# An end to the DPF confusion



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-for-mot-to-test-for-diesel-particulate-filter

Pretty clear cut now. From February you're in trouble.


----------



## 182_Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

Not sure if there's more information available but it appears to be just a visual check to see if the DPF is present , from what I have read some of these companies keep the DPF Unit but hollow it out, so they need to do more to prevent the DPF delete.


----------



## James Bagguley (Jul 13, 2013)

Kerr said:


> Pretty clear cut now. From February you're in trouble.


Not me, my car runs on the good stuff! yeah baby! 

In essence its a good idea, but as Sean says, most MOT checks seem to be purely visual, so i wonder how much change it will bring about in reality.

If they coupled it with outlawing DPF deleting, then it might be slightly more effective.


----------



## craigeh123 (Dec 26, 2011)

Tbh unless they state on the vsi wether the vehicle was or wasn't fitted with one us testers wont know . Also a lot of cars are fitted with massive under trays etc now and the dpfs are hidden anyhow


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

Purely a visual check so a hollowed out dpf will pass, providing smoke test passes
The problem I see is that majority of vehicles that will have a dpf fitted have covers.
These covers do not have to be removed on mot so if you can not see the front half of the exhaust (most fitted from turbo as a down pipe) they will not be seen.


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

The thing is most of the cars with DPF insert removed will still pass MOT smoke tests, so if this is visual check nothing will change.

I would like to see what will tuners do now knowing that DPF removal will result in MOT fail, sure they should let customers know that but this is just theory ...


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

Wouldn't suprise me if they have a straight through pipe with a dpf style surround welded to the pipe.


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

possul said:


> Wouldn't suprise me if they have a straight through pipe with a dpf style surround welded to the pipe.


And this is exactly what Milltek done ...


----------



## RD55 DUN (Dec 30, 2008)

Friendly MOT tester time


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

RD55 DUN said:


> Friendly MOT tester time


Good you have a friend who want to risk his job/licence for you ...


----------



## Tank. (Dec 26, 2011)

Alzak said:


> Good you have a friend who want to risk his job/licence for you ...


How exactly? the day after your MOT you could go get it removed. How would that come down on your MOT tester/friend?


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

I find it very concerning reading forums with this news today. 

Rather than complying with the MOT and environmental laws, people are just looking for methods to avoid sticking to it. 

Diesels are filthy and need to have their emissions reduced. 

If people aren't happy to run a car with a DPF, don't buy a diesel. It really is straightforward.


----------



## Tank. (Dec 26, 2011)

With all this whinging you do about diesels youll die of an early heart attack before the results of a Diesel engine will kill you


----------



## m1pui (Jul 24, 2009)

I thought (am not a diesel driver so never really looked in any depth) that the dpf didn't make them any cleaner. Just stored the particles, rather than constantly pumping them out, then belched it out in one go when the car is at prolonged high speed. So theoretically not polluting as much when they're in urban areas.


----------



## Tank. (Dec 26, 2011)

Exactly


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2013)

Makes me laugh people drive round in 6 cylinder cars preaching about diesels and emissions etc !! LOL, Diesel isnt good for your health and Petrol will bring an end to the earth as we know it, if your that fussed start walking or buy a bike !


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Tank. said:


> With all this whinging you do about diesels youll die of an early heart attack before the results of a Diesel engine will


Wow. Why does it upset you so much?

So many touchy people on here that can't handle anything that deviates from what they want to hear.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

paul01 said:


> Makes me laugh people drive round in 6 cylinder cars preaching about diesels and emissions etc !! LOL, Diesel isnt good for your health and Petrol will bring an end to the earth as we know it, if your that fussed start walking or buy a bike !


Difference is the emissions level is reasonably low on my car. Lower than many far smaller 2.9 cars and meets all MOT standards.


----------



## 182_Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

Lets try not to turn this into a closed thread.


----------



## Tank. (Dec 26, 2011)

Not upset at all, 

Youre the one getting upset at what other people choose to do to their cars. Why not keep yourself right and not get wound up at what other people choose to do


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Tank. said:


> Not upset at all,
> 
> Youre the one getting upset at what other people choose to do to their cars. Why not keep yourself right and not get wound up at what other people choose to do


Because I agree strongly they should have them.

Wait a few years and everyone will replace their failed DPF with a through pipe due to cost.

