www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2016 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You




Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > TDI (Diesel) Emissions

TDI (Diesel) Emissions This is a discussion about emissions from TDI's. Pro's cons of Diesels (including biodiesel) effects on the environment and how they compare to Gasoline and other fuel sources for Internal combustion engines.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 23rd, 2017, 07:35   #61
wxman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: East TN, USA
TDI(s): Other Diesel
Default

It should be noted that a well-respected model ("APEEP" - used by the National Academy of Sciences in a report they did for estimating automobile emission damages) clearly shows that VOCs are much more damaging in Southern California than NOx (I've already contacted the developer of the APEEP model, and was told in no uncertain terms that marginal NOx emissions in Southern California are less damaging than marginal VOC emissions because of the ozone-destruction properties of NOx):






Source: https://sites.google.com/site/nickmullershomepage/home


Again, a policy that reduces one emission (NOx) at the expense of higher emissions of virtually all other regulated and unregulated emissions is a dubious one from a strictly air quality perspective.
wxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2017, 08:13   #62
aja8888
Veteran Member
 
aja8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas..I work in Oil & Gas...
Fuel Economy: About as good as it gets!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike in Anchorage View Post
I'm guessing you haven't been nearby for volcanic activity or large forest fires. Intense winds on dry river beds can also make a mess. Dream on.
The point is that we won't be here to see the effects of the earth's ecological systems and who would be here to say that those activities you mention will be something other than normal occurrences for the planet?

It's only humans that "decide" what's right or wrong for activities that influence the life forms on the planet.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Mike View Post
........"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face." -- philosopher Mike Tyson.
2003 Jetta resurrection thread: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=457145
Bring the 1971 Beetle back to life thread:
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=472400
aja8888 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2017, 08:47   #63
john.jackson9213
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miramar, Ca. (Think Top Gun)
TDI(s): 1996 B4V
Default

One more thing to remember. All of us here are diesel enthusiasts. We all bring that "point of view" to this discussion. Most of us want to "modify" our cars and we do bristle at what we "think" are unnecessary impediments to our "rights and desires" to modify our cars.

That strongly held point of view clearly colors our reasoning and perceptions. It also colors our personal cost/benefit analysis. Like it or not, we do tend to cherry pick our bullet points.

California has clearly pushed the world's auto industry in a direction they would never have gone alone. The result? Engines that are half the size of 60's 427 cubic inches and produce 50% or more additional power by being much more efficient at burning fuel.
__________________
JJ
1996 B4V, Hella E-Codes, GLX leather, EuroTuning.cz 02A 6 speed conversion w/.71 5th and .588 6th gear, A4 shift linkage by Matt-98AHU. 11 mm pump by Oldpoopie. Now, GTC1549VZ turbo by Whitbread. TDtuning, 24 lbs. boost, 162 hp, 285 lb/ft tq. Smoke Free (9/18/15). Koni Yellows and Big Brake 5 lug conversion.
john.jackson9213 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2017, 09:27   #64
turbobrick240
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: maine
Default

I think fuel prices are the biggest driver of efficient vehicle purchases. If we had to pay what the Europeans do for fuel, there would be a lot less v8 SUV's on the road. And cars like the dodge hellcat would never get the green light for production. We saw an influx of small, efficient vehicles after the OPEC crisis in '79. When fuel prices dropped in the eighties it was back to business as usual.
turbobrick240 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2017, 12:05   #65
john.jackson9213
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miramar, Ca. (Think Top Gun)
TDI(s): 1996 B4V
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbobrick240 View Post
I think fuel prices are the biggest driver of efficient vehicle purchases. If we had to pay what the Europeans do for fuel, there would be a lot less v8 SUV's on the road. And cars like the dodge hellcat would never get the green light for production. We saw an influx of small, efficient vehicles after the OPEC crisis in '79. When fuel prices dropped in the eighties it was back to business as usual.
Very much truth to this statement.
__________________
JJ
1996 B4V, Hella E-Codes, GLX leather, EuroTuning.cz 02A 6 speed conversion w/.71 5th and .588 6th gear, A4 shift linkage by Matt-98AHU. 11 mm pump by Oldpoopie. Now, GTC1549VZ turbo by Whitbread. TDtuning, 24 lbs. boost, 162 hp, 285 lb/ft tq. Smoke Free (9/18/15). Koni Yellows and Big Brake 5 lug conversion.
john.jackson9213 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2017, 13:22   #66
tikal
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southeast Texas
Fuel Economy: 37 MPG (~ 45% city)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john.jackson9213 View Post
One more thing to remember. All of us here are diesel enthusiasts. We all bring that "point of view" to this discussion. Most of us want to "modify" our cars and we do bristle at what we "think" are unnecessary impediments to our "rights and desires" to modify our cars.

