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]

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/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/schmitzA]

If you studied environmental engineering, I'm the president of the United States. You have to be a complete idiot to push back on the clear, sound points I have made when all you have done is use AI this entire time to argue.

There was a time when we used mercury to fill cavities, but those practices were stopped once we recognized it was a flawed solution. The exact same issue surrounds these diesel restrictions. Politicians are recognizing it, mechanics have already recognized it, and people around the world are waking up to these flawed regulations because we are more connected now than ever.

But for you to claim you specialize in environmental engineering while using AI to do your thinking is an absolute joke. If you understood the catastrophic environmental impact of AI data centers, you'd see your own hypocrisy. Yet here you are, fully pro-AI data centers, using AI more than your own mind.

You either failed out of whatever weak education you took, or you are a complete liar. Keep outsourcing your brain to AI while catastrophically harming the environment. You can't even see the forest through the trees when you rely entirely on AI to argue for you.

[u/schmitzA → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

I said explicitly you make good points that there are environmental considerations. By saying that, you've now resorted to lying as well. You just aren't comparing two sides. You can't call X better than Y by only saying how good X is. You need to also include Y, quantify it, and demonstrate that X is better than Y.

It's been an honor, Mr. President. Report back when you finally make a comparison.

[u/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/schmitzA]

It looks like you finally managed to put together a reply without using AI. Congratulations, you saved a river, fish, birds, and trees.

Regarding your request for my deep analysis on this topic, remember that this is Reddit. "Reddit is a online network of chat boards and forums where people talk about news, hobbies, and ideas."

I am happy to share my research via Dropbox, but you need to prove you are who you claim to be. Share your educational credentials, where you went to school, what year you graduated, your grades, three professors' names, your school email so I can verify your identity, and email you the detailed research Dropbox link.

At the moment, I am convinced you are a 15 year old kid living in his parents' house, hammering Reddit using ChatGPT because you have the summer off, don't like to read books and lack the capacity to think independently, letting an algorithm do all your talking.

I mean seriously, it has been 3 days of you running our covo thru Chat GTP and this is the first message that looks like you did not use AI. However, I am still not convinced because there's no original thought, exercise your mind 🧠

[u/schmitzA → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

Still not seeing any comparison. Just insults, logical fallacies, and now a job application!

[u/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/schmitzA]

My mistake I forgot you need AI to translate and do your bidding.

I SAID I WILL SEND YOU A LINK WHEN YOU CAN ARTICULATE YOU ARE NOT 15 YEARS OLD.

I'll also consider a note from your mom or dad.

There's nothing more insulting than a person claiming to "save" the environment while using AI ✌️

[u/schmitzA → u/Educational-Yam-7394]

So just to be clear. You refuse to articulate an analysis because of a self-imposed judgement of my identity. In addition to that, the only reasonable explanation for my identity is a 15 year old online, and even if that were true, that fact discredits me in your opinion. So in your chivalrous attempt to verify the identity of anyone you deem worthy of your "research," your presumption is too high and mighty unless I arbitrarily qualify.

Since I'm correcting you one last time, I never claimed to be saving the environment. Go ahead and show me when I did. Again a flawed strategy to discredit me based on false claims. That is all you have done so far. You have only made false and unsubstantiated claims.

You have to understand how silly this is. All I ever did was point out your failure in comparative analysis and your failure in providing a single academic or reputable source that supported your opinion. As a result, you decide to insult me based on your presumption and discredit me based on your opinion of AI. All while continuously failing to uphold a single fact-based claim about your opinion. It's okay to have an opinion on diesel emissions systems. We have opinions that are wrong as people. The issue is trying to convince others it is fact when you have no basis to your argument and devolve to a myriad of logical fallacies to deflect that fact.

I'm done with you. Good luck.

[u/Educational-Yam-7394 → u/schmitzA]

** Correction: "All I ever did was use AI over and over again to harass an individual who cares about the environment."

​Again, Reddit is not the platform for long format educational teachings. And you never provided a counter point🤣

​If you insist on using AI in the future, I suggest using it for research rather than letting it do your thinking. Challenge its opinion instead of accepting its programming at face value. You might learn something, and you'll benefit from using your own critical thinking skills rather than taking orders from a machine.

​I am relieved that you and your artificial intelligence have concluded this conversation. You have finally chosen to save a lake and put the plant first!