« Odyne and Dueco Introduce Plug-in Hybrid Aerial Lift Truck | Main | Consumer Reports Ranks Two Toyota Hybrids in Top 5 Most Reliable Family Cars »
Audi Launching Tier 2 Bin 5 TDI Diesels in North America in 2008
17 October 2007
Audi is launching its TDI diesel initiative in the North American market in 2008 by putting its 3.0-liter TDI diesel with ultra-low emission system into production almost in parallel to its launch in Europe. The 3.0 TDI, which is California LEV II, US EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 compliant, will initially be available for the Audi Q7, and later for the new Audi A4.
The new Audi 3.0 TDI develops an output of 176 kW (236 hp) and 550 Nm (4046 lb-ft) of torque. New technologies optimize the combustion process in the V6: the common-rail piezo-electric injection system builds up 2,000 bar of pressure, while combustion cylinder sensors permit combustion processes to be controlled even more precisely.
High-efficiency exhaust gas recirculation and further optimized forced aspiration combine to help deliver low engine-out emissions.
The urea SCR exhaust aftertreatment system operates with AdBlue, small amounts of which are injected ahead of the DeNOx catalytic converter, and cuts emissions of NOx by up to 90%. The injection process is precisely timed, since for a high conversion rate it is important for the AdBlue solution and the gas flow reaching the entry surface in the converter to be continually matched.
The complete NOx aftertreatment system consists of the catalytic converter, the metering module and the AdBlue tank. The AdBlue solution has a freezing point of -11°C, so that both the active tank and the metering line and pump have to be heated at low outside temperatures. This function is activated automatically by temperature sensors.
Two NOx sensors measure the concentration of the oxides of nitrogen ahead of the diesel particulate filter and after the ultra-low emission system; system functions are also monitored by pressure and temperature sensors.
The AdBlue tank, like the fuel tank, is filled at the fuel filler flap. The reservoir volume of approximately 22.5 liters is divided between two tanks: the active tank below the fuel filler flap has a capacity of 7 litres, the passive tank under the floor holds 15.5 liters.
The AdBlue solution is added as a routine operation each time the car is serviced, without the customer having to take any action. Since consumption of the solution is very low, Audi can guarantee that the amount carried on the car will be sufficient from one workshop visit to the next. The system is rated to perform reliably for the car’s entire operating life.
The exhaust system is completed by two conventional catalytic converters, installed ahead of the ultra-low emission system. The oxidating converter transforms hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide and water. The diesel particulate traps particles in the gas flow and collects them in the structure of the filter.
October 17, 2007 in Diesel | Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/22533526
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Audi Launching Tier 2 Bin 5 TDI Diesels in North America in 2008:
Comments
That's a ton of torque! ;)
Posted by: yesplease | Oct 17, 2007 1:24:19 PM
LOL, I think it's missing a decimal point, but it's *still* a lot of torque!
Posted by: Brian P | Oct 17, 2007 1:28:18 PM
The current Q7 gets a Euro rated 23 mpg. It'll be interesting what the EPA rating comes to once they wring out 88% of the current NOx emissions.
I'm also curious what the vehicle does when the AdBlue solution is below its freezing point. Does the car not start until it liquifies? How long does that take?
I'm also wary of anything that depends on the end-user maintaining it, especially once the vehicle is out of warranty.
Posted by: jack | Oct 17, 2007 1:45:58 PM
If it's just scraping by on emissions, I assume it's pretty bad compared to a SULEV vehicle like the Prius. Which exhaust would you prefer to breathe?
Posted by: JN2 | Oct 17, 2007 2:24:17 PM
I'd prefer it lost 100hp. Then we'd really get some good MPG numbers.
Posted by: Mike127 | Oct 17, 2007 5:14:28 PM
"I'm also wary of anything that depends on the end-user maintaining it, especially once the vehicle is out of warranty."
You mean, like, engine oil, transmission fluid, washer fluid, steering fluid, tire pressure, brake pads, etc., etc.??
Please.
JN2: So, I suppose any vehicle that doesnt have SULEV status should be removed from the road then? Because there are many gas vehicles for sale now that would be be dirtier than these new diesels.
Mike127: Not that you didnt know, but you'll mostly get better economy by going with the smaller engine, not necessarily just dropping the power.
