I have a 1.6CR in the 75bhp version, i am now looking to have the car remaped (i think to 130bhp) and at the same time have the DPF removed, i understand that when the car starts to re-gen it uses more fuel anyway and i am always having to put my foot down more with the 75bhp version so i think i am using a bit more fuel trying to get a bit of '' umff '' out of it.

Any experiences of the MPG situation after a remap and removal ?

I was very keen to get this done to my Greenline as i think it will help the small engine with limited power and free it up a bit plus prevent the eventual replacement cost of the dpf in the future.

 

i think at present it would be fine as they would no doubt still pass the emissions tests on the mot but the problem is in the future if the authorities ever decide to make it illegal to remove the dpf or check for a dpf on the mot.

 

i believe there's a way to still have the dpf for display purposes but for it to be hollowed out & i'd be keen to hear about the folk in the know's thoughts about it all.

A remap generally improves efficiency.  If you use that efficiency improvement for economy or power is down to your right foot...

 

DPF delete will improve efficiency again.  Hollowing out the old one and not getting it removed from the ECU (so no regen) is like going on a diet, eating grapefruit for breakfast but still having a 10am bacon butty...half a job 

agree, i think i would just strip the whole thing out, it could be said about any modification to any car, the ' authorities ' could introduce some retrospective rule that says after market exhaust or suspension or lights etc need to be as OEM.

 

I don't like the idea of a DPF and if there is a way to  get rid.... i am all in favour of it.

You won't save enough in fuel to ever cover the cost.

It used to be the timing was retarded enough that gains v could be made on a remap. But those losses I think have been winched in over recent years.

Accelerator pedal position means little to efficiency. That's just a torque request to the ECU.

The DPF is there to reduce the HARMFUL small particles from diesel engines.  Please, please don't remove it - it's there for good reason.

 

As more and more people moved over to diesel over the last few years, there has been a greater need to reduce the pollutant build-up.  That's why the DPF was introduced.

 

If you don't like the fact that your car has a method of reducing pollutants, then fine.

 

Rachel

The DPF is there to reduce the HARMFUL small particles from diesel engines.  Please, please don't remove it - it's there for good reason.

 

As more and more people moved over to diesel over the last few years, there has been a greater need to reduce the pollutant build-up.  That's why the DPF was introduced.

 

If you don't like the fact that your car has a method of reducing pollutants, then fine.

 

Rachel

ill be removing mine as soon as i can.

 

they are a hateful piece of engineering, they reduce both power and mpg and having to drive a car in a certain manner to keep the dpf happy is nothing short of annoying.

ill be removing mine as soon as i can.

 

they are a hateful piece of engineering, they reduce both power and mpg and having to drive a car in a certain manner to keep the dpf happy is nothing short of annoying.

 

The way you need to drive the car is the way all diesels need to be driven.  DPF or not.  If you only do short runs and never make the engine work, then do yourself a favour and buy a petrol instead.

The problem lies with the dealers here & their need for sales.most of us with dpf equipped cars shouldnt have them but we only find out what a dpf is after sealing the deal/our fate.It's too late then so we are all desperate to get rid of them as a wallet damage limitation initiative instead of losing more money by selling the car.

I thought i knew a fair bit about cars when i unknowingly bought my dpf vehicle but i'd never heard of a dpf before so im not surprised theres lots of people in my boat & who can blame us for trying to make our motors more efficient after being swindled by skoda/government/EU or whoever.

I've driven my GreenLine for some 6000 miles now, and I've never ever experienced a re-gen so far, and my fuel economy is excellent, 70mpg on average. Like Kiwibacon said, if you have re-gens every so often then you're not driving your diesel the way it should be.

Edited 20 July, 201312 yr by jankph

If DPFs were that bad or harmful to the car itself then surely a massive company like VAG wouldn't have spent millions researching and fitting them to their cars.

My last car, and a couple before we're Peugeots with the 1.6 HDI 110 engine and DPF and they never caused any trouble at all, in fact they were fab engines.

It's only the build quality and the fancy for a change that prompted me to get a Skoda, which I'm loving, but this is the first petrol I've had in a good few years.

If I lived more than the 8 miles I do from work then I would've got the 1.6 CR with no hesitation but the extra cost wasn't worth it for me.

If your going to do low miles and don't use the revs then any engine will suffer, DPF equipped or not.

I am not doing too low miles but my other car (1.9TDI) does not have a booklet which tells me how i should be driving it and if i don't then something will go wrong... it just does what i want it to do when i want it to do it, simple. I like having diesel cars for a couple of reasons, mpg is one of them but i really like the torque that diesel gives, that kind of ' push ' is not the same with petrol.

