My head hurts

 

I've been looking to trade in my 2005 Superb for a family estate car but just about every manufacturer and model I think looks right, has a litany of potentially very expensive faults. My budget is about £8k.

 

I've decided against diesel because, despite doing at least one good motorway journey a week, I also do a lot of nipping around locally – picking the kids up, shopping trips – and all modern diesels have a DPF, with the exception of the Toyota Avensis if you avoid the D-CAT version, but these are afflicted with extensive head gasket failure rates for which Toyota extended the age/mileage warranty to fix. DPFs fill me with dread and I really don't want to go down the route of DPF removal and remap and risk the MOT laws changing so it'll fail on emissions. And most modern diesels have DMF issues.

 

So that brings me round to petrol. My extensive research so far concludes for the following cars (my dates in brackets are merely what age range I've been looking at for my budget: 

 

1. Mazda 6 TS Sport (2007–2011 ): cam chains prone to stretching with multiple refits required and not fixing the inherent  problem. Expensive and possible engine write-off worthy.

 

2. BMW 320i (2007– 2009): multiple failures and refitting of coil packs, injectors, ABS sensor, DTC pump, NO2 sensors, PLUS the pre 2008 models have less power with higher emissions, so more road tax

 

3. Audi A4 Avant (2007-2009 ): pre-2008 models may have the older TFSI engine and all its inherent problems with high oil consumption, worn inlet manifolds, worn oil seals, new engine… the petrols can even suffer from the same oil pump failure that afflicted the  2.0TDI, and then we're on to the cam chain tensioner worry :peek:

2009 engines are apparently slightly more reliable but then there is the cam follower and coked valves issue. 

 

4. Octavia Estate (2007-2011): unless I can find a decent vRS, the rest seem pretty gutless, and all use the TSI engine with potential tensioner problems.

 

Possible contenders:

 

1. Ford Mondeo (2008 - ): bit bigger than I would like but the petrol engines seem to be pretty solid and reliable, but tracking one down is a mission as everything is diesel. Diesel is everywhere. Just looking at all the cars I see out and about, and 90% are now diesel. How do they cope with the DPF?

 

2. Honda Accord (2008 - ): better looking than the previous version but despite the wheelbase and width increasing, it has less boot and rear space than the saloon????. And again, finding a good petrol version is the holy grail. The DTEC diesel engine is supposed to be one of the best, but DPF, DPF, DPF issues. Regen here, regen there, forced regen here, new DPF there. A new DPF is nearly £1600.

 

3. Saab 9-3/9-5 (2007- ): the lower spec models and smaller 1.8T engines are off-putting, as are the reviews of the drive, but I'm slowly coming round to the idea that my days as a 'keen and spirited' driver may be over anyway. Boot space ain't the best in the 9-3.

 

4. Toyota Avensis (2008 - ): I think I really will have lost the will to live if I end up with one of these, but I'm so down to my last straw it might well come to pass.

 

5. Volvo V50/70 (2007 - ): V50 boot might be a bit small, and V70 seems too big for the engine unless I can bag a 2.5 version  

 

I know all the potential problems listed are gathered from forums and the like, and we all know that no one posts because their car runs faultlessly, but there's no smoke without fire and none of the things above can reasonably be checked before purchase and may not show up on a test drive.

 

I wanted to get it all sorted before my insurance and MOT are due next month but I'm chasing my tail. Is it really that difficult to find a family estate car that won't explode in a shower of pistons and valves after a trip to the shops  :S   

I know people seem to only justify diesels on their potential economy, but I've bought a lot of diesels over the years because I like the way the engines perform. My current 3.0 diesel has about 265 hp and 460 lb/ft (620N/M according to something I read). It pulls like a train and is super easy to drive, almost never in the wrong gear. I got my first diesel because I was doing around 30K miles a year, but after a while I missed the torques with a petrol engine, so continued to buy diesel for their drivability .

 

 

 

Having said all that, I am about to go back to petrol, but it does have lots and lots of torques

Mot laws are unlikely to have a retrospective impact, so dpf removal shouldn't worry you too much , dmf can be an issue and need replacing whenever a clutch is needed so ever 100k or so , is it really such an issue ?

What about an Octavia Pre FL or FL 1.9?

 

No DPF to worry about there.

 

Phil

Mot laws are unlikely to have a retrospective impact, so dpf removal shouldn't worry you too much , dmf can be an issue and need replacing whenever a clutch is needed so ever 100k or so , is it really such an issue ?

 

Currently the MOT for a diesel tests the CO₂ emissions level, which is fine, but if they change it to test for soot emissions, which is what they really should do as that's what the DPF is there for, then that's when it could get complicated. It's only a matter of time before VOSA get on to the fact that Euro emissions laws are being flouted on a regular basis by people removing their DPFs. :no:

 

As for DMF issues, it all depends on the car. Some are much cheaper to replace than others and if you can get 100,000 out of a DMF on a diesel then you're doing alright.

