Merry Xmas from the EPA

truckbouy2 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:08 am

I find the perils and demise (out-sourcing) of American manufacturing a most distressing adventure, with as I see it, a simple yet unachievable solution to a VERY serious issue. Accountants, Auditors, Financial Officers, all a very important part of doing business, but in their PRESENT form, they are the death knell
of our factories. Back in the "Olden Times" I was a buyer for an agricultural based manufacturing company. At the yearly inventory audit I would have the Auditors in my office asking questions that I thought they were pullin' my chain... I gave a impromptu lesson to two of them on how a screw (not that kind) and a nut works and just what they are used for and why. These two were serious. This went on as long as they were on site. You should here my wire lecture, it'll break your heart.
Now MY solution... Most of these viable parts (A, A, FO's) of industry have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how the assembly line works or for that matter, what all those frickin' little parts are THOSE people are putting on. If you want to be a Financial officer, you work on the line for 4 years. Then you'll know what all those little parts are and that they don't just magically appear because of a real rip snorting asset/debit pie chart....

Ranger1 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:40 pm **Posts:** 1137

I'll venture briefly off-topic here to say that the problem with manufacturing outsourcing, due solely to economic factors, is now so serious that it has hampered our nations ability to produce military vehicles with US produced components. In the repair of HMMV's, it turns out that so many have been damaged by IED's that they are now sitting on hundreds of acres in the midwest, while contractors are working to rebuild, salvage or scrap what they can. The repairs have been hampered by the lack of skilled machining companies, formerly located in the Ohio, Illinois and surrounding areas. The report I saw, showed that the ripple effect of Detroit's outsourcing to China had caused the closure of 80% of these smaller machine tool plants since 1990, and with it the loss of approximately 75,000 skilled machinists. The DOD contractor was unable to find enough companies and skilled machinists to perform the work and had to setup temporary repair facilities onsite, and in some cases, under canvas tents just to complete the work.

I think the final statistic that absolutely floored me was the recent sale of the single remaining US owned, steel plant that produces military armor quality steel, within the last 18 months, to a Dutch company. There were 2 remaining 18 months ago, the other was sold to a Russian company. Again, outsourcing castings to China and other non US steel companies contributed somewhat to this situation. The business community in the US has focused on economic efficiency to the point that national interests have been relegated to secondary importance.

huxrules · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:11 am

Not only are the jobs going overseas but the actual parts in the factories are too. There is a booming buisness in "project cargo" where oversized pieces of American factories are placed on ships and sent to China. So not only don't we have the workers- we dont have the machines to build anything with. If a total war were to begin- that is a war in which economic production is key- we would first have to first rebild the factories- then all the tools- and then the workers. We would be "boned".

vtdog · **Joined:** Fri Sep 30, 2005 11:27 am **Posts:** 640

The EPA can be and is a pain in the rear end (and not of the car's)

However, if you get a chance to spend some time in other parts of the world where there are no pollution regulations you quickly realize (with each breath) how much good the EPA regs actually do.

Unfortunately, indrustry is not altruistic and will act only in its best interest to maximize profit. Thus, govt regulations must be implimented to get compainies to do the "right" thing. This means, of course, that there will always be a deadline date for change. Change is hard and harder on some (the line workers). However, govt regulations spread the pain as they level the playing field and force everyone to spend the time and money to comply with the new regs. It is the poor planning on the part of management that causes the layoffs, not the regulations themselves.

This above is a good example of why neither Libertarianism, or Socialism work. People, in general, are greedy a-holes and will work to their own interest to the detriment of others. So, expecting an egalitarian society where everyone is equal, or one in which no governmental intervention is needed to protect the general population is foolish.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:25 am

huxrules wrote:

Not only are the jobs going overseas but the actual parts in the factories are too. There is a booming buisness in "project cargo" where oversized pieces of American factories are placed on ships and sent to China. So not only don't we have the workers- we dont have the machines to build anything with. If a total war were to begin- that is a war in which economic production is key- we would first have to first rebild the factories- then all the tools- and then the workers. We would be "boned".

