dpf removal - the legalities

[GeneralPurpose]

  :clap: Auric, nice one! 

 

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

 

Funny you should say that. We tested our first gpf just before I retired at the end of last year. It was very effective. Almost completely removing all particulates. Production versions will be even better. 

[GeneralPurpose]

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.

 

Yes, that's because it's done in a way to deceive the MOT tester! The car is still uncompliant with the laws as they stand but just cannot be detected until the new emisson laws come in. Incidentally, not all cars with that mod pass the mot. Some will emit more smoke without the dpf. All cars with the dpf fully removed (that means the casing as well) fail. It's happening! And a jolly good job too. 

[GeneralPurpose]

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.

 

 

Let's hope not!

[silver1011]

Yes, that's because it's done in a way to deceive the MOT tester! The car is still uncompliant with the laws as they stand but just cannot be detected until the new emisson laws come in. Incidentally, not all cars with that mod pass the mot. Some will emit more smoke without the dpf. All cars with the dpf fully removed (that means the casing as well) fail. It's happening! And a jolly good job too. 

 

 

Just not on Briskoda hey? Scare mongering I say.

[silver1011]

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.

 

Interesting how all those who are adamant that removing a DPF is the work of the devil and will result in an indefinite jail term all drive petrol's.

[GeneralPurpose]

silver, you've said nothing of any useful significance in any of your posts, nothing most of us didn't already know. Just sarcasm and adoration for breaking the law while poisoning the rest of us! Makes you wonder what sort of society we live in. Considering diesel particulates are on par with white asbestos according to the WHO, are you really happy to be spreading muck like that about? Do you not have any moral conscience? It's ok, you don't have to answer that one as I know what your answer will be!

[trundlenut]

silver, you've said nothing of any useful significance in any of your posts, nothing most of us didn't already know. Just sarcasm and adoration for breaking the law while poisoning the rest of us! Makes you wonder what sort of society we live in. Considering diesel particulates are on par with white asbestos according to the WHO, are you really happy to be spreading muck like that about? Do you not have any moral conscience? It's ok, you don't have to answer that one as I know what your answer will be!

Also as dangerous as working as a painter!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[GeneralPurpose]

Interesting how all those who are adamant that removing a DPF is the work of the devil and will result in an indefinite jail term all drive petrol's.

 

Aside for my life as a tech, I designed and developed diesel engines for a living. I'm a diesel head and have had more diesels than most people have had hot dinners. I don't just have a Skoda petrol car either which I have to say is superb, no not a superb!!   :clap:  So I do know the subject matter. 

 

Trundle, or French polishers who have similar risk factor. Interesting isn't it?

[silver1011]

silver, you've said nothing of any useful significance in any of your posts, nothing most of us didn't already know. Just sarcasm and adoration for breaking the law while poisoning the rest of us! Makes you wonder what sort of society we live in. Considering diesel particulates are on par with white asbestos according to the WHO, are you really happy to be spreading muck like that about? Do you not have any moral conscience? It's ok, you don't have to answer that one as I know what your answer will be!

 

Wow, making it personal? Nice. Moral conscience, give me a break.

 

You don't have a DPF equipped car and face a £1,200 bill to replace it so stop being so pedantic.

 

I'm telling it as it is, through the real life experiences posted on this very forum, rather than spouting unsupported and unsubstantiated legal fluff in the hope it'll scare people into falling in to line with your ill advised views.

 

Carry on with your scare mongering, if only during your life of designing diesel engines you didn't do a better job with DPF's.

[Gazbull17]

Interesting how all those who are adamant that removing a DPF is the work of the devil and will result in an indefinite jail term all drive petrol's.

Far from it, it's the first petrol car I've had in over 12 years, always drove diesels but I'm lucky if I drive 7000 mls a year now so the extra cost of the diesel meant I would never make any fuel savings.

All I'm saying is that DPFs are here to stay for a reason but most people are moaning because they see them as detrimental to their cars. They've been developed to improve air quality whether you believe in global warming or not, I don't by the way, I'm just tired of people still arguing the toss that their removal is not illegal if it goes undetected. It is illegal but just do what you want is all I said.

Edited 26 June, 2014 by Gazbull17

[trundlenut]

Trundle, or French polishers who have similar risk factor. Interesting isn't it?

