A lot of people telling me shark for dpf removal and delete but can anyone recommend anywhere down south ? Just be easier if closer.

If I was an insurance company, the filter itself would mean nothing, but any client who thought it was a good thing is probably taking advice from way too many muppets and is likely a liability for that reason.

The ability of an insurance company to prove a map has been is altered is questionable. They would have to find the original ECU dump from the car, pull the current bin file out and compare the two.

Totally agree but on policies you are expected to declare if a car has been modified. Some bright spark at some point in the Insurance companies is ging to realise lots of cars are having the dpf's removed & suddenly they have a get out to save them money ( sorry make more money) Its unlikely you will be caught but for the sake of a letter or e-mail it saves the argument when you have totalled your pride & joy. Its the same with not declaring anything on your licence. I totalled car a few years ago & the first thing they asked for after the claim form was copies of MOT & Licence.

Totally agree but on policies you are expected to declare if a car has been modified. Some bright spark at some point in the Insurance companies is ging to realise lots of cars are having the dpf's removed & suddenly they have a get out to save them money ( sorry make more money) Its unlikely you will be caught but for the sake of a letter or e-mail it saves the argument when you have totalled your pride & joy. Its the same with not declaring anything on your licence. I totalled car a few years ago & the first thing they asked for after the claim form was copies of MOT & Licence.

That's not a modification, it's a repair that has no impact on the peformance or safety of the car. Unless of course you have it remapped to higher power/torque at the same time. That is a modification.

If you have totalled your pride and joy it will be absolutely nothing to do with a DPF present or not. Don't pander to your insurance company, it just makes them worse.

That's not a modification, it's a repair that has no impact on the peformance or safety of the car. Unless of course you have it remapped to higher power/torque at the same time. That is a modification.

If you have totalled your pride and joy it will be absolutely nothing to do with a DPF present or not. Don't pander to your insurance company, it just makes them worse.

If you have changed your car you have modified it & breached the conditions of your insurance

Re the Insurance co its not pandering, its removing an option for not paying out. Its OK being on what you think is the moral high ground but if the small prints on their side you just may face a battle to get your money, they have a far bigger stick than anything you have & they will have the money as well. If you are happy to take the chance its your choice

Anyone know of any place down south that can remove and delete dpf ?

I'm down south - drive to Mansfield!

I'm in Great Yarmouth how much is the shark DPF removal? I have a cr 170 n tbh all I keep hearing about is DPF is **** I want to get rid of mine completely.

Driving up is not a problem , just be good to have someone a little more local if I needed to go back.

If you have changed your car you have modified it & breached the conditions of your insurance

Rubbish.

To breach insurance you need to make changes which impact insured risk or value. A DPF removal does neither.

The DPF restricts performance, so removing it potentially makes a non-DPF equipped vehicle a higher risk.

Aside from that removing the DPF is changing the intended function of the cars exhaust system. It is therefore no longer factory standard as Skoda intended.

As already mentioned some insurance companies won't bat an eyelid, however others are more strict and will want to know, more so in the UK perhaps than New Zealand...

The DPF restricts performance, so removing it potentially makes a non-DPF equipped vehicle a higher risk.

Aside from that removing the DPF is changing the intended function of the cars exhaust system. It is therefore no longer factory standard as Skoda intended.

As already mentioned some insurance companies won't bat an eyelid, however others are more strict and will want to know, more so in the UK perhaps than New Zealand...

There was an excellent post on here (which I can't currently find) on the legal obligations of UK insurers regarding modifications and risk. Have a read: http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/250031-winter-tyres/page__st__60#entry2947349

In a nutshell, a DPF doesn't cut it at all for a modification. They don't restrict performance, the power torque figures for cars with an optional DPF are exactly the same as cars sold without. Unless your DPF removal is tied to a performance changing map. In which case it is the remap that you need to notifiy your insurers of. The DPF removal is as irrelevant to them as any other exhaust repair.

