DPF's

[grober]

So whats the difference then between buying a car without a factory fitted DPF, and buying a similar one with DPF and then removing it? (Given that they are not compulsory).

Has the moral obligation gone just because it wasn't fitted at the factory?

I guess that's the omission/ commission argument in legal terms ?? In moral terms it could be argued that by removing a factory fitted DPF is morally wrong since its purpose {flawed or otherwise} is ostensibly protect the health of others and would constitute an act of commission. Driving a car without a DPF would have exactly the same effect environmentally but would constitute an act of omission since there has been no action on the part of the owner to change the status quo. Morally the defence of this situation would be to ask if it was reasonable for any individual to design and install a working DPF system themselves -- and I reckon the answer to that is no.

So in one case someone has actively tried to circumvent something and in the other the person is effectively powerless to do anything about. Morally different but environmentally the same?

 

[mejermy]

DPF on CH boiler??

If we continue the moral argument to a logical conclusion any one who doesn't put on other sources of emmissions a DPF, CAT, and anything else we can think of to cheer up the Brussels lot is deficient. We burn kerosene in an AGA and a CH boiler, but I won't be rushing to put any of this anti-efficiency kit on them. By the way, our combines cooking/heating consumption is about the same as our vehicle consumption!!!
One could argue that there are more particulates resulting from high compression ignition, and that would be true I understand, and the higher the compression the more particulates. Difficult to argue for common rail in tha case I would have thought.

 

[markjay]

If we continue the moral argument to a logical conclusion any one who doesn't put on other sources of emmissions a DPF, CAT, and anything else we can think of to cheer up the Brussels lot is deficient. We burn kerosene in an AGA and a CH boiler, but I won't be rushing to put any of this anti-efficiency kit on them. By the way, our combines cooking/heating consumption is about the same as our vehicle consumption!!!
One could argue that there are more particulates resulting from high compression ignition, and that would be true I understand, and the higher the compression the more particulates. Difficult to argue for common rail in tha case I would have thought.

I think the argument is that cars drive through densely populated city centres.

I remember reading some research a few years ago suggesting that particulate pollution is significantly reduced when measuring it just one street away from a busy main road.

Unlike CO2, diesel participles probably disperse very quickly in the wind so not really an issue in rural areas, or in general where the exhaust (or chimney) are at an arm's length from people.

 

[Bellow]

I understand, and the higher the compression the more particulates.

The reverse is the truth. Having to meet more stringent NOx regulations the OEMs are lowering compression ratios and employing increasing levels of EGR which is the cause of the particulates and hence the reason DPFs are required.

So whats the difference then between buying a car without a factory fitted DPF, and buying a similar one with DPF and then removing it? (Given that they are not compulsory).

The difference is that the car bought with the DPF will be filthy (see above) without it while the non DPF car will not produce the same level of particulates at source but may have higher NOx emissions.

 

[Bellow]

Unlike CO2, diesel participles probably disperse very quickly in the wind so not really an issue in rural areas, or in general where the exhaust (or chimney) are at an arm's length from people.

Not so! I drive in predominately in rural areas and can smell Diesel engined cars (and 4WDs) on hills even when they are coming towards me. Following one is the equivalent of passive smoking. The smell - so that you can identify it for yourselves - is the same as anthracite being burned and pretty acrid. Not that the driver of the Diesel is aware of it.

 

[mejermy]

Clarification from Bellow please

The reverse is the truth. Having to meet more stringent NOx regulations the OEMs are lowering compression ratios and employing increasing levels of EGR which is the cause of the particulates and hence the reason DPFs are required.

?
Forgive me for being thick, but do you mean that LOWER c/rs together with EGRs means less NOx but more particulates, since the EGR system provokes an increase in particulates, hence the need for DPF? Have I understood you correctly

 

[markjay]

Not so! I drive in predominately in rural areas and can smell Diesel engined cars (and 4WDs) on hills even when they are coming towards me. Following one is the equivalent of passive smoking. The smell - so that you can identify it for yourselves - is the same as anthracite being burned and pretty acrid. Not that the driver of the Diesel is aware of it.

Yes, but you are one person (or one plus passengers), coming in close proximity to the source of pollution for only a brief moment at a time (when trailing behind or passing opposite a diesel car).

Not that you or your passengers don't matter... it is just that in city centres there's a constant concentration of pollution sources in very close proximity to a great number of people. Think Oxford Street with thousands of shoppers and dozens of buses and taxis.

So the risk to health is greatly increased in city centres and other urban areas - the brief exposure in rural lanes may be unpleasant but it is highly unlikely to cause any permanent measurable damage to your (your passengers') health.

Of course air quality would be greatly improved if internal-combustion engined cars were eliminated altogether.

But it is about finding the right balance - and the electrical car does make sense. We may still burn carbon fuel to generate the electricity, so the overall pollution issue still remains (until such time that all our energy is derived from renewable sources and/or nuclear power plants) - but the crucial element is that with electric cars we are significantly reducing the health hazards involved by moving the pollution away from the city centres and other densely populated areas.

 

[st4]

I drive a diesel car with the windows down and don't smell anything.

By mass I meant per mass of particulate matter. Deisels emit lots of pm10s which do not poison people. I doubt I could kill myself by running the engine in a closed garage with my non DPF deisel but I could with a petrol car.

Remind me to pop bye your house, you'll be able to smell me coming....

