dfp delete 170cr

[Richf]

DPF's have little impact on any of those, in fact during regeneration emissions from DPF equipped vehicles are very high, I read up on the subject including a number of a scientific reports, rather than promotional blurb

 

However if you are really concerned about the above you certainly wouldnt buy a diesel you'd buy something like this http://www.nissan.co.uk/GB/en/vehicle/electric-vehicles/leaf.html?cid=psmhk5Jq6Zk_dc

[classic]

DPF's have little impact on any of those, in fact during regeneration emissions from DPF equipped vehicles are very high, I read up on the subject including a number of a scientific reports, rather than promotional blurb

However if you are really concerned about the above you certainly wouldnt buy a diesel you'd buy something like this http://www.nissan.co.uk/GB/en/vehicle/electric-vehicles/leaf.html?cid=psmhk5Jq6Zk_dc

With all due respect, that's nonsense. Aside from the fact that it's illegal to use a vehicle with it's dpf removed, and will also therefore void your insurance, you will emit harmful particles which the dpf is designed to trap.

A link to where you get your facts on emissions caused by dpf regeneration (which reduces ash and is not the same as the product of diesel combustion) would be better than a Nissan Leaf brochure.

[FLAPPERJACK7]

I will put a picture of the inside of a tailpipe from any skoda diesel dpf vehicle tomorrow. The inside is spotless and it's a testament to just how good a job the dpf does not to mention the fact that when we connect a standard mot smoke meter we get a zero reading.

[Richf]

Its not my job to convince anyone of anything , do your own research and make your own decision in your own car.

It will not void your insurance any more than any other modification would , you should inform your insurers of any modifications

[classic]

Its not my job to convince anyone of anything , do your own research and make your own decision in your own car.

It will not void your insurance any more than any other modification would , you should inform your insurers of any modifications

That convinces me you don't have any facts to back up your claim.

Good luck informing an insurance company that you've made an illegal modification, its like telling them you've fitted slick tyres !!

[vrsadz]

A thing I can't get my head around is before my superb I had a my fabiavrs vrs and did not have a filter on and was £140 for tax where as my superb that has one is £180. And the superb exhaust is like a petrol clean as, work that one out

[silver1011]

A sooty tail pipe is not evidence of a missing DPF.

 

Any one who owns a PD170 VAG engine fitted to a high mileage, slightly long in the tooth car will understand why in some cases DPF's need removing.

 

People aren't removing them for the fun of it, because they have nothing better to spend £400 on. They need to be removed to save a car from becoming a write-off.

 

You can buy a DPF equipped 2007, 100,000 mile Skoda Octavia vRS today for £5,000. It is immaculate with many more years of life in it.

 

Apart from one flawed component. The DPF. A component retrofitted to an existing engine. Badly.

 

So you have a few options:

 

1. Buy a new DPF with a flawed design and have it fitted for £1,200. Or in other words pay 25% of the cars value for a single repair. A repair that involves a component that is not only not required for the car to run properly but a component that when removed allows the engine to run much better and far more efficiently.

 

2. Pay £250 and have the DPF professionally cleaned (internals jet washed) which damages the DPF and lasts a few thousand miles, if you are lucky.

 

3. Pay £400 and have the bloody thing removed for good.

 

4. Scrap the car.

 

Yes there are issues with insurance and the additional emissions. Some of us are more risk averse than others. We're all adults, make your own choice.

 

Oh and by the way. I was sat behind a sightseeing tour bus in the centre of York the other week. During the 10 minutes I was unfortunate enough to be sat behind it I have no doubt the amount of smoke being spewed from it's exhaust was a damn sight more than all of the additional smoke a non-DPF equipped PD170 will emit during it's remaining life.

Edited 9 November, 2014 by silver1011

[classic]

The op is enquiring about dpf removal on a cr 170 engine which can't be justified by the design issues of the pd.

It's one thing to make an adult choice which only affects yourself, but dpf removal affects others.

The old diesel buses and trains should be legislated out of use, but I suspect this would be too costly for the big businesses which financially support our ruling political parties.....

[FLAPPERJACK7]

It's not legal to remove your dpf. If you can't afford to replace it when it eventually fails ...maybe you should ....get on the bus!

