The diesel controversy

[Antony PowellParticipant @antonypowell28169]

Hi Mark

Yes it is …..Anything the alters the cars / vans Emissions, Brakes, Suspension, Steering etc etc must be approved.

[Barnaby WildeParticipant @barnabywilde70941]

Posted by Antony Powell on 12/05/2017 18:27:05:

Hi Mark

Yes it is …..Anything the alters the cars / vans Emissions, Brakes, Suspension, Steering etc etc must be approved.

So I have to buy all my brake pads from an official dealer then ?

How about the fluid, is it OK to use any old Dot 4 or does it have to come from the official dealer?

[Cyril BonnettParticipant @cyrilbonnett24790]

I like it 'Anything the alters the cars / vans Emissions, Brakes, Suspension, Steering etc etc must be approved.'

I wish they would tell that to the authorities that look after our roads or are potholes now approved.

[Nick WheelerParticipant @nickwheeler]

Posted by Antony Powell on 12/05/2017 18:27:05:

Hi Mark

Yes it is …..Anything the alters the cars / vans Emissions, Brakes, Suspension, Steering etc etc must be approved.

Approved by whom? How would you prove that it is approved? Hell, how would you buy it in the first place?

[Antony PowellParticipant @antonypowell28169]

As with the rest of our lives there are approval bodies set up by the government

CE markings

BSI

ISO9001

etc etc

 

and yes there are standards for our roads that the government has to stick to !!

Edited By Antony Powell on 13/05/2017 08:38:32

[clogsParticipant @clogs]

HI, just 2 penny worth…..read till the end please…….

all the salt that eats car's works out just fine for the manufactures…..!!!!!! So when the dam things are eaten away by the rust bug or as the norm these days, nobody can fix the electronic crap, hence it goes the scrappers……

How much extra does it cost the environment to make replacement vehicle……(emissions from the power station)….than rebuild a perfectly good old'un…..

I for one run pre 1990 Diesel vehicles with no electronic's…….infinitely repairable…..luckily cavity wax filled from new…..

When I worked in california, we used to go to the junk yard buy a nice car (not to banged about) then buy a later (new) engine and trans from the factory, rebuild the chassis components, brake and susp, get the Mexicans to replace the upholstery and a repaint …..all this for a little over 1/2 the cost of a new'n…..no contest really….everybody was doing it…..

thats until the FED's offered a price to scrap the older cars that went for trade in…..RING ANY BELL"S……

I had a sweet mid size type EL-Camino pick-up, V8 Diesel (6.3) and was just gonna buy a 60's Ford Thunderbird with a continental pack, (spare in the r/bumper sort) but I had to come back to blighty……

U see it's all crap, the country need emission problems so that the gov can get extra tax's out of us…..if everybody quit smoking where would the tax money come from next…?????….

u get more shxte out of politician gob than u get from a Diesel……Rant over…….hahaha…

sorry, but keep the old car's going…………..

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Nicholas Wheeler 1 on 13/05/2017 00:03:28:

Posted by Antony Powell on 12/05/2017 18:27:05:

Hi Mark

Yes it is …..Anything the alters the cars / vans Emissions, Brakes, Suspension, Steering etc etc must be approved.

Approved by whom? How would you prove that it is approved? Hell, how would you buy it in the first place?

Read all about it. The link happens to be for the UK but most National Administrations have similar organisations.

There's a huge difference between large-scale manufacture for sale of a polluting product and what I do in my garage. If I knock up a dirty unsafe run-about and use it on private land, then the environmental damage is very small as is the risk to the public. If I make and sell 10,000,000 of exactly the same machine then the damage is enormous.

Type approval isn't aimed at individuals, it's purpose is to protect the majority.

Dave

[Clive HartlandParticipant @clivehartland94829]

Just to throw something in the pile, I remember seeing some years back a power pack, diesel that absorbed it's own exhaust and was used underwater. It was recycling it's own pollution. They must have also fed it air to allow it to run.

The technology to make a diesel pollution free is there but no one seems to want to incorporate it it into present day systems.

