Those trying to save environment,wind up hurting it
- Thread starter Speak2Mountain
- Start date
- Status
From what I can tell from the article, direct injection does not solve the problem of cancerous particulates coming out of the tailpipe. Bummer. But that was not the main reason for the adoption of direct injection anyway.
If I recall correctly, direct injection was adopted for fuel efficiency, which it does indeed do better than the old fuel injection engines. So GDI is environmentally better in that it saves fuel, even though it does not lower the rate of cancerous particles exiting the rear of the car.
Pobudy's Nerfect.
GDI is still an useful technology that helps the environment and saves gas. And new technologies are usually slowly improved over time, so GDI still might help with particulate levels in the future. Plus, the study found that adding a cheap ceramic particulate filter helped significantly (a filter that should last the life of the car). So in the end the study finds a way to inexpensively help the environment. So in "trying to save environment," the study seems to be helpful for the environment. And GDI tech does seem to help the environment in other ways (given the fuel savings).
If I recall correctly, direct injection was adopted for fuel efficiency, which it does indeed do better than the old fuel injection engines. So GDI is environmentally better in that it saves fuel, even though it does not lower the rate of cancerous particles exiting the rear of the car.
Pobudy's Nerfect.
GDI is still an useful technology that helps the environment and saves gas. And new technologies are usually slowly improved over time, so GDI still might help with particulate levels in the future. Plus, the study found that adding a cheap ceramic particulate filter helped significantly (a filter that should last the life of the car). So in the end the study finds a way to inexpensively help the environment. So in "trying to save environment," the study seems to be helpful for the environment. And GDI tech does seem to help the environment in other ways (given the fuel savings).
I don't think the article concludes that DI engines hurt the environment - only that they do have an issue with soot (which has been known for some time). They also allow engines to be smaller and consume less fuel, reducing CO emissions. A tradeoff of sorts.
And as it happens, many previously only DI engines are now getting Port Injection added to them - which has as much, if not more to do with the soot issue than the cleaning of intake valve issues that so many are hung up on...
And as it happens, many previously only DI engines are now getting Port Injection added to them - which has as much, if not more to do with the soot issue than the cleaning of intake valve issues that so many are hung up on...
I wonder if you would have the same results here in the US. It seems in Europe the emissions standards are lax, filled with loopholes and there is poor enforcement. I don't think you would see the same discrepancies here in the US. After all, an DI engine still has to comply with the Tier 2 or 3 standards for particulate matter that is applicable to all light duty vehicle whether diesel or gasoline. If there were such a large discrepancy from the standards, you would have similar non-compliance penalties and scandal to what Volkswagen has experienced in the last year.
As long as we keep chasing CO2 emissions, everything will be fine...
The EPA needs to adjust it's focus to cooperation with industry in developing new technology like NASA does. Instead they are a police force and the standards developed by legislators may not reflect a cooperation between what's possible and what's actually needed with adjustments effected as real world experience is gained and adjustments put into practice. We would all be better served and the environment more properly addressed if this could be accomplished.
The regulatory agencies were caught flat footed by the VW adventure. If it were not for the technical expertise of outsiders it may not have ever been discovered. The EPA has to overwhelming power to punish as long as someone points the way. This is only part of the job required and we're left holding the bag.
The regulatory agencies were caught flat footed by the VW adventure. If it were not for the technical expertise of outsiders it may not have ever been discovered. The EPA has to overwhelming power to punish as long as someone points the way. This is only part of the job required and we're left holding the bag.
Originally Posted By: Speak2Mountain
co woes
An article from Green Car Congress?
I'm sure it's fair and balanced.
Particulate emissions from GDI engines have been known about for more than 20 years. It's an inevitable result of injecting fuel directly into the combustion chamber late in the compression stroke when there is very short time for evaporation and mixing. Particulate emissions from port-injected engines have never been an issue. But with the EPA ratcheting up mileage standards, the automakers have no choice but to adopt GDI because it benefits engine efficiency.
Automakers have been developing Gasoline Particulate Filters, and they will probably make production in a few years.
co woes
An article from Green Car Congress?
I'm sure it's fair and balanced.
