[European] Diesel Dirty

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
I don't understand the stripping away the technology argument. Strip away the fuel injection, double or triple cat converters, computer controllers from gasoline engine and the result will be exactly the same.

It is not technology argument but many drivers of diesels in North America and outside EU are doing that.
In the US emission testing is specific to the cities or counties or states. For example here in Colorado, several counties want emission testing for all, gasoline and diesel engines. In my county, El Paso only diesels are required to do emission testing. However, in majority of the US and Canada, manufacturers are obliged to sell you car that meets EPA, or in reality CARB limits. However, after they sell you car, and your place where you live does not require emission test, you can take down SCR, DPF, EGR. Whole business is developed behind that.
I just mentioned that reason why there is no soot is DPF, I did not say it is not good etc. In the end I did not nor I plan to take down my emission equipment.
But in the end of the day, diesels need more emission equipment to meet more and more stringent Nox limits and they reached point where it does not make any economical sense. Diesels make much more sense in numerous applications. As Bob Lutz once said: American buy hp but drive torque. However, it just does not make sense considering what it takes to make diesel compliant with Euro or CARB norms. That is why companies cheated from get go. it is expensive and average driver does not see clear benefit of that.

 

[Shannow]

Gassers always needed more equipment and complication to meet modern emissions controls...even moreso now that the problems associated with GDI (which is for emmisions including carbon) are becoming apparent.

There are industries offering MAF deletes, tuning out Cat-Con's and installing straight pipes.

If your premise is that
* diesels 30 years ago were dirty
* to make modern diesels clean is complicated and expensive
* a minority of users are actively disabling their emissions controls
* as a result (all) diesels are to be considered dirty and shouldn't be there.

(hope I'm not twisting your already torsionally biased words..._

The Gassers
* were dirty 30 years ago
* to make modern gassers clean is complicated and expensive.
* a minority of users are actively disabling their emissions controls
* as a result (all) gassers are to be considered dirty and shouldn't be there.

BTW, your rhetorical question about diesel efficiency and EGR ?

Has that been satisfactorily answered, or skipped over like the NOx/SOx eating buildings ?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
it is expensive and average driver does not see clear benefit of that.





Oh Really ?

The Colorado is 2.4 tonnes...and does that sort of mileage ?

 

[Silk]

And it has torque in abundance at less capacity and where you need it, no having to rev out to near redline to find it.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: edyvw
it is expensive and average driver does not see clear benefit of that.





Oh Really ?

The Colorado is 2.4 tonnes...and does that sort of mileage ?

It does not see benefit of SCR system and its complexity, not of mpg. I drive diesel for a reason. However, SCR system and its complexity has its price. Gain in mpg cannot justify price of some components of SCR system once car is out of warranty. There is a reason why manufacturers are abandoning diesels. It is great engine, especially for SUV's. I had 11 diesel cars for a reason. But time has come to go back to gasoline.
However, you figured out all that in my post.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Gassers always needed more equipment and complication to meet modern emissions controls...even moreso now that the problems associated with GDI (which is for emmisions including carbon) are becoming apparent.

There are industries offering MAF deletes, tuning out Cat-Con's and installing straight pipes.

If your premise is that
* diesels 30 years ago were dirty
* to make modern diesels clean is complicated and expensive
* a minority of users are actively disabling their emissions controls
* as a result (all) diesels are to be considered dirty and shouldn't be there.

(hope I'm not twisting your already torsionally biased words..._

The Gassers
* were dirty 30 years ago
* to make modern gassers clean is complicated and expensive.
* a minority of users are actively disabling their emissions controls
* as a result (all) gassers are to be considered dirty and shouldn't be there.

BTW, your rhetorical question about diesel efficiency and EGR ?

Has that been satisfactorily answered, or skipped over like the NOx/SOx eating buildings ?

The emission system on gassers is way less complex then emission system on diesels. On gassers (at least not yet) you do not have SCR cat/mixer. you do not have NOx pre and post cat sensors, you do not have particulate filter, you do not have emission fluid with tanks that have their own problems due to nature of emission fluid. All that is absent from gassers. The gain in mpg in diesels today is not justifiable. This is not anymore golden age of diesel in the end of 1990's or even 10 years ago.
Both gassers and diesels in the US have to meet same NOx limits. Gassers can do it easier then diesels.
For example, I calculated that I save with 35d some $800 in fuel over a year compare to X5 35i. However, if my car was not under warranty, issues with SCR system on X5 (and same system is shared with VW. MB and some other manufacturers since it is developed by BOSCH) would make 35i much more reasonable choice. Is having 425lb-ft torque better then 300lb-ft torque in 5,200lbs SUV? of course. That is why I bought it. But, and this is big but, issues (and that is pretty much all issues I had on this bimmer) related to SCR, if out of warranty, would make 35d exploitation much more expensive. If that was not the case, I would probably sell Tiguan, left my wife X5 and got something bigger as I need right now bigger vehicle. Unfortunately, and I really mean it as this SUV is blast to drive, I will have to get rid of it as reliability of SCR system is not something I want to deal with.

