Gasoline Particulate Filters now coming on vehicles in the US

[edyvw]

43% of emissions and 46% of global GDP? So sounds about inline?

I don't think air cares about GDP.
EU has 16% of world GDP, and 6.4% of emissions.

 

[YZJB]

My 2022 Fiesta ST has a GPF and that model has had one since launch in 2018.

It initially required a C5 5W-20 but Ford changed the spec to API SP/ILSAC GF-6A 5W-20 around 2022.

It’s completely transparent in operation, far better implemented than any DPF. Exhaust tips stay 100% clean which is cool.

Only strange characteristic is the engine will run a high-idle to warm it up if you’ve been off-throttle for too long, eg after descending a mountain road where the exhaust gas temp gets fairly low. As you come to a stop, the idle increases if the EGT is low for a minute or so and then settles down again. If you don’t stop though, you’d never know.

 

[OneLonelyBurrito]

They tested exactly 1 engine. Why specifically was this one chosen? Do they expect it to be fairly middle of the road in terms of performance? I would hope they have done more tests not basing big, expensive decisions off a single test of a single vehicle.

They have tested more than just one vehicle, that was just a easy paper I had access too and source. I also assume another factor is that the F-150 is one of best selling vehicles in the US, so that would be pretty good place to start.

I do appreciate the data. However it is not an ROI.

The return on investment is much harder to calculate but I will give it a shot using available numbers.

According to the HHS a human life is worth $13.1 millon, but it also feels really weird to put a value on a human life. Using MECA study for avoided deaths average (16106 deaths). That gives you $210,989,000,000 in just avoided human death.

With the incremental cost of a GPF being estimated at $266 per vehicle, that gives you 60 years of vehicle production at and estimate 13.1 million per year in the US. So the estimated avoided deaths would cover the incremental costs of the GPF.

Then adding in asthma, according to the CDC Asthma is projected to cost the US $97,547,389,605 in 2024. While not all of this can be contributed to PM emissions from light vehicles but it feels important to include. So if you take 25% of the asthma costs, that still equals ~7 years of vehicle production in the US.

While I'm no expert, the number seem to work out to me.

That number itself is confusing. It references another document, prepared in 2020, but refrencing a 2016 model, which the PM2.5 references a 2011 model. Best I can tell the 12% itself it based also on a model, not actual study. So were using the results of a 2011 model, and a single vehicle test, to set emissions standard policy?

I agree the way it was worded in the paper could have been better. And no, emissions standard policy isn't set by what is talked about in that paper alone. Lots of feasibility studies are also done that just may not be posted on the internet for all to see.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I don't think air cares about GDP.
EU has 16% of world GDP, and 6.4% of emissions.

USA on its own is 26% of global GDP and 12% of emissions? I only used USA, China and India because you did.

I don't think the EU 16% GDP is correct. Sounds like an old number. I think its closer to 14%, but of course there are different numbers floating around - IMF, OECD, world bank - so take your pick I suppose.

So if you use 14% the ratio's are identical - GDP to emissions.

If you do use 16% then the EU is a little better - 0.40 vs 0.46. Its hardle point making either way, both are light years ahead of China, India, Indonesia, etc.

 

[oldhp]

I'm gunna buy a old car and put headers with a Holley 750 double pump on it to protest this.

 

[edyvw]

USA on its own is 26% of global GDP and 12% of emissions? I only used USA, China and India because you did.

I don't think the EU 16% GDP is correct. Sounds like an old number. I think its closer to 14%, but of course there are different numbers floating around - IMF, OECD, world bank - so take your pick I suppose.

So if you use 14% the ratio's are identical - GDP to emissions.

If you do use 16% then the EU is a little better - 0.40 vs 0.46. Its hardle point making either way, both are light years ahead of China, India, Indonesia, etc.

Yes, there is a real problem here in India, as its participation in global GDP is, what, 4-5%, depending on the source?
But their per capita emission is far lower than any developed country.
This is why the discussion is ridiculous. If technology exists to tackle it, use it. I am just glad that solar and wind are not any more points of discussion as people realized they can actually make money.

 

[JWC86]

They are just going to continue messing up ICE cars until they suck so much electric starts to look good.

As someone that idles for up to 12hrs some days I can’t see this being good. Luckily so far Canada hasn’t started cracking down on emission defeat devices yet so we just cut them off.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Yes, there is a real problem here in India, as its participation in global GDP is, what, 4-5%, depending on the source?
But their per capita emission is far lower than any developed country.
This is why the discussion is ridiculous. If technology exists to tackle it, use it. I am just glad that solar and wind are not any more points of discussion as people realized they can actually make money.

Yes, India is <$4T on $109T GDP on no matter which study you look at.

Carbon emissions come mostly from industrialized productive activity, so if you have a large population doing subsistence farming by hand, then obviously there carbon footprint will be low. Once they industrialize there population will shrink - like China is now.

