# Those planning on a DFP Delete....



## andy monty (Dec 29, 2007)

http://cleanairinlondon.org/sources...vehicles-illegally-after-government-failures/


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Maybe a Government grant should be set a side for free DPF/FAP maintainence if they want to force this green malarkey on us. Then people wouldn't go "sod the trees, I ain't paying a G for a new filter and fluid"


----------



## WhiteRoc_170 (Jan 31, 2013)

PugIain said:


> Maybe a Government grant should be set a side for free DPF/FAP maintainence if they want to force this green malarkey on us. Then people wouldn't go "sod the trees, I ain't paying a G for a new filter and fluid"


Well said! A friend of mine had his removed after vw quoted him £1800 for a new one. Cost him £600 and got it remapped for that.


----------



## SteveTDCi (Feb 8, 2006)

What a load of crap, I wonder how many of the vehicles entering London actually have dpf's fitted ? I bet most of the pollution comes from crappy I'd buses and taxis.

The govt are to blame anyway, fixing the tax system for both company car drivers and RFL in favour of diesels when they are not actually all that clean.


----------



## Exotica (Feb 27, 2006)

Most Modern buses run on Ad-blue.


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

I've already got to the point where I'm simply going to avoid cars fitted with a DPF !


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

uruk hai said:


> I've already got to the point where I'm simply going to avoid cars fitted with a DPF !


I just traded a non FAP 407 in, I could have made you special price


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

PugIain said:


> I just traded a non FAP 407 in, I could have made you special price


You and your FAP-ing


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

RisingPower said:


> You and your FAP-ing


As long as I don't get in anyone's way and tidy up, I see no issue!


----------



## Maggi200 (Aug 21, 2009)

IIRC the same was said about remaps. Every car with a remap was illegal and going to be taken off the road not long ago. There's always something

I'm actually surprised the source isn't the daily mail on this one


----------



## Willows-dad (Jul 12, 2012)

So will a car with a dpf delete fail an mot on emissions?


----------



## SteveTDCi (Feb 8, 2006)

They only have a smoke test, nothing emission based as far as I'm aware.


----------



## Willows-dad (Jul 12, 2012)

I don't get how it can't be roadworthy if it can pass an mot. Isn't that the point?


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

The best part is when they said DPF increase diesel consumption by 1% ... Mine figures are pre dpf delete 37.5mpg average, after dpf delete 46.5mpg, if this is what they are calling 1% increase ?


----------



## craigeh123 (Dec 26, 2011)

I wouldn't worry about it , nothing in mot test to check for dpf just a smoke test that's it


----------



## RobW (Jul 18, 2009)

Exotica said:


> Most Modern buses run on Ad-blue.


they don't run on it, they use it. Is it not an additive that is misted into the exhaust to clean any carbon deposits?

My last MOT had an emissions test and came back at 0% which sounds good to me. Garage up here does DPF removal and remap for £310, and for that he will take off the DPF and clean out the insides and refit the empty shell.


----------



## Kiashuma (May 4, 2011)

Alzak said:


> The best part is when they said DPF increase diesel consumption by 1% ... Mine figures are pre dpf delete 37.5mpg average, after dpf delete 46.5mpg, if this is what they are calling 1% increase ?


Thats mad, no chance i would have a car with a dpf or if it did it would be removed. Really cant believe how much better fuel consumption you are getting with out it.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Kiashuma said:


> Thats mad, no chance i would have a car with a dpf or if it did it would be removed. Really cant believe how much better fuel consumption you are getting with out it.


My FAP equipped 407 is better than my non FAP 407. By a large margin.
In fact I'm reckoning, driven sensibly, 200 miles better per tank. Same engine, 2.0L 136 HDi. Same size tank, 66L.
At 630 miles when I filled it up last week, it was still reading over 100 miles range, and I had been giving it some stick to see how it went.
It had been left running at various times, so I hadn't really been driving sensibly.


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

Is not just fuel consumption i do not have to drive now for now reason just to get DPF cleaned ...


----------



## lobotomy (Jun 23, 2006)

Alzak... I'm just waiting on my DPF kicking the bucket before going for a delete. My commute is 500mi a week (_100 round trip a day_) which is probably the most ideal situtaion for keeping the DPF healthy but mine just plain stinks every 750mi when doing a regen. Actually makes me feel dizzy with the smell sometimes!


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

Do not wait ... after dpf delete i was bit mad that i waited so long to get this removed best thing i have ever done to my car.


----------



## Kiashuma (May 4, 2011)

PugIain said:


> My FAP equipped 407 is better than my non FAP 407. By a large margin.
> In fact I'm reckoning, driven sensibly, 200 miles better per tank. Same engine, 2.0L 136 HDi. Same size tank, 66L.
> At 630 miles when I filled it up last week, it was still reading over 100 miles range, and I had been giving it some stick to see how it went.
> It had been left running at various times, so I hadn't really been driving sensibly.


Forgive my ignorance is the FAP the same as a DPF?


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

Same principle just work differently.


