Zagato
Well-Known Member
DPF's are a PITA. I wouldn't buy a diesel motor because of them. You don't want to know how much they cost to replace!! £1500 for some motors...
(Diesel Particulate Filters!)
(Diesel Particulate Filters!)
Two stroke petrol for cars
- Thread starter tidclacy
- Start date
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
My previous motorhome had one. The van was standing for a few months, long enough for a little rust to form in the exhaust pipe. When it was restarted some of the rust blew into the filter, partially blocking it and severely affecting the power output of the engine. I forget what we paid for a new one but it was several hundred pounds.
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
Yes but you wont find a DPF on a petrol engine! There are companies around who offer a DPF removal plus remap to fool the ECU into thinking there is nothing wrong.
Avocet
Well-Known Member
There are, but the authorities are wise to it! VOSA are planning a variety of MOT and random roadside enforcement measures to try and catch any deliberate modification that could invalidate emissions performance. I think it's just one of those technologies (like dual-mass flywheels!) that isn't quite market-ready yet. Doubtless they'll get better in the next few years. Increasingly, we're seeing stainless tubing up to the car / DPF on mass produced cars and I wonder whether it's because of the "lay-up rust" problem?
Zagato
Well-Known Member
They havn't caught onto EGR valves being taken out of Landies yet 
I just clean the one up in my old SAAB 9-5 with carburetor cleaner and stick it back in each time it gets bunged up
Have to say i am dreading buying/owning a car out of warranty with all the ECU issues, sensor faults etc. Give me a simple car again any day. Not even the AA can help much nowadays, they just tow you to a Dealership who also seem to scratch their heads.
Technology is great when it works but it's still too problematic at the moment and costly when it goes wrong for my liking. £400 for a wheel sensor
why do we need a bloody wheel sensor, wheels worked OK before having sensors 
I just clean the one up in my old SAAB 9-5 with carburetor cleaner and stick it back in each time it gets bunged up
Have to say i am dreading buying/owning a car out of warranty with all the ECU issues, sensor faults etc. Give me a simple car again any day. Not even the AA can help much nowadays, they just tow you to a Dealership who also seem to scratch their heads.
Technology is great when it works but it's still too problematic at the moment and costly when it goes wrong for my liking. £400 for a wheel sensor
why do we need a bloody wheel sensor, wheels worked OK before having sensors haydude
Well-Known Member
I am not sure why do we care about the catalyser, it is not even checked by the MOT.
If the cat weren't working I would not know, and if it needed replacement I would replace it with a straight through pipe.
Avocet
Well-Known Member
They check the emissions at MOT. Few cat-equipped cars will meet the requirements without their cat, so if you had not cat you'd fail. It's actually illegal to remove them (and any other emission control equipment), but I know it's widely done.
Avocet
Well-Known Member
They havn't caught onto EGR valves being taken out of Landies yet
I just clean the one up in my old SAAB 9-5 with carburetor cleaner and stick it back in each time it gets bunged up
Have to say i am dreading buying/owning a car out of warranty with all the ECU issues, sensor faults etc. Give me a simple car again any day. Not even the AA can help much nowadays, they just tow you to a Dealership who also seem to scratch their heads.
Technology is great when it works but it's still too problematic at the moment and costly when it goes wrong for my liking. £400 for a wheel sensor
Yes it's interesting isn't it. We're just on this spiral of having to invent more and more complex features because cars have actually been doing everything we "need" for half a century now! Some of it (like all the emissions control complexity) is a legal requirement imposed on the car industry by its regulators. Other stuff (like ABS, Electronic Stability Control and various other stuff has been market-driven but gradually the legislative net tightens and eventually makes it mandatory. Your wheel sensor is necessary for ABS but from 2014, all cars will have to be fitted with Electronic Stability Control too, so it'll only get worse.
