Who uses ‘V-Power Diesel’....

[ChipChop]

View attachment 114825
Blocks almost 100% of even the tiniest particles - very scientific!

Anyway, it inspired me to have a quick look to see if NO2 can be removed by activated carbon. The theory says it will be converted to NO and CO2 by catalytic reaction, but I would suggest that the results from this study show it to be less effective in practice. Still, better than nothing.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

How odd that you doubt the claims of a MANN filter.

I was always led to believe they are a Mercedes OE manufacturer. My local Mercedes indy for example uses only MANN filters.

Which brand of filter do you use may i ask?

 

[DrNick]

I've never really considered the efficacy of filters before as I let the garage do it.
I'm not doubting the claims from MANN, just questioning what they really mean. Its advertising speak after all. This one is just claiming its better than nothing. Its not claiming to be better than other filters - that's an assumption they are hoping you will make. It may be true, its just this isn't evidence that backs this particular assumption up.
The biofunction layer appears to be there to stop mould growing on the filter itself - I can't make any other comment that that on their statement.

The one I was interested in was the bit about removing smells and harmful gases such as nitrogen oxides as that was what was under discussion. It turns out that there is some basis for this claim in that activated charcoal has form in reducing NO2. However, it increase (or creates) NO (another oxide of nitrogen). So it claiming that it decreases oxides of nitrogen (in this case NO2 and NO) is suspect.
That's all I meant. The marketing is suggesting (not claiming) that it removes NO2.I went to some scientific literature to check the mechanism and there is some evidence for carbon removing NO2. However, it doesn't get rid of it all.
Nevertheless, this filter is better than nothing at reducing NO2. Is it better than other filters? I don't know, but I may well be interested enough now to check the competition. If the competition doesn't have a charcoal layer then this one is well worth considering if you you want to reduce NO2.
I suspect this is a good filter, and I will consider this NO2 issue when it next comes to a service! Air pollution especially in cities is a big problem

 

[Gazwould]

Across the pond have them too .

 

[DSM10000]

I've never really considered the efficacy of filters before as I let the garage do it.
I'm not doubting the claims from MANN, just questioning what they really mean. Its advertising speak after all. This one is just claiming its better than nothing. Its not claiming to be better than other filters - that's an assumption they are hoping you will make. It may be true, its just this isn't evidence that backs this particular assumption up.
The biofunction layer appears to be there to stop mould growing on the filter itself - I can't make any other comment that that on their statement.

The one I was interested in was the bit about removing smells and harmful gases such as nitrogen oxides as that was what was under discussion. It turns out that there is some basis for this claim in that activated charcoal has form in reducing NO2. However, it increase (or creates) NO (another oxide of nitrogen). So it claiming that it decreases oxides of nitrogen (in this case NO2 and NO) is suspect.
That's all I meant. The marketing is suggesting (not claiming) that it removes NO2.I went to some scientific literature to check the mechanism and there is some evidence for carbon removing NO2. However, it doesn't get rid of it all.
Nevertheless, this filter is better than nothing at reducing NO2. Is it better than other filters? I don't know, but I may well be interested enough now to check the competition. If the competition doesn't have a charcoal layer then this one is well worth considering if you you want to reduce NO2.
I suspect this is a good filter, and I will consider this NO2 issue when it next comes to a service! Air pollution especially in cities is a big problem

Now if you will resort to science and factual evidence we will get nowhere with some on here!

Even if those filters live up to the claim they have a rather small surface area with a variable flow rate passing over them and without strictly controlled laboratory testing and comparison with other types the marketing claims are pretty meaningless.

 

[DrNick]

Across the pond have them too .

View attachment 114871

Now you are making me suspicious of the wording of everything. If you look at the claims above (for example) 86.3% of A2 ISO particles of 1uM, one gets a blob and the other 2 don't. To take this literally, if the other 2 managed more than 86.3% they wouldn't get a blob. Its only if they get identically equal to 86.3 they would get one (presumably this is the score the third one got).
One thing they don't tell you is the flow rate. If something is taking out particles of 0.5um by standard filtration methods then the resistance to flow will be huge so not much air is getting through the filter. Probably something you don't want to advertise too much.
And PM2.5 air pollution? Again one gets a blob implying it filters this out. But this is just 2.5um or bigger particles and we see from the figures at the top that non of these filters get rid of all particles - not even the 10um ones. So what does a blob against PM2.5 really mean? Same with brake dust - its just particles, but what size and it can't get rid of them all unless they are the size of boulders. We are expected to make favourable assumptions based on incomplete evidence. We have to do that in life anyway, but adverts try to manipulate it. All advertising does this! If a particular (no pun intended) feature is important to you , then you have to do a bit more research than just trust the adverts. Mostly its not important and unverifiable anyway.
Just things of any advertising slogan and think about what its actually saying (usually nothing) as compared with what its implying.

