GPF - Gasoline particle filter?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by UG_Passat
VW already equips their cars with OPF's

Heard that too. I'm guessing since GDI does produce more particulate matter and Euro VI/VII might have tighter limits on PM2.5 emissions.
 
Yet we allow the ships running across the ocean from heavily polluting factories in China/India a free pass.
mad.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Yet we allow the ships running across the ocean from heavily polluting factories in China/India a free pass.
mad.gif



Actually...

Coming Changes in Marine Fuel...

An excerpt:

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the 171-member state United Nations agency that sets standards for shipping, is set to reduce the maximum amount of sulfur content (by percent weight) in marine fuels used on the open seas from 3.5% to 0.5% by 2020. These regulations are intended to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other pollutants from global ship exhaust.

The 2020 reduction in sulfur limits follows a series of similar reductions in marine fuel sulfur limits, such as those that reduced sulfur content of marine fuels in IMO-designated Emission Control Areas from 1.0% to 0.1% in 2015. Other areas around ports in Europe and parts of China have adopted similar sulfur restrictions.
 
When I took a cruise, you could see the trail of orange behind the ship when at sea. Going up the Mississippi to NO, there was no smoke, because they had switched to clean fuel.

Rod
 
Originally Posted by MNgopher
Originally Posted by StevieC
Yet we allow the ships running across the ocean from heavily polluting factories in China/India a free pass.
mad.gif



Actually...

Coming Changes in Marine Fuel...

An excerpt:

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the 171-member state United Nations agency that sets standards for shipping, is set to reduce the maximum amount of sulfur content (by percent weight) in marine fuels used on the open seas from 3.5% to 0.5% by 2020. These regulations are intended to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other pollutants from global ship exhaust.

The 2020 reduction in sulfur limits follows a series of similar reductions in marine fuel sulfur limits, such as those that reduced sulfur content of marine fuels in IMO-designated Emission Control Areas from 1.0% to 0.1% in 2015. Other areas around ports in Europe and parts of China have adopted similar sulfur restrictions.


Still though it's the amount of ships running across the ocean to begin with and the factories belching out their junk. It's great they are making changes but it's like a drop in the ocean in comparison while we get bent over continually. Cars are virtually clean once the catalysts are up to temperature.
 
Last edited:
I always wondered why we couldnt just put huge catalysts in the stacks of the ships, considering how many ships that are out there, I guess money would be the answer.
 
Originally Posted by skyactiv
I have a source and have known for some time gasoline vehicles will eventually have a gasoline particulate filter or GPF.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/4725980



Yep. 2.5 PM increased significantly with the introduction of DI. This has been known going back to at least 2009 but the regulations being what they are took years to catch up.
 
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by MNgopher
Originally Posted by StevieC
Yet we allow the ships running across the ocean from heavily polluting factories in China/India a free pass.
mad.gif



Actually...

Coming Changes in Marine Fuel...

An excerpt:

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the 171-member state United Nations agency that sets standards for shipping, is set to reduce the maximum amount of sulfur content (by percent weight) in marine fuels used on the open seas from 3.5% to 0.5% by 2020. These regulations are intended to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other pollutants from global ship exhaust.

The 2020 reduction in sulfur limits follows a series of similar reductions in marine fuel sulfur limits, such as those that reduced sulfur content of marine fuels in IMO-designated Emission Control Areas from 1.0% to 0.1% in 2015. Other areas around ports in Europe and parts of China have adopted similar sulfur restrictions.


Still though it's the amount of ships running across the ocean to begin with and the factories belching out their junk. It's great they are making changes but it's like a drop in the ocean in comparison while we get bent over continually. Cars are virtually clean once the catalysts are up to temperature.



Emissions from ships is quickly diluted. Emissions from vehicles not so much. They tend to stay around and concentrate. Some cities such as Los Angeles became so bad that people were dying/suffering from respiratory related issues.

https://timeline.com/la-smog-pollution-4ca4bc0cc95d
 
Gas engines, before GDI, were doing so good. You knew it was only a matter of time before they were screwed up like diesels.
 
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Emissions from ships is quickly diluted. Emissions from vehicles not so much. They tend to stay around and concentrate. Some cities such as Los Angeles became so bad that people were dying/suffering from respiratory related issues.

https://timeline.com/la-smog-pollution-4ca4bc0cc95d


I think that has to do with NOx emissions which is heavily curbed on vehicles today and can show up in other engines depending on the conditions.
 
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Emissions from ships is quickly diluted. Emissions from vehicles not so much. They tend to stay around and concentrate. Some cities such as Los Angeles became so bad that people were dying/suffering from respiratory related issues.

That's quite true, but we also have to remember that vehicle density matters similarly. L.A. has always been the canary in the coal mine, as it were. In this province, you could have darned near everyone running a 1970s generation diesel and have little effect. Try that in L.A., and I'd shudder to see the result.
 