 

[Shannow]

WOW...

I restate that this thread needs a fork stuck in it...the "logic" trail that has been displayed as to why "diesels are dirty" is amazingly ludicrous, and has resulted in the above.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
WOW...

I restate that this thread needs a fork stuck in it...the "logic" trail that has been displayed as to why "diesels are dirty" is amazingly ludicrous, and has resulted in the above.


Diesels need more emission equipment.
It is more expensive.
Some companies cannot meet emission limits (there is long list of vehicle testing discrepancies in Europe).
Attention is on them .
That is where economics come into play and it becomes too expensive to use SCR etc. It increases price of vehicle which might be OK on BMW X5 or MB GLS, but not on VW Polo.
And that is where diesels loose the game.
They are dirtier. Both gas and diesel engines need to meet same CARB requirements (NOx). Diesels need more equipment to achieve that and it does not make any more sense. In Europe, at least until Euro VI, diesels were allowed higher NOx limits.
I take it back, it is not that you purposely try to avoid the fact that diesels have harder time meeting Nox limits, it seems that just does not reach to you.
Last time I checked my Tiguan who needs to conform to same NOx limits as my BMW, I did not see SCR cat, emission fluid tanks etc.

 

[KrisZ]

The GDI engines will soon need some worth of PDF once the ecomaniacs get done with diesel engines. GDI particulates are worse than diesel because they are much finer, therefore stay airborne longer and are easier to get into lungs.

Also, it took a better part of the 70s and 80s to get gas engines sorted out to meet emissions, be reliable, powerful and be reasonable on gas. Then since 90s they saw a steady regulatory emission tightening and technological improvement. Meanwhile diesel engines were left alone until late 90s in Europe and mid 2000s in NA, and then all of the sudden they had to meet the same emission standards as gas engines. The issues were to be expected.

Of course, there is an agenda at play to make diesel engine look like evil tech to the unwashed masses that know very little outside their back yard. Diesel is not going anywhere.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
The GDI engines will soon need some worth of PDF once the ecomaniacs get done with diesel engines. GDI particulates are worse than diesel because they are much finer, therefore stay airborne longer and are easier to get into lungs.

Also, it took a better part of the 70s and 80s to get gas engines sorted out to meet emissions, be reliable, powerful and be reasonable on gas. Then since 90s they saw a steady regulatory emission tightening and technological improvement. Meanwhile diesel engines were left alone until late 90s in Europe and mid 2000s in NA, and then all of the sudden they had to meet the same emission standards as gas engines. The issues were to be expected.

Of course, there is an agenda at play to make diesel engine look like evil tech to the unwashed masses that know very little outside their back yard. Diesel is not going anywhere.

Seriously? Agenda? In Europe diesel and gas engines were separated because in Europe diesels are dominant and Euro norms are heavily lobbied by manufacturers.
In the US EPA is not as important as CARB is. And CARB does not differentiate diesel from gas for a long, long time. You have here report written by directorate of European Parliament that explains all this very well:
Comaprison: Euro/CARB/EPA
Nothing in this business is "sudden." One cannot impose limits suddenly, especially in Europe.
One that note:
Daimler shares drop

I agree that gasoline engines will eventually come to that point that some sort of particular trap will be required. In diesels DPF is also not that big of an issue, it is all tech after DPF.

 

[KrisZ]

There is always an agenda and it usually involves a lot of money. If there was an agenda behind the push for diesels in EU, now it shifted to electric. In North America diesel implementation was a sorry excuse for engineering so that soured the public's opinion. But now the push for electric is strong on both continents, Asia is not far behind either. These things are not a coincidence.

Just Google how coalt is mined in Africa. A perfect example of NIMBY (not in my back yard) that's the new clean, renewable energy and transportation for you.

 

[Subdued]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
I don't understand the stripping away the technology argument. Strip away the fuel injection, double or triple cat converters, computer controllers from gasoline engine and the result will be exactly the same.

He's building an argument based on what outliers do to their cars. It's completely awful to watch.

It isn't "a lot" of people that are removing emissions equipment from their cars, it's almost nobody.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Subdued
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
I don't understand the stripping away the technology argument. Strip away the fuel injection, double or triple cat converters, computer controllers from gasoline engine and the result will be exactly the same.

He's building an argument based on what outliers do to their cars. It's completely awful to watch.

It isn't "a lot" of people that are removing emissions equipment from their cars, it's almost nobody.


+1...why I stopped trip trapping over the bridge.