Good price for swirl flap and egr removal? - Alfa Romeo Forum
You are currently unregistered, register for more features.    
Rant Room Clean ranting only - No Swearing!

 28Likes
  • 3 Post By cue2
  • 1 Post By Verbout
  • 1 Post By TheGrimJeeper
  • 6 Post By halftone
  • 1 Post By halftone
  • 2 Post By halftone
  • 7 Post By keithyboy
  • 2 Post By chrishendrix
  • 2 Post By keithyboy
  • 1 Post By chrishendrix
  • 1 Post By symon
  • 1 Post By TheGrimJeeper
 
Thread Tools
(Post Link) post #1 of 25 Old 11-01-17 Thread Starter
Status: Petrol head
AO Platinum Member
 
cue2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Kent
Posts: 31,510
Good price for swirl flap and egr removal?

Good price for swirl flap and egr removal.

Vulnerable people's health seem a good price?
cue2 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Status: -
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: pershore
County: england
Posts: 239
we have been refitting manifolds with swirl flaps onto lots of cars as customers are complaining of poor fuel consumption and lack of low down torque after removal, therefore we do not offer this service.
NJS Alfa is offline  
(Post Link) post #3 of 25 Old 11-01-17 Thread Starter
Status: Petrol head
AO Platinum Member
 
cue2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Kent
Posts: 31,510
They must have been fitted for a reason in the first place?
cue2 is online now  
Status: -
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: pershore
County: england
Posts: 239
exactly
NJS Alfa is offline  
(Post Link) post #5 of 25 Old 11-01-17 Thread Starter
Status: Petrol head
AO Platinum Member
 
cue2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Kent
Posts: 31,510
I imagine the catalytic converter is just there for a laugh too?
cue2 is online now  
Status: -
AO Platinum Member
 
MalcQV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater Manchester
Posts: 13,527

Member car:

Office Chair.

The downside to all of it, is they help make the cars unreliable.
MalcQV is offline  
Status: Meh....
AO Platinum Member
 
Verbout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: United Kingdom
County: West Yorkshire
Posts: 12,347
Garage

Member car:

Lexus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezley View Post
The downside to all of it, is they help make the cars even more unreliable.
MalcQV likes this.
Verbout is offline  
Status: T-5 Days to Unicorn Paradise
AO Platinum Member
 
TheGrimJeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: France
County: Riviera
Posts: 38,319
Flaps.

[snigger]
MalcQV likes this.
TheGrimJeeper is offline  
Status: Latest: new n/s driveshaft
AO Silver Member
 
halftone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater London
Posts: 1,776
Garage

Member car:

147 Sport Q2

OK, I'll bite.

A few years ago, we were all encouraged to buy diesel because it's far more fuel efficient, and produces half the CO of petrol.

To make diesels produce less NOx, EGR was introduced to reduce combustion temperatures. Doing that meant more hydrocarbons in the exhaust. The solution to which was swirl flaps to improve combustion in the low-oxygen environment caused by EGR.

It's worth remembering that EGR and swirl flaps only operate at low revs. Above 2k they do nothing at all, provided they're working properly. Which often they aren't, and then you get worse emissions than if they didn't exist.

Now soot. The risks of particulate emissions are not new. In the 1980's the campaign group that opposed the construction of the M40 highlighted particulates as a challenged to the health of sensitive individuals living alongside the new route. The government dismissed the objections as minimal harm.

In 2012 the risk of particulates was reassessed by the WHO, who regraded them from 'probable carcinogen' to 'carcinogen'. The research behind this was solid: a 40 year US study of miners working underground with diesel plant. That found a small but definite risk of cancer from really rather intensive exposure to diesel exhaust, and especially the smallest particulates.

However, every vested interest lobby group has seized on this and you now daily see figures anywhere between 8,000 and 50,000 Londoners, allegedly dying prematurely from diesel vehicle use. These are estimates, guesses, nobody knows. There is no adequate research that says these numbers are actually true, and a sh*tload of lobbyists who often have tax or ideological motives for a War on Diesel (formerly the War on Petrol).

For perspective on probable risk before the green axegrinders added their tilt, this is well worth reading:
Diesel exhaust fumes 'definitely' cause cancer - should we be worried? - Cancer Research UK - Science blog

Now, we are told that diesel drivers are antisocial *******s and killers, when a few years before we were saving the planet. And as always, the only solution on offer is to punish with tax. London is now getting an ULEZ, which will raise costs to £25/day. Which actually means that provided you are wealthy or can claim the cost from your business, you can carry on polluting. How this is a solution GOK.

