[delviacv2]

Hello, I have successfully Deleted my 2015 535d, I gutted the DPF and the SCR AND removed both EGR´s completely also removed the swirl flaps and DEF tank, cleaned my intake manifold and walnut blasted the cylinder head.
The Tuning was done by DUDMD.
I'm going to cover mostly the Removal of the EGR coolers and the coolant lines, since I couldn't fine any info online, the rest was gutting the DPF and SCR there is lots of info online, there is no need to remove the engine mount to replace the DPF unlike the 335d.

Took a lot of research but it went flawlessly, ordered 2 different EGR delete kits on eBay but they don't exactly fit a US car.
First I ordered this kit.
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?m...2F173729214904

This is what comes with the kit:



It looked good until I realized that there is not cover/plate for the intake manifold.



Also there is not plug for the cylinder head coolant port.

Then I ordered this kit.
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?m...2F183636957862



This kit does have the needed cover for the intake manifold pipe mention above also has the plug for the water pump port and the cylinder head port Kind of ***
So this cylinder head port cover is not perfect fit, the plug is very short, although I could of make it work using one of the longer machined plugs from the first kit I ordered but instead I used a hard plastic OEM plug that I seen online while browsing pictures of N57 Cylinder heads, I was a little worry because nothing holds this OEM plug in place other than the 2 -O rings, but it has been there for couple thousand miles now with no issues and it was $4.76
Part number 11-71-8-518-878
https://www.getbmwparts.com/oem-part...20-11718518878



So Now since I want it to remove both EGR's I need a different block off plate to go on the exhaust manifold, I contacted Sebastian Work shop the seller of the kit, and he had the block off plate built for me and that worked great! After that he post it for sale of eBay so now you can get it from him or have a machine shop make one for you.
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?m...2F183805112344



Now on to to the EGR Cooler hoses/lines:
There is 2 hoses that come off the big hose tree right off the water pump, a feed and a return, it goes to the small EGR cooler (Attached to the exhaust Manifold), from there it T off to engine block and it goes to the Urea Injector and back to the water pump tree



This is the coolant tree after I capped the 2 lines with this 2 OEM blind caps
17-12-8-515-062 $5.98
11-53-1-436-850 $5.93
It already had 2 caps in place, I removed the 2 hoses and added 2 new caps.


Now the Connection to the engine block:
This line needs to be removed and there is a OEM bolt and sealing washer that goes on its place, the block actually has threads for this already!
Water Plug: 07-11-9-904-539 $1.67
Sealing Washer: 07-11-9-963-225 $0.40
Have your bucket ready to collect coolant when you disconnect this hose



That take care of the coolant lines, it took a gallon of coolant to refill on my car.
All the vacuum lines can be disconnected and capped at the source(driver side by oil
deep stick)
DUDMD took care of the tuning, the car runs very strong and smooth, there is visible smoke at WOT but I'm ok with that, I left the DOC in place to help with the smell.
Here is all the parts that I removed






This is what it looks like, she's all stock

[rkstar9]

Very helpful post!!

Afraid to say I did also order the wrong egr delete kit, will have to contact the seller to return it and order the correct one.

Engine compartment looks pretty clean!

[delviacv2]

Originally Posted by rkstar9

Very helpful post!!

Afraid to say I did also order the wrong egr delete kit, will have to contact the seller to return it and order the correct one.

Engine compartment looks pretty clean!

Thank you!

[Joel_MD]

That looks like a terrific modification. I don't have any experience with BMW diesels, but had a 2007 Dodge Ram with the 6.7L Cummins. Removing the EGR and DPF systems was the best thing I ever did to it.

[delviacv2]

Originally Posted by Joel_MD

That looks like a terrific modification. I don't have any experience with BMW diesels, but had a 2007 Dodge Ram with the 6.7L Cummins. Removing the EGR and DPF systems was the best thing I ever did to it.

Same deal when I had my MB E320 CDI and VW Jetta TDI

[MrGreenPump]

How much of an improvement has the delete mod made? In terms of fuel economy, power, ambient noise...

[delviacv2]

Originally Posted by MrGreenPump

How much of an improvement has the delete mod made? In terms of fuel economy, power, ambient noise...

Power is amazing, the car is a pleasure to drive, noise did not change much, still quiet even without the muffler, I think is may have something to do with me leaving the DOC in place. But now there is some drone around 1900 RPMs, I bought a resonator to install but I haven't got a chance to install it.
Fuel economy did not change I suspect is better but due to the stage 3 transmission flash, now I only like to drive it in sport :

Untitled by Delvi acevedo

[TEF]

Isn't there a reason that one's diesel comes from the factory with things like EGR and DPF systems? Isn't it an attempt by manufacturers to produce diesels that pollute less and this extends even tractor trailer trucks. By the same logic, isn't it possible to remove all pollution devices from gasoline engines and yield gains is performance? Hence purpose-built track cars. But I am not sure what sort of world we'd have, if pollution controls were routinely removed from vehicles.

