MOT changes to be introduced in May following DPF investigation

New methods to better detect the presence of DPFs are under development, Department for Transport tells GW

MOT changes to be introduced in May following DPF investigation
Research to better detect DPF removal through emissions follows fears that the current MOT is failing to identify many cases of DPF removal because it only includes a ‘visual inspection’ of the hardware.

Changes are to be made to the MOT as part of a revised Roadworthiness Directive which comes into force from May 2017 and new technology is being developed to detect DPF removal.

In a statement obtained by GW, the Department for Transport (DfT) said: “Alternative methods of detecting the presence of particulate filters are under development and we are examining their suitability for use in an MOT.

“Further research is required to ensure potential methods accurately determine a pass or fail.”

The government investigation followed urgent calls for reform with claims that the current MOT is failing to identify many cases of DPF removal because it only includes a ‘visual inspection’ of the hardware, which can be welded back together.

It is an offence, under the Road Vehicles Regulations to use a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet.

The DfT said: “Removal of a DPF will almost invariably result in a contravention of the Regulations, making the vehicle illegal to use on the road.

“Potential penalties are £1,000 for a car and £2,500 for a van.

“The legislation makes the owner or user of the vehicle primarily responsible for its condition.

“Whether the person who had removed the DPF, or had offered to remove it, had also committed an offence would be a matter for the courts to decide.”

Speaking earlier this year, Dave Garratt, chief executive at the Garage Equipment Association (GEA), said: “[DPF removal] has been going on for a long time and it is probably getting progressively worse.

“The biggest hole in the MOT is that they don’t really check it.

“[Visual inspection] does not actually tell you if there is a core in the canister.”

Do you support calls for a DPF removal crackdown? How many cars have you failed during a test due to removal? Share your experiences and any concerns in the comments below.

255 Comments

  1. WITH THE COST OF A NEW DPF SO HIGH AND THE SYSTEMS SO PROBLEMATIC, DPF REMOVAL IS OFTEN THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE OTHER THAN WRITING THE VEHICLE OFF BECAUSE OF THE COST OF REPLACEMENT, MOST VEHICLES WILL STILL PASS THE EMISSIONS TEST EVEN AFTER REMOVAL, WHY DID THEY NOT INTRODUCE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF TEST IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THEY WERE THAT WORRIED, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE MOTORIST PAYING THE PRICE.

    Reply
    • Yes they are problematic but they are easy to fix. The problem is people don’t drive the car right then take it to a garage that hasn’t got a clue how they work, they can’t fix them so they recommend removal. Most faults are easy and relatively cheap. I’ve only had to replace 2 DPFs in 8 years.
      Conclusion:
      Get a better garage

      Reply
      • I agree, a dpf never fails, there is always a cause and garages don’t have a clue

        Reply
        • We have had vw’s,new Jaguars, audi where they will not regenerate as they are too blocked even with running a cleaner through they are the worse thing to have been invented to help with emissions.

          Reply
      • Well Mark, what about when the DPF fails, due to it being out of it’s service life, resulting in the insides of the DPF melting together, allowing no exhaust gases through at all! They physically melt, you can’t fix that, other than replace or remove! So it’s not all a simple fix at all!

        Cheap DPF’s are built of the same quality, so after a month they’re knackered, I’m sure people would pay a higher tax bracket if it meant getting rid of the DPF, I know I would!

        Reply
        • to be fair it all starts at the dealer. most DPF issues are due to short journeys in traffic, and the ECU not having a chance to carry out the regen cycle. These vehicle have been miss sold buy the salesman, a petrol, hybrid or electric would have been more suited to the customers driving habits

          Reply
        • I have a DPF filter and still pay the high tax bracket if i had brought a vehicle 1 year older (fitted with the same engine) it has no DPF and its cheeper tax

          Reply
        • I already pay the high tax bracket and have a dpf if my vehicle was 1 year older its the same engine same power output no dpf and lower tax bracket so what do you think i will do if my one fails

          Reply
      • I had DPF replaced on my car last year. The new one chucks out smoke every time it does a regen and loads of it! 3 mechanics have looked at it and none of them can tell me why it does it or stop it happening! £1000 cost for something that nobody knows how to fix and I’m not willing to pay any more. I totally get why people have them removed as I was very close to having it done myself.

