Particulate Filters and Ash

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK


If you remove the DPF the MOT is no longer valid and most important of all, the hull part of the insurance will not be valid unless you get the Mod approved.
If the DPF has been removed or gutted, then the vehicle is not defined as OEM standard in engine terms and if no Mod has been approved, that will invalidate the insurance policy.


On paper and in theory, you're right. In practice, when was the last time an insurance assessor inspected one of your vehicles? They don't notice modifications as often as you might think.. The real world very rarely tallies exactly Witt the legalese definitions found in C&U and Blacks..
 
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: Olas
Remove the filter and use whatever oil you like
Why? Like to breathe clean air much?


Recent studies done in cooperation with California Air Resources Board show that diesels do not contribute near the particulate levels previously thought. Comparing work days when significantly more commercial diesel activity and weekends when commercial diesel activity greatly reduced, showed no appreciable change it particulate levels attributed to internal combustion engines. So it has been concluded that gas autos contribute as much as diesels do to the problem. And the DPF is concerned only with particulates. SCR is the NOx control mechanism.

This isn't 1980. Many have visions of smoke producing naturally aspirated diesels of that day. Just by electronics and engine design, along with turbocharging being the standard for all on road diesels, even without the emissions stuff they are far and away much cleaner than diesels of yesteryear. The gooberment stuff that new production diesels are required to have on them almost makes the air cleaner coming out of the tail pipe than the air that went into the intake.
 
The environmental movement is about as corrupt as any branch of the government .
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: Olas
Remove the filter and use whatever oil you like
Why? Like to breathe clean air much?


Recent studies done in cooperation with California Air Resources Board show that diesels do not contribute near the particulate levels previously thought. Comparing work days when significantly more commercial diesel activity and weekends when commercial diesel activity greatly reduced, showed no appreciable change it particulate levels attributed to internal combustion engines. So it has been concluded that gas autos contribute as much as diesels do to the problem. And the DPF is concerned only with particulates. SCR is the NOx control mechanism.

This isn't 1980. Many have visions of smoke producing naturally aspirated diesels of that day. Just by electronics and engine design, along with turbocharging being the standard for all on road diesels, even without the emissions stuff they are far and away much cleaner than diesels of yesteryear. The gooberment stuff that new production diesels are required to have on them almost makes the air cleaner coming out of the tail pipe than the air that went into the intake.

Of course it is not 1980. But that does not prevent Hill Billy to modify his injection, remove EGR, and local HWY looks like Bosphorus when Admiral Kuznetsov is passing.
Just because today diesels are cleaner (and there is NO any doubt about that) does not mean we should be satisfy by that we should all jump colectivelly because, hey, it is not like in 1980.
And argument against air coming out of new diesels would be?
 
Last edited:
Agree, the "rolling coal" thing is somewhat stupid, but it is not a very common situation. It was not all that common even during the pre-emission days of diesel between the time when naturally aspirated diesels were common till the first emissions stages came into play. Most folks that disable or delete various aspects of diesel emissions are not into that game. Any time I have been motivated to mess with emissions stuff on a diesel, it has been primarily to disable EGR, which causes a host of unintended consequences. Diesels actually were starting to get better emissions just from better designs and ECM control. Putting EGR on caused excessive soot loading of the engine and caused its own little version of rolling coal. Diesels were starting to become pretty clean, in regards to smoke particulates, but EGR screwed that up. Hence, then gooberment decided that DPF's were needed to clean up the mess they created. If they had just gone with DEF/SCR to begin with, we might have been able to avoid a lot of this nonsense.

And the argument would be, at what cost is it worth it to chase a perceived problem that only exists in theoretical application? I clearly remember the 60's and 70's air pollution. We are virtually pristine wilderness today in comparison. The argument to continue to pile on more and more emissions regulations is based on the "at risk fallacy". And the main pitfall in that one is while chasing a solution to an assumed risk, inadvertently other risks, sometimes worse than the original one, come to life as an unintended consequence. Hence, it becomes like a dog chasing its tail. Overcorrecting one supposed problem to then magnify another that then is perceived to need addressing. And the cycle continues. And the only ones who benefit from it are politicians by increasing their control and power over the people and the economy.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Agree, the "rolling coal" thing is somewhat stupid, but it is not a very common situation. Most folks that disabled or deleted various aspects of diesel emissions are not into that game. Any time I have been motivated to mess with emissions stuff on a diesel, it has been primarily to disable EGR, which causes a host of unintended consequences. Diesels actually were starting to get better emissions just from better designs and ECM control. Putting EGR on caused excessive soot loading of the engine and caused its own little version of rolling coal. Diesels were starting to become pretty clean, in regards to smoke particulates, but EGR screwed that up. Hence, then gooberment decided that DPF's were needed to clean up the mess they created. If they had just gone with DEF/SCR to begin with, we might have been able to avoid a lot of this nonsense.