That strongly held point of view clearly colors our reasoning and perceptions. It also colors our personal cost/benefit analysis. Like it or not, we do tend to cherry pick our bullet points.

California has clearly pushed the world's auto industry in a direction they would never have gone alone. The result? Engines that are half the size of 60's 427 cubic inches and produce 50% or more additional power by being much more efficient at burning fuel.
Ok to a certain degree. Fuel costs in California (and other states) also give incentives to buying more efficient cars.

Regardless of our love for diesel engines we have to recognize that a current legal light duty diesel engine (see data on complete life cycle pollution on BMW X5 diesel vs gasoline and gasoline-hybrid vehicles) is clearly ahead environmentally than an equivalent gasser and/or gasoline-hybrid.

Why CARB did not mandate gasoline particulate filters (GPF) in 2007 timeframe in sync with the diesel engines requirements knowing well the very negative impacts of gasoline particulate matter and VOC on the health of the inhabitants of cities such as Los Angeles and San Jose?
tikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2017, 14:25   #67
bhtooefr
TDIClub Enthusiast
ToofTek Inventor
 
bhtooefr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newark, OH
TDI(s): None
Default

I thought, in 2007, it wasn't known that GDI engines had such high PM emissions, both in mass and in count?

In any case, CARB nearly did enact PN emissions standards, which would have effectively required GPFs on most GDI engines, but for some reason backed down on them. I wouldn't be surprised if part of it was the durability issues seen with DPFs (diesels needing a DPF to meet the particulate matter standards that gassers meet without one, but once they have it, they beat the standard by a lot), and part of it may have been a feeling that reverting to port injected naturally aspirated gassers would hurt progress towards fuel economy targets. (Remember, just two years ago, downsize and turbocharge was still all the rage.) And, seeing as electric technology's not quite there yet for mass adoption (it's getting closer, though), they may have been leery of effectively banning ICE too early, or increasing CO2 emissions too much.

However, given that the second most fuel efficient petroleum-fueled car (even measuring on raw MPG, let alone MPGe) ever sold in the US market, the Gen 4 Prius Eco, uses port injection, at 56 MPG combined on regular... And technically, it's actually the most fuel efficient one until next week, when the Ioniq (with a direct injection, but still naturally aspirated, engine - interestingly, German reviews have noticed that it had higher emissions than the Prius) comes out, and the Blue trim beats it at 58 MPG combined. (For comparison, the best diesel is the 1984 Nissan Sentra with a 4-speed manual, which has been re-rated at 41 MPG combined. In MPG gasoline equivalent, that'll be something like 36.)
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lug_Nut View Post
The really cool ToofTek made "Emperor's Clothes" injector fork risers only worked until someone pointed out that there wasn't any thing there.
bhtooefr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2017, 16:12   #68
wxman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: East TN, USA
TDI(s): Other Diesel
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhtooefr View Post
...In any case, CARB nearly did enact PN emissions standards, which would have effectively required GPFs on most GDI engines, but for some reason backed down on them....
Don't remember where I saw it, but CARB demonstrated a reasonably good correlation between particle mass and particle number for gasoline engines, so the CARB staff recommended that a PN standard would not be necessary.

Still probably a good bet that generally GDI will require GPF when the PM standard is reduced to 1 mg/mile in 2025.
wxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2017, 08:16   #69
tikal
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southeast Texas
Fuel Economy: 37 MPG (~ 45% city)
Default

In post # 66 I was attempting to discuss the environmental impact of using gasoline vs diesel in passenger cars beyond tailpipe emissions. I would presume that refining/transporting gasoline near an urban area also contributes more to air pollution as compared to diesel fuels.

