Nox/particulate filters

[southherogrease]

I recently read in Consumer Reports that nox traps can be retrofitted onto existing diesels with the advent of ultra low sulphur diesel. I've poked around and found that particulate matter traps are also a possibility. Does anybody have experience or advice or purchase locations for any of these things?

04 PD Passat Wagon

 

[MrMopar]

Save your money. Your Passat TDI is already doing a very good job for the environment since you're using probably 50% as much fuel as the next guy, and it already meets relatively tight emissions standards.

For diesel emissions, the low hanging fruit has already been picked. Car makers can have NOx traps and particulate filters on new models, because they get the economy of scale when fitting them and buyers can spread the purchase price into the car payments. No sense for you individually to pay probably $2,000 to get rid of a few grams of NOx, which incidentially doesn't do jack to the air quality. The EPA has their head up their arse when it comes to air pollution standards for diesels - the EU has things right.

 

[GoFaster]

Retrofit is only practical/possible/effective on engines that are starting out with NO emission controls at all, and that's not your situation. Leave well enough alone.

 

[donDavide]

EU is right???

Save your money. Your Passat TDI is already doing a very good job for the environment since you're using probably 50% as much fuel as the next guy, and it already meets relatively tight emissions standards.

For diesel emissions, the low hanging fruit has already been picked. Car makers can have NOx traps and particulate filters on new models, because they get the economy of scale when fitting them and buyers can spread the purchase price into the car payments. No sense for you individually to pay probably $2,000 to get rid of a few grams of NOx, which incidentially doesn't do jack to the air quality. The EPA has their head up their arse when it comes to air pollution standards for diesels - the EU has things right.

No they aren't.(EU) they just don't have it wrong on the NOx
The EU are wrong on.............CO2

 

[mojogoes]

QUOTE>
"Résumé / Abstract
Several diesel passenger car manufacturers in the European Union recently announced the future use of catalyzed diesel particulate filter systems on their vehicles. The major technical challenge is the periodical regeneration of the filters loaded with the retained diesel particulates. In order to promote filter regeneration, catalytic activation of the accumulated soot is advantageous. Therefore, the first serial application of diesel particulate filter systems uses catalytically active fuel additives. These systems were introduced about four years ago. Since that time, other systems, using a dedicated catalytically activated diesel particulate filter combined with an upstream diesel oxidation catalyst, have been introduced as well. This allows filter regeneration without extra fuel additives. In the past, adding catalytic coating to a filter substrate has often resulted in increasing the pressure drop over the filter to an unacceptable level. Using a newly developed, dedicated processing technology, coatings with outstanding catalytic functions even on standard filter substrates can be applied without a severe back pressure increase. This so-called "macrowashcoating" technology enables the possibility to integrate the diesel oxidation catalyst's functions directly in the filter substrate. The HC and CO oxidation performance of a filter with integrated oxidation catalyst functionality is compared to a conventional flow-through monolith by computer simulation and experiment. Simulation and experiment both show a systematic advantage of the catalyst filter over the conventional monolith configuration. Computer simulation provides some explanation for this observation. Finally, the technology's suitability for application to passenger cars is proven by intensive engine bench and vehicle tests".
Revue / Journal Title
SAE transactions (SAE transact.) ISSN 0096-736X
Source / Source
Journal of

I see higher exhaust temperatures play quite a large part in a particulate filter to be effective in lowering soot being spewed out back , and in some applications an outside heat source needs to be used the the filter will be effective.

A few guy's i know are thinking of using a particulate filter but mainly in an off road situation , my thoughts are that if one were to over fuel ones setup to achieve a certain power output and had alot of soot being expelled out the exhaust , would using such a particulate filter mean one could over fuel his/her setup with out seeing such soot emissions out back and and up the fueling even further.......obviously egr's would come into it like always but wouldn't raising the ex temps make the particulate filter more effective and easyer to attain its operating temperature of around 350 degree's.

 

[Logismoi]

Just some info from the V10 TDI owners manual

 

[DieselCruz]

Diesel exhaust in EU

the EU has things right.

I'm glad to know that diesel light passenger vehicles are allowed (actually encouraged) in the EU, but I'm not sure that a lack of diesel emissions regulation is a good thing. We were in Italy last summer, and the amount of diesel exhaust (fumes, particulates, etc.) was more than noticeable - in fact it was awful - everywhere! It triggered allergies, headaches, etc.