[clogsParticipant @clogs]

Hi Clive,

that system was also used in Submarines…..after a designed time period they had to take in fresh air to re-charge the air top up system but also to remove the Hydrogen (I think) from the huge battery banks……

what upsets me most is those wonderful Gardner 4LK's that went to the bottom …I wanted one for an antique truck conversion….anyway…….

also, the Diesel engine will run on it's exhaust with just a wiff of pure Oxygen……that's if u can afford it……

I think, if the Yanks said as from Jan 1st, 2020 no petrol, diesel vehicle will be sold to the gen public we'd soon be driving using Hydrogen or such like …..

over to u…….Clogs……..

[John FlackParticipant @johnflack59079]

.On the subject of homogation and approval the wider matter of safety to the general public is obvious.

What is less obvious is how this affects the individual and how this impacts on what can or cannot be done to road vehicles. Being able to make a replacement part on a lathe or mill is possible, but introducing the part to a road going vehicle may in the case of an accident have severe legal consequences which the wise should be aware. Finding you are not covered by your vehicle insurance will be the least of your worries, especially if third party personal injuries are involved, the loss of your home, workshop and personal liberty are at stake. Even more worrying is that a vehicle repairer may use non approved parts THIS IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CHECK.

But I guess that a majority will take a chance and you are not guilty as long as no one knows!!!!!!

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

For type approved parts, the automotive industry could follow the aviation industry, and even that is not entirely fool proof.

Ian S C

[charadamParticipant @charadam]

Well, I did ask!

What a range of opinion, expertise and discussion.

Thank you to the forum.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by clogs on 13/05/2017 08:37:49:

HI, just 2 penny worth…..read till the end please…….

all the salt that eats car's works out just fine for the manufactures…..!!!!!! So when the dam things are eaten away by the rust bug or as the norm these days, nobody can fix the electronic crap, hence it goes the scrappers……

My Vauxhall Viva had holes in the wings after 3 years, my last car had no rust after 14 or so (can't quite remember). Yes you could fix old cars on your drive but you had to do it very frequently. With the Viva the prop shaft oil seals had to be changed fairly regularly, and the clutch lasted about 20, 000 miles until I discovered you could fit a van clutch. With my last petrol car (Vectra) all I ever did was change oil and filter every 10,000, air filter every 20,000, plugs every 30,000, and it did 165,000 miles before the scrappage scheme came in. It did many more miles to the gallon than the Viva, went round corners better, stopped better and would cruise much faster. The only unplanned outages were a broken spring, when the pollen filter got blocked and the heater stopped working (answer throw away the pollen filter), and when the alternator died. Even the battery lasted 12 years There is no comparison. Of course if you enjoy crawling about under a car most weekends that's your right, not me.

Edited By duncan webster on 14/05/2017 23:21:31

Edited By duncan webster on 14/05/2017 23:22:45

[clogsParticipant @clogs]

I know what ya mean Duncan,

but I'm lucky enough to have place with a car lift and room enough to move about…..my current vehicles are a 1989 Reno Extra 1.6 D…the speedo stopped at 380,000klms and still does over 60 to the gall…when I bought it I just dropped out the eng/g/box replaced the clutch, w/pump , t/belt etc etc that was 100,000 klm's ago…..the other is a, 99,T4 5 seater Transporter D, (my forever car) that's got 330,000klms on it, new engine and clutch, replaced all the sus joints, needed or not + the brakes etc etc…..neither of them has any rust holes and the paint aint pretty……u just gotta spend a few quid at the start and usually all will be well….. My other old vehicle is a 1928 Citroen C4 pick up, just made or replaced ALL the wearing items, bearing's, bushes etc etc…….not cheap but she'll be an almost daily driver when the body is finished…..

Old cars are great but u can't do it on the cheap….do the job once but do it properly……besides, mostly these old cars get more valuable with age….not like the newer models…..

if I need to go ball's to the wall on long distance, there's plenty of cheap rental car's that u can drive like u stole it….

No, I'm not rich but have a weird take on life……

Oil on ya shoes, bee's in ya hair……hahaha…….clogs mmmmmm, Castrol "R"………..

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

I still don't understand why exhaust systems don't rust out these days?