Whilst I do remember one member ringing his insurance company to notify them of his DPF removal which resulted in the person on the other end of the phone laughing as they claimed it made no difference what so ever, I also remember a thread where an insurance company threatened to cancel their cover if the DPF was removed.

There was an excellent post on here (which I can't currently find) on the legal obligations of UK insurers regarding modifications and risk. Have a read: http://www.briskoda....60#entry2947349

In a nutshell, a DPF doesn't cut it at all for a modification. They don't restrict performance, the power torque figures for cars with an optional DPF are exactly the same as cars sold without. Unless your DPF removal is tied to a performance changing map. In which case it is the remap that you need to notifiy your insurers of. The DPF removal is as irrelevant to them as any other exhaust repair.

If you remove the dpf you have to remap the car, if you dont it wont run & the Insurance co will know that. There will be someone somewhere who has a map to give the same power but they know most wont.

All Im saying is Insurance companies will if they can not pay out, why risk it by not telling them, if it is deemed not to be a problem to them they cant change their mind later, a letter or e-mail equals peace of mind. Theres a strong chance you would win an argument but it may take a few months. If your cars totalled waiting a few months for the money can cause considerable hardship to some

Edited 23 October, 201213 yr by Stuart_J

If you remove the dpf you have to remap the car, if you dont it wont run & the Insurance co will know that. There will be someone somewhere who has a map to give the same power but they know most wont.

Delving into the maps to remove the DPF check/regen does not change the power/torque. Same method to read/modify/write but that is all.

All Im saying is Insurance companies will if they can not pay out, why risk it by not telling them, if it is deemed not to be a problem to them they cant change their mind later, a letter or e-mail equals peace of mind. Theres a strong chance you would win an argument but it may take a few months. If your cars totalled waiting a few months for the money can cause considerable hardship to some

What I am saying is, everytime you pander to your insurance company to tell them something they don't need to know. You are giving them more reason to delve deeper and decline a claim.

You told them you have winter tyres on, but you actually changed back to summer. Bingo, your car does not match the completely un-necessary information you gave them.

The insurance companies are regulated by law, they cannot decline a claim for a reasons they make up. Each time you pander to them, you give them power they should not have. You are making the problem worse.

Edited 23 October, 201213 yr by Kiwibacon

Delving into the maps to remove the DPF check/regen does not change the power/torque. Same method to read/modify/write but that is all.

What I am saying is, everytime you pander to your insurance company to tell them something they don't need to know. You are giving them more reason to delve deeper and decline a claim.

You told them you have winter tyres on, but you actually changed back to summer. Bingo, your car does not match the completely un-necessary information you gave them.

The insurance companies are regulated by law, they cannot decline a claim for a reasons they make up. Each time you pander to them, you give them power they should not have. You are making the problem worse.

Lets just agree to disagree, thats the beauty of free speech

What I am saying is, everytime you pander to your insurance company to tell them something they don't need to know.

Its hardly pandering to them, it's written in their terms and conditions that you must notify them of any changes to the cars specification.

If you don't and they find irregularities when you attempt to make a claim (such as a missing DPF) then they won't hesitate to remind you that you've broken the terms of their agreement and decline the claim.

Removing the DPF or reprogramming the ECU is regarded as a change to the cars standard specification - therefore they ask that you tell them.

In a world where tinted windows are regarded as a modification, I think it safer to tell them.

Its hardly pandering to them, it's written in their terms and conditions that you must notify them of any changes to the cars specification.

If you don't and they find irregularities when you attempt to make a claim (such as a missing DPF) then they won't hesitate to remind you that you've broken the terms of their agreement and decline the claim.

Removing the DPF or reprogramming the ECU is regarded as a change to the cars standard specification - therefore they ask that you tell them.

If it doesn't list a DPF in their terms and conditions, then it's not enforcable. Do they say you must notify them of all exhaust repairs?

