Green diesel any one?

WestyTat

Member
Is there a Westy owner ,who splurged on GDE package?
There is a much lengthy discussion under T1N forum.
And knowing that reviews can be biased based on that GDE offers $100 discount for write-up how wonderful they are... Just need an opinion/ experience share.
Having trouble with EGR and hence O2 sensor spewing up codes.
Thanks.
T.
 

smiller

2008 View J (2007 NCV3 3500)
And knowing that reviews can be biased based on that GDE offers $100 discount for write-up how wonderful they are.
They offer a $100 discount if the buyer writes a review, it doesn't necessarily have to be a positive one. I've never heard of anyone stating that they were refused a discount based on a critical review.
 

Pnwsquid

New member
Myself and Waasabi both have the tune.

I personally wouldn't spend the money on it for any reason other than EGR/SKREEM delete.

From my experience, there is very little noticeable difference in performance or efficiency.

That said, I was having random "Start Error" problems, a SKREEM module issue that could leave me stranded, and this 100% cleared that up.
 

discus

GA Westy
I've got it. I do see a 2mpg difference with scangauge when I initially tested it on the same runs. I think the timing of the upshifts are better too. I even flashed it back to stock for a week to see if I would miss it and I ended up putting it back.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

WestyTat

Member
Thank you all for feedback. It's still a bit priefor me right now. Solar panels Installation is eating up the budget :-$
But will definitely consider GDE once solar is done.
 

OldWest

2004 T1N Westfalia
GDE Tune may possibly add or allow more engine issues. While not definitive but anecdotal, here's a post of some interesr. The poster had previously posted in this tbread re temps going to 235 when going uphill and that was okay according to Dr A. Engine blew at 45k miles or so. Autopsy showed problem with #3 piston. Another poster mentioned the GDE tune did lower engjne temps. Anyways, just addtl info to consider.

https://sprinter-source.com/forum/showpost.php?p=691799&postcount=63

https://sprinter-source.com/forum/showpost.php?p=647676&postcount=50

https://sprinter-source.com/forum/showpost.php?p=691932&postcount=68
 
Last edited:

smiller

2008 View J (2007 NCV3 3500)
GDE Tune may possibly add or allow more engine issues.
Anything is possible, however in the noted cases there is zero evidence that the GDE tune was involved in any way whatsoever and suggestions otherwise represent the very typical correlation/causation confusion found in these types of threads.

.
 
Last edited:

CaptnALinTiverton

T1N Westfalia
I not only agree with illegal but as I have previously posted on such threads, although far from an expert, I strongly believe that back yard (or front yard) mechanics do not know more than the Germans engineers with years of knowledge in developing the program. Of course one may argue that corporate control was involved in meeting the emission standards. I saw lots of diesels in my travels who obviously bypassed their systems for performance gains; you can tell by how much black soot they blow out upon acceleration. For those who say that doesn't matter, we all, including your children/grand children if any, are breathing that in each time they show how masculine their right foot is. I don't mean this to be political, just factual.

AL
 

boyscout

New member
I not only agree with illegal but as I have previously posted on such threads, although far from an expert, I strongly believe that back yard (or front yard) mechanics do not know more than the Germans engineers with years of knowledge in developing the program. Of course one may argue that corporate control was involved in meeting the emission standards. I saw lots of diesels in my travels who obviously bypassed their systems for performance gains; you can tell by how much black soot they blow out upon acceleration. For those who say that doesn't matter, we all, including your children/grand children if any, are breathing that in each time they show how masculine their right foot is. I don't mean this to be political, just factual.

AL


So when individuals on this site bring home a brand new van and it has error codes related to the DEF system in 3500 miles how do defend these german engineers? The def system has had random unexplainable issues since its inception in 2011, and they (german engineers) still haven't fixed it.
Whats worse is trying to get any help from the american mechanics at the stealerships.

If you personally are against such mods then don't open topics that are clearly aimed at those who are.
I have a very masculine right foot!! Most of the rest of me is pretty whimpy.
 

avanti

2014 GWV Legend 3500 I4
So when individuals on this site bring home a brand new van and it has error codes related to the DEF system in 3500 miles how do defend these german engineers? The def system has had random unexplainable issues since its inception in 2011, and they (german engineers) still haven't fixed it.
Whats worse is trying to get any help from the american mechanics at the stealerships.

