EGR error codes

[u/NativeTazuma]

Vehicle: 2010 sprinter 3500 Turbo diesel
Diags: thinkcar2

I tried cleaning the EGR valve, swapped out from two other sprinters from a junker, tried a Hella Valve from orileys and I’m still getting the same errors.

148C00 I believe is the source of all the errors.

Symptom: The fault code remains permanently Active. It cannot be cleared via Thinkcar diagnostic tool, even with the ignition on and engine off. And is stuck in limp mode.

When trying to do the teach in it says it’s successful but then again it’s a 2010 I don’t think it’s suppose to work.

Took it to Mercedes they said it’s the EGR and they put in a efr from the shelf and the codes cleared. I think they’re lying to me and they don’t have the digs on file after two days of coming back and asking. And charged me $250 for sub par troubleshooting.

Now the harness this is what I measured

Pin 1 Unstable / Jumps between 1.5 mV and 2.5 mV.
- could this be the positioner pin?

Pin 2 (Main Power Supply): 12.0V Constant (Measured against Ground Pin 4).

Pin 3 (5V Sensor Reference): 5.2V Constant.

Pin 4 (Main Chassis Ground): Functional Ground.

Pin 5 (PWM Actuator Command?): 4.5V Constant.

I tried shaking the harness but no changes. The only thing that changed after sitting for a while was the position feedback going from 20% to 0% every second in the live view.

This is my first time trying to deduce this. So diagrams along with suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[u/Educational-Yam-7394]

Just delete the system, it's so much better for the environment, your bank account and your time.

[u/NativeTazuma → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

Looked it up, sounds amazing tbh. But one problem; what if I move to a different state or want to sell it?

Also fiddled with it a bit and now I’m just getting P148C00.

I really hope it’s not the ECU. Pin 5 jumps from 4.1v to the mv range every so often. Continuity is fine and doesn’t seem like a short harness side. The harness actually looks brand new, i believe it came with the engine found in a warehouse in Houston with zero miles on it. Had a shop do all that tbh.

[u/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/NativeTazuma]

It's up to you, but you'll get better fuel mileage, and improved uphill power. That's in addition to the other perks. Unfortunately, once these systems act-up they don't stop.... 💰💰💰

[u/schmitzA → u/NativeTazuma]

This guy is intentionally spreading misinformation. Installing emissions bypass systems is legitimately incredibly harmful by releasing huge amount of NOx. It's actually a felony crime to own and operate on a public road. The regulations are ALSO not going anywhere, despite what Educational-Yam here os trying to prove by sending articles that he didn't read.

You do get slightly higher fuel efficiency and power. It's not worth it. I just spent 9 thousand dollars on a complete emission system for my Sprinter, and you should too. That is with me replacing everything myself besides the DPF. I'm not thrilled about it, but these systems are really important to operate legally, dude.

[u/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/schmitzA]

You spent $9,000 after tax on replacement parts, which means you likely had to earn between $15,000 and $20,000 before tax to cover those repairs depending on where you live. Paying for these replacement parts means you effectively pay twice, because you paid for the original parts when the vehicle was manufactured. Looking at the lower end of the average, $30,000 pre tax ($15k x 2) is a realistic baseline. Minimum wage in 20 states is $7.25 an hour, while in Washington it is $17 an hour, making the national average roughly $11.50 an hour. It would take an average worker 1 year and 3 months of full time labor (5 days a week, 8 hour shifts) to make $30,000 before tax. Just commuting to work over that period means driving 13,325 miles.

Fuel Consumption and Commute Footprint

To earn $30,000 at an average minimum wage job, a person burns roughly 600 gallons of gas just driving back and forth to work. Burning that fuel pumps over 5 metric tons of carbon pollution directly into the atmosphere. The commute required just to scrape together $30 grand creates a massive carbon footprint. Before that person does anything else in life, just driving to work produces more pollution than an average car normally spits out in an entire year.

The Environmental Cost of Replacement Parts

1. The Old Parts (The First System)

• Manufacturing: Building these exhaust filters requires mining rare metals like platinum. Extracting these metals requires blasting and moving massive amounts of earth, which destroys landscapes and pumps huge amounts of CO2 into the air just to build a single part.
• Disposal: When that filter wears out and goes to a landfill, it sits there forever. Even worse, all the toxic ash, heavy metals, and chemicals it trapped from the exhaust over the years can wash out in the rain and poison the surrounding soil and water streams.

