[Closed] emissions testing is a joke

Don't diesels do a regeneration /cleaning cycle every so often where they spew out a load of filth?

Did you check what the black cloud consisted of ? Or are you just speculating. The stuff you need to really worry about is invisible to the eye.

Discovery sports have only been out for a year or so haven't they? So they wouldn't need an MOT.

But I think diesels have to be pretty bad to fail. Assuming it's a diesel, I've never seen a petrol spewing out black smoke, although I'm sure it's possible.

edit:

Did you check what the black cloud consisted of ? Or are you just speculating. The stuff you need to really worry about is invisible to the eye.

Don't diesels do a regeneration /cleaning cycle every so often where they spew out a load of filth?

Discovery sports have only been out for a year or so haven't they? So they wouldn't need an MOT.

this is rank, it went right in my face, can't be allowed surely

We can't legislate and ban stuff just because you find something rank...
A lot of people find sweaty cyclists rank for example... but we don't actually do them any harm.

A lot of spray deodorants are actually harmful...

What it sounds like you rode through is a diesel clean cycle where the really noxious stuff is burnt off making it less harmful (if more unpleasant) than cycling through a park when they are burning some branches and leaves...

Like sweaty cyclists and deodorant there is some happy ground where I don't particularly want to be forced to use deodorants/antiperspirants with harmful chemicals because someone finds a bit of (fresh) sweat after riding into work a bit "rank".

A lot of people find sweaty cyclists rank for example... but we don't actually do them any harm.

I was behind a Golf last week and the driver was proud of it's badly chipped turbodiesel smog machine.

So much so, there was a sticker on the back from the chipping company proclaiming that "Just coz it smokes, don't mean it's broke"

A bellend and poor grammar; the perfect storm.

When MOTs do a diesel smoke test the engine isn't under load, so it's fairly easy to pass a car that spews black smoke out of the exhaust while driving.

The regeneration process occurs at road speeds higher than can generally be attained on city streets; vehicles driven exclusively at low speeds in urban traffic can require periodic trips at higher speeds to clean out the DPF.

Don't diesels do a regeneration /cleaning cycle every so often where they spew out a load of filth?

I thought the regen cycle actually burns the soot off, rather than simply ejecting it?

Yep - DPF Regen' burns the soot and ejects gaseous emissions not particulate matter (which is what the OP describes).

Also DPF Regen' requires a very particular set of circumstances that wouldn't normally occur on a city street. Usually needs high exhaust gas temperatures (>600 Celsius) and high engine speeds.

Diesel Particulates build up in the exhaust system and are naturally exhausted during a normal drive cycle.

Putting your foot down hard is the usual reason for leaving a large Black cloud behind a Diesel engined vehicle.

looked it up when I got home

Seriously!
You did that 😮

yeah but I'm not holding up my armpit to the driver and forcing him to breathe it in!

True but it's really more about living in an imperfect world and not letting it wind you up which can be really bad or health and well being.

I'm allergic to something in a decent percentage of womens perfumes.... (Don't actually know what but its mainly older womens perfumes and it's very unpleasant just being in a closed space.. (headaches and streaming eyes) so I'll often end up having to get off a bus or change carriage on a train

However if it goes on my skin I get blisters... so I get really pissed at department stores who spray it about in the air deliberately.... so a lot of stores I usually try and find an entrance doesn't go straight through perfumery....

I'd love to ban spraying perfumes on people... but I don't think banning old womens perfumes is feasible and they are not doing it to make me ill...

The diesel was doubltess unpleasant but most likely a DPF clean... so not really harmful... and its just a consequence of creating "cleaner diesels" ... which actually are more less polluting than petrol over certain journey's.

Quite a lot of diesels were mis-sold in terms of the uses where they are less polluting/more efficient meaning the DPF never gets a chance to clean and they are producing more pollution in towns and when not warmed up ad especially both of those together....

but back to ....

yeah but I'm not holding up my armpit to the driver and forcing him to breathe it in!

Yeah but equally many people just see you cycled in and pretty much act like you are... often these are obese people who sweat more than I do cycling into work just walking up some stairs ..