Posted by: joe blow | Oct 17, 2007 6:27:22 PM
Agreed, Mike127, with 550 Nm torque does it crush other cars in its stainless steel teeth? Imagine if the Bavarian uber-techs were to embrace Hypercardom.
Posted by: jcwinnie | Oct 17, 2007 6:33:43 PM
You mean, like, engine oil, transmission fluid, washer fluid, steering fluid, tire pressure, brake pads, etc., etc.??
Please.
No, more like things which will give me or others lung diseases, though the things you mention make it much more likely I'll get hurt by someone else on the road or have to deal with congestion from their car breaking down. So, yes, as much as vehicles can be made foolproof, I'm all for it. Or don't you care about air quality and such?
Posted by: jack | Oct 17, 2007 9:08:49 PM
Yeah, youre on to me - I'm not a big fan of quality air. I mean, anyone that sees promise in diesel technology clearly can't be.
Posted by: joe blow | Oct 17, 2007 10:04:15 PM
Yeah, youre on to me - I'm not a big fan of quality air. I mean, anyone that sees promise in diesel technology clearly can't be.
By the content of your prior comment, one could only conclude that you don't care about such things. These urea-based systems have a serious flaw in their designs -- human nature. People simply don't maintain their vehicles well, and it only gets worse the older the vehicles get.
If you're interested in the promise of diesel technology and the quality of the air, it's a fairly obvious concern to have. One would be more in favor of systems which don't need upkeep.
Posted by: jack | Oct 17, 2007 10:18:09 PM
What like catalysts that burn out? Exhaust systems that fail? SPark plugs and leads that die?
The whole point of OBD since its inception is to remove the human element from the system and ensure that emission control systems are reliably maintained. This is no different for filling your Adblue tank than it is for replacing a dead cat converter on a gas engine.
If the state prefers not to inspect cars and check the fault code history, then that is the state's problem for not implementing the OBD and emissions control regs. The systems in place at the moment are more than adequate to remove the "human nature" issues you seem to ascribe purely to the new diesel emission control systems.
Posted by: Ruaraidh | Oct 18, 2007 12:24:13 AM
replacing a dead cat converter on a gas engine.
Never have needed to do that my entire life.
If the state prefers not to inspect cars and check the fault code history, then that is the state's problem for not implementing the OBD and emissions control regs. The systems in place at the moment are more than adequate to remove the "human nature" issues you seem to ascribe purely to the new diesel emission control systems.
Silly me, concerned for the lungs of innocent people. If they live in a state with weak regs, screw 'em, huh. If the systems in place are more than adequate to remove the human nature issues, then why is it so easily foreseen how the urea will run out and these emission systems made useless?
Posted by: jack | Oct 18, 2007 12:29:33 AM
replacing a dead cat converter on a gas engine.
What does it convert the dead cat to?
Posted by: Fungible | Oct 18, 2007 1:40:32 AM
Jack, come on. You can't be that stupid.
Between smog checks, and built-in vehicle systems, this is no different than any of a myriad of other emissions control challenges/systems that have already existed for decades.
Posted by: joe blow | Oct 18, 2007 1:58:43 AM
The urea system will also be implemented on upcoming Mercedes SUVs. They all have warnings which come on if the urea tanks get low, and I believe that after it is empty for a short period of time, the car will not allow you to start it. I think that's why the EPA took so long to approve the system.
As to the argument that somehow new diesels are bad because some states have lax inspections, that just seems misguided. This would mean passing up cars with the potential for 30% better mileage for fear that a small percentage of those diesel owners would go so far as to not maintain their vehicles and also figure out a way to disable the ECU programming. Also remember that the urea system is only on the high dollar performance diesels and SUVs. The smaller diesels, like the new VW Jetta, do not need it. The simple answer is to push for new legislation in those states. I'm sure that those lax states are also lax on gasoline car inspections, so new legislation would help everyone.
But I don't think the urea systems will be around for long. They seem like a temporary fix, and I bet the auto companies will engineer better systems in the next few years that negate the need for urea. Probably in 50 years, there will be a couple of urea cars in the Henry Ford museum as interesting oddities.
