Very useful Ray, thanks for the link!

Hi Everyone,

My 170 TDI has now covered 7000 miles with plenty of short round town trips. No probs with DPF so far. I use Shell diesel exclusively and use Shell Ultra occasionally in the hope that their fuel is less sooty than supermarket juice. I can't "PROVE " my pet theory but can vouch for the benefits of Ultra..... noticeably smoother and maybe gives more power. Don't be put off the diesel variants especially the 170 it goes like stink!!

I was under the impression that the common rail diesel technology was so efficient now that DPF clogging was pretty much a thing of the past, unless that is you do nothing but very short trips. I'm sure if there were any issues whatsoever we would know about it (on this forum) before even Skoda. DPF hold no concern for me any longer (couldn't say the same 18 months ago though!)

By short trips do you mean not running the engine for a long time?

I can do a short trip of say 2 miles locally, but it might take an hour

Mike

My driving is clearly defined in two different modes:

1. local trips, which tend to be mostly a 9 km round trip to the local town for shopping, dropping SWIMBO off at the bus etc.

2. Mad dashes down through Germany several 1000 km in a week.

I have had no DPF problems, but do notice a cleaning cycle every now and again when in driving mode 1.

Generaly, no car engines really like mode 1, but petrol engines are more tolerant of this than diesels. In the 170, the cooling temperature is up to the tandard 90°C when I get home, but the oil temperature is not. There are no driveability probelms at all, but she does seem more peppy after one of the mad dashes.

I will give Diesel a miss next time because my driving is not compatible with DPF. I have driven a 1.8 TSI Yeti though ans was very impressed.

I have a 06 plate Superb 2.0 TDI with manual 6 speed gearbox. Since Jan 2010 I have driven 50 miles each way to work using the motorway for all but 5 miles. Prior to this my mileage was longer journeys but again mostly motorway. After a break when I only drove locally I got an emissions workshop yellow warning, my Skoda authorised dealer took it in to check it out and after the computer diagnostics had run advised that the DPF coolent tank was empty. I was told the vehicle was not safe to drive and was at risk of catching fire due to the high temp of the exhaust system without the coolant. This was something new to them and only showed up after contacting Skoda. It cost me £200 with the coolant (at £40 a litre for 4 litres). The dealer even had to buy in the equipment to fill the coolant tank. They then gave me a clean bill of health and advised to drive in low gear high revs for 20 minutes which I did the same night.

The next day I went to France on holiday where the emissions workshop warning was again displayed a few days after the long drive to destination when I was doing short about town and to the beach driving. This time it was followed by the DPF yellow light and the next day by the coil yellow light. I was advised by RAC to drive at low speed high revs to regenerate the DPF after they initially said they would repatriate me with the vehicle but then declined due to cost. My dealer advised trying the same high revs low gear driving approach and arranged to take the vehicle back in on my return and bring forward the next major service to thoroughly check the vehicle out. I drove 200 miles at a min 2,500 revs and never above 4th gear, the majority in 3rd and after stopping for fuel near to St Malo after a 50 minute stretch of remaining in 3rd the lights finally went out when the engine was turned back on.

The vehicle has been serviced in line with the variable interval requirements and all required work undertaken. The Skoda dealer did a full 80,000 service, a major one that cost another £400 including a wheel bearing. I was advised the warning lights had been reset and that their was no fault found. That was mid September. Since then the emissions warning light has come on again during the return leg of a 350 mile motorway journey in 6th gear. When the light came on I left the motorway and drove the A5 in 2nd gear at 3,000 revs for 25 minutes; this made no difference the light staying on. I then drove for 25 minutes in 1st gear to get home. The next day when I started the engine no warning light.

Last Sunday (4 weeks after the last problem) after driving around town on a number of short journeys totalling 50 or so miles emissions warning light came back on. I had to go to work on Monday and after the drive down the motorway when I turned the engine on to come home no warning. The light remained off all week and came back on again yesterday (Saturday) after around 50 miles of local journeys.

