
There's a lot of really cool benefits to it.
And if you have questions about that, reach out to them.
If you don't know the type of engine that you're looking for,
if you go to dfcdiesel.com,
there's a ton of info there.
You can send an email or you can reach out to them.
Also, they're working with speed of air pistons,
which it's the only piston that pays for itself.
And there's a lot of really cool technology behind it.
So, you can add that into your build
and be able to get better fuel economy,
you know, increased power, increased torque,
and better engine life out of it.
You know, some of the most common engine applications
or series of engines that they have with that lead time,
a lot of them are in stock or they have really short lead times.
So, you can check your favorite retailer or go to dfcdiesel.com,
check them out, see what's in stock, see what you can get.
If you have questions, maybe you want to do, you know,
something that's outside of the normal series of engines,
they have tons of choices for rods, cranks, pistons,
the valve train upgrades, tons of different things.
So, if you're in the market, definitely make sure and hit on over and check them out.
Hey, diesel fans, I wanted to chat with you about diesel fuel.
It's something we've talked about a lot on the podcast
and specifically ways that it can lead to a lot of costly repairs.
And the main reason that we have these issues is a lack of lubricity.
Our friends over at Hotshot Secrets have developed a formula
that boosts performance and then addresses this issue.
So, whether you have an old truck, new one,
something anywhere in between, we all face this issue.
Hotshot's EDT is a 6-in-1 formula, it cleans injectors, boosts C-tane,
and it has four times the lubricity as our leading competitor.
So, it's a great way to be able to stay ahead of the maintenance curve,
avoid those costly repairs, and the best part is it does the work for you.
So, all you do is add it to your regular fuel-up schedule
and it's doing all the heavy lifting.
So, you don't have to worry about some of those issues
that just come with diesel fuel anytime we buy it from the pump.
If you go to HotshotSecret.com, use code dieselpod20,
it'll get you 20% off your order.
We really appreciate the team and our friends over at Hotshot Secrets
offering this discount code just for you guys.
So, if you're in the market, hit on over their website,
use code dieselpod20 and get 20% off your order.
I think one of the big things maybe to pay attention to
of what you just said, Stuart, is in the future it's shifting to the state level,
which it does with other sorts of laws and items.
Yeah, it can be vastly different between states and the federal government.
I think I've done about 850 episodes of these
and I've loved doing all of them except for a handful.
And the ones that I hated doing and would stress out about
would be where I have a guy on talking about how he got a felony
and how he went to prison or was going to prison
or to see the look on his wife's face is basically their family crumbles
or what it was like for their kids to be away from him.
And I hated doing those episodes, but I felt people needed to see that
and needed to hear it.
So, I think the progress that we talked about before,
Stuart, with the change from criminal to civil,
some of the things that have happened have really been encouraging.
Well, I think both sides have to move to the middle, right?
I think if the Trump administration decides
that they're going to pass legislation to make deletes legal
and that we're somehow to get through Congress,
that I think that would make a lot of people happy, right?
But it would also provoke a reaction from a Democratic,
from a Democrat administration in the future.
And I think Corey's talking about, and I really agree with this
and I really value this perspective, Corey's talking about
going to the people who are decision makers with OEM,
with the government, with the aftermarket,
and saying, here are the things that we can do
in order to kind of make everyone happy.
Like, not everybody's always going to be happy, right?
But like, we can meet these emission standards.
We can meet these legal requirements.
We can do all these things and also not compromise
the quality of a vehicle or the reliability of the vehicle.
Corey, as an advocate for the industry,
is willing to go to the middle.
Instead of being, you know, beating on his drum,
deletes should be legal, deletes should be legal.
And I think that liberals or people with the EPA
or Democrats or even environmentalists
should take note of that.
Because I think that that's a big step
in actually getting a functioning policy that works.
Yeah, I agree.
And here's a big kicker that's not being discussed,
but I do think that it will be a topic soon.
I've discussed it with Stu or some.
But the way that these systems are being measured is wrong.