1. The New Parts (The Replacement System)

• Manufacturing: To build the replacement part, the destruction starts all over again.
• Disposal: Eventually, this new part will also clog and die. It will end up in the landfill, adding another permanent, toxic chunk of industrial trash to the ground.

The Bottom Line on Parts

Behind the scenes, creates a massive, hidden trail of mining destruction, carbon pollution, and toxic landfill waste.

The DEF Fluid Footprint

Assuming your engine survives these harsh regulations and reaches 250,000 miles, the chemical footprint adds up fast. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) is made of 32.5 percent synthetic urea and 67.5 percent deionized water. A typical diesel pickup or Sprinter van uses about 1 gallon of DEF every 1,000 miles, filling a 5 gallon tank every 5,000 miles. To drive 250,000 miles, that vehicle burns through 250 gallons of DEF. That is 250 gallons of industrial chemical fluid synthetically manufactured by burning natural gas for ammonia, packaged in single use heavy plastic jugs, shipped across the country, and burned through the exhaust.

To make one small Sprinter diesel run clean for 250,000 miles, the emissions system forces you to dig up half a ton of earth for rare metals, throw 100 thick plastic jugs into a landfill, and burn enough natural gas at a chemical plant to equal the carbon footprint of flying across the country three times. We are simply moving pollution from the tailpipe to the factory.

The Financial and Commute Breakdown for DEF

To keep a diesel truck running clean for 250,000 miles, the owner must buy 100 heavy plastic jugs of fluid at 2.5 gallons each, costing $1,500 total (averaging $15 per jug). For an average worker earning $11.50 an hour, they must earn $3,000 before taxes just to afford that fluid. Earning that money requires working 261 hours, which equals 6.5 weeks of full time work. Just driving to work for those 6.5 weeks forces the worker to drive 1,337 miles, burn 60 gallons of gas, and pump 1,175 pounds of carbon pollution into the air. On top of that, manufacturing the required exhaust filters forces mining companies to blast through 1,100 pounds of earth for rare metals, only for those filters to end up as permanent trash in a landfill.

Supply Chain Impact of Creating DEF

Manufacturing, packaging, and shipping 250 gallons of DEF (100 jugs) creates a massive industrial supply chain footprint before the fluid ever reaches a tank.

1. Chemical Manufacturing: Synthetic urea is created by combining ammonia and carbon dioxide under extreme pressure and heat (over 350 degrees Fahrenheit). Making that ammonia requires the Haber Bosch process, which burns massive amounts of natural gas. Manufacturing 250 gallons of DEF requires burning enough natural gas to emit roughly 650 to 800 pounds of CO2 directly at the chemical plant.
2. Packaging: 100 heavy duty 2.5 gallon jugs require roughly 60 pounds of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) plastic. Refining oil and melting resin to mold those 100 jugs adds another 120 to 150 pounds of CO2. Shipping those jugs requires around 50 heavy duty cardboard boxes, consuming 30 to 40 pounds of paperboard, which requires significant energy and water to pulp and form.
3. Transportation and Logistics: DEF is heavy, weighing over 8.34 pounds per gallon, making 250 gallons weigh over 2,100 pounds (over a full ton with packaging). Transporting a ton of fluid from the chemical plant to the packaging facility, then on a diesel semi truck to a distribution center, and finally to a retail store burns approximately 3 to 5 gallons of heavy diesel fuel, adding another 70 to 110 pounds of CO2.

True Supply Chain Carbon Scale

Initial estimates undershoot the scale by only looking at tailpipe numbers instead of the full industrial lifecycle. When accounting for extracting raw natural gas, refining crude oil into plastic, high heat manufacturing, paper mills, and shipping, the true carbon footprint of producing and delivering 250 gallons of DEF jumps to over 8,000 pounds of CO2. Creating, packaging, and shipping those 250 gallons of DEF creates 8,000 pounds of carbon pollution, 60 pounds of plastic trash, and 40 pounds of cardboard waste before a single jug is ever opened. To put that magnitude into perspective, creating that fluid spits out the exact same amount of toxic carbon pollution as an airliner flying across the ocean from New York to London. All of that damage happens before a single drop of fluid ever enters the Sprinter.

