DPF Hell Van On Finance

System

motorguy wrote: »

And something to bear in mind - now your DPF is blocked its putting extra pressure on the turbo

Dump valve sorts that out. It won't build up any more pressure than it is designed to.

System

AdrianC wrote: »

There certainly appears to be a pre-existing DPF issue, and that's in their court.

I disagree. You can shaft a DPF filter this badly in under a year of nothing but short journeys around town.

System

motorguy wrote: »

A diesel car doesnt smoke just because it has no DPF.

Yeah actually it does when you put your foot on the accelerator.

I'd a Jag X Type 2.2D that was just pre DPF (2005) and even with 100,000 miles it didnt smoke, because it had been well maintained and well serviced.

I can guarantee you that it emitted some black smoke as soon as you started accelerating. The evidence would be all around the inside of the tailpipe.

Also, factor in to that that its a visual test and theres room for "interpretation" depending on the MOT centre.

Not in the new MOT. No smoke at all. Currently "a reasonable amount" is permitted and that is up for interpretation but not when the new standards come in. Its none, zilch, zero.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

I'm leaning towards the van not being fit for purpose, either because it has a pre-existing fault that has not been resolved leading to excess soot production or that the engine design is poor and it is prone to clogging.

I know we so-called experts all know that a modern diesel can be prone to problems due to the shoddy implementation of DPF filters, but really, where is the sticker that is stapled to the dashboard, the saleman's forehead and PROMINENTLY brought to the attention of a purchaser that there are limitations in the way a van can be used? After all, many of us do not change vehicles regularly and 5 or 6 year old vehicles, which is when DPFs started hitting the scene with Euro 5 regs, may be the first time many local tradesmen have bought a diesel with a DPF - and not being motor mechanics, would not be aware that a newer diesel is entirely unsuitable compared with a diesel that they have been using without problem for years.

As it is a work van, consumer legislation does not apply, but Sale of Goods Act does. Clearly, this van is unfit for purpose - a tradesman buys a van for shifting tools around and there is not any expectation of significant mileage.

I would go back to EH and say "I've had enough, this vehicle is not fit for purpose. It either has a fault which is causing excess soot, or it is not of an appropriate design for my reasonable usage. You did not tell me that I had to use it in a particular way when I bought it." I would ask to return it, and accept a reasonable value taking into account a year's usage, not a low trade price with an amount for time off the road.

BeenThroughItAll

Tarambor wrote: »

Dump valve sorts that out. It won't build up any more pressure than it is designed to.

A 'Dump' valve (I assume you mean wastegate, since diesels don't need BOVs), is operating via pressure on the cold side. The backpressure on the hot side from a clogged DPF isn't going to make a damned bit of difference to that. The wastegate won't open until maximum MAP is reached, so there absolutely is additionally pressure present in the hot side of the turbo than there would be without a restriction in the exhaust system.

AdrianC

IanMSpencer wrote: »

but really, where is the sticker that is stapled to the dashboard, the saleman's forehead and PROMINENTLY brought to the attention of a purchaser that there are limitations in the way a van can be used?

In the handbook...?

After all, many of us do not change vehicles regularly and 5 or 6 year old vehicles, which is when DPFs started hitting the scene with Euro 5 regs

A lot longer than that.
Euro 5 has been mandatory since 2009, nearly a decade. Euro 6 has been current for nearly four years now.

B'sides, DPFs have been around since the early 00s.

Clearly, this van is unfit for purpose - a tradesman buys a van for shifting tools around and there is not any expectation of significant mileage.

And, since your definition of "fit for purpose" rules out 99% of vans less than a decade old, do you suggest that he retires forthwith?

It clearly IS fit for purpose, from a design and concept PoV, because there are a vast number of DPF-equipped vans in exactly that use all over the country and beyond.

The OP clearly has grounds for kicking them harder over the clogged filter on this van, since the clogging started almost immediately after purchase, but don't encourage him to shoot himself in the foot with massive over-egging of the pudding.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

AdrianC wrote: »

In the handbook...?

If you insist on a buyer reading the handbook before buying a vehicle, then fine, but otherwise that is just some bit of paper clogging up the glovebox.