So as wild as this sounds,
having after-treatment in the field
is worse for the environment
than not having after-treatment in the field.
And the reason that that doesn't display
whenever people discuss it is because the EPA,
now NASA, they measure what's called basically LCA.
It's cradle to the grave.
So if a rocket goes up and let's say a redesign of the rocket
could take emissions down by 2% each flight,
then that would be considered a good thing, right?
But if you factor in that the changes
in manufacturing and disposal, et cetera,
of gaining 2% of less emissions on the rocket going up,
if all that manufacturing process would increase it by 20 or 30%,
well, then that 2% has been washed out.
You actually, in the effort of doing good,
the reality is you did bad.
Because you did more environmental harm over here
in creating the systems and maintaining the system,
then you would have actually with it refined.
And then when you factor it into the real world,
and we're talking about the engines have a 50% less life span
than what they generally have because the oil gets diluted,
EG or et cetera, et cetera, all well documented.
Now someone has to go buy a whole new vehicle and start over.
And the argument of EPA would have been correct.
The dirty vehicles off the road
and the new clean vehicles on the road.
But realistically, the cycle had just restarted
and we never factored in any of the manufacturing costs.
The transport from the ships,
the rare earth material extraction from other countries
that have eight year olds doing this work, et cetera, et cetera.
The second part of that is China has a lot of components
in our exhaust systems.
So to be a well regulated militia, we can't even really
fulfill our constitutional duties in total
if a country that we got in a war with
ended up taking and stopping these systems,
we can't legally replace it.
Now the citizens of their own country
are stopped in their tracks.
And we say for what?
For a system that's supposed to be this much cleaner,
it's not that much cleaner.
But the way the EPA's laws are written,
Stuart might correct me or I might butcher this.
So bear with me.
But the way it's written is basically,
EPA can't take into account the LCA, the cradle to the grave.
So like the manufacturing costs, the maintenance fees,
the shipping, they can't address that.
But what they do have to address is,
if it harms the public by any percentage number,
then they have to take action against it.
So if we say that that soot and NOx and hydrocarbons,
everything else are harming humans,
then it would be the EPA's responsibility to reduce that.
And if they reduce that, but they're unwilling to be.
They're picking and choosing, right?
By law, not to interrupt you, but just to find point
on what you're saying right now.
You can pick clean air, right?
You're picking clean air and then you're going to get
all these enforcement actions related to clean air
and all these requirements and all these formal rules
and all these guidance related to clean air.
But if you're not taking the full global impact
into consideration, then it's not actually cleaner, right?
And I want to let you finish your thought,
but I really wanted to make that point,
is that the EPA is picking and choosing the arenas
and the areas in which they're focused their enforcement,
because that's what the law provides.
And they're not necessarily thinking about it
in a global fashion, like you're saying.
Exactly.
And I think Lee Zeldin came out and addressed it pretty clear too.
He said, the agency traditionally says,
well, no one said we can't do that.
So that means we can do that.
So they've taken that roadmap.
But like a DPF, for example, its number one function
is to reduce ash, to reduce soot output.
The EPA likes to call it PM 2.5.
So if we look at a vehicle and say,
well, how much PM 2.5 comes out of it,
they can give you this tons and tons and this and that
and make it sound terrible.
But what they aren't saying is just the wildfire
from Canada in 2023, since Henry Ford made the first vehicle,
all combined emissions, all the way up to our clean standard vehicles,
that one wildfire offset all vehicle emissions by 1,200 years.
So in the grand scheme of things,
are we actually making an impact?
Is this doing anything?
Well, a lot of my friends that are a little older,
they come from the 70s, they're like,
well, we've seen smog and everything else
and we don't want that again.
We fixed that.
I totally agree.
There was probably smog before there was computers.
So modern technology, all the things people are scared of,
the modern engines take care of all of that.
They're already clean enough.
With no emissions, they're plenty clean enough.
They're great.
The question is, is how far was 2,4,
how far did the administration go?
Was it 2020?
