NOX reduction system using urea already being produced!!

Beeble

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Location
way out west
TDI
'06 New Beetle
Dang. This is for long-haul trucks and construction equipment only. But a baby system would be a great thing to plug into your TDI's exhaust. Thanks for posting the link - we'll have to keep an eye on this one.
 

Drivbiwire

Zehntes Jahr der Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 1998
Location
Boise, Idaho
TDI
2013 Passat TDI, Newmar Ventana 8.3L ISC 3945, 2016 E250 BT, 2000 Jetta TDI
Guess why Mercedes is going to be selling the M class, R class and E class vehicles with the CDI in them...yup Urea injection aka "Bluetec".

The R and M class are being launched with the CDI this fall! More choices for the diesel owners, too bad that there are fewer from VW :(

DB
 

Drivbiwire

Zehntes Jahr der Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 1998
Location
Boise, Idaho
TDI
2013 Passat TDI, Newmar Ventana 8.3L ISC 3945, 2016 E250 BT, 2000 Jetta TDI
And they are going to be sold in ALL 50 STATES!

DB
 

Sig Dawg

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Location
Weyburn, sask
TDI
05 Passat
We should contact the company as a group to see if they will make these for our VW's. Then we can remove the EGR's and get even better fuel ecomony, and more power while maintaing or bettering our current emissions!!

That Mecedes link is very informative, great read!!
 

bhtooefr

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
Newark, OH
TDI
None
DBW: You know, the edit button is there for a reason. ;)

Anyway, this IS interesting news... if a bolt-on urea kit could be put on... how long would a tank last, and how much would it cost to fill the tank?
 

Drivbiwire

Zehntes Jahr der Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 1998
Location
Boise, Idaho
TDI
2013 Passat TDI, Newmar Ventana 8.3L ISC 3945, 2016 E250 BT, 2000 Jetta TDI
MB says 13,000 miles or one oil change interval. The engine will trigger a code and detune itself if you fail to refill the system.

You can't retrofit it and the systems requires an entirely different ECU and engine control system as in no more EGR, and catalyst/plumbing system.

I don't have all the specifics by the other key to this meeting Eruo 5 is the common rail injection and the better control of combustion not to mention other changes to the combustion bowl and head.

For the TDI simply running ULSD will eliminate nearly all the issues with intake plugging not to mention the ability to go longer between oil changes.

DB
 

Sig Dawg

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Location
Weyburn, sask
TDI
05 Passat
Just a thought, but on the MB website they said that EGR's are only a stopgap measure, and although they work they make sacrifices. For those in places with emissions testing wouldn't they be able to retrofit a system that would remove the EGR and have a NOX sensor to tell the system how much urea to add, and have a link into the current ecu to help control it?

Doesn't the Rocketchip stage 3 have an egr delete in the programming?

The EGR delete would be an issue for those that have emissions testing. Where I live we don't have testing, but I also don't want to be producing tons of NOX and would like to have the added power and efficiency of not running an EGR. For those with current cars, that don't have to meet the euro 5 standards, they would be able to run a system that can remove the EGR and have the benefits of that, but still meet emissions regs.
 

VWannabe

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 2, 1999
Location
Lawrenceville, GA USA
Tampering with the emissions controls is a BIG no no, even in places where they don't do emissions testing (yet), although nobody would know there. In places where emissions are tested, diesels are usually not tested as thoroughly as gas engines, with some places requiring only an opacity test (plus a visual inspection). Our cars come from the factory with an emissions system that works and is LEGAL. In order to legally change the emissions equipment would require EPA certification, not easy or cheap. Emissions are the reason for multi-million dollar changes being made to the fuel make-up and engine designs by various manufacturers, so to say that someone could just buy this system and retrofit it to their car is a pipe dream. This is not like replacing the stock catalytic converter with an aftermarket one, this is TOTALLY redoing the emissions system for a car.
 

Beeble

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Location
way out west
TDI
'06 New Beetle
I would assume that, if such a system were to be available, there would be a protocol for retrofitting them to older vehicles.