Posted by: George J | Oct 18, 2007 5:38:18 AM
I think we may see even smaller turbodiesel engines with the urea injection system probably by 2009. That could mean we'll see a Mercedes-Benz C230CDI with a 2.3-liter turbodiesel engine in the USA market.
The installation of this engine on the Audi A4 could mean we might just see the same engine on the US-market VW Passat by 2009, too.
Posted by: Raymond | Oct 18, 2007 7:05:48 AM
Good funny Jack
I was wondering if we'll see 4cyl Audi diesels in the US. It seems reasonable that the engine from the Jetta will find it's way to the A3. Also I wonder how a diesel with a DSG will work and I hope I get the chance to try it.
Posted by: Tim Russell | Oct 18, 2007 7:44:56 AM
Cool just checked and the diesel Jetta will come with DSG.
Posted by: Tim Russell | Oct 18, 2007 7:53:38 AM
Between smog checks
Not all states have them. Covered that one already.
and built-in vehicle systems
The refillable tank? Next thing you'll tell me is that people always have all their fuids checked, filled, and/or replaced on a regular schedule. That's not the real world.
this is no different than any of a myriad of other emissions control challenges/systems that have already existed for decades.
Which emissions control systems have relied upon refilling a fluid?
They all have warnings which come on if the urea tanks get low, and I believe that after it is empty for a short period of time, the car will not allow you to start it.
You believe that or you know that? If that's true, I guess people now need to have their vehicle towed to make the emissions work if the fluid runs out?
Posted by: jack | Oct 18, 2007 9:00:16 AM
My concern is that it seems the only way to get your urea is by going to an Audi dealership. If Audi has a program similar to BMW (all maintenance included in the cost of the vehicle) than it is not a concern as most people will probably make use of the maintenance services they already paid for rather than trying to change their own oil or go to the local "quick oil change place"...Anyone have any idea of the number of luxury SUV owners who actually do their own maintenance?
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 18, 2007 9:59:24 AM
Anyone have any idea of the number of luxury SUV owners who actually do their own maintenance?
You have an idea where those vehicles eventually end up? Not in Bel-Air.
Posted by: jack | Oct 18, 2007 10:12:44 AM
"You have any idea where those vehicles eventually end up"
So your implying that in ten years most of these cars would be in the driveways of the middle to lower middle class. And that they are TOO ENVIRONMENTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE to keep up the cars emission system. So much so that they should not be produced.
Really, Jack
Posted by: Joseph | Oct 18, 2007 11:43:14 AM
So your implying that in ten years most of these cars would be in the driveways of the middle to lower middle class. And that they are TOO ENVIRONMENTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE to keep up the cars emission system. So much so that they should not be produced. Really, Jack
Hey, it's the board racist lecturing me about people in poverty. Cute!
Yes, Mr. Racist, vehicles end up going down the social strata as they get older. Poorer people aren't "environmentally irresponsible," they simply don't have much money and thus things not directly related to their personal well-being tend to be neglected. Perhaps if you stopped cowering in Whiteyville where you live, you would know that this is competely obvious.
Posted by: jack | Oct 18, 2007 12:12:16 PM
"Racist"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Whiteyville"
Really, Jack
Posted by: Joseph | Oct 18, 2007 1:02:41 PM
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You believe I don't know what the word "racist" means? Perhaps you're even less intelligent than I first imagined.
Really, Jack
Really what? You live in a caucasian enclave and have openly stated your hatred for people who are not caucasian, blaming them for a variety of social ills.
I'll take it that you grant my point about any urea system as being highly vulnerable to not being maintained as a vehicles ages, since you feel compelled to dwell in the gutter of empty moralizing.
Posted by: jack | Oct 18, 2007 1:39:29 PM
"You live in a caucasian enclave" I live in a suburb of a major city, not unlike every other suburb. Woop-ty-do.
"have openly stated your hatred for people who are not caucasian" Total LIE, never happened, not true at all.
"blaming them for a variety of social ills" I stated some facts, sorry that doesn't fit your political feelings.
In ten years a small number of possibly undermaintained clean diesels that are 30% more effecient than what they are driving now. Frankly I'm more concerned about what you and I will be driving.
Posted by: Joseph | Oct 18, 2007 3:21:29 PM
I live in a suburb of a major city, not unlike every other suburb. Woop-ty-do.
