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.