Was it going to be 2027, 2035?
We established 2035s off the table.
2027, they already what, they stalled that, didn't they Stu?
They stalled that.
So the question is, how far back do we actually need to go?
My answer to it, support it with data,
is we need to go back to an area
that we didn't have these maintenance systems
that are designed to fail.
They're very expensive and we have to pay shipping
and emissions penalties from all over the country,
along with two to four miles per gallon fuel penalties for vehicle.
So it's like, where's the balancing act?
And I think that's where the administration's at,
but from what they're doing,
I think they're really starting to understand
that they're making the environment worse
by forcing the emission systems to be there,
while all of our adversaries from Canada,
or not adversaries, but people from Canada and Russia and China,
are still taking advantage of this system
when they came in at their heaviest hand of enforcement,
which was the Biden era.
That's the nastiest they've ever enforced.
Post enforcement, the elites went up 3X.
So that means with 60% of the shops in America getting smashed,
we allowed our other countries to get this into America
and grow the problem 3X after nasty enforcement against Americans.
So if even the most good-hearted environmentalists came out
and said, well, we need to enforce harder,
you did, you made the problem three times worse
and you shut down the American companies.
So I think we have to get more in a realistic terms
of how can we do this balancing act?
And it worked for everybody and makes sense on paper as well.
Yeah, and I think that China, I mean, China's got a lot of problems
and they're not a model society, but one thing that they're doing
is in order to combat their pollution problem,
they are building absolutely the world's best electric cars.
And before long, I don't know how long it's going to be a decade,
two decades.
I just got up there and I was just like, oh my god, thank you, thank you.
And then I heard someone, anyone please help.
So he's like Superman being able to carry me off the mount.
The award-winning Tell Me What Happened podcast from OnStar is back.
New emergencies, new heroes.
Find out what happens in season six of Tell Me What Happened.
Out now.
There's not going to be any gasoline vehicles in China.
Not because you don't need them for anything or not because they're not cheap or whatever,
but because the electric vehicles are going to be so good and so cheap
that they're just not going to need them.
And I'm not suggesting that this is the model that the US should use.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because there's different ways to combat environmental
problems.
And just because the EPA had an idea of how to do it in 2008 or 2012 or 2020
when Biden was elected or whatever, doesn't make it the right one.
And you've got to have a wide breadth of interpretation of what impacts the environment
in order to have a full picture.
And if you don't have a full picture, you might temporarily improve the environment,
but it's not going to work long term.
Nailed it. Nailed it.
Cory, remember back in the day on like Duramax Forum or Diesel Place or Cummins Forum,
like 15 years ago, people would be talking about that.
Like they'd be talking about like the cost of DPFs and catalytic converters and all this stuff.
And they would make a big deal about it.
And I'm like, and I think that's the evolution of it.
It's for it to go from what end users were talking about in 2012, 2010,
to now having these conversations at the highest levels.
I think that's the growth that the people wanted to see.
Yeah, yeah.
And it's happening.
And the thing is, is like, when I tell people like this, a lot of the guys at the top,
like they get it, they really, they really do get it.
You know, some of these guys are formers and ranchers that have been this administration.
They've had problems themselves.
So before it was like, I always had to try to sell that it was actually a problem.
The biggest difference now is I'm not having to sell that it's a problem
because they know it's a problem.
It's more so looking for solutions and how can we remedy this?
And from a technical and engineering perspective,
what's realistic and what can be done?
And we're being very honest and truthful on those fronts.
And I'm not shooting to have the whole Wild Wild West.
I think that we need to have a standard.
I don't want dirty.
I don't want to be sitting at a red light and smelling people's nonsense.
You know what I mean?
Like, nobody wants that.
So they're like, like Stuart was saying, there has to be a middle ground here.
There needs to be a legitimate standard.
People should be able to meet the standard without spending $20,000 in emissions testing,
you know, in California or Detroit.
You should be able to do reasonable basis emissions testing.
And I can't talk about it.
