Post by thread:[OT] Saving the world by consuming more fuel?

Hi everyone, Recently I had an experiments on removing the Diesel Particular Filter (DPF) from my car. In modern Diesel engines this is very similar to the 'Catalyst' converters to the Petrol (Gas) counterparts. Manufacturers (and eco engineers) are claiming that the filter would prevent releasing diesel particles to the air, which is fine. However, after removing the filter I have noticed that the fuel consumption is much better, it is 61 mpg (Imperial, or 51 us mpg, or 4.5 l/100km). Previously (with the DPF still in) this figure was way worse, maybe I could achieve 40 mpg (33 us mpg), which is not entirely surprising as the filter is basically a blockage in the exhausting pipe system -- causing the engine work harder to push the exhausting gas through that. The question obviously is how burning more fuel is more "environment safe"? In my mind it is purely wrong. Tama

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Tamas Rudnai wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hi everyone, > > Recently I had an experiments on removing the Diesel Particular Filter > (DPF) from my car. In modern Diesel engines this is very similar to the > 'Catalyst' converters to the Petrol (Gas) counterparts. Manufacturers (and > eco engineers) are claiming that the filter would prevent releasing > diesel particles to the air, which is fine. However, after removing the > filter I have noticed that the fuel consumption is much better, it is 61 > mpg (Imperial, or 51 us mpg, or 4.5 l/100km). Previously (with the DPF > still in) this figure was way worse, maybe I could achieve 40 mpg (33 us > mpg), which is not entirely surprising as the filter is basically a > blockage in the exhausting pipe system -- causing the engine work harder to > push the exhausting gas through that. > > The question obviously is how burning more fuel is more "environment safe"? > In my mind it is purely wrong. I thought the "Diesel Particular Filter" actually burned off the carbon particles thus generating more C02 than if they were actually expelled into the environment. Maybe I got it wrong. Anyone know how often 'one' is supposed to dismantle the filter and remove the accumulated carbon? :-) Regards Sergio Masci

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:39:34 +0100 (BST), smplx wrote: :: Anyone know how often 'one' is :: supposed to dismantle the filter and remove the accumulated carbon? My Peugeot 207 (2010) is under normal driving (more than 40MPH /60klmh) every 180 Mm hmm try 180,000 km. Supposedly if fuel consumption is high it could eb the filter was blocked or contaminated due to low speed driving. Colin -- cdb, spam_OUTcolinTakeThisOuTbtech-online.co.uk on 30/03/2012 Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk Hosted by: http://www.justhost.com.au This email is to be considered private if addressed to a named individual or Personnel Department, and public if addressed to a blog, forum or news article.

{Quote hidden}> -----Original Message----- > From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspam@spam@mit.edu [piclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu] On Behalf > Of smplx > Sent: 30 March 2012 12:40 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [OT] Saving the world by consuming more fuel? > > > > On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Tamas Rudnai wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Recently I had an experiments on removing the Diesel Particular Filter > > (DPF) from my car. In modern Diesel engines this is very similar to the > > 'Catalyst' converters to the Petrol (Gas) counterparts. Manufacturers > (and > > eco engineers) are claiming that the filter would prevent releasing > > diesel particles to the air, which is fine. However, after removing the > > filter I have noticed that the fuel consumption is much better, it is 61 > > mpg (Imperial, or 51 us mpg, or 4.5 l/100km). Previously (with the DPF > > still in) this figure was way worse, maybe I could achieve 40 mpg (33 us > > mpg), which is not entirely surprising as the filter is basically a > > blockage in the exhausting pipe system -- causing the engine work harder > to > > push the exhausting gas through that. > > > > The question obviously is how burning more fuel is more "environment > safe"? > > In my mind it is purely wrong. > > I thought the "Diesel Particular Filter" actually burned off the carbon > particles thus generating more C02 than if they were actually expelled > into the environment. Maybe I got it wrong. Anyone know how often 'one' is > supposed to dismantle the filter and remove the accumulated carbon? > > :-) > > Regards > Sergio Masci > The particulate filter accumulates the filth that diesels pump out until the engine control system detects a significant rise in exhaust back pressure.. At this point the filter is "regenerated"; i.e. the carbon deposits are burnt off by a rise in exhaust gas temperature which is controlled from the engine management. Some cars use a catalytic additive (EOLYS fluid) to lower the temperature at which the regeneration process can work. DPF problems are mainly caused in cars that spend most of their lives being driven sedately, or in traffic in cities. In this case the DPF may not get properly regenerated as the engine is never loaded enough to cause the higher EGT's required. A regular Italian tune up means the DPF will regenerate correctly and have far less impact on engine performance and fuel economy. Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. =======================================================================

