Particulate filter delete

[Grumpycat]

So exactly what is the benefit of the dpf if it regens every so often and spits out all the pollutants in one big gob every 30 hours? Educate me please. And don't use the word children.

Large C2 particles cause respiratory problems. This is a real issue in congested cities. It should be a non-issue on the farm so long as you are smart enough to stay out of the exhaust. However Big Government has no bounds. "Must Fix Everything! Never mind out of one side of our mouth we say CO2 is bad and then out the other side we impose DPF which consumes more fuel and converts some perfectly good C2 into CO2."

The DPF catches the large C2 particulates, lets small pass. That is why there is no soot in the exhaust tip with a DPF. Then regeneration burns out the captured C2 which exits as small C2 which is not the same hazard for lungs. The large sticks to your lungs same as soot in the exhaust, the small apparently does not stick. The C2 is still there, just smaller.

Unlike ignition engines, compression engine efficiency depends on lack of restriction in intake and exhaust. DPF is an exhaust restriction, and the more it is blocked before regeneration the more fuel will be consumed. Then extra fuel is thrown at it during regeneration...

One should pay attention to HP-hour/gallon numbers. Due to more powerful ECUs to keep a smogged diesel in clean operating ranges designers have spent more time watching fuel efficiency. Saw mention elsewhere of much greater fuel efficiency in new smogged engines and at first glance that appears to be true. No matter the waste of the DPF, other things done to make the DPF work have more than overcome the losses due to DPF. No doubt is not true for all tractor DPFs, but it is something to look for. Was not true for the Ford Powerstroke 6.4L.

 

[Jstpssng]

^^^^
As I've pointed out before, my 3301 is heavier and has more HP than my old 1984 L275; yet burns the same amount of fuel. The only variation is that the 275 was based on PTO-hours, whereas I believe the newer tractor measures actual hours.

Maybe you could do the research for the rest of us and post it here.

In a nutshell; Boy meets girl, they sneak off into the bushes and 9 months later the regeneration arrives.

It's a different process when talking about diesel engines though. Rather than

spits out the pollutants in one big gob every 30 hours

the process burns most of the pollutants up.
We went through this same thing 40 years ago when automobiles started using catalytic converters. My father was one of many people who drove a pipe through his so that he could continue using fuel from his bulk tank... then almost lost the car because the converter still clogged, causing it to overheat.

 

[ericm979]

So exactly what is the benefit of the dpf if it regens every so often and spits out all the pollutants in one big gob every 30 hours? Educate me please.

The DPF is there to trap fine carbon particles (soot). Regen burns up the soot, turning it primarily into CO2.
The Tier 4 under 75hp limits on other pollutants can be met with engine tuning and combustion chamber shape.

Dieselnet is a useful resource and has a good article on DPF: Diesel Particulate Filters
This wikipedia article on diesel exhaust's health effects is good: Diesel exhaust - Wikipedia

 

[ericm979]

the air quality here has deteriorated in the last 30 years.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Air pollution has actually gotten better in the SF bay area since the '70s, even though the population is larger and there's more cars on the road for longer periods of time. While I don't agree with all of CARB or EPA's regulations, over all emissions regs have resulted in cleaner air. So we've been doing a small part to make your air a little less dirty.

Ethanol is one of the things I don't agree with- it helped emissions in carbureted and early fuel injected cars but modern FI with O2 and knock sensors compensates for it (and they're already burning as lean as they can). If I could find E0 at a reasonable price locally I'd be using it. There's no CA regs against it, just hardly anyone has it and the one place I know of charges $1/gal more for it.

 

[Jstpssng]

^^^^
I pay anywhere from 30 to70 cents extra for nonethanol, a lot of private stations are selling it in their premium pumps. I only use it for my small engines so it's a couple of dollars extra per month. I spent a lot more than that replacing carburetor parts which weren't compatible with ethanol.
In the '70s coal plants in the south and Midwest put in taller smoke stacks to reduce pollutants in those states; yet what goes up must come down, and it lands on us.

