Using an oil slightly out of spec?

[edyvw]

Eyeballing is only the soot coming out of the tailpipe. The aforementioned parameters were measured with the appropriate tools in a licensed for the job garage. It was supposed to comply with Euro 4 standards with all the components in place and it still did with no issues without them.

I had 407 1.6hdi, and I know there is no way to be compliant without DPF as that was a very common practice where I came from. Once that person goes to Germany or, even worse, Austria, they can be sent to testing by traffic police if there is suspicion that DPF is removed, and they could NEVER be in compliance. I sold my 525d E60 bcs. At 475,000km I had to replace DPF and since my brother and I used the vehicle a lot in EU, we really did not want to invest in a new DPF in a car that has pretty much half a million km. So, we just replaced it with a new car.

 

[BMW Dom]

I had 407 1.6hdi, and I know there is no way to be compliant without DPF as that was a very common practice where I came from. Once that person goes to Germany or, even worse, Austria, they can be sent to testing by traffic police if there is suspicion that DPF is removed, and they could NEVER be in compliance. I sold my 525d E60 bcs. At 475,000km I had to replace DPF and since my brother and I used the vehicle a lot in EU, we really did not want to invest in a new DPF in a car that has pretty much half a million km. So, we just replaced it with a new car.

holy crap, that is a lot of miles.

 

[Vermess]

holy crap, that is a lot of miles.

About 300k miles. Not a bunch for a diesel.

 

[Vermess]

Oh Jesus. I feel

Well I'm a college educated mechanic (3 years). University educated Automotive Engineer B. Sc. (4 years). 27 year of automotive experience. I might know a thing or two about this subject, mostly by learning on my own initiative though. His vehicle had a DPF from the factory, so I don't see why you had to come up with that nonsense at all. Anyway, it costs what it costs. There's no way to significantly reduce toxic local particulate emissions other than a DPF. Producing the DPF doesn't cause any significant amount of toxic particulate emissions, so it saves about 100 %. You are not comparing apples to apples at all here. For my vehicle it costs 180 € as a spare part. I'd say the cost for the manufacturer is about 100 € with all the related systems (The price of a multilink rear suspension vs. a beam axle on VAG cars is 100 €, and this is very comparable. They deleted the multilink suspension on many models for that 100 €). So it is significant, but very much cheaper than reducing NOX emissions for example. Operating costs are about 2 % higher, due to the slightly higher fuel consumption and more expensive motor oil (The latter is no longer significantly more expensive). I looked at the particle emission data for a 2011 Audi A5 with and without a DPF. The figure for the former is 0,96 g/km and for the latter it's 0,001 g/km. That's a 96 fold increase, and we are not even talking a jerry-rigged vehicle here, where the difference is likely many times higher.

Thank you for letting us know about your education and experience. Glad you cited your research on that Audi. Yes, removing emission equipment on a vehicle tuned to have one will exponentially impact its emission production without tuning for it. You do not need a degree to know that.

I must say that I am extremely disappointed in your comments. A educated man with extensive knowledge in cars should not make a comment such as "There's no way to significantly reduce toxic local particulate emissions other than a DPF."

Am I foolish enough to believe that you and another user in this thread (whom shall remain anonymous) should do research on the ever expanding technology of injection systems that have a greater impact on reducing emissions exponentially greater than a filter???

A technology that does not require more pollution on mining for rare metals used in the making of such filters or cat converters??? That does not use slave labor to mine for such products or slave labor to manufacture???

Yes sir. That technology has been out for 5 years now. It has been tested for the last 3. It's called the ducted fuel injector. It reduces pollution more than 10 of your fabled filters hooked back to back to back. Emissions are reduced of a minimum of 90 percent, soit the same. Near 100 percent in soot.

I take it back. I am not foolish to believe you guys know it. I'm stupid to expect it.

I'll believe you care about the environment when you and other engineers or whatever decide to critique your favorite billionaire taking rockets into outer space. FYI, each flight creates an equal amount of pollution as 1 billion people living 75 years or the average lifespan of a human. How many flights have been taken by Musk, Bezos, the Virginia airlines dude???