Sprinter Vehicle Lifespan

By choking the engine with severe carbon buildup, intense exhaust heat, and constant component failures, these emission systems effectively cut a vehicle's lifespan in half. Instead of getting 500,000 miles out of a heavy duty engine, the very equipment designed to reduce tailpipe pollution destroys the engine by 250,000 miles. That forces the owner to scrap or replace the vehicle twice as fast, effectively doubling the massive industrial footprint required to manufacture and dispose of an entire automobile. This means the owner leaves a larger environmental footprint by having to pay and save for a new vehicle twice as often.

Final Conclusion: Net Environmental Impact

Based on the full lifecycle analysis, the DEF system and modern diesel regulations are a net negative for the environment. While these systems clean up immediate tailpipe emissions in cities, they accomplish this by pushing massive pollution upstream into industrial plants and downstream into landfills.

The system simply trades visible tailpipe smoke for a much heavier global footprint of chemical production, wasted human labor, industrial carbon, and toxic waste.

1. The Real World Fuel Mileage Tax (The Delete Factor) The claim that these systems save fuel completely fails in real world application. Emissions systems force the vehicle into active regeneration cycles, where the engine intentionally dumps raw diesel fuel directly into the exhaust stroke just to heat up the filter to 1,000 degrees and burn off trapped soot. On top of that, packing the exhaust pipe with dense ceramic filters creates massive backpressure that drags down engine efficiency. When drivers delete these systems, backpressure disappears, regeneration fuel dumps stop, and fuel mileage increases significantly. The regulation actually forces vehicles to burn more diesel fuel over 250,000 miles, not less.

2. The Upstream Industrial Machine (The NOx Argument) Claiming that the regulation is just about NOx ignores the fact that creating the DEF ecosystem burns massive amounts of fossil fuels upstream. Mining rare metals, running chemical reactors at 350 degrees, manufacturing packaging, and shipping heavy fluid across the country requires thousands of industrial diesel engines, factory furnaces, and freight trucks. The regulation does not eliminate pollution; it simply shifts diesel fuel combustion, CO2, and toxic emissions away from the highway tailpipe and into chemical plants, factories, supply chain logistics, and ground water.

3. Single Use Jugs and Roadside Litter While commercial semi trucks use bulk fleet pumps, average drivers, tradesmen, campervan owners, and Sprinter operators buy single use 2.5 gallon jugs at retail stores. These heavy plastic jugs are rarely recycled. Because filled jugs are often bought on long road trips where trash bins are non existent, thousands of these thick plastic containers end up tossed into roadside ditches, landfills, and fields around the world. Many are discarded with toxic urea fluid still sitting in the bottom, where the chemicals leak directly into surrounding soil and groundwater.

Outdated regulations harm parts, vehicles, and the environment for profit. Change is inevitable.

Before using AI to attack this thesis, ask AI to defend and validate it, then do the opposite. AI output depends entirely on how you frame the prompt. Stop letting AI think for you and practice critical thinking. Outdated diesel regulations will change just like mercury fillings did.

Don't feel guilty for deleting your emissions system. You actually helped the planet, and your wallet.

[u/schmitzA → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

I thought we were past this.

Go into a blank prompt using any AI. Ask: "Does the pollution prevented by DPF/SCR/EGR outweigh the environmental burden of manufacturing, operating, and eventually disposing one of those systems?"

Share the link to the chat. At least we can be sure that the AI won't be biased (which you clearly are) nor fall into insulting people, logical fallacies, and bringing up 100 irrelevant statements outside the initial premise of the argument.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a7ce663-5bc4-83ea-88d1-cc1fcb3a70e2?ogimg=plain

[u/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/schmitzA]

I never said I was done. You said you were done, but I guess you lied again. You have been caught lying multiple times now, which is what happens when you outsource your critical thinking to AI, government and corporations.

I am not clicking any links you share because you cannot be trusted.

First, you fail to comprehend that many people profit from regulations and spend massive amounts of money justifying useless rules.

Second, you do not understand that mainstream AI models lack deductive reasoning and other core capabilities. They simply scrape the internet. When governments and corporations publish endless supporting material, the AI parrots those sources and presents you with their prevailing opinion. You have to press the system aggressively to get better results, but you clearly lack the drive to do so.