----------



## vroomtshh (Nov 23, 2009)

craigeh123 said:


> I wouldn't worry about it , nothing in mot test to check for dpf just a smoke test that's it


Anything after 2011 (from memory, i may be wrong on the date) gets a visual check that it has a DPF. If it had one from the factory, it still should. 
Very few MOt testers would fail you for it, but it is in the test


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

vroomtshh said:


> Anything after 2011 (from memory, i may be wrong on the date) gets a visual check that it has a DPF. If it had one from the factory, it still should.
> Very few MOt testers would fail you for it, but it is in the test


On mine dpf can is still there ... so you can't tell anything from outside


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Kiashuma said:


> Forgive my ignorance is the FAP the same as a DPF?


This >



Alzak said:


> Same principle just work differently.


It means Filtre a particule. The Peugeot one has an exhaust filter and a tank containing an additive. I think Eolys fluid.


----------



## alex300 (Apr 30, 2013)

i have removed my oxy cats and the dpf on my 300c crd and it still passed mot on emissions lol


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

*Beware DPF removal. Government says it invariably makes vehicle illegal for road use*

*Department of Transport guidance*

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/diesel-particulate-filters-guidance-note

*Legal requirements *

_It is an offence under the Road vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulation 61a(3)) to use a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet. *Removal of a DPF will almost invariably contravene these requirements, making the vehicle illegal for road use*.

A vehicle might still pass the MoT visible smoke emissions test, which is primarily intended to identify vehicles that are in a very poor state of repair, whilst emitting illegal and harmful levels of fine exhaust particulate. _


----------



## Yellow Dave (Apr 5, 2011)

It's no more illegal than removing the catalytic converter and people have been doing that since the early 90's. Only difference is its a lot harder to identify if the DPF has been removed.

I rarely see then checking the soot output nowadays, and there are plenty of diesels on the road every morning that would fail IMO.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

As I said a few days ago said:


> Maybe a Government grant should be set a side for free DPF/FAP maintainence if they want to force this green malarkey on us. Then people wouldn't go "sod the trees, I ain't paying a G for a new filter and fluid"


That's what should be the case, and theres a business opportunity for someone in there. Getting Government funding to part cover the cost of the maintainence of them.
So instead of copying and pasting stuff you've published somewhere else, get being useful and publish that as an idea.


----------



## LeeH (Jan 29, 2006)

Is taking off your DPF as bad as using snow foam?


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

The Department of Transport guidance says a vehicle might still pass the MoT visible smoke emissions test "_whilst emitting illegal and harmful levels of fine exhaust particulate_".

The Association of British Insurers says "_Applying for or renewing insurance knowing that the vehicle is illegal or unroadworthy, would amount to misrepresentation and potential fraud"_


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

LeeH said:


> Is taking off your DPF as bad as using snow foam?


Worse. Unlike removing a factory-fitted DPF, snow foam doesn't make the vehicle illegal for road use


----------



## richtea78 (Apr 16, 2011)

Why should the Government pay for it? That would only cost tax payers money. If you dont want issues with a DPF dont buy a diesel? 

Honestly, the sense of entitlement is what has got this country into such a mess. Deal with the consequences of your own decisions and stop expecting to be bailed out.


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

PugIain said:


> That's what should be the case, and theres a business opportunity for someone in there. Getting Government funding to part cover the cost of the maintainence of them.
> So instead of copying and pasting stuff you've published somewhere else, get being useful and publish that as an idea.


Diesel vehicle manufacturers should warn people that soot can build up in a DPF. Also that DPF's are designed to trap 'ash' which will have to be removed periodically


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

PugIain said:


> That's what should be the case, and theres a business opportunity for someone in there. Getting Government funding to part cover the cost of the maintainence of them.
> So instead of copying and pasting stuff you've published somewhere else, get being useful and publish that as an idea.


I responded to someone else's post and started a new one.


----------



## richtea78 (Apr 16, 2011)

Or alternatively people should educate themselves first? 

Im not having a pop just at you, its this whole nanny state type thing. People want everything handed to them on a plate and if they dont get it they want compensation for it. 

The DPF issue has been around for some time. Id be very surprised if you couldnt have found out about it before buying your car if you looked around.


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

Yellow Dave said:


> It's no more illegal than removing the catalytic converter and people have been doing that since the early 90's. Only difference is its a lot harder to identify if the DPF has been removed.
> 
> I rarely see then checking the soot output nowadays, and there are plenty of diesels on the road every morning that would fail IMO.


I haven't seen DfT guidance on catalytic converters but that for DPF's is clear. Why would anyone want to own a vehicle that is invariably illegal to drive or risk being found guilty of misrepresentation and potential fraud for applying for or renewing insurance knowing that the vehicle is illegal or unroadworthy?


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

*Three reasons not to buy*

Three reasons not to buy a second-hand diesel vehicle with its factory-fitted DPF removed:

1. Government says such a vehicle is invariably illegal for road use

2. Applying for or renewing insurance knowing that the vehicle is illegal or unroadworthy, would amount to misrepresentation and potential fraud

3. These filters enable reductions in emissions which help meet European emission standards, improving air quality and thereby health standards.


----------



## richtea78 (Apr 16, 2011)

Simon, out of curiosity do you have any interest in detailing cars or have you joined purely to flog your own agenda of Clean Air in London?


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

richtea78 said:


> Simon, out of curiosity do you have any interest in detailing cars or have you joined purely to flog your own agenda of Clean Air in London?