But back to your thread title ... emissions tests are a joke but that is really down to the people that set them. Not that I condone Audi but the emissions tests have turned into a game with the legislative body setting rules that manufactures then have to circumvent... in Audi's case going to far.

The diesel was doubltess unpleasant but most likely a DPF clean

No it wasn't.

I've had this from a piece of shit old jag diesel on my commute. Fella overtakes booting it ejecting a load of black crap which I then breathe in. This is definitely not a regen thing and if I'm coughing immediately because of it then I definitely think it's something I SHOULD worry about. I'm with the OP it's a pisstake. In my view any DERV spewing shite out the back needs taking off the road and fixed or crushed.

OP what plate was it on? Not the full reg just year?

That'll be all buses off the road , all bar the latest trucks and Vans then.

Hope you don't like buying stuff at the shops or having stuff sent mail order.

All their vehicles have just been crushed.

So be it - why is it acceptable for vehicles to spew filthy black soot out the back? Plenty of buses round my way don't and there's even some electric buses. Not that I get on them I prefer cycling

New cars are subject to much better emissions controls. As the old ones die we'll be better off.

Nick in reality at any one point in time a lot of those vehicles were state of the art for emissions and most of what's on the road now is way way better than the diesels of my youth.

The bigger element of the issue is driver behaviour.

If you boot it in a big older (say pre 2009 for this purpose when dpfs had pretty much become standard) diesel it will dump a pile of soot out of the exhaust but once at cruising speed that cloud is hugely reduced in most circumstances (I.e. you are not pulling a mobile shed up a 12% gradient).

If you keep the revs down, short shift up through the box (like you probably should around town) and waft along on the engine's torque it produces a huge amount less soot unless it's not been serviced / it's genuinely knackered.

My old 2004 Mondeo only really chucked a lot of soot out if it was being pushed hard (uphill motorway slip road or overtaking molgrips' caravan 😛 for example). The rest of the time it was not being followed by a thick black cloud even with 150000+ miles on it.

The issue is more owner than vehicle. If people didn't see every traffic light as the starting sequence for a more convenient version of a run what you brung session at Santa Pod then the roads would be less toxic and a dam site safer.

The new cars don't soot so much when being pushed which is better obviously but they are rank when doing a regen.

Disclaimer: I have never knowingly overtaken molgrips in real life.

OP what plate was it on? Not the full reg just year?

So be it - why is it acceptable for wood burners to spew filthy black soot out the chimney? Plenty of gas fires round my way don't and there's even some electric heating. Not that I get on them I prefer GCHP

Repeat ad nauseum.

I must say though, I have become far more aware over last few weeks of how friggin' disgusting oil burners can be. A lot of smokers round my way and it's not pleasant following them for a good minute after they overtake.

So, no. Just a coalburner that should have been crushed years ago.

OP agreed, the testing is a joke. Not just the MOT the whole new approval process. At least we test our cars every year, the French its only every 2

Also DPF Regen' requires a very particular set of circumstances that wouldn't normally occur on a city street. Usually needs high exhaust gas temperatures (>600 Celsius) and high engine speeds.

Not necessarily, my focus does the regen cycle roughly every 500 miles and at normal engine speeds, you know it's doing it as the exhaust note changes but there's no visible difference in what it spews out the back end

My Fiesta is the same, regens approx every 500 miles and it will do it around town at any random point.

When it does regen, it absolutely stinks like burning rubber, kicks out a plume of grey smoke that James Bond would be proud of and requires a firmer accelerator when setting off else it will stall.

Oh, the radiator fan kicks in as well.

I agree with all of that ^^^ Garagedweller - especially the bit about driver behaviour. People that can't manage a journey without constant harsh accelerate/brake/accelerate/brake sequences should be shot at their journey end. As you say it's dangerous and not good for the environment but what really gets me is that it's also costing people more money in fuel/brakes etc. and IMO doesn't get them anywhere quicker but they still do it.

