Another Kerma vs Malone thread -- soot load?

cscmc1 · Jun 25, 2020

Hi friends -- I've searched this ad nauseum, and am coming up with more questions than I am answers. Regarding non-delete tunes: do either the Kerma or Malone tunes actually lessen soot load (or otherwise allow the DPF to thrive more so than with the stock "fix" tune)? Specifically, I'm looking at tuning a 2011 JSW 6MT.

I ask this because I'd like to do a non-delete tune initially, and once my Dieselgate warranty runs out I'd consider going full delete. Malone will sell a tune loader with both tunes, so I'd have the "full delete" tune at the ready when the time comes. That said, a member here has reported impressive DPF results with a Kerma tune -- he sees longer intervals between active regens, and sees more effective passive regens when on the highway as well. That seems to suggest that the Kerma tune is far more DPF-friendly.

I emailed Malone to ask whether a byproduct of their tunes might be less soot (or anything else that would benefit the DPF), and I must have worded my inquiry poorly. The reply was essentially "if VW could have tuned it for less soot they would have" and that no tunes are going to be beneficial in this regard. My thought was that something in VW's "fix" tune changed and is causing more frequent DPF failures, so why isn't it possible that that could be undone with a tune? Perhaps the "fix" tune that finally made the EPA happy is just particularly hard on DPFs. Was the member here who reported less frequent regens mistaken that the tune could have anything to do with his observations? Does anyone else have evidence that either the Kerma or Malone tunes are beneficial to the emissions system?

I know the easy solution is to simply delete. I'm not quite ready to go there yet, so I'm torn. So I spend the money for a Kerma tune and hope that I see the same benefits that another member here does re: DPF health? As Kerma does not offer a delete tune, I'd be stuck spending still more at some point in the future if I do delete. Then again, Malone says that their non-delete tune won't help the DPF any, and that Kerma's can't either, period. I'm not sure what to think at this point!

Any thoughts would be very much appreciated. I hope I've explained my dilemma adequately; please feel free to ask for clarification if necessary.
Thanks in advance!

mannytranny · Jun 25, 2020

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the dieselgate disaster was due to non compliance with NOx only. When you adjust parameters on a diesel engine, soot and NOx share somewhat of an inverse relationship. VW cheated by advancing the timing and dialing back the urea injection, the former of which helps with mileage and the latter of which saves hassle. Since caught, it seems to me that the more retarded timing would increase soot (ie more DPF regen cycles) and less MPG but also less NOx.

It would make sense that going back to the cheater program would help with better mileage and less soot, but by adding more power who knows.

NewTdi · Jun 25, 2020

Why not drive the car as is until the warranty os over and then the decision will be simpler? How many miles/years do you have left on the warranty? Do you run the risk of voiding the warranty should your car be taken in for service before the end of the warranty and they discover that the car has been tuned?

JELLOWSUBMARINE · Jun 25, 2020

cscmc1 said:
Hi friends -- Regarding non-delete tunes: do either the Kerma or Malone tunes actually lessen soot load (or otherwise allow the DPF to thrive more so than with the stock "fix" tune)?

Malone will sell a tune loader with both tunes, so I'd have the "full delete" tune at the ready when the time comes. That said, a member here has reported impressive DPF results with a Kerma tune -- he sees longer intervals between active regens, and sees more effective passive regens when on the highway as well. That seems to suggest that the Kerma tune is far more DPF-friendly.

The 2 tunes are a consideration point... if the non delete accomplishes your DPF and other concerns anyways. Otherwise your getting 2 tunes but really only getting/ buying a delete tune. If I ever delete then the Malone tune is the only choice I have at that point I guess.

cscmc1 said:
I emailed Malone to ask whether a byproduct of their tunes might be less soot (or anything else that would benefit the DPF), and I must have worded my inquiry poorly. The reply was essentially "if VW could have tuned it for less soot they would have" and that no tunes are going to be beneficial in this regard. My thought was that something in VW's "fix" tune changed and is causing more frequent DPF failures, so why isn't it possible that that could be undone with a tune? Perhaps the "fix" tune that finally made the EPA happy is just particularly hard on DPFs. Was the member here who reported less frequent regens mistaken that the tune could have anything to do with his observations? Does anyone else have evidence that either the Kerma or Malone tunes are beneficial to the emissions system?

I know the easy solution is to simply delete. I'm not quite ready to go there yet, so I'm torn. So I spend the money for a Kerma tune and hope that I see the same benefits that another member here does re: DPF health? As Kerma does not offer a delete tune, I'd be stuck spending still more at some point in the future if I do delete. Then again, Malone says that their non-delete tune won't help the DPF any, and that Kerma's can't either, period. I'm not sure what to think at this point!

