5 ms·

> Diesel particulates are very bad for the lungs, and he helped put a stop to so much of it. Dieselgate wasn't about particulates, and unlike petrol cars every

> Diesel particulates are very bad for the lungs, and he helped put a stop to so much of it. Dieselgate wasn't about particulates, and unlike petrol cars every diesel car of the last 10-15 years has a particulate filter... Now petrol cars are getting particulate filters too, because new emission standards (e.g. Euro 6c) include particulate restrictions for petrol engines, which they didn't previously have, and direct injection engines utterly exceed those restrictions.

gambiting 7y ago
And yet, where I'm from(Poland) it's extremely common to have the DPF removed from a new diesel car, pretty much any workshop will do it and fit a DPF emulator instead so the computer doesn't complain. All of that to avoid a potential cost few years down the line to have the filter cleaned/replaced. I'm utterly disgusted by how common this behaviour is.
- lb1lf 7y ago
  Wouldn't you need to have the DPF retrofitted prior to any periodic vehicle control (as mandated by the EU), pretty much neutralising any savings?
  - gambiting 7y ago
    No, to my knowledge you can pass the annual technical test without any issues even with the DPF filter removed, unless the engine has other issues and is literally emitting black smoke - the particulate emissions without the filter are not enough to trigger a fail(essentially the threshold is so fantastically high that modern diesels are far below it, dpf filter or not).
    - lb1lf 7y ago
      -Oh. That was unexpected. Thanks!
      - blattimwind 7y ago
        Honestly I've never heard of DPF removals before (edit: reason being mandatory car inspection usually finds this modification where I live, apparently it used to be a thing for some time and then the inspection protocol was changed). I only heard about people bypassing the AGR (exhaust recirculation), but that's independent of diesel/petrol (both have them nowadays). That being said DPF issues seem to mostly impact people who only use the car for short distances; I've lived with DPF diesel cars for ~10 years and no issues. That being said any ICE powered vehicle is completely unsuited for travelling short distances, not just from an ecology point of view. Some more than others, though, it seems.
    - ergo14 7y ago
      Not anymore, since this year when you have DPF removed you will not pass the combustion quality check.
- bluedino 7y ago
  It's not legal in the USA either, but it's very popular to do with diesel pickup trucks. Look up 'rolling coal' on YouTube
  - throwaway400 7y ago
    I wouldn't say it's very popular... I rarely see trucks that are sporting DPF deletes, though I guess if you live somewhere like Texas with an insane truck culture, it's probably more popular than elsewhere.
smurv 7y ago
Strange how no one talks anymore about how much more efficient and more suited diesel engines are when it comes to everyday traffic than petrol engines. It's become all about particles, and yes, diesel is more dangerous to humans if not filtered correctly. But at the same time, diesel engines are using less fuel and there is no reason why we shouldn't use DPF when they are available. I switched to a diesel car not long ago, and I can safely say that as long diesel cars are being manufactured, I'll never go back to petrol.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  I think for city traffic ICE cars (and more generally, cars) are just unsuited. Stop and go, very low speeds etc. are just the worst case for both fuel usage and pollution (low load = low exhaust temp = catalytic exhaust processing doesn't work properly, problem gets bigger with the engine; e.g. truck exhaust processing basically doesn't do much at all in cities). And you get a choice of "do I want to wear the engine or do I want to minimize exhaust and fuel"... For general driving I find it easier to drive a diesel for low consumption compared to petrol. I also like how diesels tend to have nice long gearing, leading to low RPMs and less noise. Pick-up from low RPMs is also quite nice, a diesel has no issues to start accelerating from, say, 1200 rpm (with practically all constant speed driving falling between 1000 and ~1600ish rpm for me, to see more you'll need the Autobahn). For petrolhead(?) purposes I have to say that diesel tend to sound like a loose bag of bolts when you rev them (which you normally won't do), obviously it's not going to sound like a race car. In that regard tiny (1 liter, 1.2 liter) non-DI, non-turbo petrol engines tend to surprise... :) though at least some of these are way worse at fuel efficiency than you'd expect.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >low load = low exhaust temp = catalytic exhaust processing doesn't work properly It's not 1970 anymore. Those cats are right behind the exhaust manifold for a reason and that reason isn't to save money on piping.
  - geggam 7y ago
    Audi A8 diesel on the autobahn is fun. Smooth ride at 250 kph :)
djaychela 7y ago
"Dieselgate wasn't about particulates, and unlike petrol cars every diesel car of the last 10-15 years has a particulate filter..." Not true here in the UK - I buy and sell secondhand cars of this vintage as a side job, and not all the diesels I've seen have DPFs (I'd say it was 50% have them) - lots of models didn't have them, including quite a few vans (which pollute more due to bigger engines, lower mpg, etc). And anyone who's bought anything of this age range also knows that the DPFs are a reliability nightmare. Lots of people removed them (which is now at least tested on the MOT, although it's possible to remove it in a way that is not detected by an MOT test). But most importantly, although dieselgate wasn't about particulates, it still means getting diesels off the road, which is a good thing. If particulates had been accurately measured in vehicles after a few years, I'm sure many more would be off the road, particularly 1st gen DPF cars. The problem is that most people now equate a vehicle with a DPF as being a nightmare, and then by association don't care about the effect on the environment as the effect on their wallet is a more pressing need. Much the same as EGR valves, which are a reliability issue on most vehicles regardless of fuel. People block them off, leading to increased NOx pollution and better fuel consumption, and when it can cost hundreds of pounds to get it replaced (if it has to be calibrated to the ECU, etc, often a main dealer trip is involved), it's not surprising that this happens. The sooner we can all go electric, the better, IMO. And I say that as someone who has considerable skill and experience in repairing and maintaining ICE cars.
Reason077 7y ago
Modern diesels are supposed to have particulate filters installed. Yet just yesterday, in “ultra low emission zone” Central London, I saw a Ford diesel van with a 16 plate (meaning, it’s a late-2015 Model at the earliest) spewing a cloud of black soot every time it pulled away at an intersection. It’s clear that there are still too many DPF removals going on, and lax controls about monitoring emissions from supposedly-compliant vehicles. (Motorcycles are another huge issue. They may be compliant with noise and emissions regs at the factory gate, but too many people swap the exhaust for a loud, polluting, illegal one.)
- sundvor 7y ago
  What!? Cars/trucks that have been modded this way ought to have a mandatory crush penalty. Complete forfeiture of the asset, zero compensation. Then let's see how popular the practice would remain. Diesel cars should have a mandatory pre sale environmental inspection to root out buyers getting stuck in the 2nd hand market.
  - RankingMember 7y ago
    > Cars/trucks that have been modded this way ought to have a mandatory crush penalty. Complete forfeiture of the asset, zero compensation. I feel like you might get a wee bit of pushback on the idea of crushing people's modes of transport because they stuck a non-regulation exhaust on there. All-or-nothing regulations such as the one you propose are rarely sustainable. Even CARB (the California Air Resources Board), the bane of California automotive enthusiasts, isn't that draconian.
    - sundvor 7y ago
      Why should people be allowed to act so selfishly? It would stop the practice dead in its tracks, and from then a non issue. I dare say that makes it worth it. Furthermore making it strictly illegal to perform the work would assist.
      - bluGill 7y ago
ody4242 7y ago
The way DPF works results in more <PM10 particulate than not having a DPF at all. (It does burn most of the soot, but results in more small particles at then end, and we know that those small particles are the ones that are causing most of the troubles in the lungs and blood stream)
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  Can you cite anything that proves it’s worse
  - ody4242 7y ago
    Tom Denton: Automotive Technician Training: Theory page 213 no proof, just a statement though, but the same phrasing is seen all around the net, even on the DPF wikipedia page (without source though)