I understand your point that some of these vehicles would have once be state of the art but if they aren't now then they need updating or scrapping IMO.

looked it up when I got home and it only passed it's MOT a couple of weeks ago

For your own benefit, I suggest you get out a bit more.

I'm afraid that diesel engines belong in agricultural equipment, artics, old trains and generators, and that's it! They have no place under the bonnet of a car.

and a turbot boost hose can split halfway through a journey, say hello to massive black clouds if you put your foot down.

and a turbot boost hose can split halfway through a journey, say hello to massive black clouds if you put your foot down.

The smell of fish is terrible as well.

anyway diesels are for agriculture

New cars are subject to much better emissions controls. As the old ones die we'll be better off.

It was the fact that NOX in cities wasn't significantly down several years after Euro 4 and 5 regs should have reduced them as the old diesels went to the breakers that propted the real-conditions tests that ended up as dieselgate.

Diesels with urea injection should finally start to reduce NOX from diesels, however the very latest petrol engines could be producing more NOX under real driving conditions than the equivalent engines ten years ago. The latest genration of turbo petrol engines are running combustion temperatures at full power that have made NOX an issue with petrol engines, however, the test cycles don't include full power running.

Rolling Coal mun

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/colorado-outlaw-rolling-coal-cyclists-trucks-328809

Nick in reality at any one point in time a lot of those vehicles were state of the art for emissions and most of what's on the road now is way way better than the diesels of my youth.

Not really. Evidence tells us that precious little progress has been made in reducing NOx (even the latest Euro 6 vehicles are many times worse than their official tests), and that coupled with the far greater volume of diesel sales is the dominant reason for poor urban air quality.

Evidence tells us that precious little progress has been made in reducing NOx (even the latest Euro 6 vehicles are many times worse than their official tests)

Not sure about this. Wasn't the VW scandal to do with the Euro V ones? I don't think most of the scare has been about SCR engines, has it? AFAIK SCR works.

It was the fact that NOX in cities wasn't significantly down several years after Euro 4 and 5 regs should have reduced them as the old diesels went to the breakers that propted the real-conditions tests that ended up as dieselgate.

SCR is still new, and traffic volume is still rising no?

however the very latest petrol engines could be producing more NOX under real driving conditions than the equivalent engines ten years ago.

Good point. As for full power though - not often used in town?

Not sure about this. Wasn't the VW scandal to do with the Euro V ones? I don't think most of the scare has been about SCR engines, has it? AFAIK SCR works.

There have been plenty of independent tests on Euro 6 cars, and the results are not encouraging. Buses, large vans and HGVs do better.

Mercedes has announced a [url= https://www.motor1.com/news/174072/mercedes-benz-diesel-recall-europe/ ]recall that includes Euro 6 diesels.[/url]

So SCR can work, it's just car manufacturers who have been cheating....

Not really. Evidence tells us that precious little progress has been made in reducing NOx (even the latest Euro 6 vehicles are many times worse than their official tests), and that coupled with the far greater volume of diesel sales is the dominant reason for poor urban air quality.

People then buy based on the joke testing results ... resulting in people buying diesels for town.

The manufacturers don't mind whether you buy diesel, petrol, hybrid or electric so long as you buy....
They don't have a diesel agenda .. they have a what sells under the rules agenda.

Diesels are crap at short trips ... good at long ones.... you can improve either but that's not what's happening because the tests are trying to beat both or they fail ... rather than take an approach that diesels will be efficient at longer trips or pulling big loads therefore that is where they should be made less polluting as that is where they will be used if people had access to proper test figures...

I had to laugh the other day when an MOT tester told me the emissions check was very stringent.

Its clearly very basic; if you can take a modern car that qualifies for one of the lower tax bands, and then blank off the EGR, remove the DPF (admittedly I think thats a visual check now?) and get it chipped (removing all the emission control maps) and causing it to belch black smoke when under hard acceleration, and then just waltz through without any issues, its not stringent!

Well it's a Ringleman smoke test, that's pretty stringent by the standards of 1888.