Gather a lot a DW members have visited the Clean Air in London website to read about the implications of DPF removal so keen to engage directly, not hide


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

SimonBirkett said:


> Gather a lot a DW members have visited the Clean Air in London website to read about the implications of DPF removal so keen to engage directly, not hide


Welcome along.

If you're here to give a fair opinion or facts that are relevant to the subject, I don't think anyone can object to your input.


----------



## Shinyvec (Feb 12, 2010)

I must admit to wanting my DPF removing in the past but then I found Wynns DPF Cleaner. I works wonders and really clears the DPF out as my Chrome Tailpipes show loads of crap on them when I run the cleaner. I use it about every 3000 miles as recommended or when I notice the DPF is regenerating a bit to often. This cleaner is £9.00 a bottle off Ebay and you dump it into the tank and then fill with fuel, it also improves power and mpg while its in the tank. Anyone wanting to give there car a good clean out can get Wynns EGR Cleaner too which you spray into the indution system and then run the DPF cleaner ( if fitted ) and everything is left squeeky clean.
I first read about this stuff in a magazine for the automotive trade where it was advertised as a option for garages to charge for DPF Cleaning without any form of labour involved.


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

SimonBirkett said:


> 2. Applying for or renewing insurance knowing that the vehicle is illegal or unroadworthy, would amount to misrepresentation and potential fraud


Most of insurance companies which specialise in modified cars insurance take DPF delete as a modification and they are very happy to insure cars like that ...


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

When cars have a remap to counteract the DPF removal, is it just to stop the ECU attempting to run the clearing and monitoring cycles, or do they lean off the fueling to reduce black smoke? 

The DPF issue is going to get worse as time goes on. More and more companies are offering their services to remove them making it easier to get done, whilst making more people aware. 

As cars with DPFs are getting older and cheaper, it's less likely that future owners, who have a smaller budget, will be willing to spend the £1000+ getting the DPF replaced. They will opt for the cheapest method. 

I have sympathy for people who buy cars just to drive and get caught out unexpectedly when the DPF fails. 

There is obviously a lot of people doing it and it is clear that they are giving off far more black smoke once done. Even the ones that have apparently been mapped. 

I've never understood why an MOT test for diesels is purely smoke and down to the opinion of the tester. Petrol cars are tested properly and the readings are recorded as fact. No chance of a dodgy pass unless they test another car. 

Something needs to be done about DPFs. It is too much to expect owners to be facing another huge bill. They say the life of them is only an expected 70-80k, but I know people, who use diesels correctly, and they have already had the DPF replaced two or three times within its expected lifetime. 

However we can't just let people remove it polluting the environment when manufacturers are getting hammered to reduce emissions and other people are being forced to pick cars to suit emission levels, or paying the cost/tax for driving a dirty car. 

People buying diesels have to be made aware of the consequences of having a car with a DPF and use that to make sure a diesel is wise for them. 

Cars with DPFs deleted should be encouraged to keep it on. If they remove it they should either be fined and be forced to pay top level road tax at a minimum. 

I understand that many people remove to for better performance, but the vast majority will start doing it purely because of cost. 

It makes a complete mockery of the governments forcing the manufacturers into spending fortunes to reduce emissions, whilst taxing car owners who choose not to reduce theirs. 

The DPFs really are a pain in the backside and turning into a real saga.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2013)

If they are failing like i keep hearing then they simply are not fit for purpose, to have a car that can only do long journeys or be driven in a certain way is ridiculous !!


----------



## Yellow Dave (Apr 5, 2011)

SimonBirkett said:


> I haven't seen DfT guidance on catalytic converters but that for DPF's is clear. Why would anyone want to own a vehicle that is invariably illegal to drive or risk being found guilty of misrepresentation and potential fraud for applying for or renewing insurance knowing that the vehicle is illegal or unroadworthy?


Not having a catalytic converter fitted when originally it did, is an mot failure, and a fine-able offence by the police.
How many hundreds of cars are bought and sold knowingly like it and even known by the insurance companies. 1000's, yet people still by them, so what makes it any different to buying a diesel with the DPF removed? None.

How many cars are remapped? This will knowingly affect emissions and noise levels so therefore illegal

All I'm saying is its known and done regularly, DPF are not the answer to lowering emissions and better air quality. Nor are catalytic converters.

I reference to knowingly insuring non legal cars, stick by the letter of the law and you should only ever fit the same tyres as they left the factory with. Does your car run the same make factory fitted tyres? I had to tell them about fitting winter tyres in the snow, and they tried to put up my premium as its a modification


----------



## richtea78 (Apr 16, 2011)

Reference to winter tires, you might want to speak to them again if that's actually the case as that's in conflict with the ABIs own guidance on the topic.


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

Alzak said:


> Most of insurance companies which specialise in modified cars insurance take DPF delete as a modification and they are very happy to insure cars like that ...


There are two issues. First, the need to declare modifications and second the consequences of any modifications.

The full statement we received from the Association of British Insurers is:

_"It is the responsibility of the vehicle owner to ensure that their vehicle is legal to drive and roadworthy, and to declare it as such when applying for or renewing insurance. Applying for or renewing insurance knowing that the vehicle is illegal or unroadworthy, would amount to misrepresentation and potential fraud. Terms and conditions of motor insurance policies normally specify that the vehicle must be registered in the UK (or in the process of being registered), and that the vehicle is roadworthy. No insurance would be offered or renewed if the owner declared to the insurer that the vehicle was illegal to drive/unroadworthy.

