Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) issues and comments

andygb

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

They have been offering 1.9tdi engines in the Octavia up to fairly recently, it doesn't matter the year as none of them have the dpf. The only problem is while this engine was originally offered in a range of power outputs, latterly it was only available with 105bhp. If that is too low, the older pd 2.0tdi 140 engine didn't have a dpf, there is no clear cut changeover but around 2008 the new version of the engine (the common rail cr) was available which does have a dpf. All the 2.0tdi 170 engines have the dpf.

John

Cheers John, good news, mine is the 105BHP 1.9TDi.

cepheus

Lets be clear here it has been illegal to use a non-type approved vehicle for some time. This applies after the first point of sale as well. Tampered vehicles won't conform to type approval

This is the reply I got from VOSA

Regulation 61A of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, as amended, makes it an offence for a person to use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road a motor vehicle if the motor vehicle does not comply with such limit values as may apply to it by virtue of an emissions directive and especially if the failure to meet the limit values results from an alteration to the propulsion unit or exhaust system of the motor vehicle.

Emissions directives include the full Monty, and include dynamometer based particulate emissions, not to be confused with the basic smoke emission test they do at your MOT.

Here is the opinion of someone in the trade if you don't like pen pushers

it is illegal to remove a catalytic converter and it is illegal under EC law to interfere with the emissions equipment on a car. But VOSA does not seem to have drafted its new MoT rules to take account of this (forgetting that on a diesel a DPF is effectively a catalytic converter), so you could remove a DPF, you might get away with it at an MoT, but in years to come you might get done for running what is effectively an illegal car and was from the point you removed the DPF.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/31454/is-a-dpf-essential-

Perhaps you are more interested if you can get away with it? Probably yes, as you will with tax evasion, downloading illegal music, and growing weed in your greenhouse, but it isn't supposed to be discussed here is it?

Rover_Driver

Regulation 61A only creates the offence of failing to comply with emission limit values, nothing about removing cats or dpfs.

If the vehicle complies with the emission limit values without them - no offence under regulation 61A.

Gloomendoom

cepheus wrote: »

Lets be clear here it has been illegal to use a non-type approved vehicle for some time.

I don't think that can be the case. I have a vehicle that was built before type approval was even a twinkle in the legislators' eyes and it is perfectly legal for me to drive it.

Guys_Dad

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I don't think that can be the case. I have a vehicle that was built before type approval was even a twinkle in the legislators' eyes and it is perfectly legal for me to drive it.

As an ex-300C driver and member of the 300Cforum, There are so many things to worry about on the 300C, the DPF seems to be about the only reliable bit of kit on the car! Certainly by looking at the forum, the 300C seems to have a huge list of potentially expensive parts (£60 an more for a tyre valve that will last about 2 - 3 years for a simple example).

Miss mine for its comfort and road presence, but give me reliability every time.

Sorry for the hijack, folks :rotfl:

k12479

patman99 wrote: »

DPFs take little or nothing out from the exhaust gases these days.

Yes they do.

patman99 wrote: »

DPFs (and CATs) have hampered engine design for years. Even Ford admit that they would be 15 years further along the engine design front if it were not for the need to fit a catalytic converter to their petrol vehicles.

No, they haven't and no, they don't. That's a bizarre argument, like saying the British textile industry would have been 15 years further advanced if it wasn't for child labour laws.

Gloomendoom

Guys_Dad wrote: »

As an ex-300C driver and member of the 300Cforum, There are so many things to worry about on the 300C, the DPF seems to be about the only reliable bit of kit on the car! Certainly by looking at the forum, the 300C seems to have a huge list of potentially expensive parts (£60 an more for a tyre valve that will last about 2 - 3 years for a simple example).

Miss mine for its comfort and road presence, but give me reliability every time.

Sorry for the hijack, folks :rotfl:

300C? I was referring to my Land Rover

However, since you mention the 300C. Just about every modern car has a huge list of potentially expensive parts. The 300C is no worse, or better, than the rest.

Guys_Dad

Gloomendoom wrote: »

300C? I was referring to my Land Rover

However, since you mention the 300C. Just about every modern car has a huge list of potentially expensive parts. The 300C is no worse, or better, than the rest.

Have I misread your post #66 then? If so, sorry

Gloomendoom

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Have I misread your post #66 then? If so, sorry

Ah, you were responding to post #66 but quoted post #75. I'm easily confused.

steve-L

GolfBravo wrote: »

Yes, I've heard some horror stories about T5 DPF.

The first generation DPF system used by Peugeot/Citroen was also a disaster - their old filters wouldn't even last 50K miles in some cases. The second generation is way better, easily over 100K miles before regeneration is necessary.

A mate's wife drives a 11-reg VW Sharan 2.0 TDI DSG - the car's been to the garage twice already with DPF problems. To be fair though, she mainly uses it for a school run - 4 miles in total. That's 4 miles per day, with cold turbocharged diesel engine. 20mpg. Why did they buy a diesel? Because their dealer recommended it for better fuel consumption. :eek:

People buy diesels for reasons other than just fuel economy, especially ones with real engines (the point of a 1.4D is somewhat lost on me) .. but at 4 miles a day I question not only the sanity of a nearly new MPV 2.0L but buying a car at all???