But more likely is that all the ID and PD engines will just get a "grandfather" exemption, even if a retrofit would work. I'm glad my new TDI will be on the road with 300k miles, but I do wish I could clean it up more when the technology becomes available.
 

arvina

Veteran Member
Joined
May 4, 2006
Location
Brazoria (or as we call it, an hour south of houst
TDI
2000 Tornado Red Jetta GL TDI 200,000 miles
this is my reply from them

Nathan,

Per our engineering staff, it will work but it is dependent upon exhaust temperature. The system requires at least 250 degrees C to function.

Thank you for your interest.

Regards,
M. Raithel
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
Beeble said:
I would assume that, if such a system were to be available, there would be a protocol for retrofitting them to older vehicles.

But more likely is that all the ID and PD engines will just get a "grandfather" exemption, even if a retrofit would work. I'm glad my new TDI will be on the road with 300k miles, but I do wish I could clean it up more when the technology becomes available.
There is never any retrofitting of new exhaust treatments to older vehicles - they are all grandfathered. All vehicles made in ANY year gone past only have to comply with emissions standards in place at the time of manufacture. If not, it would be a huge financial burden for every vehicle owner to constantly be upgrading exhaust treatment equipment as new emissions limits are put in place - and even replacement of entire engines would be required as some old ones simply won't ever meet new standards with any sort of exhaust after treatment.
 

cmc

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Location
seattle, wa
there seem to be some important issues to consider:

- first of all the MB site only talks about urea injection
for european trucks, not US cars

- has anyone seen the results of the dispute between
MB and the EPA on urea injection? it is my understanding
that the EPA is not allowing urea injection because the
urea canister cannot last 100K miles

- the C&D article on the jetta TDI mentions that MB
will be using particulate filters, not SCR

- another article on ULSD production mentions the
difficulty of delivering uncontaminated ULSD in
the beginning.. therefore it seems that early
particulate filter cars are going to run into lots
of problems

Drivbiwire said:
And they are going to be sold in ALL 50 STATES!

DB
 

bhtooefr

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
Newark, OH
TDI
None
I was under the understanding that the ECU would detect an out of AdBlue condition, and disable the engine until the tank was refilled...
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
bhtooefr said:
I was under the understanding that the ECU would detect an out of AdBlue condition, and disable the engine until the tank was refilled...
I've posted about legal ramifications of something like that, so I won't re-post. Needless to say, disabling an engine might have some serious consequences.

cmc said:
- has anyone seen the results of the dispute between
MB and the EPA on urea injection? it is my understanding
that the EPA is not allowing urea injection because the
urea canister cannot last 100K miles
I'm not up on their laws, but I don't know if the EPA is in the business of saying what can or cannot be used - so long as it passes their standards. As far as I know if an automaker has a car with carrots stuffed up the exhaust pipe as an aftertreatment, and it passes emissions, then there isn't much they can say. Maybe a frowny face next to the passing grade on their paperwork?
 

bhtooefr

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
Newark, OH
TDI
None
Ah, but here's the thing.

It won't last the necessary mileage without a refill. (Unless, in the case of AdBlue, there's a 90 gallon tank. Ain't gonna happen.)

Of course, there's always putting urea indicators on the outside of the car, training police to read them, and having them pull people over for running out of urea... :rolleyes:
 

Sig Dawg

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Location
Weyburn, sask
TDI
05 Passat
MrMopar said:
I've posted about legal ramifications of something like that, so I won't re-post. Needless to say, disabling an engine might have some serious consequences.
I agree someone would try to say the manufacturer was at fault, but the same thing happens when you don't fill up your fuel tank. In general people don't take resonsibility for their actions, and that has to stop. You do something that you shouldn't it is your fault, and only your fault, provided the appropriate information is suppled to you you should have no one to blame but yourself. I know coffee is hot, and if I burn myself on it I shouldn't be awarded 80 million dollars because the cup didn't say
caution hot dumbass!! :D
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
The legal comparison I made in other posts was with urea injection equipped diesel engines being held to a different standard than other automobiles.

Currently, any gasoline engine with a check engine light on can still start and run an infinite number of times. Things that cause CEL in a gasser include not tightening the fuel cap enough, or other more serious things such as having a bad catalytic converter.