 

It just goes to show how many carcinogens and potential carcinogens you can be exposed to in daily life, in air, food, things you touch/work with/spray/inhale etc. 

 

And that exposure does not mean you will get cancer.  Your personal prediliction resulting from your genes is probably the biggest risk factor, carcinogens just increase the risk.

[silver1011]

I've said it before, but...

 

A 5 or 6 year old average mileage Octavia vRS PD170 with a value of £5,000.

 

The DPF fails.

 

Option 1: Take it to Skoda for a new DPF. Cost approx. £1,200.

Option 2: Take it to Shark for a DPF removal and remap. Cost £450.

Option 3: Scrap the car. Cost £5,000.

 

What would you do?

[trundlenut]

I've said it before, but...

 

A 5 or 6 year old average mileage Octavia vRS PD170 with a value of £5,000.

 

The DPF fails.

 

Option 1: Take it to Skoda for a new DPF. Cost approx. £1,200.

Option 2: Take it to Shark for a DPF removal and remap. Cost £450.

Option 3: Scrap the car. Cost £5,000.

 

What would you do?

 

Option 4 - get it cleaned! - see http://www.dpfcleanteam.co.uk/ (selected randomly from google results as an example)

[silver1011]

Interesting, I'd seen video's on YouTube of people washing them out themselves at home with a hosepipe!

 

£250 + VAT for a clean with a six month warranty.

 

Any cleaning required after the 6 months carries a reduced charge of £100.

 

Certainly far less than £1,200.

[trundlenut]

I've seen other options too, one just using water and one using compressed air combined with heating to very high temperatures.

 

That mob in Hinkley aren't to far from me so I may enquire about it when the ash level gets close to the max on mine.

[GeneralPurpose]

Wow, making it personal? Nice. Moral conscience, give me a break.

 

You don't have a DPF equipped car and face a £1,200 bill to replace it so stop being so pedantic.

 

I'm telling it as it is, through the real life experiences posted on this very forum, rather than spouting unsupported and unsubstantiated legal fluff in the hope it'll scare people into falling in to line with your ill advised views.

 

Carry on with your scare mongering, if only during your life of designing diesel engines you didn't do a better job with DPF's.

 

I think you take the cake on 'personal' from your posting history in this and other threads I've seen. If you can't afford to run a diesel, don't inflict your problem on all of us. I don't design dpf's just engines that work well with them. As an engineer I work with stats and fact. Only those things. Not misinformation, speculation or scaremongering. You just show yourself to be uninformed or confused. But this wont' get us anywhere so please, carry on, but without me! You selfishly have your head in the sand from what we can all see. 

[silver1011]

 If you can't afford to run a diesel, don't inflict your problem on all of us. 

 

Oh dear, showing your true colours now.

 

But this wont' get us anywhere so please, carry on, but without me!

 

See you in the next DPF thread, hopefully with some fresh links

[GeneralPurpose]

It just goes to show how many carcinogens and potential carcinogens you can be exposed to in daily life, in air, food, things you touch/work with/spray/inhale etc. 

 

And that exposure does not mean you will get cancer.  Your personal prediliction resulting from your genes is probably the biggest risk factor, carcinogens just increase the risk.

 

Trundle, I don't disagree with some of the things you are saying. Without sounding contrite, there isn't much you can tell me about the stats, I read them frequently when I was working. I'm not a doctor, I'm an engineer, a man of science. I only believe in facts that have a sound base and that have been properly researched. That's why I was chosen to speak along with many others who are higher up the food chain on this matter at various important meetings to help politicians understand the issues relating to the diesel engine and health problems. But we the engineers and medics are finding out new stuff everyday and the information you quoted is well out of date. It was true at the time but things have moved on markedly since 2009/2011. Much of the new stuff it seems isn't even out in the public domain (it seems), but is available through official paid for channels I'm told but not the whole reports as research is still going on. It's only the headline stuff that's been announced earlier in the year and last year because it was though to be helpful and people need to know. Research is still going on and some of that stuff won't be released for another year or two. Oh, one point. The nhs and others used the word 'epidemic' when describing brain cancer increases. This has been widely reported in the news and media generally and is due to the sharp rise there has been recently in brain cancers. Of course not all of these are caused by dpm. This problem goes right across 'urop' too. But you must understand a brain cancer epidemic is not like a flu epidemic and must be taken in context with the norms in that area. The stats I've seen are very concerning and it's not scaremongering. I respect your view, you are a man of intelligence that's clear. But you just don't have the info yet to satify your curiosity. I understand that. 

