I have no intention of removing the DPF from my car as I agree that diesels need the particulates removed from the exhaust fumes but unfortunately the method chosen to do so, the DPF, causes problems for many owners.  Unfortunately it is in urban areas that the risk to people from the particulates is highest and it is just this sort of driving that causes the problems with the DPF.  The need is for a better system to be developed to perform the same function without causing the problems and expense for owners.  

  The need is for a better system to be developed to perform the same function without causing the problems and expense for owners.  

 

A petrol engine perhaps?

Modern high pressure diesels without a dpf are lethal to everyone around them. If you follow a car without a dpf fitted your car will quickly become a gas chamber that will poison you. You cannot keep these unseen particulates out of your car. You will breath them in. Pedestrians also breath in this poison. Your cars internal filtration system will not take out the harmful particulates (that cannot be seen) that will get into the cabin for you and your passengers to breath in. After that your lungs become impregnated with the particulates and they stay there for life. Some of them get into your blood stream where they cause problems with your brain, heart and kidneys, also the lungs. You can look forward to cancer, heart disease and strokes plus many other serious diseases (as per the recent BBC programs about diesel particulates and the damage they do). That's why there is a law to say you have to have one fitted and you cannot deviate legally from the standard setup. Yes, I know some people argue it's legal. It is not. You can check with the dot and they will tell you. From 2016 the gas analyser will come into play for a diesel to pass the MOT. It must not emit nano particulate above a certain level. New equipmenet will be used. Non dpf cars spray particulates everywhere and you cannot see them. It has little to do with the amount of smoke emitted. Non dpf cars will fail and there may be penalties for owners but as yet I've not been told what they will be. Roadside checks are to be introduced too to catch offenders who will then, I hope face criminal prosecution. Amazes me how irresponsible some individual are. Sorry if this offends but I like my air clean for me and my family. Don't you?

 

Excuse me, but aren't plenty of cars LEGALLY driving around without DPF like the Fabia 1 vRS.

Or are you getting confused and really mean no DPF, AND no cat either ..... ?

 

As it seems like you are suggesting we are being irresponsible by JUST driving a car as it was designed.....lol....I don't think I will lose any sleep for driving a car as it was designed TBH....

Much depends on how any emission test is phrased and implemented. My car only had to satisfy Euro III as a late ASZ.

If implemented like the petrol cat test, it'll be large and arbitrary values to get the most polluting vehicles fixed or scrapped. Followed by a subtle lowering of the bar after a few years.

 

Would also suggest that others do not trash their cat. Get a spare from a scapper or a known bolox'd one and ram a hole through that instead.

I've decatted every car I've had (this is my first diesel) but if they are having my pants down on tax then I want my money's worth out of it! That's how I justify my reasons for a decat anyway and they weren't that far out on emissions

Modern high pressure diesels without a dpf are lethal to everyone around them. If you follow a car without a dpf fitted your car will quickly become a gas chamber that will poison you. You cannot keep these unseen particulates out of your car. You will breath them in. Pedestrians also breath in this poison. Your cars internal filtration system will not take out the harmful particulates (that cannot be seen) that will get into the cabin for you and your passengers to breath in. After that your lungs become impregnated with the particulates and they stay there for life. Some of them get into your blood stream where they cause problems with your brain, heart and kidneys, also the lungs. You can look forward to cancer, heart disease and strokes plus many other serious diseases (as per the recent BBC programs about diesel particulates and the damage they do). That's why there is a law to say you have to have one fitted and you cannot deviate legally from the standard setup. Yes, I know some people argue it's legal. It is not. You can check with the dot and they will tell you. From 2016 the gas analyser will come into play for a diesel to pass the MOT. It must not emit nano particulate above a certain level. New equipmenet will be used. Non dpf cars spray particulates everywhere and you cannot see them. It has little to do with the amount of smoke emitted. Non dpf cars will fail and there may be penalties for owners but as yet I've not been told what they will be. Roadside checks are to be introduced too to catch offenders who will then, I hope face criminal prosecution. Amazes me how irresponsible some individual are. Sorry if this offends but I like my air clean for me and my family. Don't you?

I do hope you drive a nice clean burning petrol engine and not some dirty smoky pre-dpf diesel lol. :wonder: 

I think DPFs are a bad idea personally and I wouldn't like to own a car with one! They cause more problems than they cure, just another thing to go wrong especially if you don't do a lot of high speed cruising they can become clogged fairly quickly. The old Italian tune up will result in some of the trapped particles being thrown out of the back before the temperatures raise enough to burn them off... if you read up on them they aren't the environmental saviour the EU would have us believe lol.