gambiting 7y ago

And yet, where I'm from(Poland) it's extremely common to have the DPF removed from a new diesel car, pretty much any workshop will do it and fit a DPF emulator instead so the computer doesn't complain. All of that to avoid a potential cost few years down the line to have the filter cleaned/replaced. I'm utterly disgusted by how common this behaviour is.

lb1lf 7y ago
Wouldn't you need to have the DPF retrofitted prior to any periodic vehicle control (as mandated by the EU), pretty much neutralising any savings?
- gambiting 7y ago
  No, to my knowledge you can pass the annual technical test without any issues even with the DPF filter removed, unless the engine has other issues and is literally emitting black smoke - the particulate emissions without the filter are not enough to trigger a fail(essentially the threshold is so fantastically high that modern diesels are far below it, dpf filter or not).
  - lb1lf 7y ago
    -Oh. That was unexpected. Thanks!
    - blattimwind 7y ago
      Honestly I've never heard of DPF removals before (edit: reason being mandatory car inspection usually finds this modification where I live, apparently it used to be a thing for some time and then the inspection protocol was changed). I only heard about people bypassing the AGR (exhaust recirculation), but that's independent of diesel/petrol (both have them nowadays). That being said DPF issues seem to mostly impact people who only use the car for short distances; I've lived with DPF diesel cars for ~10 years and no issues. That being said any ICE powered vehicle is completely unsuited for travelling short distances, not just from an ecology point of view. Some more than others, though, it seems.
  - ergo14 7y ago
    Not anymore, since this year when you have DPF removed you will not pass the combustion quality check.
bluedino 7y ago
It's not legal in the USA either, but it's very popular to do with diesel pickup trucks. Look up 'rolling coal' on YouTube
- throwaway400 7y ago
  I wouldn't say it's very popular... I rarely see trucks that are sporting DPF deletes, though I guess if you live somewhere like Texas with an insane truck culture, it's probably more popular than elsewhere.

smurv 7y ago

Strange how no one talks anymore about how much more efficient and more suited diesel engines are when it comes to everyday traffic than petrol engines. It's become all about particles, and yes, diesel is more dangerous to humans if not filtered correctly. But at the same time, diesel engines are using less fuel and there is no reason why we shouldn't use DPF when they are available. I switched to a diesel car not long ago, and I can safely say that as long diesel cars are being manufactured, I'll never go back to petrol.

