Gasoline Particulate Filters now coming on vehicles in the US

Joined
May 22, 2018
Messages
314
Location
Pennsylvania
I thought some people here maybe interested in this information, so I put together my thoughts and my understanding of GPFs into this post.

TLDR: Increasing criteria pollution regulation (NOx, NMOG, CO, PM) are driving the need to add particulate filters to the exhaust after-treatment systems. Increased complexity may cause some reliability issues but overall should be more reliable than the diesel equivalent. Adding particulate filters will lead to cleaner air and healthier humans. It will also have an impact on the motor oil specification that manufactures will use. It will increase the number of manufacturers requiring low-SAPs oils.

As some of you may know, gasoline particulate filters have been around in Europe for a few years now and the diesel equivalent (diesel particulate filter or DPF) have been on diesel’s in the United States since the 2007 model year. But it looks like GPFs are now starting to show up on mainstream gasoline vehicles in the United States. For the 2025 model year BMW and Volkswagen have included GPFs on some of their vehicles. BMW has done it on their X3 and 3 series with the B48 and B58 engines. Volkswagen has added it on their Taos with the 1.5L EA211 engine.

1732634442203.webp
1732634484594.webp

1732633062720-webp.251629

For those that don’t know, a GPF (gasoline particulate filter) is a type of substrate that goes in an exhaust system to filter out soot particles. It does that by forcing the exhaust through the porous wall of a substrate. By forcing the exhaust through the wall of the substrate, it filters out most of the soot the engine creates during combustion. Substrate manufactures can play around with the porosity of the particulate filters to optimize filtering ability and back pressure. These substrates are also typically coated with a washcoat similar to or the same as a TWC (Three-way catalyst) found on every gasoline vehicle now.
1732634386029.webp


Since a GPF is a filter, it does need to be periodically cleaned through a process known as regeneration. The regeneration process works by oxidizing the soot particles that the GPF captures into CO2. The regeneration process will be slightly different on a gasoline engine compared to a diesel engine with a DPF. Gasoline engines produce significantly less soot than a diesel, so the soot loading will be significantly less and need to regenerate and clean out the particulates will also be reduced or depending on driving habits could be completely unnecessary. The soot oxidation process occurs at exhaust temperatures above 600C, which is very common on gasoline engines depending on placement of the catalysts and driving conditions. Since gasoline engines have higher exhaust temperatures but little to no available oxygen in the exhaust stream, most of the soot oxidation will occur passively during fuel cutoff deceleration. Since no combustion will be occurring, oxygen becomes available in the exhaust stream and when the temperature is above 600C, oxidation of the soot occurs. Although I’m sure the engine calibrations will have a defined active GPF regeneration strategy like on diesel engines, I imagine it only being used if someone granny cycles the car in extremely cold weather. The OEMs will also need to limit the use of active regeneration on gasoline engines because, in theory, that would increase the amount of NOx emissions. The reduction of NOx emissions by a TWC requires a rich A/F ratio so when the engine is running lean to oxidize the soot in the GPF, there will be an increase in NOx emissions.

On a diesel, they have to manually raise the exhaust temperature to the 600C target by injecting extra fuel into the exhaust so it is available to be oxidized, i.e. create heat, by the diesel oxidation catalyst that is placed in front of the DPF. Then since diesel’s run lean, the increased heat will burn the soot out over the course of the regeneration.

The addition of GPF will also have an impact on motor oils. Manufactures will start to require low-SAPs oil to protect the GPF from getting clogged early. The reason for that is, sulfated ash, phosphorus, and sulfur get captured by the filter and are unable to be burned out. Unlike soot which can be burned out, SAPS just get stuck in the particulate filter. Although, as long as the OEMs control oil consumption and size the GPF appropriately, a clogged GPF from low-SAPS oils shouldn’t be a problem.

Pros and Cons of particulate filters.

