# Guidance on 35d



## animalmother224 (Nov 6, 2018)

Hi guys. First time poster, been lurking for a while. I own an x5 e70 3.0 now and I am looking at a 35d for sale locally. 

Im wondering if someone could give me a quick rundown on delete tuning options for this truck. 

I own a 6.7 Cummins now and have deleted it, so the deletes and purposes aren't new, what Im confused about is the tuning options on the current market for the 35d. 

with the full-size diesel trucks most guys get a programmer that has a constant interface available and allow the user to play with perimeters. 

If I purchase this 35d, I plan on deleting it asap, Im confused about what's available and reliable for delete tunes out there to avoid limp modes/CEL's 

So far during my searches, All I have found were the ECUs have to be sent to someone to have deletes and tunes installed, yet I haven't been able to find a end user option that plugs into OBD2 and allow delete tunes. 

any suggestions?

thanks!


----------



## edycol (Jul 8, 2015)

Which state?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## animalmother224 (Nov 6, 2018)

NY. diesel deletes are common around here and we don't have emissions testing in terms of anything hooked up to the exhaust pipe. we do have plug in testing which requires CEL's to be off


----------



## jck66 (Nov 28, 2017)

Your options may be different depending on how old the "truck" is - I believe the diesel engines were M57 up to 2014 and N57 after. There has been lots more aftermarket development on the M57. Good luck and let us know how you make out!


----------



## animalmother224 (Nov 6, 2018)

its a 57 engine on a 2011 35d.


----------



## edycol (Jul 8, 2015)

animalmother224 said:


> NY. diesel deletes are common around here and we don't have emissions testing in terms of anything hooked up to the exhaust pipe. we do have plug in testing which requires CEL's to be off


I would double check on all that before spending money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vancityy (Mar 15, 2018)

How about caring for people who live around you and just use the stock car, make the air less polluted?


----------



## Doug Huffman (Apr 25, 2015)

Vancityy said:


> How about caring for people who live around you and just use the stock car, make the air less polluted?


If one is truly interested in minimizing automobile pollution then one must drive diesel rather than gasoline powered vehicles.


----------



## jck66 (Nov 28, 2017)

In CT we have OBD-based emissions testing so I wouldn't be surprised if NY is similar. My VW recently failed due to readiness bits not being set so I'm sure it's all electronic.


----------



## edycol (Jul 8, 2015)

Doug Huffman said:


> If one is truly interested in minimizing automobile pollution then one must drive diesel rather than gasoline powered vehicles.


Didn't know soot is good for health as well as NOx.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Doug Huffman (Apr 25, 2015)

edycol said:


> Didn't know soot is good for health as well as NOx.


There are pollutants beyond NOx and soot. Besides, soot is particles that fall down shortly.


----------



## Monty42 (May 19, 2018)

During the 1970s I worked underground at Nevada Test Site. The tunnels all had diesel powered under ground trains both for transpoerting the workers in and out and hauling the ***8220;muck***8221; to the dump. They were powered by Caterpiller or lDeutz Diesel engines. The after-treatment for the exhaust was running it through a ***8220;scrubber***8221; which was a tank filled with crushed marble, water and detergent. Fresh air was pumped into the tunnels by huge roots blowers. Occasionally a locomotive would run out of water in the srubber before the train returned to a point where the engineer could refill it. The air would be filled with soot. At 76 years old I have suffered no ill effects from that and working 30 years as a diesel truck mechanic breathing much exhaust during that time.

A gasoline engine underground will kill you in short order.


----------



## Doug Huffman (Apr 25, 2015)

Crushed marble is limestone CaCO3 used in exhaust gas desulfurisation applications eliminating harmful SO2 and NO2.

Diesel exhaust smells better and breathes better than old recycled air on a submarine.


----------



## shafeeq (Oct 25, 2015)

Doug Huffman said:


> If one is truly interested in minimizing automobile pollution then one must drive diesel rather than gasoline powered vehicles.


Tell 'em Doug!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Bimmerfest mobile app


----------



## edycol (Jul 8, 2015)

Monty42 said:


> During the 1970s I worked underground at Nevada Test Site. The tunnels all had diesel powered under ground trains both for transpoerting the workers in and out and hauling the ***8220;muck***8221; to the dump. They were powered by Caterpiller or lDeutz Diesel engines. The after-treatment for the exhaust was running it through a ***8220;scrubber***8221; which was a tank filled with crushed marble, water and detergent. Fresh air was pumped into the tunnels by huge roots blowers. Occasionally a locomotive would run out of water in the srubber before the train returned to a point where the engineer could refill it. The air would be filled with soot. At 76 years old I have suffered no ill effects from that and working 30 years as a diesel truck mechanic breathing much exhaust during that time.
> 
> A gasoline engine underground will kill you in short order.


