SCRF versus CSF - Are we on the bleeding edge?

Engine, Exhaust, Drivetrain, ECU Faults and Fixes
Trojan
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:57 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Cold SCRF versus hot SCRF + SCR.

Post by Trojan » Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:52 pm

At 1,500 kg plus payload, the Passat produces only 101 mg CO2 and achieves up to 80 mpg on NEDC (urban 62 mog). Not saying I would want one but it bodes well for the Kodiaq assuming there's room in the engine bay for those two close coupled canisters. And one of those I would definitely look at.

2017 HSE 180 Corris Grey


User avatar
Dashnine
Posts: 3163
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:18 pm
Location: Warwick, UK
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 139 times

Re: Cold SCRF versus hot SCRF + SCR.

Post by Dashnine » Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:37 pm

Rediscovery wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:59 am
Wish CG was here.
What makes you think he isn’t? ;)

Seems some people have more accounts on here than Land Rovers...
MY19 P240 HSE, Indus Silver, Black Pack, Privacy Glass, 12 Way Memory Seats, Roof Rails, Spacesaver, Cold Climate Pack, 2 x USB in 1st & 2nd rows.
Gone: MY16 D180 HSE Black, Santorini Black


Chippy
Posts: 6067
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:29 pm
Location: Southern Germany
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Cold SCRF versus hot SCRF + SCR.

Post by Chippy » Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:07 pm

Dashnine wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:37 pm
Rediscovery wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:59 am
Wish CG was here.
What makes you think he isn’t? ;)

Seems some people have more accounts on here than Land Rovers...
Nicely put -9
MB GLC 250d.
Gone: 2 x DS TD4. Both rejected - B pillar ticking.
Evoque TD4. Increasing problems.


Rediscovery
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:39 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: SCRF versus CSF - Are we on the bleeding edge?

Post by Rediscovery » Sun Nov 24, 2019 1:57 am

Mamil wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:56 am
Ian_S wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:14 pm

So, why not use that pesky bit of extra pipe work that robs the system of heat to fit a fifth injector purely for active regeneration? That would surely fit. OK, we'd need a new injector rail with a fifth outlet, a replacement DOC assembly that could house the injector (unless you could add a hole to the in-situ one reliably) and also the existing ECU would need to be able to control said injector, *but*, if that could be done, then the ECU could be far more aggressive with it's active regeneration policy as it would no longer have to worry about excessive oil dilution. The main downside would be fuel economy to fund the increased active regeneration, but I think I'd rather have that than a blocked DPF or failed engine. Once you'd got the system working it would be retrofit-able to existing troublesome cars .

It could be a barking mad idea... but you never know...
That's the way most commercial diesel's regenerate their DPFs. The reason normally given for not using it in cars is the extra expense and limitations in space. But, Toyota have tried it on SUVs and pickups equipped with their 2.8L diesel and the results haven't been good. Apparently they've had problems with the fifth injector getting stuck closed or open. The former results in no regeneration, a blocked DPF, and limp-home mode. The latter isn't much better and results in excess fuel consumption and a fried DPF as it's regenerating all the time! It's currently the basis of a class action lawsuit against Toyota in Australia involving 250,000 cars. Just goes to show there's no easy answer to making a DPF that simply works!
Hopefully Toyota will be forced to a) offer whole vehicle refunds, b) fix the problem properly through re-engineering or c) foot the bill for lifetime DPF replacements. Then the lawyers can turn their full attention onto Ford, Subaru and JLR, each of which has, in its own way, shafted its customers with faulty DPF implementations. Manufacturers should not be allowed to think that their liability for all the additional costs of ownership due to demonstrably faulty engineering ends when a meaningless "warranty period" expires. In the case of the JLR D8 chassis diesels it is now patently obvious that the DPF engineering was flawed from the start and it follows that the manufacturer should have to pay for the financial fallout from the oversights, miscalculations and misrepresentations that occurred since 2015. This means more than a few oil changes out to 55K miles intended to keep people quiet.

17MY SE Tech White


Post Reply

Return to “Engine and Drivetrain”