Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    taffy056
    Diesel Particulate Filter
    • #1
    • 24th Dec 11, 4:57 PM
    Diesel Particulate Filter 24th Dec 11 at 4:57 PM
    Hiya guys,

    I have a Mazda 6 turbo diesel and the DPF light and management light has come on, its a high miler 85k on a 57 plate, I have run over it 2000 rpm for quite a few miles and its not cleared with regeneration, and was wondering my next step with this.

    I was thinking of having it taken out and the ecu reprogrammed , but its expensive at about £500 , there are quite a few people selling snakeoil that claims all sort of things. The garages are saying thousands to replace the thing.

    Anyone got an alternative ? Thanks and Happy Christmas
Page 2
  • taffy056
    But a new DPF would only cost you about four hundred pounds.
    Originally posted by Flyboy152
    Yes but it must be fitted , and you are buying patent parts for that price, plus the ECU needs to be reset, you are talking at £1k on that, its a gamble that I am not prepared to pay money for that, the gagrage I am going to tomorrow has sorted this problem before on mazdas and its not going to cost anywhere near that.
    • Trebor16
    • By Trebor16 27th Dec 11, 2:07 AM
    • 2,906 Posts
    • 2,604 Thanks
    Trebor16
    But a new DPF would only cost you about four hundred pounds.
    Originally posted by Flyboy152
    And that is the cost of a DPF for all cars?
  • taffy056
    Okay forgot to update this thread and the outcome, took it to a garage and the oxygen sensor needing changing, that done its been perfect ever since. It appears to re-generating fine now, thanks for the advice .
  • andy8442
    Am I correct in thinking Mazda use VW diesel engines?

    VW have had massive problems with their DPF's, (not that they'd admit to it obviously) but if you search the web a bit you will find plenty of VW owners with problems. A whole industry has now sprouted up of ECU re-programmers who will switch the DPF off. Shame they were'nt around a few years ago when I had problems with my T5. I eventually sold it, it just drove me mad.
    • Johnmcl7
    • By Johnmcl7 21st Jan 12, 5:11 PM
    • 2,497 Posts
    • 1,671 Thanks
    Johnmcl7
    Am I correct in thinking Mazda use VW diesel engines?

    VW have had massive problems with their DPF's, (not that they'd admit to it obviously) but if you search the web a bit you will find plenty of VW owners with problems. A whole industry has now sprouted up of ECU re-programmers who will switch the DPF off. Shame they were'nt around a few years ago when I had problems with my T5. I eventually sold it, it just drove me mad.
    Originally posted by andy8442
    I know Mitsubishi are currently using the VW 2.0 TDI engine (although it's the CR version rather than the old PD engine, the newer engine has less trouble with the DPF so far due to a better design) but I didn't think Mazda were.

    John
    • Gloomendoom
    • By Gloomendoom 21st Jan 12, 6:12 PM
    • 14,914 Posts
    • 20,296 Thanks
    Gloomendoom
    Am I correct in thinking Mazda use VW diesel engines?
    Originally posted by andy8442
    They used to be part of the Ford group of companies, so more likely Ford than VW.
    • cepheus
    • By cepheus 21st Jan 12, 7:07 PM
    • 19,216 Posts
    • 20,337 Thanks
    cepheus
    Tampering with emission equipment is illegal because it will probably fail to meet the type appoval standard the vehicle was approved to. This is nothing to do with MOTs which are very basic tests, or VOSA who are ignorant or not interested. The law obviously turns a blind eye to the refitting or removal organisations. See this link

    "From: dft.gsi.gov.uk
    Sent: 25 February 2011 14:06
    To: Jeebowhite
    Subject: FW: Vehicle Roadworthiness Question regarding Diesel Particulate Filter

    Under Regulation 61A of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, it is an offence to use a car on the road that has been modified and, as a result of the modification, does not meet the emissions requirement that applied to it when new. This is likely to be the case if a diesel particulate filter is removed. A copy of Regulation 61A is attached for information.
    http://www.peugeotforums.com/forums/general-discussion-2/dpf-removal-illegal-uk-13700/

    Ignore what it says later, they do reduce Particulate in use. That is why they are fitted, these are regulated over a driving cycle. Fiddling with the ECU will also seriously mess up the other important emissions such as NOx and is also illegal, but not to the extent they will fail the MOT which measures only CO HC and smoke.

    Whether the Dft will be arsed to do anything such as shut down illegal refitters or check the presence of tampering, I very much doubt it. They will just accept ever more stringent EU type approval regulations which adds cost to the vehicle and the rest of us pay through our health and taxes via EU fines for non-compliance of air quality standards.