If the EPA doesn't force automobile manufacturers to have gasoline cars shut down when they have a CEL for an emissions fault, why on earth should that standard be held for diesel powered cars? A problem with emissions equipment should be a problem that is corrected by the owner, regardless if it is not tightening a gas cap or letting a urea tank run dry.

In plain and concise language, why should an empty urea tank mean that a diesel car won't run while hundreds of thousands of other gasoline engines with emissions equipment malfunctioning or in poor repair get a pass? Arguably, plenty of these gasoline cars put out hundreds of times more harmful emissions than a diesel would emitting a little bit extra NOx.
 

bhtooefr

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
Newark, OH
TDI
None
I still vote for the exterior CEL.

Exterior CEL lights up, and a cop sees it, you get pulled over.
 

Sig Dawg

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Location
Weyburn, sask
TDI
05 Passat
MrMopar said:
The legal comparison I made in other posts was with urea injection equipped diesel engines being held to a different standard than other automobiles.

Currently, any gasoline engine with a check engine light on can still start and run an infinite number of times. Things that cause CEL in a gasser include not tightening the fuel cap enough, or other more serious things such as having a bad catalytic converter.

If the EPA doesn't force automobile manufacturers to have gasoline cars shut down when they have a CEL for an emissions fault, why on earth should that standard be held for diesel powered cars? A problem with emissions equipment should be a problem that is corrected by the owner, regardless if it is not tightening a gas cap or letting a urea tank run dry.

In plain and concise language, why should an empty urea tank mean that a diesel car won't run while hundreds of thousands of other gasoline engines with emissions equipment malfunctioning or in poor repair get a pass? Arguably, plenty of these gasoline cars put out hundreds of times more harmful emissions than a diesel would emitting a little bit extra NOx.
Oh, I see what you are saying. I never found your previous post regarding this subject. I just want more diesel options for my next diesel purchase, if that means having an idiot proof emissions system that will allow those crazy people from Cally Land to let diesels be sold there i'd be willing to accept it. It is unfortunate that auto manufactureres won't bring more diesels here because they can't be sold in 4 states:mad:
 

cmc

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Location
seattle, wa
well things like 3 way cats on gassers have to
be tested and shown to be able to last 100K before
they get a pass right? no doubt some will fail before
then but then the EPA also requires that the warranty
cover them. i can see why urea injection doesn't pass
because the urea supply is a consumable and the system
as a whole simply would not last 100K

don't get me wrong, i'd pick urea injection
over particulate filters (because SCR is
fuel quality independent) and i'd love to see it
get approved.

MrMopar said:
In plain and concise language, why should an empty urea tank mean that a diesel car won't run while hundreds of thousands of other gasoline engines with emissions equipment malfunctioning or in poor repair get a pass? Arguably, plenty of these gasoline cars put out hundreds of times more harmful emissions than a diesel would emitting a little bit extra NOx.
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
cmc said:
well things like 3 way cats on gassers have to
be tested and shown to be able to last 100K before
they get a pass right? no doubt some will fail before
then but then the EPA also requires that the warranty
cover them. i can see why urea injection doesn't pass
because the urea supply is a consumable and the system
as a whole simply would not last 100K
It runs a little deeper than that, because while the EPA can mandate warranty coverage they can't really control what owners do with the car - what fuel they use, what maintainence work they do, etc.

A catalytic converter is covered by a warranty by the manufacturere for something like 120,000 miles or 10 years, and that warranty extends to a lot of components of the exhaust treatment system. If it breaks or malfunctions before that deadline the manufacturer is obligated to fix it under that warranty.

The wrench that gets thrown into the works is if the customer misfuels the vehicle or doesn't do required maintainence. If a gasoline vehicle is taken on a trip to Mexico and filled up with leaded gasoline a few times (I'm not even sure if leaded gas is still sold in Mexico), that is something that is not covered by that warranty. The manufacturer doesn't have to fix any exhaust emissions equipment that is broken or rendered ineffective because of the owner of the vehicle.