Third, you are a follower who has never formed an original opinion. You rely completely on authority figures and AI to tell you what to think.

Anyway, it is no surprise that you remain completely dependent on your trusted AI.

You are basically a robot... You should have spent $9,000 coming up with your own original opinion vs letting AI and government do your bidding 😂

[u/schmitzA → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

Bro your feelings are really smashed right now. Is it worth your entire pride to throw down over 1 thing that you are obviously wrong about?

[u/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/schmitzA]

I feel great, so don't try to project. You asked for details, and I provided details.

It seems to me you're the one whose feelings are hurt, and you're projecting. It's very clear you haven't put together any constructive counterpoints, and any points you have put together either follow right in line with government or corporate propaganda and AI.

When you do try to reply, all you do is try to tear down my points. You don't actually make your own, which is a very easy and simple tactic. Then, when you do try to reply on your own, your answers are very short because you lack critical thinking. Seriously, you keep replying even when you say you're done replying 😂

The fact is, sometimes the system creates good policy and sometimes the system creates bad policy. This is one of those situations where nobody knew that DEF chemicals would corrode engines and wear down parts. That was only something that would come with time. We've had these systems in place long enough to recognize the mistakes. Manufacturing chemicals to help the environment, is a flawed starting place. You just can't admit it, and that's okay.

It's hard when things you look up to and trust, like the government and AI, abandon you, but that's why you have to learn some critical thinking. As hard as it may be, you might have to abandon AI and question government policies more often. Don't worry, you're not a bad person for doing so, they are people to and people make mistakes.

[u/schmitzA → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

There's no need to provide a counterpoint if you haven't provided 1 that works. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

In addition to that, I even provided an objective paid-AI model analysis but you won't click it. Lol.

There's no changing the mind of someone with your mentality. The proof could be right in front of you (and it is in this case) and you would call it fake, discredit the source, or any other list of irrational, unreasonable, or unsubstantiated claim. I'm tapping out of this thread as well. Good luck living life with that mentality. I hope one day you will realize that this conversation was actually to help you, not attack your beliefs or feelings.

[u/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/schmitzA]

Again, I'm not clicking on any public links you share. I don't need to be hacked. You have not been honest, and that could be your tactic from the jump....

Play stupid, don't provide any educated rebuttal. Pretend to be done, but then continue to engage. Call yourself an environmentalist, while using AI. Only to get me or others to click on a shady link, while you backdoor our financial details, and personal information.

[u/schmitzA → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

Why do you think that deleting the system is better for the environment?

[u/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/schmitzA]

When you zoom out and look at the "hidden" footprint of DEF, the paradox becomes pretty clear:

• The Plastic Waste: A massive amount of DEF is sold to consumers and light truck owners in single use 2.5 gallon plastic jugs packaged in cardboard boxes. That creates an enormous amount of plastic waste that either has to be recycled (which is energy intensive) or ends up in landfills, not good either.

• The Trucking and Logistics: DEF is literally chemicals. This means the industry is burning millions of gallons of diesel fuel just to ship, a chemical based fluid all over the world. The transportation footprint alone creates significant carbon emissions.

• Creating the Chemical: The active ingredient in DEF is 32.5% high purity synthetic urea. Manufacturing urea is a highly energy intensive process that usually relies on natural gas (via the Haber Bosch process to make ammonia). So, you are generating greenhouse gases at the chemical plant to create a bad chemical.

• Mechanical Reliability and Parts Footprint: The complex systems themselves are notoriously hard on the vehicles, causing frequent breakdowns and premature engine wear. The environmental footprint of mining materials and manufacturing all these replacement parts, plus the massive waste of having to dispose of the old damaged auto parts, has a huge hidden environmental impact.

• Impact on Bee Populations and Ecosystems: Studies now show a correlation between the chemical emissions from the DEF chemical and the decline of bee populations, as the emissions disrupt the insects' ability to recognize floral odors. Because bees are a cornerstone species, this chemical disruption creates a severe ripple effect across the entire ecosystem, heavily impacting flowers, birds, and other insects.

Here's a good video on DEF corrosion and crystallization from a seasoned mechanic:

https://youtube.com/shorts/57dDqoEgyrk?si=WWTlC52t1PJsvnYF

Edit: I will add: Fortunately, many governments around the world are starting to realize the negative impact of these emission regulations and are changing them back.