blattimwind 7y ago
I think for city traffic ICE cars (and more generally, cars) are just unsuited. Stop and go, very low speeds etc. are just the worst case for both fuel usage and pollution (low load = low exhaust temp = catalytic exhaust processing doesn't work properly, problem gets bigger with the engine; e.g. truck exhaust processing basically doesn't do much at all in cities). And you get a choice of "do I want to wear the engine or do I want to minimize exhaust and fuel"... For general driving I find it easier to drive a diesel for low consumption compared to petrol. I also like how diesels tend to have nice long gearing, leading to low RPMs and less noise. Pick-up from low RPMs is also quite nice, a diesel has no issues to start accelerating from, say, 1200 rpm (with practically all constant speed driving falling between 1000 and ~1600ish rpm for me, to see more you'll need the Autobahn). For petrolhead(?) purposes I have to say that diesel tend to sound like a loose bag of bolts when you rev them (which you normally won't do), obviously it's not going to sound like a race car. In that regard tiny (1 liter, 1.2 liter) non-DI, non-turbo petrol engines tend to surprise... :) though at least some of these are way worse at fuel efficiency than you'd expect.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >low load = low exhaust temp = catalytic exhaust processing doesn't work properly It's not 1970 anymore. Those cats are right behind the exhaust manifold for a reason and that reason isn't to save money on piping.
- geggam 7y ago
  Audi A8 diesel on the autobahn is fun. Smooth ride at 250 kph :)

djaychela 7y ago

"Dieselgate wasn't about particulates, and unlike petrol cars every diesel car of the last 10-15 years has a particulate filter..." Not true here in the UK - I buy and sell secondhand cars of this vintage as a side job, and not all the diesels I've seen have DPFs (I'd say it was 50% have them) - lots of models didn't have them, including quite a few vans (which pollute more due to bigger engines, lower mpg, etc). And anyone who's bought anything of this age range also knows that the DPFs are a reliability nightmare. Lots of people removed them (which is now at least tested on the MOT, although it's possible to remove it in a way that is not detected by an MOT test). But most importantly, although dieselgate wasn't about particulates, it still means getting diesels off the road, which is a good thing. If particulates had been accurately measured in vehicles after a few years, I'm sure many more would be off the road, particularly 1st gen DPF cars. The problem is that most people now equate a vehicle with a DPF as being a nightmare, and then by association don't care about the effect on the environment as the effect on their wallet is a more pressing need. Much the same as EGR valves, which are a reliability issue on most vehicles regardless of fuel. People block them off, leading to increased NOx pollution and better fuel consumption, and when it can cost hundreds of pounds to get it replaced (if it has to be calibrated to the ECU, etc, often a main dealer trip is involved), it's not surprising that this happens. The sooner we can all go electric, the better, IMO. And I say that as someone who has considerable skill and experience in repairing and maintaining ICE cars.

Reason077 7y ago

Modern diesels are supposed to have particulate filters installed. Yet just yesterday, in “ultra low emission zone” Central London, I saw a Ford diesel van with a 16 plate (meaning, it’s a late-2015 Model at the earliest) spewing a cloud of black soot every time it pulled away at an intersection. It’s clear that there are still too many DPF removals going on, and lax controls about monitoring emissions from supposedly-compliant vehicles. (Motorcycles are another huge issue. They may be compliant with noise and emissions regs at the factory gate, but too many people swap the exhaust for a loud, polluting, illegal one.)

sundvor 7y ago
What!? Cars/trucks that have been modded this way ought to have a mandatory crush penalty. Complete forfeiture of the asset, zero compensation. Then let's see how popular the practice would remain. Diesel cars should have a mandatory pre sale environmental inspection to root out buyers getting stuck in the 2nd hand market.
- RankingMember 7y ago
  > Cars/trucks that have been modded this way ought to have a mandatory crush penalty. Complete forfeiture of the asset, zero compensation. I feel like you might get a wee bit of pushback on the idea of crushing people's modes of transport because they stuck a non-regulation exhaust on there. All-or-nothing regulations such as the one you propose are rarely sustainable. Even CARB (the California Air Resources Board), the bane of California automotive enthusiasts, isn't that draconian.
  - sundvor 7y ago
    Why should people be allowed to act so selfishly? It would stop the practice dead in its tracks, and from then a non issue. I dare say that makes it worth it. Furthermore making it strictly illegal to perform the work would assist.
    - bluGill 7y ago

ody4242 7y ago

The way DPF works results in more <PM10 particulate than not having a DPF at all. (It does burn most of the soot, but results in more small particles at then end, and we know that those small particles are the ones that are causing most of the troubles in the lungs and blood stream)

selimthegrim 7y ago
Can you cite anything that proves it’s worse
- ody4242 7y ago
  Tom Denton: Automotive Technician Training: Theory page 213 no proof, just a statement though, but the same phrasing is seen all around the net, even on the DPF wikipedia page (without source though)