VW-Style Cheating: An Experiment

[DoubleWasp]

I just recently came into another 2007.5 Ram with the 6.7 Cummins engine. This engine is a no-urea DPF-equipped car, as the VW diesels are.

The theory of VW emissions cheating is that they chose to meet emissions standards by using a lot of EGR activity in order to reduce Nox without having to use urea injection. Downside? Excessive EGR usage increases soot. Increased sott means the DPF loads up faster. Faster the DPF loads up, the more frequently it has to regen. More regens mean more fuel wasted.

My other Ram came to me at a major discount due to a seriously faulty emissions system, so I never got to drive it around without emissions in place. The emissions equipment mysteriously disappeared one night.

This ram, however, has all of its emissions working, and in place. So I got curious.

The experiment here was to unplug the connector of the EGR valve of my Cummins 6.7, and see if, and by how much the fuel economy increased with the engine no longer being burdened by regular and heavy regens.

I first started by resetting the fuel economy computer and driving around for a few days to see where the average fuel economy display would settle, and if my hand calculations of fuel consumption would match up. Much as with my current and previous Rams, the fuel computer was accurate to within .2-.7 MPG on the whole. It finally settled at 14.1 mpg. Hand calculations showed 13.8 MPG. This was during some seriously mixed driving of 40/60 highway/traffic with no towing involved. Now it was time to unplug the EGR valve, and see what happened.



Hand calculations show 19.8 MPG, which pretty much mirrors my emissionless 6.7 3500, and about where I expect fuel economy to average.

Of course I am going to plug the EGR valve's connector right back in ASAP, before I return from Mexico, where I conducted this test.

 

[Greasymechtech]

Emissions in too many vehicles takes precedence over MPG.

I would rather have excellent MPG with acceptable emmisions.

Since you are in a non testing state, I would just install EGR and DPF delete kits and good tune. No need to be rolling coal.

 

[DoubleWasp]

That's something I should have mentioned. There was not a wisp, hint, or suggestion of black smoke present.

 

[czbrian]

Originally Posted By: Greasymechtech
Emissions in too many vehicles takes precedence over MPG.

I would rather have excellent MPG with acceptable emmisions.


If the EPA favored that approach the smog in any large city would become unbearable. Although the OP improved his gas mileage around 35%, nox emissions probably went up 10x or more. Its not a big deal if a small percent of the population disables their emmission controls but if everyone did it you would have a problem. I'm not sure what the majority considers an acceptable level of smog but I dont think I like the idea of even increasing the amount of smog here in Houston even twice as much.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: czbrian
Originally Posted By: Greasymechtech
Emissions in too many vehicles takes precedence over MPG.

I would rather have excellent MPG with acceptable emmisions.


If the EPA favored that approach the smog in any large city would become unbearable. Although the OP improved his gas mileage around 35%, nox emissions probably went up 10x or more. Its not a big deal if a small percent of the population disables their emmission controls but if everyone did it you would have a problem. I'm not sure what the majority considers an acceptable level of smog but I dont think I like the idea of even increasing the amount of smog here in Houston even twice as much.


+1

 

[Ramblejam]

If I said that...

By merely unplugging an EGR on a 6.7L without existing issues, my MPG increased by 44%.

Would you believe me?

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: czbrian
If the EPA favored that approach the smog in any large city would become unbearable. Although the OP improved his gas mileage around 35%, nox emissions probably went up 10x or more. Its not a big deal if a small percent of the population disables their emmission controls but if everyone did it you would have a problem. I'm not sure what the majority considers an acceptable level of smog but I dont think I like the idea of even increasing the amount of smog here in Houston even twice as much.


Agreed. It's surprising how many people don't remember all of the air pollution issues in the 70's and 80's. Intentionally defeating the emissions equipment is nothing more than selfish, childish act. Fortunately most people are more mature than that.

 

[hansj3]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: czbrian
If the EPA favored that approach the smog in any large city would become unbearable. Although the OP improved his gas mileage around 35%, nox emissions probably went up 10x or more. Its not a big deal if a small percent of the population disables their emmission controls but if everyone did it you would have a problem. I'm not sure what the majority considers an acceptable level of smog but I dont think I like the idea of even increasing the amount of smog here in Houston even twice as much.


Agreed. It's surprising how many people don't remember all of the air pollution issues in the 70's and 80's. Intentionally defeating the emissions equipment is nothing more than selfish, childish act. Fortunately most people are more mature than that.



No, people are not. People are ignorant or lazy or both. and they are cheap

Without going into detail if someone came up to you at the parts store with the same truck and said that I can get you a 44% increase in fuel economy by simply unhooking this, and could prove it wouldn't you think to do it?

Think about how many vornados and fuel line magnets were sold at $20 for 10-15% increase

 

[Olas]

44%?! If everyone did that global fuel use would be halved! Supplies would last twice as long and prices would tumble.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Of course I am going to plug the EGR valve's connector right back in ASAP, before I return from Mexico, where I conducted this test.

Of course I totally believe that!

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: czbrian
If the EPA favored that approach the smog in any large city would become unbearable. Although the OP improved his gas mileage around 35%, nox emissions probably went up 10x or more. Its not a big deal if a small percent of the population disables their emmission controls but if everyone did it you would have a problem. I'm not sure what the majority considers an acceptable level of smog but I dont think I like the idea of even increasing the amount of smog here in Houston even twice as much.


Agreed. It's surprising how many people don't remember all of the air pollution issues in the 70's and 80's. Intentionally defeating the emissions equipment is nothing more than selfish, childish act. Fortunately most people are more mature than that.


