EGR Discussion

[Aaron G]

I did a search and found nothing on the subject, I don't know if it's a touchy thing to bring up. But I was watching this video here:

From a guy who seems to know his stuff. There seems to be this reoccuring bit of wisdom that the EGR directs soot back into the combustion chamber, and it forms a grinding compund within the chamber that increases engine wear.

Elsewhare they mention that EGR valves on diesels aid cooling the engine when it starts up. So maybe not a good idead to mess about with anything on the IS220 related to engine cooling because of the reputation it has for gasket failure.

So if I'm asking for a friend: does anyone know anyone else that has just blanked them off? Does it trip an engine fault light? If I convinced this friend to buy an IS220 and told him to blank it off, could he get away with that without deleting it from the ECU?. Will the engine become too stressed if the BHP raises above 177bhp? Assuming you get another 20Bhp there, you've now got and engine that is very close to 100bhp per litre.

I know there's the whole saving the planet discussion. I think the guy in the video raises some interesting points about that. 

Thanks in advance.

-On behalf of my friend.

[Malc]

the Ls400 Jap imports never began life with the EGR pipe ...  seems to have been a UK or euro requirement I guess

Malc

[Aaron G]

@Malc Good on you for having that car. It was my first choice before the IS220 which I ended up getting as a means to an end. I might still get a LS400/Celsior import by the end of this year.

I'm gonna maintain this car as best as I can, but I think it's more of an uphill battle.

[johnatg]

Why would you recommend anyone to buy a Lexus diesel? He could buy a IS250 and have a far more satisfactory experience.

It's not just egr problems - there are several other potential problems with any Lexus /Toyota diesel - head gasket, dpf and so on. There's little or no fuel consumption cost advantage, then there's the potential problem of being barred from cities. 

[steve2006]

I own a 1994 JDM Celsior and as Malc mentions there is no EGR system fitted as there is no requirement in Japan and performance is the same (well apparently 1 BHP better).

No broken EGR concertina pipes to worry about.

 

[Mr Vlad]

My only experience of 'deleting ' the egr was with a MG ZT Diesel I had some years ago. For that car there were custom made egr blanks. Basically the egr was replaced with a body that looked like an egr but it blocked what it did. I took the inlet off that car and its inners were filthy and I mean FILTHY. After cleaning it out I ran that car for 7 years and it ran like a kitten. It also had the RonBox which boosted power some 20 odd bhp. No issues what so ever with that egr blank. Oh the engine was from bmw but Rover made it better. 

[Aaron G]

So I'm leaning towards advising my mate to just maintain the car as much as possible. Apparently it's illegal but if it was done could still pass emissions on the MOT because the 2006 was under Euro IV emission standards. But it seems the EGR also responsible for keeping the engine cool and afaik hot engines lead to gasket failure. I found another thread on the forum regarding a lady who had this model and suffered that, and a member said the official repsonse from Lexus was gasket failure results from carbon buildup in the combustion chamber. 🤬 (If it isn't one thing...).

I've contacted Lexus regarding this just to hear it from the horse's mouth. On the plus side, unless I'm reading this wrong the 2006 model doesn't have a conventional  DPF. This is the quote from Wikipedia:

• 2006–2010 First Generation Lexus IS 220d^[20]
• 2005–2009 Second Generation Toyota Avensis 2.2 (D-4D)^[3][1]
• 2006–2009 Third Generation Toyota RAV4 D-CAT 130 kW (177 PS; 174 hp)^[15]
• 2007–2009 Second Generation Toyota Auris 2.2 D-CAT 130 kW (177 PS; 174 hp)^[4]
• 2005–2009 Third Generation Toyota Corolla Verso MC2 D4D ^[5]

The AD series engines would get refreshed to meet Euro V emissions with an upgraded fuel injection system, lower compression and addition of a DPF system collectively called by Toyota as Toyota Optimal Drive .

The Euro V version had this:

• Exhaust gas treatment: EGR, equipped with cooler and 4-way DPNR Catalyst and Exhaust Port Injection
• Emission standard: Euro IV

I researched it here: https://www.toyota-club.net/files/2004/04-04-10_rem_dpnr.htm

So it stands to reason that the 2006 first generation hadn't been "refreshed". Or have I just read it wrong and DPNR is a catalytic converter worse than a conventional DPF?.🤣

[Linas.P]

15 hours ago, pope111 said:

Best option is just to remove DPF and close EGR. No problems in emisson test euro 4.

Non-sense. Best option is not to drive DERV vehicle which is fundamentally dirty. And removing the emissions equipment is not only illegal, but as well immoral. Sure your engine will be better off and you get better MPG, but that is at cost of simply allowing pollution to leave your car untreated.  

@Aaron G - it is great video, although I don't think people made right conclusion out of it. Yes all emissions control systems hurts the performance and efficiency of the diesel engine, but it is not because they are bad, it is because diesel engine is fundamentally bad. 

As clearly explained in the video, it is normal for "well running" diesel engine to emit high amounts of NOx and some DPM/Soot, neither are good for health so it just makes sense that something has to be done with this pollution... hence EGR was introduced. Is EGR good solution? No absolutely because we talking about the engine which is fundamentally bad and we trying to fix the symptoms and not the issue. 