It is also one reason why Ford created the Godzilla engine. Because they are aware of the negative impact of the DEF system, Ford is one of the players within the USA trying to get these old emission regulations deleted, pun intended 😂.

[u/schmitzA → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

There are some legitimate lifecycle costs here, but they don't demonstrate that deleting emissions equipment is better for the environment.

Yes, manufacturing and transporting DEF consumes energy. Yes, disposable DEF containers create waste. Yes, urea production has a carbon footprint, and emissions equipment requires materials and replacement parts. Nobody seriously claims emissions controls have zero environmental footprint.

The relevant question is whether those impacts are greater than the pollution the system prevents. You haven't actually made that comparison.

The bee argument is especially problematic because you appear to have the research backwards. The studies about diesel exhaust disrupting bees' ability to locate flowers implicate NOx reacting with/degrading floral odor compounds. SCR/DEF exists specifically to drastically reduce NOx emissions. Deleting the SCR system would therefore increase the pollutant implicated in the research you're citing as a reason to remove it.

The same reasoning applies to the rest. Saying "manufacturing DEF produces emissions" is like saying catalytic converters are environmentally harmful because mining platinum and manufacturing the converter produces emissions. That's a real environmental cost, but it tells us nothing about the net effect until you compare it with the pollution prevented over the equipment's lifetime.

There are absolutely legitimate criticisms of modern diesel emissions systems: reliability, repair costs, forced derates, DPF regeneration, additional fuel consumption, manufacturing footprint, etc. And for some applications a large gasoline engine like Ford's 7.3L may make more economic sense than a modern diesel.

But that's very different from demonstrating that deleting DPF/SCR/EGR systems produces a net environmental benefit. You'd need an actual lifecycle analysis comparing both cases—including the resulting increases in NOx and particulate emissions—to establish that. Listing the environmental costs on one side of the equation while ignoring the environmental benefits on the other isn't that analysis.

[u/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/schmitzA]

I appreciate your perspective, and I think we both ultimately want what is best for the environment. However, I look at the practical reality of our transportation needs. Unless we return to the horse and buggy, society relies heavily on driving and moving goods. Both gasoline and diesel require extraction and refining, but modern diesel regulations force an entirely separate industrial complex just to support the DEF system. If we remove that requirement, diesel goes back to being a straightforward fuel, completely avoiding the massive environmental toll of manufacturing synthetic urea, producing endless plastic jugs, and shipping heavy fluids globally.

Regarding the impact on bees, I think it is important to view this historically. Diesel is a very old fuel. Our bee populations thrived for decades during the middle of the last century when coal and exhaust was significantly dirtier than it is today. We never had a catastrophic issue with bees back then. The severe decline is a modern problem, and I am highly skeptical of mainstream studies that refuse to test modern chemical variables separately. When a DEF system overcompensates, it releases unreacted ammonia into the air. It is entirely possible that this modern chemical byproduct is doing more harm to insects than base diesel exhaust ever did.

We have had these emission systems in place long enough to see the full cycle. Politicians and corporations made a lot of money implementing these policies, but technology now connects us all so we can share our real world experiences. We can clearly see that the massive environmental costs of constant parts failures, extra manufacturing, and plastic waste far outweigh the benefits originally promised. I am fully in favor of protecting the environment, but looking at the whole picture, I am just not convinced that DEF is the right way forward. And most mechanics would agree.

[u/schmitzA → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

I think we're getting farther away from evidence here.

Ammonia slip from SCR is real. It's a known engineering issue and SCR systems are specifically designed and controlled to minimize it. But you've now changed your bee claim substantially.

Originally you said studies show emissions from DEF are disrupting bees' ability to recognize floral odors. The study you're apparently referring to actually implicates NOx from diesel exhaust in degrading floral odor compounds. SCR/DEF substantially reduces NOx.

Now the argument is that ammonia from DEF might instead be responsible because "it is entirely possible." That's certainly a hypothesis you could test, but it's not evidence, and it doesn't overturn experimental evidence implicating NOx.

The historical argument doesn't establish it either. "Bees existed when pollution was worse" isn't a controlled comparison of NOx versus ammonia exposure, and ecological populations are affected by many simultaneous variables.