You're fully entitled to do whatever you want in your life. As soon as you start doing things that impact others and break the law, people have a right to express concern.


----------



## Tank. (Dec 26, 2011)

Anyway keep putting the world to rights on a forum, meanwhile people will continue doing what they do


----------



## rob_vrs (Jan 4, 2012)

Kerr said:


> Difference is the emissions level is reasonably low on my car. Lower than many far smaller 2.9 cars and meets all MOT standards.


Running out of stuff to put in the cars concerns me more than what comes out


----------



## rob_vrs (Jan 4, 2012)

What happens with cars that don't require MOT, but dont have DPF 😏


----------



## Deniance (Jun 28, 2008)

Love a good arguing thread i do!


----------



## Kiashuma (May 4, 2011)

Kerr said:


> I find it very concerning reading forums with this news today.
> 
> Rather than complying with the MOT and environmental laws, people are just looking for methods to avoid sticking to it.
> 
> ...


Or buy an old one pre dpf


----------



## rob_vrs (Jan 4, 2012)

If they want a performance diesel they'd have to remove the DPF, so would have to buy a diesel.


----------



## craigeh123 (Dec 26, 2011)

Dpf's are the new hid's it seems .


----------



## Tank. (Dec 26, 2011)

craigeh123 said:


> Dpf's are the new hid's it seems .


Yea so many people fitting them illegally


----------



## James Bagguley (Jul 13, 2013)

I think what is getting Kerr's goat is the fact that what people choose to do is flouting the law, and being cavalier in doing so perhaps adds insult to injury!

However, i accept that if the DPF discharges all the harmful stuff in one go during a purge, then its kind of swings and roundabouts!
Though i would assume that the toxins would be reduced or vapourised rather than simply released en mass?

EDIT: Okay, things moved on a page while i was typing that, slow then...


----------



## Tank. (Dec 26, 2011)

Of course the government are going to outlaw it. 
With estimated mpg increase of 10-15% with removal, if everyone with diesels caught onto this imagine how it would affect sales. If would affect not the fuel companies but the government in the duties they get


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Tank. said:


> Of course the government are going to outlaw it.
> With estimated mpg increase of 10-15% with removal, if everyone with diesels caught onto this imagine how it would affect sales. If would affect not the fuel companies but the government in the duties they get


I doubt it's anywhere near 10-15% and that's nothing to do for the reason for fitting DPFs.

Catalytic converters strangle petrol cars too. There was outrage 20 years ago when they made them a legal requirement.

Sadly to restrict what comes out the exhaust you are going to affect performance and economy a bit. it is a trade off.

What you don't see these days is lots of people being forced, or deciding, to remove their catalytic convertor anymore. Most people understand and accept it has a purpose.

You get some in the tuning scene who do still remove it, and you get more that remove the precats. With the precats gone the cars still usually pass the car specific emission tests for petrol cars.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

paul01 said:


> Makes me laugh people drive round in 6 cylinder cars preaching about diesels and emissions etc !! LOL, Diesel isnt good for your health and Petrol will bring an end to the earth as we know it, if your that fussed start walking or buy a bike !


My 6 cylinder engine is more economical and has less emissions than many smaller engines, it also fully complies with the law and I pay tax based on the emissions.

You'll find that it is the walkers and the bikers who have the biggest concern. They use the roads and are inhaling the smoke more.

Never felt a diesel car catch the back of your throat?


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2013)

Thanks for answering me twice :lol:, so you paying tax on your emissions helps reduce the actual emissions you produce how ?, or does it only justify it in your head ?


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

paul01 said:


> Thanks for answering me twice :lol:, so you paying tax on your emissions helps reduce the actual emissions you produce how ?, or does it only justify it in your head ?


Shaun removed my original post but an edited one has reappeared. I see the bit he has removed. ...

I never said it did reduce the emissions.

Many people buy their car based on emissions. Many people refuse to pay high road tax. That is the deterant of buying a dirty car.

If the guys who removed DPFs were then hit with road tax prices equivalent to how dirty they were post DPF removal, it might deter them too.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

paul01 said:


> Makes me laugh people drive round in 6 cylinder cars preaching about diesels and emissions etc !! LOL, Diesel isnt good for your health and Petrol will bring an end to the earth as we know it, if your that fussed start walking or buy a bike !


The difference is petrol engines don't produce the harmful emissions that diesels do.