One of the most ridiculous things of the entire enforcement era
was just mandatory car testing.
Just absolutely the absolute pinnacle of government inefficiency.
That is what decimated us in the last five years.
What was that?
It's just unbelievable that that would even be a possibility.
That you have to send your products to one lab in California
that's backed up for three years and you have to pay $20,000 to get one tune tested
and that one tune or that one exhaust or that one DPF system
or that one injector or whatever it is can't be sold in the entire state of California.
And then it must only apply for one specific engine group.
Even if you changed one bolt in one turbo and it's not, I mean, just like it's a it's a farce.
Yes, it's a farce.
It's a total parody of the idea of government overreach.
It is the high speed rail of our industry.
Yeah, and that and that requirement alone.
I mean, if you could get aftermarket tuning, testing and aftermarket product testing done
for a reasonable amount or you could do it yourselves like the FDA does for all their drugs,
right? $7,500 bridge tool must sell as a dyno to do our own testing.
So it's like, I know.
And if you could do that yourself and you could sell products,
it would just be, you know, it would be so much better.
Yes.
But but instead you let I hate the word bureaucrats because my dad was a bureaucrat,
but he was not really a bureaucrat.
He was one of the one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, conscientious people that I know.
And I'm not just saying that because he's my dad.
I'm saying it because I live with them for, you know, I've known in my entire life.
But but it is bureaucracy at its worst and really that's the part that I'm hoping doesn't go back
to where it was because there's just no reason for it.
And the only thing it does is make people miserable and make them hate the government.
Yeah.
Just like just like what they did, like I was saying earlier,
the heaviest enforcement ever made the problem worse and made Americans miserable and put them in
jail. It just doesn't work.
It just doesn't work.
This was a really, really good conversation.
I love to have both you guys on and covering this topic.
I had a couple of questions I wanted to throw out before we wrap up from the audience.
I thought these were good and you guys kind of touched on them during this conversation.
I think the first one's kind of right down your lane, Stuart.
But for shops that are openly advertising deletes already,
what is the potential blowback if there's an administrative change in the future?
I've gotten probably five new civil enforcement in the last month and a half or two months.
New enforcement agents, same exact thing that Corb was talking about on either on a podcast
or maybe on social media about it being able to ruin your life.
Do not underestimate the power of the civil division of the EPA.
They may be wounded, but they are not.
They're like a wounded animal.
I mean, they're dangerous.
Frankly, look, if you're going to advertise deletes right now, you deserve it.
You deserve to be enforced on and you deserve to pay a big fat penalty.
All the same rules still apply that we were talking about before,
where you have the inability to pay provision and all that good stuff.
You don't really have to worry about, at least right now, the criminal side coming back.
I don't think that you're going to have to worry about that, at least for quite some time unless
something changes with the legislation. But if you're openly advertising deletes,
the EPA will find you and they will sue you. That's the reality of the situation.
The Trump administration, I've had lots of conversations with people in the Trump
administration and the EPA very high up, regional administrators, and they don't have any
tolerance for that. We've got to do something, right?
And to be fair to the industry or to be fair to the government with regard to the industry,
in the early days when it was kind of like the Wild West, they had to do something and that's
when all the consent decrees started happening and all the RFIs started going out. There's
still civil liability. There's no guarantee that criminal liability is going to go away forever.
We believe it should under the current theory, but it would be just as easy for the EPA to make a
formal rule or pass a law that says, mobile source tampering is a felony.