    The government's failure to meet EU standards on air pollution is "putting the health of UK residents at risk", says the Environmental Audit Committee.
    Bad air quality costs the nation £8.5-20bn per year via poor health, it says, and can cut life expectancy by years. Continued failure to meet EU standards could result in swingeing fines.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15693627

    Then everyone will wonder why city air is getting no cleaner and come up with idiot schemes like this.
    Last edited by cepheus; 21-01-2012 at 7:31 PM.
  • taffy056
    But look at the response to the thread from one of the users #12

    Originally Posted by chopper1192
    That is incorrect.

    In all likelyhood, the HDi's would all pass the Type Approval emissions test re particulate emissions, which is currently set at 0.005% for Euro 5 (and 0.0025 for the forthcoming Euro 6 compliant) motors. This is actually quite a generous limit, and the HDi's are all naturally very clean engines, especially when new, and I would deem it quite likely any given HDi would pass without the filter...the same way the current DV4 HDi 90's without the filter already do with ease. The DV6 is essentially the same motor, but bigger and thermally even more efficient.

    The DPF does not regulate particulate emissions while driving to any significant extent - it mainly prevents the big 'cough' of soot on start up, which it catches and burns off as the zorst reaches the proper temperature. A running engines particulate emissions are ultimately governed by it's design and efficiency, not the DPF.

    DfT man is simply quoting the party line, with no actual facts or reasoning to back it up.

    It's on a Ford site, which is hardly the place I'd go looking for info about anything, including Fords!

    Can the title of the thread please be edited, so the gullible don't spot it and take that as gospel?
    • cepheus
    • By cepheus 22nd Jan 12, 3:17 PM
    • 19,216 Posts
    • 20,337 Thanks
    cepheus
    What you must understand is that every emission can't be taken in isolation. If you do something to reduce one eg. NOx you increase Particulate and vice versa. It is easy to meet the limit for one or the other after adjusting the ECU, but very difficult to get both within their respective limits together without a trap.

    If there is no point in using a trap it is most unlikely the manufacturer would use one, they would reduce profit margins, gain a bad reputation for reliability and increase fuel consumption slightly.

    If the emission equipment is tampered with it is up to the tamperer to show the vehicle can pass the test, and of course in the unlikely event it could, they couldn't afford to prove this anyway. Besides the question in this thread doesn't refer to that engine.

    For the time being all this is rather academic assuming you don't care about air pollution, since no-one will know. Of course the risk is that they subsequently introduce a tampering check at the MOT.
    Last edited by cepheus; 22-01-2012 at 3:29 PM.
    • Gloomendoom
    • By Gloomendoom 22nd Jan 12, 3:46 PM
    • 14,914 Posts
    • 20,296 Thanks
    Gloomendoom
    This debate is interesting because my car has a DPF and it's the first diesel car I have had that doesn't smell like one, if you get my drift. It never, ever smokes and the exhaust smells like the exhaust from a gas boiler. Not a trace of nasty diesellyness in it. Unless there is something else in the system, I'm inclined to believe that the DPF is responsible for the innocuous smell. i.e. It's doing more than just stopping smoke.
  • Flyboy152
    But look at the response to the thread from one of the users #12

    Originally Posted by chopper1192
    That is incorrect.

    In all likelyhood, the HDi's would all pass the Type Approval emissions test re particulate emissions, which is currently set at 0.005% for Euro 5 (and 0.0025 for the forthcoming Euro 6 compliant) motors. This is actually quite a generous limit, and the HDi's are all naturally very clean engines, especially when new, and I would deem it quite likely any given HDi would pass without the filter...the same way the current DV4 HDi 90's without the filter already do with ease. The DV6 is essentially the same motor, but bigger and thermally even more efficient.

    The DPF does not regulate particulate emissions while driving to any significant extent - it mainly prevents the big 'cough' of soot on start up, which it catches and burns off as the zorst reaches the proper temperature. A running engines particulate emissions are ultimately governed by it's design and efficiency, not the DPF.

    DfT man is simply quoting the party line, with no actual facts or reasoning to back it up.

    It's on a Ford site, which is hardly the place I'd go looking for info about anything, including Fords!

    Can the title of the thread please be edited, so the gullible don't spot it and take that as gospel?
    Originally posted by taffy056
    But that is only one person's opinion. I would rather believe what the law says.
  • taffy056
    But that is only one person's opinion. I would rather believe what the law says.
    Originally posted by Flyboy152
    I would rather go on whether a car passes its MOT, if it does then they are hardly going to take the car apart to see if some obscure law has been broken, and who on earth will enforce this kind of law in any case?
    • cepheus
    • By cepheus 22nd Jan 12, 6:26 PM
    • 19,216 Posts
    • 20,337 Thanks
    cepheus
    Here is what I was looking for. Those people who have absent, defective (and tampered for petrol) systems, have now been doing it illegally for exactly 22 days.

    COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/48/EU of 5 July 2010 adapting to technical progress Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers

    In the interests of road-safety, environmental protection and fair competition it is important to ensure that vehicles in operation are properly maintained and tested, in order to maintain their performance as guar­anteed by type-approval, without excessive degradation, throughout their life-time

    Article 2
    1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this
    Directive by 31 December 2011 at the latest,

    4. MINIMUM INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
    The inspection shall cover at least the items and use the minimum standards and methods listed below. Reasons for
    failure are examples of defects that may be detected.....

    8.2.1. Petrol engine emissions
    8.2.1.1. Exhaust emissions control
    equipment Visual inspection (a) Emission control equipment fitted by the manufacturer absent, modified or obviously defective.

    8.2.2. Diesel engine emissions
    8.2.2.1. Exhaust emission control equipment
    Visual inspection (a) Emission control equipment fitted by the manufacturer absent or obviously defective
    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:173:0047:0072:EN:PDF
    Last edited by cepheus; 22-01-2012 at 7:00 PM.
  • taffy056
    I don't why the UK couldn't adopt the same rules as have been in operation for decades elsewhere

    http://itep68.itep.nau.edu/itep_downloads/~GeneralAQInfo/Pollutants_Sources_Controls/Mobile%20Sources/DontTamper_EmissionControls.pdf
    Originally posted by cepheus
    Well they have plenty of other laws here that go beyond what else is in the world. And quoting what they do in the States who are one the biggest polluters in the world, and has the biggest gas guzzlers is a bit rich IMO
    • cepheus
    • By cepheus 23rd Jan 12, 9:17 AM
    • 19,216 Posts
    • 20,337 Thanks
    cepheus
    This is an older document. I guess VCA should get around dealing with organisations which remove exhaust control devices rather than just worrying if they fit them properly!

    VCA will be seeking to enforce the regulations by
    conducting market surveillance in various ways including:

    • Random visits to the premises of UK replacement
    catalytic converter and diesel particulate
    filters manufacturers and distributors
    • Random visits to various points of sale or
    exhaust fitting centres to ensure correct
    installation of approved units are carried out
    • Attendance at appropriate Trade Shows
    • The monitoring of trade publications and the Internet
    • Dealing with specific complaints and spot checks

    test on products at approved laboratories
    http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/additional/files/enforcement-and-research-activities/replacement-cat/replacement-cat-regulations.pdf
    • cepheus
    • By cepheus 27th Feb 12, 2:48 PM
    • 19,216 Posts
    • 20,337 Thanks
    cepheus
    Air quality: A follow up report Ninth Report of Session 2010–12

    Summary

    In 2010 our predecessor Environmental Audit Committee reported on Air Quality. It
    found that poor air quality is shortening the life expectancy of people in the UK by an
    average of seven to eight months and is costing society up to £20 billion per year. It called
    for an urgent step change in policy to reduce pollution from transport.

    Over the past year the evidence of the damage caused by air pollution has grown stronger.
    But the UK is still failing to meet European targets for safe air pollution limits across many
    parts of the country. The step change called for has not happened.

    The Government has failed to get to grips with this issue. Most of the measures set out in
    its response to our predecessors’ report are yet to be brought in. Forty out of the UK’s 43
    assessment zones are failing to meet EU targets and poor air quality is now found to be
    shortening the lives of up to 200,000 people by an average of 2 years. The Government
    must not continue to put the health of the nation at risk. It needs to:

    • Prioritise action across central Government by putting improving air quality in the
    Defra Business Plan, and set up a Cabinet Office lead Ministerial Group to oversee
    delivery of a new cross government air quality strategy;
    • Engage with local authority leaders clearly to set out the risks of failing to act to
    improve air quality, and join up thinking across local authority departments so they all
    contribute to solving this problem;
    • Establish a national framework of low emissions zones to help local authorities reduce
    pollution from traffic;
    • Ensure that thinking on air quality is central to public health reforms that will transfer
    public health functions to local authorities;
    • Launch a public awareness campaign to drive air quality up the political agenda and
    inform people about the positive action they could take to reduce emissions and their
    exposure to these.

    Four thousand people died as a result of the Great Smog of London in 1952 and this led to
    the introduction of the Clean Air Act in 1956. In 2008, 4,000 people died in London from
    air pollution and 30,000 died across the whole of the UK.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/1024/1024.pdf
    • s b
    • By s b 27th Feb 12, 4:45 PM
    • 4,323 Posts
    • 2,348 Thanks
    s b
    Air quality: A follow up report Ninth Report of Session 2010–12

    Summary

    In 2010 our predecessor Environmental Audit Committee reported on Air Quality. It
    found that poor air quality is shortening the life expectancy of people in the UK by an
    average of seven to eight months and is costing society up to £20 billion per year. It called
    for an urgent step change in policy to reduce pollution from transport.

