Thinking of having your DPF removed? May be worth waiting a few months first.....

[mac11irl]

Leave the engine running 24hrs?

On a serious note, i dont have answer. I doubt theres many petrol vans knocking around, esp as, over here, you cant reclaim the VAT on petrol where you can on diesel if youre a Vat registered company :s

[seboni121]

My golf is up to 70k now and i dont think ive ever noticed a regen ?, ive run the car on vpower diesel and bg 244 since i bought it new and its never missed a beat, the issues people.are been having is using $#!¥€ diesel and so clogging not only dpf but the egr also

[silver1011]

Am i right in thinking though that the vast majority of dpf failures/issues are with people who bought diesels only because of the cheaper road tax even though they only do very small mileage, short trips around tiwn and the like? Whereas your typical motorway mile muncher hasnt got the regen/blockage issues?

 

That is one end of the spectrum, low mileage, short journeys, insufficient opportunities for the DPF to regen.

 

The other end of the scale is high mileage where the DPF has plenty of opportunity to regen, but because the car is working harder and for longer the DPF also has to work harder and reaches the end of it's life much quicker than other standard wear and tear items.

 

Then there is the middle ground, where another issue with the car results in the premature death of the DPF. A good indication of a mechanical issue with a car is smoke out of the tailpipe. A DPF masks a lot of this and by holding all that extra pollution it quickly kills the DPF.

 

Then there are design issues. It is well documented on here how the DPF on the PD170 engine (fitted to the MkII Octavia vRS) was a ticking time bomb, retrofitted to an already existing engine. Then there is the system Mazda used on their 6 model.

 

DPF reliability is improving (much as catalytic converters did) but as long as a filter that isn't designed to last the life of the car costs in excess of £1,000 to replace then there will always be cars that have had them removed.

 

If the DVSA and the manufacturers themselves really want to stamp out illegal DPF removal they would be better working together to subsidise and reduce their replacement costs rather than wasting time looking at ineffective and expensive ways in which to detect their presence.

Edited 23 December, 2016 by silver1011

[classic]

Diesel is hopefully in its last decade in cars, and DPF's are a Heath Robinson bodge to keep selling them.

I've been shot down here before for criticising dpf removal as doing so increases pollution and is morally wrong. But I'll say it again - Don't remove DPF's and I hope the authorities do clamp down on it.

Edited 24 December, 2016 by classic

[octyal]

Diesel is hopefully in its last decade in cars, and DPF's are a Heath Robinson bodge to keep selling them.

I've been shot down here before for criticising dpf removal as doing so increases pollution and is morally wrong. But I'll say it again - Don't remove DPF's and I hope the authorities do clamp down on it.

 

That is the general feeling, same as when cats were added to cars in the 90's - eventually the tide will turn, but you can only clean up a dirty fuel so much, so diesel will eventually die off in small road vehicles, large stuff like plant and HGV will continue for a while after the car/light commercial has stopped using diesel.

 

Something that was pointed out on another page about DPF's was that they regenerate during longer periods when the exhaust gets hot - eg motorway - and all the DPF essentially does is to store the particulates and dump them in the country side! My understanding is that the regen process involves actually burning the soot and particulates off at high temps, rather than just dumping them into the air

[silver1011]

Dump them in the countryside?

 

I've got visions in my head of Richard Weston with a DPF in his hands  :D

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3554684/Fly-tipping-epidemic-Britain-blighted-sudden-surge-brazen-practice-penny-pinching-making-complicated-expensive-rid-rubbish.html

 

(I love it when this pond life gets caught and banged-to-rights).

 

Seriously though, the bi-product of the regenerative process (ash) is stored inside the DPF. It isn't released when the car thinks no one is looking!

 

This is what determines the life of the DPF, once the levels of ash begin to cover the filter the DPF has to work harder and harder. It then becomes a vicious circle and the DPF eventually quits.

 

It is at this point the owner has to make a decision. Spend £1,200 on a new DPF or spend £450 and have it removed forever. This high cost for a filter is why people are having them removed. I'm not condoning it but simply explaining why bringing down the cost of a new DPF would be a much easier exercise than trying to detect missing ones i.e. if they weren't so expensive there wouldn't be any missing ones to detect.

Edited 28 December, 2016 by silver1011

[Rustynuts]

Except just like decats on petrols, people will do it because of the perceived performance gains. Virtually every forum I go on has a thriving petrol community extolling the virtues of decats, and how to get away with it. At least with diesels it's because of the cost (which it used to be with cats and it'll come down eventually) not because it's a way of making a car a bit more powerful while filling the atmosphere with pollutants.

[gadgetman]

Except just like decats on petrols, people will do it because of the perceived performance gains. Virtually every forum I go on has a thriving petrol community extolling the virtues of decats, and how to get away with it. At least with diesels it's because of the cost (which it used to be with cats and it'll come down eventually) not because it's a way of making a car a bit more powerful while filling the atmosphere with pollutants.

I think DPFs are similar to CATs in containing platinum which is why they're so costly.

So you pay for it to be gutted, and the garage/tuner benefits as well from cashing in the Platinum.

[silver1011]

Agreed, there will always be some people looking for performance gains, but these will very much be the minority. It's the people who are forced to remove it simply to keep their car on the road and put food in their family's mouths at the same time I feel sorry for.

 

It isn't rocket science, the manufacturers have to do one of two things:

 

1) Ensure the DPF works properly throughout the duration of the modern cars average life (200,000 miles or 10 years).

2) Stand by and support their loyal customers by reducing the piece part costs of the DPF when it is widely acknowledged it doesn't work properly (VAG and their woefully unreliable PD170's DPF).

 

If no.1 can't be proven or at any stage proves untenable then implement no.2.

 

This then frees up the DVSA to focus their time and effort (and importantly tax payers money) on other elements of the MOT test that will make our vehicles, and therefore our roads a safer place to be.

Edited 28 December, 2016 by silver1011