The major pro of them are less ultra fine (PM2.5) will be getting released into the air. PM2.5 is able to penetrate deep in lungs and cause damage to lung and cardiovascular system. PM2.5 is also known to increase the number of people with asthma and asthma attacks. It is also known to be a contributing factor in lung cancer too. So overall, a reduction in PM2.5 emissions is a good thing for overall health. Some testing the NIH (National Institutes of Health) did on a 2011 Ford F-150 with the 3.5 ecoboost showed between 85%-99% reduction in particulate matter emissions depending on the certification drive cycle. (FTP75, HWFET, US06)

The major con of having a GPF is the increased complexity, so there is a possible reduction in reliability.

So I see GPFs as a mixed bag of pros and cons. Hope you found this informative and interesting.
 
Got a GPF ion my MG. It's invisible to the user, except for the exhaust to stay squeaky clean. This a Chinese made car btw...

I run full saps in it though. well higher saps than ACEA C oils but less than the typical A3/B4
 
I recall diesel heads (on the VW TDI forums) predicting that this would come for the GDI's. Diesels were getting these filters at that time, but it was noted that GDI had an increase in particulates like this.

Makes me wonder. Does the old fashioned PFI avoid this problem, or is it just a bit better and particulate filter needed there too?
 
And india, africa, and almost every country south of the US border. Ridiculous that us citizens of these climate obsessed countries have to pay the price so that they can just dump trash and poison into the oceans and rivers.
Oddly enough, I read this article this morning.
The UN says only around 15% of the world’s e-waste is recycled, so unscrupulous companies are seeking to offload it elsewhere, often through middle men who then traffick the waste out of the country.

Such waste is difficult to recycle because of their complex composition including toxic chemicals, metals, plastics and elements that cannot be easily separated and recycled.

Even developed countries do not have adequate e-waste management infrastructure.

UN investigators say they are seeing a significant rise in the trafficking of e-waste from developed countries and rapidly emerging economies. E-waste is now the most frequently seized item, accounting for one in six of all types of waste seizures globally, the World Customs Organisation has found.

Officials at Italy’s Naples port showed the BBC World Service how traffickers mis-declared and hid e-waste, which they said made up around 30% of their seizures.

They showed a scan of a container bound for Africa, carrying a car. But when port officials opened the container, broken parts of vehicles and e-waste were stacked inside, with oil leaking from some of them.

“You don’t pack your personal goods like this, much of it is meant for dumping,” says Luigi Garruto, an investigator with the European Anti-Fraud Office (Olaf), who collaborates with port officials across Europe.

It costs money to properly dispose, thus it becomes profitable for under the counter schemes to bypass laws. I'm not sure how to fix that, other than to allow dumping into our own landfills? It'd be nice if we had better recycling here; for all that I disliked of the RoHS initiative, its predecessor WEEE attempted to push the recycling cost onto the upfront purchase of the item, and then require the manufacturer deal with disposal (at least that is my recollection, it's been 20 years since I read the rules). No idea if actually worked out (by the sounds of it, no).
 
All while China dumps 1000X the garbage into the air and ocean.
Sticking to the topic of discussion, China's automotive emission regulation, China 6B, also basically requires the implementation of a GPF to meet the PM requirement.

I recall diesel heads (on the VW TDI forums) predicting that this would come for the GDI's. Diesels were getting these filters at that time, but it was noted that GDI had an increase in particulates like this.

Makes me wonder. Does the old fashioned PFI avoid this problem, or is it just a bit better and particulate filter needed there too?
PFI stands a better chance of being able to get by without a GPF but it would still be close.
 
PFI stands a better chance of being able to get by without a GPF but it would still be close.
Thanks. I'm dubious of another attempt to get the last bits of emissions, as I'm starting to wonder if the total emissions (manufacture of the filter out to the disposal of the filter) really saves anything. Maybe it does--if it moves the pollution from one place to another, perhaps that does have value (the linkage between PM2.5 and respiratory problems).
 
