I've never heard of anyone on any forum blowing up as a direct result of a disabled egr system. The L series boys have been disabling theirs for years too and previously mentioned, Landrover TD5 egr bypasses have been in use for years.

As for turbos that do fail, these tend to be VNT types which do not have a wastegate to control & protect from excessive boost pressure. So my theory is that its surge / overboost spikes combined with poor servicing, and possibly deficiences in the oil supply that kills them.
(One particular Garret one used on the Freelander Td4, Renault DCi and some BMW's, a GT1749 I think, seems to be prone to failing, so maybe its just a troublesome model)

Ron

Ron, Sorry poor choice of words there.

What I meant by that was, whatever is happening to the other makes of cars shouldn't really concern us as 75/ZT owners.

I don't think that the EGR is responsible for these problems. I totally agree with you that there is more likely to be a flaw in the design, in the maintenance, servicing schedule or a combined effect that is causing them.

Russ

Sorry ColinW I have picked you up on this once already in a previous post but it looks like I was too subtle. Stop being rude to people. Your point of view is valid and welcome, as are those of us who have the egr bypass. Yes, we are enthusiasts, you might have thought of a title which you would prefer to use - you have made your opinion of us very clear already.....but it is just an opinion....Arrogance does not come into it, the fact that we are not conforming to your view of the world is one of the things that makes the world a better place..... we are free to disagree.....but we do not need to be insulting about it. :)

I am so pleased that it isn't just me who thinks this is the case.

I also tried to make that point earlier in the thread in a restrained manner but was completely ignored.

Well, I will say here, for the record, and in less subtle terms, that I agree wholeheartedly with you Zeb.

The thread does not benefit from such rudeness and it seems to me that the arrogance is being displayed by ColinW and nobody else.

I think the question is how many M47R engines have blown up at all regardless of the state of tune. The answer is not many at all - in fact does anyone know to one?

ANY engine can blow up regardless of being standard or not. It does appear however that these engines are in general very strong.

It all has to be put into perspective and the fact is that ANY tuning can increase the risk of a failure BUT the risk appears to be VERY small. For the total transformation of how the car drives I for one am happy to take the risk.

To Zeb & Raistlin

My, you are sensitive souls. I can assure you if I really was trying to be rude, I probably would be banned from this forum.

However, I get very iritated - as much as you do- when factual reports such as posted by Rincewind, are looked at with a completly different perspective to the truth. By which I mean, it was viewed by one or two, as supporting the disconnection of the EGR and it wasn't till I persisted in getting Rincewind to explain this, that it was eventually cleared up. One member did have the guts to admit he got it wrong.

Another thing, I offered, what I thought was a concession, to put our thinking caps on, and perhaps come up with some form of halfway house, where the environmentalists, and the bypass brigade, can each have a bit of the cake. Virtualy no response.

How many read the contents of the link I put up.? One to my knowledge. If others had actually read it, then you would have seen that the alteration of injection timing, to 12 deg BDC, had a dramatic effect on emmisions. That's why I suggested that anybody into re-mapping might like to have a go. I know that's asking a bit much, but at least it should have sparked debate.

I've got some ideas which I am exploring. Which, if I can find time, I will try & implement. Not for any commercial gain, just out of interest.

So you see, when people criticise, without offering anything in return, and the only goal they seem to have, is power at any cost, is there any wonder I get frustrated.

Colin

On the contrary, we just happen to be two members who decided to voice what many other members think (going by my PM inbox).

In addition, neither of us chose to drop to your level, merely trying to point out that you were not doing justice to your cause.

Why not just assume that your argument stands upon it's own merits and avoid the rudeness and sarcasm?

Rincewind is immensely respected by everybody around here. Paying lipservice to his posts is certainly not something that the vast majority of forum members are guilty of.

However, the data you speak of is homologation data required by the DoT for type approval and determining taxation classes of a new vehicle. It is not part of the MOT test for diesels so it does not come into the consideration of somebody wishing to replace the EGR valve with a goal of increased performance/less smoke in mind.

The point of this thread is whether bypassing the EGR valve will damage our engines. If you want to start a separate one about whether it will damage the environment, you are very welcome to do so.

I get frustrated with something every day but as I said above, the discussion is about whether or not fitting an EGR bypass will damage our engines. If any forum member wishes to replace his EGR purely for power gains and couldn't give a damn about the environmental impact, that is his/her business and nobody elses.

Colin, Yes I did appologise for my mis-interpretation on the second set of figures.
If fact as Rinceweed said himself he could see why, and I quote:
"Or perhaps I should have said (without managing to confuzz myslef) we bypass the EGR system in a number of ways so that it doesn't work full stop."

But in no way does that alter or discredit the points that I was making.
That these modifications are there to increase the torque of the engine which can improve economy. (It's got very little, or nothing to do with going faster.) The effect of which can only be a reduction of the overall total emmisions.
Yes I agreed that the levels of NOx would rise, but the level of particulates would fall . Which is backed up in the first couple of paragraphs in the link you posted.

I agree that it is possible to design an engine and it's systems to reduce both types of emmision, but as a realistic proposition ( both economically and practically) for our cars, that would be unlikely.

I would try the modifications yourself as listed, then you could perhaps comment on the effect that these have from a point of personal experiance rather than one of theory.

You would get most of your money back if you re-sold them should you find that they didn't work or meet your requirements.


Russ

Nobody is paying lipservice to Rincewinds report. It stands on it's own merit. Also we are all aware that those tests having nothing to do with the MOT. They demonstrate what the EGR system is doing to remove NOXious gases. If you or anybody else wish to ignore it, then that's your perogative. It clearly suits your argument if it is ignored. But sure as eggs are eggs, it will come. So then what?

What's the point. The 'Bypass brigade' wouldn't take part. Even one of our own moderators voiced this quite clearly- he couldn't care a damn. That's a sad thing in itself, in as much that it seems to have clouded judgment to the point that nobody is even considering the possibility the're other ways.

If you yourself have sufficient engineering knowledge, as I'm sure you have, then is it not possible to enter into some meaningful discussion about how to achieve both our aims?

Colin