[FLAPPERJACK7]

This is the inside of a tailpipe from a 2012 Octavia CAYC engine with 59227 miles with a dpf.

[JakeBlade]

I have no particular beef on the DPF keep / remove debate, but thought that this might help those in the UK.

 

Guidance note from Dept of Transport on DPFs: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263018/diesel-particulate-filters-guidance.pdf

[psycholist]

I wonder why petrol particulate filters are £40 to fit when DPFs are £1200... 

http://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/particle-emissions-petrol-cars

 

The report attached also says petrol engined cars will need particulate filters to meet the Euro 6c emissions regulations (Which DPF equipped cars already meet).

Edited 10 November, 2014 by psycholist

[kopparberg]

Diesels produce more carbon but 1200 quid for a glorified filter is a joke, it's like saying gut me or drive in a certain style or you'll face a 1200 quid bill at some point, only one winner there.

[peterposh]

http://pmmonline.co.uk/opinion/big-removal-mess

[peterposh]

You can buy a generic one, an after market one is a fraction of the cost

Edited 13 November, 2014 by peterposh

[mannyo]

As DPF equipped cars become more common then the cost to replace should fall like a stone. When Catalytic converters first appeared on the scene they cost £1K plus to replace, now as virtually all cars have them you can get one for around £100.

[silver1011]

The op is enquiring about dpf removal on a cr 170 engine which can't be justified by the design issues of the pd.

It's one thing to make an adult choice which only affects yourself, but dpf removal affects others.

 

The CR170 engine replaced the PD170. As such the issues with the DPF have been largely resolved. Although we won't know for sure until the engine has been properly proven out in a few years time. We don't yet know if there are design issues with the CR170 and it's use of the DPF although let's hope VAG has learnt from their mistakes.

 

Not that VAG are too bothered, it's the owners of their older PD70 engines that are now lumbered with the inherrant design flaw on cars well out of warranty and now no longer in production.

 

Knowing this have VAG thought to themselves in order to deter DPF removal and to make life a little easier for our customers with older vehicles shall we reduce the cost of replacement DPF's? Offer a discount through franchised dealers, offer a service whereby the old filter is swapped for the new one reducing the cost of the replacement part? Or even simply offer the part at cost price or a reduced margin? Anything to help.

 

The issue of removing a DPF and it's subsequent affect on others is only the same as doing 31mph in a 30mph limit, taking your eyes off the road to adjust the radio etc. All small actions which can go either way with regards to their affects on others.

 

With the greatest respect in the world, a few more DPF'less diesels on the road aren't going to make a lot of difference.

 

I'd rather pay the £400 to have it removed and donate another £200 to York Sightseeing Tours to keep one of their buses in the depot for a day. That would more than offset any additional pollution my car would emit and would still be half the cost of a new DPF.

 

When my DPF was starting to fail it was regenerating much more frequently in a fruitless attempt to clear itself. The cars fuel consumption increased considerably which is hardly indicitive to more environmentally friendly driving. I'll not go into detail on all of the extra unecessary journey's I had to do to find a road clear enough to allow the DPF to regenerate. Again wasting fuel and emitting more pollution.

 

Another unknown issue with a failing DPF is that they can let soot through. My DPF when regeneratign or attempting to regenerate would smoke like a chimney. As the engine was really suffering because the DPF wasn't working properly I'm sure it won't have been running correctly, it certainly drove differently.

 

So back to the OP and his question. My advice would be that if you plan to keep the car long term then be prepared to replace or remove the DPF. Until then let it do it's job.

Edited 14 November, 2014 by silver1011

[silver1011]

It's not legal to remove your dpf. If you can't afford to replace it when it eventually fails ...maybe you should ....get on the bus!

 

It is legal to remove your DPF. It can be (and has on here several times) be argued that it is illegal to drive on the road in a car that has had it's DPF removed.

 

You are clearly very lucky to be able to run a new car and not have to worry about replacing parts clearly not fit for purpose.

 

To suggest that anyone running a car who is unable to afford a £1,200 repair bill shouldn't be driving is extremely short sighted.