Modern cars with OBD-II diagnostics illuminate the Check Engine Light for any number of faults, including some minor things as simple as leaving the gas cap loose after a fill-up. The EPA requires that vehicle owners get their emissions system fixed as promptly as possible, but I'm sure you see plenty of cases each day where people ignore these requirements. Places that have smog checks on a regular basis usually don't even test a car if the CEL is illuminated. Places that don't - well, that's an even bigger incentive for people to ignore that CEL if their car is otherwise running fine.

There is no car that shuts the engine off or refuses to start when the CEL is illuminated because cars are essentially dumb. Along with perfectly good reasons for the CEL to come on, there are also times when it lights up for no good reason. Every computer system has glitches, no matter how much testing and refinement is put into it. Customers would be furious if their car refused to start because the government got to the business of deciding that a car shouldn't run when it's CEL is light. With something like that, then the customer would have to pay for a tow truck to take it to a service center. And if the CEL just needed a simple reset for some odd-ball fault there would be even more fireworks from people inconvienenced with a non-running car, a tow bill, a diagnostic bill - only to tell them their car is fine and has nothing wrong with it.

Keeping this in mind, that's the reason that any new diesel vehicle with urea-injection shouldn't be hampered with any disabling features for an empty urea tank. An empty urea tank is an emissions fault that is a problem with the owner not doing required maintainence. Just the same as any gasser owner can ignore a CEL when their catalytic converter stops working, a diesel owner shouldn't be stuck in the breakdown lane when they run out of urea. Both times, the EPA expects owners to correct the fault on their own - get their cat replaced or fill up the urea tank. As long as instructions are in the operators manual, the EPA can hope for the best - and have fines for people that don't comply. Just like there are big $$$ fines for messing with catalytic convertors, they can have them for diesel owners who don't fill up the urea tank. Enforcement of these fines are another thing entirely . . .



Getting even more detailed about urea injection, I'm going to speculate that the Magnussen-Moss Act of 1978 might come into play with VW failing to adopt urea injection. If VW equips any of their future TDI models with urea injection, they're going to have to worry about supplying urea refills to the owners. In order to maintain the EPA warranty on exhaust treatment equipment, VW will want to have a good amount of control with that urea supply to ensure that TDI owners are getting good quality urea fluid that works with the urea injection. I don't know if they will open their specifications for urea fluid to third-party vendors, and even if they do there is no guarantee that anyone will be making this stuff to stock on the shelves at Auto Zone.

So in that respect, VW might just have to pull their TDI from the market and not adapt urea injection for fear of warranty repercussions. VW will want to absolutely ensure that good urea is available to customers and used properly to make sure that they don't have future warranty claims that could cost VW big money. If VW is the only seller of their own special branded urea refills, and requires these refills to maintain warranty coverage, then they'd be obligated to provide said urea refills for free to customers on demand. This would also cost big money - likely more than they'd make selling the cars.

Between the devil and the deep blue sea. Facing a choice between worrying about warranty costs with improper urea refills, or worrying about providing free urea refills to comply with Magnussen-Moss, VW might just choose option number 3 and not sell TDI cars in the North American market - at least until the people at the EPA pull their heads out of their a$$es and ease up on those emissions standards for diesels. I can possibly see some serious tension put on the EPA in the next few years. The EPA themselves put out statements like "The USA would save all our oil imports from Saudi Arabia if 33% of the vehicles in the USA were diesel powered" and then turn around and essentially set huge hurdles for diesel vehicles to jump over to make it to market. Give it another record setting year of high fuel prices, and I'll bet some people twist a thumbscrew in the right places to get the EPA to change some things.
 

bhtooefr

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
Newark, OH
TDI
None
I'm afraid by the time the EPA pulls their heads out of their azzes, though, there's no longer going to be an EPA, or a United States, for that matter. :(

As for your mention of Magnussen-Moss... 505.01. That's all I have to say on that. (OK, I'll elaborate. VW doesn't make 505.01, they test oils to 505.01, and void the appropriate portions of the warranty if 505.01 isn't used on a PD. I'm sure they could do the same for urea.)
 

MrMopar

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Bloomington, IL
TDI
none
I'm afraid by the time the EPA pulls their heads out of their azzes, though, there's no longer going to be an EPA, or a United States, for that matter. :(
The United States is turning into the sole hyperpower in the world. Within my lifetime we'll have breached the prohibition on space based weapons, and will be able to dominate the globe.