Those little burps from mount Edna created more NOx, carbon, etc than we ever did. Estimated 70k more.

Let's create more bs that makes cars unreliable and more expensive while being controlled and guided by rich men flying private to Davos. And we shall pay more taxes to fix climate change.

 

[Vermess]

Since we have such knowledgeable engineers and mechanics in this thread....pop quiz.

In the 70s, at the peak of fuel crisis and emission crisis, what car and engine knocked down 40mpg, met emission requirements, did it without a cat converter? Car name and engine. 3:22pm eastern.

 

[gogydm]

Not an engineer but Honda Civic with the CVCC?

 

[mobilnissan1991]

Oh Jesus. I feel

Thank you for letting us know about your education and experience. Glad you cited your research on that Audi. Yes, removing emission equipment on a vehicle tuned to have one will exponentially impact its emission production without tuning for it. You do not need a degree to know that.

I must say that I am extremely disappointed in your comments. A educated man with extensive knowledge in cars should not make a comment such as "There's no way to significantly reduce toxic local particulate emissions other than a DPF."

Am I foolish enough to believe that you and another user in this thread (whom shall remain anonymous) should do research on the ever expanding technology of injection systems that have a greater impact on reducing emissions exponentially greater than a filter???

A technology that does not require more pollution on mining for rare metals used in the making of such filters or cat converters??? That does not use slave labor to mine for such products or slave labor to manufacture???

Yes sir. That technology has been out for 5 years now. It has been tested for the last 3. It's called the ducted fuel injector. It reduces pollution more than 10 of your fabled filters hooked back to back to back. Emissions are reduced of a minimum of 90 percent, soit the same. Near 100 percent in soot.

I take it back. I am not foolish to believe you guys know it. I'm stupid to expect it.

I'll believe you care about the environment when you and other engineers or whatever decide to critique your favorite billionaire taking rockets into outer space. FYI, each flight creates an equal amount of pollution as 1 billion people living 75 years or the average lifespan of a human. How many flights have been taken by Musk, Bezos, the Virginia airlines dude???

Those little burps from mount Edna created more NOx, carbon, etc than we ever did. Estimated 70k more.

Let's create more bs that makes cars unreliable and more expensive while being controlled and guided by rich men flying private to Davos. And we shall pay more taxes to fix climate change.

Like I’ve always said, a modern common rail diesel engine, DPF deleted will still burn way more cleaner than the old mechanically injected diesels of the past. But there will always be someone who wont agree with it. There is the pro DPF and anti DPF crowd.

 

[kebabaluba]

ACEA A3/B4/C3/C4 have HTHS value of minimum 3.5 mPa. If your car calls for any of those ACEA oils then you kinda should stick to them. My Volvo as a example calls for A3/B3 oil, i once tried A5 oil and i had slight increase in oil consumption. But now its no matter as for the last 3 years all my current and previous cars used Mobil Delvac oil, oil that are ment for heavy trucks and busses, with great results.

 

[dumkid]

when dpfs run a Regen cycle they just dump all the particulates at once. 99% of the time dpf cleans all the soot, and then the last 1% of the time it runs a Regen and uses a bunch of fuel to burn out the dpf. this breaks the soot up into smaller particles that you can't see, and puts all the soot back into the air. nobody tests emissions during a Regen cycle so it passes all the tests. and engineer dudes, dont believe everything your teachers say.

 

[Jetronic]

No it doesn't, Soot is incompletely burned fuel or oil, what the dpf does is collect it and then burn it off more completely. Yes, some smaller particles will get through, that's just the nature of filtration but the dpf doesn't break them, it burns them to CO2 and H20

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

when dpfs run a Regen cycle they just dump all the particulates at once. 99% of the time dpf cleans all the soot, and then the last 1% of the time it runs a Regen and uses a bunch of fuel to burn out the dpf. this breaks the soot up into smaller particles that you can't see, and puts all the soot back into the air. nobody tests emissions during a Regen cycle so it passes all the tests. and engineer dudes, dont believe everything your teachers say.