With classic joined up thinking, LHR expansion is going ahead. The M4/M25 LHR junction already has the worst air quality in London, except Oxford Street. Government is so concerned that it plans to add to road traffic there by 30% (plus aircraft pollution), whilst reduction will be achieved by ...FFS... extending the ULEZ to include LHR. Poor people can go to Luton.

This is all nuts and *********. Of course there is risk, every damn thing we do has consequences for someone. There is always a risk/benefit calculation.

Let's say diesel is bad and unacceptable. That's happening with taxis within the ULEZ. Operators will have to use zero emission EV taxis from (IIRC) 2020. The trouble is
(a)they will have to buy 2 EV taxis to replace each diesel one, because of the battery duty - so one can be on charge whilst the other is working. This is actually the plan.
(b)they will cost an awful lot of money, so fares will be much higher and only accessible to relatively rich people
(c)making new vehicles is environmentally costly and lifetime fuel consumption seldom exceeds the carbon cost of making the damn thing in the first place.

Where the War on Diesel is going is pretty obvious. They will be taxed off the roads ASAP and people will be induced to buy EV's. You know how this goes. Electricity for EV use will then be massively taxed because there is nothing like enough generating capacity to support mass EV use. We'll need 10 more Hinckley C's at a cost of hundred of £Bn, and no doubt more ridiculous price guarantees to France and China (Hinkley C guarantees 3x current wholesale prices for the next 30 years - if they can ever get EPR working).

Building new vehicles pollutes, nuclear pollutes, even manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels pollutes, and there will be a huge financial cost. None of which means that it shouldn't happen. I am rather a fan of EV's, but there is absolutely no free lunch to be had. The best that will happen is that EV's displace pollution from Oxford Street to China or Sellarfield or Germany, where someone else can get cancer instead.

So I don't feel like a murderer, having deleted swirl flaps and EGR rather than scrap the car (1.9 16v with the hand grenade metal flaps - see my avatar for details). My personal sense of responsibility - to say nothing of financial limitations - means I only ever use the car for longer journeys, use my legs or public transport in London, motorcycle when that makes more sense. I used to spend £4-5k/year on supplies for my business, using a car into London. Since CC came in, I no longer do that, ever. I buy over the internet and delivery services using diesel vans get to pollute instead. The best way of not polluting is to stay indoors and use no energy and not eat or use water. I shouldn't even be using the computer, someone somewhere will be suffering the consequences of making it and the electricity it consumes.

It would be more rational to have a War on Buying New Cars, or a War on Cars Made To Last 10 years. But nope, this is the Age of iPhone economics. What was state of the art risk calculation in 2011 is now hopeless and must be deprecated, now empty your wallet.
halftone is offline  
Status: Latest: new n/s driveshaft
AO Silver Member
 
halftone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater London
Posts: 1,776
Garage

Member car:

147 Sport Q2

...aaannd... no sooner than we've all bought EV's, they'll all be punished too. By then all car ownership will be deprecated, and ad hoc instant rental of driverless EV will become the Next Big Thing. It'll be like Boris bikes, and only the rich and sociopathic will enjoy days out in the Busso, scowled at by the envious plebs.
MalcQV likes this.
halftone is offline  
Status: T-5 Days to Unicorn Paradise
AO Platinum Member
 
TheGrimJeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: France
County: Riviera
Posts: 38,319
Hands up who genuinely thought DERVs could
ever be clean ....



I remember when DERVs on AO were scorned.
And rightly so.

Then came talk of torques, mpg and dpf removal. (Or tax-dodging death-dealing, as I call it.)
And DERVs were accepted by most as mainstream.

Sooner they are banned the better.

Any time spent in a choking city will convince anyone, shirley?

Last edited by TheGrimJeeper; 12-01-17 at 14:16.
TheGrimJeeper is offline  
Status: Latest: new n/s driveshaft
AO Silver Member
 
halftone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater London
Posts: 1,776
Garage

Member car:

147 Sport Q2

I needn't have bothered, need I. Of course they're not clean. Petrol isn't. Horses aren't.