Martin

[Clive IndiaParticipant @cliveindia]

My Vauxhall Viva had holes in the wings after 3 years, my last car had no rust after 14 or so (can't quite remember). Yes you could fix old cars on your drive but you had to do it very frequently. With the Viva the prop shaft oil seals had to be changed fairly regularly, and the clutch lasted about 20, 000 miles until I discovered you could fit a van clutch. With my last petrol car (Vectra) all I ever did was change oil and filter every 10,000, air filter every 20,000, plugs every 30,000, and it did 165,000 miles before the scrappage scheme came in. It did many more miles to the gallon than the Viva, went round corners better, stopped better and would cruise much faster. The only unplanned outages were a broken spring, when the pollen filter got blocked and the heater stopped working (answer throw away the pollen filter), and when the alternator died. Even the battery lasted 12 years There is no comparison. Of course if you enjoy crawling about under a car most weekends that's your right, not me.

Very much agree Duncan. Shame it took the Japanese to teach our car industry how to do it.

Most of us use the car as a tool and expect it to work. Similarly with computers.

[clogsParticipant @clogs]

Martin,

exhaust are "Aluminium'ised" (some sort of electro coated steel ) with some of the special bit's near the engine that are now often Stainless…silencer's are mostly, not welded anymore, just crimped…..on the older but newish types of exhaust they we're made from zinc plated biscuit tins but as soon as they we're welded there was no protection from the water inside or out…..hence rust at the seam's……

And

the Jap's took hold of everything with engines because the Axxx Hole's in management that we're to busy getting pissed or playing golf or believing the gen public don't know any better and will buy what ever crap they produced by like's of "RED LEN" .?????? whatever…..

Note to self, some new things are quite good………hahaha……..

Clogs

[Gordon WParticipant @gordonw]

Odd things cars – my last two have had new sumps because of rust, the only part that had rust. Even the original exhaust system has less rust.

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

Clogs, Red Robbo I think you mean?

[Martin 100Participant @martin100]

Posted by Martin Kyte on 15/05/2017 09:10:50:

I still don't understand why exhaust systems don't rust out these days?

Martin

 

Tetra-Ethyl Lead requires the addition of a lead scavenger, commonly Ethylene Di-bromide to stop excessive buildup of lead oxides in the combustion chamber and to ensure the removal of the lead into the exhaust stream, this combines with combustion water / steam in the exhaust to form an acid.

Remove the tetra-ethyl lead from the fuel and you can remove the scavenger, and thus remove the exhaust corrosion problem. A petrol vehicle with a catalyst will, by the ongoing inherent chemical reactions have considerably more 'water' in the exhaust stream than non-cat equipped vehciles.

The actual fabrication and construction of exhausts has changed a bit over the years but fully aluminised exhausts were actually standard fitment to things like the mini metro in the early 1980's, from the removal of lead to standard cat fitment in the early 1990's the level of corrosion on exhaust has dropped considerably, fatigue failures are in my experience now far more common than corrosion.

Also fitment of cats was nothing to do with stopping people 'gassing' themselves with the CO. They orginated in the country where you can easily buy a handgun at the local supermarket, which is claimed to be far more effective and less painful than choking on exhaust fumes.

PS Aftermarket brake pads have to meet a certain (high) percentage of the braking capability of the orignals in order to be allowed on sale anywhere in the EU  (ECE R90) .  

In Germany everything you fit to the vehicle must be TUV approved in order for the car to remain legal for road use.   In the UK we are slightly more lax but ignorance of the construction and use regulations does not absolve you of prosecution.  Removing a DPF (or a catalyst) makes the vehicle non complaint for road use.  This is an absolute and is not open to any interpretation.

Edited By Martin 100 on 15/05/2017 22:25:26

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

This might be tosh, as it is a 'someone told me', but I'm given to understand that the imposition of catalysts by bureaucrats killed stone dead the development of stratified charge engines, which could have achieved the same or better results. Don't legislate the means, legislate the outcome, but they never learn.

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

Posted by Martin 100 on 15/05/2017 22:06:23:In Germany everything you fit to the vehicle must be TUV approved in order for the car to remain legal for road use.

Really? If true that is against EU rules on free movement of goods and services. TUV are just one of many test houses. What is required is CE marking for those items that are covered by EU Directives requiring it.

Russell

[Martin 100Participant @martin100]

Posted by Russell Eberhardt on 16/05/2017 09:12:24:

Posted by Martin 100 on 15/05/2017 22:06:23:In Germany everything you fit to the vehicle must be TUV approved in order for the car to remain legal for road use.

