DPF's

[markjay]

I am not sure I understand where this discussion is going.

It is true that DPF appears to be a misapplied technology, giving car owners much grief.

And yet regardless of particle size etc, breathing what comes out of a car's exhaust can't be good? Surely anything the reduces emissions is a welcome step?

(CO2 is the odd one out, as it is probably the only type of emissions which is 100% safe for humans as long as it does not reduce oxygen levels in confined space?)

 

[Dieselman]

(CO2 is the odd one out, as it is probably the only type of emissions which is 100% safe for humans as long as it does not reduce oxygen levels in confined space?)

Co2 is what is going to get us all due to the climate changing. Increasing it unnecessarily is a bad idea.

The emissions from a diesel exhaust are not worth bothering about, for example, you can't gas yourself with a diesel engine.
We should be concentrating on improving efficiency, not reducing it.

All a DPF does is ensure the inside of the tailpipe remains clean and uses more fuel. the DPF has to regenerate eventually so blows out all the particles it has stored up. It doesn't reduce them at all.

 

[markjay]

I think the issue here is about the potential damage to human health through breathing.

There is no doubt that the making and running of a motor vehicles generate huge amount of environmental damage through production, servicing (oil changes), the refining of fuel, car batteries, etc etc, and yes there's the CO2 emissions from both the engines themselves and from every factory and car dealerships that is involved in the automotive trade.

 

[whitenemesis]

It as already been commented that larger PM10 don't pass through the lung wall, so diesel particulates are unlikely to transmit much of these pollutants.

Animal experiments have been carried out, but the smoke concentration is far higher than real life.

The particulates don't have to pass through the lung membrane, they simply carry the contaminants to the membrane which then dissolves them from the particle surface and so transports it into the bloodstream.

 

[Geoff A]

I am not sure I understand where this discussion is going.

Me too - I'm not entirely sure what the OP is trying to say, or is it just a rant about legislation on vehicles powered by a fuel he has no interest in?

 

[grober]

Me too - I'm not entirely sure what the OP is trying to say, or is it just a rant about legislation on vehicles powered by a fuel he has no interest in?

Simply saying that removing a device that European legislation has now made mandatory from a diesel motor vehicle may be socially irresponsible?? i.e. exhibits disregard for the well being of your fellow citizens. The vehicle I presently drive is irrelevant to the argument. That's a bit like saying you can't have an opinion on racial prejudice unless you are black. It's quite possible, even likely, in the future I will purchase a diesel vehicle but I have concluded somewhat reluctantly removing the catalytic converter on my present petrol car or the diesel particulate filter on any " future" diesel car I may own is "on balance" not a good thing for society in general despite their undoubted technical short comings which I can fully understand owners are frustrated with . I have tried to illustrate that by direct reference to refereed published evidence--- the replies disagreeing with me have been somewhat scant in that aspect of their argument so I'm not sure who is doing the ranting [ if any exists] here.

 

[Geoff A]

Thanks Graeme. And I guess it depends on the individual's conscience. Drinking can be viewed as socially irresponsible too.
There's a huge amount of vehicles out there without DPFs (pre-legislation) from cars, vans, lorries, tractors, plant - so there's a long way to go before things get 'cleaned up'.
I haven't yet took the DPF off my '05 C270 - I don't think its a legal requirement on a car of its age, but someone will no doubt correct me. But better mpg and performance do appeal, though I'm not sure I can be bothered with the hassle of it. I don't think my DPF includes a DOC (diesel oxidation catalyst) and its not tied into the ECU either.

You may be interested to know that Japanese construction kit maker Komatsu has just announced it will carry out complimentary replacement of DPFs on its own EU Stage IIIb compliant machines for the first five years/9,000 hours. Though it is limited to two DPFs. So here's a manufacturer accepting responsibility for them. It'll be built into the price of the kit though, I'm sure.

 

[whitenemesis]

I didn't know they fitted DPF to the 270!