I think we have enough F16, Hornet and Raptur parts. Those fly boys could keep the "axis" busy. I don't see there every being a total war again as you say. If it came to that, better get some SPF 1000 sun screen.

Jeger · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:11 am

I
USED
to be a machinist in ohio but a lack of work shut down our shop.

But now I work in a foundry making parts for jet aircraft engines, mostly commercial, but we will go military if the need arises.

There are still companies that can fill the old shoes in an emergency, but are the few left enough to carry a bid demand?

I hope you dont get killed by the bean counters Mitch.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:16 am

Jeger, remember in the WW2 when the whole country pulled together. Car plants started making planes and the like. That is what beat down the axis. They couldn't keep up. Even when they torpedoed a Liberty ship, had another one rolling off in 6 days. When push comes to shove, the American people take care of their own. Free enterprise does have some drawbacks, depending on which side of it you look at.

Ranger1 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:40 pm **Posts:** 1137

I should add that the steel I was referring to is special grade of steel for heavy armored vehicles, i.e., Bradley tanks, ASV's, and some MRAP style vehicles, which require blast resistant properties. The steels are not the average run of the mill steels that a Nucor would normally produce, although I suppose they could given time. Congress recently requested a special delivery priority designation on these steel orders and components, which would normally give priority to US military orders over commercial customers - but they are now discovering that foreign owned companies do not have the same regard for that priority designation. Congress did this after discovering that armored vehicle deliveries were being delayed due to steel production priority of normal commercial interests outweighing military manufacturing orders.

My point in all of this is that there are many unintended consequences of outsourcing everything in sight to overseas firms. Perhaps we should rethink our economic strategy.

I'll leave the subject now so that this thread is not completely off-track.

KJbob · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:41 am

Jeger wrote:

I hope you dont get killed by the bean counters Mitch.

We don't kill you; we question you into submission.

Reminds me of something a Plant Controller said to me when I was a "wet behing the ears" auditor for an international public accounting firm. He said the auditors are the guys who, after the war has been fought and lost, walk around the battlefield and bayonet the wounded.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:49 am

We're getting way off the original topic on this thread. Personally, I enjoy a good discussion that goes where it may, but the direction this thread has went I imagine Darby and Walt would be hard put to justify not moving it to the General or Open Discussion area.

We're in the process of finishing up the '06 trucks that were on the books prior to the cutoff date, using '04 EPA engines. At the same time, they're starting to feed in more and more '07 EPA engines into the mix.

As they draw down the supply of '04 engines and parts, it's becoming a real challenge to finish building the last of the '06 trucks. They're having to modify engines on the fly to the correct configuration for a particular truck. Last night I documented more parts shortages in one shift on the engine line than I normally would in six months. For one particular fleet, they even ran out of the correct length battery cables and engine oil fill tubes.

This can cause unintended problems down the line. On the trucks where the oil fill tubes were short, they were unable to fill the engines with oil and run the trucks, so they had to be towed off the line out into the yard. On one particular truck, the yard jockey, for whatever reason, didn't realize the engine on this truck didn't have any oil in it, jumped in and fired it up to move it to another area of the plant, ended up seizing and completely trashing the engine.

toos · **Posted:** Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:32 am

I'm curious what, if any, effect ULSD fuel will have on truck engines? I seem to recall when they changed to low sulfur years ago (1993?) there were engine reliability problems caused by the lower sulfur content in diesel. With everyone buying new trucks to beat the EPA regulations, I wonder what the cost will be if the ULSD fuel ends up reducing the life of the engines. Perhaps they will need to go back to triple shifts to replace the engines that die prematurely because they are not ULSD compliant. Just a thought....