Nice dodge. The particular place you live is fundamentally dissimilar in its racial makeup from proximate places comparable in size.
Total LIE, never happened, not true at all.
Keep telling yourself that.
I stated some facts, sorry that doesn't fit your political feelings.
There we go. There's the true you. You didn't state facts, you stated your interpretation of your unsubstantiated claims. Being disgusted by racism is apolitical.
In ten years a small number of possibly undermaintained clean diesels that are 30% more effecient than what they are driving now.
"Clean" diesels? The only thing that makes them clean is the urea. Without it, they're extremely dirty. As for small numbers, I didn't realize you knew how well these vehicles with this technology will sell. Are you a time traveler? It's also irrelevant, since the only reason one should get behind diesels is because they'll make a dent in fuel consumption, and if they're sold in small numbers, there's no point. Regardless, there's no reason at this juncture to be putting out vehicles which have the capacity to be extremely dirty in a few years.
Posted by: jack | Oct 18, 2007 3:41:30 PM
@ Jack -
most European heavy truck manufacturers decided to adopt urea injection to meet Euro 4 emissions, which came into force in 2005. It takes a few years for the HDV fleet to churn, but new models featuring this technology are already a common sight.
If anyone has an incentive to cut their cost of operation by defeating an emissions system, it's truckers. Yet, thanks to the sophistication of EOBD, such cheating is not worth the hassle. It doesn't appear to be an issue.
EOBD is the European version of OBD. Generally speaking, it's stricter than OBD I but not as paranoid as OBD II. Refilling the urea solution is not regular maintenance like changing your engine oil, which you can forget or choose to defer - if you run out of urea or substitute another liquid, the OBD will enforce the action the law requires in that situation.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Oct 18, 2007 4:03:50 PM
Your right, the ULSD, high pressure common rail, optimized compression ratio, recirculatory system and Particulate Filter are all just show pieces. Right!
Posted by: Joseph | Oct 18, 2007 4:07:51 PM
I think jack brought up a good point about the relative vulnerability of the urea SCR system due to negligence in maintenance due to general car garages' or second-hand owners' lack of familiarity with the system.
Image a soccer mom who happens to inherit this sophisticated diesel car, who brought it to the likes of Jiffy-lube for oil change...and the trainee technician /assistant went to the routine to change oil and filter, but oops, it's not his habit to refill the Adblue tank...The warning light lit up later, but being a mechanically-challenge mom of 4 kids, she neglected the warning light entirely until the car won't start at the most inopportune moment...like in the middle out of nowhere in a snow storm...
But, there is a kinder and gentler way for the car to address the depletion of the Adblue tank other than flat out refusing to start: The car can switch to low-power lean-running mode with inherent low NOx emission...the car will barely run...enough to get home and to get to the dealer the next day...
Or the owner can decide to run on low power low NOx mode until the next inspection interval...
Anyway, the beauty of the urea SCR system is its high effectiveness while using no expensive nor any rare catalyst that will limit future availability. For that, MB deserves an environmental gold medal!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 18, 2007 4:27:03 PM
T2B5 could be met, maybe beaten, more easily if the low cetane (~42?) ULSD supplied at present were improved to near 50. Why are cetane stickers missing on virtually every diesel pump out there? This "dirty" little secret needs to see the light of day.
Posted by: fred | Oct 18, 2007 4:51:34 PM
Cetane numbers have nothing to do with meeting emissions. Too high of a cetane can cause the diesel to ignite too quickly and not mix, causing high NOx and PM.
My thesis research is showing that we may want low cetane to help with running LTC.
It all depends on the combustion mode and more than likely LTC will take over so we will need to reevaluate the fuel needed for this.
Posted by: reed | Oct 18, 2007 5:55:43 PM
most European heavy truck manufacturers decided to adopt urea injection to meet Euro 4 emissions, which came into force in 2005. It takes a few years for the HDV fleet to churn, but new models featuring this technology are already a common sight. If anyone has an incentive to cut their cost of operation by defeating an emissions system, it's truckers. Yet, thanks to the sophistication of EOBD, such cheating is not worth the hassle. It doesn't appear to be an issue.
