Is there a way to reduce emissions without hurting performance?

My car runs well and is fast but puts out some black smoke on hard load (or medium load when shifting). I know I have to be putting out some terrible emissions (not here to debate your care for the environment, or liberal politics). I would like to reduce emissions, but I don't want to hurt my performance or decrease my engine life. I feel like an EGR and PCV system must be removed for the sake of not gumming up my engine. I removed my catalytic converter to increase performance. I have found a 50CPSI catalytic converter online, seems to be the highest flow converter available. Will this actually reduce emissions, or is it nothing more than a way for people to skirt emissions laws because they technically have a catalytic converter? Does it actually convert the carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide and water? Does it do anything at all, or just add some back pressure, and look like I have a catalytic converter from the outside?

Current set up:

GTB2260VKLR turbo
Bosio PowerPlus 1043 nozzles
PD150 intake manifold, w/Race Pipe EGR and ASV delete
3" downpipe and straight pipe exhaust, no cat, no muffler
Stock PCV, but need to remove it, considering a catch can.

lean out your smoke maps a bit

I'm running MAF based and only get a bit of smoke on spoolup as the intake tract is all pressurized. It meters the air and it isn't into the motor yet.

your stock cat won't really help with particulate, but it also won't hurt your flow (until you plug it up with soot)

If you want the same performance and less smoke (assuming that is the emissions you're trying to reduce), then you need either more mass air through the engine or more advanced injection timing.

I'll 2nd a MAF based tune as [486] mentioned above. This won't in of itself get you more mass airflow, but it will help keep your smoke levels more consistent with seasons, temperatures, air filter condition, transient response, etc and make tuning easier as there are fewer variables effecting your results.

An 02 sensor is really helpful for tuning for less smoke as well. Generally 20:1 AFR will net you a clean setup. If you've got really good injectors, high compression, advanced injection timing, etc you can get by with 18:1 and be smoke free.

As for more mass airflow, be careful about just turning up the boost. I'd recommend getting a pressure gauge to monitor the exhaust pressure between the engine and turbo. If this is running "high" (more than boost pressure once spooled up) then you're actuator/tune are out of adjustment. There will be some compromises with adjusting this in terms of transient response. There's definitely a sweet spot where it all comes together. You're best to work with your tuner as to how they want to set things up to achieve your goals.

As for more advanced injection timing, the theory here is that the earlier you get the fuel in the cylinder, the more time it has to burn completely and the less smoke you'll have for he same fuel delivery. Bigger injectors help with this as well (and corresponding re-tune to inject the same amount of fuel in less time). This is another one where there's a sweet spot. Too advanced and your peak cylinder pressures will go out of sight and you'll hammer rod bearings, take out head gaskets, etc. Not advanced enough and you'll have smoke, high EGT's, etc.

A catalytic converter won't do much of anything for you other than make it smell better.

Your question and the thread title should be, "Is there a way to reduce *smoke* without hurting performance?", which is a fine question in and of itself but otherwise intellectually disingenuous as it currently is.

Because it's evident you don't really care about emissions in the broader sense, which includes HC, CO, NOx and VOCs based on all the stuff you've removed or plan to remove. As long as the emissions are out of sight, they out of mind. This is not to bring up "liberal politics" as you put it. Them's just the facts.

Now, for a constructive note, if you want to cut smoke while preserving power, you need more air and deliver it to the cylinders quicker. You have a good turbo for the job, maybe a re-map for a bit more boost and fine-tuning the PID gains -- based on plotting requested vs actual boost -- and VNT set screw adjustment is all you need. Better intercooling and optimising the length and volume of the air path from the compressor outlet to the intake manifold would also help.

Just to clarify, while the smoke is somewhat troubling and I would like reduce it, I would actually like to reduce emissions because of environmental reasons but I would like to do it without an EGR and PCV system so that I do not gum up my intake or push oil into the combustion chamber. Thus the looking for a performance catalytic converter, that will actually convert the carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide, and not just look like I have a converter without actually doing anything.

I have been looking at this one: http://mandrelbendingsolutions.com/5-50-cell-cpsi-high-flow-ultra-race-converter/

And then there is this company, but they are quite a bit more expensive:
http://vibrantperformance.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=1468_1469_1326

Both seem to have similar construction, but I am not sure if they actually reduce emissions.

Those catalytic converters are meant for gasoline engines and will not function effectively nor survive long in a diesel application. You need one that is meant for a diesel engine.

And, it will only function as an oxidizing catalyst. While those catalytic converters are 3-way catalysts, they can only function in that manner with a stoichiometric exhaust stream. The function of the EGR system (of reducing NOx) cannot be substituted in a simple manner.