I am clueless on this subject! Tell me what car and I will go learn something new... On 3/30/2012 6:30 AM, Tamas Rudnai wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hi everyone, > > Recently I had an experiments on removing the Diesel Particular Filter > (DPF) from my car. In modern Diesel engines this is very similar to the > 'Catalyst' converters to the Petrol (Gas) counterparts. Manufacturers (and > eco engineers) are claiming that the filter would prevent releasing > diesel particles to the air, which is fine. However, after removing the > filter I have noticed that the fuel consumption is much better, it is 61 > mpg (Imperial, or 51 us mpg, or 4.5 l/100km). Previously (with the DPF > still in) this figure was way worse, maybe I could achieve 40 mpg (33 us > mpg), which is not entirely surprising as the filter is basically a > blockage in the exhausting pipe system -- causing the engine work harder to > push the exhausting gas through that. > > The question obviously is how burning more fuel is more "environment safe"? > In my mind it is purely wrong. > > Tamas -- John Ferrell W8CCW “During times of universal deceit, Telling the TRUTH becomes a revolutionary act” George Orwell

My wife has had around 14 new Turbo Diesel cars over the past few years and has never had a DPF regen. I have tried explaining to her that there is a position inbetween full throttle and foot off throttle but she doesn't believe me ;-) Dom > DPF problems are mainly caused in cars that spend most of their lives > being driven sedately, or in traffic in cities. In this case the DPF may > not get properly regenerated as the engine is never loaded enough to cause > the higher EGT's required. A regular Italian tune up means the DPF will > regenerate correctly and have far less impact on engine performance and > fuel economy. > > Mike > > =======================================================================

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 11:30 AM, Tamas Rudnai wrote: > However, after removing the > filter I have noticed that the fuel consumption is much better, it is 61 > mpg (Imperial, or 51 us mpg, or 4.5 l/100km). Previously (with the DPF > still in) this figure was way worse, maybe I could achieve 40 mpg (33 us > mpg), which is not entirely surprising as the filter is basically a > blockage in the exhausting pipe system -- causing the engine work harder > to > push the exhausting gas through that. It's broken. When it's functioning properly it does not block the exhaust. Most exhaust systems are well-designed and you should not have an increase in fuel economy by removing a component. Do you have a warranty? Emissions-related parts have a 70,000 (or something equally large) mile warranty here. The on-board diagnostics should have alerted you with a "check engine" light a long time ago. Bob -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin

I am curious here: where would all the extra energy be going? is the backpressure causing incomplete burning and fuel is being lost without all the energy being extracted from it, or is the engine becoming much less efficient and all the extra energy is going into heat somewhere? If it is the latter, it seems likely that something would have overheated. I suppose that maybe the cooling system could handle it but it certainly would be a big increase in waste heat. On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Bob Blick <.....bobblickKILLspam.....ftml.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 11:30 AM, Tamas Rudnai wrote: >> However, after removing the >> filter I have noticed that the fuel consumption is much better, it is 61 >> mpg (Imperial, or 51 us mpg, or 4.5 l/100km). Previously (with the DPF >> still in) this figure was way worse, maybe I could achieve 40 mpg (33 us >> mpg), which is not entirely surprising as the filter is basically a >> blockage in the exhausting pipe system -- causing the engine work harder >> to >> push the exhausting gas through that. > > It's broken. When it's functioning properly it does not block the > exhaust. Most exhaust systems are well-designed and you should not have > an increase in fuel economy by removing a component. Do you have a > warranty? Emissions-related parts have a 70,000 (or something equally > large) mile warranty here. The on-board diagnostics should have alerted > you with a "check engine" light a long time ago. > > Bob > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin > >

On 30 March 2012 15:24, John Ferrell <EraseMEjferrell13spam_OUTTakeThisOuTtriad.rr.com> wrote: > I am clueless on this subject! > Tell me what car and I will go learn something new... > Mine is a Mazda 6 with a 2.0 Turbo Diesel (143 bhp version). But DPF problem is with literately all cars that has DPF on it. As mentioned by Michael you cannot drive these cars in town for long, but this was the small print which was never raised up when you select the car and buy the more expensive diesel engine one to save up on fuel. Regeneration means you need to drive the car on a motorway for 20 minutes with more than 2k RPM -- this one barely reach this at 70mph (which is the legal speed limit here in the UK), so you need to shift down to 5 or even 4 -- but then again, burning more fuel just to save up environment is just not right! Also they say in regeneration process the computer pushes more fuel to increase the temperature in the DPF system. This system is plain wrong in my opinion. Tamas {Quote hidden}> > On 3/30/2012 6:30 AM, Tamas Rudnai wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > Recently I had an experiments on removing the Diesel Particular Filter > > (DPF) from my car. In modern Diesel engines this is very similar to the > > 'Catalyst' converters to the Petrol (Gas) counterparts. Manufacturers > (and > > eco engineers) are claiming that the filter would prevent releasing > > diesel particles to the air, which is fine. However, after removing the > > filter I have noticed that the fuel consumption is much better, it is 61 > > mpg (Imperial, or 51 us mpg, or 4.5 l/100km). Previously (with the DPF > > still in) this figure was way worse, maybe I could achieve 40 mpg (33 us > > mpg), which is not entirely surprising as the filter is basically a > > blockage in the exhausting pipe system -- causing the engine work harder > to > > push the exhausting gas through that. > > > > The question obviously is how burning more fuel is more "environment > safe"? > > In my mind it is purely wrong. > > > > Tamas > > -- > John Ferrell W8CCW > “During times of universal deceit, > Telling the TRUTH becomes a revolutionary act” > George Orwell > > >

On 30 March 2012 16:55, Sean Breheny <@spam@shb7KILLspamcornell.edu> wrote: > I am curious here: where would all the extra energy be going? is the > My assumption was that the engine needs to push the exhausting gas through this filter and that takes quite a few horse power out, so removing that DPF you have more energy left for driving the car itself. But again, this was only my speculation. Tamas {Quote hidden}> backpressure causing incomplete burning and fuel is being lost without > all the energy being extracted from it, or is the engine becoming much > less efficient and all the extra energy is going into heat somewhere? > If it is the latter, it seems likely that something would have > overheated. I suppose that maybe the cooling system could handle it > but it certainly would be a big increase in waste heat. > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Bob Blick <KILLspambobblickKILLspamftml.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 11:30 AM, Tamas Rudnai wrote: > >> However, after removing the > >> filter I have noticed that the fuel consumption is much better, it is 61 > >> mpg (Imperial, or 51 us mpg, or 4.5 l/100km). Previously (with the DPF > >> still in) this figure was way worse, maybe I could achieve 40 mpg (33 us > >> mpg), which is not entirely surprising as the filter is basically a > >> blockage in the exhausting pipe system -- causing the engine work harder > >> to > >> push the exhausting gas through that. > > > > It's broken. When it's functioning properly it does not block the > > exhaust. Most exhaust systems are well-designed and you should not have > > an increase in fuel economy by removing a component. Do you have a > > warranty? Emissions-related parts have a 70,000 (or something equally > > large) mile warranty here. The on-board diagnostics should have alerted > > you with a "check engine" light a long time ago. > > > > Bob > > > > -- > > http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin > > > > --

> -----Original Message----- > From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.edu [spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamBeGonemit.edu] On Behalf > Of Sean Breheny > Sent: 30 March 2012 16:56 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [OT] Saving the world by consuming more fuel? > > I am curious here: where would all the extra energy be going? is the > backpressure causing incomplete burning and fuel is being lost without > all the energy being extracted from it, or is the engine becoming much > less efficient and all the extra energy is going into heat somewhere? > If it is the latter, it seems likely that something would have > overheated. I suppose that maybe the cooling system could handle it > but it certainly would be a big increase in waste heat. Pumping losses. Energy is lost simply by having higher pressures in the cylinder during the exhaust stroke caused by exhaust restriction. The early catalytic converters on petrol(gas) engines caused a similar drop in economy and performance, though modern designs are much better. Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. =======================================================================

Sean - All of the above. Bob's right about properly designed exhaust systems being power-neutral over the design rpm range of the engine. That's not to say that passenger car exhaust systems don't reduce volumetric efficiency; thus (potentiallly) power & fuel economy, but modern, properly designed systems are fairly free-flowing. The price of this happy situation is complexity - There are plenty of things to go wrong, all of which degrade power & fuel economy. Most of this is covered by warranty, at least until you get to the dealer & are told it is'nt, & will cost $1500 to fix. On the bright side, do your due diligence & 8 years from now you may well get a $11.82 settlement check from the class- action attorney... Jac