Wouldn't CARB be concerned with environmental impacts of gasoline vehicles to the air of Los Angeles and the like beyond tailpipe emissions as elucidated by the Argonne National Lab GREET model?
tikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 28th, 2017, 20:55   #70
turbobrick240
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: maine
Default

I heard on npr tonight that CARB projects that small off road engines (lawn mowers, trimmers, blowers, etc.) will surpass autos in contributing to overall air pollution in California around 2020.
turbobrick240 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2017, 08:24   #71
RabbitGTI
Veteran Member
 
RabbitGTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Wisconsin
Fuel Economy: Don't know. I just feed it and drive.
Default

CARB dictating transportation choices for the entire country is absurd. Much of California is inhabited by millions of people crowded into an arid environment and exceeding the carrying capacity of the environment. Survival requires raping the Colorado River and importing electricity from coal fired power plants. Of course that pollution is A-OK because it's downwind. Oh what could have been in 2010 when Honda was set to launch a sweet V6 aluminum diesel in the MDX and other models, but the plan was abandoned. Would have been nice if Honda, VW and others had found a way to tell CARB to get screwed.
__________________
Rabbit GTI racecar RIP, 84 Rabbit GTI, 88 Golf GL, 97 Passat TDI, 07 Jetta 2.5, 02 Beetle 2.0, 08 Jetta 2.5 with Aisin Box.
RabbitGTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2017, 09:22   #72
bhtooefr
TDIClub Enthusiast
ToofTek Inventor
 
bhtooefr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newark, OH
TDI(s): None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbitGTI View Post
Survival requires <snip> importing electricity from coal fired power plants.
Uh.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/ele...tem_power.html

That sure as hell doesn't look like survival requires importing coal electricity. Even if 100% of the "unspecified sources" is coal, it would be possible to deploy more non-coal in-state, and import more renewables and natural gas instead of coal. (Natural gas has its problems, of course, but importantly, it's not coal.)
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lug_Nut View Post
The really cool ToofTek made "Emperor's Clothes" injector fork risers only worked until someone pointed out that there wasn't any thing there.
bhtooefr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2017, 11:51   #73
aja8888
Veteran Member
 
aja8888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas..I work in Oil & Gas...
Fuel Economy: About as good as it gets!
Default

This is our air without CARB:

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Mike View Post
........"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face." -- philosopher Mike Tyson.
2003 Jetta resurrection thread: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=457145
Bring the 1971 Beetle back to life thread:
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=472400
aja8888 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2017, 13:04   #74
tikal
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southeast Texas
Fuel Economy: 37 MPG (~ 45% city)
Default

^^^With the nice plus of not having mountains surround you
tikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2017, 17:21   #75
Laserface
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Georgia
TDI(s): ALH
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john.jackson9213 View Post
California has clearly pushed the world's auto industry in a direction they would never have gone alone. The result? Engines that are half the size of 60's 427 cubic inches and produce 50% or more additional power by being much more efficient at burning fuel.
Since the displacement of modern engines is no longer measured in cubic inches, lets convert that 427 to 7.0L.

Your example proposes that a modern engine in the range of 3.5L (half of 7.0) will have 150% of the power of a 427. A 1960's 427ci engine (lets assume a Chevy big block) was crank rated at 400+hp. Most will actually dyno in the 250-260hp range. 150% of 250hp is 375hp.

Accounting for a reasonable 15% drivetrain loss, that brings the modern engine to 440hp.
Laserface is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
De-carb Frankeh West Coast Canada/USA 9 October 6th, 2011 08:11
Fight CARB! LiquidBlackDZL West Coast Canada/USA 3 September 6th, 2009 08:46
CARB TDI's... How do you know? k2dog TDI (Diesel) Emissions 3 June 17th, 2007 11:38
Dirty Air in Too Many Locations: CARB Expansion? dieseldorf TDI (Diesel) Emissions 24 August 1st, 2006 15:35
CARB At It Again wxman TDI (Diesel) Emissions 2 April 6th, 2001 17:23


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:13.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
1996 - 2017, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.19217 seconds with 11 queries
[Output: 136.63 Kb. compressed to 115.55 Kb. by saving 21.08 Kb. (15.43%)]