The Malone statement may just have been a CYA, was concerned he shouldn't state less soot?, I also know the epa has been putting heat on tuners so how long will tunes be avalible? Just sayin'
My feel, and thats all it is, when conversing with Kerma my focus on soot was heard and confirmed. The data to me is slowly confirming such also.

mannytranny said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the dieselgate disaster was due to non compliance with NOx only. When you adjust parameters on a diesel engine, soot and NOx share somewhat of an inverse relationship. VW cheated by advancing the timing and dialing back the urea injection, the former of which helps with mileage and the latter of which saves hassle. Since caught, it seems to me that the more retarded timing would increase soot (ie more DPF regen cycles) and less MPG but also less NOx.

It would make sense that going back to the cheater program would help with better mileage and less soot, but by adding more power who knows.

In my smog test days I learned this is very true and a useable in working with numbers, RUG engines operate exactly as stated, makes sense for diesel too. Many threads here confirm DPF life has dropped across the board.

NewTdi said:
Why not drive the car as is until the warranty os over and then the decision will be simpler? How many miles/years do you have left on the warranty? Do you run the risk of voiding the warranty should your car be taken in for service before the end of the warranty and they discover that the car has been tuned?

Valid point. Although I still have a littletime and miles left on my emissions warranty I was in conflict also. My initial issues have been repaired/covered and the car was pre tune scanned with a VCDS for ANY issues/set markers etc., (none). I chose rather to save my 7k mile new DPF and risk a warrantee claim rejection and tune. Not exactly high rolling risk taking chance to me, with higher returns.

cscmc1 · Jun 25, 2020

Great conversation, friends. I'm curious to see what other experiences people have had.

As to why I wouldn't just drive the car as-is until my warranty is up: that's been my inclination until recently. When Jellowsubmarrine reported evidence that might suggest his DPF will be much happier with a Kermatune, I was intrigued. If I can get more power, better mpg's, AND possibly avoid a several-month backorder warranty repair if my DPF craps the bed, I'm inclined to strongly consider the option. (And yes, I am aware that tuning does invite the risk of warranty rejection -- that fact has weighed on my decision as well)

Thanks again!

JELLOWSUBMARINE · Jul 9, 2020

cscmc1 said:
Great conversation, friends. I'm curious to see what other experiences people have had.

As to why I wouldn't just drive the car as-is until my warranty is up: that's been my inclination until recently. When Jellowsubmarrine reported evidence that might suggest his DPF will be much happier with a Kermatune, I was intrigued. If I can get more power, better mpg's, AND possibly avoid a several-month backorder warranty repair if my DPF craps the bed, I'm inclined to strongly consider the option. (And yes, I am aware that tuning does invite the risk of warranty rejection -- that fact has weighed on my decision as well)

Thanks again!

After 1300 miles since the tune these are my findings. I looked over the misc photos of the Kerma tune related to soot & active regen occurance, i.e.distance between regens.

Less than 200 miles between regens. Obviously much sooner than stock tune.

Soot level @ only a fraction of past noted levels, telling me the regen is CERTAINLY NOT. triggered by soot load but miles.(?)

ALTHOUGH the passive regens reverse (ultra low) soot load to 0.0 if I meet constant freeway requirements. The regens are so quick i often miss them. Unfortunately I have yet to witness if a long freeway trip (say 500 miles) will extend intervals any? Will this increase DPF life? Good question.

MPG? Jury is still out.

Power? Not real noticable differance

MY take away:
1 if in fact the MAIN objective of extended DPF life is met, in my book it will be worth the $650

2 although the Kerma tune has more frequent regens the lower soot output & quick regens may outweigh long but extended o.e. tune burn offs

3 since I will probably only put a couple thousand miles on this car before the warranty dies and its in 100% condition I chose to do the tune

4 Kerma says just run the tune thru smog, IT wont be an issue.... I will probably run o.e.?

Note:
Kerma confirmed shorter intervals part of tune

cscmc1 · Jul 9, 2020

JELLOWSUBMARINE said:
After 1300 miles since the tune these are my findings. I looked over the misc photos of the Kerma tune related to soot & active regen occurance, i.e.distance between regens.

Less than 200 miles between regens. Obviously much sooner than stock tune.

Soot level @ only a fraction of past noted levels, telling me the regen is CERTAINLY NOT. triggered by soot load but miles.(?)

