Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

Bluetec Emissions Litigation

14K views 54 replies 17 participants last post by  Dextorb 
#1 ·
Well it looks like Daimlers ass is in a sling again. I received this in the email I got from the attorney yesterday. It looks like the are using the information from the VW case and going after Daimler AG, MBUSA, BOSCH AG, and BOSCH USA. I think its kind of funny that BMW isn't mentioned anywhere in this only VW, Mercedes, and FIAT Chrysler. I kind of find it ironic that only BMW's diesels have been approved for sale in the US for model year 17. Also that FIAT Chrysler just received their notice of allegations. I believe this is the same firm that also drove the balance shaft lawsuit as well. We shall see what happens. As a loyal Mercedes customer I am pretty disheartened with this news and frustrated that I can no longer walk into a dealership and buy the diesel that I want. If I am going to be spending 50 to 60K on a car I should have the choice to buy what I want, but when manufacturers start to dupe everyone it affects everything. All of this stems from the VW scandal. :(

https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/cas..._amended_complaint_mercedes_hagens_berman.pdf
 
#3 ·
I know this whole mess is industry wide. I would for sure go to the website and enter your information and your vehicles information so that they have you on record incase anything comes down. They also do pretty good in keeping class members in the loop with emails on what is going on with the case. The funny thing is there are documents out there that show VW and Daimler were in a partnership to use this technology in both manufacturers vehicles back in 2005. VW pulled out and ultimately went the way they went, but it looks like Daimlers system isn't fairing much better.
 
#4 · (Edited)
I think BMW right now is sending out recall letters to Diesel owners for a "software update" to "remove a left-over function which may increase acoustic harshness".

All jokes aside, I think everyone is too quick to blame the manufacturers, it's not entirely their fault. There are lots of factors at play here, there is obviously a misunderstanding of the capabilities of the technology on the part of the legislators, and a lack of sufficient development time. There are still quite a lot of flaws internally to the diesel engine, and no amount of exhaust emissions devices will fix that either. It is a common misconception that a diesel charge ignites instantly upon compression, which is not at all how common rail direct injection systems work (which is by the way, the reason why diesels have so much torque, even just 20 years ago, diesel engines in passenger cars had nowhere near the power of their gasoline counterparts). The fuel is ignited as it sprays outwards from the fuel injector into the combustion chamber. However, the fuel only ignites at the front of this spray beam (which is why diesel injections are pulsed during the injection period, and not continuous like gasoline engines). NOx and PM aren't inherent to the fuel itself, but to the way the charge behaves in the combustion chamber. This wave of fuel propagates outwards, eventually reaching the piston crown where it turns to follow the curvature, eventually, multiple flame fronts meet, and compete for the oxygen available at their intersection, which generates particular matter. Conversely, this flame front pushes excess oxygen behind itself, generating NOx. Volvo has recently invented a new piston, for use in their semi truck engines, that solves this problem. The piston crown has wavy bumps that deflect the flame fronts away from other each other, more evenly burning the charge and drastically reducing PM and NOx. Automotive diesels would need something like this. Combined with WOT propane-injection, Diesels could become mad clean beasts.

Another angle to blame are the people themselves (myself included, and everyone reading this). The manufacturers are responding to market forces, they do what the public wants. What does the public want? Power and fuel economy. Let me ask you this then, for 99% of cars, which are used as daily drivers or driven to the shops etc. Why the hell do you need power? In every country except Germany, there are speed limits, and I've driven in Germany, and people doing 200km/h+ are the rare exception (I admit to have been in that exception). Most people keep it around 130-140. Which again means, you don't need power. Diesel engines aren't the only thing becoming dirtier. Small turbo petrol engines also have similar issues with emissions, where they do fine in tests but fail when driving in the real world. This is a global problem with people, not manufacturers. Horsepower doesn't matter for a daily driver, what really matters are fuel economy and emissions. You don't need an ML63 AMG with optional offroad package to pickup the groceries. If people wanted to solve the problem of pollution, we would have done so already, but people only want to shift blame onto someone else. Don't get me wrong, I love powerful engines, I love supercars, I love the M120 engine, but that love has a time and a place. Manufacturers know perfectly that you can only chose 2 out of the 3, power, economy, emissions. So they chose power and economy, and pretended to chose emissions because people pretend they care about the environment (and by extensions, themselves). Is it deceptive they did so? Sure, but the real deception is happening in front of your mirror. It shouldn't be plaintiffs v. Daimler, it should be plaintiffs v. the 8 billion dumbasses that live on this planet.