Actually rolling coal is a big problem. I see once a day at least some young guys in pick up truck running coal. CO is pushing now law to put hefty penalties on that. Ask me, I would take away registration until everything is put back together like it was.
As for "gooberment" not sure what is problem with regulation? Especially for someone who comes from Iowa the loves "gooberment" welfare (ethanol subsidies etc.).
Looking at BMW, it is not that DPF is the problem. You say DEF/SCR would be enough. Actually, most problems BMW model I have is related to DEF system, not EGR, not SCR, not DPF. You will always have cars that have good parts like DPF (meaning: they invest in product) or cars that just have slew of problems, including DPF.
 
Seeing something at least once a day doesn't mean it's all that bad. There are a lot bigger traffic concerns, in my view. In any case, an enforcement officer won't worry much about emissions, but there is a nice catch all where anyone engaged in such obnoxious behaviour could be sent in for a complete mechanical inspection.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Seeing something at least once a day doesn't mean it's all that bad. There are a lot bigger traffic concerns, in my view. In any case, an enforcement officer won't worry much about emissions, but there is a nice catch all where anyone engaged in such obnoxious behaviour could be sent in for a complete mechanical inspection.

Smoke school
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
We don't get a lot of that here, and in that article, the pictures were all at a truck pull. I bet some of those vehicles didn't even have license plates!

I am not sure what is going on with those guys, but there is serious proliferation of rolling coal trucks lately. I think it is coming from the race to provide more and more torque, which makes them fun to drive. Then they take out all emission stuff, play with injection and gain some more power while raising questions about mental health in the country.
 
Well, it happens here, just not a lot. I guess there have been enough smoky diesel pickups, semis, and agricultural equipment over the years in this province that there's no novelty to it.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Agree, the "rolling coal" thing is somewhat stupid, but it is not a very common situation. Most folks that disabled or deleted various aspects of diesel emissions are not into that game. Any time I have been motivated to mess with emissions stuff on a diesel, it has been primarily to disable EGR, which causes a host of unintended consequences. Diesels actually were starting to get better emissions just from better designs and ECM control. Putting EGR on caused excessive soot loading of the engine and caused its own little version of rolling coal. Diesels were starting to become pretty clean, in regards to smoke particulates, but EGR screwed that up. Hence, then gooberment decided that DPF's were needed to clean up the mess they created. If they had just gone with DEF/SCR to begin with, we might have been able to avoid a lot of this nonsense.

Actually rolling coal is a big problem. I see once a day at least some young guys in pick up truck running coal. CO is pushing now law to put hefty penalties on that. Ask me, I would take away registration.
Looking at BMW, it is not that DPF is the problem. You say DEF/SCR would be enough. Actually, most problems BMW model I have is related to DEF system, not EGR, not SCR, not DPF. You will always have cars that have good parts like DPF (meaning: they invest in product) or cars that just have slew of problems, including DPF.



I didn't ever notice Colorado passing any legislation against "smoky exhausts". And I don't see them doing it any time soon. A law like this is akin to the idiotic law of 15 round magazines in guns. No peace keeper in the state is going to enforce that law.....unless the theft/robbery suspect is caught red-handed with a 15+ round magazine. For instance, what year models are they going to include and not include???? What a 1989 Ford Power Stroke is free of the law, but the 1990 has to be compliant? Good luck on that one. Not a cop in the state is going to pull over any of those trucks....except maybe the retard law enforcement types that have to answer to the Denver County Attorney, or Boulder/Aspen Enviro-Tards.

Anyway, I will eventually be a part of the crowd, just as soon as my warranty expires on my EcoDiesel. I will "upgrade" my plates to Farm and Ranch, jerk out all the emissions [censored] and begin to get 35mpg. There's a HUGE debate platform for the argument of what is better or worse on the environment....a diesel with all the emission that gets 24mpg and one without all that [censored] that gets 33-35mpg. (yes, there are reports of the EcoDiesel with everything striped getting 35mpg) Heck, my brother has a 2004 Dodge 3500 Cummins that is straight-piped getting up to 28 MPG.

