Well said Red.

EGRs that pump dirty air into an engine that would really rather have clean air are wrong from an engineering / mechanics POV.

But we have to balance that with the greater good of our health and our children's health.

. Cheers, Greg
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2011 Vogue SE 4.4 with lots of toys in Stornaway

Completely agree on both points

I have mixed feelings on this. EGR is used to reduce NOX emissions. NOX is an horrible gas that causes acid rain and numerous deaths in cities. But by using EGR you increase the fuel consumption of the engine, increasing CO2 emmissions.

I hate EGR as a technology, I'd much rather have adblue even though it's more complex and you have to top it up. I look at all these emissions issues ranging from EGR to dieselgate and manufacturers have always chosen the cheapest way to try and comply with the regs.

I did blank my TD6. I'm not sure I would again. I won't be blanking out or mapping out my TDV8.

Hi All

The local tester to me that I use who is also a family friend, always removers the EGR from his own vehicles but would never remover the PDF the reason that he gives is as he is a Government tester and could lose his registration.

I've been on this board for a while now and part of the attraction is the diverse thoughts and opinions ( mostly wrong when they differ from mine of course) but Imagine my surprise to see mortality brought into the discussion of EGR removal. It's like morality can have degrees ( which is a theory long debated by society's for ethics worldwide ) we all drive cars that do not ' help' the environment but i presume some hold the view that they hold the moral high ground because they have functioniing EGRs. Does the differance between driving an EGR equipped FFRR or a non EGR equipped FFRR really matter ( morally wise), surely the moral person would walk !!!!

After much soul searching and contacting my ethics Guru ( fred) i believe EGR deletion is a private choice to be made by the individual and their God.

I wish you all a positive and enriching day , Namaste )) 2015 4.4 AB
GSXR 1000 K5
R1 1998

It's certainly something to raise at confession, but you might find the priest is simmilarly guilty.

Well - you're right dolph. But we want our luxury cars and our clean air too. I feel good that I've got a Euro5 diesel (2011 TDV8) and I can tell myself I'm doing the right thing. I know we'll all be diving hybrids 15 years from now (many owner) and full electric too.

Greg Cheers, Greg
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2011 Vogue SE 4.4 with lots of toys in Stornaway

Problem is chaps that whilst our governments want us not to pollute the air we, any they, are up against oil companies that want it done at no cost to them. Technology for a car to do 200+ MPG has been around a long time. Look up Charles Nelson Pogue's carburetor. It stands to reason that a car using around a quarter of the fuel WILL pollute less. All these emission systems have evolved to combat pollution and facilitate greedy oil Barons. They don't car if our EGR valve breaks up and lunches a 6 grand engine.
Another tech that I have personally tried is on demand Hydrogen cells. MPG gains and way less pollutants especially Nox. I actually tested a Peugeot van before and after the removal of the DPF and then added a Hydrogen cell and tested again. Pollutant levels were significantly lower with the cell on than the standard set up.
If you honestly believe that its about pollution, then its your call. I believe its about bleeding the motorist dry as an easy target.
If there were no alternatives then I wouldn't have the same stance, but as there are better technologies than currently being used, some around decades, I will stand by my claim. 2007 Vogue TDV8 in Zermatt Silver with Charcoal

By vapourising fuel before combustion you go from maybe 20mpg to 200mpg?

I think to get 200mpg from a large American car you're pushing the theorectical energy limits of what is in a US gallon, which means you're turning 100% of the energy in the fuel into motion. Even the very most efficient cumbustion engines with heat recoveery systems, etc, are struggling to get to 60%, so sorry, I think that's up there with the guy who's car runs on water, cold fusion in a test tube and Elvis is working in a chip shop in Luton (even though he's 83).

I obviously cant validate his claims but the oil companies were worried enough to kill it off.
As an ex-fireman I can tell you that you get a much bigger bang from a vapour than spray.
The point I was making is that we are the pawns in a game loaded in another's favour 2007 Vogue TDV8 in Zermatt Silver with Charcoal

he environmental benefits of a longer lasting healthy motor also needs to be considered IMHO. A lot of energy and so pollution is invested to build a vehicle. So keeping it on the road longer is of benefit, to a point i.e. subject to it producing acceptable levels of pollution. For an example we’ve all seen older cars chugging down the road with emissions more like a steam train - not acceptable.

The EGR doesn’t operate all the time and doesn’t constantly recirculate exhaust gases for our health benefit. From what I can it see provides minimal pollution benefit. But when it does operate it results in engine build up of exhaust soot combined with oil vapour to produce a sludge that affects the health of the 3.6 tdv8 in particular and in many cases a premature demise to the point of uneconomic repair. The whole car gets scrapped and the benefit of the upfront energy investment is prematurely lost.

Keeping the motor healthy so it runs as clean as possible is arguably more of a benefit. I’m hoping to get over 400,000km out of my 3.6 tdv8 as the EGRs have been disabled. IMHO that’s a reasonable return for the upfront energy/pollution investment. So I’m comfortable with the EGR not operating.

Also a little less right foot probably provides more pollution benefit than the EGR.

Petrols are cleaner than diesels so I understand why governments don’t want a concentration of diesels in big cities and the possible health consequences. ______________________________
Vogue tdv8 08MY poverty pack - wow

Well said Rar, but I think issue with the UK is weather it will fail an MOT or not without them functioning.
Personally I sleep better knowing they are deleted. I guess its a choice we make as we see it.
I would, if I was in the other camp, renew the EGR's at around 80k for peace of mind. 2007 Vogue TDV8 in Zermatt Silver with Charcoal

I agree, if I had to keep the EGRs, preemptive replacement would be on the cards, and a dose of induction cleaner every service. ______________________________
Vogue tdv8 08MY poverty pack - wow

You don't need to remove the EGR itself. Just blank the pipe allowing the waste gas into the valve. This way, blanking is almost invisible

Mikey, ignoring the morality issues for the moment, will blanking the EGR pipe affect the car negatively in any way at all?
Also, is blanking a big, complex job do you know?