CreakyDecks
Well-Known Member
Actually I'd argue that it's not that great when it works. The lambda sensor(s) on my Volvo packed in months ago. The fuel consumption is exactly the same as it was before. It is going to cost me £100's to get it through its next MOT at absolutely no benefit to me. It will almost certainly pass the emissions test, as it always has, but fail because the computer is ratting me out with a warning message
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
As I understand it, there is no requirement for a diesel powered car to have a DPF, however thery are fitted to meet stringent emission tests. So as long as the car passes the required level of smoke test at MOT, this is currently set at 3.0 ppm for cars up to July 2008 and 1.5ppm after July 2008. EURO IV rules did not even come in until Sept 2009. The VOSA cannot do kerb side random checks on something which is currently not part of the MOT. It is unlikely that this would be enforced retrospectively anyway. If a diesel engine is running correctly there is no need for it produce any smoke anyway. Many cars even pre 2008 are achieving figures as low as .5ppm even without a DPF. I have heard that some MOT test stations have even had to install more sensitive test equipment as the soot levels are so low.
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
A lot of the problem with diesel cars, is not the car itself, but the car being bought inappropriately. If you are doing the 5 mile return school run, down to Tescos on Friday,another 7 miles and maybe even an 8 mile trip to work, a diesel car is the wrong one to buy. Why? Well to start with it will never warm up enough and over time the DPF will clog up because it does not reach high enough temperatures to regenerate. Doing these sort of distances you are asking for trouble, big repair bills, no real saving on fuel and you'll finish up saying how bad diesel powered cars are. No, nothing wrong with the car, just the wrong one.
Avocet
Well-Known Member
the MOT emissions test is a very crude test compared to the one the car has to do for type approval. All diesels emit particulates - hence the requirements for DPFs. The plan is to make deliberate modifications that degrade emissions performance a fail.
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
Can you provide a link to that information please? My understanding is that the cars have to meet minimum emission levels, the DPF is a means to that only. So if the car meets the current requirement then all is OK. If after removing a DPF a car still meets the 3.0ppm prior to July 2008 or 1.5 ppm after July 2008 then all is well. After all not all manufactures fitted DPF at the same time, they were phased in over many years. I do agree if after the removal of a DPF the car fails to meet minimum soot levels then it will fail its emission test.
Incidentally, my DPF is still in place.
reeac
Well-Known Member
Dual mass flywheels aren't that new - I had a 1990 Jag. XJ6 4.0 manual which had one and it was never a problem up until I sold it in 2002 at well over 100K miles. I suspect that they've skimped a bit on the design since then.
Avocet
Well-Known Member
No link, I'm afraid. Just talk at this stage. DFT (and the European Commission) are aware it goes on. The problem is that the MOT emissions test is a very lax test (even halving the visible smoke limit) compared to the type approval test, but it would be uneconomical for VOSA to equip MOT stations with the necessary analysers to detect particulates. Construction & Use Reg 61A prohibits the deliberate modification of a vehicle in such a way as to degrade its emissions performance. As DPFs are very expensive, we can be pretty confident that the manufacturers wouldn't be fitting them unless they had no alternative!
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
Mmm.
"No link, I'm afraid. Just talk at this stage. DFT (and the European Commission) are aware it goes on."
A little different to your original claim.
"The problem is that the MOT emissions test is a very lax test (even halving the visible smoke limit) compared to the type approval test"
3.0ppm up to July 2008. The type approval dates back to 1972 (?) way before DPF's. 1.5ppm is, I understand, sometimes still possible without a DPF but there is no guarantee.,
"but it would be uneconomical for VOSA to equip MOT stations with the necessary analysers to detect particulates"
MOT stations buy their own equipment, it is not supplied by anyone..
"Construction & Use Reg 61A prohibits the deliberate modification of a vehicle in such a way as to degrade its emissions performance."
Indeed, but if a car can still meet current MOT requirements then no regulation has been breached. Take the 3.0ppm prior to July 2008, that dates back to 1972 when reg 61a came in, at what point do you make a DPF a 'legal' requirement?