As Edukator posted above Mercedes is recalling every single diesel sold in the last 6 yeats for "software updates", ie they think [b]every single car[/b] fails the emissions test 😯

@molgrips we need real on the road testing and it should be ongoing over the life of a specific test sample of vehicles & models. It's absolutely clear from the pollution data that cars are not putting out what they where predicted to do.

A mot test is the lowest standard acceptable for a car to be road worthy. Prety much if it drives in stops has all mandatory lights and mirrors and dosnt catch fire or try to kill the tester it will pass.

molgrips we need real on the road testing and it should be ongoing over the life of a specific test sample of vehicles & models.

Agree. More better testing.

For your own benefit, I suggest you get out a bit more.

but cheers for letting me know I'm a loser, I'll change my life now

stevextc - Member

The problem is the testing ....
Manufacturers will manufacture to beat tests .... but the tests themselves are as per title of the thread a complete joke.

People then buy based on the joke testing results ... resulting in people buying diesels for town.

The manufacturers don't mind whether you buy diesel, petrol, hybrid or electric so long as you buy....
They don't have a diesel agenda .. they have a what sells under the rules agenda.

Diesels are crap at short trips ... good at long ones.... you can improve either but that's not what's happening because the tests are trying to beat both or they fail ... rather than take an approach that diesels will be efficient at longer trips or pulling big loads therefore that is where they should be made less polluting as that is where they will be used if people had access to proper test figures...

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment Steve. I've never met anyone who buys based on testing. Yes people will consider tax bands but honestly I think they buy new cars based on image, aspiration and needs but not necessarily in that order.

People are going to convince themselves they need a Range Rover or an Audi Q7 regardless of co2 and due to the cost of petrol manufacturers put diesel engines in them. Everywhere else in the world there are petrol variants of big cars, suvs and vans. The cars exist, they just aren't viable somewhere where there's a 70% tax on petrol.

If people had access to proper choice they could buy more appropriate vehicles for their needs.

You've met me in a virtual way, Jimjam. I'm happy to buy a car which very few poeple aspire to, is built by a low image manufacturer, doesn't meet many of my needs (but I'll work around that). I bought it because it's zero emissions at the point of use (and as a bonus it's the most fun thing I've driven since a Mini 850 or 2CV).

Edukator

You've met me in a virtual way, Jimjam. I'm happy to buy a car which very few poeple aspire to, is built by a low image manufacturer, doesn't meet many of my needs (but I'll work around that). I bought it because it's zero emissions at the point of use (and as a bonus it's the most fun thing I've driven since a Mini 850 or 2CV).

Well I'm sure we all have far more virtual acquaintances than real friends but point taken, my brush strokes were too broad. I know you live in France but I'm sure you've been to London or similar large cities where a huge number of people drive big diesel SUVs. I'm not against people driving them or owning them, I just think it's curious that government legislators and manufacturers are locked into a perpetual dance where they constantly raise the bar on emissions and manufactures come up with ever more sophisticated ways to make dirty diesels "clean", when with a stroke of a pen, a cut in duty on petrol would solve at least part of the problem and drastically reduce NOx and particulates.

Buyers are still buying into this myth that diesels are somehow greener, and more efficient (not denying they are) or that their fuel efficiency directly correlates to their environmental cleanliness.

Some DPF trivia. The Freelander 1 1.8L diesel and later 2.0 TD4 (which used the 2.0 BMW Engine) do not have DPF systems, and neither does the early 2.2 TD4 (158 bhp) Freelander 2 from its introduction in 2006 until 2010. All Freelander SD4, ED4 and the TD4 version released in 2010 (147 / 150bhp) do all have DPF’s fitted.
It's the tiny particles that you can't see that get in the blood stream that are the real nasty ones.

Absolutely, Jimjam. As a guy was putting his mtb back in his new diesl C4 this morning he said that he wanted a petrol but the compnay gets a tax reduction on diesel cars but not petrol. Fortuneately that due to chnage shortly.