    Over the past year the evidence of the damage caused by air pollution has grown stronger.
    But the UK is still failing to meet European targets for safe air pollution limits across many
    parts of the country. The step change called for has not happened.

    The Government has failed to get to grips with this issue. Most of the measures set out in
    its response to our predecessors’ report are yet to be brought in. Forty out of the UK’s 43
    assessment zones are failing to meet EU targets and poor air quality is now found to be
    shortening the lives of up to 200,000 people by an average of 2 years. The Government
    must not continue to put the health of the nation at risk. It needs to:

    • Prioritise action across central Government by putting improving air quality in the
    Defra Business Plan, and set up a Cabinet Office lead Ministerial Group to oversee
    delivery of a new cross government air quality strategy;
    • Engage with local authority leaders clearly to set out the risks of failing to act to
    improve air quality, and join up thinking across local authority departments so they all
    contribute to solving this problem;
    • Establish a national framework of low emissions zones to help local authorities reduce
    pollution from traffic;
    • Ensure that thinking on air quality is central to public health reforms that will transfer
    public health functions to local authorities;
    • Launch a public awareness campaign to drive air quality up the political agenda and
    inform people about the positive action they could take to reduce emissions and their
    exposure to these.

    Four thousand people died as a result of the Great Smog of London in 1952 and this led to
    the introduction of the Clean Air Act in 1956. In 2008, 4,000 people died in London from
    air pollution and 30,000 died across the whole of the UK.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/1024/1024.pdf
    Originally posted by cepheus
    theres a recession on by the way
    people are struggling to keep their houses without reading rubbish about reducing emissions further
    the diesel engine is at the end of being refined more anyway
    petrol technonolgy is the way forward this next 10 years
    electric cars still need dirty fuels at the power station and just look at that big fire at the power station in essex now im not sure but they were talking about making ferry bridge run on these wood pellets and they were coming from canada
    the proletariat can only bend so far
    • cepheus
    • By cepheus 27th Feb 12, 6:12 PM
    • 19,216 Posts
    • 20,337 Thanks
    cepheus
    If you are short of cash, drive and use less, that will save quite a bit. Personally I don't want to pay for others health bills due to the crap your car gives out.

    The reason Diesels are supposed to be cleaner nowadays is because they are fittted with emission control equipment and have advanced electronic management systems set up to reduce emissions.

    Perhaps you have missed the point of the thread, it is about removing emission control equipment and fiddling with the engine controls. That document doesn't seem to realise people do this, so when the air quality doesn't improve they will tighten up controls even more, and introduce even more complexity and expense.
    Last edited by cepheus; 27-02-2012 at 6:17 PM.
    • s b
    • By s b 27th Feb 12, 6:58 PM
    • 4,323 Posts
    • 2,348 Thanks
    s b
    If you are short of cash, drive and use less, that will save quite a bit. Personally I don't want to pay for others health bills due to the crap your car gives out.

    The reason Diesels are supposed to be cleaner nowadays is because they are fittted with emission control equipment and have advanced electronic management systems set up to reduce emissions.

    Perhaps you have missed the point of the thread, it is about removing emission control equipment and fiddling with the engine controls. That document doesn't seem to realise people do this, so when the air quality doesn't improve they will tighten up controls even more, and introduce even more complexity and expense.
    Originally posted by cepheus
    hi

    theres too many people and too many cars in this country so whats the point
    seriously
    we all know where its all going
    its just a matter of time
    • Invalidation
    • By Invalidation 28th Feb 12, 9:05 AM
    • 575 Posts
    • 620 Thanks
    Invalidation
    Hiya guys,

    I have a Mazda 6 turbo diesel and the DPF light and management light has come on, its a high miler 85k on a 57 plate, I have run over it 2000 rpm for quite a few miles and its not cleared with regeneration, and was wondering my next step with this.

    I was thinking of having it taken out and the ecu reprogrammed , but its expensive at about £500 , there are quite a few people selling snakeoil that claims all sort of things. The garages are saying thousands to replace the thing.

    Anyone got an alternative ? Thanks and Happy Christmas
    Originally posted by taffy056
    You cant simply remove it and not replace it due to the new MOT's coming in. It has to have original equipment

    Ive got a VW T4 with a decat tube and will have to have a particulate filter refitted as thats what it had originally
    The DWP = Legally kicking the Disabled when they are down.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,050Posts Today

8,090Users online

Martin's Twitter