Despite popular opinion, sometimes we gain from government-mandated stuff. Take the CAFE rules that many opposed when enacted. The results have been more powerful engines that yield better fuel economy. If left alone, car manufacturers would have us driving some form of a '57 Chevy because that would maximize their profits.

[Pierre Louis]

The CAFE, safety, and pollution control regulations only created cleaner vehicles. The end result was to favor larger SUV's/CUV's, vehicles that gave people the desired room and were less severely regulated compared to sedans/coupés. This did not improve the average fuel economy of vehicles across the board nor has it recently improved air pollution (VW TDI NOx in "cheating" vehicles didn't really make a difference, especially when you consider how much more CO, CO2, HC, and small particulates favored-gasoline vehicles create).

[TEF]

So by that logic, we should rip off all of the pollution controls that come with one's vehicle. Not sure I agree. The air quality of many cities have improved over the years. However, this is offset, in part, with more vehicles on the road. Moreover, your example of cheating is just that. Manufacturers that participated were fined and have pulled products that violated the law. I'd hate to see what air quality would looked like, if no emission standards existed. If done on a personal level, why stop there? Wouldn't trucking companies with huge fleets benefit from better performance and fuel economy if they secretly removed pollution controls?

[johnhva]

Originally Posted by TEF

Wouldn't trucking companies with huge fleets benefit from better performance and fuel economy if they secretly removed pollution controls?

No secret: The current EPA Likes "@GliderTrucks".

https://www.popsci.com/glider-trucks...tion-loophole/

[Pierre Louis]

Originally Posted by johnhva

No secret: The current EPA Likes "@GliderTrucks".

https://www.popsci.com/glider-trucks...tion-loophole/

Any detail in these technological hit pieces that are called "journalism" so that the reader can gain perspective?

What are the actual levels of "soot" and what size particles? How do these compare to other vehicle "clean" tech? What kind of pollution do alternative means create?

It is my opinion that "black" smoke from diesels represents large particulates that have less of a chance reaching inside lungs and more chance of falling to the ground and then biodegraded. It is easily fixed with particulate filters, which can be required. Even gasoline vehicles are being fitted with these finally in Europe. None of the research that shoves a probe up an exhaust seems to care about this.

[johnhva]

Originally Posted by Pierre Louis

Any detail in these technological hit pieces that are called "journalism" so that the reader can gain perspective?

What are the actual levels of "soot" and what size particles? How do these compare to other vehicle "clean" tech? What kind of pollution do alternative means create?

It is my opinion that "black" smoke from diesels represents large particulates that have less of a chance reaching inside lungs and more chance of falling to the ground and then biodegraded. It is easily fixed with particulate filters, which can be required. Even gasoline vehicles are being fitted with these finally in Europe. None of the research that shoves a probe up an exhaust seems to care about this.

All fair questions, but "black" diesel smoke with large visible particles (that in your opinion fall harmlessly to the ground and then "biodegrade") obviously also contains huge amounts of fine invisible particles and harmful gasses that are controlled (beyond "filtering") in newer trucks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust

Search for glider:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...2016-21203.pdf

[Pierre Louis]

Originally Posted by johnhva

All fair questions, but "black" diesel smoke with large visible particles (that in your opinion fall harmlessly to the ground and then "biodegrade") obviously also contains huge amounts of fine invisible particles and harmful gasses that are controlled (beyond "filtering") in newer trucks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust

Search for glider:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...2016-21203.pdf

This is a very complex subject. As a peer reviewer for a medical publication, I used my critical skills and medical knowledge when reviewing a few of these papers that basically attack diesel exhaust. My biggest questions included how particles were measured - ambient air? no. A probe is shoved into the exhaust.

How were diseases attributed to diesel exhaust? Not directly. Correlates found city dwellers were more likely to get diseases associated with diesel exhaust. Proximity of city dwellers to roads in general, living conditions which may have more indoor pollution/smoke, and emissions from asphalt roads and tire wear were not controlled for when comparing to rural dwellers. VW was even lambasted when they tried to have monkeys live in an exhaust-filled air space, which doesn't sound good but was at least an attempt at showing any direct evidence.

There is no equivalent Wikipedia page for "Gasoline exhaust":

The page "Gasoline exhaust" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

If there was, it would say that small particulate pollutants from gasoline-fired combustion shows a HIGHER level of small particulates, you know, the ones that are more likely to find the furthest reaches of lung alveoli.

So no, it appears people are being "exhaust racists" when they condemn "black exhaust" diesel and don't even pay attention to "invisible exhaust" gasoline engine pollution, which we all know has more CO, CO2, HC, and small particulates when compared to normally tuned diesel.

[johnhva]

Originally Posted by Pierre Louis

...So no, it appears people are being "exhaust racists" when they condemn "black exhaust" diesel and don't even pay attention to "invisible exhaust" gasoline engine pollution, which we all know has more CO, CO2, HC, and small particulates when compared to normally tuned diesel.

"Racism" analogies aside, are you asserting that black diesel exhaust is ok? Or that black diesel exhaust contains fewer fine particulates by volume than modern diesel and/or gas engines? I'm not sure how soot would biodegrade; are there studies? Do you support installing old diesel engines in new glider chassis by the thousands for decades to come and have them exempt from modern enviro/efficiency standards, to compete with/displace new trucks?