I live in London. It's not a problem for anyone in reasonable health, unless you are stupid enough to jog down Oxford St, or Marylebone Road in the rush hour. And, half the pollution is caused by buses, diesel generators, vans and lorries. Stiil, who needs them?

Better ban the Tube. London Underground air is packed with particulate matter, much of it metals, brake dust, masonry dust. BBC recorded 12x greater particulates in the tube than cycling through the diesel fumes in the middle of London.

Also ban forest fires, agricultural burning off, bonfires, log burning stoves, Agas, BBQ's. Cook by sunlight via a magnifying glass. The sun will give you skin cancer. Drat.
MalcQV and Greener123 like this.
halftone is offline  
Status: strongstablestrongst able
AO Platinum Member
 
keithyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Cambodia
County: Phnom Penh
Posts: 14,128

Member car:

CRV/Jaaag

Quote:
Originally Posted by halftone View Post
It would be more rational to have a War on Buying New Cars, or a War on Cars Made To Last 10 years. But nope, this is the Age of iPhone economics. What was state of the art risk calculation in 2011 is now hopeless and must be deprecated, now empty your wallet.
This. The concept of chucking away perfectly serviceable hardware (be it cars, kettles, fridges or gas boilers) to replace it with new hardware that consumes marginally less energy is so completely ****ing absurd it makes my head spin.

I care about the environment but I feel absolutely no guilt about driving a car that struggles to do 25mpg. It has moved off my drive once since last Saturday so it's environmental impact has been extremely limited. It's also 13 years old and I plan to keep it until it's too knackered to be used rather than throwing it away and buying a new one because society thinks I should. I use the train for work, I walk to the shop if we need milk.

I don't like breathing in diesel fumes but I also don't want to breathe in the pollution that reprocessing the nation's diesel fleet would cause. By all means encourage people not to buy diesels in future but to penalise those who you encouraged to buy them in the first place is patently unfair.

Auto Express - six issues for a quid. Offer must end soon (and then immediately start up again).

Free poor quality torch/T-cut/I luv my VW Polo sew-on badge
keithyboy is online now  
Status: -
AO Gold Member
 
chrishendrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater London
Posts: 10,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by keithyboy View Post
This. The concept of chucking away perfectly serviceable hardware (be it cars, kettles, fridges or gas boilers) to replace it with new hardware that consumes marginally less energy is so completely ****ing absurd it makes my head spin.

I care about the environment but I feel absolutely no guilt about driving a car that struggles to do 25mpg. It has moved off my drive once since last Saturday so it's environmental impact has been extremely limited. It's also 13 years old and I plan to keep it until it's too knackered to be used rather than throwing it away and buying a new one because society thinks I should. I use the train for work, I walk to the shop if we need milk.

I don't like breathing in diesel fumes but I also don't want to breathe in the pollution that reprocessing the nation's diesel fleet would cause. By all means encourage people not to buy diesels in future but to penalise those who you encouraged to buy them in the first place is patently unfair.
Completely agree with the bold bit, but the problem is not that diesels are inefficient - it's that their emissions are killing people. You may have a point that banning existing diesels might cause more pollution to result from manufacturing (although all pollution is bad, diesel emissions in populated areas are particularly harmful to humans, probably much more so than those produced by manufacturing) but they should at least ban new diesels.
steveisfrowning and keithyboy like this.
chrishendrix is online now  
Status: -
AO Platinum Member
 
MalcQV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater Manchester
Posts: 13,527

Member car:

Office Chair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verbout View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tata4Now View Post
Flaps.

[snigger]
Hey, hey hey, stoppit with your unreliable Alfa jokes. I'm not laughing. Why? Because I own two of them

Quote:
Originally Posted by keithyboy View Post
This. The concept of chucking away perfectly serviceable hardware (be it cars, kettles, fridges or gas boilers) to replace it with new hardware that consumes marginally less energy is so completely ****ing absurd it makes my head spin.

I care about the environment but I feel absolutely no guilt about driving a car that struggles to do 25mpg. It has moved off my drive once since last Saturday so it's environmental impact has been extremely limited. It's also 13 years old and I plan to keep it until it's too knackered to be used rather than throwing it away and buying a new one because society thinks I should. I use the train for work, I walk to the shop if we need milk.
If you had an EV or Benny Hill mobile it'd come with milk in the boot

Quote:
Originally Posted by keithyboy View Post
I don't like breathing in diesel fumes but I also don't want to breathe in the pollution that reprocessing the nation's diesel fleet would cause. By all means encourage people not to buy diesels in future but to penalise those who you encouraged to buy them in the first place is patently unfair.
I bought my Alfa diesel because it's a killer of a car.

