DPF Hell Van On Finance

arcon5

fwor wrote: »

That could prove to be a very costly mistake.

Until we know exactly how strict the tighter new MOT rules on particulates are going to be, nobody should consider this.

You can't "ungut" a gutted DPF - so if you have to reinstate your gutted one it's likely to be very expensive. New DPFs can be shockingly expensive, and the prices of secondhand ones are likely to go through the roof if the new rules turn out to be really strict.

Whatever the changes we can be certain of several things

- they are not gonna start removing components to check for stuff like this

- they are not going to suddenly mandate all stations install new testing equipment to check for the qty of particulate matter

- they are not going to start hooking up to ecu to check for modifications

Changes to the rules will revolve around further reasons to fail a test and will be visual.

Whatever the changes it's highly unlikely to put an end to this practice.

And all this is assuming the tester actually gives a hoot

AdrianC

arcon5 wrote: »

Whatever the changes we can be certain of several things

Indeed. We can be certain that the current draft test manual is close to what'll actually happen in two months, if not actually definitive.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/671818/mot-inspection-manual-for-classes-3-4-5-and-7-from-20-may-2018-draft.pdf

martin_wilson

Thanks motorguy looks like that’s what I will have to do begrudgingly, do you think changing to the more expensive fuel will help ? Along with giving it a good run every so often. It’s odd that Evans Halshaw have advised me to try and clear it on a long run, I have heard from two people now saying I could be causing more damage.

motorguy

martin_wilson wrote: »

Thanks motorguy looks like that’s what I will have to do begrudgingly, do you think changing to the more expensive fuel will help ? Along with giving it a good run every so often. It’s odd that Evans Halshaw have advised me to try and clear it on a long run, I have heard from two people now saying I could be causing more damage.

I personally dont think its fuel. Whilst a fuel with extra additives will keep the cylinder head and possibly injectors cleaner, it most likely wont hit the DPF.

FWIW i bought a Passat TDI at a year old. 16K miles on it and within a fortnight the DPF light was on. I ran a cleaning solution through it, to no avail. It went to the dealers three times and they forced DPF regens before they escalated it to VW who authorised replacing the whole emissions unit (DPF + cat?) at what would have been a retail cost of £2,250. :eek:

The cleaning fluid did no good, i did long runs at high revs to try to clear it but ultimately the DPF was too far gone. Had it not been under warranty there is not a mission i'd have paid for a new unit, i'd have had it taken off and professionally cleaned.

arcon5

AdrianC wrote: »

Indeed. We can be certain that the current draft test manual is close to what'll actually happen in two months, if not actually definitive.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/671818/mot-inspection-manual-for-classes-3-4-5-and-7-from-20-may-2018-draft.pdf

Nice link. So looking like a mere visual inspection for it having been tampered with. Not really gonna end the practice then.

John-K_3

arcon5 wrote: »

Have the dpf gutted and mapped out of the ecu. Probably looking at the best part of £500 though but cheaper than a dpf

The filter is there for reasons of public health, you should not be removing it, it does an important job.

Edited to add, I!!!8217;ve seen on another post of yours that you are upset that poor people are held to the same charges for polluting vehicles as the better off.

Being poor does not give you carte blanche to be antisocial.

It does, however, often work the other way round. A lesson for you in there perhaps?

arcon5

John-K wrote: »

The filter is there for reasons of public health, you should not be removing it, it does an important job.

That's a debate for another day. The simple fact is the government encouraged people to buy diesels for a good while then turned round and started penalising diesels for polluting.
Road users are penalised from left right and centre so do I have any sympathy where people cut corners because of !!!! technology's like dpfs? Not at all.

Edited to add, I!!!8217;ve seen on another post of yours that you are upset that poor people are held to the same charges for polluting vehicles as the better off.

Being poor does not give you carte blanche to be antisocial.

It does, however, often work the other way round. A lesson for you in there perhaps?

Your point?

Or more so what relevance is it?

AdrianC

arcon5 wrote: »

That's a debate for another day.

No, not really. It's very relevant to this thread.

The simple fact is the government encouraged people to buy diesels for a good while then turned round and started penalising diesels for polluting.

Let's look at the facts.

CO2 levels were (and still are) perceived as a problem. Taxation focussed on CO2 - which naturally favoured diesels.

Particulate levels became an issue. Technology addressed that - but at the cost of reliability, for those for whom a diesel was not necessarily the most appropriate choice.

NOx levels are currently an issue. These have increased because of the measures to address previous issues.

It's a simple fact that you're putting a certain chemical make-up in, and you're going to get roughly the same combustion byproducts out. They can be tickled-about, to change the compounds, but the same atoms are coming out in one form or another.

The OP seems to have two issues. One is that he's bought a used vehicle with a pre-clogged DPF. The second is that his usage, long-term, may not be suitable for a DPF-equipped vehicle. Since the type of vehicle he requires is currently mostly available with DPFs, he may need to change his usage pattern to prevent the current problem recurring, once it's been properly fixed. He's complaining about the cost of fuel, but that's a lot cheaper than replacing DPFs periodically. Both are a lot cheaper than the public health consequences of not addressing urban pollution.

TheMoonandBack

Am I the only one who thinks you have been sold a van that is not fit for purpose ?
If the DPF problems are so well known then why did Evans Halshaw sell you a van for low mileage use ? Why do virtually none of the manufacturers produce petrol engine versions of transit sized vans ? (I am sure some manufacturers may well do, but there are not that many available in the uk so please do not turn this into a thread correcting me).
Personally I would seek legal advice with a view to returning the vehicle or at least getting the dpf replaced.

AdrianC

TheMoonandBack wrote: »

...then why did Evans Halshaw sell you a van for low mileage use ?

Because he's a builder, and needs a van, and damn near every van in the last decade has a DPF...?

There certainly appears to be a pre-existing DPF issue, and that's in their court. But he's had it a year now. Demonstrating that the fault was pre-existing shouldn't be hard, given the monthly regens, but...

No, there's no grounds for the usual mis-selling shouts. None whatsoever. Small adaptation to use required, given there's no viable alternative.