The one thing that I am glad about is that the widespread use of diesel light passenger vehicles will allow the easy implementation of a sensible alternative (biodiesel) in a huge portion of the passenger fleet in the EU - without expending a lot of time and money experimenting with Ethanol, hydrogen, etc. So, in that respect I would agree that the EU has it right.

Emissions regulations in the US are often flawed - the ban on diesels in CA and other states is foolish - especially when you can go and buy a much more polluting diesel truck at any dealership (I've been told that these are for "commercial" purposes... ). I am the most surprised when trying to register (or convert) dirtbikes to street legal status here in CA. That is truly a pain - so I must say that I agree. And, it is more than likely that the majority of the diesel pollutants in the EU are due to older diesel vehicles, heavy trucks, and the sheer number of diesel passenger vehicles - and not due to the regulations regarding the emissions from newer vehicles. Still, it is an air quality issue - and it should not be overlooked if we are hoping for more diesels to be shipped over to the US.

 

[GoFaster]

Italy isn't in an area where vehicles would be expected to rust out quickly, so probably there are a rather big percentage of older vehicles that were built to less stringent (or nonexistent) standards. Two-stroke scooters are another popular but high-polluting vehicle over there (but not new ones - motorcycles now have a Euro 3 emissions requirement with phase-in starting in 2006).

 

[wxman]

I'm glad to know that diesel light passenger vehicles are allowed (actually encouraged) in the EU, but I'm not sure that a lack of diesel emissions regulation is a good thing.

I don’t think there’s any serious disagreement that diesel emissions need to be controlled/regulated. I think the disagreement is in the approach to best improve air quality.

U.S. regulatory agencies have opted to focus on NOx and PM (by mass) emissions, while placing moderate emphasis on HC emissions and virtually NO emphasis on carbon monoxide (CO) emissions (Tier 2, Bin 5/LEV II regulated levels of CO are essentially the same as Tier 1). CO is not only an ozone (smog) precursor, but there are areas of the southwestern CONUS that are in “serious” non-attainment with the CO NAAQS. On top of that, as is widely known, CO is acutely toxic in high enough concentrations, and fatalities from carbon monoxide poisoning are all too common. The EU emission standards have actually been more stringent than T2B5/LEV II with CO emissions since Euro 2, and Euro 4 and 5 are MUCH more stringent (although granted, direct comparisons are probably not appropriate since different driving cycles are used). PM emission limits are also more stringent with Euro 5.

What possible reason(s) could EPA and especially CARB have in doing virtually NOTHING about CO emissions? Essentially all ambient CO in urban areas comes from GASOLINE vehicles. Based on EPA’s own data, CO emissions in general, and CO emissions from gasoline vehicles in particular, are on the rise again after falling for more than a decade (2001 National Emission Inventory), while all other regulated pollutants continue to fall.

Furthermore, I think particle NUMBER needs to be factored into regulatory control of vehicle PM. Ultra-fine particles have very little mass, but studies are showing that they may be even more important from a health perspective than the larger particles where most of the mass resides, even though they all fall under the “PM2.5” umbrella.

IMHO, the current U.S. regulatory approach to improving air quality is dubious at best.

 

[AutoDiesel]

What possible reason(s) could EPA and especially CARB have in doing virtually NOTHING about CO emissions? Essentially all ambient CO in urban areas comes from GASOLINE vehicles. Based on EPA’s own data, CO emissions in general, and CO emissions from gasoline vehicles in particular, are on the rise again after falling for more than a decade (2001 National Emission Inventory), while all other regulated pollutants continue to fall.

IMHO, the current U.S. regulatory approach to improving air quality is dubious at best.

Good thing the facts don't match your rant.

http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd01/summary.pdf
2001 Status and Trends

Trends in CO Levels and Emissions
Nationally,the 2001 ambient average CO concen
tration is almost 62 percent lower than that for
1982 and is the lowest level recorded during the
past 20 years.CO emissions from transportation
sources,the major contributor to ambient CO
concentration,have decreased slightly during this
period.Between 1992 and 2001,ambient CO
concentrations decreased 38 percent.This air
quality improvement occurred despite an approxi
mately 35 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled
in the United States during this 10-year period
and an increase in total CO emissions of 6 percent.
The recent increase in CO emissions was caused
by an extremely serious wildfire season in 2000.
Nearly twice the number of U.S.acres burned in
2000 compared to the average year since 1982.