 

[Sp!ke]

If it turns out that removing the DPF isnt an MOT fail and therefore isnt illegal, then as I see it, no-one is doing anything wrong as all you'd be doing is throwing away a flawed piece of legislation.

Interesting Longlife Exhausts quote from their website, which puts a different slant on things.

You CAN remove the catalytic converter on your Diesel Car without having a problem with the MOT. Having taken advice from VOSA, who control MOT testing in the UK, we are 100% confident that removing the CAT on a Diesel won't cause an issue. The confusion has arisen due to the regulations changing in January 2012 for cars which qualify for a full gas emissions test where 'if a cat was fitted as standard, it must be there for the MOT'. As Diesel cars don't qualify for a full gas emissions test, the regulation doesn't apply. The same is true for DPFs which you can also remove (they're not even mentioned in the manual)

It sounds like VOSA arent interested in DPF's either.

 

[markjay]

Nice find, Sp!ke.

 

[st4]

I can decat mine. I'm very excited....

 

[st4]

If it turns out that removing the DPF isnt an MOT fail and therefore isnt illegal, then as I see it, no-one is doing anything wrong as all you'd be doing is throwing away a flawed piece of legislation.

Interesting Longlife Exhausts quote from their website, which puts a different slant on things.

It sounds like VOSA arent interested in DPF's either.

Great. I can decat the shed. I'm very excited.

 

[whitenemesis]

Calm down Steve, have a piece of cake instead!!

 

[Bellow]

?
Forgive me for being thick, but do you mean that LOWER c/rs together with EGRs means less NOx but more particulates, since the EGR system provokes an increase in particulates, hence the need for DPF? Have I understood you correctly

Yes. The lower CR contributes to the particulate matter also as the aim with both (lower CR and EGR) is to disturb the pressure/temperature history to avoid NOx formation which then interferes with the cleanliness of combustion - hence a greater level of particulates.
If you want more info on this I'll try and find a link to an article relating what Subaru had to do to their boxer Diesel to achieve Euro 6 compliance.

Yes, but you are one person (or one plus passengers), coming in close proximity to the source of pollution for only a brief moment at a time (when trailing behind or passing opposite a diesel car).

I see your point MJ. I'm merely adding that particulates are detectable by the human nose even in wide open spaces!

I drive a diesel car with the windows down and don't smell anything..

You wouldn't - you are leaving behind your stink.

By mass I meant per mass of particulate matter. Deisels emit lots of pm10s which do not poison people..

Still no where near accurate enough to be credible. What, per mass of particulate mass?

I doubt I could kill myself by running the engine in a closed garage with my non DPF deisel but I could with a petrol car.

Not with a cat equipped petrol you can't - ask Stephen Fry.

 

[whitenemesis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ***
By mass I meant per mass of particulate matter. Deisels emit lots of pm10s which do not poison people..

Still no where near accurate enough to be credible. What, per mass of particulate mass?.

As particle size increases the number of particles decreases per unit mass. Petrol engines produce smaller size particles, so for a given weight there will be more of them.

Quoting particle size distribution statistics is fraught with danger, one can use particle size by volume, by mass or by number, even by frequency. As with any statistic one can present it in such a way as to support almost any argument.

 

[grober]

While mindful that 2012 legislation encompasses the more stringent post 2008 vehicle smoke meter measurement of 1.5M-1 opacity measurement is not reckoned to capable of measuring fine particulates which can only be reduced by DPF's. There is probably scope within the legislation [ by analogy with petrol catalytic converters] to fail a car for having a DPF removed - really depends on how the legislation is interpreted- a change in guidance note from VOSA is all that would be required?
e.g. However---- how long before one of these "bad boys" becomes a part of the MOT testers armoury? a particulate meter! MAHA Maschinenbau Haldenwang GmbH & Co KG - MPM4 Projects

Spike's post is indeed interesting but I would put it to you is akin to the motoring equivalent of a condemned prisoner, after last minute reprieve at the execution chamber , being escorted back to the cells---- on death row!

 

[Bellow]

As particle size increases the number of particles decreases per unit mass. Petrol engines produce smaller size particles, so for a given weight there will be more of them.

Thanks WM for attempting to shed light here, but untill I see the original poster clarify it all with proper references to quantities and of what, I cannot take it seriously.

Quoting particle size distribution statistics is fraught with danger, one can use particle size by volume, by mass or by number, even by frequency. As with any statistic one can present it in such a way as to support almost any argument.

As per this thread then!

 

[st4]

Calm down Steve, have a piece of cake instead!!

I bet she will sound really good fully decatted blasting through the glens on a tidal wave if torque and power. And with my new springs and dampers on her, the glens will come alive.

If only I could get all my windows tinted, then I could keep my chocolate from melting.

 

[G.P]

I'm merely adding that particulates are detectable by the human nose even in wide open spaces!

Aren't diesel particulates heavier than air and petrol particulates lighter than air? If so would this not mean its more likely for the human nose/lungs to absorb more diesel particulates?

 

[Bellow]

Aren't diesel particulates heavier than air and petrol particulates lighter than air? If so would this not mean its more likely for the human nose/lungs to absorb more diesel particulates?

Struggling to believe a particulate can be lighter than a gas....or that there is even a problem with particulates from petrol engines.
The Dieselheads are trying to tar petrols with their own sh!tty brush.