 

[Gazwould]

 

[E55BOF]

At risk of repeating myself from another thread...

'S bollocks, innit...

 

[ChrisHGTV]

Now you are making me suspicious of the wording of everything. If you look at the claims above (for example) 86.3% of A2 ISO particles of 1uM, one gets a blob and the other 2 don't. To take this literally, if the other 2 managed more than 86.3% they wouldn't get a blob. Its only if they get identically equal to 86.3 they would get one (presumably this is the score the third one got).
One thing they don't tell you is the flow rate. If something is taking out particles of 0.5um by standard filtration methods then the resistance to flow will be huge so not much air is getting through the filter. Probably something you don't want to advertise too much.
And PM2.5 air pollution? Again one gets a blob implying it filters this out. But this is just 2.5um or bigger particles and we see from the figures at the top that non of these filters get rid of all particles - not even the 10um ones. So what does a blob against PM2.5 really mean? Same with brake dust - its just particles, but what size and it can't get rid of them all unless they are the size of boulders. We are expected to make favourable assumptions based on incomplete evidence. We have to do that in life anyway, but adverts try to manipulate it. All advertising does this! If a particular (no pun intended) feature is important to you , then you have to do a bit more research than just trust the adverts. Mostly its not important and unverifiable anyway.
Just things of any advertising slogan and think about what its actually saying (usually nothing) as compared with what its implying.

That's one of my pet hates - when advertisers use phrases like "...removes up to 90% plaque". So in fact it could remove 0 plaque but they want to infer it removes 90%.

 

[ChipChop]

Talking of flow rates we also have the exhaust particulate filter. Commonly associated with diesel engines (DPF) but also fitted to some modern petrol engines (PPF) as well. Known for clogging up due to poor flow or restrictions. You can always go out and buy a sports particulate filter though which will claim to increase flow by 50%.

 

[ChrisHGTV]

View attachment 114873

arrrrrghh beware, he be givin' the Black Spot on ye.....

 

[GeeJayW]

Talking of flow rates we also have the exhaust particulate filter. Commonly associated with diesel engines (DPF) but also fitted to some modern petrol engines (PPF) as well. Known for clogging up due to poor flow or restrictions. You can always go out and buy a sports particulate filter though which will claim to increase flow by 50%.

I would be hugely surprised if a sports DPF would meet the type approval emissions standards. May pass the MoT check, but that only illustrates how useless the MoT emissions check is in terms of actual emissions under load. The reason sports DPFs allow higher flow is because they are less effective filters which are not subject to the same scrutiny as those fitted by the OEM.

Consumers get all bent out of shape when the manufacturers 'cheat' the emissions standards, but then promptly turn around and have their cars re-mapped, remove secondary cats, fit sports DPFs etc..

 

[ChipChop]

I would be hugely surprised if a sports DPF would meet the type approval emissions standards. May pass the MoT check, but that only illustrates how useless the MoT emissions check is in terms of actual emissions under load. The reason sports DPFs allow higher flow is because they are less effective filters which are not subject to the same scrutiny as those fitted by the OEM.

Consumers get all bent out of shape when the manufacturers 'cheat' the emissions standards, but then promptly turn around and have their cars re-mapped, remove secondary cats, fit sports DPFs etc..

Higher flow = less efficient filtration. I really do not know if that is the case. Is an exhaust particulate filter on a high performace car of the same design as on a run of the mill car?

Personally i do not think real life consumers could give two stuffs about manufacturers cheating the EU laboratory emissions standards. The legal profession however see it as there next meal ticket and the political class see it as justification to ban ICE cars in 2030.

 

[GeeJayW]

Higher flow = less efficient filtration. I really do not know if that is the case. Is an exhaust particulate filter on a high performace car of the same design as on a run of the mill car?

Personally i do not think real life consumers could give two stuffs about manufacturers cheating the EU laboratory emissions standards. The legal profession however see it as their next meal ticket and the political class see it as justification to ban ICE cars in 2030.

Unless the filter has much larger surface area (more tiny holes), higher flow = less efficient filtration, ie bigger holes to let more stuff through. High performance cars have larger (or multiple) cats and DPFs compared to regular cars.

There is definitely a political angle to the diesel emissions debate. ICE cars will not be banned from our roads by 2030. Sales of new ones will be banned, but the existing fleet will need to be phased out over a longer period than that. Sooner or later as transport energy is decarbonised, producing diesel or gasoline will probably become uneconomic. Not entirely sure how some of the issues around that will be solved, but no doubt there are smarter minds than mine working on it. Well, I hope there is...