If you personally are against such mods then don't open topics that are clearly aimed at those who are.
I have a very masculine right foot!! Most of the rest of me is pretty whimpy.
I completely agree that these emissions systems are total crap. Your ethical options are to (a) live with it; or (b) stop buying them. I personally opt for "b". But, what is NOT an ethical option is breaking the law. It is not a matter of being "for or against such mods". It is a matter of being a responsible citizen and expecting others to do the same.

As for the purposes of this thread, it is true that few minds will be changed. The reason for responsible people to post in such threads is that many unsophisticated readers do not realize that they are talking about criminal activity. Most websites do not even allow material that advocates illegal commerce. So, when folks read this stuff there is a tendency to falsely conclude that it is OK. It is important to set the record straight in order to prevent such people from drawing incorrect conclusions. Some people don't care if they are breaking the law, but the vast majority do.

P.S. -- I assume your user name is intended as irony.:thinking:
 

boyscout

New member
Well if we want to take the ethics approach... we can go there!!!
I am assuming being of such high ethics that you are aware of and obey all laws of God, man, and nature??? That would be impossible so lets just leave that alone, even though that is the stance you are taking...Impossible.

If we want to go the environmentally responsible approach... then the best way to do such would be to make the vehicle that you are driving last as long as you possibly can. The manufacturing of a vehicle has a larger environmental impact than driving them. Especially if it is an internal combustion engine. Don't get me started on those who foolishly believe anything that is battery operated is GREEN. That one is truly the wool being pulled over the sheep eyes.
 

HarryN

Active member
As a practical matter, emission regulations are attempting to achieve a balance to reduce local pollution effects. Some of these have nothing at all to do with the optimal operation / pollution emission of the vehicle, instead they are using the vehicle sub optimally to offset another pollution source.

A good example is the Los Angeles basin and the AQMD's approach to managing it.

The largest (non forest fire) sources of particulate are:
- cargo ships
- Pollution blowing in from China (no I am not kidding)
- cement factories
- port operations (trucks idling because the port logistics are mediocre)

Much further down the list:
- light trucks and cars
- fire places Thanksgiving and Christmas

Since the AQMD cannot do anything about pollution blowing in from China, that is just counted as "background" / natural.

Cargo ships are largely given a pass because the shipping industry has great lobbying power and for other reasons that defy logic. (perhaps political ?)

Cement factories are under pressure, but are fairly far inland, so they don't affect the coastal areas.

This means that the entire burden is being carried by light trucks, cars and fireplaces.
 

OrioN

2008 2500 170" EXT
As a practical matter, emission regulations are attempting to achieve a balance to reduce local pollution effects. Some of these have nothing at all to do with the optimal operation / pollution emission of the vehicle, instead they are using the vehicle sub optimally to offset another pollution source.

A good example is the Los Angeles basin and the AQMD's approach to managing it.

The largest (non forest fire) sources of particulate are:
- cargo ships
- Pollution blowing in from China (no I am not kidding)
- cement factories
- port operations (trucks idling because the port logistics are mediocre)

Much further down the list:
- light trucks and cars
- fire places Thanksgiving and Christmas

Since the AQMD cannot do anything about pollution blowing in from China, that is just counted as "background" / natural.

Cargo ships are largely given a pass because the shipping industry has great lobbying power and for other reasons that defy logic. (perhaps political ?)

Cement factories are under pressure, but are fairly far inland, so they don't affect the coastal areas.

This means that the entire burden is being carried by light trucks, cars and fireplaces.
My vote is for electric cargo ships!! :thumbup:
 

HarryN

Active member
The "fire place" solution is that in CA, they ban using your fireplace every Thanksgiving and Christmas because of high local pollution, but of course continue port operations and cargo ships coming in.

Vehicles are loaded down with overly burdensome equipment to make up for the cargo ship / fresh air coming in from China.

The nature of the "forced implementation" is also - questionable.

The more correct way to reduce particulate and improve efficiency is to raise the engine burn temperatures. If the temperatures were raised, the need for particulate filters would decrease dramatically.

The downside is that this also substantially increases NOx, so in order to meet that standard, quite a bit of DEF would be required. In between these "factory" vs "tuned" conditions are places where the emissions are only very slightly out of spec, but not allowed due to some politicians view of life.