I have little use of the city in my car. Ban all cars from the city as they are all polluters. Whilst we are at it the worst are folk with second weekend cars for fun. Polluting for the fun of it. Should be shot in the kite.

I'm not going anywhere, I'm just going.
Statements above are all my own opinion and not fact.
MalcQV is offline  
Status: strongstablestrongst able
AO Platinum Member
 
keithyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Cambodia
County: Phnom Penh
Posts: 14,128

Member car:

CRV/Jaaag

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezley View Post
I have little use of the city in my car. Ban all cars from the city as they are all polluters. Whilst we are at it the worst are folk with second weekend cars for fun. Polluting for the fun of it. Should be shot in the kite.
I've always thought that to look at the environmental impact of a car purely through what comes out of its exhaust is an incredibly narrow perspective.

How much pollution does your second car use when it's parked in your garage all week? Not a lot I'll wager. It may use more fuel than a Prius but when that Prius has been reprocessed, with the environmental impact that entails, and turned into consumer goods, with the environmental impact that entails, your Fezza will still be driving around, probably for decades to come. Surely that's more sustainable than something that gets thrown away after 10 years.

You may drive it for pleasure, but you drive it to places where you spend your money. Which keeps people in jobs. Those people doing those jobs pay taxes which pay for hospitals and schools (and tax breaks for millionaires). The taxes on your fuel also pay for hospitals and schools (and bailing out financial institutions, and an aeroplane for the Prime Minister). Not like those selfish ****s buying EVs. If you stayed at home watching Eastenders, you wouldn't spend your money and you would be miserable. Your health would suffer and the NHS would probably have to treat you.
chrishendrix and TonyGr like this.
keithyboy is online now  
Status: -
AO Platinum Member
 
MalcQV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater Manchester
Posts: 13,527

Member car:

Office Chair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by keithyboy View Post
I've always thought that to look at the environmental impact of a car purely through what comes out of its exhaust is an incredibly narrow perspective.

How much pollution does your second car use when it's parked in your garage all week? Not a lot I'll wager. It may use more fuel than a Prius but when that Prius has been reprocessed, with the environmental impact that entails, and turned into consumer goods, with the environmental impact that entails, your Fezza will still be driving around, probably for decades to come. Surely that's more sustainable than something that gets thrown away after 10 years.

You may drive it for pleasure, but you drive it to places where you spend your money. Which keeps people in jobs. Those people doing those jobs pay taxes which pay for hospitals and schools (and tax breaks for millionaires). The taxes on your fuel also pay for hospitals and schools (and bailing out financial institutions, and an aeroplane for the Prime Minister). Not like those selfish ****s buying EVs. If you stayed at home watching Eastenders, you wouldn't spend your money and you would be miserable. Your health would suffer and the NHS would probably have to treat you.


I'm an enviromentalist aren't I

Seriously, you're right it is true if you look at the full picture. My [silly] point has always been that I use it (and the Spider) for none essential use. However yes there are a few benefits for all involved so it's not a complete environmental disaster
MalcQV is offline  
Status: Latest: new n/s driveshaft
AO Silver Member
 
halftone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater London
Posts: 1,776
Garage

Member car:

147 Sport Q2

There is little in life that is more damaging than watching Eastenders. It causes brain damage and divorce. At least it will if she doesn't go off it soon.
halftone is offline  
Status: Latest: new n/s driveshaft
AO Silver Member
 
halftone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater London
Posts: 1,776
Garage

Member car:

147 Sport Q2

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrishendrix View Post
Completely agree with the bold bit, but the problem is not that diesels are inefficient - it's that their emissions are killing people.
This is undeniably true. Some people will die, but we don't know how many. To quote from the Cancerresearch blog I linked to "So, in the final analysis, diesel exhaust does cause cancer, but the overall risk to society is low compared to other things like tobacco, excess bodyweight, and alcohol." (If you look at comparable risk factors you can expand that as also low compared to sunlight, infections, red meat, low-fibre diets, salt, and not breast feeding).

About 45% of lung cancers are not preventable at all, they just happen for genetic reasons. So we are talking about a risk that is relatively small, and one which is traded for mass transport of people and goods benefits that we'd currently really struggle without.