 

When my car is remaped it will have the same figures as a Mk1 VRS, which is all i want, and of course excellent MPG.

 

The R & D put into DPF's was not done by the manufactures because they want to, the bloody europeans have made all them do it !

 

As soon as i can, its gone.

Edited 20 July, 201312 yr by Hudson1

While I wouldn't agree with your EU rant, I'd be very interested in your mpg figures after you've done the job.

You might see 1 or 2 mpg increase max, most likely non at all.

 

The easist thing would be to leave it alone and think about having it gutted if and when it starts to play up, probably somewhere north of 120,000 miles.

The dpf is an answer to an EU dictat the result of which is really aimed at fleet buyers who only care about the first 3 years of a cars life. It was shoehorned onto the pd engines which weren't designed with a dpf in mind. One more important question is whether a dpf solves a problem or merely moves it.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Day to day there is a slight improvement once the 1.6 TDI CR has been remapped, mainly down the to the fact any hesitancy or lag is removed when the map is uploaded to the ECU. It is a much better driving experience too, lot more grunt within the gears.

Consider the purpose of the DPF (as I understand it) - it's a filter (by definition a restriction) to the exhaust to capture the particulates over a certain size until a time it deems fit to burn them back out again as smaller bits.  They don't get captured forever, only (and this is me being cynical here) until after the end of the EU testing cycle when the car was measured to get its magic set of figures.

I don't understand what it does. Captures particles to stop them getting into the atmosphere, then burns them off the filter and emits them into tge atmosphere anyway in one big lump. Or am I missing something?

The dpf captures relatively large soot particles, which are then burnt off and turned into gas and smaller particles of soot and some ash which is left behind in the dpf. One question is whether the smaller soot particles are really any less harmful than the particles which are captured.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

even with a DPF i've noticed that diesel cars get dirtier than petrol cars quicker, give it a week and there is a fine dusting of ash all over the back of the car (even before a remap)

Call me sceptical, but I think DPFs are like petrol catalytic converters in the early days - the Emperors new clothes syndrome...

 

jaxx007 and trundlenut - exactly as I understand them.  The irony being that if they're harmful to health, then how come the smaller a particle is, the harder it is for the human body to stop/trap/expel it?

 

Unless driving habits have changed dramatically, then the average journey length /time is still about the light up time of these devices.  OK, cats now start working quicker than that (they didn't in the early 90's), but DPFs just clog up, increasing fuel consumption and costing the owner plenty of cash to get it emptied/regen'd (and hence blow the sh1te back into the atmosphere...)/replaced.

 

Sorry for the soapbox moment but as the EU makes tests for motor manufacturers to pass, of course they are going to work towards passing them.  Bit like being taught how to pass your driving test, not to drive properly - or learning how to pass your school exams, not a real understanding of the subject..

all of my previous non dpf if I applied the loud peddle in the dark with a car behind I could see some smoke in the car behinds headlights

 

my GL II I see nothing in the car behinds headlights

 

this leads me to think the DPF is doing what it says on the tin, removing soot from the exhaust.

 

thing is if you remove the DPF will your car pass the smoke test at its next MOT?

 

perhaps one of the guys on here who are MOT testers can let us know if DPF equipped vehicles have a lower smoke level  and if they have seen any fail?

Call me sceptical, but I think DPFs are like petrol catalytic converters in the early days - the Emperors new clothes syndrome...

 

jaxx007 and trundlenut - exactly as I understand them.  The irony being that if they're harmful to health, then how come the smaller a particle is, the harder it is for the human body to stop/trap/expel it?

 

As I understand it "large" particles generally get stopped before they can get into your lungs, or can't get far enough in, then there is a range of particle sizes which can reach into the alveoli in your lungs and get stuck there, then below that are the particles which go in and then come back out.  The DPF targets these middle range particles which get stuck, but I think the question is when do you have a particle small enough to go in and come back out.  I saw an article somewhere recently with some research suggesting that the smaller particles pose more of a risk than previously thought.

 

The other half of the problem is that the particles from diesel engines contain carcinogenic compounds resulting from non-complete combustion.  Your body breaks down the compounds which make up the soot particles but that just gets the carcinogens into your system.

Either way, that's why I avoid diesel cars...unless I absolutely am forced down that route.

 

A4 Diesel or Fabia vRS..Fabia please!

If you remove the DPF will that result in an MOT failure?