Modern high pressure diesels without a dpf are lethal to everyone around them. If you follow a car without a dpf fitted your car will quickly become a gas chamber that will poison you. You cannot keep these unseen particulates out of your car. You will breath them in. Pedestrians also breath in this poison. Your cars internal filtration system will not take out the harmful particulates (that cannot be seen) that will get into the cabin for you and your passengers to breath in. After that your lungs become impregnated with the particulates and they stay there for life. Some of them get into your blood stream where they cause problems with your brain, heart and kidneys, also the lungs. You can look forward to cancer, heart disease and strokes plus many other serious diseases (as per the recent BBC programs about diesel particulates and the damage they do). That's why there is a law to say you have to have one fitted and you cannot deviate legally from the standard setup. Yes, I know some people argue it's legal. It is not. You can check with the dot and they will tell you. From 2016 the gas analyser will come into play for a diesel to pass the MOT. It must not emit nano particulate above a certain level. New equipmenet will be used. Non dpf cars spray particulates everywhere and you cannot see them. It has little to do with the amount of smoke emitted. Non dpf cars will fail and there may be penalties for owners but as yet I've not been told what they will be. Roadside checks are to be introduced too to catch offenders who will then, I hope face criminal prosecution. Amazes me how irresponsible some individual are. Sorry if this offends but I like my air clean for me and my family. Don't you?

Do you dream about this at night?

Excuse me, but aren't plenty of cars LEGALLY driving around without DPF like the Fabia 1 vRS.

Or are you getting confused and really mean no DPF, AND no cat either ..... ?

 

As it seems like you are suggesting we are being irresponsible by JUST driving a car as it was designed.....lol....I don't think I will lose any sleep for driving a car as it was designed TBH....

 

Excuse me...you are not keeping up! Yes indeed...there are many cars that can legally drive around without a dpf. But we are talking here about cars that are DPF equipped from new, as per the original post. The VRs, the example you give is not one of them, inspite of it being the diesel version with a PD engine. The PD at the time was considered a very clean engine. It was by the standards set then but you will note it went out of production as soon as everyone realised how dirty it was and how difficult it would be to get it to meet the new standards. Health rightly takes priority over emissions. Therefore, it's the common rail high pressure diesels that are damaging to everyone's health.

 

 

Incidentally, the dpf and cat are a combined unit on many cars and if you remove one you remove the other by default so it's a pretty bad thing to do from every angle. IF anyone is irresponsible enough to remove a dpf from a modern diesel they are an anti social ill informed individual, somewhat selfish too, who should be locked up in my view and the view of most of my colleagues. If only people would educate themselves first before taking this action and see for themselves how stupid, selfish and anti social it is! Mostly it seems to be done because owners believe they can get more power. Sometimes that can be true but only at the very upper end of the engine tuning scale. In mostly every instance of engine tuning I was involved with, it was a totally unnecessary thing to do and was done only to make some money out of some poor gullible sod. Beats me why some people don't wise up. 

Edited 4 February, 201412 yr by Estate Man

Do you dream about this at night?

 No, thankfully not! 

There is a very good way of fixing this particulate issue - have a pee in your fuel tank. 

 

Urea bonds particles together, and is used by buses to reduce their particulate matter significantly (Adblue I believe?).

 

*N.B., Don't try this at home kids!*

Isn't all the talk about DPFs redundant in the Fabia 1 forum anyway? I don't think there was a single Fabia Mki fitted with one?

Indeed, but I think Estate Man is following his own thread on this :think: As you say perhaps hit the wrong forum.....and perhaps best to address DPF discussion elsewhere instead of ranting on about a part (DPF) that isn't even fitted to the Fabia 1 which at least he appreciates now

 

IF past wisdom wasn't so clever (a mere 6-7 years ago) given my car is still FAR from beyond its reasonable use, then I suggest you take that to the motoring industry for its lack of forethought, rather than bleating about how poor the standards are and how crap our cars must hence be.

I won't lose one iota of sleep on it matey ..... if it wasn't designed "fit for purpose"  on what is after all a laymans car forum where most people are just happy their cars are still running as best as we can, its not our day job to deal with air quality levels.....

I've not tampered with my cat or anything but you are going on about our cars like they are the dirty man of europe or something.....

 

If you are that bothered why not go and buy a Toyota Pious mate....and those lot are the biggest contradiction ever by the way...cause more pollution to put together than almost any car and then they drive around thinking they are bloody fast anyway despite the fact they are not. Total tools

It's about the CAT!

Who's mk1 VRS has DPF!?

The OP was pointing out about the CAT as it's a common thing to be taken off

Excuse me...you are not keeping up! Yes indeed...there are many cars that can legally drive around without a dpf. But we are talking here about cars that are DPF equipped from new, as per the original post. The VRs, the example you give is not one of them, inspite of it being the diesel version with a PD engine. The PD at the time was considered a very clean engine. It was by the standards set then but you will note it went out of production as soon as everyone realised how dirty it was and how difficult it would be to get it to meet the new standards. Health rightly takes priority over emissions. Therefore, it's the common rail high pressure diesels that are damaging to everyone's health.

