Keeping it Green with your TDI

[MacBuckeye]

I never thought I would be speaking out for "going Green", but with our new Clean Diesel TDI's, what a cool way to sell/promote/etc. our cars with the "Green" theme and combine a local GTG. On occasion the local papers promote "going green". They (media outlets) look to find people who are doing their part and put something on their website. Has anyone tried working with or contacting a local news media? I was thinking about all cars such as hybrids, clean diesels, etc., but it would be much better if it were to be a bunch of local TDI owners. How cool would it be to get some local "air time" with our TDI's being on tv! Sorry if this isn't in the correct thread area. Anyway, just throwing it out there.

 

[bluesmoker]

I never thought I would be speaking out for "going Green", but with our new Clean Diesel TDI's, what a cool way to sell/promote/etc. our cars with the "Green" theme and combine a local GTG. On occasion the local papers promote "going green". They (media outlets) look to find people who are doing their part and put something on their website. Has anyone tried working with or contacting a local news media? I was thinking about all cars such as hybrids, clean diesels, etc., but it would be much better if it were to be a bunch of local TDI owners. How cool would it be to get some local "air time" with our TDI's being on tv! Sorry if this isn't in the correct thread area. Anyway, just throwing it out there.

sounds great, unfortunately there is a large segment here (which to i refer as the flat earth society) that appears to be bent on defeating every emission device on their car (dpf, egr, cat, ccv) and boast about ways they grossly pollute the environment. (they even boast about their defeated emission controls in their signatures)

they convert their relatively clean tdis to 1960s era black smoke belching cars

sadly this is what the media sees, and reports

until emission tampering stops diesel has no future in north america, and probably no positve press

 

[soundchk]

sounds great, unfortunately there is a large segment here (which to i refer as the flat earth society) that appears to be bent on defeating every emission device on their car (dpf, egr, cat, ccv) and boast about ways they grossly pollute the environment. (they even boast about their defeated emission controls in their signatures)

they convert their relatively clean tdis to 1960s era black smoke belching cars

sadly this is what the media sees, and reports

until emission tampering stops diesel has no future in north america, and probably no positve press

The real problem is that governments do not take diesel emissions seriously in the US because they are very heavily lobbied by organizations such as the American Trucking Association etc.

The result: Governments that implement useless emission tests that allow governments to state that there are controls in place while still appeasing the trucking lobbies AND filling government coffers.

It's win-win for government and the trucking industry. Lose-lose for the environment, and taxpayers.

There would be no tampering if the fines were heavy, and emissions testing systems were actually robust and not some government money making scheme....

 

[Bob_Fout]

sounds great, unfortunately there is a large segment here (which to i refer as the flat earth society) that appears to be bent on defeating every emission device on their car (dpf, egr, cat, ccv) and boast about ways they grossly pollute the environment. (they even boast about their defeated emission controls in their signatures)

they convert their relatively clean tdis to 1960s era black smoke belching cars

sadly this is what the media sees, and reports

until emission tampering stops diesel has no future in north america, and probably no positve press

Diesel is alive and well in North America. Who buys a gasoline powered work truck anymore?

 

[bluesmoker]

Diesel is alive and well in North America. Who buys a gasoline powered work truck anymore?

good point

should have said , diesel passenger car

 

[eli]

Rhetorical question:

What should us dirty-diesel drivers do to help fight the good fight?

Should I have my (stock) 2006 TDI compressed into a small cube, to make sure nobody else will grossly-pollute with it?
And then I'd buy a clean-diesel?! :|

 

[bluesmoker]

Rhetorical question:

What should us dirty-diesel drivers do to help fight the good fight?

Should I have my (stock) 2006 TDI compressed into a small cube, to make sure nobody else will grossly-pollute with it?
And then I'd buy a clean-diesel?! :|

no, i have no problem with stock diesels that comply with the existing emission standards for the year of the car's production

the problem cars are the vehicles that are stripped of emission controls in the misguided thought that "its my right" or "it doesn't make a difference"

 

[eli]

thank you,, bluesmoker, I hear that.

I think I have clean-diesel-envy.