..already here for a few years. Our 911t has them. Unnoticeable except for a long higher rpm warm up at cold starts which, I guess, is to light up the cats and get the GPF's up to temp.
Looking through Porsche's certification documents for the 911, it doesn't appear that they are using a GPF on the US spec cars yet.
 
I recall diesel heads (on the VW TDI forums) predicting that this would come for the GDI's. Diesels were getting these filters at that time, but it was noted that GDI had an increase in particulates like this.

Makes me wonder. Does the old fashioned PFI avoid this problem, or is it just a bit better and particulate filter needed there too?

do pfi tailpipes get sooted up?
 
do pfi tailpipes get sooted up?
My wife's Honda Civic with the 1.8L PFI engine does. It has more soot then my Mazda CX-50 with the DI 2.5 N/A engine.

If I got up tomorrow and every vehicle had miracled it's self a gpf system overnight, it wouldn't make the air any cleaner where I live.
No thanks, don't need it, don't want it.
It would make your air cleaner. How much cleaner it would be is a different answer, they largely won't make much difference for people living in rural areas. But other more densely populated areas and/or areas prone to air quality problems like the LA basin or Pittsburgh Metro, they could make a larger difference in air quality. The image below is from NIH GPF testing, you can see how much of a difference a GPF makes in the amount of soot.
1732638336721.webp
 
Last edited:
do pfi tailpipes get sooted up?
When they're running poorly, I'm sure. Want to say, they seemed clean, but after 100k or so, even a small amount per mile will start to add up. Maybe something that sees more cold starts would be worse?

But a couple hours of light driving on my pre-dpf diesel would put enough soot into the exhaust system that I could see the soot come out when I got on it. I occasionally see gassers blow soot out, when the driver gets on them. I'm not sure if those are cars that go really rich at WOT (especially if running on RUG when PUG was "recommended") or have some issue, or truly were putting around until poked.
 
Who is mandating this additional equipment? If it is the EPA, it is more evidence that they need to have their wings clipped. These systems will no doubt add significant cost when they wear out, for gains that are probably small and incremental at best.

You know, it's interesting. If you pull up a chart of Eurozone GDP v. US GDP say around 2010 or so, the GDP output is almost the same. Today, roughly 15 years later, US GDP is about 40 percent larger. It is my contention that it is all of this climate and environmental insanity - it's become its own religion - that is contributing to significant inflation (mostly regulatory inflation) and restraining growth, particularly in the Eurozone, as power and energy have become very expensive. I am generally in favor of environmental protection, but this climate insanity needs to stop. And it we import the Euro approach into the US, we will be inviting the same economic stagnation.
 
Maybe it does--if it moves the pollution from one place to another, perhaps that does have value (the linkage between PM2.5 and respiratory problems).
Bingo! That's been my thought. If we can properly & safely dispose of it rather than letting it fly in the air anymore than necessary there is legit reasoning to it.
 
Looking through Porsche's certification documents for the 911, it doesn't appear that they are using a GPF on the US spec cars yet.
Odd, it was announced a while back in the US by Porsche US, dealers and in Panorama; Porsche Ft. Wayne. A quick search of Suncoast accesories pages indicates "..Fits US model Porsche 992 Turbo vehicles (2020+) without Gasoline Particulate Filters/".

Our Sales Rep also mentioned it, but truth be told, I really don't care but would be happier without them.... Interesting though, they may only be on certain US spec cars.
 
Last edited:
Who is mandating this additional equipment? If it is the EPA, it is more evidence that they need to have their wings clipped. These systems will no doubt add significant cost when they wear out, for gains that are probably small and incremental at best.
This! It is not that minimizing harmful emissions is not the right approach, but along with increasing mileage standards, we are so far past the point of diminishing marginal returns that going further will accomplish little when compared to the impacts on cost (new and future service), productivity, reliability....but it does make good sound bites.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top