Recent Topics
Emission Readiness monitors
by bowlofturtle - 09/19/19 10:12 PM
Thoughts on the GM strike?
by Vern_in_IL - 09/19/19 09:37 PM
tropical storm imelda blows up everynight?
by motor_oil_madman - 09/19/19 09:12 PM
2017 Corvette / Mobil 1 ESP 0w40 / 5.2k mi
by dparm - 09/19/19 08:57 PM
2019 Lexus UX 250h
by Direct_Rejection - 09/19/19 08:56 PM
Gas theft
by tahoe_hybrid - 09/19/19 08:04 PM
Aisin 09G transmission fluid?
by sloinker - 09/19/19 07:44 PM
Oil for 2005 BMW X3
by Nyquist - 09/19/19 07:34 PM
Golden Eagles Take Down Deer and Wolves
by buster - 09/19/19 07:31 PM
P21S Windshield Washer Booster
by mclasser - 09/19/19 06:30 PM
Why warm up oil before a UOA sample is taken?
by paulri - 09/19/19 06:21 PM
Selling the 97 Camry V6 again
by PandaBear - 09/19/19 05:15 PM
FRAM Orange Cans
by KevGuy - 09/19/19 05:13 PM
Colt Ceases Civilian AR-15 Production
by billt460 - 09/19/19 04:50 PM
Amsoil “synthetic technology”
by spiderbypass - 09/19/19 03:15 PM
Oil Change Special @ Firestone
by Mad_Hatter - 09/19/19 01:05 PM
Newest Members
Srfridd, V1313, Ecan89, ProBest, Zolton
69333 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
84 registered members (4WD, anonobomber, aquariuscsm, alchargo, ATex7239, ACC, 10 invisible), 1,560 guests, and 23 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics294,800
Posts5,066,841
Members69,333
Most Online3,532
Jul 30th, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: StevieC] #5044631 03/16/19 05:38 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,295
S
Shannow Offline
Offline
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,295
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


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 ???


If it's the truth....it can handle the pressure !!!
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: BMWTurboDzl] #5105635 05/15/19 02:01 AM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 15,360
P
PandaBear Offline
Offline
P
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 15,360
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.


"You keep asking questions PandaBear and you'll end up a vegetarian like my wife" - Camu Mahubah
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: BobGoblin] #5105763 05/15/19 07:53 AM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,515
T
TiredTrucker Offline
Offline
T
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,515
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.


Freedom is not about having the choice to do what you want, but the choice to do what you ought.
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: MNgopher] #5106027 05/15/19 01:17 PM
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 13,943
C
CT8 Online Content
Online Content
C
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 13,943
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


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.


2015 F150 2.7
2018 F350 6.2
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: TiredTrucker] #5202414 09/01/19 09:53 PM
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 54
4
4x4le Offline
Offline
4
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 54
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.


2007.5 GMC Sierra 2500hd LMM duramax
DPF & DOC deleted - 5" exhaust
EGR blocked
Custom tunes on efi live
Transgo JR
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: 4x4le] #5208407 09/09/19 11:13 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,919
B
BMWTurboDzl Offline
Offline
B
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,919
Originally Posted by 4x4le
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.



Public policy is designed to encourage EV's as the only option for individual mobility limiting ICE powered vehicles to those areas of the economy which need it.


“It took untold generations to get you where you are. A little gratitude might be in order. If you’re going to insist on bending the world to your way, you better have your reasons.”

435i
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: BMWTurboDzl] #5208432 09/09/19 11:40 AM
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 54
4
4x4le Offline
Offline
4
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 54
I really hate it when individual freedom takes a backseat, or is not even an option.


2007.5 GMC Sierra 2500hd LMM duramax
DPF & DOC deleted - 5" exhaust
EGR blocked
Custom tunes on efi live
Transgo JR
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: 4x4le] #5208957 09/10/19 06:14 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,919
B
BMWTurboDzl Offline
Offline
B
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,919
Originally Posted by 4x4le
I really hate it when individual freedom takes a backseat, or is not even an option.


True, but there are real life consequences. Air quality is a big deal and it has a real impact on the day-to-day lives of people. I remember listening to an interview of a German scientist living in a major city (can't remember which) who could not figure out why the air quality was not improving as expected with the tighter emissions regulations. VW was why. PM 2.5 and smaller is really bad for the lungs. (https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm)

Also when thinking about Freedom I find it advantageous to view it withing the prism of NAP (Non-Aggression Principal). I have the freedom to do whatever I want as long as my actions do not constitute a form of aggression on someone else. An extreme example of aggression is "rolling coal".


“It took untold generations to get you where you are. A little gratitude might be in order. If you’re going to insist on bending the world to your way, you better have your reasons.”