Co2 and water is pretty much all that comes out the back. Unlike the ash from diesels and gord knows what else.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2013)

Let me guess , another 6 cylinder owner that thinks co2 and a petrol engine is good for the environment LOL.


I must add that both my cars are petrol ;-) and if i had a diesel i would leave the DPF on.


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

Kerr said:


> Shaun removed my original post but an edited one has reappeared. I see the bit he has removed. ...
> 
> I never said it did reduce the emissions.
> 
> ...


Road Tax is based on CO2 output and removing DPF have nothing to do with level of CO2 in exhaust gases ...

And you will be suprised about economy change after DPF removal.



RisingPower said:


> The difference is petrol engines don't produce the harmful emissions that diesels do.
> 
> Co2 and water is pretty much all that comes out the back. Unlike the ash from diesels and gord knows what else.


Don't you forget that if we all will decide one day to drive just petrol cars something will have to be done with all this diesel fuel left over from petrol production as this will not vanish just like that ...


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

paul01 said:


> Let me guess , another 6 cylinder owner that thinks co2 and a petrol engine is good for the environment LOL.
> 
> I must add that both my cars are petrol ;-) and if i had a diesel i would leave the DPF on.


I think the effect is negligible when compared to the amount of co2/methane produced by natural events.

Nor do I care about the environment, just about breathing in unnecessarily harmful emissions because someone just thinks the rules don't apply to them.

It's a similar thing to smoking almost. Some smokers are considerate, some are not.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Alzak said:


> Road Tax is based on CO2 output and removing DPF have nothing to do with level of CO2 in exhaust gases ...
> 
> And you will be suprised about economy change after DPF removal.


Yup and this is a ridiculous basis for road tax. Emissions are what comes out the back, co2, nitrates, whatever.

Removing a dpf allows more of these particulates to be emitted.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Alzak said:


> Road Tax is based on CO2 output and removing DPF have nothing to do with level of CO2 in exhaust gases ...
> 
> And you will be suprised about economy change after DPF removal.
> 
> Don't you forget that if we all will decide one day to drive just petrol cars something will have to be done with all this diesel fuel left over from petrol production as this will not vanish just like that ...


Generators? What about gas and plastics? Bit of a random question.


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

RisingPower said:


> Generators? What about gas and plastics? Bit of a random question.


For each 100L of petrol you have about 54L of diesel + other products as production left over and you have to utilise this is some way ...

And exhaust gas emmission from petro is not CO2 only as mentined on this thread ...

Compound Petrol Diesel
N2- 71 67
CO2- 14 13
H2O- 12 11
O2- 0 10
Trace elements- < 0.5 ~ 0.3
NOx- < 0.25 < 0.15
CO- 1 - 2 < 0.045
PM- 0 < 0.045
CxHy- < 0.25 < 0.03
SO2- traces < 0.03


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Alzak said:


> Road Tax is based on CO2 output and removing DPF have nothing to do with level of CO2 in exhaust gases ...
> 
> And you will be suprised about economy change after DPF removal.
> 
> Don't you forget that if we all will decide one day to drive just petrol cars something will have to be done with all this diesel fuel left over from petrol production as this will not vanish just like that ...


Diesel has it's purpose and will never go away.

The problem, especially in the UK, is we use too much diesel. Even after refining more petrol than we need, we still have to import more diesel.

More countries are buying into diesel meaning less supply to sell us. Not endangered at the moment, but more countries are seeing the original benefits we seen years ago when it was much cheaper.

So you'll either end up refining too much crude to get enough diesel, or the lack of supply will force diesel up in price.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Alzak said:


> For each 100L of petrol you have about 54L of diesel + other products as production left over and you have to utilise this is some way ...
> 
> And exhaust gas emmission from petro is not CO2 only as mentined on this thread ...
> 
> ...


I said pretty much and i'd be willing to bet the sulphites and ozone aren't brilliant to inhale, i'd also like to know whether those figures are merely burning fuel at temperature.

There are many uses for diesel, cars not being the only one.


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

Kerr said:


> Diesel has it's purpose and will never go away.
> 
> The problem, especially in the UK, is we use too much diesel. Even after refining more petrol than we need, we still have to import more diesel.
> 
> ...


Diesel cars are more economical and this is why people tend to go for them...