I can see the need for EPA regs, but I too wonder if survival as a country by reducing the dependence on foreign oil through domestic biodiesel and the increase in mileage that diesel gives is more important than trying to fix LA's smog problems. As someone else noted, we are sending our petro-dollars overseas to our enemies, who are eagerly spending it trying to find ways to kill us. We may end up breathing nice, sulfur free, strontium 90 filled air thanks to the short sightedness of EPA and our current sandal wearing Congress. Then again, they want you to drive a Prius and move close to a trolley line that will cost about $200M per mile to construct with your tax dollars. (If you think I'm exaggerating, read about the Washington DC Metro extension to Dulles Airport). Sorry, can't help myself. Enjoy your Jeeps while you can, just wait for the SUV taxes to come next. Why worry about diesel engines?

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:09 pm

It's not the fuel that will really affect the engines.

If you looked at an '07 Detroit Diesel, it looks like a gigantic version of our 2.8 L engine. Same emissions controls and hardware, with only 2 differences - they can still run an open CCV (albeit with an oil separator in line), and they have a particulate filter that is so large it takes a separate crane to lift it into the frame rail.

As RFCRD has noted from his experience, this is what is going to kill these engines - increased soot inside the engine from the EGR, and problems with the particulate filter.

Increased operating costs for the trucking industry are going to mean increased costs for the rest of the economy. But it seems the government has come up with another bright idea to minimize this effect.

They're once again trying to push a pilot program to allow Mexican trucking companies, who don't have to meet our environmental regs, safety standards, NHTSA regs and weight limits, driver training requirements, and pay their drivers peanuts in comparison to the average pay for U.S. truckers, to operate on this side of the border.

They tried pushing this before when NAFTA was first introduced, but Congress slammed the door on it until the Mexican trucking industry could meet our standards. They haven't moved one iota towards meeting our standards since, but once again they're pushing the same program.

BiodieselJeep.com · **Posted:** Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:27 pm

ULSD will have enough lubricity. Remember, they know that this is a concern.

The regs will be the killer, and are completely assinine when you consider that our biggest neighbor (MEX) is doing business with us under no such obligations. CA is ridiculous with regs hurting trucking businesses, meanwhile Mexico huals freight to and from that state all day. Basically, CA is going to force all the hualing business south of the border. Soon all trucks will be registered in Mexico, just like all ships are registered in Liberia or whatever.

That said, particulates are not nice to breath in and very bad for your lungs, your kids, and your weather. Avoid breathing in Mexico.

Joe Romas · **Posted:** Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:43 pm

BiodieselJeep.com wrote:

ULSD will have enough lubricity. Remember, they know that this is a concern.

That said, particulates are not nice to breath in and very bad for your lungs, your kids, and your weather. Avoid breathing in Mexico.

Somewhere spinning around on one of my 6 hard drives is a pdf file of a EPA report showing a study where they found the particulates from gasoline engines are much smaller but more abundent and more harmfull to our lungs. They thought going in that it would be 75% diesel and 25% gasoline. As it turned out it was the reverse. Maybe someone has the epa link.

CHessMaster · **Posted:** Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:10 am

Joe Romas wrote:

BiodieselJeep.com wrote:

ULSD will have enough lubricity. Remember, they know that this is a concern.

That said, particulates are not nice to breath in and very bad for your lungs, your kids, and your weather. Avoid breathing in Mexico.

Somewhere spinning around on one of my 6 hard drives is a pdf file of a EPA report showing a study where they found the particulates from gasoline engines are much smaller but more abundent and more harmfull to our lungs. They thought going in that it would be 75% diesel and 25% gasoline. As it turned out it was the reverse. Maybe someone has the epa link.

As the saying goes, "Out of sight, out of mind". This seems especially true for environmentalists. Just do a little research on emissions from burning alcohol in engines (can you say formaldehyde) and you'll see what I mean! But the government is pushing for that right now.....

(EDIT) Just found this today!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/26/bush.automakers.ap/

Merry Xmas from the EPA

Who is online