Infos zum Partikelfilter (viel Text!) | Posts 32+

The more it needs to remove, the more additive is required. The more additive is needed, the shorter the service intervals become.

Once a widespread urea infrastructure is available, it won't be an issue anymore. I'm thinking of double nozzles that have both a large and a small filler neck adapter.

Regardless, this product could also be offered in cans through accessory stores and hardware stores.

Refueling cycles of only 1000 km would certainly be acceptable in that case.

What bothers me is that currently this product is only offered exclusively by DC under the brand name 'AdBlue,' instead of corporations coming together to develop a cross-company standard that would subsequently be incorporated into a DIN-ISO norm.

SeatArosa1.7SDI wrote:

... I'm thinking of double nozzles that have a large and a small nozzle for connecting to tanks.

To completely overwhelm the technically unsavvy driver?
Alternatively, a separate diesel pump could be offered specifically for older cars.
What do you think how many people will skip using that additive?
I'm more inclined to believe that there needs to be a mandatory control system.

Quote:

Regardless, this product could also be offered in cans through accessory stores and hardware stores.

Ja, sicher eine Lösung, doch der unbegabte "Zwei Linke Hände" Autofahrer wird sich die Sache dann sparen. SIt's quite uncomfortable.

I wouldn't mind. I would also be okay with such a solution.

Quote:

Refueling cycles of only 1000 km would certainly be acceptable in that case.

However, this contradicts your statement above.
"The urea... is supposed to last for one service interval."
Or are you now resetting the service interval to 100 km ?

Quote:

What bothers me is that currently, this substance is only offered exclusively by DC under the brand name "AdBlue" ...

Agreement.

To completely overwhelm the technically unskilled driver?
Or offer a separate diesel pump specifically for older cars.

This can be solved with some creativity and 21st-century techniques. The urea tank nozzle is significantly shorter than the main fuel nozzle and is located to the left of the main nozzle, allowing it to fit into dual-nozzle systems commonly found in older cars.

In a vehicle equipped with SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction), a urea container extends pneumatically or via a servo motor approximately 15 cm outwards next to the main fuel filler neck, as needed, so that the double nozzle can be inserted into it. The dispensing nozzle communicates with the vehicle via CAN bus using infrared technology, enabling fully automated urea filling with maximum safety.

*In more affordable cars, it can also be pulled out manually.

The basic infrastructure is already in place, although it exists on a commercial level.
Within a radius of my town, there are 7 service stations. There are no gas stations.

AdBlue is produced by BASF according to the DIN V 70070 standard and is readily available.
http://www.adblue-service.de/

The question of why only DC offers this technology in its vehicles should be directed to the other manufacturers.

Actually, the system isn't really that bad. With DC, I only see the disadvantage that with the BlueTec 4 and 5 models, they have reduced the internal engine modifications to such an extent that the engines could theoretically meet Euro 0 standards without a catalytic converter.
While the NKW emission limits for Euro 4 and 5 are slightly different, there's still no real argument to be made. The difference between BlueTec 4 and 5 primarily lies in the percentage of fuel consumption related to emissions. With BlueTec 5, this percentage is higher.
Since it is currently only offered in the NKW segment, it's also worthwhile to consider DC's competitors in that area. MAN achieves Euro4 standards with a cooled EGR system, common rail injection, and a CRT catalytic converter (essentially a type of DPF). For Euro 5, AGR is combined with AdBlue. MAN itself promotes this technology because it allows them to optimize the engine efficiency towards PM emissions, which leads to a reduction in fuel consumption.


The issue with the infrastructure would be interesting – or rather, some drivers would definitely try to avoid using AdBlue.
"In that case, one would have to put the ECU into a special mode to force people to refuel with AdBlue or write an error code to the memory that remains until the next vehicle inspection – thus providing evidence of tax evasion."
That would certainly be another option, I think.

AdBlue, or rather, urea solution, is a relatively inexpensive consumable. It can even be produced in school laboratories. If the SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) system proves itself and becomes established, third-party suppliers should be allowed to participate in order to avoid monopolies in the supply of urea and the associated inflated prices. Furthermore, this substance should be tax-exempt.

If the stuff only costs 20 cents per liter, hardly anyone will be stingy enough to avoid using it, even if they consume 0.5 liters per 100 km. With an empty urea tank, the engine management simply switches to an emergency mode that reduces power and optimizes the maps to minimize exceeding the emission standard without the SCR catalyst. The urea must also be very cheap for the end user in order to avoid creating any incentive to illegally manipulate the engine management so that it runs in the normal program without urea (with correspondingly high NOx emissions).

"If AdBlue is consumed in a ratio of 1:25 (which represents 4% of fuel consumption and is sufficient for EU5 standards), a 15L tank would be enough for approximately 5000 km in a typical mid-size TDI vehicle. Shouldn't this make it suitable for end consumers?"