 

Let's just hope yours is faultless.

[silver1011]

As DPF equipped cars become more common then the cost to replace should fall like a stone. When Catalytic converters first appeared on the scene they cost £1K plus to replace, now as virtually all cars have them you can get one for around £100.

 

I'm sure this will be the case, but it won't happen for a good few years yet.

 

Until then it will be us having to pay the premium.

 

Unfortunately the current DPF's are quite a bit more complicated than catalytic converters with their separate catalysts and electronics.

 

DPF's seem to have a much shorter life expectancy too. Most manufacturers claim they have a life of around 100,000 miles yet there is no mention of the need to replace them in the service regimes / books. I believe Volvo is the exception here.

Edited 14 November, 2014 by silver1011

[Huskoda]

DPFs in cars have been around nearly a decade and the prices are not showing any signs of going down. I'm not convinced the long term cost of ownership of a diesel, with the DPF and DMF, not to mention having to adjust your driving around them, is much lower than a petrol, which is why I've left the black pump.

[Spaced99]

DPFs in cars have been around nearly a decade and the prices are not showing any signs of going down. I'm not convinced the long term cost of ownership of a diesel, with the DPF and DMF, not to mention having to adjust your driving around them, is much lower than a petrol, which is why I've left the black pump.

Exactly why I will be leaving the black pump as well. Also the latest petrol engines have been getting efficient enough to make it worth switching back.

[silver1011]

Agree here too.

 

My wife's diesel will be replaced with a petrol.

 

If I didn't do 30K/year I'd never have replaced my last diesel with another. A duff DPF can make life miserable!

[FLAPPERJACK7]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-for-mot-to-test-for-diesel-particulate-filter

[silver1011]

Yes, we know the detail. As has been mentioned removing the DPF leaves the owner open to an MOT failure.

 

It is illegal to drive the vehicle on the road too.

 

However the MOT tester has to be able to show that the DPF is no longer present via a visual inspection. This is often not possible if a DPF is gutted (rather than removed completely).

 

Only when the MOT test introduces a more stringent test to check for the operation of the DPF will it become harder to pass. Until then it's business as usual.

 

Some elements of the bulletin made me chuckle...

 

"Roads Minister Robert Goodwill said...

 

...and undoes the hard work car manufacturers have taken to improve emissions standards."

 

What he should have added was "at the detriment of long term reliability and fuel consumption".

 

Also...

 

"This change to the MOT tests makes it clear – if you have this filter removed from your car it will fail the test."

 

Not strictly true, there are cars undergoing MOT tests as we speak without their DPF's and being passed.

 

The addition to the MOT test is necessary to dissuade as many people as possible from removing their DPF's, but until the MOT test is changed then unfortunately this is unenforceable.

 

Let's see how long it takes for them to make further changes to the test. I know any changes that require the test centre to purchase or lease additional expensive diagnostic equipment is often very slow in appearing... 

[FLAPPERJACK7]

Yes, we know the detail. As has been mentioned removing the DPF leaves the owner open to an MOT failure.

It is illegal to drive the vehicle on the road too.

However the MOT tester has to be able to show that the DPF is no longer present via a visual inspection. This is often not possible if a DPF is gutted (rather than removed completely).

Only when the MOT test introduces a more stringent test to check for the operation of the DPF will it become harder to pass. Until then it's business as usual.

Some elements of the bulletin made me chuckle...

"Roads Minister Robert Goodwill said...

...and undoes the hard work car manufacturers have taken to improve emissions standards."

What he should have added was "at the detriment of long term reliability and fuel consumption".

Also...

"This change to the MOT tests makes it clear – if you have this filter removed from your car it will fail the test."

Not strictly true, there are cars undergoing MOT tests as we speak without their DPF's and being passed.

The addition to the MOT test is necessary to dissuade as many people as possible from removing their DPF's, but until the MOT test is changed then unfortunately this is unenforceable.

Let's see how long it takes for them to make further changes to the test. I know any changes that require the test centre to purchase or lease additional expensive diagnostic equipment is often very slow in appearing...

The mot test is only visual. So looking at this realistically most people will be tempted to break the law and highly likely to do whatever it takes to save money.