Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Off-Topic Tech
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-17-2016, 11:08 PM   #11 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 9,614

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 228
Thanked 3,134 Times in 2,454 Posts
Yes turbo chargers lower particulate emissions, increase fuel economy and may slightly increase NOx but who cares about NOx unless you are in a NOx pollution prone area.

In a diesel the exhaust scrubbers lower fuel economy by several MPG.
The only thing that should be done with diesel exhaust scrubbers is ripped out and taken to the scrap yard.

__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-18-2016, 05:15 AM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 944
Thanks: 235
Thanked 344 Times in 240 Posts
This may be your take on things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
Yes turbo chargers lower particulate emissions, increase fuel economy and may slightly increase NOx but who cares about NOx unless you are in a NOx pollution prone area.

In a diesel the exhaust scrubbers lower fuel economy by several MPG.
The only thing that should be done with diesel exhaust scrubbers is ripped out and taken to the scrap yard.
But it is hardly the responsible thing to do environmentally and as time goes - legally.

It also shows a misunderstanding of how effective diesel particulate filters (DPF) can be. A properly sized and operating DPF will trap over 85% of particulate matter and reduce efficiency far less than your proposed "several miles per gallon". The problem has been the first applications have been less than stellar.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2016, 10:21 AM   #13 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 9,614

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 228
Thanked 3,134 Times in 2,454 Posts
When the dpf is deleted people are typically claiming a +5MPG improvement on ford 6.4L and 6.7L Cummins guys are claiming a 2 to 4 mpg improvement. Even ford claims that a dpf regeneration cycle can use up to 17 liters of fuel.Q
Nothing I have found any where supports the claim that the dpf system does not hurt fuel economy.
The dpf system on a diesel is nothing like the catalyst system on a gasoline engine. I believe that the converter on a gas engine has little to no effect on fuel economy.

If you dont live some where smog is a problem then getting over all lower fuel economy and burning up to 17l of fuel to reduce NOx, make your diesel particulate smaller and more harmful is irresponsible.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2016, 12:35 PM   #14 (permalink)
Not Doug
 
Xist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Show Low, AZ
Posts: 10,680

Chorizo - '00 Honda Civic HX, baby! :D
90 day: 35.35 mpg (US)

Mid-Life Crisis Fighter - '99 Honda Accord LX
90 day: 33.43 mpg (US)

Gramps - '04 Toyota Camry LE
90 day: 33.15 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7,010
Thanked 1,997 Times in 1,522 Posts
Aren't they also the single component most prone to failure in new diesels?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2016, 09:21 PM   #15 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 9,614

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 228
Thanked 3,134 Times in 2,454 Posts
They are failure prone and can be very expensive to repair as in labor hours and parts cost. EGR heat exchanges on ford are very well known for cracking then causing some exhaust and coolant to swap places.

One person I work with has a 2011 Cummins and is claiming that an egr and dpf delete, different injector timing and bigger straight pipe exhaust took him from 17mpg to 25mpg on his 35 mile drive to and from work every day.
There are also plenty of tails of 2007.5 trucks doubling fuel economy after an emission delete and reprogram.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2016, 10:40 PM   #16 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 944
Thanks: 235
Thanked 344 Times in 240 Posts
I didn't say DPFs do not hurt economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
When the dpf is deleted people are typically claiming a +5MPG improvement on ford 6.4L and 6.7L Cummins guys are claiming a 2 to 4 mpg improvement. Even ford claims that a dpf regeneration cycle can use up to 17 liters of fuel.Q
Nothing I have found any where supports the claim that the dpf system does not hurt fuel economy.
The dpf system on a diesel is nothing like the catalyst system on a gasoline engine. I believe that the converter on a gas engine has little to no effect on fuel economy.

If you dont live some where smog is a problem then getting over all lower fuel economy and burning up to 17l of fuel to reduce NOx, make your diesel particulate smaller and more harmful is irresponsible.
You made that leap of logic. I am simply saying the systems in place at this point are 1st generation solutions to the problem. Much the same way the catalytic systems in gasoline powered cars back in the early 70s were 1st generation solutions. Those systems were horrible and difficult to keep working and they did harm economy. Note that I say systems. The same way early catalytic converters in gas cars were blamed for all problems, so it is with DPFs.

DPFs will improve just as Catalytic Converters did. But, along with that will be an improvement in the SYSTEM.

You gave the OP the impression that all diesel emissions systems are useless and harm economy greatly. These are simple first gen systems with much room for improvement. Yes, it is simple to throw them out when they fail, but that doesn't help the environment and that isn't much of a challenge. By design, a good DPF should only cause around 1 psi of back pressure. This in itself is not going to reduce your mileage by 4 - 6 MPG. However, as they load up with soot, the back pressure increase does start to effect economy. This isn't the whole story of lost mileage as you have pointed out, the fuel wasted to burn off this soot is a big part of the lost fuel efficiency. Also, another big gain is the result of removing the exhaust gas re-circulation (EGR) component. This is not directly related to the DPF but many attribute the greater power and economy to the removal of the DPF alone and not to the EGR delete.

This is a complex subject that is gaining technological momentum and with a little knowledge and thought someone determined could put together a retrofit system on their diesel vehicle that would outperform the 1st gen designs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2016, 10:45 PM   #17 (permalink)
The brake pedal is evil
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California__ Awsome: Yes
Posts: 382

Denny's Detector - '08 Mercury Grand Marquis

Taserface - '17 Chevy Volt
Thanks: 5
Thanked 51 Times in 47 Posts
I can believe that a tune and EGR delete can achieve good numbers. Back when my parent's F350 7.3L (with dully fenders, front air deflector, and rain guards) was on the transmission it came to us with, it pulled 20 MPG with a slushbox. Turns out it had a chip it in that ran up the boost, when the transmission blew there was no option but to revert to stock to keep the transmission in warranty. Lost 5 MPG to going back to stock EPROM values.