Incidentally, the dpf and cat are a combined unit on many cars and if you remove one you remove the other by default so it's a pretty bad thing to do from every angle. IF anyone is irresponsible enough to remove a dpf from a modern diesel they are an anti social ill informed individual, somewhat selfish too, who should be locked up in my view and the view of most of my colleagues. If only people would educate themselves first before taking this action and see for themselves how stupid, selfish and anti social it is! Mostly it seems to be done because owners believe they can get more power. Sometimes that can be true but only at the very upper end of the engine tuning scale. In mostly every instance of engine tuning I was involved with, it was a totally unnecessary thing to do and was done only to make some money out of some poor gullible sod. Beats me why some people don't wise up.

you do realise the OP was about Catalyic converters not DPF's don't you? If I had a car fitted with a dpf the first thing I would do was to remove it, they are a pain in the backside, guaranteed to go wrong at some point and guaranteed to go wrong after it's been fixed or a new one has been put in, and they are not cheap.

I had to drive a sprinter van about 6 miles with a ****ed dpf, took me 10 times longer! Some sort of limp mode

IF anyone is irresponsible enough to remove a dpf from a modern diesel they are an anti social ill informed individual, somewhat selfish too, who should be locked up in my view and the view of most of my colleagues. If only people would educate themselves first before taking this action and see for themselves how stupid, selfish and anti social it is! Mostly it seems to be done because owners believe they can get more power. Sometimes that can be true but only at the very upper end of the engine tuning scale. In mostly every instance of engine tuning I was involved with, it was a totally unnecessary thing to do and was done only to make some money out of some poor gullible sod. Beats me why some people don't wise up. 

 

I do think you need to jump down from that high horse you appear to be on, locked up? Behave.

 

De-catting has been going on for years and I've no doubt DPF removals will continue. People don't always remove them for the performance side of it! Fact is, they are a flawed design and until they either replace it with something better (that doesn't clog up) or improve them so they aren't as prone to clogging up people will continue to take them off.

 

There are far more dirty and polluting cars out there then a modern diesel with a removed DPF I can assure you of that lol.

you do realise the OP was about Catalyic converters not DPF's don't you? If I had a car fitted with a dpf the first thing I would do was to remove it, they are a pain in the backside, guaranteed to go wrong at some point and guaranteed to go wrong after it's been fixed or a new one has been put in, and they are not cheap.

 

Actually, you need to read the original post and the document he posted, it's about diesel cat's and dpf's, combined units on most diesel cars. You cannot remove one without the other. They are one and the same thing. From the responses here it's easy to see how much misinformation and irresponsibility there is and perfectly illustrates my point! In 33 years as a tech I saw some pretty irresponsible things done by owners but cat & dpf removal is one of the most irresponsible I've seen and shows no consideration for anyone else. People believe wrongly that it's ok because you cannot see the nano particulates. Thankfully, it's coming to an end and we'll all be much safer for it. 

I do think you need to jump down from that high horse you appear to be on, locked up? Behave.

 

De-catting has been going on for years and I've no doubt DPF removals will continue. People don't always remove them for the performance side of it! Fact is, they are a flawed design and until they either replace it with something better (that doesn't clog up) or improve them so they aren't as prone to clogging up people will continue to take them off.

 

There are far more dirty and polluting cars out there then a modern diesel with a removed DPF I can assure you of that lol.

 

I'm not on any high horse, just challenging this irresponsible attitude we see on this subject. I'm equipped to do so. I'm an ex engine design engineer and ex tech who is informed on this subject as it's been my job to be. I deal in facts. But I think the point Matt is that recent studies have shown that it's this decatting and dpf removal that is posing a real threat to all our health. There are no other more polluting vehicles on our roads today than a diesel car with it's dpf removed. They are in fact highly dangerous to health. And to be clear, we are talking about high pressure diesels not diesels of old that belched smoke. Smoke from diesels without a dpf is relatively safe to breath as the particulates are not nano. Your lungs can self clean those particulates out from themselves. The problem with nano particulates is mainly in towns and cities where particulates are a major problem for all of us whether pedestrian or driver. Levels of nano particulates have risen beyond safe limits in many towns and cities due to the large number of diesels and dpf removed diesel cars. This has corresponded with a large increase in lung and other diseases. Plus when following a car with a dpf removed wherever that may be, you will receive a considerable dose of nanos which will harm you. It has been shown that a dpf removed diesel car (cr engine) produces between 8-14 times the amount of nano particulates (the most dangerous to humans) than a dpf fitted car. And yes, more and more people have been removing them which is causing real problems and thats why the regs are changing. You dont' have to take my word for any of this. It's all public knowledge and the environmental reports are all available to read. I'm not ranting (you'd know if I was) but I do despair at the attitudes of some individual who do remove dpf's along with the cat. They quite literally are harming people which in any responsible persons mind is just plain wrong. Dpf's are in fact very reliable and have been about for years without problems. But of course it's no good buying a diesel car these days if it's going to be used in town all the time as they are not designed for that. They do need a bit of a run now and then but they are not as fragile as some think. All of my neighbours have dpf equipped diesels and have had them for years without problems. I service most of these cars too so I know how good they are. 

 

Like I said earlier, I'm not trying to offend but I do try to challenge attitudes that are clearly not right as I hope you all would do to.

 

Incidentally, I do know that no Mk1's have dpf's fitted and did think it strange that it's posted here. 

FWIW, and probably being devils advocate here a little, I wouldn't personally remove the cat from any car I own, DPF or not. It does an important job converting CO (the stuff that kills you in your sleep!) to CO2 (which can be processed by trees, if we don't fell them all), as well as helping to reduce the amount of larger carbon particulates (soluble organic fraction, if you wish to be technical) by up to 90%, converting these to water. The DPFs on CR engines remove the elemental carbon particulates the Cat cannot process.

 

As far as I know, Cats are a reliable technology nowadays, unlike when they were first introduced. I seem to remember back in the day everyone feared their reliability, which was caused in part to the relatively low exhaust temperatures on carburettor equipped engines, and was also big no-no for cars running on leaded fuel (remember that, we used to add lead to fuel... I mean lead!?! What were we thinking?!?! Even then, folks resisted that change too!).

 

The way I see it, the cycle is simply repeating itself....

 

New tech to reduce emissions is introduced -> There are some preliminary issues -> People get the fear/Decide it hampers their BeeHaitchPees/Doesn't sound as 'sick' when doing burnouts at Netto's car park -> People seek ways to get around it.

 

In a way, I can understand the fear side, but then why was a diesel purchased for short trips? If your circumstances change from long to short trips, I can understand that. but it's probably time to trade your diesel. From the performance side of things, just how much extra powwwerz does one gain from decatting their zorst? Not much, I reckon.

 

I read somewhere (can't find the article again though) that VW have developed a newly designed head for diesel engines, that greatly improves warm up time, exhaust temperature, and consequently the convenience and reliability of the DPF system. This change can't come soon enough IMO. Hopefully then folks can turn their attention to fettling with something else. I doubt it will make much of a difference though.

 

Just wait for the uproar when GPF filters on petrol cars become mandatory. Many fuel injected petrols aren't as clean and innocent as you'd think when it comes to particulates... http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/GDI%20Briefing_final_T%26E.pdf

 

And so the cycle (and debate) starts again! It will probably never end.

Good job I have a friendly Mot garage

my brother owns 1 that i work in

Inventory, well said! You are quite right about the petrol particulates too. There has been a considerable increase in nano particulates from petrol cars in the last decade due to combustion pressures increasing, not necessarily from compression ratio increases, but from turbos or compressors. These are in fact even more dangerous than diesel nano's. Nano's can be likened to the threat from asbestos particulates but faster acting.

 

The link below explains just some issues known to be caused by nanos from diesels. Since that report there are many other reports from Sheffield Uni outlining the dramatic rise in brain and bladder cancers and their link to nanos from diesels. Removing dpf's makes things a whole lot worse.

 

Some reading:

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/246495.php

 No worries. I'm just trying to add balance to the debate that seems to have arisen. There are always two sides to every debate.

 

I'm quite surprised by all the negativity towards Cats and DPFs in the press, (Hi... and Hello... ) especially from publications that like to fill their column inches with stories about what may possibly be the next great cancer fear...

 

Just as debates have two sides, there is often as much misinformation to back up an argument, as there is bona-fide information. Just because you can remove a device designed to reduce emissions, (and probably get away with it) doesn't always necessarily mean it is the best idea. I think education is the key here, rather than legislation.

Missing the point I feel about the document that's in the OP

no mk1 fabia vrs has a DPF whilst you may be right about its purpose, it is totally redundant from this conversation as a MK1 DOES NOT HAVE DPF

the OP was pointing out that the CAT will need to be present for an MOT (as fabias did/do have these)

As much as emission reduction systems are a pain, diesel fumes are a

I love diesel powered cars, yet, as much as emission reduction systems are a pain, diesel fumes are a carcinogenic to humans, and are in the same group as Plutonium, sunlight and alcohol.

As far as reasonably practicable, people must reduce inhalation of the fumes.