Yes, but the energy to pump the gases must be "going" somewhere - presumably into higher temperature exhaust gases? It would seem to me that this would likely make something fail eventually much sooner than it would otherwise fail. On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Michael Rigby-Jones <TakeThisOuTMichael.Rigby-JonesEraseMEspam_OUToclaro.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > > > Pumping losses. Energy is lost simply by having higher pressures in the cylinder during the exhaust stroke caused by exhaust restriction. The early catalytic converters on petrol(gas) engines caused a similar drop in economy and performance, though modern designs are much better. > > Mike > > ======================================================================= > This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The > information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by > law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must > not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any > person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have > received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, > forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. > No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or > services. > ======================================================================= > >

On 31 March 2012 01:15, Bob Blick <bobblickEraseME.....ftml.net> wrote: > Is it possible to manually burn off the clogging? Maybe with an ad-hoc > blast furnace made with concrete blocks, hair dryer and charcoal > briquets? > Garages are doing manual regeneration sessions (not sure what does that mean but I thought it was only their computer attached to the ECU commanding it to doing this so). Otherwise you have to take the entire exhausting pipe down to physically do anything with the DPF (I have seen it at my mechanic). > Do you need to pass regular inspections? > The manual only said if DPF light is flashing on your dashboard then you need to go to the motorway to let the car do the automatic regeneration, and if you do not do that it might turn to continuous light which means you need to bring it to the mechanic to either manual regeneration or to replace the DPF (which is very very expensive). My light was never flashing, only came into continuous. When it does that the ECU goes to 'limbo mode', meaning that you can drive home at a limited speed but you need to bring your car to the mechanic asap. Tama

At 18.26 2012.03.30, you wrote: {Quote hidden}> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesmit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEEraseMEmit.edu] On Behalf >> Of Sean Breheny >> Sent: 30 March 2012 16:56 >> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. >> Subject: Re: [OT] Saving the world by consuming more fuel? >> >> I am curious here: where would all the extra energy be going? is the >> backpressure causing incomplete burning and fuel is being lost without >> all the energy being extracted from it, or is the engine becoming much >> less efficient and all the extra energy is going into heat somewhere? >> If it is the latter, it seems likely that something would have >> overheated. I suppose that maybe the cooling system could handle it >> but it certainly would be a big increase in waste heat. > >Pumping losses. Energy is lost simply by having higher pressures in >the cylinder during the exhaust stroke caused by exhaust restriction. >The early catalytic converters on petrol(gas) engines caused a similar >drop in economy and performance, though modern designs are much better. I think instead it's because not all exhaust gases will escape, so less fresh charge will be able to enter in the following intake phase. Volumetric efficiency, in other words.

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:24 AM, John Ferrell <RemoveMEjferrell13TakeThisOuTspamtriad.rr.com>wrote: > I am clueless on this subject! > Tell me what car and I will go learn something new... > The Book Of Knowledge has something on this, including the little light that says "Time to go for a drive to burn it off". I gather this is the "Italian tune-up" Michael was referring to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Picbits Sales <EraseMEsalesspamspamBeGonepicbits.co.uk> wrote: > My wife has had around 14 new Turbo Diesel cars over the past few years and > has never had a DPF regen. I have tried explaining to her that there is a > position inbetween full throttle and foot off throttle but she doesn't > believe me ;-) >Dom This is known as a "digital throttle control". I get tired of the marketers flacking "all digital" as a product feature, and sometimes refer to foolishness such as this as an example. On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Tamas Rudnai <RemoveMEtamas.rudnaiKILLspamgmail.com>wrote: > > My light was never flashing, only came into continuous. When it does that > the ECU goes to 'limbo mode', meaning that you can drive home at a limited > speed but you need to bring your car to the mechanic asap. Actually they call it "limp" mode, as in it allows you to "limp home". One possible angle on the original question could be that, even if you burn more fuel, that is offset by the cleaner emissions, in the grams-per-mile sense. But I don't really believe that, and I don't expect you to, either. I often say that it's the stuff you can't see that's dangerous. "Smoke" is particles, which presumably fall to the ground as dust. As if to illustrate my point, the Wikipedia article mentions production of high amounts of NOx during the DPF "cleaning cycle"

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 01:25 PM, Barry Gershenfeld wrote: > I often say that it's the stuff you can't see that's dangerous. When stuck in traffic the last thing I want is to be behind a diesel. But I rode in a friend's new California edition Jetta and it was quite pleasant and didn't stink or irritate. I'd say that is an improvement! And the California models have a very long emissions warranty, so I assume that technology eventually will make it across the ocean and you'll get reliable diesels. Unfortunately that probably means you were used as the Guinea pigs to test different systems, and some worked better than others. Like a Tektronix scope I bought many years ago that was a lot of trouble. Then they released the "A" model, that didn't have problems :( Best regards, Bob -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class