Clearly a problem exists and the dealer advises the coolant is due for replacement after 90,000 miles but is unable to advise how long the DPF should last. It seems it is a servicable part as it is called a filter and is likely to cost circa £750 ex VAT. A heck of a lot of money and an additional 1p per mile on the cost of running the vehicle without the coolant cost.

It seems my 6th gear driving is not compatible with the DPF system and I have never noticed any regeneration side effects.

Has anyone else experience of this problem with a 6 gear 2.0 TDI Superb or is it a case of having to accept yet another expensive bill for what is a great car to drive but one that is incedibly expensive to keep on the road with the variable service averaging 16,000 miles and the need to go to the garage for other servicable items outside of the service regime.

I know if you buy big you have to pay big bills to keep the car on the raod but this is a lot more than any previous big cars I have owned, including a Rover 800 automatic, I amnow seriously thinking of ditching the vehicle for something else.

I have a 06 plate Superb 2.0 TDI with manual 6 speed gearbox. Since Jan 2010 I have driven 50 miles each way to work using the motorway for all but 5 miles. Prior to this my mileage was longer journeys but again mostly motorway. After a break when I only drove locally I got an emissions workshop yellow warning, my Skoda authorised dealer took it in to check it out and after the computer diagnostics had run advised that the DPF coolent tank was empty. I was told the vehicle was not safe to drive and was at risk of catching fire due to the high temp of the exhaust system without the coolant. This was something new to them and only showed up after contacting Skoda. It cost me £200 with the coolant (at £40 a litre for 4 litres). The dealer even had to buy in the equipment to fill the coolant tank. They then gave me a clean bill of health and advised to drive in low gear high revs for 20 minutes which I did the same night.

The next day I went to France on holiday where the emissions workshop warning was again displayed a few days after the long drive to destination when I was doing short about town and to the beach driving. This time it was followed by the DPF yellow light and the next day by the coil yellow light. I was advised by RAC to drive at low speed high revs to regenerate the DPF after they initially said they would repatriate me with the vehicle but then declined due to cost. My dealer advised trying the same high revs low gear driving approach and arranged to take the vehicle back in on my return and bring forward the next major service to thoroughly check the vehicle out. I drove 200 miles at a min 2,500 revs and never above 4th gear, the majority in 3rd and after stopping for fuel near to St Malo after a 50 minute stretch of remaining in 3rd the lights finally went out when the engine was turned back on.

The vehicle has been serviced in line with the variable interval requirements and all required work undertaken. The Skoda dealer did a full 80,000 service, a major one that cost another £400 including a wheel bearing. I was advised the warning lights had been reset and that their was no fault found. That was mid September. Since then the emissions warning light has come on again during the return leg of a 350 mile motorway journey in 6th gear. When the light came on I left the motorway and drove the A5 in 2nd gear at 3,000 revs for 25 minutes; this made no difference the light staying on. I then drove for 25 minutes in 1st gear to get home. The next day when I started the engine no warning light.

Last Sunday (4 weeks after the last problem) after driving around town on a number of short journeys totalling 50 or so miles emissions warning light came back on. I had to go to work on Monday and after the drive down the motorway when I turned the engine on to come home no warning. The light remained off all week and came back on again yesterday (Saturday) after around 50 miles of local journeys.

Clearly a problem exists and the dealer advises the coolant is due for replacement after 90,000 miles but is unable to advise how long the DPF should last. It seems it is a servicable part as it is called a filter and is likely to cost circa £750 ex VAT. A heck of a lot of money and an additional 1p per mile on the cost of running the vehicle without the coolant cost.

It seems my 6th gear driving is not compatible with the DPF system and I have never noticed any regeneration side effects.

