Focus and stupid DPF regeneration

Retrogamer

When cruising at 70mph, your foot won't be much on the accelerator so although you're going fast the engine isn't under a lot of load, so the exhaust gasses aren't hot enough to heat up the DPF.

When you put the foot down though, the turbo will churn out lots more hot exhaust gasses which will heat up the DPF more. Uphill driving, or variations of speed, with hard acceleration would probably be best for it.

JustAnotherSaver

Retrogamer wrote: »

When you put the foot down though, the turbo will churn out lots more hot exhaust gasses which will heat up the DPF more. Uphill driving, or variations of speed, with hard acceleration would probably be best for it.

So what you're saying then is uneconomical driving is better for the DPF. What a great idea - let's use more juice.

Is there a way to still run the car without a DPF or is this an MOT failure? The whole thing sounds absolutely ridiculous to me.

GolfBravo

Retrogamer wrote: »

... if i had a modern diesel with a DPF, then i'd get it replaced with a straight bit of pipe and have the ECU ammended to ignore the DPF sensor.
Worse for the envoirment, but friendly for the wallet.

DPFs are not about the environment, they are about PM2.5s (Particulate Matter) = asthma attacks, lung ailments, cancer and heart disease.

And besides, driving a diesel car with DPF removed is an offence: S42 Road Traffic Act 1988, Construction and Use Regulations 61A (SI 2000/1544).

Retrogamer

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

So what you're saying then is uneconomical driving is better for the DPF. What a great idea - let's use more juice.

Is there a way to still run the car without a DPF or is this an MOT failure? The whole thing sounds absolutely ridiculous to me.

Yep, exactly that.

DPF removal isn't an MOT failure, but unless the ECU is modified to ignore the DPF sensor it will cause more problems.

Gloomendoom

There are a lot of doom mongers on here. As I said above, we have two cars equipped with DPFs and in four years they have been no trouble at all. We just drive them like any other car we have owned. No special treatment at all.

I actually like the fact that my car doesn't stink and smoke like an old bus. The tailpipes are still gleaming stainless steel inside and out.

FreddieFrugal

Retrogamer wrote: »

Uphill driving, or variations of speed, with hard acceleration would probably be best for it.

The route from Birmingham across to Cornwall does have a lot of uphill sections and of course on Sunday was fighting against the onset of the storm winds coming in opposite direction so it was under load.

Anyway the car is fine. Apparently it regenerated itself in the 5 minutes it took to get out of Newquay onto A30. Had barely stopped doing 30mph.

Just saying its strange that it felt the need to do it after that long a stretch and then sorted itself out so quickly the next morning barely going any distance at all.

Retrogamer

GolfBravo wrote: »

DPFs are not about the environment, they are about PM2.5s (Particulate Matter) = asthma attacks, lung ailments, cancer and heart disease.

Does the particulate matter not harm the environment as well then?
Do cars not have either a cat, or DPF? I don't remember seeing any cars with both when i was under them.

GolfBravo wrote: »

And besides, driving a diesel car with DPF removed is an offence: S42 Road Traffic Act 1988, Construction and Use Regulations 61A (SI 2000/1544).

I had a bit of a look on google and didn't get very far before i ran into heaps of Jargon.

What part of the legislation is breached when removing the DPF and why?
Is it an offense, the same way riding a bicycle at night without pedal reflectors is an offense (i.e no one is ever likely to be prosecuted for it)

Ultrasonic

I can't understand why having a DPF removed isn't an MOT failure. It should be as far as I'm concerned. Not policing this makes it utterly pointless mandating that new cars should meet emissions standards.

Retrogamer

Ultrasonic wrote: »

I can't understand why having a DPF removed isn't an MOT failure. It should be as far as I'm concerned. Not policing this makes it utterly pointless mandating that new cars should meet emissions standards.

Cats on petrol engines have been common since the early 90's but it's only the last 2 years or so they've been an MOT failure for removing.
As long as it passed the emissions test without it, it wasn't a problem.

Diesels go through a smoke density test rather than measuring the gasses like a petrol.

It would be too difficult to police effectively as well IMO. Cut open the top of the DPF, remove all contents and reweld. It's on the top facing the body of the car so one can see the cuts, it still passes the smoke density test and a visual inspection the DPF still appears to be present.

It's worth mentioning that Windscreen is more important to have than a DPF, but you can still pass the MOT without one

GolfBravo

Retrogamer wrote: »

Do cars not have either a cat, or DPF? I don't remember seeing any cars with both when i was under them.

Have both: diesel oxidation catalytic converter (DOC) and diesel particle filter (DPF).

Retrogamer wrote: »

What part of the legislation is breached when removing the DPF and why?

Letter from Department of Transport dated 1 May 2013:

Under the Construction and Use Regulations (more specifically, Regulation 61A of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations) it is illegal to use a vehicle on the road if it has been modified in such a way that it no longer meets the air quality emissions standards that it had to when originally produced. The law does not forbid modification of the emissions control equipment. It forbids modification that makes the vehicle emit more pollutant than it is permitted to by virtue of the standard to which it was originally approved. Also, that under 8.2.1.1 (petrol) and 8.2.2.1 (diesel) of the Testing Directive 2010/48 now applicable in the UK, a vehicle can be failed if any part of the emission control is absent, modified or obviously defective. However, please note the MOT test is a visual inspection that does not include dismantling of a vehicle or its components.

Source: cleanairinlondon.org

Retrogamer wrote: »

Is it an offense, the same way riding a bicycle at night without pedal reflectors is an offense (i.e no one is ever likely to be prosecuted for it)

Yes (at this stage).