ALTHOUGH the passive regens reverse (ultra low) soot load to 0.0 if I meet constant freeway requirements. The regens are so quick i often miss them. Unfortunately I have yet to witness if a long freeway trip (say 500 miles) will extend intervals any? Will this increase DPF life? Good question.

MPG? Jury is still out.

Power? Not real noticable differance

MY take away:
1 if in fact the MAIN objective of extended DPF life is met, in my book it will be worth the $650

2 although the Kerma tune has more frequent regens the lower soot output & quick regens may outweigh long but extended o.e. tune burn offs

3 since I will probably only put a couple thousand miles on this car before the warranty dies and its in 100% condition I chose to do the tune

4 Kerma says just run the tune thru smog, IT wont be an issue.... I will probably run o.e.?

Note:
Kerma confirmed shorter intervals part of tune

Great info! Now I'm wondering what DOES trigger a regen! It seems to me that my car regens at different intervals depending upon how much city driving I'm doing (versus interstate), so there must be a calculation happening somewhere.

oilhammer · Jul 9, 2020

Non-tuner here, have no dog in that fight, but mannytranny's original response has it right in that NOx was the big issue with the cheating, and PM (soot) is at the other end of the spectrum, and not only was there never a non-compliance with PM, but quite the opposite: when the engines were "cheating", and the NOx was high, the rest of ALL the pollutants were way, way, lower than the standards. Most were in the single percentiles of the allowable limits.

A diesel engine, by default, WANTS to run VERY lean. Much leaner than a gasoline engine ever could. Most TDIs at full load are barely approaching the 14.7:1 air fuel ratio that is "normal" for most gasoline engines. That's why they can use so much less fuel moving the same car down the road.

In an effort to control NOx (and you can study up on that, but in most respects in is a red herring anyway), they are forced to run them with more fuel. More fuel means more PM. EGR, which is just there to reduce NOx, all by itself means more PM. Which brings in the need for the DPF.

In a perfect world, where you were not concerned with NOx, you could dial back the EGR, dial back the fueling under most conditions, and the engine would produce so little PM that the DPF would not have to regen very often at all. Your oil would stay cleaner longer, your fuel economy would go up, and the engine would never, ever, have even a hint of smoke or anything out the tailpipe. This would be my ideal diesel. But....

In any case, I think the idea of leaving all the hardware intact isn't as appealing to a lot of people, although I do think it is a niche that the tuners could better embrace. But the biggest issue is, anything that requires the use of any of the various sensors and such won't necessarily make the car any more reliable....which is the real drive (from my experience) that people push for the deletes anyway. Most people, if it just worked as designed (originally), and was reliable and trouble free, would not change anything. The CBEA/CJAA/CKRA and even the CRUA, etc. have plenty of good real world power in stock form. Aside from the BHW, they are the only ones I'd be perfectly happy to leave alone. Most of the requests I get for deletes stem from frozen intercoolers, constant MILs on, limp mode, DEF countdowns, and whatever $1000 chunk of exhaust decides to no longer work. It isn't at all about going faster.

cscmc1 · Jul 9, 2020

oilhammer said:
Non-tuner here, have no dog in that fight, but mannytranny's original response has it right in that NOx was the big issue with the cheating, and PM (soot) is at the other end of the spectrum, and not only was there never a non-compliance with PM, but quite the opposite: when the engines were "cheating", and the NOx was high, the rest of ALL the pollutants were way, way, lower than the standards. Most were in the single percentiles of the allowable limits.
A diesel engine, by default, WANTS to run VERY lean. Much leaner than a gasoline engine ever could. Most TDIs at full load are barely approaching the 14.7:1 air fuel ratio that is "normal" for most gasoline engines. That's why they can use so much less fuel moving the same car down the road.
In an effort to control NOx (and you can study up on that, but in most respects in is a red herring anyway), they are forced to run them with more fuel. More fuel means more PM. EGR, which is just there to reduce NOx, all by itself means more PM. Which brings in the need for the DPF.
In a perfect world, where you were not concerned with NOx, you could dial back the EGR, dial back the fueling under most conditions, and the engine would produce so little PM that the DPF would not have to regen very often at all. Your oil would stay cleaner longer, your fuel economy would go up, and the engine would never, ever, have even a hint of smoke or anything out the tailpipe. This would be my ideal diesel. But....
In any case, I think the idea of leaving all the hardware intact isn't as appealing to a lot of people, although I do think it is a niche that the tuners could better embrace. But the biggest issue is, anything that requires the use of any of the various sensors and such won't necessarily make the car any more reliable....which is the real drive (from my experience) that people push for the deletes anyway. Most people, if it just worked as designed (originally), and was reliable and trouble free, would not change anything. The CBEA/CJAA/CKRA and even the CRUA, etc. have plenty of good real world power in stock form. Aside from the BHW, they are the only ones I'd be perfectly happy to leave alone. Most of the requests I get for deletes stem from frozen intercoolers, constant MILs on, limp mode, DEF countdowns, and whatever $1000 chunk of exhaust decides to no longer work. It isn't at all about going faster.