"As DPFs are very expensive, we can be pretty confident that the manufacturers wouldn't be fitting them unless they had no alternative!"
True, but they are fitting DPF's to achieve emission targets, not for the sake of it. If there was some new way to achieve the targets for the 2009 and future levels then they may well adopt it.
I would not be surprised to see future legislation which makes removal of a DPF a fail at MOT like the removal of a CAT is now. but what would not be possible, at least for cars registered prior to July 2008, is to have the law implemented retrospectively, because has it, yet, ever been the 'law' to have a DPF? No, what is law, or regulation is for the car to meet emission levels at MOT.
"No link, I'm afraid. Just talk at this stage. DFT (and the European Commission) are aware it goes on."
A little different to your original claim.
"The problem is that the MOT emissions test is a very lax test (even halving the visible smoke limit) compared to the type approval test"
3.0ppm up to July 2008. The type approval dates back to 1972 (?) way before DPF's. 1.5ppm is, I understand, sometimes still possible without a DPF but there is no guarantee.,
"but it would be uneconomical for VOSA to equip MOT stations with the necessary analysers to detect particulates"
MOT stations buy their own equipment, it is not supplied by anyone..
"Construction & Use Reg 61A prohibits the deliberate modification of a vehicle in such a way as to degrade its emissions performance."
Indeed, but if a car can still meet current MOT requirements then no regulation has been breached. Take the 3.0ppm prior to July 2008, that dates back to 1972 when reg 61a came in, at what point do you make a DPF a 'legal' requirement?
"As DPFs are very expensive, we can be pretty confident that the manufacturers wouldn't be fitting them unless they had no alternative!"
True, but they are fitting DPF's to achieve emission targets, not for the sake of it. If there was some new way to achieve the targets for the 2009 and future levels then they may well adopt it.
I would not be surprised to see future legislation which makes removal of a DPF a fail at MOT like the removal of a CAT is now. but what would not be possible, at least for cars registered prior to July 2008, is to have the law implemented retrospectively, because has it, yet, ever been the 'law' to have a DPF? No, what is law, or regulation is for the car to meet emission levels at MOT.
Avocet
Well-Known Member
Forgive me, but I don't think anything I have said is inconsistent? My original statement was:
"...VOSA are planning a variety of MOT and random roadside enforcement measures to try and catch any deliberate modification that could invalidate emissions performance...."
You asked for a link and I can't provide one because the plans are not yet at the point where there would be a link. I'm sure that there will be a formal consultation when the time comes, and at that time, I'm sure there will be links aplenty, but at this stage, they're just discussing it. What's your problem with that?
The type approval test is constantly changing. If it was the same as it was in 1972, we'd still all be on carburetors! You need to look at Commission Regulation 715/2007 for the Eur 5 and Euro 6 emissions requirements! 1.5ppm may well be possible (especially under free acceleration) without a DPF but the Eur5 emissions limits for particulates are not measured by a "visible smoke" method, they're measured like the other pollutants, in grammes (or miligrammes) per kilometre. By the time you get to any visible smoke, you're WAY beyond that! You seem to think that no law is being broken if the car meets the "in-service" (or MOT) limits, but that's simply not true (that's what C&U Reg 61a is about).
I agree that there is no stipulation that you must meet the emissions limits by any particular means, and yes, there may well be some other system for reducing particulate meissions in the future. But I don't see what relevance that has to this discussion? The "bottom line" is that if you remove a DPF that was put there to meet the Euro 5 requirements of 715/2007, and you then remove it, you are breaking the law unless you can prove that the vehicle still meets or exceeds the requirements of 715/2007. The MOT emissions requirements are a completely separate issue!
"...VOSA are planning a variety of MOT and random roadside enforcement measures to try and catch any deliberate modification that could invalidate emissions performance...."
You asked for a link and I can't provide one because the plans are not yet at the point where there would be a link. I'm sure that there will be a formal consultation when the time comes, and at that time, I'm sure there will be links aplenty, but at this stage, they're just discussing it. What's your problem with that?