I know some people who worked all their lives in coal mines. I knew some who worked briefly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edycol (Jul 8, 2015)

Doug Huffman said:


> There are pollutants beyond NOx and soot. Besides, soot is particles that fall down shortly.


Of course there are. There are numerous ones. So your point is to just keep distance behind soot spewing diesel as by the time i cone, it will fall down. 
Your argument is on par with argument of Alabama governor that God put coal into ground so we can burn it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## n1das (Jul 22, 2013)

Doug Huffman said:


> If one is truly interested in minimizing automobile pollution then one must drive diesel rather than gasoline powered vehicles.


What Doug said. Doug's point may seem counter-intuitive to anyone thinking "diesel is dirty and bad for the environment".

I will GLADLY take high NOx levels from an emissions cheating VW TDI while having significantly LOWER emissions in all other categories of regulated emissions. "Pick your poison" applies.

Check out the links in my sig below for more information, also posted here for easy reference: (from wxmanCCM)
PM - https://sites.google.com/view/lmarzccm/home
Air Toxics - https://sites.google.com/view/loren-marz-ccm/home
Ozone Precursors - https://sites.google.com/view/lorenmarz-ccm/home
General - https://sites.google.com/view/emissions-general/home


----------



## edycol (Jul 8, 2015)

n1das said:


> What Doug said. Doug's point may seem counter-intuitive to anyone thinking "diesel is dirty and bad for the environment".
> 
> I will GLADLY take high NOx levels from an emissions cheating VW TDI while having significantly LOWER emissions in all other categories of regulated emissions. "Pick your poison" applies.
> 
> ...


I know what Doug is saying. You can go toCARB web site and check why NOx is a problem, how it was addressed and why VW thing was such issue for CARB. There is no doubt that Diesel engines produce less CO2. However, the reason why we have such stringent emission standards are NOx issues in 1970's. To use word you used, I know it is counterintuitive, but modern diesels are worse NOx polluters than old diesels. 
It is not hoax, fake news etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## animalmother224 (Nov 6, 2018)

this is going well.. thanks everyone


----------



## n1das (Jul 22, 2013)

edycol said:


> I know what Doug is saying. You can go toCARB web site and check why NOx is a problem, how it was addressed and why VW thing was such issue for CARB. There is no doubt that Diesel engines produce less CO2. However, the reason why we have such stringent emission standards are NOx issues in 1970's. To use word you used, I know it is counterintuitive, but modern diesels are worse NOx polluters than old diesels.
> It is not hoax, fake news etc.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I will gladly take higher NOx emissions from a modern DPF equipped turbodiesel while having lower emissions in all other categories of regulated emissions compared to equivalent gassers. "Pick your poison" applies.


Sent from my XP8800 using Tapatalk


----------



## edycol (Jul 8, 2015)

n1das said:


> I will gladly take higher NOx emissions from a modern DPF equipped turbodiesel while having lower emissions in all other categories of regulated emissions compared to equivalent gassers. "Pick your poison" applies.
> 
> 
> Sent from my XP8800 using Tapatalk


The argument is not DOF and SCR equipped diesel. The problem is delete of those components.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lpcapital (Mar 1, 2007)

animalmother224 said:


> this is going well.. thanks everyone


I have a 6.7 in California which is deleted and used to own an X5 35d which since I couldn't PRACTICALLY delete I sold off. The issue is that in CA, just like NY as I understand it, you get regular "smog test". Here too there's no longer a sniffer inserted in the exhaust and all emission testing is done via OBD not only by checking the CEL but also Readiness Monitors.

The issue is that even if with a tuner you get the CEL to stay off after deleting, the Redinenss Monitors will not check clear and you'll fail emission.

On the 6.7 I have EFI Live and when I have to get the truck smogged it takes 30 minutes top to remove the delete pipe, put back the DPF, plug in a bunch of EGR stuff under the hood, and flash back the stock tune. I drive it a week like that to set the readiness monitors, go smog it, come back home and delete everything again. With the X5 to my knowledge is not that easy. For once tuning is not done through an handheld device like the EFI Live but requires sending out the ECU to a tuner. Also removing and reinstalling the DPF is a major work. Even if it's something I would have to do every other year it just didn't make much sense. Hence the decision to sell the clunker...