When a DPF burn offs almost all of the soot is converted it into CO2 leaving some ash behind. Don't believe everything you hear.

 

[Vermess]

Like I’ve always said, a modern common rail diesel engine, DPF deleted will still burn way more cleaner than the old mechanically injected diesels of the past. But there will always be someone who wont agree with it. There is the pro DPF and anti DPF crowd.

You want a clean running diesel??? Ducted fuel injector will put diesels way ahead of anything as far as pollution is concerned.

 

[smuthy]

Hi all,

I’m hoping someone can guide me on whether it’s ok to use an oil that is slightly out of the spec to what the vehicle manufacturer states? The reason for asking is that I’m struggling to find the right spec oil in any of brands available here in Qatar, Middle East at a reasonable price.

I imported a 2016 Land Rover 110 TD4 Hardtop into Qatar, Middle East from the UK late last year. Land Rover specifies 5w-30 Ford WSS-M2C-913-B (or C) standard oil for non-DPF Defenders. 5w-30 Ford WSS-M2C-934-B is used for DPF models, which I could use as well. My Defender has had the DPF removed, as the vehicle is now not in the UK or EU. Note Land Rover put in a Ford dura torque 2.2l turbo Diesel engine, commonly used in Ford Transit vans, hence the reference to Ford in the spec.

I can access Castrol Edge 5w-30 from the Land Rover dealership here that apparently is in spec (though I haven’t seen the bottle) but they’re going to charge me four times the price compared to Castrol Edge 5w-30 A3/B3 found at the local auto store. Also, they only sell the oil in one-litre bottles.

Looking at another brand, Liqui-Moly has a Special Tec 5w-30 AA (Ford WSS-M2C-946-A or B1) or LL (ACEA A3/B4). However, I need Special Tec 5w-30 (Ford WSS-M2C-913A or B, ACEA A1/B1) or Special Tec F 5w-30 (Ford WSS-M2C-913A or B, ACEA A5).

There are many other brands here (Motul, Shell, Eni etc…) but again, no luck with the right spec.

I had a search in the UAE as well but it looks like they have pretty much the same oils available. The majority of oils here are similar to the what’s available in the American market.

What would I expect from using an oil that isn’t to spec? Poor fuel economy? greater engine wear? A major failure at some point?

Am I overthinking it here and I should not have any issues with using 5w-30 oil that doesn’t meet the spec? Or should I just take the exorbitant price from the stealership, as the wrong spec oil could lead to engine problems?

Cheers,
Tim

With the extreme temp in Qatar I recommend you any 5w40 or 5w30 ACEA A3/B4 Full Synthetic

 

[kschachn]

I think Olsey left the premises.

 

[Johnson Johnson]

Well I'm a college educated mechanic (3 years). University educated Automotive Engineer B. Sc. (4 years). 27 year of automotive experience. I might know a thing or two about this subject, mostly by learning on my own initiative though. His vehicle had a DPF from the factory, so I don't see why you had to come up with that nonsense at all. Anyway, it costs what it costs. There's no way to significantly reduce toxic local particulate emissions other than a DPF. Producing the DPF doesn't cause any significant amount of toxic particulate emissions, so it saves about 100 %. You are not comparing apples to apples at all here. For my vehicle it costs 180 € as a spare part. I'd say the cost for the manufacturer is about 100 € with all the related systems (The price of a multilink rear suspension vs. a beam axle on VAG cars is 100 €, and this is very comparable. They deleted the multilink suspension on many models for that 100 €). So it is significant, but very much cheaper than reducing NOX emissions for example. Operating costs are about 2 % higher, due to the slightly higher fuel consumption and more expensive motor oil (The latter is no longer significantly more expensive). I looked at the particle emission data for a 2011 Audi A5 with and without a DPF. The figure for the former is 0,96 g/km and for the latter it's 0,001 g/km. That's a 96 fold increase, and we are not even talking a jerry-rigged vehicle here, where the difference is likely many times higher.

This. It's terrible for local air quality,.as selfish as solid domestic fuel fires in urban areas.