        Reply
        • Thats what is supposed to happen, dof regen is a cleaning out as such so expect to see smoke during regen

          Reply
      • To say that customers take there cars to garages that do not have a clue is quite arrogant of you. And you say you have only changed 2 in 8 years, well I can only presume you don’t do many vehicles with DPFs on them. And DPFs can mask engine faults that customers would not realise they have a issue. Yes I agree if caught early enough there is lots of fault that can cause the DPF to block that are not to expensive but I’ve carried out lots of back pressure test to find the DPF to blocked.

        Reply
      • Parts of what you say are true But not all. For many motorists a dpf system is inadequate there’s many drivers that only ever do short runs in there cars without entering a motorway. So the filters get loaded with soot end up with aborted regen’s then some don’t take there car in to be looked at for ages only making the problem worse as a potential fire hazard if you carry out a forced regen.

        Reply
    • This is more about hurting the motorist in the pocket yet again.
      DPF’s are a poor design and do cost more to upkeep than a car without. They also cause alot of problems with the elderly who do only short low revving miles.
      I know of a guy who sued for his money back on a SEAT Leon that kept blocking and had to repeatedly return it to the dealer. The car was only a year old.
      What about the VAG scandal and the emissions being tampered with.
      All the road tax revenue that’s been lost, the mpg that’s wrong etc
      Let’s see VAG get sorted 1st.

      Reply
    • In all the years I have been working on VAG vehicles with a DPF I have had to fit ONE new one, all the others (I have no idea how many), have been cleaned and re-fitted with total success.

      Reply
  2. WITH THE COST OF A NEW DPF SO HIGH AND THE SYSTEMS SO PROBLEMATIC, DPF REMOVAL IS OFTEN THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE OTHER THAN WRITING THE VEHICLE OFF BECAUSE OF THE COST OF REPLACEMENT, MOST VEHICLES WILL STILL PASS THE EMISSIONS TEST EVEN AFTER REMOVAL, WHY DID THEY NOT INTRODUCE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF TEST IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THEY WERE THAT WORRIED, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE MOTORIST PAYING THE PRICE.

    Reply
    • Yes they are problematic but they are easy to fix. The problem is people don’t drive the car right then take it to a garage that hasn’t got a clue how they work, they can’t fix them so they recommend removal. Most faults are easy and relatively cheap. I’ve only had to replace 2 DPFs in 8 years.
      Conclusion:
      Get a better garage

      Reply
      • I agree, a dpf never fails, there is always a cause and garages don’t have a clue

        Reply
        • We have had vw’s,new Jaguars, audi where they will not regenerate as they are too blocked even with running a cleaner through they are the worse thing to have been invented to help with emissions.

          Reply
      • Well Mark, what about when the DPF fails, due to it being out of it’s service life, resulting in the insides of the DPF melting together, allowing no exhaust gases through at all! They physically melt, you can’t fix that, other than replace or remove! So it’s not all a simple fix at all!

        Cheap DPF’s are built of the same quality, so after a month they’re knackered, I’m sure people would pay a higher tax bracket if it meant getting rid of the DPF, I know I would!

        Reply
        • to be fair it all starts at the dealer. most DPF issues are due to short journeys in traffic, and the ECU not having a chance to carry out the regen cycle. These vehicle have been miss sold buy the salesman, a petrol, hybrid or electric would have been more suited to the customers driving habits

          Reply
        • I have a DPF filter and still pay the high tax bracket if i had brought a vehicle 1 year older (fitted with the same engine) it has no DPF and its cheeper tax

          Reply
        • I already pay the high tax bracket and have a dpf if my vehicle was 1 year older its the same engine same power output no dpf and lower tax bracket so what do you think i will do if my one fails

          Reply
      • I had DPF replaced on my car last year. The new one chucks out smoke every time it does a regen and loads of it! 3 mechanics have looked at it and none of them can tell me why it does it or stop it happening! £1000 cost for something that nobody knows how to fix and I’m not willing to pay any more. I totally get why people have them removed as I was very close to having it done myself.