 

[ChipChop]

There is definitely a political angle to the diesel emissions debate. ICE cars will not be banned from our roads by 2030. Sales of new ones will be banned, but the existing fleet will need to be phased out over a longer period than that. Sooner or later as transport energy is decarbonised, producing diesel or gasoline will probably become uneconomic. Not entirely sure how some of the issues around that will be solved, but no doubt there are smarter minds than mine working on it. Well, I hope there is...

I think it is called planned obsolescence, to justify electrification.

What other explanation could there be when petrol direct injection engines produce 1000 times more particulates than traditional petrol engines and 10 times more particulates than a Euro 6 diesel engine.

Carbon Cleaning with Walnut Shells in Sussex

At Balance Motor Works we offer Carbon Removal Using Walnut shells. Sounds quaint, but it really works, unlike many of the other methods out there. Ideal for Audi & BMW performance engines

balancemotorworks.co.uk

 

[ChrisHGTV]

"but no doubt there are smarter minds than mine working on it. Well, I hope there is..."

I wouldnt be too sure. I read an article earlier this week that energy from burning coal has been increased to cope with the additional load as Europe starts to come out of lockdown. If so would be interesting to know how that demand compares to anticipated demand for green energy as part of an energy transition. (I have no idea but it was interesting we ran out of gas so resorted to burning coal)

There was a good European Summit recently with the ex-CEO of Equinor giving a talk. Now unbound by any need to toe the corporate line he was being quite frank. Some key takeaways - the energy transition is not global. 60% of the world still exists in energy poverty. Hydrocarbons will have a place for many decades in support of any energy transition. I have a colleague in Cape Town and he continually has issues with power outages - and i always think of SA as being one of the most developed Countries in Africa. Sorry, might be going a bit OT there...

 

[suty455]

"but no doubt there are smarter minds than mine working on it. Well, I hope there is..."

I wouldnt be too sure. I read an article earlier this week that energy from burning coal has been increased to cope with the additional load as Europe starts to come out of lockdown. If so would be interesting to know how that demand compares to anticipated demand for green energy as part of an energy transition. (I have no idea but it was interesting we ran out of gas so resorted to burning coal)

There was a good European Summit recently with the ex-CEO of Equinor giving a talk. Now unbound by any need to toe the corporate line he was being quite frank. Some key takeaways - the energy transition is not global. 60% of the world still exists in energy poverty. Hydrocarbons will have a place for many decades in support of any energy transition. I have a colleague in Cape Town and he continually has issues with power outages - and i always think of SA as being one of the most developed Countries in Africa. Sorry, might be going a bit OT there...

I grew up there and its true, you could not in the UK survive with only a Electric car and do my Job which can involve a few hundred miles a day never mind travel from Joburg to Botswana or Zambia which my Dad did regularly for starters half the area doesnt even know what Electricity is!
Anywhere outside of Europe and the developed Asian countries cannot hope to go Electric.
I for one cannot see how Petrol 1.6 turbo doing 35 mpg is better than a Diesel 1.6 turbo doing 75mpg, I just dont get it.
Anyway DPF gone Remapped 300bhp goodness and average 40mpg find a E series estate sized petrol that will do the same and do 500+ miles to a tank and am sold

 

[MrLCA]

Sooooooo. Who uses v-power then?

 

[GeeJayW]

I think it is called planned obsolescence, to justify electrification.

What other explanation could there be when petrol direct injection engines produce 1000 times more particulates than traditional petrol engines and 10 times more particulates than a Euro 6 diesel engine.

Carbon Cleaning with Walnut Shells in Sussex

At Balance Motor Works we offer Carbon Removal Using Walnut shells. Sounds quaint, but it really works, unlike many of the other methods out there. Ideal for Audi & BMW performance engines

balancemotorworks.co.uk

It's a lot about particle number, which is why direct injection gasoline vehicles now need particulate traps to manage down the number of particles emitted at the tailpipe in order to meet the emissions standards for particle number (which until relatively recently were only applied to diesel). This is also why smoke opacity measurements are fairly meaningless today as particles are too small to reflect light in the visible spectrum and hence are pretty much invisible to the human eye.

To be honest I can't remember if direct injection gasoline engines produce more 'engine-out' particles than direct injection diesel. I'd not be surprised if it was more, but certainly would be surprised if to were 1000x more (which I think is more likely in reference to tailpipe emissions with and without DPF/GPF after-treatment).

 

[GeeJayW]

Sooooooo. Who uses v-power then?

V-Power Diesel: a tankful every couple of thousand miles, rest of the time I used Shell Fuelsave Diesel
V-Power Unleaded: every fill for the MX-5

 

[suty455]

I use essos version normally but always a premium fuel it does work better (smoother throttle) and it gives marginally more mpg on both the diesels we have, the other weirdness is the other car still has DPF etc and it does a regen much more often on standard fuel