There is no substitute for routing the crankcase vent into the engine air intake. If this is uncontrolled then any HC that gets past the piston rings is going straight out into the air, uncontrolled.

Gasoline catalytic converters do squat for Diesels. And for all that people like to complain about it, what do you think the EGR is there for? Fun? So it gums up the intake. Clean it periodically. Most nobody complains that we need to change the oil and filters from time-to-time. It's called maintenance.

I was going to use a catch can instead of venting the PCV directly into the atmosphere.

The cats I linked to are rated for much higher EGT than I ever see in my car, and with only 50 cells per square inch, it doesn't sound like it would get plugged up with soot as easily. What makes them not work for a diesel?

HailPeyton said:

I was going to use a catch can instead of venting the PCV directly into the atmosphere.

Click to expand...

which will do what?

To answer the thread title, buy a newer, larger engine with all the emissions controls on it.

There was someone on here making stupid power out of an A8 with the DPF still on it.

TDIMeister said:

Clean it periodically.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point, because ULSD has certainly changed the average diesel intake cleanout interval from "every couple years" to what, I wonder? "Once a decade" perhaps? Some might say "never again"?

HailPeyton said:

The cats I linked to are rated for much higher EGT than I ever see in my car, and with only 50 cells per square inch, it doesn't sound like it would get plugged up with soot as easily. What makes them not work for a diesel?

Click to expand...

I believe the short answer is: different chemical reactions at play (no appreciable CO in a diesel's exhaust, for example), so different catalytic chemistry used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter

[486] said:

which will do what?

Click to expand...

The catch can collects the oil from the PCV system instead of dumping it back into the intake, then circulates the air back into the intake. Reduces the excess oil in the intercooler, the intake manifold, and in the combustion chamber.

HailPeyton said:

I was going to use a catch can instead of venting the PCV directly into the atmosphere.

Click to expand...

As long as the gases end up in the intake air, no problem.

HailPeyton said:

The cats I linked to are rated for much higher EGT than I ever see in my car, and with only 50 cells per square inch, it doesn't sound like it would get plugged up with soot as easily. What makes them not work for a diesel?

Click to expand...

Different catalyst formulation.

The catalyst formulation is different as Brian said, but more fundamentally than that, the 3-way catalytic function, that is, simultaneous reduction of HC, CO and NOx, requires a very tightly controlled stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. Diesel engines run lean, so the NOx part of the reduction does not work.

The catalyst would revert to only oxidizing HC and CO, and this only IF the catalyst is also working within a required window of temperature. That the cats shown above are rated for much higher EGT is irrelevant - they NEED a certain minimum temperature to function at all, and catalysts formulated for gasoline engines will have "light-off" temperature and the temperature window for optimal conversion that will not be compatible with the relatively cool Diesel EGT.

Vince Waldon said:

I believe the short answer is: different chemical reactions at play (no appreciable CO in a diesel's exhaust, for example), so different catalytic chemistry used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter

Click to expand...

Reading this web page https://www.catalyticconverters.com/types/

It seems that a traditional OBD1 style catalytic converter will work in reducing Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons for a diesel, but won't reduce Nitrogen. I get that a full on diesel particulate filter would be better, but from my research they can easily cost $2000 or more, which is not an investment I a prepared to make on a 10 year old car. I am not saying that adding one of these race gasser cats is the end all for emissions, but it seems that at least reducing the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons would be better than a straight pipe.

The catalytic converter that originally came with your car does its job well enough and is not a significant restriction, even in highly tuned engines, unless plugged by external causes.

TDIMeister said:

The catalytic converter that originally came with your car does its job well enough and is not a significant restriction, even in highly tuned engines, unless plugged by external causes.

Click to expand...

I would have to reduce the size of my exhaust pipes to use it. I currently have a 3" pipe from the turbo to the end of the car. Additionally, it would be much easier to plug with the particulate that is most definitely increased given the performance modifications currently on the car.

There are conical sections on both ends of the catalyst can. You can simply take your 3 inch pipes, trim the conical sections to match the diameters, blend and weld together. Done.

As for the added particulates, fix it with the steps I already stated in my first post in this thread.

A cat will also reduce PM emissions some. Magnaflow has 2.5" cats, and bigger ones too.

If your car is spitting out so much soot that it would plug the converter you need to look into fixing your tune.

I would also say there's no need to ditch the PCV. What harm is a little oil in the intake going to do?

-J

True, the catalyst (properly formulated specifically for Diesels) will oxidize the volatile or vaporous components of PM, e.g. VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and PAHs (polynuclear/polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). Will not do much for solid black smoke.