Has anyone else experience of this problem with a 6 gear 2.0 TDI Superb or is it a case of having to accept yet another expensive bill for what is a great car to drive but one that is incedibly expensive to keep on the road with the variable service averaging 16,000 miles and the need to go to the garage for other servicable items outside of the service regime.

I know if you buy big you have to pay big bills to keep the car on the raod but this is a lot more than any previous big cars I have owned, including a Rover 800 automatic, I amnow seriously thinking of ditching the vehicle for something else.

Hi; welcome to Briskoda and sorry to hear of your problems.

Difficult to offer advice as the earlier Superb TDIs use a different DPF and 'regeneration' system to current Superbs, Octavia and Yeti.

The essential difference IIRC is that the early Superbs use a 'coolant' as you have described which is IIRC a solution of urea used to inject into the DPF and burn off the excess soot; whereas current Superbs, Octavia and Yeti use an injection of neat diesel to do the burning off.

I suggest you post your scenario in the Superb part of the forum where other members may have more knowledge. good luck.

Mhurley 142,

i doubt if what they called coolant in fact was. The earlier DPF's used a liquid catalyst to decrease the combustion temperature of the soot in the DPF, adding this occasionally to burn out the soot. I also doubt there was any Urea or any other nitrogen containing material included, as SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction - of NOx) is not required on passenger cars, and is a difficult process to control.

This system was widely used by Peugeot, but is no longer used on either VAG or Peugeot>/Citroén vehicles. The engine simply increases the exhaust temperature to increase the temperature in the DPF and thus burns ff the soot. This process does generate some NOx, which has a pungent smell, which you may notice if you stop the car during the cleaning process.

None of this is of any help in your Superb, but it may help having a little better understanding of the processes.

By short trips do you mean not running the engine for a long time?

I can do a short trip of say 2 miles locally, but it might take an hour

This is not in the manual but Skoda have an ingenious solution to the short journey DPF clogging issue. YFL can be very easily activated for such lengthy short journeys.

Pull door release

Open door

swing around and place feet on ground

exit vehicle (this is hard I know!)

close door and lock vehicle

give your beloved Yeti a tearful final glance and turn your back on it

with left foot firmly on the ground lift the right leg and swing it in front of left leg

then with right foot firmly on the ground lift the left leg and swing it in front of right leg

repeat 2 instructions above until you have reached your destination.

with practice you can easily cover 3-4 miles per hour.

Not only does it reduce occurrence of DPF blocking, it has a similar effect on your arteries. It does however make the flow from your bank account a little more sluggish than usual.

This is not in the manual but Skoda have an ingenious solution to the short journey DPF clogging issue. YFL can be very easily activated for such lengthy short journeys.

Pull door release

Open door

swing around and place feet on ground

exit vehicle (this is hard I know!)

close door and lock vehicle

give your beloved Yeti a tearful final glance and turn your back on it

with left foot firmly on the ground lift the right leg and swing it in front of left leg

then with right foot firmly on the ground lift the left leg and swing it in front of right leg

repeat 2 instructions above until you have reached your destination.

with practice you can easily cover 3-4 miles per hour.

Not only does it reduce occurrence of DPF blocking, it has a similar effect on your arteries. It does however make the flow from your bank account a little more sluggish than usual.

BRILLIANT!!

And so very true. :yes:

DPF as an engineering solution to a perceived environmental/health problem is an absolute joke.

At a stroke, it has made the diesel - the darling of the short hop taxi brigade unusable and created

fear amongst all forum members who dare to use a diesel for short journeys.

How fast should I drive it? should I use 6th gear? maybe I should make a higher speed journey

just to clear the thing - is it blocked? will it fail - oh god there's a motorway traffic jam ahead - what will happen?

DPF in diesels in Yetis are unavoidable - what a crying shame.

What other so called technology has created this level of additional expense and angst?

'It was the same with cats for petrols' the defenders cry. Sure, but at least a cat doesn't require any where near the

same level of compromise does it.