"In the event of a vehicle becoming unroadworthy and/or failing an MoT, insurers would expect owners to remedy defects and obey the law by not driving the vehicle (as noted above if owners do not do this they would breach the terms and conditions of the policy). The need to notify an insurer should therefore not arise, unless as a result of the defects the policy holder is temporarily or permanently taking the vehicle off the road and wishes to suspend or cancel the policy.

"Insurers require notification of modifications to the vehicle which change the vehicle's standard specifications. Clearly any such modification which rendered the vehicle illegal or unroadworthy would not be allowed by the insurer.

"If a crash arose as the result of a vehicle being driven illegally, then the insurer would be able to decline the claim and/or void the policy, depending on the circumstances, in particular if the illegality was a contributor to the crash, and/or had been misrepresented to the insurer. However this would not affect the insurer's obligations to third parties in the event of injury or property damage."_

This doesn't leave much room, if any, for insuring a vehicle that has had a factory-fitted DPF removed.


----------



## richtea78 (Apr 16, 2011)

Well it does, you just tell the insurance company.


----------



## richtea78 (Apr 16, 2011)

Plus in order not to pay out the insurance company would have to argue that the DPF delete contributed to the crash. They could refuse to pay out, the FOS however is more than likely to find against them if the DPF delete didn't cause the crash


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

*Motorists are being let down by the Government*



Kerr said:


> When cars have a remap to counteract the DPF removal, is it just to stop the ECU attempting to run the clearing and monitoring cycles, or do they lean off the fueling to reduce black smoke?
> 
> The DPF issue is going to get worse as time goes on. More and more companies are offering their services to remove them making it easier to get done, whilst making more people aware.
> 
> ...


You raise lots of good points.

As I understand it, the typical 'remapping' of a vehicle makes the engine control unit (ECU) 'believe' that the diesel particulate filter (DPF) is present (so that the warning light on the dashboard goes off) but does not improve the emissions.

There is no doubt people buying diesel vehicles should be warned about the costs of maintaining the DPF. Imagine how unhappy you'd be if you bought a second-hand diesel vehicle then found it was illegal to drive (because the factory-fitted DPF had been removed)!

'Remapping' a vehicle could never make up for a factory-fitted DPF being removed. Logically, if such a thing were possible, the manufacturers would not fit DPFs in the first place.

The MoT needs to be updated. I think they may introduce 'roadworthiness certificates'.

In June 2012, the World Health Organisation classified diesel exhaust as carcinogenic for humans. The last thing we need is raw diesel exhaust being pumped into our streets.

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf

The Government is letting down drivers by failing to warn them and stop the removal of factory-fitted diesel particulate filters.


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

SimonBirkett said:


> There are two issues. First, the need to declare modifications and second the consequences of any modifications.
> 
> The full statement we received from the Association of British Insurers is:
> 
> ...


My Insurance company know about every single modification from standard set up including DPF delete and performance remap they do not have a problem insuring this mods ...


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

richtea78 said:


> Plus in order not to pay out the insurance company would have to argue that the DPF delete contributed to the crash. They could refuse to pay out, the FOS however is more than likely to find against them if the DPF delete didn't cause the crash


Insurers not wanting to pay out might also say the 'Terms and conditions' of the policy were breached because the vehicle was illegal to use on the road i.e. invalidating the insurance


----------



## 182_Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

richtea78 said:


> Simon, out of curiosity do you have any interest in detailing cars or have you joined purely to flog your own agenda of Clean Air in London?


I trust he wont be using our forum in this way :thumb:


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

Yellow Dave said:


> Not having a catalytic converter fitted when originally it did, is an mot failure, and a fine-able offence by the police.
> How many hundreds of cars are bought and sold knowingly like it and even known by the insurance companies. 1000's, yet people still by them, so what makes it any different to buying a diesel with the DPF removed? None.
> 
> How many cars are remapped? This will knowingly affect emissions and noise levels so therefore illegal
> ...


I think the best way to reduce emissions and air pollution in the short term is to remove incentives for diesel vehicles and encourage people to buy petrol or plug-in electric hybrid vehicles for use in the most-polluted cities. How do you think it should be done? Also, reckon it's worse to remove a DPF than drive with used tyres.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

richtea78 said:


> Or alternatively people should educate themselves first?
> 
> Im not having a pop just at you, its this whole nanny state type thing. People want everything handed to them on a plate and if they dont get it they want compensation for it.
> 
> The DPF issue has been around for some time. Id be very surprised if you couldnt have found out about it before buying your car if you looked around.


I'm guessing this is aimed at me?
I did my research. Only older phase 1 diesel Peugeot 407s , like my previous one, have models within the range without FAP. They have to now be Euro 5 compliant, which is why they all now have the FAP system. 
I supose I could have kept my older 407 and been smug about not having a FAP to worry about, but what else would I spend my wages on?


----------



## richtea78 (Apr 16, 2011)

It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, just people who expect compensation is owed to them because they made a mistake. If you want compensation then it's aimed at you. 