[Pierre Louis]

Originally Posted by johnhva

"Racism" analogies aside, are you asserting that black diesel exhaust is ok? Or that black diesel exhaust contains fewer fine particulates by volume than modern diesel and/or gas engines? I'm not sure how soot would biodegrade; are there studies? Do you support installing old diesel engines in new glider chassis by the thousands for decades to come and have them exempt from modern enviro/efficiency standards, to compete with/displace new trucks?

Why would I say any of these things? Why would you even think that I would?

Of course, comparing the different sources of energy is an appropriate endeavor, since not one is perfectly clean, but like I originally said:

Any detail in these technological hit pieces that are called "journalism" so that the reader can gain perspective?

To do otherwise just makes it a yellow journalistic hit piece.

[Pierre Louis]

If you really don't want to just pick arbitrary winners and losers, then scientifically it seems nuclear power fueling BEV's is the way to go. The hit pieces that nuclear has had are well documented and its now thought nuclear has far fewer deaths associated with it than burning fossil fuels.

[johnhva]

Originally Posted by Pierre Louis

If you really don't want to just pick arbitrary winners and losers, then scientifically it seems nuclear power fueling BEV's is the way to go. The hit pieces that nuclear has had are well documented and its now thought nuclear has far fewer deaths associated with it than burning fossil fuels.

You like using the characterization "hit piece" a lot...

I don't think picking old-engine black diesel smoke as a "loser" is arbitrary.

I reasonably inferred from your assertion that black diesel smoke more readily falls to the ground and is somehow "biodegradable" that you believe it is therefore less dangerous to lungs (coughed up more easily?) and is unfairly "discriminated" against vs. modern diesels with "invisible" smoke.

I generally support nuclear power generation for the grid. Unfortunately, some of the few new nuke projects lately have gone wildly over budget to the point of bankruptcy -- which may not not be the fault of the technology but of incompetence of industry contractors/engineers/managers.

All that said, as my final 2c on this thread, I'm hoping that at least you'd agree that it's unfortunate that the OP is promoting the defeat of a manufacturer's pollution control devices. Nothing personal, and I'm all for liberty, I just don't think that's cool.

[Pierre Louis]

Do the "old" engines have no particulate filters? These I believe have been in use since at least 2007 on big rigs. As I recall, EGR is what makes the new engines less economical and less durable in the long run. I hadn't noticed but would consider DPF's a must. They dramatically decrease ambient particulates and are conspicuously absent on gasoline vehicles, making them the bad boy, not diesels.

The physiology of airborne particulates, science, reveals larger particulates don't make it to the alveoli where much of their intake causes disease. This doesn't make them good. But a lot of the black stuff doesn't make it into humans but falls to the ground - try checking plastic chairs on your patio if its near a major highway.

Studies of ambient air do not support the theory that diesel exhaust particulates outnumber gasoline exhaust particulates, but such studies are rarely done. What is more common is to just demonize diesel, even in scientific publications by isolating it and implying it is solely responsible for heart/lung disease from vehicles in the public arena.

If you don't think journalism has been corrupted by a serious lack of facts in reporting, you haven't been looking.

[TEF]

The connection between the removal of pollution controls on a modern diesel and the corruption of journalism seems (to me) tenuous at the very least. The same goes for the assertion that it's healthier to inhale large carbon particles vice smaller ones. If that's the case, then one better inform the European Union where many countries have ban diesel operations from some center cities. In short wouldn't any devices (on diesel and gasoline engines) intended to reduce air pollution be preferable to nothing at all?

[Pierre Louis]

Originally Posted by TEF

The connection between the removal of pollution controls on a modern diesel and the corruption of journalism seems (to me) tenuous at the very least. The same goes for the assertion that it's healthier to inhale large carbon particles vice smaller ones. If that's the case, then one better inform the European Union where many countries have ban diesel operations from some center cities. In short wouldn't any devices (on diesel and gasoline engines) intended to reduce air pollution be preferable to nothing at all?

Implying that complaining about biased research, wrongheaded regulations and poor journalism has anything to do with supporting removal of pollution control devices is also tenuous at best. The Europeans must be right because they are better at government and journalism than we are, correct?

[Pierre Louis]

The actual reason I've complained about such mediocrity is that if done correctly, pollution could be much less with fewer problems such as giving individuals reason to remove pollution control devices. One example is how several California congesspeople pushed for NOx restrictions on diesels that were designed to help the Los Angeles valley with its smog, irrespective of it having a "bowl effect" for all air pollution since native americans were burning wood fires. Another is how to engineer lower NOx, other pollutants were increased in diesels negating some of their advantages over gasoline. These are all issues that should have had a chance to be improved except we as a society consider diesel to be dirty and BEV/solar/wind to be the answer, even though it is a scientific impossibility, i.e. "magical thinking," to eliminate or even significantly reduce burning of fossil fuels to provide us with enough energy to maintain civilization....