GARRIGA
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Alejandro
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
- Threads
- 18
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 441
- Location
- South Florida
- Vehicle(s)
- Dodge Durango RT
- Occupation
- Finance
Soot in the engine sounds bad
Sponsored
Diesels use EGR to force the exhaust back through the system to be burned a second time. Since, by their very nature, they produce copious amounts of soot, this tends to complicate everything. EGR coolers usually become plugged or worse leak and can introduce coolant into the engine block (on some designs).Soot in the engine sounds bad
Define “polluting”. Again, we have different components of air pollution which are at odds with each other with regards to modern emissions control equipment. DPFs require an increase in CO2 production by design. Most of the diesel tunes on the road roll by you and are never “seen”. If someone gets rid of the DPF and EGR, runs their diesel for 500k miles instead of 250, who calculates the environmental impact of keeping a vehicle on the road longer while producing less CO2? Who balances that with the increased NOx and particulate? I think we can all agree the EPA doesn’t.I have seen VERY few deleted diesels that did not smoke under load which tells me the vast majority of the tunes are polluting and with the power desnity of today's mills, many of them are polluting more than pre-2007 levels.
CO2 is a natural by-product of a mammal breathing (of course, there are other sources) whereas NOx and DPM are known to cause cancer and are not typically naturally occurring. Given the choice, I will take increased CO2 over NOx and DPM any day of the week--especially considering what happens without emissions systems. IMHO, just because the diesels are not "seen" does not mean they are not spewing DPM into the atmosphere--it is built into their design. All of this is a trade-off in some shape or fashion, but in the case of modern light duty diesels (I am speaking of trucks), how much power is enough?Define “polluting”. Again, we have different components of air pollution which are at odds with each other with regards to modern emissions control equipment. DPFs require an increase in CO2 production by design. Most of the diesel tunes on the road roll by you and are never “seen”. If someone gets rid of the DPF and EGR, runs their diesel for 500k miles instead of 250, who calculates the environmental impact of keeping a vehicle on the road longer while producing less CO2? Who balances that with the increased NOx and particulate? I think we can all agree the EPA doesn’t.
If we can’t block the the EGR then what other remedies available? I’m assuming blocking is via some illegal deactivation.Diesels use EGR to force the exhaust back through the system to be burned a second time. Since, by their very nature, they produce copious amounts of soot, this tends to complicate everything. EGR coolers usually become plugged or worse leak and can introduce coolant into the engine block (on some designs).
The most popular diesels have aftermarket kits to block the EGR system. From my point of view, blocking the EGR is not that big of a deal IF the remainder of the emissions system is intact, though it means more regens due to the increased soot in the exhaust.
It is typically a plate that blocks the EGR port (mechanically) and **usually** does not cause any issues.If we can’t block the the EGR then what other remedies available? I’m assuming blocking is via some illegal deactivation.
What do you suppose is the particulate and NOx impact of extracting, transporting, and refining 20% more fuel? What do you suppose is the impact of a single extra million-acre wildfire on both?CO2 is a natural by-product of a mammal breathing (of course, there are other sources) whereas NOx and DPM are known to cause cancer and are not typically naturally occurring. Given the choice, I will take increased CO2 over NOx and DPM any day of the week--especially considering what happens without emissions systems. IMHO, just because the diesels are not "seen" does not mean they are not spewing DPM into the atmosphere--it is built into their design. All of this is a trade-off in some shape or fashion, but in the case of modern light duty diesels (I am speaking of trucks), how much power is enough?
At any rate--time will tell about the long term road maps for diesels and emission systems.
Won’t void the warranty?It is typically a plate that blocks the EGR port (mechanically) and **usually** does not cause any issues.
How do either of those situations fit into the conversation about someone intentionally deleting the emission systems on their diesel? Fuel demand will increase over time simply due to the population growth and wildfires are going to happen no matter what. At any rate, I have more or less exhausted my thoughts on the matter.What do you suppose is the particulate and NOx impact of extracting, transporting, and refining 20% more fuel? What do you suppose is the impact of a single extra million-acre wildfire on both?
Likely, unless removed before taking it in for warranty work.Won’t void the warranty?
You must burn more fuel and increase CO2 production significantly to have your decreased NOx and particulate. You must create more NOx and particulate to procure that extra fuel, and the CO2 production warms the planet yielding more fires...aka more NOx and particulate. None of these factors are accounted for by simple-minded folks at the EPA, nor most of the general public who pretend the EPA is the authority on environmental stewardship.How do either of those situations fit into the conversation about someone intentionally deleting the emission systems on their diesel? Fuel demand will increase over time simply due to the population growth and wildfires are going to happen no matter what. At any rate, I have more or less exhausted my thoughts on the matter.
There lies the rubLikely, unless removed before taking it in for warranty work.