You chose the 407 for some reason I'm guessing. Since your on here it's probably a fair bet you are an enthusiast about your car. Asking the Government to compensate you because that choice ultimately was the wrong one is not acceptable in my opinion.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

richtea78 said:


> Why should the Government pay for it? That would only cost tax payers money. If you dont want issues with a DPF dont buy a diesel?
> 
> Honestly, the sense of entitlement is what has got this country into such a mess. Deal with the consequences of your own decisions and stop expecting to be bailed out.


Diesel is a dirty fuel unlike petrol, the only reason why ved is lower for diesels generally is the addition of the dpf. If you take it away, I see no reason why diesels shouldn't be taxed at the same rate, if not more as they give out far more harmful emissions than petrol engines.

Those emissions are far less of an issue down motorways/major roads where they should spend most of the time and therefore have no issues with dpfs, but around town, I wouldn't want to be breathing that crap in.


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

Diesels give out less carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons than a petrol vehicle.
The downside is Nox (oxides of nitrogen) which is more than a petrol vehicle which is where the dpf comes in to try and trap these and not release them to atmosphere.
That said if I had a vehicle with dpf fitted and it needed replacing I'd get rid no problem as its just to expensive to justify what it does.
If possible I'd run a petrol for the rest of my life but that's doubtful


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

richtea78 said:


> You chose the 407 for some reason I'm guessing. Since your on here it's probably a fair bet you are an enthusiast about your car. Asking the Government to compensate you because that choice ultimately was the wrong one is not acceptable in my opinion.


No, I chose correctly. I didn't want a petrol one. So, because I want better fuel efficiency I should be hit with a potentially large bill?
So I should drive an old car, or a petrol car?


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

possul said:


> Diesels give out less carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons than a petrol vehicle.
> The downside is Nox (oxides of nitrogen) which is more than a petrol vehicle which is where the dpf comes in to try and trap these and not release them to atmosphere.
> That said if I had a vehicle with dpf fitted and it needed replacing I'd get rid no problem as its just to expensive to justify what it does.
> If possible I'd run a petrol for the rest of my life but that's doubtful


http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/27/diesel-engine-fumes-worse-petrol


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

PugIain said:


> No, I chose correctly. I didn't want a petrol one. So, because I want better fuel efficiency I should be hit with a potentially large bill?
> So I should drive an old car, or a petrol car?


The thing is, if the dpf gets regenerated, which it would in the kind of driving you'd expect a diesel to do, it shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

RisingPower said:


> The thing is, if the dpf gets regenerated, which it would in the kind of driving you'd expect a diesel to do, it shouldn't be an issue.


It does, but only to a certain point. Also, with the Peugeot/Citroen system there is an additive. Which lasts usually around 100k miles.

I'm not arguing about vehicle maintainence, my arguement is if there wasn't pressure to reduce emissions from various bodies etc, then these things wouldn't exist. I'm damn sure I wouldn't stick one on my own car for the hell of it.
Would all you petrol drivers be arguing so much if your cars had them?
Removing them would be a tempting prospect compared to a potential £1k plus bill then wouldn't it?


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

PugIain said:


> It does, but only to a certain point. Also, with the Peugeot/Citroen system there is an additive. Which lasts usually around 100k miles.
> 
> I'm not arguing about vehicle maintainence, my arguement is if there wasn't pressure to reduce emissions from various bodies etc, then these things wouldn't exist. I'm damn sure I wouldn't stick one on my own car for the hell of it.
> Would all you petrol drivers be arguing so much if your cars had them?
> Removing them would be a tempting prospect compared to a potential £1k plus bill then wouldn't it?


Well 100k isn't exactly a short amount of time and when you bear in mind how much longer diesel engines will last, it's hardly a dealbreaker.

The emissions aren't just co2, unlike petrol, there are far more harmful chemicals. It's a bit like say, bring back four star.

1k for a dpf to meet emissions or considerably more to run a petrol car, though petrol vs diesel is so much closer these days.

I had hfcs on for a while, they strictly passed emission rules, but i'm not sure technically they're legal either. I'm not sure I would want to run a car which was illegal if there was some 1k part which had zero effect in normal driving. But they wouldn't have been as bad as removing a dpf.

It's the question of whether you want an economical car for large milege down motorways, or a small engined petrol car for town driving.


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

RisingPower said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/27/diesel-engine-fumes-worse-petrol


That's more the smoke than emmisions. As in particulate and Nox which causes the health problems. I know from working in garages how bad a diesel running is compared to a petrol.
The actual emissions that are measured in mots are less.
Either that are things have changed again as it wasn't that long ago since I read up on this due to a work course (mechanic)

I know what you mean though, I hate getting behind a smoky diesel as it stinks the car out


----------



## S63 (Jan 5, 2007)

Is there any data available comparing different makes. Talking to work colleagues it seems they get far more Peugot DPF problems than Renault for example.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

RisingPower said:


> Well 100k isn't exactly a short amount of time and when you bear in mind how much longer diesel engines will last, it's hardly a dealbreaker.
> 
> The emissions aren't just co2, unlike petrol, there are far more harmful chemicals. It's a bit like say, bring back four star.
> 
> ...


