Gasoline Particulate Filters now coming on vehicles in the US

The fine right now is somewhere in the $4k range. We just need someone to enforce the already existing laws. (Seems like I've read this a time or two.)
Enforcement is a problem. I think right now they re going after sellers of equipment and not owners. Here the fine for it is like $150, if someone pulls you over. If!
 
The fine right now is somewhere in the $4k range. We just need someone to enforce the already existing laws. (Seems like I've read this a time or two.)
States don't want to enforce it. The EPA was enforcing it until SEMA got involved and then the apologists were saying it was govt overreach.
 
Last edited:
We the problem with DI was start up and low speed emissions. The plastic issues is more difficult to solve but just because we haven't heard of a solution doesn't mean people aren't working on it.
Cold start is definiely a problem for PM emission on DI engine, fuel likes to condense on the cylinder walls and piston tops. Here is a graph of PM emissions over the FTP test cycle for a Mazda3, which is DI only. As you can see the Phase 1 (Cold Start) of the test has significantly higher PM emissions.
1732644807170.webp

Then you look at the BRZ which is DI and PFI, it has significantly less PM emission over Phase 1 of the test compared to the Mazda3.
1732644847401.webp
 
All while China dumps 1000X the garbage into the air and ocean.
They really do not anymore. In the last 5 years China has DRAMATICALLY reduced emissions from all sources. This has been causing equally dramatic drought (and surface temperature rise due to decreased shading), somewhat alleviated by a massive cloud seeding effort to bump up the raindrop formation, which was previously facilitated by emission particulates.
 
Clean are is an agenda?
Everything comes at a cost. The calculus looks very different when activists are writing the rules for things that are payed for by other people.

Discouraging private transportation is a top line goal goal of regulators and increasing costs is a feature, not a bug for them.

Lots of evidence out there if you want to go looking.

 
Everything comes at a cost. The calculus looks very different when activists are writing the rules for things that are payed for by other people.

Discouraging private transportation is a top line goal goal of regulators and increasing costs is a feature, not a bug for them.

Lots of evidence out there if you want to go looking.

Yeah, it is an official, stated, documented goal, of governments around the world, by legislators and other freakishly wealthy and powerful people who are very proud of it. Pointing this out makes you a "conspiracy nut." Whatever.
 
So only because I might make a poor financial decision next year, I was looking up Mustang exhaust pieces. On the 2024/5 5.0, the Beijing standard emissions models must have a GPF since they have exhaust temp and pressure sensors while the 50 State ones do not.
 
So only because I might make a poor financial decision next year, I was looking up Mustang exhaust pieces. On the 2024/5 5.0, the Beijing standard emissions models must have a GPF since they have exhaust temp and pressure sensors while the 50 State ones do not.
Yeah the China variant definitely has a GPF if the exhaust has pressure sensors. Pressure sensors are really only needed in an exhaust when it has a particulate filter. They are used for monitoring the filter's soot loading.
 
So only because I might make a poor financial decision next year, I was looking up Mustang exhaust pieces. On the 2024/5 5.0, the Beijing standard emissions models must have a GPF since they have exhaust temp and pressure sensors while the 50 State ones do not.
Bwahahahaha!!!!

Are you implying that Xi is Gavin's boss?
 
Yeah the China variant definitely has a GPF if the exhaust has pressure sensors. Pressure sensors are really only needed in an exhaust when it has a particulate filter. They are used for monitoring the filter's soot loading.
They are one of the many failure points that brings down the newer diesels for no valid reason.
 
Of course people care about the ROI. The ROI is found in reduced respiratory and heart related hospitalizations.
What your sighting is emotion not an ROI.

A proper ROI would determine is it more feasible to spend the money on filters, or would we be better off as a society to spend the money on something else - that might better reduce respiratory and heart related hospitalizations.

My guess is there are better places to spend the money for a better outcome.
 
They are one of the many failure points that brings down the newer diesels for no valid reason.
You don't have to get my started on the exhaust systems on diesels. I have helped design and engineering them, so I am very familiar with them. I view DPF's has a necessary evil given the amount of soot diesel create. GPF are a completely different story though, while they definitely clean up the exhaust, the benefits are definitely less pronounced.
 
What your sighting is emotion not an ROI.

A proper ROI would determine is it more feasible to spend the money on filters, or would we be better off as a society to spend the money on something else - that might better reduce respiratory and heart related hospitalizations.

My guess is there are better places to spend the money for a better outcome.
Nothing emotional about it as someone is paying for the hospitalizations. OPF for automobiles as you should know is just one piece of the overall strategy for improving urban air quality.
 
Nothing emotional about it as someone is paying for the hospitalizations. OPF for automobiles as you should know is just one piece of the overall strategy for improving urban air quality.
Like I said before - is there a study that shows me what is the sources of particulate in the air currently, and how much will these filters reduce it? From a independent study, not a biased source?

I am very open to actual verified data.
 
Everything comes at a cost. The calculus looks very different when activists are writing the rules for things that are payed for by other people.

Discouraging private transportation is a top line goal goal of regulators and increasing costs is a feature, not a bug for them.

Lots of evidence out there if you want to go looking.

I never implied it was cost free.

The calculus always looks different for those who are writing the rules regardless of their perspective. IOW it's cuts both ways.

In the US reducing urban emissions has been a goal of policymakers since the late 1800's when major US cities, individually, began passing smoke abatement ordinances. SOURCE
 
I never implied it was cost free.

The calculus always looks different for those who are writing the rules regardless of their perspective. IOW it's cuts both ways.

In the US reducing urban emissions has been a goal of policymakers since the late 1800's when major US cities, individually, began passing smoke abatement ordinances.
This is true, but it's also true that gilding a lily is a fools errand.

Massively stringent emissions requirements on ICE vehicles is more about forcing EV adoption by pricing ICE cars off the market than achieving tiny reductions in emissions.
 
Back
Top