RisingPower said:


> There are many uses for diesel, cars not being the only one.


Give me some examples then ...


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Alzak said:


> Diesel cars are more economical and this is why people tend to go for them...
> 
> Give me some examples then ...


Hgvs, buses, trains, generators?

Some more figures on diesel vs petrol

http://www.air-quality.org.uk/26.php


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

RisingPower said:


> Hgvs, buses, trains, generators?
> 
> Some more figures on diesel vs petrol
> 
> http://www.air-quality.org.uk/26.php


And most of those examples do not have an direct impact on our health and environment ...:wall::wall: What is the difference between your examples and using diesel fuel in normal cars ?

As per your link there is no significant environmental adwantage of emission from petrol engine ... and conclusion is one we will have to sooner rather than later stop usung petrol and diesel powered cars ...


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Alzak said:


> Diesel cars are more economical and this is why people tend to go for them...
> 
> .


Years ago diesel was a fraction of the cost of petrol. There was good savings to be had, but you couldn't convice people to touch a diesel.

Years later now that running costs are similar, more people needlessly buy a diesel pinning everything on the fact you get better fuel consumption.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Alzak said:


> And most of those examples do not have an direct impact on our health and environment ...:wall::wall: What is the difference between your examples and using diesel fuel in normal cars ?
> 
> .


Diesel is needed for huge torque to drag those hugely heavy HGVs, trains and buses around.

The vast majority of diesel owners don't need a diesel. They don't use it how and where it would benefit them.


----------



## SimonBirkett (Sep 25, 2013)

*"If you have [the factory-fitted DPF] removed [your car] will fail the [MOT] test"*

Thanks for starting this thread.

The DfT's announcement is very welcome and is likely to be backed by more than a 'visual check' or a squint at 'on-board diagnostics'. The Government could not be clearer in its intentions or have promised more i.e. they want to be sure that factory-fitted DPFs have not been removed.

The Minister said:

_"I am very concerned that vehicles are being modified in a way that is clearly detrimental to people's health and undoes the hard work car manufacturers have taken to improve emissions standards. It has become apparent the government had to intervene to clarify the position on particulate filter removal given the unacceptable negative impact on air quality.

"This change to the MOT tests makes it clear - *if you have this filter removed from your car it will fail the test*."_ *My emphasis.*

DPF's are there for very good reason. Not least, the World Health Organisation classified diesel exhaust as carinogenic for humans in June 2012:

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

and has now lumped in all outdoor air pollution for good measure:

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf

Finally, bear in mind the EU is finalising next Monday it's new roadworthiness regulations so we may know more next week:

http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-air-quality/new-roadworthiness-rules-require-analysis-532154

and

http://pr.euractiv.com/pr/passenger-car-emission-tests-defective-diesel-filters-pollute-air-101941


----------



## Alzak (Aug 31, 2010)

SimonBirkett said:


> The DfT's announcement is very welcome and is likely to be backed by more than a 'visual check' or a squint at 'on-board diagnostics'. The Government could not be clearer in its intentions or have promised more i.e. they want to be sure that factory-fitted DPFs have not been removed.


Government promised to do more on many different occasions we all know that ...

Cost of design and introducing of system which will be able to work on every car is just too much and even if they will do something like that within next few years I can bet that tuners will come with some kind software modification in vehicle ECU to prevent MOT test software from "spotting" any modifications in ECU...


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

Tuners can already make there remaps/chips unreadable as far as I'm aware.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Alzak said:


> And most of those examples do not have an direct impact on our health and environment ...:wall::wall: What is the difference between your examples and using diesel fuel in normal cars ?
> 
> As per your link there is no significant environmental adwantage of emission from petrol engine ... and conclusion is one we will have to sooner rather than later stop usung petrol and diesel powered cars ...


Not as much as cars, no, also, I stated, I couldn't care less about the environment, just not breathing in diesel fumes.

The nitrogen oxides and particulates?


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Alzak said:


> Government promised to do more on many different occasions we all know that ...
> 
> Cost of design and introducing of system which will be able to work on every car is just too much and even if they will do something like that within next few years I can bet that tuners will come with some kind software modification in vehicle ECU to prevent MOT test software from "spotting" any modifications in ECU...


I think in modern ECUs, any change can be easily detected. Guys go as far as going back to the tuner to get the map removed and car returned to standard before going near the dealer now. Even then people still say they can probably see it has been done.