DPF defenders won't have had a problem and will insist they're fine cos the drive them according to the FM.

However, would these people buy a 5 year old 'un with 20,000 miles with the same level of confidence?

Or a 5 year old 'un with 100,000 miles on it? Maybe they'd think twice.

Yes, I admit I've had a bad DPF experience on a Merc. When it doesn't work according to the FM, the

defenders will change their tune I'm sure.

Night night!

A simple solution?

Wait until the car is out of warranty and them remove the DPF, with appropriate pipework and ECU programming. Cheaper than buying a new one and never a problem again ....

....... until the MOT test is changed?

All the DPF does is reduce smoke, since the MOT already incorporates a smoke test then the MOT already has an element of DPF testing already.

I dont worry about mine, and it spends a lot of time going very slowiy on the M25, and down here in Dorset where its driven every weekday less than 1 mile each way. My drive up/down the M3 is the only chance the car gets to sort itself out before getting stuck on the M25 from the M3 all the way round to the A1. A part of the journey, which can take 2hrs to go a very short distance.

I have a 06 plate Superb 2.0 TDI with manual 6 speed gearbox. Since Jan 2010... ...I am now seriously thinking of ditching the vehicle for something else.

This is a very well known issue on the Mk I Superb. They basically placed the DPF too far away from the engine and they struggled to get the DPF hot enough to burn off the soot. The additive the dealer is talking about is a liquid catalyst that should have been topped up under routine servicing.

VW had a similar issue on the PD170 Passat. They took the cars in and carried out an ECU remap - they remapped the cars down to 155bhp (!!!) which solved the problem. Amazingly, almost no-one noticed.

DPFs do at least make travelling behind a diesel a more pleasant experience.

My former Octavia 2 and my wife's Roomster both pre DPF would/will produce a lot of smoke if the accelerator is floored after a period of steady running. The Yeti with DPF simply does not. Whilst it can sometimes be satisfying to leave all behind you in a James Bond like smoke screen, it isn't so pleasant for innocent bystanders!

Those who refer to taxis ignore the fact that they may undertake short journeys but that these are strung together into what can be constant running with the engine up to temperature. The people who will get caught out with DPFs are those who face similar problems with the overfuelling that can occur with petrol engines under similar circumstances - those who insist on using a car to travel less than a couple of miles with a cold engine.

I think that the worst that DPFs do is to bring the diesel in line with petrol in it not being acceptable to use them for stupidly short journeys. If you follow a cold started petrol, the stink of fuel and other noxious substances shows that this technology is no better.

DPF as an engineering solution to a perceived environmental/health problem is an absolute joke.

At a stroke, it has made the diesel - the darling of the short hop taxi brigade unusable and created

fear amongst all forum members who dare to use a diesel for short journeys.

How fast should I drive it? should I use 6th gear? maybe I should make a higher speed journey

just to clear the thing - is it blocked? will it fail - oh god there's a motorway traffic jam ahead - what will happen?

DPF in diesels in Yetis are unavoidable - what a crying shame.

What other so called technology has created this level of additional expense and angst?

'It was the same with cats for petrols' the defenders cry. Sure, but at least a cat doesn't require any where near the

same level of compromise does it.

DPF defenders won't have had a problem and will insist they're fine cos the drive them according to the FM.

However, would these people buy a 5 year old 'un with 20,000 miles with the same level of confidence?

Or a 5 year old 'un with 100,000 miles on it? Maybe they'd think twice.

Yes, I admit I've had a bad DPF experience on a Merc. When it doesn't work according to the FM, the

defenders will change their tune I'm sure.

Night night!

