Talked to Mercedes Emissions Engineer

Endurance · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:04 am

Hey,

Tonight, while going to the bars.... I met a very interesting person. Since I live in Tuscaloosa and the big Mercedes plant is right around the corner, you run into Mercedes people all the time. The guy I talked to was head of emissions research laboratory and I told him about us and ORM and EHM. He never heard of it and thought it was a very interesting idea/approach. For some reason though he wasnt too technically inclined so I had to explain everything to him step by step. I think he was more on the analyzing/chemical part of lowering emissions. Of course I had to listen to "Well, when y'all disable the EGR, does anybody think about emissions?"

I also told him about the CCV problem and that there should be one or the other DC rep present in forums like this, to answer questions. He said that they would probably never do that because of liability issues....

About 5 beers later he told me to come and visit the plant so he could explain all that emissions stuff to me

I told him that I've already been there twice. We'll see, maybe I still go.

BiodieselJeep.com · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:46 am

Endurance wrote:

About 5 beers later he told me to come and visit the plant so he could explain all that emissions stuff to me

I told him that I've already been there twice. We'll see, maybe I still go.

Enduro: please take him up. There you will meet people who will really understand the EGR issues. It would be a service to all of us if you ran this ORM stuff by them.

While you are there, spank them about the air leaks in the fuel system!!!!

Bovie · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:39 am

I don't want to start something but does anyone think about emissions when they disable the EGR?

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:46 am

Bovie wrote:

I don't want to start something but does anyone think about emissions when they disable the EGR?

No, my county no longer has emissions testing since the first of the year. We have not had a clean air violation since 1991.

Well, we dont have any gasoline emissions, we still have diesel emissions. :roll:

spencevans · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2007 2:14 am

IMHO the EGR system causes more polution over time than a non EGR system. The EGR does all sorts of things like raise air intake temp to premature engine wear. The causes the engine to use more fuel and raises emmisions. So yes, I am considering the enviroment. The EGR system just masks the pollution output.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Bovie wrote:

I don't want to start something but does anyone think about emissions when they disable the EGR?

Sadly, no. In this country few people care much for the environment when it could potentially impact their own pocketbook it seems.

McMoney · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2007 7:19 am

I work at an oilsands plant, im sure that isnt good for the environment. But we still do it.

Bubba · **Joined:** Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:34 pm **Posts:** 46

So does the MB 320 CDI as well as the new Jeep Cherokee have both EGR and CCV like our liberties?

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:03 am

Bubba wrote:

So does the MB 320 CDI as well as the new Jeep Cherokee have both EGR and CCV like our liberties?

Pretty much the same system. The CCV on the mb V6 is canted up to allow/help for drain back.

chadhargis · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:26 am

I'm not running the ORM for monitary reasons. I'm doing it because it is harmful to the intake. It soots it up to the point where the engine doesn't run efficiently. The EGR also causes you to get lower fuel economy.

EGRs don't make much sense to me anyway. Whether it goes straight out the tailpipe, or gets sucked back through the engine and out the tailpipe...it's still going out the tailpipe. In my humble opinion, the best way to clean up the environment is to clean up what goes into the engine not what comes out of it. In the IT field, there is a saying, "Garbage in, garbage out".

Think of an EGR this way:

Eat a delicious meal...maybe a big filet mignon. Let your body digest it. Then...do its thing. After you go "#2", eat it again. See if it tastes like steak? See how fresh and clean it leaves your "intake". When it comes out again, see if it smells any better.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:40 am

chadhargis wrote:

Think of an EGR this way:

Eat a delicious meal...maybe a big filet mignon. Let your body digest it. Then...do its thing. After you go "#2", eat it again. See if it tastes like steak? See how fresh and clean it leaves your "intake". When it comes out again, see if it smells any better.

Hahahahah, ROTFLMAO. This was just too good. I needed this laugh big time. :lol:

chadhargis · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:48 pm

Well, it's a pretty fair analogy.