As for your mention of Magnussen-Moss... 505.01. That's all I have to say on that. (OK, I'll elaborate. VW doesn't make 505.01, they test oils to 505.01, and void the appropriate portions of the warranty if 505.01 isn't used on a PD. I'm sure they could do the same for urea.)
No problems with the oil - you're absolutely correct in saying that VW doesn't make 505.01 oil. Several companies do, and you can purchase that oil outside of VW dealerships.

Magnussen-Moss applies to parts required for warranty coverage that are available only from the dealership. If VW offers urea refills priced way above a competitor, and says that only their VW branded refills will suffice for warranty coverage, then that's a violation against the warranty. If VW opens their urea specs to the mass market, and no competitor even manufacturers aftermarket urea refills, then that's not a violation because VW makes it possible for other auto supply manufacturers to offer a competing accessory for sale.

So this really only is a concern if VW has a vendor lock-in with their urea cannisters or refills. If they do shut competitors out of the market for urea refills, that really will be a problem because of VWs past history with VW-only parts priced sky high. Remember when MAFs were failing left, right, and center? The 2.0 gasser MAF was the same part as the TDI - yet the TDI sold for something like $300 whereas the 2.0 gasser part number was about $90. And then VW started requiring owners to supply a VIN in order to purchase a MAF, in order to force TDI owners to pay the $300 rip-off price.

You want to play that game with urea refills? Throw a couple hundred dollars each 10,000 miles for the official VW brand, not sold at Autozone, use-our-part-or-we'll-void-the-warranty, urea canister?
 

bhtooefr

TDIClub Enthusiast, ToofTek Inventor
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
Newark, OH
TDI
None
Well, what about 505.01?

VW doesn't make it, but they have to certify that an oil meets it for it to be valid for the warranty.

Could their certification process be developed such that they could severely restrict the number of companies capable of producing the urea? If so... they could virtually do this...
 

cmc

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Location
seattle, wa
ah, but emissions certification is all about what happens
before a car is offered for sale is it not? the way i
understand it is if a manufacturer wants to sell a
particular model of car they submit it to the EPA
for testing and approval.. EPA does its test and
stamp it yay or nay. so in the case of a gasser, passing
is relatively straightforward.. notice that this is a fresh
example of a car not yet subjected to idiot owner abuse.

now a urea equipped diesel is submitted for testing
and approval and it fails because the urea runs out.

i absolutely agree that you should not have the car get
disabled if it is no longer compliant but really i can't
see how the urea diesel can even be put on sale because
it can't get initial approval, never mind what eventual
owners will or will not do.

it's entirely likely that there will be no more TDIs
in 2007 and WA state has adopted the CARB regulations
(which is worse than EPA tier 2 ??) while local
politicians are making big hay of the biodiesel
industry. how ironic, the state that wants to be
the biodiesel capital of the country then
adopts emission laws that effectively ban the sale
of diesel passenger cars.. i don't think they are
sufficiently clued in as to what they have legislated.

it's probably smart that VW is hanging back and
letting mercedes take the fight to idiotic regulations.

MrMopar said:
It runs a little deeper than that, because while the EPA can mandate warranty coverage they can't really control what owners do with the car - what fuel they use, what maintainence work they do, etc.

A catalytic converter is covered by a warranty by the manufacturere for something like 120,000 miles or 10 years, and that warranty extends to a lot of components of the exhaust treatment system. If it breaks or malfunctions before that deadline the manufacturer is obligated to fix it under that warranty.

The wrench that gets thrown into the works is if the customer misfuels the vehicle or doesn't do required maintainence. If a gasoline vehicle is taken on a trip to Mexico and filled up with leaded gasoline a few times (I'm not even sure if leaded gas is still sold in Mexico), that is something that is not covered by that warranty. The manufacturer doesn't have to fix any exhaust emissions equipment that is broken or rendered ineffective because of the owner of the vehicle.