Or we could move on from diesel engines to homogeneous charge compression ignition engines, which is what people who like diesel engines REALLY like, they just don't know it yet because the technology isn't out yet. It combines homogeneous charge spark ignition from gasoline engines with stratified charge compression ignition from diesels, or in simple terms, it's the best of both worlds, or in different terms, it's the only option where we get to chose 3 out of 3.

People deceive themselves all the time, my favorite example being electric car owners in a location where electricity is produce by a dirty means (like burning coal), that's a classic example of shifting the blame.
 
#5 ·
Well I can agree we don't need AMG to go food store. But In US we need powerful engines, since hwy entry is very short, you have to got 60-80 mph before hit hwy
Also neither MB or VW or BMW or any other auto maker should not advertise a proper emission, if it's not. It's like any product, Samsung said their phone are fine, but they can just burn your house, or Boeing Dream... something with burning batteries. It's all leading to main shareholders, that will not give money for more research, testing and development.
 
#7 ·
I don't agree with your statement about highway on-ramps. They are short yes, and merging at highway speed is obviously quite a lot safer than any slower, however, you don't need power for that. My 21 year old C220 has ~150hp and from a standstill, at WOT, to the entrance of the highway, I'll be going quite a bit faster than the speed limit, and this is on your average type highway entrance. You don't need powerful engines for that, powerful engines are just something to brag about at shopping mall parking lots.

I do agree however, that profit margins are at play here as well. It was probably quite a lot cheaper to keep this defeat device implemented and secretive than it would be to develop proper engines. Investors are also not stupid, they factored in the cost of the public scandal and the fines and whatever else that ensued in this decision. That's the really sad part.
 
#6 ·
This will affect the whole industry. I am guessing in the US that emissions levels for diesel vehicles differ according to the GVW of the vehicle. Even though the class action mentions the Sprinter. I know the allegations against FIAT Chrysler only mention the Grand Cherokee and the Eco diesel RAM with the 3.0 Liter FIAT V6. It doesn't mention the Cummins engines in the 2500 and 3500 RAM. I am sure the larger diesels have their own issues with the emissions systems, but this will affect the industry for a number of years for sure.
 
#8 ·
So, is this only about the Bluetec engines or does it affect the CDI as well? This vehicle already gets piss poor economy compared to what it could be without all the emissions garbage on it (30+ mpg). If they are going to make it even worse, there's no point in owning one. I may as well have a V8 then.
 
#9 ·
The emissions form ANY engines wouldn't be a problem if the population wasn't increasing at the rate it is..

Rather than encouraging people to drive (less efficient) cleaner cars, we should be encouraging people to rubber-up!

That would be a real and permanent fix.
 
#13 ·
Who knows. It boils down to the software not running the system below 50F. The exhaust fluid has a distinct smell and I have smelled it in the exhaust when it has been cold outside before. Supposedly it works on warm up and then shuts off. I know the VW, Audi, and Porche vehicles that have the V6 diesel already have an adblue system installed. The fix in Europe is just a software update and once the EPA approves that fix it will be implemented here as well.
 
#17 ·
This is the best summary on diesel emission regulation I have read so far.

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/diesel-discussion/374004-2007-bluetecs-2.html

"Emissions requirements did drive the change. Starting in 2004 the US introduced 10 "Bins" of differing emissions compliance levels. Bin 1 is the cleanest (zero emissions) and Bin 10 is the dirtiest. Over time increasingly cleaner levels are required of light duty passenger cars. Bins 9 and 10 were no longer permitted as of the 2007 model year. Bins 6, 7, and 8 were no longer permitted as of the 2010 model year.

The om648 E320 CDI is a Bin 10 vehicle, hence not legal for sale in the US after 2006. The om642 E320 Bluetec is a Bin 8 vehicle, so OK for sale from 2007 through 2009 model years. The e350 Bluetec (with DEF) introduced in 2010 is a Bin 5 vehicle (which also happens to have been the California standard all along).

For comparison, Bin 10 permits 0.6 grams/mile of NoX, Bin 8 is 0.2. Bin 10 permits 0.8 grams/mile of particulate matter, Bin 8 is 0.2. CO and Formaldehyde standards are the same between the two. So there are significant reductions in NoX and PM emissions going from the 648 to the 642 - approximately 70%."
 
#18 ·
I think that's what they were going for with the new OM654. It has the performance of the OM651, but is supposed to meet the new standards, but with this mess that VW has created I doubt that we will see it for MY 17 and maybe even MY18. The have already cancelled the C300d for the US market and the press releases that I have read they were working their hardest to get the GLS350d released in the US and then I guess work on the 17 or 18 GLE300d and E300d with the OM654. Hopefully sooner than later.
 
