Dieselrußfilter, es ist soweit! | Posts 16+

Even though it works, the retention rate is more likely to be considered poor.

'The problem is that there are no measures implemented by the engine control unit, whether it's through additive injection or post-injection. The regeneration rate needs to be reduced to prevent the filter from becoming clogged. Achieving more than ~50% reduction will likely compromise operational safety. Consequently, there probably won't be any tax breaks related to this.'

And as for me, I prefer to drive without a filter. What's not there can't break down...

CU Gremlin.

btw: get yourselves an automatic transmission, then you'll have illuminated gear indicators and a gear display on the instrument cluster as standard... kids...

The problem is that there are no measures implemented by the engine control unit, whether it's through additive injection or post-injection. The retention rate needs to be reduced to prevent the filter from becoming clogged.


Hmm, as far as I know, with Peugeot, the filter is cleaned every 100,000 km (with compressed air and similar things), and the ash is removed.

Best regards, WarLord.

Deleted upon request.

Under the following link:
http://www.russfilterkat.de/deutsch/presse.html
Figure 19 shows the reduction in black carbon particle concentration during a driving cycle. Accordingly, an average reduction of 50-70% is observed in this driving cycle.
What bothers me is that only the reduction at a particle size of 25nm is specified. In the previous specifications, with a constant speed of 90 km/h, this particle size was always filtered out very effectively (e.g., Figure 12, values around 95%) and, on the other hand, only represents a very small proportion of the total emissions (Figure 13). If, in the actual driving cycle, only 50% reduction is achieved for this particle size, I wonder how it performs with the larger particles, which were already less favorably filtered before.
A scoundrel is anyone who suspects there's a hidden reason why the overall emissions in the driving cycle are not specified.

It seems the filter might offer a small benefit, but it can't compensate for any potential loss in value. Firstly, there are currently no tax disadvantages for vehicles without Russian filters that would justify such a loss. Secondly, this filter is likely not effective enough to meet any such limit.

At PSA (Peugeot and Citroen), a replacement of the particulate filter is scheduled for older vehicles at 80,000 km. For new vehicles with the next generation of particulate filters, it is scheduled at 120,000 km.

Thank you for the clarification.

Best regards, WarLord.