I feel sorry for people who have bought diesels not knowing the potential pitfalls.

As I've said before I think DPFs are unfit for purpose, but we still really need them to reduce pollution.

Drivers shouldn't be forced to drive their car in a fashion they shouldn't need to. The DPF shouldn't have a lifespan of 70-80k and fail quite regularly before that.

I was reading about a few of the BMW guys with 3.0l engines getting quotes of £1500-2000 to replace the DPF.

Cars are expensive enough without that kind of bill.

People not reallly into cars are slow to catch up, but I do expect to see secondhand values of diesel cars dropping off once they do catch up.


----------



## smiler1207 (Oct 9, 2013)

My dpf auto regens, no problem if you do reasonable mileage, i also believe people are being told now when they buy a new car of the pitfalls if you don't do above average mileage


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

smiler1207 said:


> My dpf auto regens, no problem if you do reasonable mileage, i also believe people are being told now when they buy a new car of the pitfalls if you don't do above average mileage


I know a few folk who have bought diesel cars and nothing has ever been mentioned.

At the end of the day, the salesmen want to sell cars to earn a living. They aren't wanting to scare customers off.

However there was a guy from on here who was asked to sign a disclaimer when buying a new car about the usage of it. They said to him he had to make sure he used the car properly to stop the DPF from clogging

Basically he was signing away his warranty on the DPF which is a complete no no for me.


----------



## Puntoboy (Jun 30, 2007)

I'm getting to the point where my mileage ja dropping so a diesel will be off the cards for me next time round. Petrol for sure. 

I had my XF about 5 weeks and noticed a slight hesitation when driving round town. Turned out my car wanted to regen the DPF but as I was driving to the train station the week it couldn't get up to temp. The next week I went on a long run and it cleared. All good now.


----------



## SteveTDCi (Feb 8, 2006)

I seem to remember manufacturers were forced down the dpf route, they wanted yo do something else to clean emissions up but were given no option other than a filter.

It's kind of ironic that diesels are actually worse at polluting than petrols and that because of how our stupid emissions and tax system works coupled to peoples blinkered view of false mpg claims and that because it will do 50 mpg and cost £20 to tax they are saving money ..... I hate the smell of diesels, it's nasty, from the fumes out back and the smell of filling up. I wonder if ba thought about converting Concorde to diesel in order to cut its fuel costs ? Diesel is good for tractors and boats, although the best speed boats still use petrol


----------



## james_death (Aug 9, 2010)

A simple rectification to the dpf is folks puncture it.


----------



## rob_vrs (Jan 4, 2012)

SteveTDCi said:


> I seem to remember manufacturers were forced down the dpf route, they wanted yo do something else to clean emissions up but were given no option other than a filter.
> 
> It's kind of ironic that diesels are actually worse at polluting than petrols and that because of how our stupid emissions and tax system works coupled to peoples blinkered view of false mpg claims and that because it will do 50 mpg and cost £20 to tax they are saving money ..... I hate the smell of diesels, it's nasty, from the fumes out back and the smell of filling up. I wonder if ba thought about converting Concorde to diesel in order to cut its fuel costs ? Diesel is good for tractors and boats, although the best speed boats still use petrol


Small aircraft are selling well in diesel format. Also the false mpg claims are surely the same for petrol. If i purchased my car in petrol it would do considerably less mpg than the diesel version.


----------



## Puntoboy (Jun 30, 2007)

rob_vrs said:


> Small aircraft are selling well in diesel format. Also the false mpg claims are surely the same for petrol. If i purchased my car in petrol it would do considerably less mpg than the diesel version.


I'm not so sure nowadays. Petrol engines have come on a long, long way and they are often not as greedy as we're led to believe.


----------



## rob_vrs (Jan 4, 2012)

Puntoboy said:


> I'm not so sure nowadays. Petrol engines have come on a long, long way and they are often not as greedy as we're led to believe.


My little 1.4tsi fabia 180bhp did 31mpg average over the time i had it, worked out every time i filled up. Driving the exact same in my 2.0tdi octavia i get 45mpg.

Talking about octavia as thats all i can compare to, new 2.0tfsi did 33mpg over the time i had it on loan.