Reprogramming the ECU for power or torque is a modification. There is a very clear and important distinction between them.

I cannot believe how scared you guys are of your insurance companies.

In a world where tinted windows are regarded as a modification, I think it safer to tell them.

Ah yes, "safer". There is no limit on safety, so you must do everything possible all of the time. Baaaa.

Tinted front windows (B pillar forwards) are an insurance concern. It restricts drivers visibility and others view of the driver (which way is he looking?) B pillar backwards isn't. There is a big difference.

I'd like to run another example past you guys.

If a front strut blows internally and I replace both front struts with Koni or Bilstein struts (externally identical, no change in ride height) is that a repair or a modification?

If it doesn't list a DPF in their terms and conditions, then it's not enforcable. Do they say you must notify them of all exhaust repairs?

Reprogramming the ECU for power or torque is a modification. There is a very clear and important distinction between them.

I cannot believe how scared you guys are of your insurance companies.

Ah yes, "safer". There is no limit on safety, so you must do everything possible all of the time. Baaaa.

Tinted front windows (B pillar forwards) are an insurance concern. It restricts drivers visibility and others view of the driver (which way is he looking?) B pillar backwards isn't. There is a big difference.

I'd like to run another example past you guys.

If a front strut blows internally and I replace both front struts with Koni or Bilstein struts (externally identical, no change in ride height) is that a repair or a modification?

The terms and conditions don't list any specific components. It's simply anything non-standard.

Removing the DPF automatically renders the car non-standard.

Assuming a worn exhaust is replaced with one that matches that of the one fitted as standard from the factory then the exhaust hasn't been modified and is therefore factory standard.

I am not 'scared' of my insurance company I am simply being responsible by ensuring I adhere to their terms and conditions, the same terms and conditions clearly set out before signing for the policy for all to see.

I could choose to attempt to interpret those terms and conditions in my own way and try to convince myself that removing the DPF and reprogramming the ECU isn't classed as a modification to the car. This would be fine right up until the point I crash and discover I have no insurance.

It's a two minute phone call, nothing more, nothing less.

I could choose to attempt to interpret those terms and conditions in my own way and try to convince myself that removing the DPF and reprogramming the ECU isn't classed as a modification to the car. This would be fine right up until the point I crash and discover I have no insurance.

It's a two minute phone call, nothing more, nothing less.

Can you explain how removing a DPF changes the insurance risk (theft or crash) or insured value of a car?

I'd like to run another example past you guys.

If a front strut blows internally and I replace both front struts with Koni or Bilstein struts (externally identical, no change in ride height) is that a repair or a modification?

Care to comment?

Removing the DPF does not affect the risk.

Like I said it is a modification. Insurance companies stipulate that you inform them of ANY modification from standard to the car...

"Insurance companies will class any change to a car after it has been manufactured as a modification. Some insurance companies will also class factory fitted extras as modifications, so always check this with your insurer."

http://www.carinsuranceexplained.com/car-insurance-explained/declaring-car-insurance-modifications.html

If the 'Koni' or 'Bilstein' struts you refer to match the original OEM specifications then this isn't a modification, it is a repair.

We are going around in circles.

DPF removal, in the UK, is classed as a modification. You are therefore obliged to tell them. Whether that incurs an additional premium is at the discretion of the individual insurance company.

Removing the DPF does not affect the risk.

Good, we agree on that. So it doesn't impact risk of a payout or cost of a payout to the insurers.

That is all you need to completely kill any objections from insurance companies who try to dictate far more than they legally can.

For example the bit in red:

"Insurance companies will class any change to a car after it has been manufactured as a modification. Some insurance companies will also class factory fitted extras as modifications, so always check this with your insurer."

How can an insurance company legally classify a factory fitted extras as "modifications"? Their own definition of modifications in that same statement precludes that.

Your UK insurers are taking the mickey and you're letting them get away with it. Know your rights and don't pander to them.