Really? If true that is against EU rules on free movement of goods and services. TUV are just one of many test houses. What is required is CE marking for those items that are covered by EU Directives requiring it.

Russell

Compliance by CE marking for 1:1 direct replacements is enough, but for anything not a 1:1 replacement, involving some degree of modification, or deviation from the orignal type approval is not.

As an end user you can fit what you like sourced within Europe or elsewhere, but you cannot use it on the road in Germany, nor will a vehicle pass the equivalent of the VOSA MOT test if you do not have the supporting documentation. CE marking in this instance is worthless without a proper paper trail and without an ABE or a TUV reference the CE marking by itself is not enough.  

(this is in reference to motorbikes but cars are treated the same)

ABE and TÜV certificate of conformity – how to maintain a clear overview

It's very effective proactive enforcement of their equivalent of the construction and use legislation to the actual vehicle fleet on the road. It's also ensuring continued type approval compliance regardless of in which country it was first achieved.

It's not a barrier to free movement of goods and services.

Edited By Martin 100 on 16/05/2017 12:06:00

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Martin 100 said:

A petrol vehicle with a catalyst will, by the ongoing inherent chemical reactions have considerably more 'water' in the exhaust stream than non-cat equipped vehciles.

Really? Perhaps you might explain the reasoning behind that statement? As I see it, the water in the exhaust is either tthat which goes in with the combustion air (a relatively small but variable amount) or from the hydrogen in the fuel. Catalytic converters only convert a very minor amount of hydrocarbons to water and carbon dioxide, thus only a tiny extra amount of water would be generated, if any, by a vehicle with a catalytic converter.

The differences in fuel molecular make up would certainly change the proportion of water (shorter carbon-carbon chained hydrocarbons contain a higher percentage of hydrogen), but that has naff all to do with the catalytic converter? Further, as cars are generally more fuel efficient these days, the gross exhaust emissions will be lower – again, nothing to do with the cat. Enter alcohols,added to the fuel, and that changes things too, but nowt to do with the cat.

As regards internal exhaust corrosion, the removal (at the refining stage) of sulphur componds (more noticeable for diesel fuel, of course) and conversion of NOx to nitrogen means there should be far less acidic radicals in the exhaust stream. That a cat needs to run hotter than a non-catalytic exhaust (if it gets up to temperature – see post on cold cats/short journeys) combines to give less sulphuric and nitric acids being inside the exhaust. So there is one reason why exhausts last longer these days. I would think the higher exit temps of exhaust gases, since unleaded fuels were formulated, has more bearing on the problem, than the actual catalytic converter.

I look forward to your explanation for the above statement.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by not done it yet on 16/05/2017 12:14:14:

Martin 100 said:

A petrol vehicle with a catalyst will, by the ongoing inherent chemical reactions have considerably more 'water' in the exhaust stream than non-cat equipped vehciles.

Really? Perhaps you might explain the reasoning behind that statement? As I see it, the water in the exhaust is either tthat which goes in with the combustion air (a relatively small but variable amount) or from the hydrogen in the fuel. Catalytic converters only convert a very minor amount of hydrocarbons to water and carbon dioxide, thus only a tiny extra amount of water would be generated, if any, by a vehicle with a catalytic converter.

…

I suppose it depends on what Martin meant by 'considerably more' and not done it yet means by 'tiny'.

Wikipedia has average figures for pre-cat emissions from the average American car in 2000 of:

Hydrocarbons (ie un-burnt fuel) 35kg per annum

Carbon Monoxide (Poisonous) 261kg pa

Nitrogen Oxides (Poisonous) 17.3kg pa

The US emissions targets issued in 2004 called for reductions to:

Hydrocarbons 0.91kg pa

Carbon Monoxide 43kg pa

Nitrogen Oxides 0.64kg pa

The catalyser burns an extra 35kg of un-burnt fuel producing quite a lot of water in the process. So Martin is 'right' if he means extra water per year and not done it yet is 'right' if he means extra water as a percentage.

Dementia is much more common than it used to be. Apparently it is possible for particulates to migrate direct from the nasal cavity into the brain; they are not filtered by the lungs. A link between the amount of particulates in the brain and dementia has been demonstrated. I don't think anyone's proved that pollution causes dementia, but post-mortem results are certainly suggestive.

Dave

[Author]

Posts