This is the e-mail reply to my query sent to VOSA. I got so fed up reading about how it would be an MOT fail if the DPF was removed, that I asked them how would a tester know if the internals of a DPF had been removed and just the empty casing put back.
Dear

Thank you for your email enquiry regarding DPF and MOT.

We have received the following information from our testing technical
standards team:

We are fully aware of the limitations of the check on the presence of a
DPF. However, it was important to get this into the MOT test as soon as
possible, which at the very least will raise awareness of the DPF to be
present throughout the life of the vehicle.

For the future, there are studies being carried out in Europe on the
introduction of a check on particulate matter and interrogation of the
vehicles on-board diagnostic systems to identify non-compliant vehicles.

I hope this information has assisted you with your enquiry, but if you have
any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Kind Regards,

Lucy Denman
Customer Service Centre Agent
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency | The Ellipse, Padley Road, Swansea,
SA1 8AN
Phone: 0300 123 9000

Pretty polite. So basically, yes they know it's easy to con a tester and , as yet, have no way of fixing that.  Excellent

moved to general car chat

Ooops !!! Sorry.

Pretty polite. So basically, yes they know it's easy to con a tester and , as yet, have no way of fixing that.  Excellent

My thought exactly, and how long is it going to take "Europe" to sort out and legalise the new way of checking?

My thought exactly, and how long is it going to take "Europe" to sort out and legalise the new way of checking?

It won't take the French long at all, I wouldn't think.

The first thing that will be looked for, I imagine, is particular 'puffs' which will be obvious and an 'indicator' .

It won't take the French long at all, I wouldn't think.

The first thing that will be looked for, I imagine, is particular 'puffs' which will be obvious and an 'indicator' .

The inside of a DPF car exhaust tailpipe is perfectly clean - a non DPF tailpipe is definitely not clean!

Edited 9 April, 201412 yr by Norry

MOT technician - "Swab please!"

If it is definitely illegal not to have a working DPF, as stated by the government. Then why are all these firms offering DPF removal not being prosecuted?

I imagine because its not illegal to remove it, only to use the car on the road without one. I don't think that will last forever though.

 

The implications for insurance, though, are more interesting.

 

How can the insurer insure you for a mod which makes the car non road-legal? Or just not declare it and risk having the insurance voided for an undeclared engine modification? What if you used to declare the DPF removal before they put this law in writing?

The MoT may not have a very good test to check for the DPF presence but I would think that car dealers will be doing more detailed checks prior to buying any used cars.

My local MOT tester says he has failed 2 of the local boy racers with Pugs, as they removed the DPF and fitted a straight pipe instead. That is really obvious!!

Very good point about insurance. I wonder how many are driving around thinking they've got a bit better performance etc, and don't realise they now have no insurance, because they've made their vehicle non-road legal. 

People removing their DPF's for the negligable performance gains are in the minority.

 

Those having them gutted are faced with no choice. Take the Octavia MkII PD170 vRS. The DPF is a known issue on these cars, and now they are getting older the issues are cropping up on here more and more often.

 

A new DPF costs in excess of £1,000, on a £5,000 car?

 

Pay £400 and gut the DPF or scrap the car.

I worked on an audi a4 170 Tdi today complaining of smelling of exhaust fumes in car,

 

I went round block and nearly got gassed to death so pulled car in and popped bonnet, looked at exhaust and first box out of turbo had been welded up,

 

Looked a little closer, it had dpf removed and you could seriously tell with what was coming out of exhaust

Its not just the insurance issue, I'm sure HM customs and excise might have something to say as you are effectively paying a lower road fund licence for having a DPF  

Could you get a used one from a wrecker, clean it, and keep it for a 'changeover' when needed?

Sounds easy, probably not feasible?

Its not just the insurance issue, I'm sure HM customs and excise might have something to say as you are effectively paying a lower road fund licence for having a DPF

So you're telling me a device which exists to burn solid carbon deposits away reduces CO2 output? What do you think happens to the soot it burns?

Its not just the insurance issue, I'm sure HM customs and excise might have something to say as you are effectively paying a lower road fund licence for having a DPF  

 

 

So you're telling me a device which exists to burn solid carbon deposits away reduces CO2 output? What do you think happens to the soot it burns?

 

Well observed. A DPF will in fact increase CO2 emissions as the engine is creating the same amount of CO2 emissions overall, but it is also generating more during DPF regeneration phases by making the engine work harder to burning off the accumulated soot. DPFs are designed and installed to make diesel emissions safer for human health, removing larger soot nanoparticles and reducing the levels of CO and other dangerous chemicals in exhaust gasses. the presence of a DPF should, in practice, have no effect on road fund licensing.

What would solve this issue is the manufacturers helping out their customers.

 

I'm all for making profit on spare parts but we need help here, cut your margins on replacement DPF's, perhaps offer a part exchange service, reduced labour rates, anything! An effort to incentivise us to use main dealers rather than finding someone local who will instead rip out the internals.

What the EU need to do is, to go with their emissions mandate, require the same mandatory warranty Americans get. Go look up the EPA's emissions components warranty. Specific emissions related components like cats have to have a 8 year/80,000 mile warranty. If they fail within that time, the manufacturer pays to fix them. If even the yanks can do this, why not the EU?

DPFs would very quickly become far more reliable and much less of a burden to drivers.

Both good suggestions and I totally agree, if you are going to make a component mandatory, you have got to get manufacturers working to make something reliable and economical to replace.

found this today makes interesting reading,

 

http://www.ictworkshopsolutions.com/2013/11/dpf-removers-face-legal-issues/

found this today makes interesting reading,

http://www.ictworkshopsolutions.com/2013/11/dpf-removers-face-legal-issues/

Note the use of the word "should" i.e. they don't have to. That article is pure conjecture.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

How long before they introduce a tap test?

 

Dealers will thoroughly check for DPF, EGR's and cats being intact and rejecting trade ins for cars with them missing.

 

And I know for a fact those having cars taken back by finance co's or those voluntarily terminated are checked and the finance companies billing people for putting them back as SWMBO works in this area