By implication all the 2006 & earlier models are DIRTY. :|
And they really do emit visible smoke/soot sometimes even when operating properly. "It is what it is."

 

[kcfoxie]

sounds great, unfortunately there is a large segment here (which to i refer as the flat earth society) that appears to be bent on defeating every emission device on their car (dpf, egr, cat, ccv) and boast about ways they grossly pollute the environment. (they even boast about their defeated emission controls in their signatures)

they convert their relatively clean tdis to 1960s era black smoke belching cars

sadly this is what the media sees, and reports

until emission tampering stops diesel has no future in north america, and probably no positve press

1) I use a fuel that is twice as clean and more expensive
2) The emissions controls degrade performance and engine life
3) I got a fuel economy increase removing the useless "emissions control."

Two sides to every story. The car unfiltered is less deadly than an unfiltered gas exhaust. Diesels need better fuel, not emissions controls and poor fuel.

Your priorities are a little out of whack if you ask me.

 

[bluesmoker]

1) I use a fuel that is twice as clean and more expensive
2) The emissions controls degrade performance and engine life
3) I got a fuel economy increase removing the useless "emissions control."

Two sides to every story. The car unfiltered is less deadly than an unfiltered gas exhaust. Diesels need better fuel, not emissions controls and poor fuel.

Your priorities are a little out of whack if you ask me.

lol, i just love when you guys justify emissions tampering. Here is a test, take your car through an emission testing station and record the results, then compare the results with your epa sticker on the inside of the car hood

there is simply no way your car will comply with the federally mandated standards for the year your car was produced, its that simple

if vw was able to pass emission certification without a cat, egr, ccv or dpf they would have never installed these devices on the cars

the bottom line is that your car is a gross polluter in comparison to non tampered vehicles, any right minded person will realize this

several peer reviewed studies have indicated that one tampered car like yours can pollute the to the equivalent of 3-400 non tampered cars

you can't argue with science, this is why you flat earth guys get so upset when the truth is thrown in your face

 

[kcfoxie]

lol, i just love when you guys justify emissions tampering. Here is a test, take your car through an emission testing station and record the results, then compare the results with your epa sticker on the inside of the car hood

there is simply no way your car will comply with the federally mandated standards for the year your car was produced, its that simple

if vw was able to pass emission certification without a cat, egr, ccv or dpf they would have never installed these devices on the cars

the bottom line is that your car is a gross polluter in comparison to non tampered vehicles, any right minded person will realize this

several peer reviewed studies have indicated that one tampered car like yours can pollute the to the equivalent of 3-400 non tampered cars

you can't argue with science, this is why you flat earth guys get so upset when the truth is thrown in your face

Science shows that with or without emissions hardware, B20+ is cleaner than D2.

You just don't want to admit that you don't need to have exhaust gasses thrown back into the combustion cycle in a diesel application.

And some of my past diesels and gassers came without emissions controls from the factory. They also got better fuel economy, remove the emissions controls on the new one and bam it gets the same.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

 

[bluesmoker]

Science shows that with or without emissions hardware, B20+ is cleaner than D2.

You just don't want to admit that you don't need to have exhaust gasses thrown back into the combustion cycle in a diesel application.

And some of my past diesels and gassers came without emissions controls from the factory. They also got better fuel economy, remove the emissions controls on the new one and bam it gets the same.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

again, simply not true, check out the emissions table for b20
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/emissions.pdf

so b20, at best reduces regulated emissions about 20% but increases nox a few percentage points, so a catless diesel on b20 will have 20% lower regulated emissions (on average)

a car buring d2 with a cat wil have 90% or higher reduced emissions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter#For_diesel_engines

the numbers dont lie my friend

now with regards to removing the egr i can almost understand this, diesel egr puts particulates into the combustion chamber, increasing pm, soot, hc etc, removing the egr will increase nox but virtually eliminate smoke, hc because of the excess oxygen in the combustion chamber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGR#EGR_in_diesel_engines

for the sake of 1-2 hp removing the cat grossly pollutes the air, think about it, the truth is there for you to read

​

 

[kcfoxie]

I suppose I should say that the cat has never bothered me as you can get hi-flow units that work both faster and better.