A specific law that says that, like they're doing on the state level and get you in just as much
trouble. So don't do it. Cory knows better than I do. At least I've made money from people
believing vehicles. Cory has not made money from people believing vehicles and he can tell you
about the horror stories. They're not going away. I've gotten several new clients in the last couple
months on civil side enforcement. So don't do it. Yeah, definitely. I'm with Stu on that. It's like
we're working to change all this and get things fixed and hopefully it happens. But the biggest
deal is, until that happens, the EPA still has a responsibility to uphold their duties. And that
unfortunately is part of their duties. So if you're openly doing this and think it's the Wild
West just because we're hopeful on things changing, when it happens to you, don't cry about it. This
is not a secret. We've been very public and open about this. And realistically going out and blowing
smoke and doing stupid stuff or acting like a rebel online, it does not help what we're doing
whatsoever in the least bit. But again, a lot of that I'm seeing come from folks that are
you know, not even really in America too much and acting like they're in America. So again,
it's our, I say adversaries, but it's not necessarily adversaries, but it's every other
country that's in America making it look fine American flags. We're your go-to shop here,
American made and it's just not. So if you see a ton of people online advertising and you think
it's the Wild Wild West, that could be another country just doing it in this country. Do not
get comfortable. I wouldn't do it. I flat out would not do it. This next one kind of goes
in line with that and it might be right down your alley, Stuart. But someone asked, could
enforcement on owners or the end user become a thing one day? Now, I wanted to switch it because
I know we've talked about the EPA not doing it, but what about the states? Enforcement on end users
is just practically impossible from a resource perspective. I hate to say that because I don't
want to encourage people to buy or drive deleted vehicles unless they absolutely have to, which
is it does happen in certain circumstances. If you're in certain areas of the country or you just
don't have another option. End user liability is really hard to prove. Most people would say, hey,
I just bought this vehicle. It was deleted and then they might be able to find somebody at a
dealership that sold it. But even under the most oppressive enforcement of the Biden administration,
they were not conducting enforcement on end users. I've had a lot of shops ask me if they can work
on deleted vehicles. I have advised my clients that it's my position that they are not going to
get an enforcement action for that anymore, because it's impossible not to work on deleted
vehicles. And as long as they're not installing the deletes, they can do the work on the deleted
vehicles. That used to be a big thing with the EPA that just never really went anywhere.
But end user liability, is it ever going to be a problem? Who knows. Is it going to be a problem
with a new Democrat administration? If that happens in the next four, eight or 12 years,
probably not. Can I ask you a question? I can add a little to that too. Like what we're going for
right now, which language needs to change in the federal side of things. But if we got it back to
local enforcement, then whenever you go to actually get an inspection sticker for your vehicle,
if it doesn't pass the smog test, you know, rather than sending you thresholds for smog
whatever, but if it doesn't pass that test, then theoretically your vehicle would be illegal to
drive from the get-go, which would eliminate a lot of the federal government having to deal with
this. If they could actually go back and deal with it like Windows 10, you know, like inspection
stickers, for example. And if it passes there, then great, you get to drive it. If not, and you
got an inspection sticker and a cop pulls you over and your city, your state, you know, takes
that seriously, then you should get the ticket for it. That's what I would advocate for, or am
advocating for more than anything, is let the states and local departments handle what's best
for their, for their place. But I do understand that that takes new language, you know, up at the
top. So that's where Congress and Senate, you know, they all got to get involved and do it. But
likewise, 200 signatures to get us there. And I don't think that's too out of reach, honestly.
Can I ask you a follow-up question, Stuart, with in regards to that?
Is, say if we take the ATF, and there's certain products that have been sold, where I don't know
if people ever caught felonies off of it, but they would visit individual people with a specific
trigger that might have been an issue or whatever it might have been. So we've seen it happen
individually with other departments. Is that just because of the scale? Like it's a much smaller
scale to get, I don't know, say 5,000 particular widgets, you know, away from people, if it's in
regards to say the ATF, whereas we're talking trucks probably in the millions, where it's just,
it's too big to be a person. No, I think it has to do with the nature of a firearm.
I think that the scope might be relevant. But I think that for the ATFs, for their mandate,
which is to regulate alcohol, tobacco, and firearms within the scope of what Congress provides,
I think that what you see there is what they would consider to be more of a public safety
issue than pollution. And probably they have an internal document or an internal mandate that
says that they're going to focus on that, almost like a compliance initiative, right? Maybe one
year it triggers, every four years it changes, four years it triggers its oppressors, another is,
you know, bump stocks and, you know, whatever, whatever might be in the news at that time.
