New MOT rules - bad news for some!

DantheMan

Retrogamer wrote: »

It's considered a modification and the ECU usually needs to be mapped to ignore the DPF sensor, but as long as the insurance are aware of these mods, it won't be invalid.

If you have a bulb out and get into a crash, the car isn't road legal but the insurance will still pay out.

Not necessarily, if the DPF is removed (even if you tell your insurer) they still have a get out of jail card as it is an illegal mod. All 3rd party issues will be covered but you will not be able to claim for any repairs or personal injuries to you.

I currently have the DPF still on my car, however, I will be looking at drilling/removing completely regardless! (As I do lots of short journeys)

I know a large amount of people who have there DPF removed and there emissions have actually lowered!

Retrogamer

DantheMan wrote: »

Not necessarily, if the DPF is removed (even if you tell your insurer) they still have a get out of jail card as it is an illegal mod. All 3rd party issues will be covered but you will not be able to claim for any repairs or personal injuries to you.

If you tell the insurance, and they continue to insure you despite knowing about this illegal mod, then they cannot turn round later and deny a pay out due to it, unless it was a factor when the accident happened.

Almost all non standard exhausts are technically illegal. Doesn't stop insurance companies paying out when a car with aftermarket exhaust is wrote off

Prothet_of_Doom

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

So nows a good time for the MiL to get shot of her renault grande espace?

On her car its been blanked off by the very same garage who will do the MOTs, so do they check if there is something physcially there (ie just a shell) or if it functions?

How can you blank off a Deisel Particulate Filter ? Do you mean the exhasut gas recirculation valve/pipes?


I once had petrol with the CAT Box in place but no CAT, so it wouldn't pass the emissions test. But it would have passed on a "Is the box present" test. :rotfl:

patman99

The whole purpose of a DPF is to eliminate the soot that normally gets pushed out of the exhaust by trapping it inside a canister and then releasing the whole lot in one highly-concentrated smoke-cloud when the car goes through a re-gen cycle.

I'm just glad that my 2008 Berlingo with the 92BHP 1.6HDi engine does not have a DPF fitted.

Btw, if DPFs are supposed to reduce diesel smoke, how come the DFP equiped Transits that a firm near me runs put out way more smoke under driving conditions than my non-DPF car does.

Retrogamer

patman99 wrote: »

Btw, if DPFs are supposed to reduce diesel smoke, how come the DFP equiped Transits that a firm near me runs put out way more smoke under driving conditions than my non-DPF car does.

Probably due to the bigger engine burning a lot more fuel and potentially poor servicing (dirty air filter restricting flow, causing it to overfuel)

patman99

These vehicles are all under 6 months old.

patman99

The thing is, when DPFs were first introduced, diesel was much less refined. In the past 10 years we have seen diesel that is low sulphur and containing 15% bio-diesel (which burns at a much higher temperature than regular diesel) and high-performance injection systems that inject a fine mist of fuel that reduces the amount needed to run the engine by 40%.

I once read a quote from Ford which stated that the introduction of the catalytic converter set back the development of petrol-powered engines by 10 years & that if they had not been made a legal requirement, we would now be driving cars with an average of 80 mpg.

I would guess that the same could well be said of DPFs & diesel engines.

GolfBravo

DantheMan wrote: »

I know a large amount of people who have there DPF removed and there emissions have actually lowered!

DPFs are about PM2.5 (particulate matter) and not CO2.

Diesel particulate matter (soot) is a carcinogenic* and, according to WHO, it belongs in the same deadly category as asbestos: it is a major cause of lung cancer.

* It is a Group 1 carcinogen, same as asbestos, arsenic, mustard gas, plutonium and radium to name a few.

colino

patman99 is was Ford and GM that used their friends in the senate to allow them to bolt on cats to ridiculously inefficient engines of the era to reduce the Californian smog problem. Honda threw up their hands in horror as they were well down the road of lean burn engines and as fitting of cats was mandated, engine development was shelved to allow the protected US manufacturers another 20 years of V8s.
On PMs the recent DPF mandating is going to come back and bite VOSA. The smoke test has already been tightened and most modern diesels pass it DPF or not. Their supporting link to their study apportioning the necessity to keep factory fitted DPFs is somewhat undermined my loose drafting. While stating, "it is an offence under Road Vehicles (C&U) to use a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies" then: "Removal of a DPF will almost invariably contravene these requirements".
From February modified diesel owners will either rely on the NT not being able to properly examine the DPF or no doubt a few with deeper pockets will challenge how their car that do meet both smoke and emission limits without DPFs are being failed.

Johnmcl7

At least they've clarified it although I'm curious how they'll detect it in practice as they'll surely need something more definite than the lack of soot (which may be there in the case of a failing DPF) and a hollow sound when they tap it.

My car has the VW PD170 engine with a DPF and I've been considering getting it removed, aside from the sensor failing the filter itself seems to have been ok but the inconsistent performance from the car due to the regenerating is irritating. Now that it's definitely going to be an MOT fail I know definitely to leave it as is, I can't see it being at all viable to swap it for the MOT as it needs the ECU modified as well. (at least that's the case for VW cars)

John