PCP and Diesel Particulate Filter

MrsB387

motorguy wrote: »

Apologies - i "assumed" Qashqai for some reason. My bad.

The new X Trail is a lovely looking piece of kit

Its a shame. Definitely. Very frustrating.

Extremely! Especially if I have to fork out an extra £180 every few months then money for a DPF replacement eventually on top of the finance.

It really is a lovely car, just a shame it can't stay out of the garage!

kaya

you don't need to fork out £180 a month if you take it for a drive , 20mins above 2000rpm (thats what the dealer simulates using a computer when they "regen" you), do this before or as soon as the dpf light comes on, when the dpf light comes on the car begins chucking extra fuel in to make more heat to clean the DPF out so if you fail to take it for a drive the extra fuel usually ends up in you roil and you dont want to know where that leads to

MrsB387

kaya wrote: »

you don't need to fork out £180 a month if you take it for a drive , 20mins above 2000rpm (thats what the dealer simulates using a computer when they "regen" you), do this before or as soon as the dpf light comes on, when the dpf light comes on the car begins chucking extra fuel in to make more heat to clean the DPF out so if you fail to take it for a drive the extra fuel usually ends up in you roil and you dont want to know where that leads to

I have been taking it out for a drive! And yet I'm still faced with the problem.

Paradigm

This thread helps to show that a petrol engine is the way to go. Diesel engines are far too dirty to even try to meet the newest emission standards without ridiculous, unreliable technology!


Adblue for diesel cars will become mainstream soon to meet the next Nox targets, another expense & one which will catch many owners out when the adblue tank runs dry & the car refuses to start! The RAC, AA will be quids in....


Gone are the days when Diesel was a viable option....

motorguy

bigjl wrote: »

Remember they sold you this diesel vehicle on the basis of a 6000 mile per annum PCP then they knew from the outset that you did 6000 miles a year as per the agreement.

I personally think you should talk to the Finance Company as the goods are not fit for the purpose that they were intended, which is to do 6000 miles a year.

I think you will struggle with that.

Firstly, 6,000 miles a year could be 1 500 mile journey a month. A DPF will have no problems with that.

Secondly, unless the O/P has it in writing somewhere that they explicitly said "we are going to do short journeys repeatedly in the car" and the car salesman recommended in writing a diesel car, then you've no proof it was mis sold.

motorguy

bigjl wrote: »

So you opinion is reliant on incompetent MOT Testers?

I posted the links to the .gov site, I don't really care what A Hypermiler says.

I have read the new Regulations.

Spoken to a trusted MoT tester,

And based my opinion on that.

Its not incompetence - its all they're allowed to do - a visual check that the "DPF" is there.

And i dont care what your mate says - he CANNOT assume there is no DPF in the box, and he doesnt have the authority to take the exhaust off and split open the DPF to check

bigjl wrote: »

Or are you saying that if I remove my air filter but leave the housing the filter is still there?

The casing is not the DPF filter in the same way air filter housing is not the air filter.

Exactly. And thats why that analogy is flawed. You CAN and DO buy an air filter element and place it in the air filter housing, however you CANNOT buy the DPF element and put it in to the DPF housing.

Therefore to all intents and purposes DPF Element + Housing = DPF Filter.

Walk into a motor factors and ask them for an air filter and they'll hand you a paper element something like this



Ask the same motor factors for a DPF and it will be a big metal tube something like this



And all the MOT testers can do is check the big metal tube is there were it should be, and not replaced with a metal pipe.

bigjl wrote: »

How many of these DPF Removers and Mappers will even be around in a year or so?

I would say there are more around now than there were a year ago - as its not illegal and not an MOT fail.

bigjl wrote: »

How many will give you a cast iron personal guarantee that there is nothing wrong with gutting a DPF?

And why would they do that?

Disadvantages - you pollute the environment more

Advantages - your car runs better or RUNS in the case of the O/P and thousands like her, better performance, better economy.

bigjl wrote: »

They might do so on heir Ltd Co headed notepaper, Companies can be dissolved in a few days. But would they give a personal guarantee?

It will not fail MOT, they will tell you that.

motorguy

I'll give you a better analogy than your air filter one.

Airbags.

If the airbag light functions correctly on ignition, and there isnt a gaping big hole in the steering wheel, then all the MOT tester is doing is a visual check - light working, airbag appears to be in place = MOT pass.

As far as the MOT tester is concerned, if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it is a duck.

Stroller133

Paradigm wrote: »

This thread helps to show that a petrol engine is the way to go. Diesel engines are far too dirty to even try to meet the newest emission standards without ridiculous, unreliable technology!


Adblue for diesel cars will become mainstream soon to meet the next Nox targets, another expense & one which will catch many owners out when the adblue tank runs dry & the car refuses to start! The RAC, AA will be quids in....


Gone are the days when Diesel was a viable option....

Is petrol the way to go, as they are now becoming high tech can we expect similar failures of turbo's etc. Most manufacturers seem to be moving to low capacity high output turbo's. They appear to offer good performance and excellent fuel economy, often 50mpg+. In reality you probably need to drive them off boost to get anything like good economy. In real life I've heard people get mid/high 30s from Fiestas and focus 1.0 ecoboosts.

motorguy

Stroller133 wrote: »

Is petrol the way to go, as they are now becoming high tech can we expect similar failures of turbo's etc. Most manufacturers seem to be moving to low capacity high output turbo's. They appear to offer good performance and excellent fuel economy, often 50mpg+. In reality you probably need to drive them off boost to get anything like good economy. In real life I've heard people get mid/high 30s from Fiestas and focus 1.0 ecoboosts.

Yes, i totally agree.

They have pushed diesel engines pretty much as far as they can and the very latest emissions regulations is making it very expensive to put a diesel engine into a small -> medium sized car, due to the costs as a percentage of vehicle price.

Hence the big push now is high efficiency low emissions petrol engines - such as the 1.0T Ford engine or the 1.2TCE Renault engine.

And of course, that brings with it the bits that caused all the problems with diesels - high pressure injectors, high spinning turbos, smaller, overworked engines, etc, etc.

By chance moreso than design all three of our cars are naturally aspirated petrol engines - a 3.7, a 2.0 and a 2.0. Probably the "safest" option in terms of reliability, but not really sustainable as a long term option as these engines are replaced.

motorguy

And another analogy - catalytic converters

From the MOT Tester forum

http://forums.motester.co.uk/forum3/2708.html

A catalytic converter has to be present if the car was built with one, however if it passes its MOT test on emissions then as long as the catalytic converter is present, they cant check the contents - hence people can gut catalytic converters and their car still pass.

So if Catalytic converters must merely be present, and airbags must merely be present, i'm not sure why bigjl thinks its different for DPFs given its the same wording?