Humans emit CO2, methane, and a lot of other stuff that isn't healthy. Next thing you know, we'll have Al Gore telling us we need to eat our feces to save the planet.....the ultimate recycling!

Of course, he won't have to do it. He'll be in his mansion just across town from me paying "carbon offsets". :roll:

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:52 pm

chadhargis wrote:

Well, it's a pretty fair analogy.

Humans emit CO2, methane, and a lot of other stuff that isn't healthy. Next thing you know, we'll have Al Gore telling us we need to eat our feces to save the planet.....the ultimate recycling!

Of course, he won't have to do it. He'll be in his mansion just across town from me paying "carbon offsets". :roll:

Ain't that the truth.

GregScuba · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:36 pm

KJNick · **Joined:** Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:00 pm **Posts:** 56

chadhargis wrote:

EGRs don't make much sense to me anyway. Whether it goes straight out the tailpipe, or gets sucked back through the engine and out the tailpipe...it's still going out the tailpipe.

The whole point of an EGR is to reduce combustion chamber temperatures, not just recycle exhaust. NOx production increases with excess O2 and combustion temperatures above 2800 deg. F. The EGR decreases the amount of O2 available and reduces combustion temperatures because exhaust gasses have a higher specific heat than O2. In other words, it takes more energy to raise the temperature of exhaust gasses than O2, so as a result, the combustion chamber temperatures don't go up as high. Clear as mud?

chadhargis · **Posted:** Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:24 pm

So why did diesels get by without them for years? Why is considered better to soot up the intake than let the combustion temps be higher (which would appear to be a good thing in a diesel).

spencevans · **Posted:** Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:50 pm

Part of me says, why do we even try to reduce emmisions. The last time I checked one stupid, yet delicious cow, emits as much harmful polution into the atmosphere as 300 cars. These suckers poop 150lbs of crap a day. That's a whole Back Street Boy. Automobiles are not the problem with polution IMO. It's the cows. We should kill them all and put them in my freezer.

chadhargis · **Posted:** Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:24 pm

I'm not against emissions controls, they are necessary, but there are often better ways of doing it than the current way. For example, using better, cleaner burning fuel. That's the first step.

Why in the world would you change millions of cars versus changing a few hundred refineries? That's pretzel logic.

BiodieselJeep.com · **Posted:** Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:57 pm

spencevans wrote:

These suckers poop 150lbs of crap a day. That's a whole Back Street Boy.

Waaahahahaa
Thank you for that!

KJNick · **Joined:** Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:00 pm **Posts:** 56

chadhargis wrote:

So why did diesels get by without them for years? Why is considered better to soot up the intake than let the combustion temps be higher (which would appear to be a good thing in a diesel).

Why did we build cars up until the early '70s without emission controls? Some regulators (politicians) decided they were necessary to keep our air cleaner. For a long time, diesels were found in a lot less numbers than gasoline engines, so it wasn't seen as necessary. Now that cars are much cleaner, diesels were seen as the next source of emissions that needed cleaning up. So, some politicians came up with some regulatory requirements and a date when they had to be implemented, and manufacturers had to use whatever current technology they had to meet them. Just like in the '70s, manufacturers will get better as they research the problem more.

Also, IIRC, regulators are looking at other internal combustion engines such as lawn mowers, weed eaters, and leaf blowers.

chadhargis wrote:

I'm not against emissions controls, they are necessary, but there are often better ways of doing it than the current way. For example, using better, cleaner burning fuel. That's the first step.

Why in the world would you change millions of cars versus changing a few hundred refineries? That's pretzel logic.

They have started in that direction. They implemented low sulfer diesel last year. Other diesel fuel replacements (boidiesel in particular) just haven't had enough demand and/or are too expensive to make to be practical, yet. I'm still on the fence about Biodiesel. I like that it's cleaner burning and it's from a renewable source, but more research needs to be done on other sources and more efficient ways of making it. I don't think enough biodiesel can be made from current crops to be totally reliable on it. I'm all for homebrewers, though.

Talked to Mercedes Emissions Engineer

Who is online