I agree completely although I think there is a 'but'. Certainly when I replaced my car in March 2009 I specifically went for a petrol Qashqai as the DPF issues with the 2.0 diesel were awful. However I really much prefer diesel and the way it delivers it's torque - much more suited to my driving style, so when I was looking to change I weighed up all the odds and the research I did suggested that the common rail diesels were so much more efficient that their older PD counterparts that DPF issues were rare. As I was already as Briskodian member I trawled through this forum and there was very little suggesting continuing DPF issues so I went the diesel route, fingers crossed. And of course in the case of the CR170 I understand that either the engine itself or the engine management has been further tuned during its life which I'm hoping will further reduce DPF issues. Incidentally, since March 2009 Nissan have revised their 2.0 diesels and I understand DPF issues are markedly reduced.

So whilst I agree your sentiments (because they echoed my concerns) I do think that advances in engine technology over the last 18 months or so have considerably reduced the previous DPF issues (at least in the VW family) to the point where it isn't the real concern for me that it once was. Whether I'd want to buy an 'older' DPF fitted car say in 5 years is another matter!

I have driven around 100K or more miles in DPF equipped vehicles, over the past few years, in a mix of short, long, fast , slow, crawling etc journeys and have to say, until I read about the potential problems here, wasn't even aware they existed. So I am not anticipating anything dire with the Yeti, and hope I am proved right.

I am one of those who believe, naively perhaps, that if there is anything we can do to mitigate our dreadful impact on the planet, it is a good thing, and a little bit of potential inconvenience is justified. It's a state of mind that I feel needs to be encouraged, rather than otherwise, even if doubts over efficacy exist - recycling and other behaviours are largely in the same category, I think. Just my own feelings of course.

I have driven around 100K or more miles in DPF equipped vehicles, over the past few years, in a mix of short, long, fast , slow, crawling etc journeys and have to say, until I read about the potential problems here, wasn't even aware they existed. So I am not anticipating anything dire with the Yeti, and hope I am proved right.

I am one of those who believe, naively perhaps, that if there is anything we can do to mitigate our dreadful impact on the planet, it is a good thing, and a little bit of potential inconvenience is justified. It's a state of mind that I feel needs to be encouraged, rather than otherwise, even if doubts over efficacy exist - recycling and other behaviours are largely in the same category, I think. Just my own feelings of course.

Your attitude is laudable, but let's not forget that the DPF really only cures a local problem in the big cities, where fine soot particles have an influence on peoples' health.

Out in the country and in a global perspective, a little particulate carbon does not have any great influence on anything.

Well said Agerbundsen and there lies the paradox which underlines my basic point.

A system designed to reduce particulate emissions - most beneficial

in a city - that is not recommended for use - in a city. doh! Nuff said.

One day I'm sure that DPFs will be developed to the point where they are as unobtrusive as a Cat.

I'm sure that they are indeed better now than they used to be. In the meantime however, all Derv heads out there

are effectively unfortunate guinea pigs for the motor industry.

When it's properly sorted, I will return to derv cos I love the stuff and what it does :p

When it's properly sorted, I will return to derv cos I love the stuff and what it does :p

I think it is now as far as the latest VAG CRDs are concerned.

The benefit to following motorists is in town or country. I prefer to follow a late model diesel than older diesels or petrols any day.

I am one of those who believe, naively perhaps, that if there is anything we can do to mitigate our dreadful impact on the planet, it is a good thing, and a little bit of potential inconvenience is justified. It's a state of mind that I feel needs to be encouraged, rather than otherwise, even if doubts over efficacy exist - recycling and other behaviours are largely in the same category, I think. Just my own feelings of course.

Indeed! And very laudible too but as usual when the EU acts to solve problem A, they create Problem B - the Law of Unintended consequences.

I have just changed my car - I was forced to rule out another diesel because a DPF equipped diesel is not recommended by the manufacturer for my winter journey pattern.

We have a system designed to improve the environment that requires those of us who do predominantly short journeys to find an open stretch of road and drive at 40+ (?) mph for 10 minutes in a low gear. The engine already running at revs to burn more fuel, itself injects yet more fuel to achieve a high exhaust temperature. In my case from home to suitable road, 7 miles at 40+ and back home results in a totally unnecessary round trip of 25 miles minimum potentially in bad weather. Total waste of 3 litres of diesel!