However the EGR system to me is a required and most-often failing emissions control function on a diesel, is useless and designed to shorten the life of the engine so far as I'm concerned.

I stand solid on the camp that cleaner fuels negate the need for "emissions controls" hardware.

 

[bluesmoker]

I suppose I should say that the cat has never bothered me as you can get hi-flow units that work both faster and better.

However the EGR system to me is a required and most-often failing emissions control function on a diesel, is useless and designed to shorten the life of the engine so far as I'm concerned.

I stand solid on the camp that cleaner fuels negate the need for "emissions controls" hardware.

the only way to prove this is to smog test your car, although I have heard gtl diesel has very low emissions,

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17554013

it is not available where i live

 

[kcfoxie]

Not available where I live, either. I read once that someone got GTL and saw an astonishing 8mpg increase...in a pickup truck.

 

[fase2000TDI]

The real problem is that governments do not take diesel emissions seriously in the US because they are very heavily lobbied by organizations such as the American Trucking Association etc.

The result: Governments that implement useless emission tests that allow governments to state that there are controls in place while still appeasing the trucking lobbies AND filling government coffers.

It's win-win for government and the trucking industry. Lose-lose for the environment, and taxpayers.

There would be no tampering if the fines were heavy, and emissions testing systems were actually robust and not some government money making scheme....

Do you think there is a way to deal with these issues without resorting to the threat of violence? Is the use of coercive force really justified in these situations?

J

 

[Lug_Nut]

...there is simply no way your car will comply with the federally mandated standards for the year your car was produced, its that simple

if vw was able to pass emission certification without a cat, egr, ccv or dpf they would have never installed these devices on the cars

1: There were NO federally mandated emission standards for diesel vehicles prior to 1997
2: Manufacturer' emissions requirements are different from those we as consumers must meet.

Catalytic converters are NOT required to meet emissions standards to which we, as vehicle owners, are subject. They might well have been required for the vehicle manufacturer to meet the standards to which they were subject, and we may be guilty of changing the manufacturer's emissions controls systems, but without a cat, the car will almost assuredly pass the emissions test, only to fail for equipment removal.
EGR controls are to reduce the NOx emissions. Again that is a manufacturer emission limit, not an end user limit. Defeating the EGR does nothing to affect the results of the test to which you and I are subject.

My Cabrio is a 1995. It has no cat. The EGR is stuck closed. It has no filler neck restrictor. Yet it passes each and every 1995 diesel vehicle emissions test it needs to (none). It happens to be OBD II compliant, but even that isn't tested.

Flat Earth! Cute, but nonsensical.

 

[kcfoxie]

1: There were NO federally mandated emission standards for diesel vehicles prior to 1997
2: Manufacturer' emissions requirements are different from those we as consumers must meet.

Catalytic converters are NOT required to meet emissions standards to which we, as vehicle owners, are subject. They might well have been required for the vehicle manufacturer to meet the standards to which they were subject, and we may be guilty of changing the manufacturer's emissions controls systems, but without a cat, the car will almost assuredly pass the emissions test, only to fail for equipment removal.
EGR controls are to reduce the NOx emissions. Again that is a manufacturer emission limit, not an end user limit. Defeating the EGR does nothing to affect the results of the test to which you and I are subject.

My Cabrio is a 1995. It has no cat. The EGR is stuck closed. It has no filler neck restrictor. Yet it passes each and every 1995 diesel vehicle emissions test it needs to (none). It happens to be OBD II compliant, but even that isn't tested.

Flat Earth! Cute, but nonsensical.

My new hero, you are

 

[Lug_Nut]

re: regulated versus non-regulated emissions
The use of B100 biodiesel reduces total emissions, both the few regulated AND all the currently un-regulated ones, by 75%.
My cat-less, EGR-less, biodiesel burning Cabrio getting 42 mpg in short trip commutes pollutes LESS than a PZEV or hybrid that gets 160 mpg.


<edit> except tire smoke....that's an unburned hydrocarbon, isn't it?<end>

 

[bluesmoker]

1: There were NO federally mandated emission standards for diesel vehicles prior to 1997
2: Manufacturer' emissions requirements are different from those we as consumers must meet.

