PCP Car - can I give it back?

motorguy

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

Just for the purposes of accuracy and balance, I have to point out that there are several non-destructive ways of checking; examples being an emissions test for particulates, or checking OBD2 or CAN data streams for differential pressure values from the DPF sensors. Neither require any cutting, and DVSA do have the equipment to carry out the tests.

Yes, absolutely.

However they dont have the remit in an MOT centre to do so. Plus it would add considerably to the time taken for the test.

Likewise DVSA are a road safety body with more work than they can handle currently without pulling cars in randomly in the hope they've had the DPF cut out (which isnt a road safety issue anyway)

motorguy

Mercdriver wrote: »

So does that mean that when someone comes on here saying they have a diesel and do 5k miles a year and their DPF keeps filling up, you won't criticise them for their choice? :j

There were a lot of cars sold 2005-> 2008 particularly when DPFs were new and people were oblivious to the problems ahead and people were "caught", particularly with Peugeot / Citroens and Fords and Volvos fitted with the 1.6 HDI Peugeot engine when they started clogging up DPFs, which led to clogging EGR valves then to overworked turbos leading to premature turbo failure. Neither Peugeot nor Ford accepted any responsibilty. A lot of these cars are still on the road.

Vauxhall was another culprit - the Zafira 1.9CDTI 150BHP in particular had a DPF that could only regen at something like 2500RPM upwards, however the car only hit something like 2,200 in 6th gear at 70MPH.

Given how widespread knowledge is about DPFs, then someone buying a diesel for 5K per year driving has bought the wrong engine frankly.

Mercdriver wrote: »

It might not fail MOT on the DPF, not yet until the gutting of them becomes so common - and talk about doing it on the web is one way of identifying it as a common thing to do that they add physical checks.

Yes, they may well do. However i would say for all the talk of it, the percentage of cars with it done is miniscule, therefore the huge added cost of equiping MOT centres to test for it, added time for the test, etc may well be seen as prohibitive.

Mercdriver wrote: »

Increased pollution and particles from exhaust could mean a failure on emmissions however and if you have bought a car unknowingly that had its DPF gutted and subsequently failed its MOT and then spend money investigating the cause. Do you still think this is fair? You won't be punishing car manufacturers, dealers or finance houses. Just real people.

IF i gutted a DPF i would tell the buyer of the car, and outline the advantages to them. If they chose not to buy the car then thats their perrogative.

Silver-Surfer_2

motorguy wrote: »

Yes, absolutely.

However they dont have the remit in an MOT centre to do so. Plus it would add considerably to the time taken for the test.

Likewise DVSA are a road safety body with more work than they can handle currently without pulling cars in randomly in the hope they've had the DPF cut out (which isnt a road safety issue anyway)

It's quite common to see a DVSA check site pulling diesel vehicles for testing. If the vehicle is non con and use complient then it is a safety issue. Ok it doesn't present immediate danger but why were these filters developed and fitted?

bigadaj

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

It's quite common to see a DVSA check site pulling diesel vehicles for testing. If the vehicle is non con and use complient then it is a safety issue. Ok it doesn't present immediate danger but why were these filters developed and fitted?

Political correctness?

Seriously they are supposedly solving a problem with particulates and their environment and human health. The problem is that in all these cases a potential issue is identified and legislated for with no thought for knock on effects.

We keep seeing this in so many areas, where there's is a minor or potential issue, government and Europe take up a stance that they are solving it, and either don't solve with the laws passed, or the consequences of the legislation are far worse than the original issue that was supposedly being addressed.

motorguy

bigadaj wrote: »

Political correctness?

Seriously they are supposedly solving a problem with particulates and their environment and human health. The problem is that in all these cases a potential issue is identified and legislated for with no thought for knock on effects.

We keep seeing this in so many areas, where there's is a minor or potential issue, government and Europe take up a stance that they are solving it, and either don't solve with the laws passed, or the consequences of the legislation are far worse than the original issue that was supposedly being addressed.

+1

There is far more damage being done by low grade shipping fuel around the world in all these tankers moving about than is done by cars.

facade

motorguy wrote: »

+1

There is far more damage being done by low grade shipping fuel around the world in all these tankers moving about than is done by cars.

But the damage is far far away from here.

DPFs and catalysts clean up the air in our towns & cities, and move all the pollution & carcinogens from their manufacturing processes to far far away land, where only foreigners live, who nobody cares about. :D

(Same as getting our fuels from far far away land ruins their landscapes and pollutes their environment, not mine )

almillar

Whether or not you're likely to get caught is irrelevant. It's still illegal, like running on red diesel, or speeding. Yeah, you might be lucky and get away with it, and loads of people do it and don't get caught - but that doesn't change the fact it's illegal.

I know that. You know that. Motorguy knows that. I've said several time that I think it's a terrible thing to do. But motorguy is arguing that your WON'T get caught, and Silver-Surfer is arguing that you WILL.

Yes........

[citation needed]

It's quite common to see a DVSA check site pulling diesel vehicles for testing. If the vehicle is non con and use complient then it is a safety issue. Ok it doesn't present immediate danger but why were these filters developed and fitted?

No evidence here.

after a bit of tapping on the casing with the plastic end of the corrosion assessment tool and hearing that hollow sound

That's using TOUCH and SOUND, whereas strictly you're only allowed VISUAL.

So does that mean that when someone comes on here saying they have a diesel and do 5k miles a year and their DPF keeps filling up, you won't criticise them for their choice?

They could have been missold the car by the dealer, or they could have bought a diesel ignoring the dealer's advice. Most people here are car geeks, the general public are not. That's why diesels have sold so well. Simply bought on MPG, and diesels are now longer slower.

Silver-Surfer_2

almillar wrote: »

I know that. You know that. Motorguy knows that. I've said several time that I think it's a terrible thing to do. But motorguy is arguing that your WON'T get caught, and Silver-Surfer is arguing that you [STRIKE]WILL[/STRIKE] could.



[citation needed]



No evidence here.



That's using TOUCH and SOUND, whereas strictly you're only allowed VISUAL.



They could have been missold the car by the dealer, or they could have bought a diesel ignoring the dealer's advice. Most people here are car geeks, the general public are not. That's why diesels have sold so well. Simply bought on MPG, and diesels are now longer slower.

Fixed that for you.