But the EPA did not start regulating diesel emissions until the 90's, after the smog problem had been dealt with. Emissions standards now are much more stringent than they need to be to control smog.

 

[440Magnum]

So you proved the EPA cheat works, and why they did it. You also proved why urea systems are preferred.

The invisible thing that happened when you pulled that EGR plug is that NOx emissions shot thru the roof. To be honest, its not a problem in rural areas where there aren't a lot of cars, because the ozone formed from the NOx quickly dissipates.

Its a HUGE problem in cities, though, because the ozone concentrations at certain times of day get so bad that it damages lung tissue.

There's really no downside to urea-injected diesels. You get the power and economy of non-EGR, plus the lower emissions. The urea catalyst doesn't add any exhaust restriction, because the DPF already dominates that (and now the DPF doesn't load up as fast as it would with EGR, so it has lower restriction too) Oh, I guess the owner has to suffer the SOUL CRUSHING burden of putting in a few gallons of DEF every few hundred miles.... the horror, the horror. ;-)

This is why VW should suffer horribly over this. Everybody else played the game, did their civic duty, took the initial consequences, and figured things out. Cheaters suck.

 

[supton]

I wish I understood it better, but chemistry is not my strong suit. However, something I keyed in on (when I owned a VW) was something called the weekend effect. In CA and other smog-prone areas, ozone and other air quality problems increase on the weekend--despite a drop in emissions. Heavy truck traffic drops faster than gasser traffic, and apparently the loss of NOx may be a culprit.

I'm not saying we should deliberately increase emissions, but pointing out that picking one over others may not solve issues.

30 seconds of google turn up a few links. They all go past me.
Royal Society of Chemistry
CARB
another

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Remember, the Ford Excursion V10 is a certified low emissions vehicle. A Honda Civic HX from the 90s is a gross polluter.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: supton
I wish I understood it better, but chemistry is not my strong suit. However, something I keyed in on (when I owned a VW) was something called the weekend effect. In CA and other smog-prone areas, ozone and other air quality problems increase on the weekend--despite a drop in emissions.



Without looking at the articles, my guess is that's a pretty easy one to explain. To get ground-level ozone, there are two things you need: 1) a mix of unburned HC and NOx emissions from vehicles, 2) sunlight.

On weekdays, there's more total emission of pollutants, but it happens around sunrise and around sunset, giving it time to dissipate before peak sunlight comes around to turn it into ozone.

On weekends, the emissions are lower, but they peak as people get out and about having fun in the middle of the day and afternoon, resulting in more ozone creation. Thats why on "ozone action days" they tell you to fill your car either early or late (filling a car releases a lot of raw fuel vapor) and to make optional trips, use outdoor power equipment, etc. either early or late.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Remember, the Ford Excursion V10 is a certified low emissions vehicle. A Honda Civic HX from the 90s is a gross polluter.


And its true. Hate 'em or not, emission controls work. There was a news story a few years ago that would have been dark comedy if it hadn't been true. A guy tried to commit suicide with a Ford Explorer idling in his closed garage, but it didn't emit enough CO to kill him. Probably had a helluva headache though.

There's nothing much more laughable than seeing a "green party," "environmental defense fund" or similar sticker on a 1960s VW bug or Volvo.

 

[A_Harman]

Ozone action days. I do wonder how many of those we'd be getting if everybody drove electric cars. You see, ozone is emitted by high voltage electrical discharges. I also wonder what emissions are produced by charging batteries, especially by Tesla's Superchargers. The whole photochemical smog issue took root in California because the local topography of the LA Basin forms a thermal inversion layer which traps warm gases close to the ground, leading to an exaggerated effect of photochemical smog formation. So why does LA drive emissions standards for the rest of the country, when the rest of the country doesn't have their inherent problem?

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Ozone action days. I do wonder how many of those we'd be getting if everybody drove electric cars. You see, ozone is emitted by high voltage electrical discharges. I also wonder what emissions are produced by charging batteries, especially by Tesla's Superchargers. The whole photochemical smog issue took root in California because the local topography of the LA Basin forms a thermal inversion layer which traps warm gases close to the ground, leading to an exaggerated effect of photochemical smog formation. So why does LA drive emissions standards for the rest of the country, when the rest of the country doesn't have their inherent problem?
Millions of people move into a dry valley with known shortages of water on occasion and a high pollution area then feel entitled to water over the people that lived in the state before them. They demand food grown without water.They demand clean air. They demand services paid for by others etc

 

[OneEyeJack]

In 1970 driving through Downey into LA on the freeway I pulled over to the shoulder and stopped because my eyes were burning. A motorcycle cop stopped and gave me a small bottle of eye drops and dropped some in his eyes from a bottle in his jacket pocket just before the took off. As I was using the eye drops I realized I could not see the building in downtown LA because the smog was so bad.

Today, no problem.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Ozone action days. I do wonder how many of those we'd be getting if everybody drove electric cars. You see, ozone is emitted by high voltage electrical discharges. I also wonder what emissions are produced by charging batteries, especially by Tesla's Superchargers. The whole photochemical smog issue took root in California because the local topography of the LA Basin forms a thermal inversion layer which traps warm gases close to the ground, leading to an exaggerated effect of photochemical smog formation. So why does LA drive emissions standards for the rest of the country, when the rest of the country doesn't have their inherent problem?
Ah... some "inconvenient truth". It's how the left works. Find a place to sell their notions and expand from there. Soon folks in northern Maine won't be able to own a firearm.