It doesn't surprise me at all that a different operating condition could be found that performs better. It might even be a tuning that MB uses in slightly less stringent locations of the world.

With the forest fires we have been having, perhaps we should try to use better fire control / faster fire extinguishing as a pollution control method since they over whelmed all EPA regulated reductions this year anyway.
 
Last edited:

HarryN

Active member
My vote is for electric cargo ships!! :thumbup:
That is one way, although I don't know how to do that from a technical perspective other than nuclear.

Other methods are to avoid using heavy fuel oil (essentially road tar) or on engines in that size category, scrubbers can accomplish a lot.

A cargo ship is essentially a floating power plant in terms of the MWs involved to operate them.

Personally I think the most effective way to reduce cargo ship pollution is to build products more locally.

Sorry for going to far off in a tangent, but any way that is why I don't feel the least pang of ill will toward people who tune their engines.
 
Last edited:

avanti

2014 GWV Legend 3500 I4
Same tired old BS.

Well if we want to take the ethics approach... we can go there!!!
I am assuming being of such high ethics that you are aware of and obey all laws of God, man, and nature??? That would be impossible so lets just leave that alone, even though that is the stance you are taking...Impossible.
So, the fact that nobody is perfect excuses deliberate lawbreaking. Sigh...
I wish they would teach introductory ethics in high school.
If we want to go the environmentally responsible approach... then the best way to do such would be to make the vehicle that you are driving last as long as you possibly can. The manufacturing of a vehicle has a larger environmental impact than driving them. Especially if it is an internal combustion engine. Don't get me started on those who foolishly believe anything that is battery operated is GREEN. That one is truly the wool being pulled over the sheep eyes.
This is a "just so" statement provided without evidence (and please don't rush out and do a Google search. I fully realize that you can find support for any old nonsense if you aren't fussy about sources). Choosing to believe any vaguely-plausible assertion that you find convenient will let you justify literally anything. Obtaining and interpreting actual facts is a lot harder. That is why we have government agencies that develop regulations and draft laws. Yes, I know--you think they are all incompetent. Fine, vote them out. But most people believe you should follow the law in the meantime.

If you want to be a scofflaw, I am not going to change your mind, and, I am not trying to. As I said, my posts are addressed to the ignorant, not the irresponsible. But consider having the self-respect to admit what you are doing, rather than making specious, pseudo-scientific, self-serving claims.
 

OrioN

2008 2500 170" EXT
That is one way, although I don't know how to do that from a technical perspective other than nuclear.

Other methods are to avoid using heavy fuel oil (essentially road tar) or on engines in that size category, scrubbers can accomplish a lot.

A cargo ship is essentially a floating power plant in terms of the MWs involved to operate them.

Personally I think the most effective way to reduce cargo ship pollution is to build products more locally.

Sorry for going to far off in a tangent, but any way that is why I don't feel the least pang of ill will toward people who tune their engines.
Are folks ready to spend 10X more for their x-mas lighting?
 

autostaretx

Erratic Member
Russia still does have one (ex-Soviet) nuclear-powered cargo ship ... it appeared in a recent photo which woke me up to its existence. It was off their Arctic coast.

Quoting Wikipedia:
Nuclear-powered, civil merchant ships have not developed beyond a few experimental ships. The US-built NS Savannah, completed in 1962, was primarily a demonstration of civil nuclear power and was too small and expensive to operate economically as a merchant ship. The design was too much of a compromise, being neither an efficient freighter nor a viable passenger liner. The German-built Otto Hahn, a cargo ship and research facility, sailed some 650,000 nautical miles (1,200,000 km) on 126 voyages over 10 years without any technical problems.[citation needed] However, it proved too expensive to operate and was converted to diesel. The Japanese Mutsu was dogged by technical and political problems. Its reactor had significant radiation leakage and fishermen protested against the vessel's operation. All of these three ships used low-enriched uranium. Sevmorput, a Soviet and later Russian LASH carrier with icebreaking capability, has operated successfully on the Northern Sea Route since it was commissioned in 1988. As of 2012, it is the only nuclear-powered merchant ship in service.

Russia also has nuclear-powered ice breakers.

--dick (who remembers the Savannah, photo here: https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/ )
Much more info: http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx
 
Last edited:

Top Bottom