What about an Octavia Pre FL or FL 1.9?

 

No DPF to worry about there.

 

Phil

 

Now why hadn't I thought of this? What year did the CR and DPF come on to the market? 2008? I was hoping for a newer motor but it's still worth investigating.

 

I do love the torque of an oil burner, and my Superb with the remap has been, well, superb. We just need a bit more practicality now the kids are older and have bikes and stuff to cart about.

Now why hadn't I thought of this? What year did the CR and DPF come on to the market? 2008? I was hoping for a newer motor but it's still worth investigating.

 

I do love the torque of an oil burner, and my Superb with the remap has been, well, superb. We just need a bit more practicality now the kids are older and have bikes and stuff to cart about.

 

The 1.9 PD never had a DPF, right up until it's withdrawal.

 

2.0 PD 140 also only had a DPF in the 4x4 models.

 

Both were available past 2008.

 

You could get a really nice L&K for 8k

Currently the MOT for a diesel tests the CO₂ emissions level, which is fine, but if they change it to test for soot emissions, which is what they really should do as that's what the DPF is there for, then that's when it could get complicated. It's only a matter of time before VOSA get on to the fact that Euro emissions laws are being flouted on a regular basis by people removing their DPFs. :no:

 

As for DMF issues, it all depends on the car. Some are much cheaper to replace than others and if you can get 100,000 out of a DMF on a diesel then you're doing alright.

I was not aware that CO2 levels were checked on the mot test , care to point me to the legislation for it ?

The 1.9 was available right up to about 2009 in the FL Octavia Mk2.

 

It was then dropped and replaced by the 2.0 CR and 1.6 CR.

 

So you could either be looking at a late pre-FL or an early FL.

 

The 1.9 is a decent engine. 105 BHP might not sound a lot but I never have any problems. Just did an aiport run with 5 people and 5 suitcases on board. It never battered an eyelid, pulled away from lights etc with ease and still managed 50mpg.

 

Phil

I was not aware that CO2 levels were checked on the mot test , care to point me to the legislation for it ?

 

They're not. The road fund license is based on co2 but the MOT test is just a smoke density test.

 

Phil

They're not. The road fund license is based on co2 but the MOT test is just a smoke density test.

 

Phil

I knew that already, interesting to note people still think DPF's reduce CO2

I knew that already, interesting to note people still think DPF's reduce CO2

 

Sorry, it's a smoke density test rather than a CO₂ test, my bad. However, it still doesn't test for the rubbish that a DPF absorbs, i.e. the soot particles which are what cause most pollution. Surely in time they will introduce a test for this so a visual check to see if there's an empty box won't be enough to pass. It's moot anyway as I'll be avoiding a DPF.

How about an Octavia with the 1.8 TSi engine.

I don't know of any real problems with them.

I ran one for 2 years and put 98,000 miles on it and on a steady run 45-48 mpg mid 30s around town. 

Sorry, it's a smoke density test rather than a CO₂ test, my bad. However, it still doesn't test for the rubbish that a DPF absorbs, i.e. the soot particles which are what cause most pollution. Surely in time they will introduce a test for this so a visual check to see if there's an empty box won't be enough to pass. It's moot anyway as I'll be avoiding a DPF.

They aren't allowed to remove any parts for the mot , you'd need to triple or quadruple the mot testing time to allow stripping of parts to check

Perhaps if you educated yourself about what dpf's do you wouldn't have such an irrational fear of them ?

They aren't allowed to remove any parts for the mot , you'd need to triple or quadruple the mot testing time to allow stripping of parts to check

Perhaps if you educated yourself about what dpf's do you wouldn't have such an irrational fear of them ?

Not quite sure why you've got an attitude with me but I know what a DPF does. I also know you can have the inside of the unit taken out and the unit welded back together to create the impression that a functioning DPF is still present to pass the visual inspection of an MOT. I didn't mention any removal of any parts during the test.

I now know that the MOT does not test for CO2 and I also know that the extra emissions created by the lack of DPF are usually insignificant enough to fail the MOT test. My point was that if the emissions test changes to test particle emissions to prevent the widespread removal of the DPF, then this will mean my car would fail and I'd face a big bill to reinstate the DPF.

My main problem with the DPF is the fact that in many cases a DPF causes grief for car owners due to the type of driving, i.e. short stop/start trips and little long distance driving at higher revs. The DPF is a serviceable item, and a very expensive item at that, and becomes unusable if constant forced regens are required. This is my entirely rational fear of them and my wish to avoid them.

How many people have been sold a diesel car on the basis of it's MPG and money-saving value, only to find a diesel with a DPF is totally unsuitable for them? My research also concludes that some DPF systems are worse than others and even with long range driving, require frequent and costly maintenance. The system is flawed IMO and was created to meet Euro emissions regulations. Hopefully over time they will improve, but until then ...