On the contrary, they have a strong disincentive, since there isn't much to the cost and the last thing a commercial enterprise is more interference and potential penalties from government agencies. Contrast that with someone driving an SCR beater diesel 10 years from now. How are they directly regulated by the state, especially in a state without emissions testing?
I think you don't really grasp the kind of free-for-all out there in many states when it comes to people either neglecting vehicle upkeep or outright circumventing control systems for greater performance, more noise, or whatever.
I'm not worried about freight operators, I'm worried about the guy whose car goes down the road, tail scraping against the ground because he's too lazy, cheap, or poor to put new shocks on it. That's the guy who won't do a damn thing with some urea tank.
Clearly the EPA isn't quite satisfied yet, otherwise we'd be seeing these vehicles coming to market.
Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy to see diesels with proper tailpipe emissions. I just know how people deal with their rides and it causes me concern.
Posted by: jack | Oct 18, 2007 6:48:52 PM
Jack,
I just called Mercedes USA and asked them. They told me that after a limited number of starts with an empty AdBlue tank, the car would not start again until being refilled. The rep could not tell me how many "limited" was.
Again, this system seems to only be implemented on high dollar vehicles, so that means low volume. I agree that, in 20 years, some of these already rare vehicles will probably end up being jalopies which have been ECU hacked. But they could only continue operating if the state they are in still has completely lax inspection rules. So that narrows down the possible numbers to very, very small. Certainly not enough to justify not bringing this and other clean diesel technology to market. Nothing is perfect, and I don't see a glaring red flag with this system either.
In my opinion, NOX is not what you should be worried about, small particles are what you need to be worried about. Since the new particle filters are on all of these cars, that worry has been addressed in a mostly permanent way. Yes, these filters and exhaust systems will deteriorate over time, but that happens on any vehicle, regardless of fuel.
Jack, would it be possible for you not to be so hostile towards other posters? Its ok to engage in reasonable discourse, but you seem to cross the line a bit more frequently than anyone else here. Just my observation, so please don't take this as an insult.
Posted by: George J | Oct 19, 2007 7:18:03 AM
Welcome to GCC, "George J."
Posted by: jack | Oct 19, 2007 8:53:23 AM
Thanks. I'm glad I found this site. They seem to get new car info much faster than the typical car enthusiast site. And if it wasn't obvious, my screen name is a nod to my favorite idealized world of personal transport: The Jetsons.
Posted by: George J | Oct 19, 2007 10:09:09 AM
And if it wasn't obvious, my screen name is a nod to my favorite idealized world of personal transport: The Jetsons.
Good one.
Though the idea of flying cars is fanciful (and nightmarish ala "Fifth Element"), it would be refreshing for more people to think about breakthrough ideas instead of plodding incrementalism applied to overly-mature technologies. This site is quite good for what it is, but it does get bogged down in mypoic back-and-forth from primarily an engineer's way of looking at the world.
Welcome.
Posted by: jack | Oct 19, 2007 10:18:59 AM
Yea, or Bladerunner.
One thing about the new diesel particle filter systems. None of the manufacturers are allowing more than B5. They are claiming that when the filter has to regenerate, higher percentages of biodiesel can gunk it up. They regenerate by sending extra fuel down the line to ignite in the filter and super heat it. This burns off the collected particles. Biodiesel does not ignite the same way as diesel, so they will only allow B5.
This leaves me torn. Along with the efficiency gain of the new diesels, I wanted to be able to burn biodiesel in higher percentages.
Posted by: George J | Oct 19, 2007 1:29:22 PM
@Jack -
I get the impression you're not familiar with how an OBD works and how incredibly difficult it would be to hack it.
Air quality is a common good. If certain states cannot be bothered to protect it, that's probably because the people who live there don't want to pay for it. It's their air, so it's their choice. No amount of legalese will make the slightest difference if people don't want the law to be enforced.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Oct 19, 2007 4:56:24 PM
I get the impression you're not familiar with how an OBD works and how incredibly difficult it would be to hack it.
4) Tamper Resistant Design. Manufacturers would have to demonstrate to EPA that their SCR system design is tamper resistant. There are three aspects of a design that we would want to see made tamper resistant:
• Warning System - The visual and audible components of the warning system should be as tamper resistant as reasonably possible.