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by MNgopher
Originally Posted by StevieC
Yet we allow the ships running across the ocean from heavily polluting factories in China/India a free pass.
mad.gif



Actually...

Coming Changes in Marine Fuel...

An excerpt:

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the 171-member state United Nations agency that sets standards for shipping, is set to reduce the maximum amount of sulfur content (by percent weight) in marine fuels used on the open seas from 3.5% to 0.5% by 2020. These regulations are intended to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other pollutants from global ship exhaust.

The 2020 reduction in sulfur limits follows a series of similar reductions in marine fuel sulfur limits, such as those that reduced sulfur content of marine fuels in IMO-designated Emission Control Areas from 1.0% to 0.1% in 2015. Other areas around ports in Europe and parts of China have adopted similar sulfur restrictions.


Still though it's the amount of ships running across the ocean to begin with and the factories belching out their junk. It's great they are making changes but it's like a drop in the ocean in comparison while we get bent over continually. Cars are virtually clean once the catalysts are up to temperature.


Cars tend to congregate in cities....amazingly, there's also a high concentration of people there, which started the smog laws, and Cat con intergration.

Factories and ocean going ships tend not to congregate in cities...

The "we getting bent over continually"... what, in the comparison of the two/three ???

and "who" is the "we" giving China a free pass ???

Rhetoric much ???
 
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Yep. 2.5 PM increased significantly with the introduction of DI. This has been known going back to at least 2009 but the regulations being what they are took years to catch up.


Back in my school days (late 90s), we have done some speculation on why Mitsubishi didn't bring over their GDI to the US if everything is good, and we speculate emission. This means soot and nox, or a mix of both.

Toyota having to use dual injection and using mostly port injection at part throttle seems to indicate something is up.
 
As opposed to particulate filters, I would have thought the push would be for SCR / Urea units that would break down NOx. It isn't like particulates are the big problem with gas as compared to diesels, but NOx is a problem across the spectrum.. gas and diesel. And NOx is what does the smog thing. I am somewhat surprised there has not been a move to put SCR systems on gasoline vehicles.
 
Originally Posted by MNgopher
Originally Posted by StevieC
Yet we allow the ships running across the ocean from heavily polluting factories in China/India a free pass.
mad.gif



Actually...

Coming Changes in Marine Fuel...

An excerpt:

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the 171-member state United Nations agency that sets standards for shipping, is set to reduce the maximum amount of sulfur content (by percent weight) in marine fuels used on the open seas from 3.5% to 0.5% by 2020. These regulations are intended to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other pollutants from global ship exhaust.

The 2020 reduction in sulfur limits follows a series of similar reductions in marine fuel sulfur limits, such as those that reduced sulfur content of marine fuels in IMO-designated Emission Control Areas from 1.0% to 0.1% in 2015. Other areas around ports in Europe and parts of China have adopted similar sulfur restrictions.

The price of shipping and diesel fuel could skyrocket.
 
Originally Posted by TiredTrucker
As opposed to particulate filters, I would have thought the push would be for SCR / Urea units that would break down NOx. It isn't like particulates are the big problem with gas as compared to diesels, but NOx is a problem across the spectrum.. gas and diesel. And NOx is what does the smog thing. I am somewhat surprised there has not been a move to put SCR systems on gasoline vehicles.


A couple years ago I read that there were some car companies in europe testing Urea and particulate filters on gdi cars.

I am all for reducing smog, however I think we are spinning our wheels by continuing to come out with stricter emissions requirements. Obviously car companies will actually do this on their own and at their own pace in order to virtue signal to those who care about that stuff that they are better than the other guys. All too often the newer requirements end up adding a bunch of cost to vehicles in the up front cost, the cost of ownership by the way of sensors and cats, precats, egr, particulate filters, selective cats, combo cats, and making is very difficult for the mechanically inclined to figure out how to fix their own vehicle because of the amount of specialized equipment and training it would take for them to know how. Also these emissions come at the cost of fuel economy, oil life, engine life, and ultimately vehicle life.

My wife has a very liberal cousin who lives in a very liberal city with vehicle inspection/emissions testing. She thinks everywhere should have emissions testing. She buys used cars and time after time when they fail emissions she trades them in because it would cost too much to fix. The car basically is not worth the repair. It of course gets auctioned off and ends up somewhere without inspection. If everywhere had emissions inspections her car would drop down to being worth nothing as soon as the check engine lights come on.

I am not in favor of pouring our used oil in the nearest stream, but I really think we have hit the point of diminishing returns. Our focus of "good doing" could be spent somewhere else where it would matter. Reducing the reliability of vehicles is a net negative for the environment anyways. The United States operates so cleanly compared to other countries that we could be hit with an EMP and the carbon reduction would hardly be noticeable, which means it is not us that need to do better. We are only disadvantaging ourselves by continuing to make the rules harder on ourselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top