If it doesn't list a DPF in their terms and conditions, then it's not enforcable. Do they say you must notify them of all exhaust repairs?

Reprogramming the ECU for power or torque is a modification. There is a very clear and important distinction between them.

I cannot believe how scared you guys are of your insurance companies.

When you take out most policies, certainly in the UK there is a very simple question asked that covers all, it says has the vehicle been modified, whatever is in the policy after that if you have said no or subsequently fail to declare changes you have breached the policy, its that simple.

They will always pay 3rd party claims if you hit someone but may try & wrigle out of your damage, they in my experience only tend to dig a bit deeper if you have totalled your car.

With a third party claim I guess they may come back to sue you personally if the car is significantly modified & especially if mods could have contributed to the accident. Think about it, you have cost them say 50K & you part own a house with significant collateral, a lawyer will see that as winable.

Its personal choice but no point in bleating about it. Odds are most companies wont give a stuff about DPF deletion even if they even understand it but if yiou havent told them its a breach of terms IMO

Edited 24 October, 201213 yr by Stuart_J

When you take out most policies, certainly in the UK there is a very simple question asked that covers all, it says has the vehicle been modified, whatever is in the policy after that if you have said no or subsequently fail to declare changes you have breached the policy, its that simple.

Which is why you answer such questions carefully. Especially if you are not the first owner of the vehicle and don't know it's history.

For a second hand vehicle a statement like "there are no major modifications I am aware of" is far smarter than a blanket "no".

They will always pay 3rd party claims if you hit someone but may try & wrigle out of your damage, they in my experience only tend to dig a bit deeper if you have totalled your car.

If you have totalled your car in an at fault accident, they should be digging. Not only into the car, but what the driver was doing at the time. But this has no relevance to whether or not a DPF was fitted at the time of the crash.

With a third party claim I guess they may come back to sue you personally if the car is significantly modified & especially if mods could have contributed to the accident. Think about it, you have cost them say 50K & you part own a house with significant collateral, a lawyer will see that as winable.

If you have performed mods which caused the accident, then you should be held liable. For example, cutting and welding suspension members to lower a car which fracture causing you to lose control. An extreme example, but a relevant one.

Edited 24 October, 201213 yr by Kiwibacon

Which is why you answer such questions carefully. Especially if you are not the first owner of the vehicle and don't know it's history.

For a second hand vehicle a statement like "there are no major modifications I am aware of" is far smarter than a blanket "no".

Yep, if its nothing thats visible & you werent told by the seller fair point

If you have performed mods which caused the accident, then you should be held liable. For example, cutting and welding suspension members to lower a car which fracture causing you to lose control. An extreme example, but a relevant one.

Again agree but any change from the OEM spec can be a mod, I believe the early Fabia VRS were not type approved with a tow bar, so if you pranged it whilst towing "theoretically" you may have an issue, again unlikely. Just lowering the car with properly manufactured after market parts, even ones from anothe VAG car can contribute to an accident as it changes the handling of the car from the "type approved". We all, know how lawyers can get murderers off on technicalities, why risk a legal battle when its so obvious you are trying to argue modifications still comply with a policy where you say it hasnt been modified, at no point do polices offer a discussion on what degree of modification is a modification, its either modified or its not. God forbid you are ever involved in a serious accident but you then have Police vehicle inspectors to deal with & then your car is directly compared to a stock perfectly maintained vehicle.

All Im saying is if you have changed the car telling the Insurance co now saves the possibility, even if small of having issues later. Ive found most changes apart from BHP increases tend to be accepted with little or no increase in premium & often they dont really know what you are on about.

Another point to bear in mind is if you ever get caught for not declaring you can bet your name will be on a datbase somewhere & renewal will have a " hes a liar" factor added to the price.

With all its a personal choice, you will be incredibly unlucky to get caught & its only when the car has a wee off that we find out whos right & whos wrong.

Edited 24 October, 201213 yr by Stuart_J