• The Driver Inducement Design - Tamper resistant features will be needed to ensure that the driver inducement system cannot be easily disabled. The specific requirements will depend on the driver inducement design. For example, the fuel door cannot be pried open for a fuel lockout system or the ability to start the vehicle with no reducing agent for a no-start design.
• The Reducing Agent Dosing System - Ensure that the dosing system cannot be easily deactivated, for example, by disconnecting the electrical connector to the dosing valve.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/cisd0707.pdf
The EPA covers pretty much all my concerns in that document. Since we're not seeing these rolled out 50-state as purchasable vehicles until later next year, I assume the EPA still is working to make sure those concerns are addressed by the manufacturers.
My main concern isn't with intentional hacking of the system but rather simple neglect.
Posted by: jack | Oct 19, 2007 5:15:27 PM
Air quality is a common good. If certain states cannot be bothered to protect it, that's probably because the people who live there don't want to pay for it. It's their air, so it's their choice. No amount of legalese will make the slightest difference if people don't want the law to be enforced.
Wow, I don't even know where to start with that one, other than with the out-of-bounds assumption that somehow people are informed about things like air quality, understand what to do about it, and most importantly, CAN do something about it. If we had a functioning, model democracy, what you said might make sense, but in the real world, it is unfortunately more than common that those who set policy aren't doing so to benefit the largest number of citizens - particularly those with the fewest resources.
With the kind of argument your making, it doesn't differ much from some refiner knowingly pumping carcinogens into the air and brushing it off by saying, "Well, it isn't illegal." We know better now, so it shouldn't be an issue of what one can get away with but rather doing one's best to be as benign as possible.
Posted by: jack | Oct 19, 2007 5:19:55 PM
Rafael,
I was just thinking that it would be as easy to hack as all the performance hacks that people make to their ECUs. For those, the whole OBD system has been a boom, letting them use laptops to change engine settings on the fly.
Couldn't you theoretically do the same for any aspect of the ECU programming?
Does anyone know which states are considered the lax ones for inspections?
Posted by: Geroge J | Oct 20, 2007 6:34:25 AM
This engine is underpowered for Q7 and Touareg. I test drove it in Poland last year, it is noisier than Mercedes (I drove Chrysler 300 CDI AWD for comparision) engine. For Audi most adequate would be 4.2 V8 or preferebly V12 TDI. There is not that much higher fuel consumption but performance is brisk! Due to get good performance US USDL fuel must get same cetane rating as European - 60 vice 40.
Posted by: Bob C. Szuszkiewicz | Oct 23, 2007 11:25:22 AM
The problem with using BD blends above B5 is not specifically with the DPF, but rather, with one type of regeneration system that is used for burnoff. Some regeneration systems (VW/Audi)create an extra fuel burst in the combustion chambers to regenerate the DPF. Supposedly, if more than a B5 blend is used, some of the fuel will not vaporize sufficiently, which will leave some fuel on the cylinder walls which may end up in the motor oil This could cause a need for more frequient oil changes for those who use high blends of biodiesel.
The other type of regeneration system, which is used by MB, sends a burst of fuel directly to the DPF. In this situation, the regeneration will actually perform better as the blend of biodiesel increases. This is due to the increased oxygenation of the biodiesel fuel.
As for the actual DPF performance, biodiesel enhances the effectiveness of the DPF. *DPFs burnoff at lower operating tempertures running BD blends than is true using ULSD. With BD blends, DPFs will not develop near the level of backpressure before regeneration takes place.
The reason for the "no higher than B5 approval" is the same as in years past. The world has no set fuel standard for biodiesel blends. This situation makes OEMs nervous. They cannot test their engines with a standardized fuel when there are no standardized fuels to test them from. This is the real reason OEMs still do not support more than a B5 blend. This does not mean that higher blends are bad. I've run my 2006 Jetta TDI on B20 since inception. Supposedly, one could not use higher than B5 in this unit-injection engine as it would be detrimental to the injection system. I've had my injectors and injector pump inspected after two years on B20. Guess what? Super Clean.
In the case of VW/Audi, however, the original post on this matter is correct. Biodiesel blends do create an additional factor that must be considered for its use.
In my opinion, this new problem using biodiesel will show to be far exaggerated as have all the previous, "so called" problems.
Posted by: Greg | Oct 23, 2007 4:26:14 PM