Point taken on DPF, I bought my run out model Vito in 2011 and that was Euro 4, their Euro 5 was just being introduced then.

AdrianC wrote: »

And, since your definition of "fit for purpose" rules out 99% of vans less than a decade old, do you suggest that he retires forthwith?

No - firstly, petrol vans are suitable, and secondly, I am inclined to the view that there are two sorts of engine designers, those who have ground up worked out how to make DPFs work, and those who haven't.

I always find this forum odd with DPFs. These engines cause any number of people all sorts of problems, yet people simply blame the driver for failing to change the way they use the vehicle to a way which they have never needed to before. In the car world, too many people like to chuckle knowingly, and point out the foolishness of the buyer for not knowing that there was this hidden nasty to buying a modern diesel. In my book, there is nothing wrong with a car user being entirely ignorant of how their car works beyond the knowledge that they should do some checks on their car that was brought to their attention when they did their test, when they bought the car and is also referred to in the manual. What I have never heard when buying a car is "If you buy this car/van, you must change the way you plan your life to ensure that your driving profile fits the way the vehicle is designed to be used." or alternatively, "Please fill in this questionnaire to ensure that your lifestyle is suitable to be allowed to purchase this vehicle." It's just a vehicle.

Seriously, when I had my Vito van, I bought it knowing that I would only drive it in a 5 mile radius. That was never part of the conversation with various sellers I assessed (Ford, Vauxhall etc). Petrol was not part of the conversation - at that point I'm not even sure that Merc did one. Why should a plumber be expected to be a motor mechanic to buy a vehicle? IF these vehicles have limitations, then it is up to the seller to make these limitations clear to the buyer, otherwise it is quite reasonable to assume that a vehicle should be able to be used as many tradespeople (and other car users who only do local journeys) do. The OP is like the many small trades-people, they work in their local town and the reason they have a van is that they need to carry large items around. If vans cannot be used to drive less than 5 miles, day in day out, then they are not fit for the purpose which a typical local tradesman needs it for.

When I bought my Merc C220Cdi, mileage was discussed, 10K a year was considered adequate for the economy side, but nobody ever had a conversation about whether it might go for weeks without a long run.

Anyway, the point I would make in raising the fit for purpose is that this seems to be what he is being fobbed off with. If it is not a design fault, simply a repair that has not been properly done, then it should inspire them to work a bit harder.

AdrianC

IanMSpencer wrote: »

No - firstly, petrol vans are suitable

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post links to a few c.4yo used vans for sale, similar size but petrol?

and secondly, I am inclined to the view that there are two sorts of engine designers, those who have ground up worked out how to make DPFs work, and those who haven't.

The OP has a Vivaro. That's a van that's sold with Fiat, Renault, Vauxhall, Opel and Nissan badges. It's got one of two Renault engines - either the older 1.9 used in millions of Renault and Nissan cars, or the 1.6 also used by Mercedes across cars and vans.

motorguy

Tarambor wrote: »

Dump valve sorts that out. It won't build up any more pressure than it is designed to.

Diesel engines dont have a dump value as they doesnt have a throttle body and a throttle plate.

And i meant "extra pressure" as in "extra work".

Its like stuffing a sock in your mouth and going for a run. Your lungs and heart have to work hardly to compensate for restricted airflow.

motorguy

Tarambor wrote: »

Yeah actually it does when you put your foot on the accelerator.

I can guarantee you that it emitted some black smoke as soon as you started accelerating. The evidence would be all around the inside of the tailpipe.

Not in the new MOT. No smoke at all. Currently "a reasonable amount" is permitted and that is up for interpretation but not when the new standards come in. Its none, zilch, zero.

There was no noticable smoke from the car, and i would be confident it would have passed a smoke test.

Also, the smoke test is done at idle speed NOT at part / full throttle.

At idle speed a healthy diesel engine should not be blowing out black smoke irrespective of whether or not it has a DPF.

"The Tester will check the smoke emissions by raising the engine speed to around 2500rpm or half the maximum engine speed if this is lower. This speed will be maintained for 30 seconds to ensure that the inlet and exhaust system has been fully purged. The Tester will then allow the engine to return to idle. Once the engine has stabilised at this speed, the emissions / smoke from the exhaust tailpipe will be assessed. "