----------



## robnitro (Aug 3, 2016)

edycol said:


> I know what Doug is saying. You can go toCARB web site and check why NOx is a problem, how it was addressed and why VW thing was such issue for CARB. There is no doubt that Diesel engines produce less CO2. However, the reason why we have such stringent emission standards are NOx issues in 1970's. To use word you used, I know it is counterintuitive, but modern diesels are worse NOx polluters than old diesels.
> It is not hoax, fake news etc.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nox was shown to be iffy in creating smog. There was a study in CA that found something called the weekend effect where on weekends with more gassers and less diesels on the road had higher smog.

Why is that? Well gasoline exhaust has much smaller particles that stay in the air longer and the unburned gas puts voc's into the air that stay up too.

The voc's being dramatically reduced is what cleaned up the air in LA during the 70s when cars went to closed ccv systems and closed vapor from the gas tank..... and later pumps getting vapor recovery.


----------



## animalmother224 (Nov 6, 2018)

lpcapital said:


> I have a 6.7 in California which is deleted and used to own an X5 35d which since I couldn't PRACTICALLY delete I sold off. The issue is that in CA, just like NY as I understand it, you get regular "smog test". Here too there's no longer a sniffer inserted in the exhaust and all emission testing is done via OBD not only by checking the CEL but also Readiness Monitors.
> 
> The issue is that even if with a tuner you get the CEL to stay off after deleting, the Redinenss Monitors will not check clear and you'll fail emission.
> 
> On the 6.7 I have EFI Live and when I have to get the truck smogged it takes 30 minutes top to remove the delete pipe, put back the DPF, plug in a bunch of EGR stuff under the hood, and flash back the stock tune. I drive it a week like that to set the readiness monitors, go smog it, come back home and delete everything again. With the X5 to my knowledge is not that easy. For once tuning is not done through an handheld device like the EFI Live but requires sending out the ECU to a tuner. Also removing and reinstalling the DPF is a major work. Even if it's something I would have to do every other year it just didn't make much sense. Hence the decision to sell the clunker...


finally, thanks for an actual useful reply!

luckily in NY my 6.7 doesn't even get plugged in. It is only a safety inspection since its an 8800lb GVWR truck. Assumingely the issue remains since an x5 wouldn't fall under that classification.


----------



## Ozer (Sep 17, 2015)

animalmother224 said:


> finally, thanks for an actual useful reply!
> 
> luckily in NY my 6.7 doesn't even get plugged in. It is only a safety inspection since its an 8800lb GVWR truck. Assumingely the issue remains since an x5 wouldn't fall under that classification.


Im in NY and my X5d gets plugged in. In fact, one time it wouldn't pass because the rediness wasnt... ready. I drove almost 800 miles before it set, this was due to me clearing a code prior to getting inspection.

X5 is plenty fast already, get a JB tuner for it and thats good for another 100hp max. You will be happy with the results.


----------



## animalmother224 (Nov 6, 2018)

Ozer said:


> Im in NY and my X5d gets plugged in. In fact, one time it wouldn't pass because the rediness wasnt... ready. I drove almost 800 miles before it set, this was due to me clearing a code prior to getting inspection.
> 
> X5 is plenty fast already, get a JB tuner for it and thats good for another 100hp max. You will be happy with the results.


thank you very much for your reply.

I wasn't overly worried about speed and power out of the little truck, my concern was longevity and health of the motor over the life of the engine. Anyone that knows anything about modern diesel motors knows the new emissions really are horrible for the health of the engine. At least with the full-sized trucks that is.

If I purchase this truck, from what I've been able to read, it looks like ill be leaving the emissions on, unfortunately.


----------



## lpcapital (Mar 1, 2007)

animalmother224 said:


> thank you very much for your reply.
> 
> I wasn't overly worried about speed and power out of the little truck, my concern was longevity and health of the motor over the life of the engine. Anyone that knows anything about modern diesel motors knows the new emissions really are horrible for the health of the engine. At least with the full-sized trucks that is.
> 
> If I purchase this truck, from what I've been able to read, it looks like ill be leaving the emissions on, unfortunately.


An X5 Diesel doesn't come even close to what you probably experience with the Cummins. Reliability deleted or undeleted will leave you hugely disappointed. Yes it's a more refined diesel, the transmission is only marginally better and since I opted for a Laramie Longhorn edition I actually find the interior of my truck more luxurious.. And it doesn't creaks and rattle every time I go over a pebble...

I bought the 2009 X5d and the 2012 2500 with roughly the same 40K miles. By 100K the X5d would have costed me >$8K in repairs if it wasn't for the warranty; with the 2500 I just turned 100K and have not once had a single issue whether mechanical or otherwise. Plus I love working on the Ram because everything is so simple and accessible. On the X5 it was a nightmare or removing clips and plastics and nonesense just to get the place where I had to work on.

BUT, my wife loved her X5 and I still get heat sometimes for having sold it...

That's just my experience having owned both.


----------