I have no intention of removing the emissions control on my car, I'm sure that's the same with my old man.
It's nothing to do with extra pollution, rather the potential (however small) of ****ing my car up. It IS French after all 
I'd rather drive it as economically as I can, and give it a caning once a month to keep the filter healthy.
I think the Peugeot system requires a set amount of time at a certain revs and exhaust temperature to perform a regen.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

possul said:


> That's more the smoke than emmisions. As in particulate and Nox which causes the health problems. I know from working in garages how bad a diesel running is compared to a petrol.
> The actual emissions that are measured in mots are less.
> Either that are things have changed again as it wasn't that long ago since I read up on this due to a work course (mechanic)
> 
> I know what you mean though, I hate getting behind a smoky diesel as it stinks the car out


Uhm, smoke is emissions  It's the co2 diesels are good for, hence lower tax, but the dpf burns off those more harmful chemicals.

Taxing on co2 is ludicrous at least around towns.


----------



## richtea78 (Apr 16, 2011)

Well you chose the diesel to get better fuel efficiency for what reason? To save you money? Fair enough but surely you should also factor in the cost of the DPF into it? 

For too long people have thought that diesel was more economical. Now they are finding out that it's not they want to be compensated for it? 

The way I see it, I pay enough for petrol already. I don't think I should have to pay tax to compensate diesel drivers. If you want compensation would you be happy if it's put onto the price of your diesel? 

Personally I don't really care so long as it doesn't cost me money. I'm still pissed off that Euro5 has killed VTECs so now I'll have to have a turbo car next I expect


----------



## derbigofast (Dec 6, 2011)

the big problem is that dpf filter works if you drive the miles. short runs blocks them up but you sales men either dont know this or wont tell you this as all they put across is the eco side of it


----------



## alan hanson (May 21, 2008)

derbigofast said:


> the big problem is that dpf filter works if you drive the miles. short runs blocks them up but you sales men either dont know this or wont tell you this as all they put across is the eco side of it


that's the point though if you have the justification for a diesel then its fine if you buy a diesel to get the paper on a sunday its your fault, when spending thousands on a car surely peeps would do some research?

you buy a car to suit you overall not because tax is cheap (something you pay once a year) or mpg when you dont little miles a year


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

*DPFs can get blocked by soot and/or ash*

DPFs can be blocked by one or both of *soot* and *ash*. Soot can build up e.g. if a diesel vehicle is driven at lower speeds around cities. Soot can be burnt off e.g. by driving on the motorway. In contrast, ash is incombustible and will build up over time in any DPF. Soot might need to be removed every three years. Ash might need to be removed after 80,000 miles of driving. The cost of maintaining the DPF in a diesel vehicle is a major disadvantage compared to petrol


----------



## alan hanson (May 21, 2008)

but all that average mpg cheaper tax etc that gets banged on about surely must even it out, cant have everything i guess always a downer somewhere round the corner


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

alan hanson said:


> but all that average mpg cheaper tax etc that gets banged on about surely must even it out, cant have everything i guess always a downer somewhere round the corner


This is the thing, everyone bought a diesel thinking how wonderful and cheap it would be, but now it isn't in some cases they're whinging.


----------



## S63 (Jan 5, 2007)

I opted for the diesel engine in my new Clio, not for any financial reasons but just the fact I prefer the characteristics of the diesels power compared to the two petrol variants.

I'm a low mileage driver so most probably won't benefit financially in the long term but paying zero road tax and getting 70mpg does give me, however misleading, a good feeling. Must remember to give it a blast down the motorway once a month.


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

S63 said:


> I opted for the diesel engine in my new Clio, not for any financial reasons but just the fact I prefer the characteristics of the diesels power compared to the two petrol variants.
> 
> I'm a low mileage driver so most probably won't benefit financially in the long term but paying zero road tax and getting 70mpg does give me, however misleading, a good feeling. Must remember to give it a blast down the motorway once a month.


As well as regularly burning the soot off on the motorway you might plan on servicing the car, after a few years, to remove the ash build up in the DPF


----------



## S63 (Jan 5, 2007)

SimonBirkett said:


> As well as regularly burning the soot off on the motorway you might plan on servicing the car, after a few years, to remove the ash build up in the DPF


How is the ash build up removed at service?


----------



## craigeh123 (Dec 26, 2011)

Dpf are expensive bits of kit a Mazda i did was around 1300 quid ! Ive seen them cause issues even on motorway cars .


----------



## alan hanson (May 21, 2008)

do the manufacturers care? it was away of selling more cars with the perk of little to no tax - has it been tested/used enough to introduce? either way manufacturers sell more cars, and then repair them


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

S63 said:


> How is the ash build up removed at service?


good question!


----------



## S63 (Jan 5, 2007)

possul said:


> good question!


I'm hoping for a good answer!


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

S63 said:


> I'm hoping for a good answer!


I gather garages can send the DPF to a specialist who removes the ash under pressure. Big garages like Kwik Fit should have more detail


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

possul said:


> good question!


I gather garages can send the DPF to a specialist who removes the ash under pressure. Big garages like Kwik Fit should have more detail


----------



## S63 (Jan 5, 2007)

SimonBirkett said:


> I gather garages can send the DPF to a specialist who removes the ash under pressure. Big garages like Kwik Fit should have more detail


Won't be letting an outfit like Kwik Fit loose on my car any time soon, sounds like a process as expensive as a replacement filter.