But my gut, not knowing too much about the ATF and what they're, what they do,
my gut would be that that more has to do with a public safety issue than it does, than pollution
does. Okay, that makes sense. I was just curious about that. Yeah. This last one is for you, Corey,
and this person asks, is there really not a loophole for race vehicles, farm vehicles, et cetera?
And he expanded on that. And so a lot of people believe, or there's this pervasive rumor,
that there's some sort of loophole that exists for a race truck or something that's operating on a
farm. There's, for a vehicle, for like a mobile source vehicle, like, you know, like our pickups
and stuff? Yeah. No, there's no loophole right now that I'm aware of. I'm not aware of any loopholes.
But the only, and really, even on the ag side, there's not necessarily, I don't think,
I can't get it inked well enough to, that if I was someone that worked on tractors or did any of
that stuff, that I would be comfortable enough to come out and perform a delete or get rid of the
system and do the paperwork that it's a temporary override, there's, there could be a loophole for
that just because the language was written so broad. But it's, in my opinion, still very risky.
As far as our pickups, I'm unaware of any loopholes in existence whatsoever. Now, to say there won't
be one in the future, I don't know. But as of right now, I don't know. Is it a real race truck?
Oh, it's not a real race truck. Like, not a race waiver race truck, but a real race truck that
you're trailering to and from the track. Yes, there's a loophole. Like, you can do that. Well,
the loophole, though, it can't have a current loophole. If we got on just language, it can't
have a reverse gear. Right. It can't have, so they have language for it. But the language is
actually so outdated that race cars and pro mods now have reverse gears. That's what I mean. That
whenever I was dealing with it, because I was heavy in the race car thing, I had to freaking
sell my race car over this, they were telling me anything on the engine or anything that was once
certified must have to stay the same way. So whenever I was that's Borla exhaust EPA finding.
Okay. Have you read that? Or no, no, it's it's from a couple of years ago. I want to say maybe
2022 and it is the EPA's magnum opus on what is actually I'll send it to you Corey. Yeah. What is
actually like constitutes a race vehicle, what doesn't constitute a race vehicle, what the
exceptions are and everything. They there's no loophole. Like, look, if you have a genuine
race vehicle that you're not driving on the road, even if it has a reverse gear, the EPA is not going
to enforce on you. Yeah. If you have a vehicle that you're saying is a race vehicle and it's
registered and you're driving it on the road or you're selling parts for it to drive on the road,
you're going to get busted. Right. And that's that. I mean, but Corey is right. There's no
there is no loophole in the sense that your listener is as referring to it. Right. There's
no race vehicle loophole that lets me sell 10,000 tunes next year for race vehicles that that
doesn't exist. So Corey is Corey is 100% right about this. The loopholes that that would be
in consideration are, I mean, they are genuine, genuine, like emergency vehicles,
true race vehicles, farm equipment that is not operational that you need to temporarily
modify. That stuff is like, I mean, nationwide over the course of an entire year, you might be
talking about 2000 vehicles a year. Totally. Yeah. And a lot of times people, you know,
I see it in the comments all the time and they're like, well, why don't you just go to Canada and
open a company or do this and that? Dude, if I wanted to do that, I could have been had that
done years ago. I've been international for a long time. The thing is, is that's not a real loophole.
Realistically, there's people in America that found out the hard way that's that's still not a
loophole. They will hold you responsible in America for the things that are shipped in America
that you're dealing with. So like the out of country loophole, I've seen a lot of citizens
that are non citizens that are selling here that that downstream of them, the Americans
got in trouble, but at the top, they still weren't able to touch them. So if you're an American
citizen, the next loophole, someone says, well, why don't you just team up with a company up there
and then they own it? Like the very most basic low level thing ever that anyone could think of in
their mom's basement. And they're like, okay, that's protected because I'm hands off. No, you're
not. You're not hands off. You're you've got old text, old Facebook messages. You've got all the
information they need to show. You were involved with that getting here. Yeah, that's right.