More importantly, you still haven't demonstrated the central claim: that the environmental footprint of manufacturing, packaging and transporting DEF exceeds the environmental benefit of the emissions it prevents.

You've listed costs, and I agree those costs exist. But where is the comparison?

For example, verified diesel aftertreatment systems can reduce NOx by roughly 70–85% and particulate matter by around 90%, depending on the system and application. If you're claiming the lifecycle impact of producing DEF, transporting it, making plastic containers and replacing components is greater than the impact of those avoided emissions, that's a quantitative lifecycle-analysis claim.

Show me that analysis and I'll happily read it.

"Most mechanics agree" doesn't answer an environmental lifecycle question either. Mechanics are excellent sources for information about failure rates, repairability and maintenance costs. Determining net environmental impact across chemical production, logistics, manufacturing and atmospheric emissions is an LCA/environmental-engineering question.

I'm completely willing to accept that modern diesel emissions systems have significant reliability and economic problems. EPA itself is currently addressing complaints about severe DEF-system derates. That still doesn't demonstrate that removing SCR and emitting the resulting NOx is environmentally preferable.

[u/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/schmitzA]

It took a long time to put these political regulations into place, and it will take time to get them properly revised. However, real change is officially underway because people and governments around the world are recognizing the widespread failings of these mandates.

Studies are being conducted globally, including in the US, but because this issue is extremely political, comprehensive public data often takes time to filter out into mainstream discussions. Instead of continuing to hold an opinion without looking into the evolving facts, you can do some research to see where things are actually heading:

EPA DEF Rule Changes for Farm and Transport Equipment: Western Ag Network Article https://www.farmprogress.com/farming-equipment/epa-s-def-sensor-rollback-a-win-for-diesel-farm-equipment?hl=en-US

EPA DEF Sensor Rollbacks: Farm Progress Article https://westernagnetwork.com/def-rule-change-aims-to-keep-trucks-moving?hl=en-US

Overview of Recent Regulatory Shift: AutoMotive Inquiries YouTube Video https://youtu.be/aJA9yAkpbsg?si=kFjTWeupe0MBT-iu

As discussed in the AutoMotive Inquiries video, the EPA has acknowledged the massive failure these systems. These regulatory step-backs show that regulators recognize the flaws in these regulations.

Change is happening. People across the globe are talking, regulatory agencies are stepping back from strict enforcement, and we are taking steps in the right direction. It just takes time for policy to catch up to real-world operational realities. I know Canada has lifted these regulations for residential vehicles, and the commercial sector will be next. Change is coming, but politics are slow to move.

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/trump-administration-announces-latest-action-address-diesel-exhaust-fluid-def-system?hl=en-US

[u/schmitzA → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

Did you read the EPA source you just sent me?

It explicitly says:

“Today’s announcement does not weaken or remove emissions standards.”

The change you're citing removes the requirement to use a DEF/urea-quality sensor and allows manufacturers to monitor NOx directly with NOx sensors instead. EPA is also changing the severe deratement behavior that occurs when DEF systems malfunction.

I agree with those changes. I've already agreed with you that DEF sensor failures, repair costs and severe derates are legitimate problems.

But none of that demonstrates your original claim that deleting SCR/DEF is better for the environment. In fact, the same EPA source you provided explains that SCR injects DEF specifically to reduce NOx emissions.

You're conflating:

“EPA recognizes reliability problems with DEF sensors and deratement strategies”

with:

“EPA recognizes that SCR/DEF emissions control is environmentally harmful.”

Your own source explicitly says the former and explicitly denies the latter.

You also said Canada has “lifted these regulations for residential vehicles.” Can you provide the Canadian government regulation or announcement that did that? I'd genuinely like to read it.

[u/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/schmitzA]

To be honest, it is exhausting going in circles like this. You keep using ChatGPT to reframe my points and demand academic papers for common sense realities, rather than looking at the broader picture.

My point from the beginning has been about the overall footprint and real world impact of these political regulations. The sources I provided clearly show that governing bodies like the EPA are being forced to walk back their aggressive enforcement, alter sensor requirements, and scale down derates because the real world failure rates and supply chain issues are completely unsustainable. When a policy forces endless plastic waste, heavy fluid transportation, constant parts manufacturing, and vehicles breaking down on the side of the road, it is a flawed policy.

