To Delete or Not To Delete,
By Dian Kohoutek, CPPA
August 11, 2023
Tampering with emission control systems is explicitly prohibited in most Canadian provinces; Alberta being a notable exception. However, there exists a general lack of regulatory means to enforce this prohibition. Currently, inspection and maintenance programs are the sole regulatory levers with some potential to address tampering in Canada. Unfortunately, these programs, operational only in British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec, primarily focus on identifying maintenance-related issues and aren’t designed to deter tampering.
In light of this, equipment owners often resort to emission deletes as a means to mitigate maintenance challenges. Nevertheless, such practices clash with Canadian legislation, which categorically deems tampering with emission control systems illegal. Emission deletes involve removing or altering emissions components such as Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF), Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF), and Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) systems. These alterations extend beyond mere mechanical adjustments, as they circumvent Federal regulations, potentially leading to substantial fines and legal consequences.
To comprehend the rationale behind equipment owners choosing to delete emissions systems from their units, we must look into some of the reasons:
1. Less maintenance. The accumulation of ash in Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) that fails to burn during regeneration necessitates cleaning every approximately 200,000 km. The deactivation or removal of the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system eliminates the need for Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF), translating to an annual cost reduction ranging between CA$ 1,500 and CA$ 3,000 based on typical DEF consumption rates. To circumvent this, rigorous and consistent maintenance of tanks, heaters, and nozzles becomes essential. (However, this financial incentive comes at the expense of environmental compliance and adherence to regulations.)
2. Common belief that a deleted vehicle can potentially achieve higher mileage.
3. Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) systems, required to lower engine-out NOx emissions, can inadvertently reduce fuel efficiency. Additionally, Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) can negatively impact fuel consumption due to periodic regenerations and backpressure generated in the exhaust. (Modern engines, however, mitigate these negative effects through precise calibration and an increased reliance on SCR systems, which preserve fuel efficiency.)
4. Expectation of increased power in a deleted vehicle.
5. Perception that it can prolong the engine’s lifespan.
6. Underestimation of government oversight for smaller operators.
7. Unique challenges posed by the Canadian climate, including DEF crystallization in exhaust systems due to extended idling for cabin heating, especially in colder regions, accelerating maintenance needs.
While some of these reasons may hold merit, particularly for older vehicles, deleted vehicles also face notable challenges:
1. Deletion procedures are costly and complex, demanding professional execution.
2. Deletion is illegal, dissuading most shops from undertaking such tasks.
3. Deleting a newer vehicle can potentially void the warranty.
4. Authorized dealerships might decline repairs on deleted vehicles.
5. Authorized dealerships refrain from accepting deleted vehicles in trade unless the vehicles are restored to their stock standard condition, necessitating expensive and intricate procedures.
From an equipment appraisal perspective, deleted vehicles encounter hurdles in the resale market due to compromised value and their legal status. Potential buyers exercise caution, apprehensive about deleted trucks owing to legal implications and future maintenance concerns. Dealerships face constraints when selling such vehicles, often limiting options to private sales. The scarcity of servicing choices for deleted trucks further complicates the appraisal process. While a limited pool of buyers remain willing to acquire deleted vehicles, their numbers are diminishing, especially for newer vehicles that boast improved emissions control systems.
In essence, while the temptation to delete emission systems might stem from perceived benefits, it’s crucial to consider the broader implications. The convenience of reduced DEF consumption and potential fuel efficiency gains must be balanced against legal ramifications, decreased resale value, limited servicing options, and increased maintenance demands. As the trucking industry continues to evolve, embracing emissions-compliant technologies and practices remains a prudent and sustainable approach.