So that that's the loophole people ask me about probably almost daily. And now it's addressed.
They're still they're still enforcing on foreign countries, companies too. Oh, nice. Nice. So
they're still hitting that. They're still hitting that civil side. I'm aware of a couple new cases.
So, you know, they they going after the the other the company in the other country yet.
Okay, so that's that's new to me. I don't know. I don't know whether or not it's going to be
effective, right? Because they because in if we're talking about Canada, for example, there's a lot
of Canadian companies, there there has to be what's called dual illegality. So it has to be
illegal in Canada and in the US for it to be okay. And in a lot of areas of Canada, deletes are not
Canadian parliament, which has gone way further left as we've gone further right.
Canadian parliament is supposed to be making a federalized delete rule. So, oh, yeah,
I didn't even know that. Okay. Yeah. And it's supposed to be coming out within the next like
year. So I don't know when that's going to happen. But if that does happen, that is going to curtail
a lot of behavior, because the Canadians aren't worried about the the impact of the American
enforcement, because there's not it's not illegal in both places. So there's no extradition.
And there's no other material impact besides what they're selling. And that that's a that'd be a
good one for future. I'm not I don't know how many of your listeners care about that, Patrick, but
a podcast about like foreign influence in like American emissions would make for a pretty
interesting podcast. Very interesting. Very cool, guys. Well, I know you guys are both really
busy. I appreciate you taking the time to align your schedules today to talk about this. It was
really insightful. One of my favorite podcasts. I appreciate the insights and the look at just
D. F. But emissions, how things are progressing to really kind of set the record straight. So
thanks again, guys. Absolutely. Happy to come on. Same. Thanks for having me on. Don't forget
diesel fans. Make sure and head on over to kershaw.kaiusa.com. Use code 20 TD 8 FR 26 to get 20%
off your order. Kershaw has got a whole lineup of knives to meet any budget that you might have,
whether it's a new knife or EDC hunting, fishing, something around the job site around the house,
they've got you covered with a bunch of different choices for blade steel, blade shape, different
handle designs, opening mechanisms, and you also get free shipping over $50. So we really appreciate
them offering that discount code just for diesel podcast listeners. Also want to give a shout out
to some of our Patreon supporters, Robert, John, TSW diesel, all of our other Patreon supporters,
all of you who follow us on social media. We appreciate all your support here in your 10 of
the diesel podcast and look forward to bringing you more of the content that you want to hear in
2026. Till next time, keep the shiny side up.
About this episode
EPA guidance on DEF urea quality sensors (UQS) is framed as potentially reducing derate events, but the guests argue it doesn’t equal legal “DEF delete” freedom. Lawyer Stuart explains the EPA issued March 26 guidance and intends formal rulemaking to stop mandating unreliable UQS sensors, relying more on NOx sensors instead. Corey Willis (tuning/engineering) says real-world impact is limited: ECU modeling, possible check-engine behavior, and no clear aftermarket path. They also debate enforcement trends, consequential damages, state-level shifts, and why “loopholes” for race/ag use are narrow and risky.
The EPA recently announced changes to DEF systems on diesel engines.
Social media was ablaze with talk of deletes being legal. Kory Willis
from PPEI and Attorney Stewart Cables explain what happened and what it
means for diesel truck owners. We also ask listeners questions about
loopholes for deletes, why some shops are marketing them, and more.
Stewart D. Cables is a founding partner of Hassan + Cables. Stewart
specializes in general business representation and a variety of trial
work. Stewart's practice areas include complex civil litigation,
employment law, criminal and DUI defense, transactional work for
corporations and LLCs, and counsel for non-profit entities.
Stewart Cables
E: [email protected]
P: 303-625-1025 ext.2
https://www.hassancables.com/stewart-d-cables
--------------------------------
Disclaimer: This video is for general information purposes only. It is
not intended to provide legal advice of any kind. No one should act, or
refrain from acting, based solely upon the information provided on this
podcast, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional
advice.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