So the increase was really from fires and not from cars.

And what about later?

http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd03/pdfs/chapter2crit.pdf

Worth Noting
Nationally, carbon monoxide
(CO) levels for 2002 are the low-
est recorded in the past 20 years
and improvement is consistent
across all regions of the country.

All of the original 42 areas designated
nonattainment for the 8-
hour CO NAAQS in 1991 met the
CO NAAQS in 2001–2002.

This improvement occurred despite a 23
percent increase in vehicle miles
traveled in the United States during

the past 10 years.​

And then there are those darn trends........

http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_service=data&_program=dataprog.aqplot.sas&parm=42101&stat=MAX2V&styear=1980&endyear=2005&pre=val&styeargraf=1980&region=99


It sure would be nice if you would quit cherry picking old data
to try to support your rants.

 

[wxman]

Worth Noting
Nationally, carbon monoxide
(CO) levels for 2002 are the low-
est recorded in the past 20 years
and improvement is consistent
across all regions of the country.

Too bad EPA's narrative doesn't match their NEI:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/trends02/trendsreportallpollutants07182005.zip

Total CO emissions went UP from 106,000K tons in 2001 to 112,000K tons in 2002; CO emissions from light-duty gasoline vehicles went UP from 33,945K tons in 2001 to 34,400K tons in 2002. Not a great increase but trending in the wrong direction nevertheless.

All of the original 42 areas designated
nonattainment for the 8-
hour CO NAAQS in 1991 met the
CO NAAQS in 2001–2002.

This improvement occurred despite a 23
percent increase in vehicle miles
traveled in the United States during

the past 10 years.​

Why did you leave out:

"However,
three additional areas failed to meet
the CO NAAQS in 2001–2002."?

In fact, according to EPA's web site, it looks like those areas still not only fail to meet the CO NAAQS, they are in "SERIOUS" non-attainment with the CO NAAQS:

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/mapco.html

"Serious" non-attainment is defined by EPA as a DV of 16.5 ppm or above, i.e., nearly TWICE the NAAQS limit of 9 ppm.

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/define.html#CO%20Classifications

Based on YOUR references:

"…In cities, as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions may come from automobile exhaust…."

I stand by my assertion that MUCH lower regulatory levels are needed for CO. Even the SULEV CO level of 1.0 g/mile isn't "super-ultra low" when compared to the regulated levels of the other priority pollutants.

It sure would be nice if you would quit cherry picking old data
to try to support your rants.

This from the master of cherry-picking data.

 

[AutoDiesel]

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2003/2003-04-25-11.asp

Regulations Cut U.S. Carbon Monoxide Emissions
WASHINGTON, DC, April 25, 2003 (ENS) - The U.S. regulation of carbon monoxide is "one of the great success stories in air pollution control," an independent panel of scientists reported this week. According to the National Academy of Sciences committee, tighter vehicle emissions standards and federal air quality standards have combined to dramatically lower levels of the colorless, odorless but potentially deadly gas across much of the United States.
The panel found that there are a few areas in the Western United States still susceptible to accumulating high levels of the pollutant, but said there is no need to further tighten federal carbon monoxide (CO)emissions standards on motor vehicles.

New cars and trucks are now capable of emitting 90 percent less CO over their lifetimes than cars built 30 years ago, before the emissions standards were enacted, according to data from the EPA.

The panel detailed how in 1971, when the EPA set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)for carbon monoxide, more than 90 percent of the monitored sites were in violation.

The panel found that only the eight hour standard is currently exceeded in a few locations in the country, on a small number of days and mainly in areas with unique meteorological and topographical conditions that can trap CO.

So, are you going to disagree with that
National Academy of Sciences committee also?

A 90% reduction isn't good enough for you and when
fleet turnover causes a further reduction because of
newer emission standards it still won't be good enough for you
because you just can't get past 2002.

It's just too bad that your glass is always half empty.

 

[wxman]

So, are you going to disagree with that
National Academy of Sciences committee also?

You betcha.

A 90% reduction isn't good enough for you and when

fleet turnover causes a further reduction because of
newer emission standards it still won't be good enough for you
because you just can't get past 2002.

It's just too bad that your glass is always half empty.