The solution is not to remove the overcomplicated mess of emissions equipment, but not to buy DERV car in the first place.

[Linas.P]

Yes you recommending people doing illegal and immoral thing, I am sure the next thing you will recommend will be not to bother with disposing used tyres and oil, just throw them into the bushes and to the hell with all this environment thing. 

The only thing I am glad about, that at leas in UK such people like you can't go far as goverment finally started checking this in MOT. What is sad is that goverment still has not came-up with effective process of prosecuting people who actually performs such changes. And apart of failing MOT there are no other consequence... fail MOT, reinstall DPF and off you go. Would be far more interesting to have such cars confiscated and crushed. 

[NemesisUK]

28 minutes ago, pope111 said:

The fact that after removal car passes emission test with no issues shows that there is nothing illegal and immoral about it 😄

It's not the pass/fail on emissions that makes the removal of the EGR illegal but the fact one has modified part of the emission control on the engine.

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, pope111 said:

The fact that after removal car passes emission test with no issues shows that there is nothing illegal and immoral about it 😄

That is obvious 💩 - new rules clearly states that car will fail MOT if any of emission control systems are removed, regardless if it passes the emissions test or not. So it is removal of DPF and EGR itself that are illegal already.  Secondly, what you saying could not be further from a "fact" and I am sure you have no evidence to prove, so basically you are just troll talking 💩.

When it comes to moral side of thing - knowingly polluting the air and blowing your 💩 into other people is clearly immoral, even if you can purchase MOT certificate from equally 💩 garage.

Finally, passing MOT does not mean your car is road worthy, it literally says that on your MOT certificate. And not having DPF/EGR automatically makes your car not road worthy and thus illegal to drive. So stop spreading lies.

[johnatg]

For once I agree completely with Linas. Emission tests on diesels prove nothing. Presence and correct operation of all emissions equipment is key. 

[Aaron G]

@pope111That's sound advice. If I/my friend was to remove the EGR valve, I'd likely do it later this year. I'm weighing up the soot lining the combustion chamber and causing wear vs the exhaust fumes displacing/altering the ratio of air in the combustion chamber (less air) to make it run cooler.

If I had to make an ***** out of you and me (or just anyone with an IS220D) I'd say blanking he EGR might be what's contributing to the gasket failures. Lexus UK got back to me and said there was no record of the 2AD-FHV engine having that issue. Carbon buildup and oil burning was the issue quoted. 🙄

I'll just convince my mate do do it first. I'm sure that when he's standing before the pearly gates and St Christopher brings out the logbook of all the immoral things he's done, it'll be counter-balanced by all the good. Or maybe he'll just get sent straight to hell with his crushed up IS220D and be forced to breath the exhaust pipe forevermore...

 

[Linas.P]

If we talking about questionable mods (like EGR removal), I wonder if it wouldn't better to go all the way: 😁

 

[Shahpor]

14 hours ago, Aaron G said:

@pope111That's sound advice. If I/my friend was to remove the EGR valve, I'd likely do it later this year. I'm weighing up the soot lining the combustion chamber and causing wear vs the exhaust fumes displacing/altering the ratio of air in the combustion chamber (less air) to make it run cooler.

If I had to make an ***** out of you and me (or just anyone with an IS220D) I'd say blanking he EGR might be what's contributing to the gasket failures. Lexus UK got back to me and said there was no record of the 2AD-FHV engine having that issue. Carbon buildup and oil burning was the issue quoted. 🙄

I'll just convince my mate do do it first. I'm sure that when he's standing before the pearly gates and St Christopher brings out the logbook of all the immoral things he's done, it'll be counter-balanced by all the good. Or maybe he'll just get sent straight to hell with his crushed up IS220D and be forced to breath the exhaust pipe forevermore...

 

Whether it is you or 'your friend' removing the EGR valve it is not a good idea.  Yes, it will throw up errors on the ECU and the car will go into Limp Home mode.  More importantly, it is not a good idea because of the reasons already given on here, namely environmental and morally.  As a former IS220d owner (which I was quite happy with) this is not something I would have contemplated.  I had no issues with the car from the EGR or DPF perspective during my ownership because of appropriate driving habits and simple preventative maintenance.

As for carbon build up, that is something that has been plaguing direct injection cars (both petrol and diesel) for quite some time now as well, so you just have to deal with it as a part of car ownership.

11 hours ago, pope111 said:

this dude is like the main reason why this forum sucks. single handed ruined it.  🤣

As far as I am concerned, with an attitude like that, he is far more welcome on this forum than you are..

[Aaron G]

I'd prefer not to get into the discussion about the "morality" of car choice and climate change. Normally people get totally off topic and the moderators just close the thread.