Thank you for this explanation (and for confirming mannytranny's comments). And I appreciate that you point out that "It isn't at all about going faster" for everyone -- I fall in that group. I just want to make the car more reliable, and if a little extra power in a byproduct of that process, all the better.

Thanks again!

Lightflyer1 · Jul 9, 2020

When the emissions warranty becomes too much to deal with or is refused coverage or costs too much to repair, then let the deletes begin. No way am I interested in shelling out thousands of dollars for emissions repairs. Delete, tune, dsg tune.

JELLOWSUBMARINE · Jul 10, 2020

oilhammer said:
and not only was there never a non-compliance with PM, but quite the opposite: when the engines were "cheating", and the NOx was high, the rest of ALL the pollutants were way, way, lower than the standards. Most were in the single percentiles of the allowable limits.

A diesel engine, by default, WANTS to run VERY lean. Much leaner than a gasoline engine ever could.

In an effort to control NOx, they are forced to run them with more fuel. More fuel means more PM. EGR, which is just there to reduce NOx, all by itself means more PM. Which brings in the need for the DPF.

In a perfect world, where you were not concerned with NOx, you could dial back the EGR, dial back the fueling under most conditions, and the engine would produce so little PM that the DPF would not have to regen very often at all. Your oil would stay cleaner longer, your fuel economy would go up, and the engine would never, ever, have even a hint of smoke or anything out the tailpipe. This would be my ideal diesel. But....

I always appreciate OH's wisdom. IMHO the Kerma seems to focus on less soot load, quicker regens more often. My long-n-short of it is that ignorant (non diesel pencil pushers) "greener than thou's" stick their xxxx in the mix. It generally turns out like dieselgate. To them the ends justify the means. No mo diesels

oilhammer said:
Most people, if it just worked as designed (originally), and was reliable and trouble free, would not change anything.

oilhammer said:
Aside from the BHW, they are the only ones I'd be perfectly happy to leave alone.

If I realized the full impact of the DPF, I'd have converted my stock trouble free BHW to a 6sp. It is what it is and this is a great car, just have to work out the bugs.

cscmc1 said:
Thank you for this explanation (and for confirming mannytranny's comments). And I appreciate that you point out that "It isn't at all about going faster" for everyone -- I fall in that group. I just want to make the car more reliable, and if a little extra power in a byproduct of that process, all the better.Thanks again!

I think many here are thinking exactly the same, back to what we bought a diesel for originally. I personally don't mind the equipment IF it works and is lasting. Responsible BUT reasonable. My past 71 OLDS 455/4sp would've Nox'd out (pun intended) 500 delete cjaa's.

Some can delete, some can't or won't for various reasons. We can argue all day about dirty diesel but the fact is the relatively small % of them on the road and is shrinking daily. I'm no spring chicken and can remember the smog (Nox) choked cities of the 70's. Anyone that thinks we haven't gone in a positive direction... well... something about cool aid.

Lightflyer1 said:
When the emissions warranty becomes too much to deal with or is refused coverage or costs too much to repair, then let the deletes begin. No way am I interested in shelling out thousands of dollars for emissions repairs. Delete, tune, dsg tune.

mannytranny said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the dieselgate disaster was due to non compliance with NOx only. When you adjust parameters on a diesel engine, soot and NOx share somewhat of an inverse relationship. VW cheated by advancing the timing and dialing back the urea injection, the former of which helps with mileage and the latter of which saves hassle. Since caught, it seems to me that the more retarded timing would increase soot (ie more DPF regen cycles) and less MPG but also less NOx.

It would make sense that going back to the cheater program would help with better mileage and less soot, but by adding more power who knows.

Great explanation.

Another Kerma vs Malone thread -- soot load?

cscmc1

Veteran Member

mannytranny

Top Post Dawg

NewTdi

Top Post Dawg

JELLOWSUBMARINE

Veteran Member

cscmc1

Veteran Member

JELLOWSUBMARINE

Veteran Member

cscmc1

Veteran Member

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor

cscmc1

Veteran Member

Lightflyer1

Top Post Dawg

JELLOWSUBMARINE

Veteran Member