 

[jayp111]

No they aren't.(EU) they just don't have it wrong on the NOx
The EU are wrong on.............CO2

don, lets be clear here.....your statement on NOX and CO2 are nothing more than your opinion.

There's a lot of research that clearly says otherwise.

In fact the UK is so confident of the financial impact of Global Warming that they are working to enact significant legislation against auto makers and induviduals to make it very expensive for SUV's and other heavy polluters and folks that own 2 or more vehicles. Can't find a specific link to the program on NPR that I heard it on but below are a few links to demonstrate how seriously the EU, Investors and Business are taking it.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/25102006/323/eu-mulls-legislation-car-makers-fail-emission-targets.html

http://www.theclimategroup.org/index.php?pid=853

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4502022

 

[likmywagon]

Back to the original question

Getting back to the original question is it feasable to bolt on a particulote filter? What does the device actualy do? The Tourag stuff talks about combusting the acumulated particulate which sounds signifcantly more complex that a coffee filter type contraption, do-hicky in the exhaust stream. I'm looking more for technical information here rather than opinion to the extent that's possilbe with an issue as loaded as Diesel emissions.

Alex

 

[jayp111]

Getting back to the original question is it feasable to bolt on a particulote filter? What does the device actualy do? The Tourag stuff talks about combusting the acumulated particulate which sounds signifcantly more complex that a coffee filter type contraption, do-hicky in the exhaust stream. I'm looking more for technical information here rather than opinion to the extent that's possilbe with an issue as loaded as Diesel emissions.

Alex

Almost anything is possible if you're willing to throw enough time and money at the problem .

The problem with a particulate filter is that it will eventually clog and restrict exhaust flow. The "incinerate" cycle that the OEM's are using solves that problem by burning off the trapped particulate.

 

[FredIA]

...and folks that own 2 or more vehicles...

Yeah since we all can drive two or three cars at exactly the same time (being the same driver in each) it makes sense to tax to the hilt. There are times (like now) I've very glad I don't live in Europe...

If this were to be the case, I guess since I need the SUV occasionally to haul stuff or pull the trailer I'd need to get rid of the TDI, right? Oh, wait, I wouldn't have the right to do that either...

Fred

 

[jayp111]

Yeah since we all can drive two or three cars at exactly the same time (being the same driver in each) it makes sense to tax to the hilt. There are times (like now) I've very glad I don't live in Europe...

If this were to be the case, I guess since I need the SUV occasionally to haul stuff or pull the trailer I'd need to get rid of the TDI, right? Oh, wait, I wouldn't have the right to do that either...

Fred

Fred, part of the point that folks that have spent any amount of time in EU will understand is that their public transport system is orders of magnitude better than what we have in the states and so for the vast majority of folks a car is a nicety not a necessity in order to get to work, go to school etc etc.....to be honest its actually easier to get around on the metro/tube than it is to get in the car, drive on the wrong side of the rd (UK) fight for a parking space etc etc etc. Not to mention that its cheaper to use public transport.

For the most part they are taxing luxury items not necessities. The American love affair with the car clouds our perspective on the issue. Most folks in the US cannot get to work/exist w/o a car due to our lack of public transport.

 

[Rudedolf]

Almost anything is possible if you're willing to throw enough time and money at the problem .

The problem with a particulate filter is that it will eventually clog and restrict exhaust flow. The "incinerate" cycle that the OEM's are using solves that problem by burning off the trapped particulate.

Alex
Yes, you could add a PM filter on but as justpaddle1 notes you would have to have some way of regenerating it (burning off the soot accumulation) unless you choose the partial PM filter type.
Emitec & ESW are are two partial filter manufacturers but as they are OEM focused you'd most likely have a hard time purchasing a filter through them. You could maybe work through a Cat/Cummins/DDC distributor but I imagine vbmenu_register("postmenu_1508573", true); it could get a little pricey.
Overall the main issues would be filter packaging, installation position (generally speaking the closer to the turbo the better) and whether or not you chose a partial filter to full filter.
If you chose a full filter you'd have the added complexity of regeneration controls which would be a little tricky without some sort of electronics. If you chose a partial filter you could skip the controls but you'd still most likely want it coated with some sort of catalytic coating to ease soot burn off. Lastly, the general rule of thumb is to use a 1:1 ratio when sizing the filter, so a 2L engine would need a 2L filter.