 

[grober]

Thanks Graeme. And I guess it depends on the individual's conscience. Drinking can be viewed as socially irresponsible too.
There's a huge amount of vehicles out there without DPFs (pre-legislation) from cars, vans, lorries, tractors, plant - so there's a long way to go before things get 'cleaned up'.
I haven't yet took the DPF off my '05 C270 - I don't think its a legal requirement on a car of its age, but someone will no doubt correct me. But better mpg and performance do appeal, though I'm not sure I can be bothered with the hassle of it. I don't think my DPF includes a DOC (diesel oxidation catalyst) and its not tied into the ECU either.

You may be interested to know that Japanese construction kit maker Komatsu has just announced it will carry out complimentary replacement of DPFs on its own EU Stage IIIb compliant machines for the first five years/9,000 hours. Though it is limited to two DPFs. So here's a manufacturer accepting responsibility for them. It'll be built into the price of the kit though, I'm sure.

It was not my intention to dictate what people should do in any way but simply draw their attention to possible consequences of the removal of such devices despite the immediate appeal that may have for individual owners. Interesting what you say about Komatsu. For the sake of argument I introduced the concept of manufacturers bearing at least part of the cost of maintaining such emission control equipment during some or all of the projected working life of the vehicle rather than the final purchaser. That would of course have initial purchase cost implications but would be more transparent than the present --- sorry but you will need a new diesel particulate filter/ hooked up to a diagnostic unit to regenerate--- at cost to you the owner --- 2 years into car ownership scenario . Again only legislation applicable to all manufacturers could provide a level playing field to achieve this in a commercial competitive environment . There are several differing technologies Diesel particulate filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia used in DPF's and there is anecdotal evidence that the same technology appears to be better implemented in some manufacturers models than others - This indicates to me that there is room for improvement in the systems themselves but if the cost of poor technology implementation is merely to be always passed on to the car owner there is little incentive to develop a robust technology by car manufacturers.

 

[Oli]

Arn't DPFs still optional on most cars?, I wouldn't bother with one, more trouble than their worth.

 

[mejermy]

All a DPF does is ensure the inside of the tailpipe remains clean and uses more fuel. the DPF has to regenerate eventually so blows out all the particles it has stored up. It doesn't reduce them at all.

This is what I understood to be the case with all DPFs. If so, doesn't it render the DPF rather irrelevant since the muck is chucked out anyway?

 

[Geoff A]

I didn't know they fitted DPF to the 270!

There's one on mine - you only have to stand at the back of the car when its running, and hot. It doesn't smell like diesel fumes at all.

 

[Geoff A]

This is what I understood to be the case with all DPFs. If so, doesn't it render the DPF rather irrelevant since the muck is chucked out anyway?

Regeneration uses fuel - either through a change in engine timing or using a separate injector on larger engines in the DPF/DOC. Crudely, it's a flame thrower that raises temperatures way above what the engine can generate under normal running to burn off the trapped contents of the filter. It drastically reduces the amount of 'muck' as you put it, that comes out of the exhaust.

You'll have no choice of whether your diesel car gets a DPF or not. It's not on the options list. And you'll probably have to deal with a diesel exhaust fluid too for those engines that adopt SCR (selective catalytic reduction) as an exhaust after-treatment - though this can be a top-up service item for dealers. Kerchiiing.

 

[mejermy]

So you consider that the net effect is a clear reduction in pollutants, although the residues trapped in the DPF are nevertheless subsequently burnt off? I genuinely am ignorant of the details of these things, but I am aware of how the law of unintended consequences so often trips up our politicos whose knee jerk reactions to pressure groups are seldom thought through. I can't help suspecting that's the case with DPFs. You may be aware of a Telegraph article today referring to the adverse effect on temperatures of eoliennes. You couldn't make it up.

 

[whitenemesis]

There's one on mine - you only have to stand at the back of the car when its running, and hot. It doesn't smell like diesel fumes at all.

Mine doesn't, by pure luck!

 

[markjay]

Simply saying that removing a device that European legislation has now made mandatory from a diesel motor vehicle may be socially irresponsible?? i.e. exhibits disregard for the well being of your fellow citizens...

I think that it exhibits disregard to the law, and in that sense you could argue that anything that is illegal is also immoral.