[silver1011]

Put that £250 towards a jet wash and a pair of wellies!

 

http://youtu.be/H5JRmwiBd7g

[GeneralPurpose]

Yea, bye for now silver101    :clap:

[trundlenut]

Trundle, I don't disagree with some of the things you are saying. Without sounding contrite, there isn't much you can tell me about the stats, I read them frequently when I was working. I'm not a doctor, I'm an engineer, a man of science. I only believe in facts that have a sound base and that have been properly researched. That's why I was chosen to speak along with many others who are higher up the food chain on this matter at various important meetings to help politicians understand the issues relating to the diesel engine and health problems. But we the engineers and medics are finding out new stuff everyday and the information you quoted is well out of date. It was true at the time but things have moved on markedly since 2009/2011. Much of the new stuff it seems isn't even out in the public domain (it seems), but is available through official paid for channels I'm told but not the whole reports as research is still going on. It's only the headline stuff that's been announced earlier in the year and last year because it was though to be helpful and people need to know. Research is still going on and some of that stuff won't be released for another year or two. Oh, one point. The nhs and others used the word 'epidemic' when describing brain cancer increases. This has been widely reported in the news and media generally and is due to the sharp rise there has been recently in brain cancers. Of course not all of these are caused by dpm. This problem goes right across 'urop' too. But you must understand a brain cancer epidemic is not like a flu epidemic and must be taken in context with the norms in that area. The stats I've seen are very concerning and it's not scaremongering. I respect your view, you are a man of intelligence that's clear. But you just don't have the info yet to satify your curiosity. I understand that. 

 

You are not going to get peer reviewed statistically valid data for a more recent period than 2011, it takes time to collate, review, assess, check, review, write up, check, review the data, a lot of time.  Even in the NHS it takes time, I know this as my sister works for the NHS doing statistics.  Sumission of papers to journals can quite often take 12-18 months before they are published.

 

Epidemological studies take a long time to undertake, it can be 10, 20+ years, especially when looking at cancer.  Biochemical assessments looking at mechanisms that could cause cancer do happen quicker but they do not necessarily reflect what happens in the human body.  Interestingly mesothelioma is very difficult to study as it takes so long to develop you can't really study it in animals as they don't live long enough.

 

I have spent a significant amount of time searching and I cannot find any reliable information to support your assertions.  What I do come across when including the word epidemic is websites with references to apartame causing cancer, which is not a good sign.  Even WHO do not talk about an epidemic, nor do the NHS.

[TeflonTom]

Right listen up folks, can we keep all our personal attacks to ourselves, this dpf issue is a bit of a hot potato but it's not a reason to despoil this forum with all this puerile nonsense. Topic now officially an endangered species.

[marcusthehat]

Aw shucks, n after ah had popped the Popcorn in the Microwave an cracked a beer open.

Dammn!

[MarginWalker]

silver, you've said nothing of any useful significance in any of your posts, nothing most of us didn't already know. Just sarcasm and adoration for breaking the law while poisoning the rest of us! Makes you wonder what sort of society we live in. Considering diesel particulates are on par with white asbestos according to the WHO, are you really happy to be spreading muck like that about? Do you not have any moral conscience? It's ok, you don't have to answer that one as I know what your answer will be!

Estate Man, I have no beef with your desire to see reduced levels of diesel particulates in the environment, but I find your moral stance on your tall steed just a little rich given that you happily drove around in your non-DPF 1.4 TDi for several years before you changed it for your 1.6 petrol estate.

Just saying.

[Brimma]

Aside for my life as a tech, I designed and developed diesel engines for a living. I'm a diesel head and have had more diesels than most people have had hot dinners. I don't just have a Skoda petrol car either which I have to say is superb, no not a superb!!   :clap:  So I do know the subject matter. 

 

 

 

Are you now employed by a DPF manufacturing company, by any chance?

 

Just a thought