435i
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: BMWTurboDzl] #5209024 09/10/19 08:15 AM
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 54
4
4x4le Offline
Offline
4
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 54
I can think of so many common acts of aggression that I could never view a vehicles emissions to be an extreme example of aggression. The emissions laws cannot be enforced with the NAP.


2007.5 GMC Sierra 2500hd LMM duramax
DPF & DOC deleted - 5" exhaust
EGR blocked
Custom tunes on efi live
Transgo JR
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: 4x4le] #5211484 09/13/19 07:44 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,919
B
BMWTurboDzl Offline
Offline
B
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,919
Originally Posted by 4x4le
I can think of so many common acts of aggression that I could never view a vehicles emissions to be an extreme example of aggression. The emissions laws cannot be enforced with the NAP.


If a guy rolls coal next to a cyclist? Causes someone to have an asthma attack? Living in Tenn your climate is such that you probably are not going to see how tailpipe emissions negatively impacts peoples lives (Children/Elderly). As a kid I remember seeing the impact that acid rain had on Mt. Mitchell and native trout populations in the Tenn/NC border area. Asheville NC is in a bowl similar to LA and used to have some AQ issues. Imagine that! Smog in WNC. Atlanta has been successfully fighting AQ issues for years but there are still occasionally code red days when sick, elderly should not be outside. Like smoking, it's the cumulative exposure which causes problems for people.


“It took untold generations to get you where you are. A little gratitude might be in order. If you’re going to insist on bending the world to your way, you better have your reasons.”

435i
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: BMWTurboDzl] #5211584 09/13/19 09:40 AM
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 54
4
4x4le Offline
Offline
4
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by 4x4le
I can think of so many common acts of aggression that I could never view a vehicles emissions to be an extreme example of aggression. The emissions laws cannot be enforced with the NAP.


If a guy rolls coal next to a cyclist? Causes someone to have an asthma attack? Living in Tenn your climate is such that you probably are not going to see how tailpipe emissions negatively impacts peoples lives (Children/Elderly). As a kid I remember seeing the impact that acid rain had on Mt. Mitchell and native trout populations in the Tenn/NC border area. Asheville NC is in a bowl similar to LA and used to have some AQ issues. Imagine that! Smog in WNC. Atlanta has been successfully fighting AQ issues for years but there are still occasionally code red days when sick, elderly should not be outside. Like smoking, it's the cumulative exposure which causes problems for people.


You avoided my statement about how emissions laws can be enforced in accordance with the NAP.
I see what you are saying about a person intentionally "rolling coal" on a cyclist or anyone for that matter. If someone goes out of their way to do something negative to someone like that, then sure, that is agression but having a vehicle that has been modified in a way that will get you better fuel economy and reliability is not an act of agression. Having the capability of rolling coal is not an act of agression any more than having a car that can spin its tires, flash its bright lights, honk a horn, swerve, or have loud exhaust.

People are living longer and the population keeps increasing because of better medicine and better farming and better food production which is a good thing, but most of these people would not have had a chance 60 years ago. Now everyone is expected to walk on eggshells because of the laws the otherwise weak people come up with. This is not a good thing. More laws, more agression. The green model the world is on is not sustaniable. New regulations just keep making things more and more expensive and soon only the super rich will be able to afford vehicles and the only thing any of the rest of us will be able to afford that passes emission will be bikes.
New laws and new regulations always violate the NAP so don't invoke the NAP when it seems convienient for your arguments sake if you could care less about it in other ways. I am a lower case l libertarian and i think where the Libertarian Party gets the NAP wrong is expecting the NAP to work. Aggression is a fact of life and necessary at times. No laws should be passed that are not worth violating the NAP over.

You came off very disingenuine to me. Too many people these days think they can throw around a big word or new sounding concept and their side can rule the world in the wake of others ignorance. I am always sceptical and have found most peoples own beliefs do not hold up to minor scrutiny. Most people are not morally consistant either and excersise mental gymnastics in order to in their own mind excuse things they like to do but thing things should be illegal for others.


2007.5 GMC Sierra 2500hd LMM duramax
DPF & DOC deleted - 5" exhaust
EGR blocked
Custom tunes on efi live
Transgo JR
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: 4x4le] #5211782 09/13/19 01:16 PM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,919
B
BMWTurboDzl Offline
Offline
B
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,919
Originally Posted by 4x4le
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by 4x4le
I can think of so many common acts of aggression that I could never view a vehicles emissions to be an extreme example of aggression. The emissions laws cannot be enforced with the NAP.