Isn't the black stuff unburnt diesel? The particulates from the combustion are caught in the DPF then burnt off turned to ash and stored in the bottom of the DPF ( the regen cycle) until it fills up and gets clogged and then it gets replaced. More shorter runs from cold result in the DPF clogging up faster. You would be surprised how many diesels don't have DPF's until after 2010. Why they just don't make a DPF that you can empty at a service then you could manufacture one that could trap more rubbish surely.

Burning stuff will always release pollutants.
You can fudge the cocktail in one direction or another, but the only way to make a real difference is to burn less stuff. 🙂

You've met me in a virtual way, Jimjam. I'm happy to buy a car which very few poeple aspire to, is built by a low image manufacturer, doesn't meet many of my needs (but I'll work around that).

He did say 'not many people' not 'no-one'. And I'm sure you're aware that you are not typical.

Buyers are still buying into this myth that diesels are somehow greener

I really cannot imagine that is still the case. The first thing people now know about diesels is that they are 'bad for the environment' since dieselgate. Just above the fact that they will go expensively wrong as soon as you drive them off the forecourt. Neither of which is quite accurate.

Company car tax is the biggest thing in favour of them currently I think.

Burning stuff will always release pollutants.

Not always. Burning hydrogen and oxygen is pretty much ok. Reacting them in a fuel cell is even better.

Isn't the black stuff unburnt diesel?

It's unburned carbon. Diesel goes into the chamber in droplets that burn from the outside in. If the droplet isn't in the cylinder for long enough or with enough air the middle just gets singed and carbonised instead of fully combusted.

Higher injection pressures mean smaller droplets, which means more air in between the droplets and they burn more completely more quickly.

molgrips

Buyers are still buying into this myth that diesels are somehow greener

I really cannot imagine that is still the case. The first thing people now know about diesels is that they are 'bad for the environment' since dieselgate.

It is. Very few people are as deeply entrenched in this stuff as the type of people you'll find on this forum. The lengthy thread about dieselgate and the level of detail therein is waaaay over and above most people's knowledge and boredom threshold on the subject.

I can give you a few examples of friends and family members who've bought new diesel motors and the strange conversations we've had but I realise it's somewhat anecdotal.

Maybe it's your family 🙂 Most of the people I talk to at work (not on STW) watch the news and are aware of dieselgate.

Just as people used to mix up the ozone layer (CFCs) and greenhousing (CO2) it seems people are mixing up the diesel gate and CO2 issues. There's still the idea diesels are more eco-friendly. Look at the car badges "Eco Up" "Ecotech". People go on believing the lies. They're stinky, smelly, carcinogenic, asthma inducing, poisoning diesels, period.

molgrips - Member

Maybe it's your family Most of the people I talk to at work (not on STW) watch the news and are aware of dieselgate.

Well my family's behaviour and actions have baffled me. My uncle is one of the most senior and respected insurance assesors in Ireland with deep knowledge of the auto trade and he's regularly called as an expert witness in court cases. He had a 2.0 A6 tdi when diesel gate happened. He was enraged and swore he'd never buy another vag car. He recently retired and no longer does any serious mileage. He just bought a new 2.0 A6 tdi.

My sister, despite lengthy conversations with me about the benefits of smaller turbo petrol engines, the dangers of NOx and potential taxes on diesels in the future and who does about 10,000 miles per year just bought a brand new A6 2.0 tdi. I even accompanied her to the showroom on one of her trips and caught the salesman trying to play on the green credentials of a passat diesel (suffice to say I shot him a quizzical look).

And my good friend who works in the motor trade and who was a former VAG employee just bought a Tiguan 2.0 tdi.

My feeling is that if people want a big car they'll figure out a way to justify buying a big car, and if you buy a big petrol car you know it'll be thirsty so you get the diesel option instead and convince yourself it's not the more polluting option because look - it's £20 tax so it can't be that bad!

(I should also add that in Ireland and in Northern Ireland we are positively infatuated with diesels to a much greater extent than England, Scotland or Wales).

It is true that people will justify buying what they want. However:

trying to play on the green credentials of a passat diesel

They do have some green credentials. They are better than petrol in some areas and worse in others. The question is, which is worse? Rather hard to say.