There are many who tell us that they have been driving DPF diesels for 5 years and never had a problem. If you routinely do these journeys on a regular basis then that is fine but those of us who choose to pay more for a diesel simply to help the environment by burning less fuel are prevented from doing so.

Apart from the fact that I want to drive my car when I want to drive it how much extra pollution is this pollution saving device causing?

Like all the environmental improvement programs implemented by the EU, this one doesn't work and is counter productive.

More examples of EU Environmental folly?

Increasing amount of biofuel in petrol/diesel. Great if you are using waste vegetable oil but the dollar signs start to flash in the eyes of greedy 3rd world entrepreneurs who realise there is more cash in growing vegetable oil than food. So they turn over prime agricultural land and hack down the forests to plant palm oil!

EU-ETS designed to reduce industrial CO2 emissions. Companies reduce CO2 emissions in the EU by shifting production to China, India and elsewhere then ship it halfway round the world - result increased global CO2 emissions.

Politicians and environmental improvement don't mix!!

Sorry! Off my soapbox now.

Eccleshill,

If your winter journeys do not suit a diesel, the the choice is quite clear, isn't it?

We have the politicians we deserve, don't we? Who voted them in?

Environmetal technology over the last 50 years have made a lot of improvement in our environment. Coal firees are gone, Rivers and lakes are much cleaner. Auto pollution is greatly reduced.

Cars used to stink and spew out masses of unburnt hydrocarbons in the 1970's, but now run cleaner AND better.

Progress does not happen in a linear fashion - more like three steps forward and two back. As long as the forward part is bigger than the reverse, it should be OK.

Quite right Agerbundsen,but dare I mention the EU word . Unfortunately we didn't vote them in......... I'll get my coat.

Eccleshill,

If your winter journeys do not suit a diesel, the the choice is quite clear, isn't it?

We have the politicians we deserve, don't we? Who voted them in?

Environmetal technology over the last 50 years have made a lot of improvement in our environment. Coal firees are gone, Rivers and lakes are much cleaner. Auto pollution is greatly reduced.

Cars used to stink and spew out masses of unburnt hydrocarbons in the 1970's, but now run cleaner AND better.

Progress does not happen in a linear fashion - more like three steps forward and two back. As long as the forward part is bigger than the reverse, it should be OK.

I am old enough to remember the winter smogs in Leeds when you blew your nose and filled your handkerchief with black soot (No! that isn't a typo!).

I also remember the River Aire in Leeds where the joke was that nobody drowned in it because you dissolved first.

I also remember that these issues were tackled long before the UK entered the (as then) Common Market.

As Environmental Manager for my company I am now on the receiving end of all the crazy bureaucratic "environmental" schemes dreamt up by UNELECTED European bureacrats and ratified into UK Law by a government who realised several years ago that green is sexy and wins votes.

I also see the number of companies in the UK who are strangled by this bureaucracy and move out to unregulated countries. They then ship the product half way around the world. The EU bureaucrats are happy because EU emissions have reduced but they fail to realise that globally they have increased but they don't care about emissions outside their own zone and don't include transport.

DPF may well reduce carbon particulates. My point is, under the Law of Unintended Consequences, what secondary damage are they causing in the process? Your first line sums it up - I made the clear choice: I cannot now use a diesel so I have a petrol. Instead of 12k miles per year at 51mpg I will drive 12k miles at 35mpg. In doing so I will burn around an extra 500 litres of fuel depleting a finite natural resource and generating around 1.25 tonnes of CO2. Is that worth the particulate reduction or is it the Law of Unintended Consequences in action?

What we should also remember is that the majority of the soot captured by the DPF is generated when the engine is cold and working less efficiently. The high motorway milers that suit the DPF generate less soot anyway.

Edited 4 November, 201015 yr by eccleshill