 

[4WD]

43% of emissions and 46% of global GDP? So sounds about inline?

I have spent a great deal of time in Indonesia - always wondering why they don’t manufacture more - while loading thousands on planes to fill labor jobs in the ME …

 

[edyvw]

Yes, India is <$4T on $109T GDP on no matter which study you look at.

Carbon emissions come mostly from industrialized productive activity, so if you have a large population doing subsistence farming by hand, then obviously there carbon footprint will be low. Once they industrialize there population will shrink - like China is now.

Ture. There was an excellent article by Bret Stephens in the NYT several years ago about how to actually manage the fall of China.
China is facing modern, developed problems.
India IMO will take time to reach that status, mostly bcs. As I said earlier, a form of govt. a tendency toward populism, and some inherited problems within society.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I have spent a great deal of time in Indonesia - always wondering why they don’t manufacture more - while loading thousands on planes to fill labor jobs in the ME …

Lack of capital markets. But there moving forward now.

China was in the same boat - Mau's cultural revolution attempt to industrialize did nothing and starved millions. It wasn't until the USA lured China away from the soviet block that made it acceptable for westerners to both invest and help China progress, did China progress Also timing. The propogandists will tell you Volcker smote inflation. A lie. High labor costs in the US - one of the primary inputs into 70's inflation, was overcome by exporting our inflation to China. So we had a surplus of global labor from about 1975 till recently, during which time no one cared about Indonesia.

However with the issues in China, they do now. Your seeing it also in Viet Nam, Phillipines, etc.

 

[Kurtatron]

Oddly enough, I read this article this morning.


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).

Thanks for posting this. This reinforces my thoughts that the best thing to do is make cars that last a long time. Make cars that are easy to keep on the road for 30 years so they don’t end up in landfills.

It’s so asinine to me that governments do not see that all this emissions regulations and electronic nannies are making cars junkyard bound Younger than necessary. How about some regulation for making repairs easy and affordable. How about that big brother?

 

[SC Maintenance]

Thanks for posting this. This reinforces my thoughts that the best thing to do is make cars that last a long time. Make cars that are easy to keep on the road for 30 years so they don’t end up in landfills.

It’s so asinine to me that governments do not see that all this emissions regulations and electronic nannies are making cars junkyard bound Younger than necessary. How about some regulation for making repairs easy and affordable. How about that big brother?

There going the opposite direction. There allowing the OEM's to ignore right to repair, claiming "intellectual property".

If you have a car now that you can repair yourself, stock up on parts.

 

[The motor guy]

Oh lord

 

[supton]

Thanks for posting this. This reinforces my thoughts that the best thing to do is make cars that last a long time. Make cars that are easy to keep on the road for 30 years so they don’t end up in landfills.

It’s so asinine to me that governments do not see that all this emissions regulations and electronic nannies are making cars junkyard bound Younger than necessary. How about some regulation for making repairs easy and affordable. How about that big brother?

Problem with that is, follow the money. Old cars don’t rake it in. And don’t make jobs, not like what there is for making new.

Besides. The rust belt needs new cannon fodder. Could argue that some states are actively doing what they can to destroy old cars.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Problem with that is, follow the money. Old cars don’t rake it in. And don’t make jobs, not like what there is for making new.

Besides. The rust belt needs new cannon fodder. Could argue that some states are actively doing what they can to destroy old cars.

I grew up where they salt, and the idea of keeping a car much past 10 years was whimsical.

Now I am where there is no salt, and honestly if you can get parts I am unsure why any car needs to die - barring a collision.

 

[Kurtatron]

Problem with that is, follow the money. Old cars don’t rake it in. And don’t make jobs, not like what there is for making new.

Besides. The rust belt needs new cannon fodder. Could argue that some states are actively doing what they can to destroy old cars.

Agree. Corporations need to make money. No production, no jobs, no economy.

Let the best survive I’d say. If one corporation is making cars that can last 50 years with minimal problems, let that one remain in business while the others lose the competition.

 

[4WD]

Either you manufacture or you don’t - if your economy can be described as a barista selling coffee to the guy that cuts his hair - you might be in a pollution relocation country - that actually brags about the numbers in that E-theater …

 

[SC Maintenance]

Agree. Corporations need to make money. No production, no jobs, no economy.

Let the best survive I’d say. If one corporation is making cars that can last 50 years with minimal problems, let that one remain in business while the others lose the competition.

Time and again Americans have rejected quality over low price or trendy.

So long as the never ending credit spigot is on, it will stay that way, IMHO. We on this board are the outliers, people that want to maintain, and use things for a long time. I get the impression here that most are like me and do it for personal interest, not due to lack of funds. A stitch in time.

 

[oil pan 4]

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.


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.
View attachment 251641

Density populated area problems aren't my problems. Sounds like a good solution for densely packed cities.
Its not going to do anything for me but cost me money.
One thing gpf definitely does is make hydrogen look even more stupid than it already is.