The type approval test is constantly changing. If it was the same as it was in 1972, we'd still all be on carburetors! You need to look at Commission Regulation 715/2007 for the Eur 5 and Euro 6 emissions requirements! 1.5ppm may well be possible (especially under free acceleration) without a DPF but the Eur5 emissions limits for particulates are not measured by a "visible smoke" method, they're measured like the other pollutants, in grammes (or miligrammes) per kilometre. By the time you get to any visible smoke, you're WAY beyond that! You seem to think that no law is being broken if the car meets the "in-service" (or MOT) limits, but that's simply not true (that's what C&U Reg 61a is about).
I agree that there is no stipulation that you must meet the emissions limits by any particular means, and yes, there may well be some other system for reducing particulate meissions in the future. But I don't see what relevance that has to this discussion? The "bottom line" is that if you remove a DPF that was put there to meet the Euro 5 requirements of 715/2007, and you then remove it, you are breaking the law unless you can prove that the vehicle still meets or exceeds the requirements of 715/2007. The MOT emissions requirements are a completely separate issue!
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
"Forgive me, but I don't think anything I have said is inconsistent? My original statement was:
"...VOSA are planning a variety of MOT and random roadside enforcement measures to try and catch any deliberate modification that could invalidate emissions performance....""
You asked for a link and I can't provide one because the plans are not yet at the point where there would be a link. I'm sure that there will be a formal consultation when the time comes, and at that time, I'm sure there will be links aplenty, but at this stage, they're just discussing it. What's your problem with that?
This sort of change is usually leaked out or picked up by motor mags, there is nothing in the public domain. So I see it as pure conjecture on your part. Until the law is changed and MOT requirement changed then how can any roadside checks be made?
"The type approval test is constantly changing. If it was the same as it was in 1972, we'd still all be on carburetors! You need to look at Commission Regulation 715/2007 for the Eur 5 and Euro 6 emissions requirements! 1.5ppm may well be possible (especially under free acceleration) without a DPF but the Eur5 emissions limits for particulates are not measured by a "visible smoke" method, they're measured like the other pollutants, in grammes (or miligrammes) per kilometre. By the time you get to any visible smoke, you're WAY beyond that! You seem to think that no law is being broken if the car meets the "in-service" (or MOT) limits, but that's simply not true (that's what C&U Reg 61a is about)."
I agree but it is you who first referred to reg 61A. If any new legislation was to be brought in (with a change to MOT) it could only be from 715/2007 Eur 5 as under Eur 4 many cars did not have a DPF. I believe our 2006 Citroen C4 does not have a DPF, but some do.
"I agree that there is no stipulation that you must meet the emissions limits by any particular means, and yes, there may well be some other system for reducing particulate meissions in the future. But I don't see what relevance that has to this discussion? The "bottom line" is that if you remove a DPF that was put there to meet the Euro 5 requirements of 715/2007, and you then remove it, you are breaking the law unless you can prove that the vehicle still meets or exceeds the requirements of 715/2007. The MOT emissions requirements are a completely separate issue!"
Because the MOT is the only in service test and if your vehicle meets the current emission levels it gets a pass cert. When a visual pass/fail for the presence of a DPF comes in, and I do agree it will one day, then the DPF must be fitted, but as I said this would be impossible to implement retrospectively and would be almost impossible to implement prior to Eur 5 requirement.
That sir is my last word on this, which has been a very interesting discussion, lets see what legislation comes in, and when!
"...VOSA are planning a variety of MOT and random roadside enforcement measures to try and catch any deliberate modification that could invalidate emissions performance....""
You asked for a link and I can't provide one because the plans are not yet at the point where there would be a link. I'm sure that there will be a formal consultation when the time comes, and at that time, I'm sure there will be links aplenty, but at this stage, they're just discussing it. What's your problem with that?
This sort of change is usually leaked out or picked up by motor mags, there is nothing in the public domain. So I see it as pure conjecture on your part. Until the law is changed and MOT requirement changed then how can any roadside checks be made?
"The type approval test is constantly changing. If it was the same as it was in 1972, we'd still all be on carburetors! You need to look at Commission Regulation 715/2007 for the Eur 5 and Euro 6 emissions requirements! 1.5ppm may well be possible (especially under free acceleration) without a DPF but the Eur5 emissions limits for particulates are not measured by a "visible smoke" method, they're measured like the other pollutants, in grammes (or miligrammes) per kilometre. By the time you get to any visible smoke, you're WAY beyond that! You seem to think that no law is being broken if the car meets the "in-service" (or MOT) limits, but that's simply not true (that's what C&U Reg 61a is about)."
I agree but it is you who first referred to reg 61A. If any new legislation was to be brought in (with a change to MOT) it could only be from 715/2007 Eur 5 as under Eur 4 many cars did not have a DPF. I believe our 2006 Citroen C4 does not have a DPF, but some do.
"I agree that there is no stipulation that you must meet the emissions limits by any particular means, and yes, there may well be some other system for reducing particulate meissions in the future. But I don't see what relevance that has to this discussion? The "bottom line" is that if you remove a DPF that was put there to meet the Euro 5 requirements of 715/2007, and you then remove it, you are breaking the law unless you can prove that the vehicle still meets or exceeds the requirements of 715/2007. The MOT emissions requirements are a completely separate issue!"
Because the MOT is the only in service test and if your vehicle meets the current emission levels it gets a pass cert. When a visual pass/fail for the presence of a DPF comes in, and I do agree it will one day, then the DPF must be fitted, but as I said this would be impossible to implement retrospectively and would be almost impossible to implement prior to Eur 5 requirement.
That sir is my last word on this, which has been a very interesting discussion, lets see what legislation comes in, and when!
Avocet
Well-Known Member
You are, of course, at liberty to regard it as conjecture. I don't think I ever claimed it wasn't. I work in the car industry and I know I am one of the people "they" are talking to, so I'm happy to believe it, but, as you say, there's no reason why you should!
You seem to believe that if a diesel car can meet the in-service emissions limits without a DPF, it is perfectly legal. I cited C&U Reg 61a in order to point out that this was incorrect. That's existing legislation and currently in-force. The MOT test is only one part of the total amount of legislation pertaining to road vehicles. It is perfectly possible have an illegal car that meets the MOT requirements. In fact I think it even says as much on the back of the MOT certificate - (that having an MOT doesn't mean your vehicle satisfies all the applicable legal requirements). If a Citroen C4, first registered after 01/01/2001, has a DPF and the owner removes it, he is contravening C&U Reg 61a and is therefore breaking the law (whether the car was required to be fitted with one or not). The fact that it is not currently well enforced doesn't change that, it just means that most people who do it won't get caught.
You seem to believe that if a diesel car can meet the in-service emissions limits without a DPF, it is perfectly legal. I cited C&U Reg 61a in order to point out that this was incorrect. That's existing legislation and currently in-force. The MOT test is only one part of the total amount of legislation pertaining to road vehicles. It is perfectly possible have an illegal car that meets the MOT requirements. In fact I think it even says as much on the back of the MOT certificate - (that having an MOT doesn't mean your vehicle satisfies all the applicable legal requirements). If a Citroen C4, first registered after 01/01/2001, has a DPF and the owner removes it, he is contravening C&U Reg 61a and is therefore breaking the law (whether the car was required to be fitted with one or not). The fact that it is not currently well enforced doesn't change that, it just means that most people who do it won't get caught.
toad
Well-Known Member
Have a look at the MOT testers magazine, page 12 is worth a look. Possible EU wide MOT test standard including impounding power for dangerous vehicles,” sorry sir your car has failed the MOT and you cant have it back but we can repair it for you for ££££££ “
http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/MoT - Issue 55 - Oct 2012.pdf
http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/MoT - Issue 55 - Oct 2012.pdf