Particulate emissions from GDI engines have been known about for more than 20 years. It's an inevitable result of injecting fuel directly into the combustion chamber late in the compression stroke when there is very short time for evaporation and mixing. Particulate emissions from port-injected engines have never been an issue. But with the EPA ratcheting up mileage standards, the automakers have no choice but to adopt GDI because it benefits engine efficiency.
Automakers have been developing Gasoline Particulate Filters, and they will probably make production in a few years.
Last edited:
This group clearly has an agenda that they are pushing. No matter what we do and how much we advance towards cleaning up emissions and reducing dependence on oil, they will always find something wrong because no technology is perfect. There's always some kind of trade off.
Currently the environmentalists are pushing electric cars, but then they oppose much of the infrastructure needed to make this work. If more people do start buying more electric cars, at some point some environmental groups will remember that the process of manufacturing batteries also has harmful effects on the environment. Then they will start to push for some new technology or new regulation just like they do with everything else.
I'm not saying we should go back to the days of dumping waste into rivers and lakes and dumping used oil on the ground... I'm very glad those days are behind us. However, I'm also tired of constantly being told that we are destroying the world and seeing prices of everything go up for changes that have little if any actual positive environmental impact. It just feels like we are trapped in a never ending cycle of regulations that often cause as many problems as they fix. Examples: Lead free solder in electronics causing durability issues, leading to more electronic waste that has to be dealt with. Complex emission systems on diesel trucks that cause reliability problems and therefore more waste as parts are replaced. This makes it harder for the middle class and especially the poor to live, while having no impact on those who push for all of these changes.
Currently the environmentalists are pushing electric cars, but then they oppose much of the infrastructure needed to make this work. If more people do start buying more electric cars, at some point some environmental groups will remember that the process of manufacturing batteries also has harmful effects on the environment. Then they will start to push for some new technology or new regulation just like they do with everything else.
I'm not saying we should go back to the days of dumping waste into rivers and lakes and dumping used oil on the ground... I'm very glad those days are behind us. However, I'm also tired of constantly being told that we are destroying the world and seeing prices of everything go up for changes that have little if any actual positive environmental impact. It just feels like we are trapped in a never ending cycle of regulations that often cause as many problems as they fix. Examples: Lead free solder in electronics causing durability issues, leading to more electronic waste that has to be dealt with. Complex emission systems on diesel trucks that cause reliability problems and therefore more waste as parts are replaced. This makes it harder for the middle class and especially the poor to live, while having no impact on those who push for all of these changes.
Last edited:
Yes, I was gonna say that this fine particulate issue with GDI engines isn't exactly a new one and there are multiple methods to mitigate the problem with either filters or combustion design and engineering. It's the intersection of cost-effectiveness, mandated requirements, and engineering that's going to rule the day.
DI is NOT a monolithic block of technology that will never change and never be improved upon...but you seem to get a lot of that kind of ( deleted ) on here. You only have to look at the old stratified injection that was cylinder wall-guided versus the now spray-guided to see that the results and solutions are going to be different and react to changing technology. If a particulate filter can be added to the car for $50-$100 per unit then that may be what happens...or if they find a way to have multiple injections per cycle ( and earlier in the cycle ) that mitigates soot particulate for cheap...then it eventually might go that way. I know the particulate standards were tightened severely for the 2025 model year but who knows what is or will be on the table by that time. Personally, I wouldn't have the nut to pontificate one way or another, but at this point, someone bashing DI as a "green weenie" technology and painting everyone owning one as an "early adopter" is significantly behind the curve.
DI is NOT a monolithic block of technology that will never change and never be improved upon...but you seem to get a lot of that kind of ( deleted ) on here. You only have to look at the old stratified injection that was cylinder wall-guided versus the now spray-guided to see that the results and solutions are going to be different and react to changing technology. If a particulate filter can be added to the car for $50-$100 per unit then that may be what happens...or if they find a way to have multiple injections per cycle ( and earlier in the cycle ) that mitigates soot particulate for cheap...then it eventually might go that way. I know the particulate standards were tightened severely for the 2025 model year but who knows what is or will be on the table by that time. Personally, I wouldn't have the nut to pontificate one way or another, but at this point, someone bashing DI as a "green weenie" technology and painting everyone owning one as an "early adopter" is significantly behind the curve.
- Status
Similar threads