Hello!

SeatArosa1.7SDI wrote:

If the stuff only costs 20 cents per liter,

I doubt anyone will skip it due to being cheap.

Currently, the price is between 40 and 50 cents per liter in a 1000-liter container.

The acceptance is likely to be accompanied by a possible reduction in diesel consumption.

BYE
TDI mechanics.

'This might not be entirely relevant to the current technical discussion, so please don't criticize it.'

Why was the particulate filter invented?

Yes, that's right - it was around 2001 when the PSA group (Peugeot, Citroen) started doing this. But why? Pioneer spirit? - of course not . Because the PSA group wasn't capable of developing diesel engines that met EURO 3 standards. So they simply took an 'old' engine and added a particulate filter (which isn't really anything new). To cover up the incompetence of the engine developers, it was then marketed accordingly (maybe someone still remembers the silly advertisement: Diesel, smoker or non-smoker?).

Back then, it triggered a chain reaction, and now everyone is obsessed with filters. Manufacturers, thanks to modern diesel technology (common rail, piezo injectors, VTG turbochargers), can actually meet the Euro 4 standard without filters, but they are forced for marketing reasons to install these useless particulate filters.

Politicians have recognized and cleverly exploited the general tendency towards overly strict regulations (tax burdens, driving bans).

In Italy, as far as I know, there was even a driving ban once due to exceeding emission limits, and afterwards they were surprised that the driving ban didn't change the fine particulate matter situation at all.

The worst part is that the PSA group continues to advertise this filter workaround, which is completely unacceptable.

If you also believe that this negative development needs to be stopped, then clearly explain to your acquaintances, in a way they can understand, what is happening and who is responsible for this 'filter horror,' using factual arguments.

Oh yes, regarding that:

When the urea tank is empty, the engine management system automatically switches to an emergency mode that reduces power and optimizes the maps to minimize exceeding the emission standard without the SCR catalyst. The urea must also be very cheap for the end user in order to avoid creating any incentive to illegally manipulate the engine management system so that it runs in the normal program without urea (with correspondingly high NOx emissions).

If the NOx reduction in the SCR catalyst is not checked (by measuring after the catalyst), the end consumer might get the idea of putting something other than AdBlue into the additive tank... The price would have to be extremely low to prevent that.

Best regards, Nebelwerfer.

"It's possible to determine what's inside using a sensor. If the calibration parameters were adjusted so that it consumed 5% less fuel (like in Mercedes-Benz trucks), I would gladly pay the price for AdBlue, even though the slightly acidic exhaust smell is something you get used to."

A liquid sensor can easily become satisfied. You just need to immerse it in a liquid that it 'likes' .

You don't necessarily have to expect the worst . Euro4 cars (and even more so, Euro 5 cars) all have eOBD, which means that eventually, any police officer with a laptop can access the engine control unit and detect illegal tuning. If it is detected that the engine was operated without AdBlue (more than what can be described as a "supply shortage"), there will be a charge of tax evasion. I believe that would already work. I would position the sensor in the tank and just before the nozzle to avoid misleading the system. Of course, there will always be black sheep...

I can't imagine that the state would ever allocate funds for these diagnostic devices and equip the police with them. At most, it would be for special units. But even then, they would have better things to do than searching for and exposing such offenders.
That won't be available everywhere!

AfnFahrer wrote:

I cannot imagine, no matter how hard I try, that the state should ever have money for these diagnostic devices and equip the police with them. At most, special task forces. But even they would have better things to do than searching for and exposing such offenders. That won't be available everywhere!

Unfortunately, the state will have to. This is required by a corresponding EU directive.
Just like the police are now switching from green to blue uniforms. Another tribute to the EU.

The primary purpose of using these OBD2 diagnostic tools is to locate stolen vehicles. The fact that they can also be used simultaneously to search for vehicles with illegal modifications or emissions violations is a "welcome" side effect.

Even if the "average" police officer can't (or won't) detect it, the AU (vehicle inspection) would. That should be enough. Besides, based on my example, and considering the mentioned 50 cents per liter, the cost for 7.5 liters over 5000 km is only a small amount. I really don't understand who would risk doing that.

However, the primary purpose of using OBD2 testing devices is to locate stolen vehicles. The fact that they can also be used simultaneously to search for vehicles with illegal modifications or emissions violations is a 'pleasant' side effect.

Okay, you know how it is with electronics. There are often many errors, some bugs in the software, and sometimes, for inexplicable reasons, things just don't work. Since the interface draws its power from the OBD socket, all you need to do is install a switch or relay there. If the power supply seems too obvious, you can also deliberately interrupt the data line.

The stupid cop (why else would he become a cop - very few do it out of idealism ) then wonders why it's not working and stops checking. In that kind of way, like 'Damn thing, it's broken again.'...and just like that, you're off the hook .

Basically, it's an arms race.