----------



## Puntoboy (Jun 30, 2007)

But then you have to take into account the difference in fuel costs. At the moment a lot of the fuel stations I see the difference is around 7-8p a litre, I've seen it as high as 9-10p a litre! You really need to work it out as a cost per mile rather than miles per gallon.


----------



## Sean_Jaymo (May 24, 2006)

The difference in fuel costs around here are about 7p per litre. 138 (615 per gallon) for petrol and 145 (645 per gallon) for diesel. A difference of approx 5%. The difference between 32 and 45mpg is approximately 40% so the benefits are obvious.


----------



## WhenIwake (Nov 10, 2012)

The main saving in fuel comes from steady state long drives, a diesel uses significantly less fuel maintaining 70mph on a motorway , or so I have been led to believe! haha

All I know, is 500 miles from a tank in my Golf, im happy


----------



## Sean_Jaymo (May 24, 2006)

Diesel gives more bang per buck but is slower to ignite, hence low peak revs.


----------



## Puntoboy (Jun 30, 2007)

Well I can safely say this is my last diesel car unless my annual mileage goes up to at least 25k miles. But I don't think it will.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Diesel cars do cost less if you are doing high enough miles. 

They are more to purchase and often more to service and maintain. The running costs aren't purely the cost of fuel. 

I think once non car people get the grasp of the problems and costs of a DPF, seems to be £1000 for a normal family diesel and upto £2000 for a bigger engined BMW), it will scare them off. 

I can see secondhand values of diesels slump in the not too distant future unless a reliable alternative to the DPF can be found.


----------



## WhenIwake (Nov 10, 2012)

Kerr said:


> Diesel cars do cost less if you are doing high enough miles.
> 
> They are more to purchase and often more to service and maintain. The running costs aren't purely the cost of fuel.
> 
> ...


Touch wood I still have had no issues with mine, never had any lights or warnings. But then I drive with a heavy right foot and the car getting a decent blow through often probably helps. My sisters Focus has just been towed after going into limp mode, suspect blocked DPF, lot of short stop start journeys. Company car, was not her choice for a diesel.


----------



## craigeh123 (Dec 26, 2011)

Ive seen the cost of injectors etc on modern diesels , the savings are quickly lost when a fault occurs


----------



## SteveTDCi (Feb 8, 2006)

Without getting into the great mpg debate, petrols are closer to the claimed mpg figures than diesels are.


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

Kerr said:


> I think once non car people get the grasp of the problems and costs of a DPF, seems to be £1000 for a normal family diesel and upto £2000 for a bigger engined BMW), it will scare them off.


The DPF isn't normally a consumable unless you're not doing it right. There's a few guys with Mondeos on over 150000 miles with the same DPF.


----------



## m1pui (Jul 24, 2009)

SteveyG said:


> The DPF isn't normally a consumable *unless you're not doing it right*. There's a few guys with Mondeos on over 150000 miles with the same DPF.


Think that's the thing though.

So many people are buying diesels when they're not totally suitable for their circumstances. Most will be leased so come 3 years and 20,000 urban miles and when it gets traded in, the damage is already done. But the dealer has a lovely low mileage diesel to sell... 

A couple of forced regens when the owner takes it back to the dealer with the eml on is enough to just brush it under the carpet for most of those owners.


----------



## SteveTDCi (Feb 8, 2006)

SteveyG said:


> The DPF isn't normally a consumable unless you're not doing it right. There's a few guys with Mondeos on over 150000 miles with the same DPF.


It is, its classed as a service part, at least it was on the Focus 1.6 TDCi's we used to run. Time for a change at 75k


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

SteveTDCi said:


> It is, its classed as a service part, at least it was on the Focus 1.6 TDCi's we used to run. Time for a change at 75k


The Focus 1.6 took Eolys fluid for regeneration didn't it? I think that one does need changing.


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

Yeah the 1.6 euro 4 had the dpf as a service item. 
euro 5 have done away with the eolys fluid but I couldn't say weather there still a service item, been away from a ford dealer for over 1.5 years now


----------



## SteveTDCi (Feb 8, 2006)

SteveyG said:


> The Focus 1.6 took Eolys fluid for regeneration didn't it? I think that one does need changing.


Yes and we had a warranty claim thrown out because it wasn't checked/changed at the 37k service when the dpf went bang. The older 1.6 tdci was crap when fitted with a dpf, never had any problems with any other diesel, be that ford 2.0, transits, or any vag group cars.


----------

