About 99% of the US land area has clean air.Clean air is an agenda?
About 99% of the US land area has clean air.Clean air is an agenda?
That's what I do.Gotta toss it in the burn barrel. Landfill costs $$. Burning is free.
All of the geo-political discussions aside, is there a reliable accurate list of US cars with GPFs? Are they typically built into the Cats or a separate component. I ask because I have a 2020 Mini Cooper S, direct injected, no soot in the exhaust tips. My 2013 GTI was a real sooter. I have not found reliable info on whether or not the Mini has a GPF.
The best place to check is here: EPA's Website. While I haven't checked your car specifically, I'm basically certain it doesn't because the 2025 is when they are starting to show up in mainstream cars and its mostly on a small amount of global cars not North America specific cars.All of the geo-political discussions aside, is there a reliable accurate list of US cars with GPFs? Are they typically built into the Cats or a separate component. I ask because I have a 2020 Mini Cooper S, direct injected, no soot in the exhaust tips. My 2013 GTI was a real sooter. I have not found reliable info on whether or not the Mini has a GPF.
Moving forward, tires and brakes are probably gonna be responsible for a significant amount of PM.On a slight tangent, I thought that tires were responsible for a lot of particulate material, and heavier EV's cause more tire wear vs conventional cars.
don't give them new ideas!!What's next, particulate vacuums at each wheel well?
On a slight tangent, I thought that tires were responsible for a lot of particulate material, and heavier EV's cause more tire wear vs conventional cars.
Moving forward, tires and brakes are probably gonna be responsible for a significant amount of PM.
What's next, particulate vacuums at each wheel well?
don't give them new ideas!!
Copper was recently banned from brake pads and shoes in the US, recently.Euro 7 emissions standards for light vehicles (ie not trucks) have no changes to exhaust emissions compared to Euro 6, but do now include particulate matter from tyres and brakes. Already been thought about
That was because it's needed for all the EV's.Copper was recently banned from brake pads and shoes in the US, recently.
I thought it was because all the do-gooders, er, scientists on the CAFE committee decreed it.That was because it's needed for all the EV's.
CAFE has nothing to do with criteria pollutants standards, like particulate matter. It only deals with CO2 emissions, i.e. fleet average miles per gallon.I thought it was because all the do-gooders, er, scientists on the CAFE committee decreed it.
ULSG allows for the reduction in ZDDP and the reduction is not all that great. Nobody cares about flat tappet engines these days because they represent such an tiny portion of the fleet.The SAP's (sulphated ash, phosphorus and sulphur) have impressive anti-wear and antioxidant capability. Reducing phosphorus will necessarily mean lowering ZDDP levels.
To me, the requirements of low SAP oil will mean that motor oil in the future will be even less suitable for classic cars (ie flat tappet) and less desirable for cars in the 10 to 20 year-old range. Hence they will be something to avoid going forward.
On a slight tangent, I thought that tires were responsible for a lot of particulate material, and heavier EV's cause more tire wear vs conventional cars.
But the wording isn't correct. It should be a 95% in tailpipe emissions, not a 95% reduction in PM2.5 emissions from gas cars. It's conveniently omitting 25% of total PM2.5 emissions that come from the tires and brakes of gas vehicles.This probably doesn't meet your definition of unbiased since it was conducted by the EPA. Link It will be a struggle to find studies that aren't conducted by the EPA and or CARB, given that is who is implementing and setting the standards.
Basically what is says is that of the mobile source of PM2.5 emissions 18.4% are from gasoline vehicles, ~11.9% is from gasoline exhaust emissions and 6.5% are from brake and tire dust.
But basically the study concludes that we can significantly reduce PM2.5 emissions with GPF. PM emissions with a GPF are 95% less than the same vehicle without the GPF.
Seen it first hand... it's insane, most people could not imagine and heaven only know what I didn't seeAnd 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.
I didn't think it needed to be mentioned that a GPF would only affect tailpipe PM emissions when that is what the paper is about. I think them including the portion of PM emissions that come from brakes and tires is giving context to the tailpipe emissions. Cause a 95% reduction in where 75% of the PM emissions come from in light vehicles is still a significant reduction.But the wording isn't correct. It should be a 95% in tailpipe emissions, not a 95% reduction in PM2.5 emissions from gas cars. It's conveniently omitting 25% of total PM2.5 emissions that come from the tires and brakes of gas vehicles.
Burning a little oil is no problem, burning gallons and gallons of a high-SAPs oil would definitely cause problems.What happens to a GDF once the car starts burning a little oil?
Your screwed... Probably a couple hundo to clean/repair (If they will do it, since it will be considered part of the hallowed emissions systems). Or a factor refurb that will set you back $1-2k easy.What happens to a GDF once the car starts burning a little oil?