New blue tec
06-23-2008, 01:09 PM
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,244
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
C350 4Matic
New blue tec
Just saw an artical on Volkswagen new blue tec without AdBlue.
They say the car switch to a feul air mixture to burn off the trapped NOx.
Here is the artical
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review
What im wondering is, if the car burns off the trapped emmisions, isnt it still puting the polutants back into the envorment.Anyone know more about this?
They say the car switch to a feul air mixture to burn off the trapped NOx.
Here is the artical
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review
What im wondering is, if the car burns off the trapped emmisions, isnt it still puting the polutants back into the envorment.Anyone know more about this?
06-23-2008, 01:52 PM
#2
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,364
Received 294 Likes
on
246 Posts
223.168 & 213.012 & 906.633 & 214.005
Just saw an artical on Volkswagen new blue tec without AdBlue.
They say the car switch to a feul air mixture to burn off the trapped NOx.
Here is the artical
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review
What im wondering is, if the car burns off the trapped emmisions, isnt it still puting the polutants back into the envorment.Anyone know more about this?
They say the car switch to a feul air mixture to burn off the trapped NOx.
Here is the artical
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review
What im wondering is, if the car burns off the trapped emmisions, isnt it still puting the polutants back into the envorment.Anyone know more about this?
If you burn something, you will produce at least CO2, typically H2O too. When the particle filer is regenerated, some stuff gets released but it isn't those particles that got trapped as they burn to something mostly harmless.
Note that this is what my W221 does as well as all the MB Bluetecs in the US.
06-23-2008, 02:10 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SE FL
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2007 S600
if its like the diesel pickups, when the particulate filter gets full, it dumps fuel in there to burn it off. your gas mileage gets worse, but its supposed to be better for the environment, not sure how, if you are wasting more fuel.
06-23-2008, 04:16 PM
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,364
Received 294 Likes
on
246 Posts
223.168 & 213.012 & 906.633 & 214.005
Perhaps you did not mean it but it does not take any significant amount of fuel to regenerate the particle filter and it only happens every now and then. But the presence of the filter itself, from air flow resistance does increase fuel consumption. So far there just is no better solution to fulfil the current emission requirements.
06-23-2008, 06:48 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SE FL
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2007 S600
Perhaps you did not mean it but it does not take any significant amount of fuel to regenerate the particle filter and it only happens every now and then. But the presence of the filter itself, from air flow resistance does increase fuel consumption. So far there just is no better solution to fulfil the current emission requirements.
06-24-2008, 03:03 AM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,364
Received 294 Likes
on
246 Posts
223.168 & 213.012 & 906.633 & 214.005
Maybe that is the case with the Mercedes system, but the ones they have been using in some of the american diesel trucks has been robbing them of 4-6 mpg. I have a friend who has developed a bypass to the particulate filter, along with some programming to prevent all the check engine lights.
But I find it odd if one first pays for the filter and then pays for getting rid of it. Shouldn't legislation be changed if the filter does not have a meaningful purpose.
06-24-2008, 07:39 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SE FL
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2007 S600
Looks like you missed my comment partly (my fault, could have been more clear). I was not claiming that the MB diesel particle filter would not increase fuel consumption more than marginally. I was just claiming that the regeneration process with additional fuel injection is not significant. I don't have a good figure how for the fuel consumption increase from the actual presence of the filter.
But I find it odd if one first pays for the filter and then pays for getting rid of it. Shouldn't legislation be changed if the filter does not have a meaningful purpose.
But I find it odd if one first pays for the filter and then pays for getting rid of it. Shouldn't legislation be changed if the filter does not have a meaningful purpose.
Unfortulately you don't have a choice but to pay for it. It is installed in many of the new diesels. It does reduce the emissions, just not the consumption. I depends what you think is worse for the environment, the increaseconsumption, or reduced emissions. As far as having it removed, they sell the kits to remove the filter "for race applications". You are not supposed to remove it.