#19 ·
When the first VW scandal hit, I said to a friend "Its only a matter of time before the rest are uncovered. You know that if one is doing it, others are as well to stay competitive."

I guarantee that when VW took the hit, every other car manufacture had some very serious closed door meetings!
 
#20 ·
In my mind it doesn't matter if you think global warming is purely man-made or it’s been going on since this world was formed, the EPA bureaucrat zealots have gone “NUTS”.

Granted VW cheated and got caught but the EPA is punishing the world for their crime. Think I read the EPA is looking at a benchmark of 50 mpg by 2025.

I have owned Rabbit to E-Class DIESELS. Sadly, I am replacing my 2014 E250 Bluetec shortly with a GAS GLC300. It should have had a “d” at the end. Hopefully when my 2017 lease is finished the next MB will be a DIESEL.:)
 
#21 · (Edited)
I've always wondered if all that emission crap really makes up for the drastic reduction in fuel economy? If you bypass the emissions system on the CDI, you can easily average 30+ mpg. I get 23-24mpg in stock form. So, for every 100mi I travel, I burn through roughly one additional gallon of diesel fuel. So, if I put 150k on this vehicle, I have now consumed 1,500 extra gallons of fuel that had to be extracted and refined for consumption.

I'm sure someone has done the research on it but I'd like to see some facts over the life of a vehicle. A similar argument goes for electric vehicles; no emissions but what about all the batteries that need to be disposed off?

And not to stir the pot but I think the facts are there that global warming is happening, just not sure if vehicles are the MAIN driving force. They're already pretty darn clean out here; everyone who has traveled to south america will know what I'm talking about :)
 
#27 ·
I'm sure someone has done the research on it but I'd like to see some facts over the life of a vehicle. A similar argument goes for electric vehicles; no emissions but what about all the batteries that need to be disposed off?

My understanding is that electric car battery packs can have a life after their auto use as stationary backup. This would be similar to the Tesla units sold for homes.
While their ability to produce the power necessary to move a car is diminished, they cam provide ample power at a lower rate.


In my read of the lawsuit it seems that the AdBlue technology is also challenged along with the alleged emission test bypass. How does that square with the current use of urea injection for transport trucks?
Most, if not all, current large diesel trucks use this.

Skippy
 
#22 ·
From Daimlers reaction to stop selling all the Diesel model passenger cars and light SUV's in the US I am sure they did and decided that maybe if we stop selling them now we may not have as many fines. I know FIAT Chrysler is still selling its Diesel Grand Cherokees and Ram 1500's for now. All of BMW's models were approved for MY17 sales in the US and they have no intention on stopping production of their cars. Chevy dropped the Diesel Cruze shortly after the VW scandal started because they used they sourced their engines from VW. I have a feeling that this mess will not go away smoothly.
 
#26 ·
Well, you would be at odds with 99% of climatologists. Literally every country but the USA agrees that climate change is real. We are the dinosaur deniers in this game.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
#28 ·
I haven't read the whole document but my guess is that it is another big money grab. Have they proven that systems are turned off and pollution increases? Also they are comparing diesels to gasoline vehicles in their complaints. Google some of the plaintiffs from the various states. Wondering if they are all lawyers? MB and Bosch are Big Pockets to raid. NJ has liberal judges that will allow this to go on.
 
#30 ·
I read a bit more yesterday (though not all 489 pages as yet) and found a series of interesting statements. The allegations blend European and US models and the innuendo is based on some statements from European sources and real road testing in the US.
The gist is that the AdBlue injection is disabled when the ambient is 50F or below. Additionally, the EGR may also be lessened under similar conditions.
The real road testing of three different diesels show that the emissions are clearly higher than dynamometer results provided to the EPA for compliance documents.

It also appears to me that the allegations cover all diesels and not just the ones with urea injection. I wonder if they are trying to cast a wide enough net to improve their chances of a payout?

Of course the test results, testing conditions, state of tune of the vehicles, etc. are elements for the legal folks to wrangle about.

Skippy
 
#31 ·
Well VW fix will be different and depend on models.
Like Passats has urea, Jetta and Golf are not. So for the passat i just update software, that will increase urea consumption, and it's two stage process.
Jetta and Golf will add urea tank somewhere.
Also now VW is on hook for 3.0 TDi as well.

Well I surprise BMW is avoiding this ??????? I guess they had right lobbyists. hahaha
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top