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

S63 said:


> Won't be letting an outfit like Kwik Fit loose on my car any time soon, sounds like a process as expensive as a replacement filter.


The price for servicing the DPF to remove ash and/or soot should be comparable with the DPF removal/remap services offered.


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

SimonBirkett said:


> The price for servicing the DPF to remove ash and/or soot should be comparable with the DPF removal/remap services offered.


With the difference that when you remove DPF you have no more problems where after "cleaning" you will have to spend some money again and again ...

This cleaning service is popular in US but not here, and there is no warranty that this cleaning service will improve lifespan of DPF filter insert.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Just stole this from another forum I use


martins auto said:


> Hi Ive seen all the posts, I took out my Dpf and cat split them apart, soaked the dpf in cleaner you can get from any autofactor. I left it overnight soaking, then washed it out using boiling hot water about 25 litres of hot water, then blew it out with an airline, it takes about an hour to dry it out. i also cleaned the pipework connected to and blew out the cat with the airline. I put it back together, put it back on the car sealing the joints with exhaust paste. Its a pretty simple process with amazing results, total cost about €30.
> I did reset my engine management light using simple software. your car will be lighter on fuel, more power and less noise. and less damage to turbo.:lol::lol:


A FAP clean on a 1.6 HDi.


----------



## S63 (Jan 5, 2007)

^^^^ kind of defeats the object of a filter if you then either blow the ash and soot out with compressed air or run contaminated water into drains.


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

S63 said:


> ^^^^ kind of defeats the object of a filter if you then either blow the ash and soot out with compressed air or run contaminated water into drains.


The ash ejected from the DPF can be collected as part of the cleaning process and disposed of safely


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

Alzak said:


> With the difference that when you remove DPF you have no more problems where after "cleaning" you will have to spend some money again and again ...
> 
> This cleaning service is popular in US but not here, and there is no warranty that this cleaning service will improve lifespan of DPF filter insert.


Unlike cleaning a DPF, removal of a factory-fitted DPF makes the vehicle illegal to use on the road.


----------



## Mixman (Dec 18, 2007)

I can't seem to remember seeing 'Remove DPF and clean' underneath any of the regular service intervals on my old Zafira. 110k and never a DPF problem. Lots of motorway miles.


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

SimonBirkett said:


> Unlike cleaning a DPF, removal of a factory-fitted DPF makes the vehicle illegal to use on the road.


My car is insured with DPF delete modification declared on my insurance as well as MOT certificate which clearly states my car passes all emission/smoke test so I do not get how you can say removing DPF is illegal.

I'm sure if taking DPF off will be illegal my insurance company will not insure me ? and if smoke level will be to high my car will fail MOT?


----------



## craigeh123 (Dec 26, 2011)

Prob falls in construction and use . Like hid lights , ive passed them on mot because had a beam pattern and are a correct colour however they are illegal via construction and use . Its a minefield


----------



## Mixman (Dec 18, 2007)

Alzak said:


> My car is insured with DPF delete modification declared on my insurance as well as MOT certificate which clearly states my car passes all emission/smoke test so I do not get how you can say removing DPF is illegal.
> 
> I'm sure if taking DPF off will be illegal my insurance company will not insure me ? and if smoke level will be to high my car will fail MOT?


It's got nothing to do with passing an M.O.T it clearly states on the D.O.T article:-

It is an offence under the Road vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulation 61a(3))1 to use a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet. Removal of a DPF will almost invariably contravene these requirements, making the vehicle illegal for road use.

Totally seperate to 'Passing emission/smoke' tests.


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

Mixman said:


> It's got nothing to do with passing an M.O.T it clearly states on the D.O.T article:-
> 
> It is an offence under the Road vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulation 61a(3))1 to use a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet. Removal of a DPF will almost invariably contravene these requirements, making the vehicle illegal for road use.
> 
> Totally seperate to 'Passing emission/smoke' tests.


So most of remapped cars and cars with bigger than orginally equipped tyres are in breach of this requlation ??

For me MOT is a proof that my car comply with legal emission/smoke limits simple as.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Alzak said:


> So most of remapped cars and cars with bigger than orginally equipped tyres are in breach of this requlation ??
> 
> For me MOT is a proof that my car comply with legal emission/smoke limits simple as.


Eh? What the eck do tyres have to do with anything?


----------



## Mixman (Dec 18, 2007)

There's also the added problem that you could be avoiding paying the right road tax too. I know the Zafiras, very early ones, fitted without DPF's were Euro4, the later ones Euro5. People have purposely altered cars that no longer fit into the relevant tax bracket. 

Altering tyres won't affect air pollutant emission standards.

Petrol cars with CATS removed would fall under the same bracket too, many do remove cats, doesn't make it right


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

RisingPower said:


> Eh? What the eck do tyres have to do with anything?


I'm sure running bigger(wider) tyres makes your car to burn more fuel which mean higher emissions ?



Mixman said:


> There's also the added problem that you could be avoiding paying the right road tax too. I know the Zafiras, very early ones, fitted without DPF's were Euro4, the later ones Euro5. People have purposely altered cars that no longer fit into the relevant tax bracket.
> 
> Altering tyres won't affect air pollutant emission standards.
> 
> Petrol cars with CATS removed would fall under the same bracket too, many do remove cats, doesn't make it right


Vehicle excise duty is paid on amount of CO2 produced by car not exhaust gases particulate level...