As for to the well-being of others... if you buy a car with a 1.2 Diesel engine and remove the DPF in order to save fuel you will be harming others and the environment far less than someone who buys a 5L V10 VW Touareg and keeps the DPF.

The difference is that the former is illegal, the latter is perfectly legit.

So what you are exhibiting - to my mind - is disregard to the law, but you are just as socially responsible (or irresponsible) as anyone else who drives a car.

 

[Geoff A]

So you consider that the net effect is a clear reduction in pollutants, although the residues trapped in the DPF are nevertheless subsequently burnt off?

These aren't my views - but its what I am told by diesel engine makers such as Cummins, FPT, Deutz, Scania, Perkins, etc, who are trying to meet stringent levels for NOx and PM levels, which are now part of legislation.

I've been following developments with industrial engine makers for the last few years and there's a huge backlash from owners and operators of kit. It's forced upon the end user through legislation and adds considerable cost - each change in emissions regulations from Stage IIIa-IIIb and so on to Stage IV adds about £10k per step to the cost of a 20-tonne excavator simply through engine and exhaust after-treatment requirements.

You need low-ash engine oils and low sulphur diesel too. And that's not straightforward with off-highway kit that burns low quality red diesel. It also means your trade-in is less appealing to those countries outside markets that don't adhere to the emissions regs so your residual value gets a kicking too. You must have low sulhpur fuel to prevent internal erosion of a cooled EGR engine. It's a double-whammy on costs.

I was told that kit going to the Olympic site for earthworks a few years back had to be fitted with DPFs and a retro-fit market sprang up overnight. Engine makers have different solutions to achieve their common goals of hitting clean emissions targets. But the final stages will require a combination of technologies - cooled EGR, DOC/DPF and SCR. And with two tanks (one diesel, one DEF) you can imagine the opportunities for putting the wrong fluid in the wrong tank despite SCR tanks getting a blue lid (liquid urea in a diesel tank - ouch, that'll hurt).

Off-highway is behind on-road in terms of emissions, but its catching up. Truck makers are finally progressing in the fuel efficiency stakes, but its a well documented fact that older kit (Euro 2) has been far more fuel efficient than newer stuff.

I'm not saying its right or wrong - its fascinating to see how technology is moving and higher power densities mean a smaller engine can do the work of a larger one, burning less fuel and producing fewer emissions. But there's no getting away from the fact that it costs. A lot.

Sorry, gone on a bit.

 

[grober]

I think that it exhibits disregard to the law, and in that sense you could argue that anything that is illegal is also immoral.

As for to the well-being of others... if you buy a car with a 1.2 Diesel engine and remove the DPF in order to save fuel you will be harming others and the environment far less than someone who buys a 5L V10 VW Touareg and keeps the DPF.

The difference is that the former is illegal, the latter is perfectly legit.

So what you are exhibiting - to my mind - is disregard to the law, but you are just as socially responsible (or irresponsible) as anyone else who drives a car.

WELL I used the term "socially irresponsible" advisedly rather than " immoral" because I felt that many people contemplating the removal of their DPF would not be truly aware of the consequences of their actions. If they were fully aware and believed such an action would result in harm to others and went ahead anyway then that would constitute an immoral act whether it was illegal or not.
In the real world people justify immoral acts by constructing a personal world view which legitimises their action ---the famous Vietnam war quote comes to mind " In order to save the village from Communism we had to destroy it by bombing"---- eventually its usually some form of legal system, local or international, that determines the more widely held legitimacy or otherwise of any individual's world view and subsequent actions .

 

[Bellow]

Consider DPF removal as passive smoking for the rest (outside the car) and now apply the same zeal for the banning of smoking in public places and the issue should be easily policed.

Or put another way. I don't blow smoke in your face so don't expect me to breathe your particulates.

 

[st4]

Consider DPF removal as passive smoking for the rest (outside the car) and now apply the same zeal for the banning of smoking in public places and the issue should be easily policed.

Or put another way. I don't blow smoke in your face so don't expect me to breathe your particulates.

What sort of car do you drive?