On the topic of emissions:
It looks like volvo is messing with a system that goes engine-> DPF -> SCR that doesn't need active regen.
__________________
Getting sensor data off of a pre OBDII Toyota ECU via TDCL.
All of this is on E10: Project E is my current focus.


Last edited by H-Man; 02-18-2016 at 10:57 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2016, 11:06 PM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 944
Thanks: 235
Thanked 344 Times in 240 Posts
They are the single component most blamed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xist View Post
Aren't they also the single component most prone to failure in new diesels?
Look at Oil Pan4's answer to your post. There is more to this than the DPF, but the DPF will be blamed if one is in the building.

If you are losing engine oil from a seal or ring, the DPF will load up and it will be blamed.

If you have coolant leaking into your exhaust causing solid deposits, the DPF will clog and be blamed.

If your EGR valve is stuck open and your soot production increases, the DPF will load up and be blamed.

If your injectors are worn and are imperfectly metering fuel, your DPF will load up and be blamed.

Get my drift.

It's a system, and it has room to improve.

And I do not agree with Oil Pan4's sentiment to rip out emission systems just because he lives in nice clean and free New Mexico. The emissions from diesels affect our elderly and growing kids the most. Do you want a school bus like the ones from just a few decades back transporting our kids? How about the retirement home shuttle moving seniors back and forth? How about sitting behind one of these coal rollers at a stop light?

Your exhaust is my air.

And yes, I have several diesels in my possession. Including a pair of Dodge Cummins diesels including the problematical 2008 model year with EGR and DPF. I have installed and tested several emissions systems of my design. I am going through reliability testing at this point. You can get economy and clean air all at the same time. The problem is the sensitivity to faults in the engine system. Gone are the days when I could run my mechanically injected Mercedes diesel with one cylinder passing oil past the rings and all the valve stem seals leaking oil and all the manner of crud accumulating on my injectors, and all I had to do was turn up the boost and the smoke went away.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2016, 10:05 AM   #19 (permalink)
EV convert
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 9,614

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 228
Thanked 3,134 Times in 2,454 Posts
See remove the DPF, EGR and EGR cooler, sell it to some sucker in NY or CA that has to have one and your problems go away.

New Mexico air isn't clean. Its full of dirt.
Mother nature is our main air polluter.
If you have ever smoked and live beyond the age of 65 here you are going to get COPD.

If there is a DPF doing its thing near you it is producing colorless odorless diesel particulate in the 1 to 2 micron range it defeats all your body's senses and defenses. And you unknowingly breath the particulate deeply into your lungs.
The DPF does eliminate most of the diesel particulate but what it does produce is exceptionally bad for you.

With a non emissions controlled diesel the particulate is big, from 20 to 250 micron is what I am hearing. You see it you smell it and react to it you don't breath it in, unless you really like the smell of burned diesel.

You want to know what the scarry thing is, when bad guys are trying to make dry powder type chemical or biological weapons they are trying to get the particulate in the 1 to 2 micron range, any smaller than that and you breath it in and right back out, any larger than 2 microns and your body stops most of it.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2016, 02:33 PM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 944
Thanks: 235
Thanked 344 Times in 240 Posts
Again, you are talking about what is in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
See remove the DPF, EGR and EGR cooler, sell it to some sucker in NY or CA that has to have one and your problems go away.

New Mexico air isn't clean. Its full of dirt.
Mother nature is our main air polluter.
If you have ever smoked and live beyond the age of 65 here you are going to get COPD.

If there is a DPF doing its thing near you it is producing colorless odorless diesel particulate in the 1 to 2 micron range it defeats all your body's senses and defenses. And you unknowingly breath the particulate deeply into your lungs.
The DPF does eliminate most of the diesel particulate but what it does produce is exceptionally bad for you.

With a non emissions controlled diesel the particulate is big, from 20 to 250 micron is what I am hearing. You see it you smell it and react to it you don't breath it in, unless you really like the smell of burned diesel.

You want to know what the scarry thing is, when bad guys are trying to make dry powder type chemical or biological weapons they are trying to get the particulate in the 1 to 2 micron range, any smaller than that and you breath it in and right back out, any larger than 2 microns and your body stops most of it.
DPFs eliminate the gross bulk pollution. You have to start there. And you are correct that they allow/create sub micron range particulates. But so do direct injection gas engines which are now coming under scrutiny. There are after treatment solutions to trap them. Diesel and gas engine controls will become more alike as time goes by.

Studying and understanding the combustion process to eliminate the particulate formation in the first place is intensifying.

The whole field of health vectors and population studies is well beyond the scope of this forum but bears the understanding that small particulates are all around us but do not negatively affect us. What is created in diesel and direct injection gas engines unfortunately are carcinogenic and/or biological mutagens. Much of this understanding came from tobacco health affects. As we all know, over a period of time small amounts of tobacco smoke can affect us negatively. Even minuscule amounts of second hand smoke. I think it is prudent to control the emissions of combustion particulates. The future health effects can only be extrapolated but look to be as massive a problem as the burden of tobacco.

This discussion is well past the OP. But it does make the point that an efficient diesel is a non-smoking diesel. That smoke represents lost fuel energy. For now we have to trap it and destroy that smoke. But, the real goal is to use that smoke in the engine cylinders.

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to RustyLugNut For This Useful Post:
Piwoslaw (02-19-2016)
Reply  Post New Thread


Tags
biological weapons, chemical weapons, clean, diesel, emissions, green

Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com