I appreciate that but smoke/soot affects anyone with asthma, and instantly

 

I think the end is in sight for all diesels, HGV+PSV will have to convert to CNG

http://theferret.scot/revealed-scandal-missing-pollution-filters-diesel-cars 

22 minutes ago, lichfielddriver said:

I appreciate that but smoke/soot affects anyone with asthma, and instantly

 

I think the end is in sight for all diesels, HGV+PSV will have to convert to CNG

This thread is about EGR deletion, not DPF removal though.

Although EGR use creates more soot, the DPF will still catch it.

3 hours ago, Wino said:

This thread is about EGR deletion, not DPF removal though.

Although EGR use creates more soot, the DPF will still catch it.

 

and soot up faster........i hear no reports of worsening DPF's after EGR deletion..

 

i want to see a proper NOX test of with EGR and then without before accepting this

The whole point of EGR on a diesel is to reduce NOx.  Do you think no-one's ever tested whether it makes a difference?

On 11/04/2017 at 14:56, Wino said:

The whole point of EGR on a diesel is to reduce NOx.  Do you think no-one's ever tested whether it makes a difference?

 

 

Show me....

 

Edited 16 April, 20179 yr by lichfielddriver

DPF with/without tests..........

 

Show me

1 hour ago, lichfielddriver said:

Show me....

 

NOx reduction is the primary purpose of EGR... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas_recirculation

58 minutes ago, langers2k said:

 

NOx reduction is the primary purpose of EGR... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas_recirculation

 

 

I have no doubt its the main purpose of it but where are the figures? and the figures after removing or blanking?

 

Years ago we were told catalyctic converters were going to clean our vehicles exhaust output after being imposed on US cars, what we werent told they were fine in California where they achieve operating temperature within minutes due to the big shiny thing in the sky baking the land, here on most trips in dark dank wet cold Blighty they just dont cut the mustard...

 

 

So now, Ive got a CAT, a DPF and an EGR.............and a dirty VW (SHkoda)

 

 

Don't forget your LNT (lean NOx trap). If you didnt have it then you could add SCR to your list and then you would have urea injection.

 

Then you really would be dirty because your emissions control would be having a wee in your exhaust.  

Edited 16 April, 20179 yr by TheRobinK
Used a rude word.

i did pee in a diesels tank but it had a negative effect but not on the NOX

 

 

on that point....seriously.... would 2 male bladder fulls in 1/4 tank of diesel do much to a 1.6d?

 

There is a weakness on the CR140 EGR fitted to the MkII Superb, or at least there was within a certain production period.

 

Water ingress was the issue, and the costs to replace are exacerbated on the CR140 due to the difficulty in accessing the EGR.

 

I'm pretty sure my car (2011) falls within the builds that are more susceptible, so far its been OK - touch wood!

2 hours ago, lichfielddriver said:

I have no doubt its the main purpose of it but where are the figures? and the figures after removing or blanking?

 

Quick google gave this paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alagumurthi_Natarajan/publication/314600281_Effect_of_Exhaust_Gas_Recirculation_EGR_on_Performance_and_Emission_of_a_Compression_Ignition_Engine_with_Staged_Combustion_Insertion_of_Unburned_Hydrocarbon/links/58dca85d92851c611d3d33db/Effect-of-Exhaust-Gas-Recirculation-EGR-on-Performance-and-Emission-of-a-Compression-Ignition-Engine-with-Staged-Combustion-Insertion-of-Unburned-Hydrocarbon.pdf

 

Shows that it's possible to reduce NOx by over 50% using an EGR depending on engine load.

 

The downside is an increase of HC, CO and emissions opacity (due to increased soot/PM).

"Shows that it's possible to reduce NOx by over 50% using an EGR depending on engine load.

 

The downside is an increase of HC, CO and emissions opacity (due to increased soot/PM)."

 

 

To me that says "POSSIBLE" (and even then only at certain engine loading) to reduce NOX (I.E. Not certain) while the increase in soot IS certain, having had a Non-DPF car with an EGR I could see the soot...

 

If that was a court case/prosecution the CPS wouldnt let it go before a jury

 

 

Edited 16 April, 20179 yr by lichfielddriver

2 hours ago, silver1011 said:

There is a weakness on the CR140 EGR fitted to the MkII Superb, or at least there was within a certain production period.

 

Water ingress was the issue, and the costs to replace are exacerbated on the CR140 due to the difficulty in accessing the EGR.

 

I'm pretty sure my car (2011) falls within the builds that are more susceptible, so far its been OK - touch wood!

 

 

Having to rely on ancient superstition now?

 

lol, dont walk under any ladders!

 

12 hours ago, lichfielddriver said:

 

 

Show me....

 

No. Can't be assed arguing with someone who will never change their views no matter what information they are offered.

10 hours ago, lichfielddriver said:

To me that says "POSSIBLE" (and even then only at certain engine loading) to reduce NOX (I.E. Not certain) while the increase in soot IS certain, having had a Non-DPF car with an EGR I could see the soot...

 

I have no idea what your point is anymore.

 

You appear to agree that EGR can reduce NOx although will increase soot so EGR removal will do the opposite.

 

Are you suggesting that EGR systems on diesels in the UK are so ineffective they do absolutely nothing to reduce NOx? What is your evidence to back up such a claim?

36 minutes ago, langers2k said:

 

I have no idea what your point is anymore.

 

You appear to agree that EGR can reduce NOx although will increase soot so EGR removal will do the opposite.

 

Are you suggesting that EGR systems on diesels in the UK are so ineffective they do absolutely nothing to reduce NOx? What is your evidence to back up such a claim?

 

EGR valves increase soot -  as can be seen behind any Mk3 Tdci Mondeo... no EGR/no soot...

 

Wheres the evidence (actual not rhetoric or reports by funded bodies) that EGR blanking increases NOX?, actual tests. NOX can be easily measured (if you have the meter)...............

 

3 minutes ago, lichfielddriver said:

EGR valves increase soot -  as can be seen behind any Mk3 Tdci Mondeo... no EGR/no soot...

 

Wheres the evidence (actual not rhetoric or reports by funded bodies) that EGR blanking increases NOX?, actual tests. NOX can be easily measured (if you have the meter)...............

 

There is evidence in the paper I posted. It shows that for the majority of engine loads, running an EGR at 0% (effectively blanking it) increases NOx and decreases soot. You appear to agree with one of these findings (increased soot) but not the other (reduced NOx).

 

Out of curiosity, why do you think EGR valves are fitted assuming they have no effect on NOx.

Who cares deleting the egr cleans up the intake charge resulting in better performance..

Just now, usedabused said:

Who cares deleting the egr cleans up the intake charge resulting in better performance..

 

The OP might as they asked if EGR removal would change the cars emissions so they care. Anyone concerned with NOx and it's health implications should also care...

 

I have no issue with people removing or modifying emissions control devices but it should be done with at least a basic understanding of what the implications are.

dirty air cant make clean air by burning............its impossible

I don't understand it, so it must be wrong...

 

Stick to driving cabs pal, leave the science of automotive emissions reduction to those who can get their heads around it.