Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellini
I accept my illustration probably wasn't the best, but the engine and vehicle in question is 25 years old with over 160,000 miles on the clock. I also own another diesel vehicle with a 5-cylinder OM602 Mercedes engine (non-DPF) that is 28 years-old and has done just over 60,000 miles since new. That runs at a high load most of the time and that also does not smoke.
However, assuming I've understood you correctly, I do not understand how a non-DPF'd diesel can run smoke-free and yet a modern DPF-removed diesel can run and smoke. A modern diesel engine with a better combustion technology ought to be cleaner without a DPF, surely? The DPF addition, to my mind, should make it even cleaner on emissions.
Again, I stand to be corrected.
I'll repeat that I have no beef with the legalities of DPF's and am not condoning their removal.
|
the smoke is a visual indicator the exhaust gases are toxic. but you will get toxic **** in it before it becomes so bad it's visible. My point is, that un burnt particulates that are indicative of partially burnt fuel, will be stopped by the dpf