If there's a general discussion part of the forum, might be interesting to discuss it there. Take this for example: https://stemorris.wordpress.com/2017/07/28/sadiq-khans-40000-pollution-deaths-a-year-is-a-zombie-statistic-and-isnt-true-says-respiratory-physician/

I think Toyota/Lexus are one of the few (only) car manufacturers who don't go all-in on planned obsolescence, but with EU emission control they were given no choice. The EGR puts soot back into the combustion chamber, the cylinders grind, oil comes up and gets burnt, engines wear out faster.

What I ask myself is where does a genuine interest in saving the planet & people's health start, and where does the need for profit end?. I come from a working class family - if you gave them a truck/van and a car that laster 50 years, or over 1m miles, and told them it was going to cost them 2 days of their life, most working class families would take that deal. Knowing there would be more money to leave their kids when they die.

Compare that to the cost of running electric cars, or hybrids and all that. Gasoline cars are an alternative, but the government is coming for them too. I couldn't take the risk of buying a gasoline car because of the introduction of 10% ethanol into regular petrol, and 5% in premium.

Seems evey time the morality/goal of saving the planet comes up, it involves wealth transfer. Makes me a bit suspicious. 🤔 But I'll leave it at that.

[Linas.P]

Having no money is sadly no excuse for pollution, but I agree that the more you earn the more you appreciate the environmental problems - that is o various psychological theories like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If one can barely support their family, then they won't be overthinking about environmental problems - I appreciate that, but it is still poor excuse. 

If you really wanted car which will run 50 yeas then you shouldn't have gotten IS220d, just no the car. IS250 is far better choice, but the best choice would have been GS300. IS220d has fundamentally flawed and unreliable engine even as far as diesel engines go, it is not fault of just EGR, or just something else - it is unreliable engine.

When it comes to diesel cars it is compromise as it always is... they are great for log journeys and they should never be run for short trips. If you stick with long journeys then maintenance will be acceptable. The next thing is that yes you will save money on fuel by having diesel, but you need to factor in that you will have to do more maintenance. What people tend to do - they are happy about the savings they made, but when they need to start spending money on maintenance they always trying to cut corners... that is how we end-up with every other diesel car leaving thick black soot behind them.   

EGR problem is exactly the same - you want to save money on fuel, sadly you will have to remove soot from EGR often, especially if you run your car locally (which you should never do with diesel). This engine simply can't run reliably without polluting. Would removing EGR make it more reliable... yes... at the cost of blowing NOx onto the streets. But most importantly it does not mean that car will be reliable. EGR is just one of many issues with IS220d.

So good try, but that makes no difference - don't buy diesel car if you not planning to maintain it properly. 

[Aaron G]

You're ignoring my points and trying to draw me into the a climate change discussion. The UK governement specifically said (as did the RAC and the AA) that the IS250 will corrode under use of ethanol petrol. They may have been right or wrong.

You don't know that I'm not going to maintain my car properly.

I did not state that I wanted the IS220D to run for 50 years.

You totally ignored the the link to the professional opinion of the respiratory physician that stated that even in the most polluting areas of cities we're not killing off 40,000 people a year. Because obviously "the science is settled" and people like this guy (putting their jobs on the line) stating that "it's illegal because we made it illegal" and "it's mostly effecting people with respiratory illnesses" must be conspiracy thoerists or in the minority right?.

Been down this discussion before, not doing it again. Take 'Maslow's Heirachy' of needs and replace it with 'Eric Bernie's Transactional Analysis' or Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning'.

Pointless either way. People who consider themsleves adults talking to children, or attitudes & behaviours vs cognitive reason and logic.

[Linas.P]

I have ran IS250 for 200k miles, I have ran it on 85% ethanol, 50% ethanol, 25% ethanol... no issues whatsoever. They indeed may be wrong or may be right as far as I am concerned engine is completely fine with ethanol, just don't leave it sitting in the tank for long periods of time. Still this in no way justifies having IS220d and removing emissions equipment. You could literally get any other car, it is not like there were only 2 choices IS250 with ethanol issues or IS220d which is just one big mistake. 

You already stated that you will remove EGR... so that isn't proper maintenance. You can't just remove thing you don't want to maintain for some reason. It is like saying "when my rear brake pads going to get worn out, I will cut and plug rear brake lines, but that does not mean I don't maintain the car".

No... you said that you or people with your background would take the car which would run for 50 years with minimal maintenance. I just told you - that car is GS300... it is literally indestructible. But you want to take immediate saving in fuel economy over long term saving in reliability - that is what IS220d represents.

The link you provided is not "professional" opinion - so by definition not a proven fact. 40k dying a year that is misunderstood example. It does not mean 40k people actually dies, it means that annual reduction of lifetime is equivalent to that of 40k people lives. By the way I don't agree with that either. In fact nobody have proven link between NOx and premature death or what effect it has to shorten the life, nor anyone have proved it doesn't. 40k is derived by comparing life expectancy in the city with high concentration of NOx compared to some other place with low NOx, but they failed to consider that maybe there is more than just NOx which reduces life expectantly I don't know maybe healthy diet or exercise.. So it is just speculation from both sides, but I rather believe 90% of scientist consensus on that, than some proclaimed physician who has worldpress blog page. I can make same page in 5 minutes and claim anything I like, but that doesn't make it fact.