........
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BigJohn
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Agree, the "rolling coal" thing is somewhat stupid, but it is not a very common situation. Most folks that disabled or deleted various aspects of diesel emissions are not into that game. Any time I have been motivated to mess with emissions stuff on a diesel, it has been primarily to disable EGR, which causes a host of unintended consequences. Diesels actually were starting to get better emissions just from better designs and ECM control. Putting EGR on caused excessive soot loading of the engine and caused its own little version of rolling coal. Diesels were starting to become pretty clean, in regards to smoke particulates, but EGR screwed that up. Hence, then gooberment decided that DPF's were needed to clean up the mess they created. If they had just gone with DEF/SCR to begin with, we might have been able to avoid a lot of this nonsense.

Actually rolling coal is a big problem. I see once a day at least some young guys in pick up truck running coal. CO is pushing now law to put hefty penalties on that. Ask me, I would take away registration.
Looking at BMW, it is not that DPF is the problem. You say DEF/SCR would be enough. Actually, most problems BMW model I have is related to DEF system, not EGR, not SCR, not DPF. You will always have cars that have good parts like DPF (meaning: they invest in product) or cars that just have slew of problems, including DPF.



I didn't ever notice Colorado passing any legislation against "smoky exhausts". And I don't see them doing it any time soon. A law like this is akin to the idiotic law of 15 round magazines in guns. No peace keeper in the state is going to enforce that law.....unless the theft/robbery suspect is caught red-handed with a 15+ round magazine. For instance, what year models are they going to include and not include???? What a 1989 Ford Power Stroke is free of the law, but the 1990 has to be compliant? Good luck on that one. Not a cop in the state is going to pull over any of those trucks....except maybe the retard law enforcement types that have to answer to the Denver County Attorney, or Boulder/Aspen Enviro-Tards.

Anyway, I will eventually be a part of the crowd, just as soon as my warranty expires on my EcoDiesel. I will "upgrade" my plates to Farm and Ranch, jerk out all the emissions [censored] and begin to get 35mpg. There's a HUGE debate platform for the argument of what is better or worse on the environment....a diesel with all the emission that gets 24mpg and one without all that [censored] that gets 33-35mpg. (yes, there are reports of the EcoDiesel with everything striped getting 35mpg) Heck, my brother has a 2004 Dodge 3500 Cummins that is straight-piped getting up to 28 MPG.

........


State patrol and police is already attending training for that. Pretty much if you tempered with EGR, DPF etc. you will be ticketed. In El Paso county to register diesel now requires manual inspection of EGR assembly by person from department of health. So when I got X5 35d, guy actually opened hood, took out cover and inspected EGR assembly.
I was thinking to get rid of SCR system (would keep DPF), but they are moving to more complex emission testing in new facilities.
My take: expect very soon laws to get really strict on that. Basically, you will have to run whatever your truck came with. 1989 Ford will have to run whatever ran in 1989.
As for coal runners, I think that is not issue for emission testing facilities, but psychiatry.
By the way, those enviro-tards comprise majority in the State, so who gives a [censored] about what some guy that uses smoke to compensate for something else thinks.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bigjl
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
dpf clogging is not warranted here... it's considered a consumable, aking to a worn clutch.
Fortunately, in the USA, on a light duty automotive application, the DPF would be covered under the Federal Emission Warranty for 8 years or 80,000 miles, whichever comes first. Not sure if clogging would be considered a failure or not, but I would run whatever oil the manufacturer recommended while under warranty.


Most DPF's will happily last more than 80k.

My Pathfinder never had a single problem with the DPF, oil was always changed at 5/6k and I only used high quality oil and filters and it was only filled with decent quality diesel no cheap Supermarlet diesel.

Sold with around 150k on it, I rarely used it as it was a work vehicle.

My Jaguar XJL was on over 150k, had a few DPF sensors replaced but other than that it was reliable enough and there was certainly plenty of life left in the DPF.

I had the DPF sensors replaced and a forced Regen done under Warranty at around 100k miles aswell.



I agree, I have a 2005 VW Phaeton 3.0 TDI with a factory fitted DPF.

I had to get it flushed out at 105.000 miles since it was filled with ash to the max level. Other than that everything is still factory original. Never needed to do a forced regen or anything.
You don't even notice the DPF on that car, regens are not noticeable at all - and it does regen perfectly fine even in bumper to bumper traffic. It's absolutely not different to a car without DPF in terms of reliability, feeling. And that's a DPF system from 2005, one of the first DPF systems on passenger cars back in the day, first generation you could call that.

And it's quiet nice to be able to step on the accelerator without leaving a cloud of smoke behind you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top