Catalytic converters are NOT required to meet emissions standards to which we, as vehicle owners, are subject. They might well have been required for the vehicle manufacturer to meet the standards to which they were subject, and we may be guilty of changing the manufacturer's emissions controls systems, but without a cat, the car will almost assuredly pass the emissions test, only to fail for equipment removal.
EGR controls are to reduce the NOx emissions. Again that is a manufacturer emission limit, not an end user limit. Defeating the EGR does nothing to affect the results of the test to which you and I are subject.

My Cabrio is a 1995. It has no cat. The EGR is stuck closed. It has no filler neck restrictor. Yet it passes each and every 1995 diesel vehicle emissions test it needs to (none). It happens to be OBD II compliant, but even that isn't tested.

Flat Earth! Cute, but nonsensical.

wow, simply not true, the vehicle you drive has a sticker under the hood, it states the emission controls installed on your car to pass the epa smog rules for the year the car was produced

removing the emission controls will cause your car to pollute above those limits, its that simple

the reason why your vehicles pass is easily explained, the testing program gives you huge leevay from what pollution your car is supposed to produce(the emissions sticker) and what it actually produces.

to be succint, the emission testing program is not properly enforced and basically is useless

btw, here are the old (tier 1) standards for diesels, note the date, lol
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld.php

 

[Spdmini]

wow, simply not true, the vehicle you drive has a sticker under the hood, it states the emission controls installed on your car to pass the epa smog rules for the year the car was produced

removing the emission controls will cause your car to pollute above those limits, its that simple

the reason why your vehicles pass is easily explained, the testing program gives you huge leevay from what pollution your car is supposed to produce(the emissions sticker) and what it actually produces.

to be succint, the emission testing program is not properly enforced and basically is useless

btw, here are the old (tier 1) standards for diesels, note the date, lol
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld.php

My 92 Dodge CTD has no emissions equipment, Just a muffler. The only underhood sticker refers to the accessory drive belt routing.

 

[bluesmoker]

My 92 Dodge CTD has no emissions equipment, Just a muffler. The only underhood sticker refers to the accessory drive belt routing.

which is perfectly ok, now if your truck was a 2010, it would say, dpf, egr, cat, ccv etc

 

[White Crow]

Why would you yank all that stuff off? It has very little effect on daily driving or economy and it may just help us all breath a little better. If it’s broken and you know it fix it, it can only help and will do you no harm. The designers did not sit around and say “what kind of useless crap can we come up with now that will cost every one more money” there was a reason.

 

[kcfoxie]

Why would you yank all that stuff off? It has very little effect on daily driving or economy and it may just help us all breath a little better. If it’s broken and you know it fix it, it can only help and will do you no harm. The designers did not sit around and say “what kind of useless crap can we come up with now that will cost every one more money” there was a reason.

might want to poke about some 50s-era engineering and design journals, because that's exactly what they talked about in the open. hence the phrase planned obsolescence.

The EPA didn't exist till Lake Eerie caught fire in the 70s, to give you an idea of how little we've cared about this issue. We've had cars since the 1900s.

 

[bluesmoker]

might want to poke about some 50s-era engineering and design journals, because that's exactly what they talked about in the open. hence the phrase planned obsolescence.

The EPA didn't exist till Lake Eerie caught fire in the 70s, to give you an idea of how little we've cared about this issue. We've had cars since the 1900s.

well, dont agree that cat converters are a conspiracy to for planned obsolencence, that being said, concern about vehicle emissions didnt really start until the 1960's and nothing REAL was done until the 1980-1990's, i am old enough to remember helping my dad fill up his car with leaded gas

 

[kcfoxie]

Cat converts, perhaps not. Most can go 200k miles - an acceptable lifespan.

DPFs and other emissions controls that are designed to be replaced every 120k miles, a marginal lifespan if you ask most, that's another story.

It's bad enough that 2 airbags popped on a 8 month old car CAN warrant it to be a total loss, factor in these other devices and it seems that this is a one time use product. after the first lick you pitch it.

That's just wasteful in my eyes.