BMW wants to take another look at over 24,000 diesel vehicles it's sold in the U.S. No, this isn't just to check out how they're holding up in the real world, it's to make sure the smoke coming out of the tailpipe is clean enough.

BMW is recalling a total of 24,340 vehicles from the 2009-2011 model years - roughly 2,740 2011 or 2012 X5 xDrive 50i and X6 xDrive 50i vehicles as well as 21,600 3-series diesels - because some parts of the emissions system (the DEF mixer, EGR valve and SCR catalyst) can incorrectly calculate the vehicle mileage. This can cause too many emissions to come out of the tailpipe, according to the California emission control rules. The recall will start May 9. Drivers should be on the lookout for letters after that date, a spokesman told Automotive News.

Just two months ago, BMW had to recall 1.3 million 5 Series and 6 Series vehicles from the 2003 to 2010 model years, 368,000 of them in the U.S.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 9 Comments
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 2 Months Ago
      "ecause some parts of the emissions system (the DEF mixer, EGR valve and SCR catalyst) can incorrectly calculate the vehicle mileage. This can cause too many emissions to come out of the tailpipe, according to the California emission control rules." Well that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
        • 2 Months Ago
        @2 Wheeled Menace
        I agree. Never should have expected those components to be good at math in the first place.
      paulwesterberg
      • 2 Months Ago
      That's the problem with "clean diesels" they might be relatively clean when the engine is new, but wear and tear, seasonal fuel mixtures, computer controlled combustion based on miscalibrated or degraded sensors can cause excess pollution once the engine is running outside of its design parameters. Vehicle manufacturers should be forced to certify vehicle emissions under warranty for 10 years as long as the engine has been properly maintained.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Months Ago
        @paulwesterberg
        In California, i know that all the emissions bits are warranted for at least 8 years, i think 10 tho..
      marcopolo
      • 2 Months Ago
      'Clean' diesel ? 'Clean' Gasoline 'Clean' coal ? 'Clean' cyanide ? maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how swapping from one fossil fuel to another marginally less harmful (dubious) is progress? I could, (albeit reluctantly) understand the argument that widespread swapping gasoline for LPG/CNG, could have some worthwhile environmental and balance of trade benefits, but diesel ? The truth is that most of the world operates on oil, any change to alternate fuels is going to require a long period and significant investment in new technology. Either an electrified vehicle fleet, or bio-fuel, or both. But, diesel ? That's an oil product produced out of necessity, not desirability ! Where possible it should be replaced.
        • 2 Months Ago
        @marcopolo
        you sound like you must be a liberal arts major. "If it's oil it must be bad". Take a chemistry class. you'll find that diesel hassignificantly less carbon emissions than gasoline . With the SCR techology, NOx emissions are reduced by 90%.
          marcopolo
          • 2 Months Ago
          @ Burt You must be new to ABG if you think I am of the irrational, "If it's oil it must be bad", persuasion !!! :) However, as Dave R elegantly points out, with very expensive and environmentally harmful exhaust filters, diesel engines can be rendered 'less' harmful. But no-one, certainly not even the Oil-industry, would argue that burning any fossil-fuel can be considered environmentally positive! The other factor to be considered is advancing oil depletion. While the US remains dependant on importation of oil, the economy will continue to be subject to the economic problems created by oil depletion. Fuel produced from fossil energy are an economic time bomb. At some stage in the not too distant economic future, non-fuel oil products will render oil uneconomic as fuel. At that point it won't really matter whether, it's diesel or gasoline, the ICE technology will be obsolete. The dubious value of Diesel v Gasoline is just a distraction by swapping one addiction for another almost identical addiction.
          Dave R
          • 2 Months Ago
          Diesel does not have "significantly less carbon emissions than gasoline". In fact, gallon per gallon, burning diesel results in higher CO2 emissions - about 10% more. Of course, diesel also has about 10% more energy per gallon compared to diesel. The reason why diesel powered vehicles tend to produce less CO2 emissions is because the engines themselves are more efficient than gasoline. But without advanced exhaust treatment they tend to be significantly dirtier and those exhaust treatments tend to reduce engine efficiency (lower compression ratios, particulate filters that need periodic high-heat burnoff through burning extra diesel, etc.
      Rotation
      • 2 Months Ago
      Um, why is ABG playing this down? This is a legit recall, not some kind of "let's have a look see" thing. The car is not performing as designed, just in this case it is in something you can't easily see.