so are the non-catalyst diesels really dirty then? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

benhogan · #1 09-27-2015, 04:35 PM

so if your diesel has no exhaust scrubbers, does that mean that it is really putting out a lot Nox's (whatever that is).

should i feel guilty about driving my car then?

leathermang · #2 09-27-2015, 04:41 PM

If anyone can find the BBC weekend discussion....
they had a good conversation about how these things relate to each other... and how the Europeans decided on certain criteria compared to the US.....

not the one I referenced... but good ...
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34347873

mach4 · #3 09-27-2015, 04:52 PM

Emissions have less to do with cleanliness than politics. If you have a need to feel guilty...otherwise drive happy.

wstetson3 · #4 09-27-2015, 05:00 PM

Guilty? No. The way I see it, diesels are still more efficient than gasoline powered cars. So, you put more pollution in the air than they like but as you get better mpg's and your car lasts longer, you are saving energy and pollution.

Your car, maintained properly, will last twice as long as a gas powered car so there is no energy used to make the second car that a gasoline car driver will need to last as long as your one diesel and diesels are actually much cleaner than they used to be so pollution per mile is still respectable.

Oh, and so many people are driving these gas sucking sport utes. Who's polluting more? The Yukon or the TDI? TDI gets 3X the MPG and will last twice as long. The trucks and trains that bring their food and clothing.... those are diesel (or diesel/electric). They won't fuss about those vehicles.

Let's talk about how bad it is for the environment to make a hybrid. The process to make those batteries is as dirty as any diesel ever was. Oh, and I have a Prius only because I got it (really) cheap, I drive over 30,000 miles per year on my dime, and it will last 300,000 miles if maintained properly. I would have bought an 03 TDI but I can't find one with gears.

One scientist just resigned and said the global warming was a joke driven by money. I can't comment on that but the Obama administration wants us to drive cars powered by flowers or something, pay through the nose for their miserable healthcare, and subsidize every other country on the planet that hates us. If you feel guilty now, read this again at tax time. You won't feel guilty for long.

Drive the diesel and enjoy it.

uberwasser · #5 09-27-2015, 05:03 PM

Let's try and keep some of the above to the 'open discussion' forum. I come here for diesel discussion, as the name implies, not to be subjected to someone's ideologies. Regardless of whether I agree or not. There's enough of that everywhere else on the internet/tv/media.

wstetson3 · #6 09-27-2015, 05:09 PM

We must have different news channels.

leathermang · #7 09-27-2015, 05:13 PM

I agree with Uberwasser... if you just leave off the last paragraph .... the rest has some good points no one mentions...like ' the car not built ' due to us keeping our old cars going...

wstetson3 · #8 09-27-2015, 05:35 PM

OK, I'll re phrase it. Gas prices went through the roof, they just recently came down.

Healthcare prices went through the roof.

Food prices have gone up as fast as any other item we buy.

New regs were put into place regarding emissions.

People bought cars in good faith to try to minimize their spending. Now they find out that the car isn't as clean as it was supposed to be? 45MPG is as good as it gets unless you drive a Prius (which I do and it's NOT a VW TDI by any definition) you were getting hit pretty hard with fuel costs. I got out of an Acura because the Prius was going to save me over $3k per year in fuel alone. That was before the gas prices came down. Now, I just drive the boring car because I have it and my tools and equipment fit in the back.

leathermang · #9 09-27-2015, 05:39 PM

You clearly do not understand the concept of ' open discussion' and Uberwasser and my objections to the political inclusions of your diesel discussion post...

sleepstar · #10 09-27-2015, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstetson3

OK, I'll re phrase it. Gas prices went through the roof, they just recently came down.

Healthcare prices went through the roof.

Food prices have gone up as fast as any other item we buy.

New regs were put into place regarding emissions.

People bought cars in good faith to try to minimize their spending. Now they find out that the car isn't as clean as it was supposed to be? 45MPG is as good as it gets unless you drive a Prius (which I do and it's NOT a VW TDI by any definition) you were getting hit pretty hard with fuel costs. I got out of an Acura because the Prius was going to save me over $3k per year in fuel alone. That was before the gas prices came down. Now, I just drive the boring car because I have it and my tools and equipment fit in the back.

take this **** elsewhere.
like open discussion, as has been mentioned numerous times already.

mannys9130 · #11 09-27-2015, 05:48 PM

Take my 1984 federal 190D 2.2 as the bottom rung. It has no emissions devices on it at all. NONE.

The next rung up would be the 85 California 190D 2.2 that I owned. It had an EGR on it that fed exhaust gases back into the intake to cool the combustion gas and remove excess O2 from the combustion chamber where it would otherwise turn into NOx. Compared to my 84, the NOx emissions would be less. CO2 and hydrocarbon would be the same and diesels emit almost no CO.

Next up would be a 1987 300SD with an EGR and a catalyst. Still lower NOx emissions. The cat turns the NOx into N2 and H2O.

Next up would probably be a car with the above system and the addition of a diesel particulate filter. The DPF traps soot that is produced and burns it completely during a regen cycle when at highway speeds. The consequence of that regeneration is low fuel economy (because raw fuel is injected on the exhaust stroke) and very high exhaust temps which would shorten the life of the turbocharger and oil.

Next up is a selective cat which uses Urea. These are VERY effective and reduce NOx by a big amount. The Urea tank is usually in the trunk and lasts 10k miles for a MB Bluetec sedan. Not bad at all.

So, compared to the Bluetec my 190D is probably filthy from an emissions view point. I don't feel bad about it because of the reasons mentioned above. It lasted 30 years, gets 2x the gas mileage of similar aged cars, and I don't drive very often at all (~5000 miles a year). To maximize your vehicle's performance and minimize the pollution it creates, keep your car in good working order. Keep the EGR valve intact and functioning correctly, keep your ALDA adjusted properly to limit smoke, keep your valves adjusted to maximize compression (and therefore efficiency), and use high cetane fuel that is more eager to burn than lower quality low cetane fuel. That's the best you can do my friend. It doesn't justify a guilty conscience.

leathermang · #12 09-27-2015, 05:55 PM

If anyone gets a chance to see 'Raw to Ready'.... on PBS....
this week they were at the MAC truck factory....
they went over the history of the guy inventing the catalytic converter ( sort of.. at least the concept when making open flame lights inside coal mines safe )...
they showed the CAT used on those MAC trucks.. HUGE... four times the size of a normal car....

tyl604 · #13 09-27-2015, 06:55 PM

So on my 1981 300SD was all that emission tubing (which I have finally terminated with a couple of golf tees) effective in reducing the noxious gases that the five cylinder diesel engine created?

Should I put it all back together?

Graham · #14 09-27-2015, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mannys9130

So, compared to the Bluetec my 190D is probably filthy from an emissions view point.

Our 300Ds are same. High emissions of Nox, particulates and Hydrocarbons. Also poor mileage compared with modern diesels of same size (like E250) (but about same as new gassers of same size).

I don't feel bad when I see so many full size pick ups and SUVs buzzing around. Especially when I only do about 6k miles per year.

mannys9130 · #15 09-27-2015, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyl604

So on my 1981 300SD was all that emission tubing (which I have finally terminated with a couple of golf tees) effective in reducing the noxious gases that the five cylinder diesel engine created?

Should I put it all back together?

If deleting that tubing rendered the EGR inoperable, yes. It is a felony in the US to tamper with federal emissions equipment installed on a road going car. The EGR reduces NOx production compared to an engine without one.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode