PCP and Diesel Particulate Filter

Mercdriver

motorguy wrote: »

Dont be ridiculous.

I am giving information concerning the current rules and regulations , not advice on what to do.

People are given information, and they can make up their own minds or do further investigation if required.

Your "oh oh the insurance company will take your car apart into its component bits and try to identify and non conforming parts" is frankly ridiculous, thus i gave the correct information.

Perhaps you should read your own posts before you make yourself look as stupid as you say others make themselves look. This looks like advice on what to do to me. :undecided

motorguy wrote: »

This will be controversial, but i'd consider a DPF removal. Around £300 will get the DPF taken off, split, the internals removed, welded up and put back on again, and then the car recoded so it doesnt throw any errors.

And before anyone whinges - that is NOT an MOT fail. DPF has to be present, but they only check the presence of the box, and the welding is done on the body up side of the box.

Let's be clear - the OP doesn't own the car - the finance company does, and you're advising the OP to deliberately damage it. Sounds like good advice to me (not). Are you going to indemnify the OP for the possible repair job after?

motorguy

thescouselander wrote: »

Exactly, a checksum will be used as a security measure and will show the software has been tampered with. Finding out what changes have been made would need some investigation but reflashing the software back to factory spec would soon show a few fault codes.

You really need to read up on your coding.

Checksums are used to validate code is not corrupt, not that it is not valid.

There could be 20 or 30 versions of ECU coding for any particular car all of which would have valid checksums, so how would you know which was valid which was not?

Also, a checksum bit could be overwritten with the expected value.

You do get that people who mod ECUs really do know how to code them dont you?

motorguy

Mercdriver wrote: »

Perhaps you should read your own posts before you make yourself look as stupid as you say others make themselves look. This looks like advice on what to do to me. :undecided

You need to look up the difference between personal opinion and advice.

"I'd consider a DPF removal" is a personal opinion not a recommendation or advice

A recommendation would have been "i would recommend the O/P removes their DPF".

Advice would be "O/P - simply remove your DPF".

I didnt say either of those. And if i was in a position whereby the manufacturer was not supporting me, the dealer was not supporting me and the finance company was not supporting me and i was being hit with massive bills with no sign of a solution, yes, i would consider doing it - an i think its frankly ridiculous that the O/P has been put in this position and let down by the dealer / manufacturer in particulr.

Mercdriver wrote: »

Let's be clear - the OP doesn't own the car - the finance company does, and you're advising the OP to deliberately damage it. Sounds like good advice to me (not). Are you going to indemnify the OP for the possible repair job after?

The car is on finance. Its not a lease car. The only time "ownership" comes in to it, is at the end of the term or if the owner wishes to terminate the agreement for whatever reason.

Just as a DPF can be removed, it car be refitted, if so required.

If you did chose to hand it back, as long as its returned within pre-agreed condition parameters, there is no issue.

Mercdriver

motorguy wrote: »

You need to look up the difference between personal opinion and advice.

"I'd consider a DPF removal" is a personal opinion not a recommendation or advice

A recommendation would have been "i would recommend the O/P removes their DPF".

Advice would be "O/P - simply remove your DPF".

I didnt say either of those. And if i was in a position whereby the manufacturer was not supporting me, the dealer was not supporting me and the finance company was not supporting me and i was being hit with massive bills with no sign of a solution, yes, i would consider doing it - an i think its frankly ridiculous that the O/P has been put in this position and let down by the dealer / manufacturer in particulr.



The car is on finance. Its not a lease car. The only time "ownership" comes in to it, is at the end of the term or if the owner wishes to terminate the agreement for whatever reason.

Just as a DPF can be removed, it car be refitted, if so required.

If you did chose to hand it back, as long as its returned within pre-agreed condition parameters, there is no issue.

Ownership doesn't transfer from the finance company to the customer until the final payment has been made - the balloon payment. Surely you know that? It's the same with Hire Purchase too. The OP is also looking to hand the car back either now or at the end of the PCP term without paying the balloon payment. Can't see them keeping it even if they did as you suggested.

As to the advice you gave, you're talking nonsense semantics. It's pretty clear that you're saying if it were you, you would do x. That reads like advice to me and I doubt I am on my own. you aren't speaking in a separate thread about whether to do one thing or another. You are responding to a problem with "I'd consider..." that makes it advice, not opinion.

Accept when you are wrong...

motorguy

Mercdriver wrote: »

Ownership doesn't transfer from the finance company to the customer until the final payment has been made - the balloon payment. Surely you know that? It's the same with Hire Purchase too.

Of course. However as long as the car is returned to them (if it even is being returned) then they wont care.

Surely you know that?

Mercdriver wrote: »

As to the advice you gave, you're talking nonsense semantics. It's pretty clear that you're saying if it were you, you would do x. That reads like advice to me and I doubt I am on my own. you aren't speaking in a separate thread about whether to do one thing or another. You are responding to a problem with "I'd consider..." that makes it advice, not opinion.

Accept when you are wrong...

Its not semantics its fact. I would consider doing it, however that doesnt make it advice that the O/P "must" follow. THey have their own mind, and have already said they dont want to do it anyway, so i dont understand why you're labouring this point about legally binding "advice"

And what about your hysterical, doom and gloom hand-wringing about assessors bringing diagnostic computers with them if you have an accident in case you've removed the DPF? :eek:

Where'd you get that one from? :rotfl:

thescouselander

motorguy wrote: »

You really need to read up on your coding.

Checksums are used to validate code is not corrupt, not that it is not valid.

There could be 20 or 30 versions of ECU coding for any particular car all of which would have valid checksums, so how would you know which was valid which was not?

Also, a checksum bit could be overwritten with the expected value.

You do get that people who mod ECUs really do know how to code them dont you?

I think it's you who needs to go back to school on software. I'd expect the ECU software would be subject to a cryptographic checksum that would be used to confirm the software hasn't been changed. To get round this it would be necessary to know something of the cryptographic algorithm used. It's possible to get round this but very difficult.

It's fairly straightforward to match a checksum hash to a particular build of software - in fact it's standard practice in many industries. Given the lengths car manufacturers seem to be going to to prevent tampering of the software I expect they'll be well onto this sort of thing.

motorguy

thescouselander wrote: »

I think it's you who needs to go back to school on software. I'd expect the ECU software would be subject to a cryptographic checksum that would be used to confirm the software hasn't been changed. To get round this it would be necessary to know something of the cryptographic algorithm used. It's possible to get round this but very difficult.

It's fairly straightforward to match a checksum hash to a particular build of software - in fact it's standard practice in many industries. Given the lengths car manufacturers seem to be going to to prevent tampering of the software I expect they'll be well onto this sort of thing.

Use big words you've found on the internet all you like, but its not "easy" to spot a remap, and certainly not "as soon as you plug in" a diagnostic reader.

Mercdriver

motorguy wrote: »

Of course. However as long as the car is returned to them (if it even is being returned) then they wont care.

Surely you know that?



Its not semantics its fact. I would consider doing it, however that doesnt make it advice that the O/P "must" follow. THey have their own mind, and have already said they dont want to do it anyway, so i dont understand why you're labouring this point about legally binding "advice"

And what about your hysterical, doom and gloom hand-wringing about assessors bringing diagnostic computers with them if you have an accident in case you've removed the DPF? :eek:

Where'd you get that one from? :rotfl:

When Liza tells Henry to fix his bucket (There's a hole in my bucket) is that advice or opinion?

It's advice because Henry has told Liza that he has a hole in his bucket, and her response is "Then mend it".

It's a reaction to an event, not an independent statement, therefore it's not simply opinion but advice.

The OP has said that the DPF is causing her car to breakdown. Your response is to say that in the OPs position you would consider that making a change that is potentially illegal.

The statement is not independent of an incident being talked about in the thread. Therefore it is advice, not opinion. The statements you have made in the other thread is opinion, not advice as it doesn't relate to a single incident.

If you are going to talk in semantics learn something about them first. Context is everything.

motorguy

Mercdriver wrote: »

When Liza tells Henry to fix his bucket (There's a hole in my bucket) is that advice or opinion?

It's advice because Henry has told Liza that he has a hole in his bucket, and her response is "Then mend it".

It's a reaction to an event, not an independent statement, therefore it's not simply opinion but advice.

The OP has said that the DPF is causing her car to breakdown. Your response is to say that in the OPs position you would consider that making a change that is potentially illegal.

The statement is not independent of an incident being talked about in the thread. Therefore it is advice, not opinion. The statements you have made in the other thread is opinion, not advice as it doesn't relate to a single incident.

If you are going to talk in semantics learn something about them first. Context is everything.

Its pretty sad you've having to go to such lengths to try to win an argument on the internet.

Again - the O/P has already said they're not prepared to do it, so labouring your feeble point is all the more silly.

motorguy

Mercdriver wrote: »

When Liza tells Henry to fix his bucket (There's a hole in my bucket) is that advice or opinion?

It's advice because Henry has told Liza that he has a hole in his bucket, and her response is "Then mend it".

It's a reaction to an event, not an independent statement, therefore it's not simply opinion but advice.

The OP has said that the DPF is causing her car to breakdown. Your response is to say that in the OPs position you would consider that making a change that is potentially illegal.

The statement is not independent of an incident being talked about in the thread. Therefore it is advice, not opinion. The statements you have made in the other thread is opinion, not advice as it doesn't relate to a single incident.

If you are going to talk in semantics learn something about them first. Context is everything.

It may well be a reaction to an event however its still an opinion.

I didnt tell the O/P to "mend it" by removing the DPF, i said if I were in that position i'd consider it - which the OP has already said they're not prepared to do.

And - laughably - for all your concern about "advice" given to the O/P, you havent dont anything other than jump in to have an argument on the internet. Well done that man!