This is seldom baldly stated, the activists are selective. Nobody is screaming to ban the London Underground, despite particulate levels 12x worse than found in the worst quality London air at street level. Nobody is writing press headlines about "DEADLY TFL", who promised to deliver a special air-quality-clean-up-train to the system in 2014, that still doesn't exist. It seems certain that the PM2.5 metal particles, brake dust and tunnel linings (including asbestos) found in the system are many times more hazardous than diesel PM2.5, in addition to the greater concentration.

There's enough research to conclude that you're much better off walking, riding and living in the worst London air than working or travelling on the Underground. Yet those who want diesel banned in London think LU is part of the solution. "Transport for London is staunchly adamant that there is no reason to be concerned about the dust levels in the Underground." remains their official position. And maybe they're right. There is no epidemic of lung cancer and other respiratory disease among even older LU staff. But where does that leave the hysteria about diesel killing 25,000 people each year? The Underground should be knee deep in corpses by now, if that was true. At what point do we say 'this must be banned' 25? 250, 25,000? Given that nobody knows the actual figures anyway, I suspect the activists just make up a number that they think will move public opinion in the desired direction. Rather like "£350m a week for the NHS".
halftone is offline  
Status: -
AO Gold Member
 
chrishendrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater London
Posts: 10,909
There's a lot more to it than cancer.
Doctors call for ban on diesel engines in London - BBC News
The Doctors Against Diesel are convinced diesel fumes in particular (no pun intended) are a major health threat, including Professor Jonathan Grigg
I realise listening to experts is not fashionable in certain circles these days, but I'm old fashioned that way
cue2 likes this.
chrishendrix is online now  
Status: zzzzzzzz
AO Platinum Member
 
symon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: United Kingdom
County: Oxfordshire
Posts: 37,034
Everyone will go back to petrol then there will be a big fuss about the Benzine in petrol causing Leukemia so that will be bad again.

Whichever one is in fashion the drivers will get screwed over by the government.


For the meantime I am going to enjoy the 45mpg+ I am getting, but at the same time look forward to having a nice smooth revvy and tuneful petrol next time.

And yes I remember being told off myself about slating Diesel Alfas many moons ago, saying that they were not proper Alfas.

And although the G is very good car I am still saying I was right all along.
MalcQV likes this.

Giulietta 2.0JTDm (170)
symon is online now  
Status: T-5 Days to Unicorn Paradise
AO Platinum Member
 
TheGrimJeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: France
County: Riviera
Posts: 38,319
Diesel Alfa Coupes were the nadir for me.
TheGrimJeeper is offline  
(Post Link) post #23 of 25 Old 14-01-17 Thread Starter
Status: Petrol head
AO Platinum Member
 
cue2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Kent
Posts: 31,510
That throbby rattle is so sportlich.
cue2 is online now  
Status: -
AO Platinum Member
 
MalcQV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater Manchester
Posts: 13,527

Member car:

Office Chair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by symon View Post
Everyone will go back to petrol then there will be a big fuss about the Benzine in petrol causing Leukemia so that will be bad again.

Whichever one is in fashion the drivers will get screwed over by the government.


For the meantime I am going to enjoy the 45mpg+ I am getting, but at the same time look forward to having a nice smooth revvy and tuneful petrol next time.

And yes I remember being told off myself about slating Diesel Alfas many moons ago, saying that they were not proper Alfas.

And although the G is very good car I am still saying I was right all along.
Me too.
Whilst I'm not a diesel fan as such, the 1.9 was the best engine in the GT excluding the obvious V6 busso but I needed economy which that had in spades.

Same with my 159 the difference being the 5 cylinder actually sounds good when you push on though economy is no where near what the GT was.

Next year I will change it and it will most likely be petrol once again or maybe I could be tempted for a Tesla 3 if it is worth it and available.
MalcQV is offline  
Status: T-5 Days to Unicorn Paradise
AO Platinum Member
 
TheGrimJeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: France
County: Riviera
Posts: 38,319
The fact the 1.9 was the "best" engine choice highlights
the other odious effect of the dash for DERV which was to
restrict the choice of proper engines offered by car manufacturers.
MalcQV likes this.
TheGrimJeeper is offline  
Reply

Go Back   Alfa Romeo Forum > Misc Lounges > Community Discussions > Rant Room

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome