dpf removal - the legalities

[silver1011]

50 posts strong and it still can't be proven if it's illegal.

 

Legislation is coming, well so is retirement.

[littleade]

Quote from the latest issue of Which magazine that arrived today. Seems quite clear in their view....

'Car owners who paid to remove their vehicle's diesel perticulate filter (DPF) now face an instant failure when their car goes for its annual MOT test.

Many modern diesel cars have a DPF fitted to trap and collect harmful pollutants, such as particulate matter from exhaust emissions. However, in certain situations, soot can collect and block the filter, reducing the performance of the car and, in some cases, requiring a replacement costing at least £1000 (According to tne AA)

To prevent this potential expense, some owners have paid particulate filter removal specialists to take off the DPF. But new regulations have put an end to this by stating that any vehicle that was fitted with a DPF when new, but no longer has one, will automatically fail the MOT test.'

[Guest]

Silverline, the legislation is already here. It's illegal to remove it or tamper with it, and then use it on the road. That's crystal clear and the only confusion is being caused by people who refuse to accept it and spread misinformation, much of which is being created on forums. For example, I'm on another site and one of the guys has removed his dpf internals and the cat. He reckons it's necessary...for some strange reason. It isn't. Then he has it MOT'D and it passed. He then rather mischievously posts a misleading thread about how stations are still passing cars without a dpf. Actually, as far as the testing station are concerned, he has his dpf and cat in place as the physical check revealed the unit to be there. And it passed the smoke test. It's not only dishonest to do as he did, but dangerous. But the tester has no option but to pass it if the unit is present as he cannot test the emissions, just smoke. And of course the owner is not going to tell what he did is he? What the tester has done is legal. However, the strange thing is the car is illegal but the owner cannot yet be brought to book on the basis of the mot test evidence. Remember, they cannot test the emissions yet, it's just a smoke test. So if the guts have been removed and the unit is still in place, it's very likely it will pass the smoke test. But not always, as some have found to their cost. Soon the emissions will be targeted directly with new equipment which is on the way so it will quickly end any tampering or removal of the guts of dpf's. It cannot come too soon and may even be late next year from what I'm hearing. 

 

One other thing dpf delete does to a car is nullify your car insurance. If you declare it, it's non insurable. If you do it on the quiet without telling, you are not insured. Something to think about. MInefield eh!

[marcusthehat]

. It's not only dishonest to do as he did, but dangerous.

EH!

How is it dangerous, on any relative scale.

Compared to self induced obesity, smoking, excess alcohol consumption, use of tanning salons and beauty products, unsafe sex, using the mobile while driving driving too fast whilst distracted  etc etc, etc etc.

ffs!

PS

I am aware of the asbestos related fatality spike in the years ahead.

And the causation.

PPS

It WILL NOT void ones third part insurance, (the only important part), nor will driving without an MOT, nor indeed knowingly driving under the influence of Alcohol.

Per a professional presentation by the LARGE company who insure my employers.

marcus

Edited 25 June, 2014 by dieseldogg

[silver1011]

Silverline, the legislation is already here. It's illegal to remove it or tamper with it, and then use it on the road. That's crystal clear and the only confusion is being caused by people who refuse to accept it and spread misinformation, much of which is being created on forums.

 

OK, I get that, especially the insurance element. That alone should be enough of a reason not to remove the DPF.

 

So, if the OP instead asks "can I remove my DPF and still use my car on the road without reprisal" then the answer is - yes.

 

There is no way that a Police officer or MOT tester can prove that the DPF has been tampered with either at the roadside or in an MOT test station?

 

If the DPF was unknowingly removed by a previous owner and the car passes subsequent MOT's it would be a little tough if in the event of an accident the insurer tried to wriggle out of a claim.

[silver1011]

Quote from the latest issue of Which magazine that arrived today. Seems quite clear in their view....

'Car owners who paid to remove their vehicle's diesel perticulate filter (DPF) now face an instant failure when their car goes for its annual MOT test.

Many modern diesel cars have a DPF fitted to trap and collect harmful pollutants, such as particulate matter from exhaust emissions. However, in certain situations, soot can collect and block the filter, reducing the performance of the car and, in some cases, requiring a replacement costing at least £1000 (According to tne AA)

To prevent this potential expense, some owners have paid particulate filter removal specialists to take off the DPF. But new regulations have put an end to this by stating that any vehicle that was fitted with a DPF when new, but no longer has one, will automatically fail the MOT test.'

 

This is not in dispute.

 

The issue here is that cars having had their DPF's removed are still passing the MOT so Which magazine are incorrect.

 

The reason being is that the MOT tester is unable to prove that the internals have been removed, even if a soot reading is recorded on a car which was originally fitted with a DPF.

 

It all sounds like scare tactics to me, without the capability to effectively enforce it.

 

The legislation needs to be there for those that replace the DPF with a straight through section of exhaust as these are easily detected with a visual inspection and failed, however until they come up with a fail safe method of detecting faulty or gutted DPF's then the legislation is pointless.

 

It it always Joe Public that get hit the hardest. If the manufacturers discounted the cost of a DPF replacement then less people would be forced to try and circumnavigate the rules.

 

A replacement DPF for an Octavia PD170 is £1,200 from a main Skoda dealer. My 6 year old vRS was booked at £5,000. Who on earth is going to pay 25% of a cars total value on a replacement filter that clearly wasn't up to the job in the first place?

 

I think I'd have happily signed up to a £450 DPF delete knowing full well I'd have no issues come MOT time.

 

What would be the alternative, scrap the car?

[Huskoda]

It would be less of an issue if we had something like the American Federal Emissions Warranty that forced manufacturers to cover these items (specifically including DPFs) for 8 years/80k miles.

[Guest]

Yes, that's all been said silver. But 'Which' is perfectly correct. If you remove the dpf you will fail an MOT as is happening everyday at the moment. But, if you remove the dpf, and cover it up with leaving the dpf empty shell in place, that's dishonest, dangerous and against the law. But, IT MAY PASS!  But not always. Some cars smoke just too much with the dpf removed especially if they have higher miles. The new equipment is soon to be deployed and will give the MOT stations and roadside check officers the power they need to get the car off the road. On the insurance note: if you contact your insurers they will decline to insure you or stop any current insurance if you tell them you have removed or tampered with the dpf as you car is unroadworthy and illegal to use on public roads with the dpf removed or tampered with. It's called an illegal modification. Insurance is being denied all the time due to dpf mods. It's happening now. My now ex-colleagues in the trade are failing dpf deleted cars all the time I have been told whenever they detect them as having been tampered with or removed. If you look closely enough even if the guts have been removed it's often possible to see it's been stitched up again.

 

dieseldog, The examples you give of some things that are dangerous or potentially dangerous pale into insignificance when compared to diesel particulate matter. They are a class 1 carcinogen the same as white asbestos, but faster acting. You can avoid just about all the things you use as an example, but you cannot avoid diesel particulate matter at the nano level. This is the problem dpf's are there to deal with. Remove the dpf and it's antisocial and dangerous to everyones health. The World Health Organisation has said it poses the biggest threat to human health for many many years and the worst is to come. The nano diesel particulates get into your body and stay there in your brain, heart, lungs etc etc and you will find them in your home, in your car, and just about everywhere in the atmosphere. They stay there for hours where we all breath them in. We cannot easily avoid them, unlike the things you use as examples in your post above. They already are making people very sick and causing death amongst the population but I'm not going through all the stuff I posted earlier again. Do your own research, it seems you need to. Admittedly I worked in diesel engine development and design and I therefore probably know more about it than most as I get the medical reports. But the risks have been know for ages, but proof of the risks came last year. Check out the links I posted about the World Health Organisations Study in my post 31. Then study some medical reports to see what's happening. 

Edited 25 June, 2014 by Estate Man

[skomaz]

We're going round in circles here aren;'t we...

Estate Man - you've finally acknowledged what others have been trying to tell you for some time and have been saying quite eloquently - that a car with it's DPF removed may pass an MOT.  By the same token that same car MAY also comply with emissions standards it was designed to meet, depending upon state of tune, condition, wear and tear etc. and as such would not be illegal to use on the road.

 

Your statement that removing a DPF, in and of itself, is against the law and makes a car illegal is therefore entirely invalid.  Said car would only be illegal were it to fail compliance with emmissions standards.  There is no argument on that - the legislation is quite clear.

 

With regard to cars with no DPF's failing MOT's - your ex-colleagues are saying they are failing cars but equally others have evidence of cars passing without DPF's where, for example they have been gutted.  Again that cannot be argued it is a simple statement of fact.

 

With regard to insurance, you have stated that insurers will decline insurance or will stop insurance, but again others have clear evidence that this is not the case as they have spoken to thier insurers regarding the change and modification and have been insured.  Again that cannot be argued it is a clear statement of fact.

 

FInally you have mentioned on many occasions that equipment is being introduced and deployed but with no back-up or evidence or dates etc.  If you are so certain of this show people on this forum the evidence so that people can see it, take stock and have thier DPF's refitted if they so choose - surely that is the end game of all your posts?  If you don;t the argument will simply continue round in circles.

[Tech1e]

Just,wait until the GPFs start coming out for the next Euro emission regulations..lol

[Hudson1]

LOL, Good change of heart. Very Environmental friendly.

 

a year ago you were saying

'as soon as i can its gone'.  I think that was you on about the DPF after you had remapped.

Too right..... its all about evolving with the changing times, and if the mot side of it had not come in then my DPF would be out, i am just glad i did not do it. I do feel sorry for those that did as now their car is effectively worth a lot less and unless you find a half-wit to buy it when it comes to sale time.....garages are certainly aware of the removal side of things so px'ing them could be an issue. If the new emissions tests come in soon then the game is up.

Edited 25 June, 2014 by Hudson1

[trundlenut]

Yes, that's all been said silver. But 'Which' is perfectly correct. If you remove the dpf you will fail an MOT as is happening everyday at the moment. But, if you remove the dpf, and cover it up with leaving the dpf empty shell in place, that's dishonest, dangerous and against the law. But, IT MAY PASS! But not always. Some cars smoke just too much with the dpf removed especially if they have higher miles. The new equipment is soon to be deployed and will give the MOT stations and roadside check officers the power they need to get the car off the road. On the insurance note: if you contact your insurers they will decline to insure you or stop any current insurance if you tell them you have removed or tampered with the dpf as you car is unroadworthy and illegal to use on public roads with the dpf removed or tampered with. It's called an illegal modification. Insurance is being denied all the time due to dpf mods. It's happening now. My now ex-colleagues in the trade are failing dpf deleted cars all the time I have been told whenever they detect them as having been tampered with or removed. If you look closely enough even if the guts have been removed it's often possible to see it's been stitched up again.

dieseldog, The examples you give of some things that are dangerous or potentially dangerous pale into insignificance when compared to diesel particulate matter. They are a class 1 carcinogen the same as white asbestos, but faster acting. You can avoid just about all the things you use as an example, but you cannot avoid diesel particulate matter at the nano level. This is the problem dpf's are there to deal with. Remove the dpf and it's antisocial and dangerous to everyones health. The World Health Organisation has said it poses the biggest threat to human health for many many years and the worst is to come. The nano diesel particulates get into your body and stay there in your brain, heart, lungs etc etc and you will find them in your home, in your car, and just about everywhere in the atmosphere. They stay there for hours where we all breath them in. We cannot easily avoid them, unlike the things you use as examples in your post above. They already are making people very sick and causing death amongst the population but I'm not going through all the stuff I posted earlier again. Do your own research, it seems you need to. Admittedly I worked in diesel engine development and design and I therefore probably know more about it than most as I get the medical reports. But the risks have been know for ages, but proof of the risks came last year. Check out the links I posted about the World Health Organisations Study in my post 31. Then study some medical reports to see what's happening.

OK. Let's review. One of the key studies used by WHO found a 3 fold increase in cancer in miners exposed to very high levels of diesel exhaust particulates compared to miners who were not. This is an increase but not a massive increase and compared to other risk factors is not necessarily significant risk. Somewhere in the region of 9400 people are diagnosed with cancer relating to the central nervous system (including the brain) in the UK each year. This compares to 103,000 heart attacks and 152,000 strokes. In 2011 over 330,000 people were diagnosed with cancer so central nervous system cancers account for less than 3% of all cancers diagnosed annually in the UK. If you search for "brain cancer UK epidemic diesel" the evidence is distinctly lacking. In fact this thread shows up at number 4 in the search results and most of the other results relate to mobile phone radiation.

You must understand that exposure to a carcinogen does not mean you will get cancer.

As purely anecdotal evidence my grandad died of lung cancer but never smoked. His brother did smoke and is still alive.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[fordfan]

The MOT test looks as though it will getting deeper into checking emissions equipment:

 

https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/how-the-eu-roadworthiness-package-affects-the-mot/

 

20th May 2018 looks to be a key date:

 

The use of tailpipe or OBD for emission inspections under certain conditions for Euro 5 or 6 engines. Euro 5 tailpipe or conditional OBD (On Board Diagnostics), Euro 6 free choice between tailpipe or OBD

[Ootohere]

Good, let them get on with it all.

 

Or will it be like the other stuff that the UK Government does, just plays along with the EU and when the time come, some happens and most does not.

Like the Planned first test at 4 years & then 2 yearly, which never happened because the UK roads are so bad,

and UK owners often maintain the poorly built cars poorly.

The Standard of manufacturers Franchised Dealership Workshops being so poor,

and so many UK cars failing the first MOT at 3 years old.

The standard of Servicing in the UK being little more than Fluids & Filters & a look see, and grease the door hinges.

 

There is a General Election in May 2015,

and then David Cameron says that if he gets in there will be a Referendum on the EU,  & UK in or out.

 

What this Government keeps not addressing is that Most Test Centres are Private Establishments that pay for all their equipment and do not 

make that much testing vehicles.

Overheads are high.

 

National Testing Stations should become the Standard in the UK, 

nothing to do with Repair Garages or Private Commerce.  just Government Owned and Financed Stations.

Employees that inspect vehicles only.

 

george

[trundlenut]

Good, let them get on with it all.

Or will it be like the other stuff that the UK Government does, just plays along with the EU and when the time come, some happens an most does not.

There is a General Election in May 2015, and then David Cameron says that if he gets in there will be a Referendum on the EU, & UK in or out.

What this Government keeps not addressing is that Most Test Centrers are Private Establishments that pay for equipment and do not

make that much testing vehicles.

Overheads are high.

National Testing Stations should become the Standard in the UK,

nothing to do with Repair Garages or Private Commerce. just Government Owned and Financed Stations.

Employees that inspect vehicles only.

george

Good idea George.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[silver1011]

Too right..... its all about evolving with the changing times, and if the mot side of it had not come in then my DPF would be out, i am just glad i did not do it. I do feel sorry for those that did as now their car is effectively worth a lot less and unless you find a half-wit to buy it when it comes to sale time.....garages are certainly aware of the removal side of things so px'ing them could be an issue. If the new emissions tests come in soon then the game is up.

 

If I was on the market for another Octavia vRS with the PD170 engine I'd be actively looking for one with the DPF removed, so in my eyes one that had had the DPF professionally gutted and remapped would be worth more than an identical example with a soon-to-die DPF still fitted.

 

Assuming it was the same age as the one I had (2007) and as mentioned the new test equipment won't arrive until 2018 that gives me 4 years of hassle free motoring, by which time the car would be approaching 12 years old and ready to die a natural death anyway.

[silver1011]

My now ex-colleagues in the trade are failing dpf deleted cars all the time I have been told whenever they detect them as having been tampered with or removed. If you look closely enough even if the guts have been removed it's often possible to see it's been stitched up again.

 

You say that but since being at the wrong end of a VAG DPF fitted to a PD engine I follow all DPF related threads with interest.

 

I've lost count of the number of members who have been to Shark to have their DPF's removed.

 

Yet, as I write this I have not read one single thread from a member who has had their car fail an MOT due to the lack of a DPF.

[bluecar1]

although currently none if any cars have failed MOT's on basic emissions, the rules about if a DPF was part of the car when it left the factory it should be present have yet to come into force

 

when they do things will get very interesting, I was amazed by my fabia when I was under the rear looking at somewhere to clip the bike rack straps that the tailpipe was pristine, no soot at all after 25000 miles, also you do not get that smell when the car idles you do with a car without a DPF, only the "eau de DPF" when it does a regen

 

will there be a market for exhaust sections that look like a DPF but without any inards to pass the visual "is it there" inspection with all the bits to put sensors in etc

 

only give away will be the smoke level on the test, one other thing I notice is at night I have never seen any hint of smoke in the lights of a car following me, unlike my Octavia or roomster diesel just goes to show how effective these things are

Edited 25 June, 2014 by bluecar1

[marcusthehat]

I envisage an enterprising individual designing an easily insertable/removable temporary DPF filter to get a DPF removed car through the MOT.

Fit before the test and remove immediately afterwards.

If "they" ever actually start testing for emissions.

Should be a technically feasible/easy exercise surely?

Why do I think that an old Army resperitor canister could be a good starting point?

marcus

[Gazbull17]

Instead of trying to bend the truth or burying your head in the sand, accept that it's illegal to remove a standard fit DPF but the likelihood of getting caught, punished then fined is very small at the present time.

You can say all you want about not getting caught and that it no more harmful to have it removed but the evidence shows that it is harmful.

If you want to remove it and you're confident that everything will be fine then do it, it's up to you but if it all goes Pete Tong then don't come back on and say how hard done by you are that your car has failed an MOT or you've been fined or your insurance won't pay out.

Like it or not, DPFs are here to stay along with Euro6 then Euro7 and so on emissions regulations, so just accept it and enjoy the rest of your lives instead of moaning that your cars are being chocked, worry about yourselves being chocked instead of a lump of metal.

[skomaz]

The MOT test looks as though it will getting deeper into checking emissions equipment:

 

https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/how-the-eu-roadworthiness-package-affects-the-mot/

 

20th May 2018 looks to be a key date:

 

The use of tailpipe or OBD for emission inspections under certain conditions for Euro 5 or 6 engines. Euro 5 tailpipe or conditional OBD (On Board Diagnostics), Euro 6 free choice between tailpipe or OBD

Excellent as the 2.0pd 170s in the vrs and pd140s in the scout and 4x4s won't have a problem as they are Euro4 so any emissions tests by tailpipe or OBD won't apply.

[skomaz]

You say that but since being at the wrong end of a VAG DPF fitted to a PD engine I follow all DPF related threads with interest.

 

I've lost count of the number of members who have been to Shark to have their DPF's removed.

 

Yet, as I write this I have not read one single thread from a member who has had their car fail an MOT due to the lack of a DPF.

Not an issue though as the tests will only be for Euro5 and above which means the pd engines that are the ones that have problems won't be caught as they are Euro4 only.

[Tech1e]

Like it or not, DPFs are here to stay along with Euro6 then Euro7 and so on emissions regulations, so just accept it and enjoy the rest of your lives instead of moaning that your cars are being chocked, worry about yourselves being chocked instead of a lump of metal.

And I've got quite a bit of stuff to read up on gasoline particate filters to that are on the way.

[Brimma]

Has everyone seen the Bond film 'Goldfinger' when the planes are dropping the 'nerve gas' over Fort Knox, and all of the soldiers drop down almost instantly?

When I read the word 'dangerous', I get this image in my head of a DPF-removed car driving down the High Street and all of the shoppers suddenly collapsing in a heap

Has anyone seen any comparison between the evil powers of the diesel particulate and the evil powers of passive smoking?

Just wondering

[Auric Goldfinger]

Has everyone seen the Bond film 'Goldfinger' when the planes are dropping the 'nerve gas' over Fort Knox, and all of the soldiers drop down almost instantly?

 

 

Thought I did a really good job there..........