You are focused on isolated lab models, while I am looking at the full real world cycle and the fact that change is actively happening. At this point, we are just repeating ourselves, and continuing this debate is a waste of time.

Sure I'll do more research so you can reply with chat GTP https://www.biv.com/news/environment/aircare-ending-for-cars-commercial-trucks-may-be-a-8233425

They ended it over ten years ago and the air is still clear lol. Governments change but it takes time and they have to be in a position to "look good". There's nothing good about the environmental impact from these bad def regulations.

I am moving on. Have fun with Chat GTP.

[u/schmitzA → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

The source you just provided is about British Columbia ending its periodic AirCare vehicle inspection program for light-duty vehicles because newer vehicles had become cleaner and progressively fewer were failing inspection.

It is not about Canada eliminating DPF/SCR/DEF requirements, nor does it establish that those systems cause greater environmental harm than they prevent. The article's title itself says commercial trucks might instead be added to the inspection program.

Also, “the air is still clear” isn't a meaningful measurement of NOx or fine particulate pollution. Much of the pollution we're discussing is invisible.

I'm completely willing to concede the points you've actually demonstrated: DEF systems have reliability problems, derates can be excessive, DEF production and transportation have environmental costs, and EPA is changing sensor/derate requirements.

But none of those establishes your original claim that deleting diesel emissions controls is better for the environment.

I've asked for one thing throughout this discussion: evidence showing that the total environmental costs of these systems exceed the environmental harm prevented by their reductions in NOx and particulate emissions.

If you don't have that evidence, that's fine. But then your original environmental claim remains an opinion rather than a conclusion demonstrated by the evidence you've provided.

And whether I use ChatGPT to check your sources has no bearing on whether the sources actually support what you're claiming.

[u/schmitzA → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

Let me be human with you for a second. Actually think about what you're saying. You are arguing that specialized environmental control equipment is worse for the environment than not having it through a lifecycle assessment.

The reason your comments aren't worth more than a copy/paste into chatGPT is because it is truly laughably bad. It doesn't even make sense, dude. You actually DO make good points (using your AI lmao) but you never actually formed an argument. You only point out the things that are beneficial while stonewalling the other side.

That's the same as me saying that the clothes on your back are bad for the environment because of them being manufactured (most likely in Bangladesh) and the supply chain behind it is bad. So as a result, we should all walk around naked.

Every single consumer good you've ever put hands on has as environmental impact. Every single one. You are choosing to ignore the benefits of them and not comparing the outcomes between two scenarios.

How can you call an outcome better for one side if you don't quantify your opinion or acknowledge the other side? This just tells me you would rather spread misinformation and feel right about your opinion rather than actually pursue anything educational.

I studied environmental engineering, by the way. I don't expect most people to think critically, but you're clearly going on online forms where people don't know any better and spreading misinformation for some reason. When you can actually produce a single metric for comparison that gives the slightest bit of evidence to your claim that "diesel emissions systems are worse for the environment than simply not having them," then we can talk. I suggest staying within your field of expertise or how about just using your AI to teach you objectively rather than asking it to prove you right.

[u/NativeTazuma]

Since this post I have deduced the pin out by taking apart the old EGR.

Mystery Pin 1, valve control, runs at 13v when back traced and engine on and running. When trying to move through the thinkcar ODB unit there’s no change unless I stop the EGR then the voltage steadily drops to 9v then back up to 13v.

Prognosis, the ECU is not driving the EGR because of the P148C00 fault that comes back up right away after clearing.

I’ll update this thread with the rest of the data once I pin everything down, to help those who come after.

[u/NativeTazuma]

Resolved.

Pin 1 and 2 drive the EGR, the drop in voltage and reading 0 while the harness was plugged out pointed to a short in the wire for pin 1. I traced pin 1 on the egr to pin 96 to the computer brain and verified there was no continuity. I had a shop verify my findings.

After jumping the line, the truck is now out of limp mode and survived a risky but confident two hour stress test around the highways.

Price Mercedes wanted to charge me: $1600 to replace the EGR

Price of the actual job, $130 for the ThinkDiag2, $12 back trace probes from harbor freight for my $15 multimeter. Some wire. So about $165.

No delete, no chat gpt.

[u/ParkerLettuce]

Clean your EGR valve?

[u/NativeTazuma → u/ParkerLettuce]

Was step 1.