If a guy rolls coal next to a cyclist? Causes someone to have an asthma attack? Living in Tenn your climate is such that you probably are not going to see how tailpipe emissions negatively impacts peoples lives (Children/Elderly). As a kid I remember seeing the impact that acid rain had on Mt. Mitchell and native trout populations in the Tenn/NC border area. Asheville NC is in a bowl similar to LA and used to have some AQ issues. Imagine that! Smog in WNC. Atlanta has been successfully fighting AQ issues for years but there are still occasionally code red days when sick, elderly should not be outside. Like smoking, it's the cumulative exposure which causes problems for people.


You avoided my statement about how emissions laws can be enforced in accordance with the NAP.
I see what you are saying about a person intentionally "rolling coal" on a cyclist or anyone for that matter. If someone goes out of their way to do something negative to someone like that, then sure, that is agression but having a vehicle that has been modified in a way that will get you better fuel economy and reliability is not an act of agression. Having the capability of rolling coal is not an act of agression any more than having a car that can spin its tires, flash its bright lights, honk a horn, swerve, or have loud exhaust.

People are living longer and the population keeps increasing because of better medicine and better farming and better food production which is a good thing, but most of these people would not have had a chance 60 years ago. Now everyone is expected to walk on eggshells because of the laws the otherwise weak people come up with. This is not a good thing. More laws, more agression. The green model the world is on is not sustaniable. New regulations just keep making things more and more expensive and soon only the super rich will be able to afford vehicles and the only thing any of the rest of us will be able to afford that passes emission will be bikes.
New laws and new regulations always violate the NAP so don't invoke the NAP when it seems convienient for your arguments sake if you could care less about it in other ways. I am a lower case l libertarian and i think where the Libertarian Party gets the NAP wrong is expecting the NAP to work. Aggression is a fact of life and necessary at times. No laws should be passed that are not worth violating the NAP over.

You came off very disingenuine to me. Too many people these days think they can throw around a big word or new sounding concept and their side can rule the world in the wake of others ignorance. I am always sceptical and have found most peoples own beliefs do not hold up to minor scrutiny. Most people are not morally consistant either and excersise mental gymnastics in order to in their own mind excuse things they like to do but thing things should be illegal for others.


Oh apologies, I didn't notice a question. With regards to NAP I was thinking from an altruistic perspective rather than from an enforcement perspective. From an enforcement perspective simple emissions testing and visual confirmation of the equipment but you're correct that NAP and The State don't work due to the lack of consent.

However one could argue that the act of acquiring a vehicle implies consent to the terms revolving around the operation of that vehicle. Keep in mind you are not compelled by The State to own a vehicle. The terms are between you the owner of the vehicle and The State via annual registration and mandated emissions testing. The State in this instance theoretically represents "the people". Your decision to modify the emissions system of the vehicle violates the terms of the contract between you and everyone else. The State guarantees freedom of movement so you could travel to an area where your emissions result in a more immediate impact even though that doesn't occur in your current environment.

Under a scenario which doesn't have a State? From a theoretical perspective you own the air on your property and you also own the pollution your property (i.e. your vehicle) generates. Allowing that pollution to cross over onto the property of another, absent their consent, would be a violation of their property rights. It's no different than burning leaves in your back yard, or having a stream cut through your property.


The problem that not everyone has had to contend with cost of the negative externalities caused by their pollution so it's no surprise when cost is all of a sudden borne by the responsible party that they get upset. Of course the irony in all this is that The State allows pollution.

Last edited by BMWTurboDzl; 09/13/19 01:23 PM.

“It took untold generations to get you where you are. A little gratitude might be in order. If you’re going to insist on bending the world to your way, you better have your reasons.”

435i
Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: 4x4le] #5213649 09/15/19 06:30 PM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 260
S
Surestick Offline
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 260
Originally Posted by 4x4le
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.


Emissions equipment doesn't reduce carbon emissions, it reduces other pollutants (NOx, organic volatiles, etc.). Carbon emissions are a function of burning fuel and no amount of emissions equipment is going to stop it.

Leaving aside climate change, since that's not affected by emissions equipment, there is a real cost in lives and health issues from other pollutants that emissions equipment is there to reduce. If your personal freedoms are more important to you than someone's health or life then you're maybe self-centered enough for it to be considered a mental health issue.

Re: GPF - Gasoline particle filter? [Re: Surestick] #5214070 09/16/19 07:16 AM
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 54
4
4x4le Offline
Offline
4
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 54
I know that to be true that carbon emissions are increased with increased fuel consumption, but climate change is always the justification for everything. I probably wont be taking advice on freedom from someone in Canada. People live longer now than ever. The justification for your pollution killing others can be taken as far as requiring you to walk everywhere, it just depends how sad the media can make someones story and how much power you allow the government to have.


2007.5 GMC Sierra 2500hd LMM duramax
DPF & DOC deleted - 5" exhaust
EGR blocked
Custom tunes on efi live
Transgo JR
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™