Petrol car with CAT removed will definately fail MOT emission test.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Mixman said:


> There's also the added problem that you could be avoiding paying the right road tax too. I know the Zafiras, very early ones, fitted without DPF's were Euro4, the later ones Euro5. People have purposely altered cars that no longer fit into the relevant tax bracket.
> 
> Altering tyres won't affect air pollutant emission standards.
> 
> Petrol cars with CATS removed would fall under the same bracket too, many do remove cats, doesn't make it right


Mmm exactly, test pipes may pass mots on emissions or hfcs, but test pipes aren't legal and i'm not entirely sure about hfcs.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Alzak said:


> So most of remapped cars and cars with bigger than orginally equipped tyres are in breach of this requlation ??
> 
> For me MOT is a proof that my car comply with legal emission/smoke limits simple as.


On the petrol front, they still need to meet an emissions test that is tested to a figure.

Diesel cars have a smoke test, nothing is measured and comes down to the opinion of the tester. It is a farcical test.

It is clear by MOT standards that a DPF is required.

There has to be tests put in place to clamp down on DPFs. Diesel cars are filthy and we can't allow people to remove them. All these regulations for emissions have been put in place for a reason.

Not sure what you think bigger tyres might do? That's not the same as removing a DPF.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Alzak said:


> I'm sure running bigger(wider) tyres makes your car to burn more fuel which mean higher emissions ?


What a load of toss. Weight in back of car, weight of wheels, weight of fuel, weight of passengers?

What about wider tyres that have a much narrower radius and much smaller sidewalls. Or adjusting 1001 other things on the car?

Removing something which definitively removes *harmful* emissions has precisely f all to do with anything else. It's the harmful emissions which dpfs reduce.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Also, what about EGR blanks?


----------



## Mixman (Dec 18, 2007)

PugIain said:


> Also, what about EGR blanks?


Quote a lot more difficult for the testing station to see as they are 'generally' hidden. Testers are not allowed to remove anything during a test hence why vehicles with plastic undertrays under the engine are often given 'adviseries' for them. As well as other silly things.

A DPF removal is very easy to see. The only time they can't be seen to be 'altered' are the DPF's that have been hollowed out.


----------



## Dannbodge (Sep 26, 2010)

Mixman said:


> Quote a lot more difficult for the testing station to see as they are 'generally' hidden. Testers are not allowed to remove anything during a test hence why vehicles with plastic undertrays under the engine are often given 'adviseries' for them. As well as other silly things.
> 
> A DPF removal is very easy to see. The only time they can't be seen to be 'altered' are the DPF's that have been hollowed out.


My dad's bmw has a plastic undertray covering 90% of the underside of the car and has never had an advisory in its mot


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Dannbodge said:


> My dad's bmw has a plastic undertray covering 90% of the underside of the car and has never had an advisory in its mot


Neither have I with either of my 407s, and my Dad hasn't either.


----------



## Paintmaster1982 (Oct 23, 2007)

PugIain said:


> Neither have I with either of my 407s, and my Dad hasn't either.


That's because taxi's have to have them removed


----------



## Rundie (Oct 2, 2007)

Mixman said:


> Quote a lot more difficult for the testing station to see as they are 'generally' hidden. Testers are not allowed to remove anything during a test hence why vehicles with plastic undertrays under the engine are often given 'adviseries' for them. As well as other silly things.


I've had plastic undertray advisories on two of my cars recently. Also had to remove a 'magic tree' air freshener from the mirror as it obscured view :thumb::lol:


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Paintmaster1982 said:


> That's because taxi's have to have them removed


Ah, and heres me thinking that you'd ripped yours off because you drive like a girl.


----------



## craigeh123 (Dec 26, 2011)

Kerr said:


> On the petrol front, they still need to meet an emissions test that is tested to a figure.
> 
> Diesel cars have a smoke test, nothing is measured and comes down to the opinion of the tester. It is a farcical test.
> 
> F.


This isn't true . The smoke is measured via a smokemeter and has to meet certain limits 2008 on its 1.50 prior to that its 2.50 non turbo 3.00 turbo . You can fail a petrol or diesel for excessive smoke regardless of the emissions test result .


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

craigeh123 said:


> This isn't true . The smoke is measured via a smokemeter and has to meet certain limits 2008 on its 1.50 prior to that its 2.50 non turbo 3.00 turbo . You can fail a petrol or diesel for excessive smoke regardless of the emissions test result .


Fair point. I was thinking back to a few years ago when they used to rev the nuts out of a diesel and judge how bad the smoke was.

Looking at the MOT guide, they now test the density of the smoke.

There is still no actual measurement of harmful deposits though. Just density of the smoke.


----------



## craigeh123 (Dec 26, 2011)

Your right there its just a density test , nothing more than that but Christ you should see the smoke that comes out of a diesel that's been used around town ! Takes a few revs to clear them . Its rare a diesel fails


----------



## craigeh123 (Dec 26, 2011)

I know only know this as in a tester


----------



## Kiashuma (May 4, 2011)

Opps pressed the wrong button voting i meant NO !


----------