Modern cars with OBD-II diagnostics illuminate the Check Engine Light for any number of faults, including some minor things as simple as leaving the gas cap loose after a fill-up. The EPA requires that vehicle owners get their emissions system fixed as promptly as possible, but I'm sure you see plenty of cases each day where people ignore these requirements. Places that have smog checks on a regular basis usually don't even test a car if the CEL is illuminated. Places that don't - well, that's an even bigger incentive for people to ignore that CEL if their car is otherwise running fine.

There is no car that shuts the engine off or refuses to start when the CEL is illuminated because cars are essentially dumb. Along with perfectly good reasons for the CEL to come on, there are also times when it lights up for no good reason. Every computer system has glitches, no matter how much testing and refinement is put into it. Customers would be furious if their car refused to start because the government got to the business of deciding that a car shouldn't run when it's CEL is light. With something like that, then the customer would have to pay for a tow truck to take it to a service center. And if the CEL just needed a simple reset for some odd-ball fault there would be even more fireworks from people inconvienenced with a non-running car, a tow bill, a diagnostic bill - only to tell them their car is fine and has nothing wrong with it.

Keeping this in mind, that's the reason that any new diesel vehicle with urea-injection shouldn't be hampered with any disabling features for an empty urea tank. An empty urea tank is an emissions fault that is a problem with the owner not doing required maintainence. Just the same as any gasser owner can ignore a CEL when their catalytic converter stops working, a diesel owner shouldn't be stuck in the breakdown lane when they run out of urea. Both times, the EPA expects owners to correct the fault on their own - get their cat replaced or fill up the urea tank. As long as instructions are in the operators manual, the EPA can hope for the best - and have fines for people that don't comply. Just like there are big $$$ fines for messing with catalytic convertors, they can have them for diesel owners who don't fill up the urea tank. Enforcement of these fines are another thing entirely . . .



Getting even more detailed about urea injection, I'm going to speculate that the Magnussen-Moss Act of 1978 might come into play with VW failing to adopt urea injection. If VW equips any of their future TDI models with urea injection, they're going to have to worry about supplying urea refills to the owners. In order to maintain the EPA warranty on exhaust treatment equipment, VW will want to have a good amount of control with that urea supply to ensure that TDI owners are getting good quality urea fluid that works with the urea injection. I don't know if they will open their specifications for urea fluid to third-party vendors, and even if they do there is no guarantee that anyone will be making this stuff to stock on the shelves at Auto Zone.

So in that respect, VW might just have to pull their TDI from the market and not adapt urea injection for fear of warranty repercussions. VW will want to absolutely ensure that good urea is available to customers and used properly to make sure that they don't have future warranty claims that could cost VW big money. If VW is the only seller of their own special branded urea refills, and requires these refills to maintain warranty coverage, then they'd be obligated to provide said urea refills for free to customers on demand. This would also cost big money - likely more than they'd make selling the cars.

Between the devil and the deep blue sea. Facing a choice between worrying about warranty costs with improper urea refills, or worrying about providing free urea refills to comply with Magnussen-Moss, VW might just choose option number 3 and not sell TDI cars in the North American market - at least until the people at the EPA pull their heads out of their a$$es and ease up on those emissions standards for diesels. I can possibly see some serious tension put on the EPA in the next few years. The EPA themselves put out statements like "The USA would save all our oil imports from Saudi Arabia if 33% of the vehicles in the USA were diesel powered" and then turn around and essentially set huge hurdles for diesel vehicles to jump over to make it to market. Give it another record setting year of high fuel prices, and I'll bet some people twist a thumbscrew in the right places to get the EPA to change some things.
 

xrstamm

Active member
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Location
Michigan
TDI
04 Passat
Let me clarify a few points.

Someone said that there are no cars that will inhibit the start based on CEL status. Wrong. Virtually any ETC (electronic throttle control) gasoline engine will do this. If you set the right ETC fault code it will inhibit the start. Not to mention the infamous GM pass key resistor. Cars aren't dumb, as it was stated earlier.

The fueling of urea is being discussed as being coaxial. Two nested tubes such that when you fill diesel, you also fill urea. No choice in the matter. Sure someone will figure out how to defeat the system, but that is what is being discussed in HD truck industry.
 
Top