 

[MechanicalGuy]

^wow. Some good posts up above. And no finn, I didn't understand the whatever something something procedure. I just found out about dpf in the last week as I peruse the forum for information to enlighten me on what will help me to make a first tractor purchase. DPF is an environazi government imposition as far as I can tell, although I'm all for being immersed in clean diesel exhaust rather than dirty diesel exhaust, if there was even such a difference, I wouldn't know as the last diesel I bought was a 2005 Silverado 2500 quite some time ago, and the exhaust was behind me in a truck, not in front of me in a tractor.

I am happy for the education though. Thanks to all who posted following my post.

 

[LouNY]

OK, here's my take on diesel DPFs;
One, I don't like them, I do have one on my pickup and I have about 70,000 miles on it.

Two, They use fuel to heat and burn the soot particles off of themselves.
So yes, they do waste fuel when they have to regen and from my experience they use a considerable amount more in cold weather then in summer.

Three, from their design they have to get very hot to regenerate just what I want to have in a dry pasture or hayfield a potential ignition source around flammable material.

Four, it is just an added expense and complication on an already complicated engine control system.

Five, they have been shoved down the manufactures throats by ridiculous emission requirement by the EPA.
Why do I say that are ridiculous, with the high pressure common rail injection systems in current production the particulate emissions would be low even without them.
I would much rather have opacity requirements them the current setup, those were the early emission regulations.

One of the farms tractors is a CIH Puma 125 with the common rail, I do not ever recall seeing hardy any smoke out of that tractor even under a heavy load it runs excellently with good throttle response and excellent fuel usage. The oil in this tractor will stay clean for several hundred hours so it is not generating a lot of soot or carbon.

A comparison tractor would be the NH 6050 basically all most the same tractor size and hp wise except that it is mechanical fuel injection with less bells and whistles. This tractor also runs well not quite as strongly but good, it does smoke a bit more under heavy load, the oil is dirty looking in just a few hours after a change.
the PUMA is better starting in winter cold weather, the NH is good but the Puma is better.

The only engine differences in these tractors are the fuel injection systems, the common rail runs cleaner and smoother in all conditions, the mechanical sytem is less expensive and we would anticipate less maintenance cost and time when it starts becoming due.
Both of these engines have over 6000 hours on them, the NH at just over 6000, and I believe the Puma is around 9000 these are clock hours not engine speed hours.

Lou

 

[ericm979]

Tractors under 75hp have easier requirements under the Tier 4 rules. Meeting those does not require EGR and DEF like on pickup trucks and semis which have stricter limits on a per HP basis. Under 25.5hp it's easier still, and DPF or similar is not needed as it can all be done with engine tuning.

DPF has not been forced on the manufacturers, they are free to use whatever solution meets the requirements. Emissions regs are usually made with input from manufacturers- it does no good to make a reg that no one can meet.

There are four different ways that different manufactuers use to meet < 75hp Tier 4:
DPF, EFI and regens.
DPF+DOC, mechanical FI and continual low temp regen
DOC+EGR+EFI, no regens.
DPF, mechanical FI and regens

DOC is Diesel Oxidation Catalyst. It burns soot in a different way than a DPF.

Most manufacturers use #1. Branson uses #2. Mahindra and some Masseys use #3. Kubota's B3350 used #4. They all have plusses and minuses. With #1 and #2 (and #4), operating the tractor in a way that keeps the DPF hot helps prevent problems. Not leaving it idling for long periods and working it periodically seems to reduce problems and extend time between regens. That might help type 3 too, I don't know. If you use a tractor to do 10 minutes of loader work every once in a while in a northern winter you'll have to deal with more regens and potential issues per hour than someone who is mostly doing long sessions of mowing in the summer.

A few manufacturers have had problems with their emissions system. Most notably the Kubota B3350, which used a unique system that didn't work well especially in cold weather and is apparently being redesigned.

 

[Oldoak]

We went through this same thing 40 years ago when automobiles started using catalytic converters. My father was one of many people who drove a pipe through his so that he could continue using fuel from his bulk tank... then almost lost the car because the converter still clogged, causing it to overheat.

That wouldn't have happened if he had cleaned out all the smashed internal honeycomb pieces like he should have.

 

[MechanicalGuy]

One time I bought a jeep rubicon that ran like crap intermittently. Turns out a big ball of the cat converter material had broken off and was round and acting like a check ball on that bank of the exhaust. It took me forever to diagnose that issue.