Vince Waldon said:

That's an interesting point, because ULSD has certainly changed the average diesel intake cleanout interval from "every couple years" to what, I wonder? "Once a decade" perhaps? Some might say "never again"?

Click to expand...

my car was still filling its intake with poop every 30k miles even after ULSD

You could use a staged (compound) turbo setup and not lose too much top end performance in fact you would gain low and mid range performance.It depends on if you use lots of rpm/hp each day or if the car is more of a daily driver that sometimes get worked hard.

I would possibly use a cr170 turbo or stock turbo as the high pressure unit.The low pressure turbo would be fixed geometry.

In my "dream land" there is also a good possibility that a DPF and that one of the 2 EGR systems could be used.I would use a provent and keep a closed CCV system.

If I had an EGR/DPF equipped diesel and wanted to run a DPF I would focus on clean tuning to keep re gens down.Tuning could be done using AFR without a DPF to make it clean enough to use a DPF without too much risk.

Keep the EGR and stock CAT.
Make sure PCV gases re-route to intake.
Do the stuff Brian said.
Add water injection to the intake (Not to exceed 25% of fuel mass). It will keep it clean of any (edit: *most) intake soot residues. May also help with HC. Will reduce NOx too.

nicklockard said:

It will keep it clean of any intake soot residues.

Click to expand...

If that were a solution to wet stacking then the power generation and locomotive industries would sure like to have a word with you.

The simple answer to your soot 'emissions': add more air via tune.

[486] said:

If that were a solution to wet stacking then the power generation and locomotive industries would sure like to have a word with you.

Click to expand...

I spoke too broadly. I've edited it. Intake WI is pretty well known to keep intakes dramatically cleaner. Forever? I dunno, but it sure seems to help a ton. I don't know about those industries/applications though.

None of the mentioned industrial applications utilize EGR, so it's a moot point.

It's a ridiculous proposition for a locomotive to carry a separate tender just for injecting water.

Some stationary power generating turbines do use water fumigation.

Edit: When I last worked on locomotive engines, it was on GE's Tier-2 GEVO at the turn of the century. Tier-4 does use EGR. Still ridiculous to haul a water tender. These are not steam locos anymore.

HailPeyton said:

My car runs well and is fast but puts out some black smoke on hard load (or medium load when shifting). I know I have to be putting out some terrible emissions (not here to debate your care for the environment, or liberal politics). I would like to reduce emissions, but I don't want to hurt my performance or decrease my engine life. I feel like an EGR and PCV system must be removed for the sake of not gumming up my engine. I removed my catalytic converter to increase performance. I have found a 50CPSI catalytic converter online, seems to be the highest flow converter available. Will this actually reduce emissions, or is it nothing more than a way for people to skirt emissions laws because they technically have a catalytic converter? Does it actually convert the carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide and water? Does it do anything at all, or just add some back pressure, and look like I have a catalytic converter from the outside?
Current set up:
GTB2260VKLR turbo
Bosio PowerPlus 1043 nozzles
PD150 intake manifold, w/Race Pipe EGR and ASV delete
3" downpipe and straight pipe exhaust, no cat, no muffler
Stock PCV, but need to remove it, considering a catch can.

Click to expand...

What were the injector settings used when the nozzles were mounted?

If they are set correctly the PowerPlus 1043 is a VERY clean running injector combination.

There are adjustments available to the Solenoid response (assuming yours are the correct version for your ECU, and also to the injectors nozzles response.

The combination of those two settings provide very clean and efficient combustion and lend to very good mid range and upper range power (without the smoking).

nicklockard said:

I spoke too broadly. I've edited it. Intake WI is pretty well known to keep intakes dramatically cleaner. Forever? I dunno, but it sure seems to help a ton. .

Click to expand...

could just be that most who run water injection will also be the type to plug the EGR vacuum line

As an aside, avoiding idling and low load situations (sub 300 degree EGTs) in the winter (or really any time the tstat isn't open) will also virtually eliminate any such buildup.

TDIMeister said:

None of the mentioned industrial applications utilize EGR, so it's a moot point.

Click to expand...

they wet stack the exhaust (and catch fire)
an ALH will wet stack the intake, through the EGR
Both are issues known to be caused by unburnt fuel vapors out the exhaust ports condensing into goop. It wasn't really a serious suggestion, more of a 'there's more to it than you seem to think'

Nothing too related to the thread, other than that yeah, your HC emissions will be higher before the motor's warmed up.

ULSD is the biggest myth on this site and still can't believe people spout that nonsense that it reduces intake clogging. EGR and oil crankcase fumes cause the intake to plug up. Either delete, catch can or Malones dynamic egr tune.

As said, a proper cat will help with some smoke but if its thick and black, it won't help.