I genuinely appreciate any advice I can get on the subject because I don't claim to be an expert, but I can read and my view is based on hours of reading as I try to find a suitable car that best serves my family needs.

I am going to say go for the Volvo V70 R with the 2.5 engine just as I really like that car with that engine...unfortunately my luck with cars and my general naivety towards them I tend to choose the wrong ones! 

Sorry, it's a smoke density test rather than a CO₂ test, my bad. However, it still doesn't test for the rubbish that a DPF absorbs, i.e. the soot particles which are what cause most pollution. Surely in time they will introduce a test for this so a visual check to see if there's an empty box won't be enough to pass. It's moot anyway as I'll be avoiding a DPF.

 

Yes, it's coming! All diesels that had a dpf on leaving the factory will be expected to have that dpf still in place. It will be retrospective too as the current law says the car must have a dpf if it has been designed to have one and it will not be allowed to pass the mot without that dpf. Current legislation on conformity etc etc etc. But it's difficult to enforce at the moment due to folks using trickery to remove the dpf and leave the dpf casing in place. Most will pass at the moment on just the smoke tesst, but not all. That will be changing soon as they will test for fine particulate matter that cannot be seen with the naked eye. Also they will test for nox emissions relevant for the cars year of manufacture so it's fair. So no longer will it just be that smoke test for visible only pollution. 

How about a 2.0 petrol estate Superb very rare 200bhp very tuneable, or if you can find one the 3.6 v6 petrol great engines I belive.

Until September last year I owned a 2010 (60 plate) Mondeo Titanium X hatchback with the 200bhp petrol Ecoboost engine. It was a fabulous car and did everything very well (but I quickly bored of the "auto everything" and wanted something to drive). Once No 2 son headed off to Uni we didn't need a big 5-seater anymore (we have 3 kids but 2 are now at Uni) so it was time to go back to driving something I could enjoy. My only issue was that with everything being automatic and with just about every gadget except Sat Nav I could foresee expensive bills should anything go wrong. Nothing did whilst I owned it but it was a Ford so there was always potential. As for mpg, 35-37mpg was achievable on a cruise controlled long run but that dropped quite quickly if you used the performance.

Has anyone got any reliable stats on DPF issues? What is the frequency of serious problem?

Given that they have been so common for the last few years I find it hard to believe there really is a serious issue with them.

Yes, it's coming! All diesels that had a dpf on leaving the factory will be expected to have that dpf still in place. It will be retrospective too as the current law says the car must have a dpf if it has been designed to have one and it will not be allowed to pass the mot without that dpf. Current legislation on conformity etc etc etc. But it's difficult to enforce at the moment due to folks using trickery to remove the dpf and leave the dpf casing in place. Most will pass at the moment on just the smoke tesst, but not all. That will be changing soon as they will test for fine particulate matter that cannot be seen with the naked eye. Also they will test for nox emissions relevant for the cars year of manufacture so it's fair. So no longer will it just be that smoke test for visible only pollution.

Fine particulate matter is greater on a car with a dpf , non dpf make larger particles

Nox will be the focus in the next few years , of course anything could come but it's some years away yet , especially for older eu4 engines and will require significant investment from garages , I reckon if it does come it will mean generally more stringent tests but less often ie every two years

Has anyone got any reliable stats on DPF issues? What is the frequency of serious problem?

Given that they have been so common for the last few years I find it hard to believe there really is a serious issue with them.

 

My feelings exactly.

 

There is a mass of anecdotal evidence and complaints / fears about DPF's scattered about the internet, (even from supposedly reputable organisations such as the AA which merely says it has seen an increase of people with problems) but no hard, numerical evidence.

It is probably out there somewhere, can anyone point to it?

What about an Accord petrol?

Then again, mine required a new CAT and clutch after a 100k miles...

 

To be honest, every car has a list of faults for which it has earned a reputation, so you might as well buy the one you like, do your diligence and keep your fingers crossed. 

The problem with Internet land and forums in general is that you can easily find faults in any product you are looking at, it a bit like going to a hospital and concluding that the human race is about to become extinct.

I've had 3 cars now with DPF and never had an issue 2 Fabia 1.6 tdi and the golf 1.6 tdi, from what I can gather cars that run predominantly on cheap supermarket fuels tend to get their DPF blocking up ? , I always run vpower diesel simply because of the cleaning agents added to eliminate the deposits blocking the DPF, supermarket fuels and shell no longer have a massive £ difference so it's a no brainer, when the golf had its first mot test the tester said " engine is tip top and burning fuel really well" he then said " your not running this on supermarket sludge " I said " no " how can you tell , he said " usually it takes 2 or 3 "runs" but mine did it on the first ? Have no clue what this was but I was happy with his diagnosis ! So don't worry about a car with DPF if it's cheap enough and I'm budget , I'd chuck a can of millers or bg244 and run it forever on she'll vpower nitro plus , regular oil change with a really good oil like mobil1 ESP or shell helix ultra