        Reply
        • Thats what is supposed to happen, dof regen is a cleaning out as such so expect to see smoke during regen

          Reply
      • To say that customers take there cars to garages that do not have a clue is quite arrogant of you. And you say you have only changed 2 in 8 years, well I can only presume you don’t do many vehicles with DPFs on them. And DPFs can mask engine faults that customers would not realise they have a issue. Yes I agree if caught early enough there is lots of fault that can cause the DPF to block that are not to expensive but I’ve carried out lots of back pressure test to find the DPF to blocked.

        Reply
      • Parts of what you say are true But not all. For many motorists a dpf system is inadequate there’s many drivers that only ever do short runs in there cars without entering a motorway. So the filters get loaded with soot end up with aborted regen’s then some don’t take there car in to be looked at for ages only making the problem worse as a potential fire hazard if you carry out a forced regen.

        Reply
    • This is more about hurting the motorist in the pocket yet again.
      DPF’s are a poor design and do cost more to upkeep than a car without. They also cause alot of problems with the elderly who do only short low revving miles.
      I know of a guy who sued for his money back on a SEAT Leon that kept blocking and had to repeatedly return it to the dealer. The car was only a year old.
      What about the VAG scandal and the emissions being tampered with.
      All the road tax revenue that’s been lost, the mpg that’s wrong etc
      Let’s see VAG get sorted 1st.

      Reply
    • In all the years I have been working on VAG vehicles with a DPF I have had to fit ONE new one, all the others (I have no idea how many), have been cleaned and re-fitted with total success.

      Reply
  3. I agree with the DfT concerns that this item is removed and that, at present there is no reliable way of checking for the DPF’s core presence. What is a concern that if the current MOT testing stations are required to invest in new equipment or upgrade old equipment to assess the DPF’s presence then they will need to look at the current MOT cost and, more importantly, the MOT stations that use this as a loss leader and price the test way below what it should be.

    The DfT also need to look closely at garages and tech’s that remove the DPF and come down hard on this practice.

    Remember this bad practice this affects everyone’s health and it is very short sightedness in the long run.

    regards

    Stewart Cumming

    Reply
    • How can an emissions device which reduces fuel economy be less damaging to health and the environment ,surely using extra fuel is more harmful to the environment, in my experience they block too easily when vehicles are primarily used for town work ,we run a new transit custom and in three years has had a forced regeneration twice not bad for 30,000 miles, they’re cr*p and an alternative needs to be found so people won’t need to remove them, or is it just easier to fine people ?

      Reply
      • Hello Dave. The DPF when operating correctly does not increase your fuel consumption. When they begin to saturate, they need to reach a high temperature to self clean. This takes a little extra fuel but is not harmful to humans or the environment because it emits CO2, not soot.

        Reply
        • On regen they still produce soot and lots of it!!
          That’s the black stuff that comes out lol
          The dpf set up is a very poor design
          When india with 1.7 billion people stop using fossil fuels as a primary energy source we might make a dent in emissions issues globally until then its a money maker.
          Every time a jet flys over it makes a mockery of any emissions controls for our cars.

          Reply
  4. I agree with the DfT concerns that this item is removed and that, at present there is no reliable way of checking for the DPF’s core presence. What is a concern that if the current MOT testing stations are required to invest in new equipment or upgrade old equipment to assess the DPF’s presence then they will need to look at the current MOT cost and, more importantly, the MOT stations that use this as a loss leader and price the test way below what it should be.

    The DfT also need to look closely at garages and tech’s that remove the DPF and come down hard on this practice.

    Remember this bad practice this affects everyone’s health and it is very short sightedness in the long run.

    regards

    Stewart Cumming

    Reply
    • How can an emissions device which reduces fuel economy be less damaging to health and the environment ,surely using extra fuel is more harmful to the environment, in my experience they block too easily when vehicles are primarily used for town work ,we run a new transit custom and in three years has had a forced regeneration twice not bad for 30,000 miles, they’re cr*p and an alternative needs to be found so people won’t need to remove them, or is it just easier to fine people ?

      Reply
      • Hello Dave. The DPF when operating correctly does not increase your fuel consumption. When they begin to saturate, they need to reach a high temperature to self clean. This takes a little extra fuel but is not harmful to humans or the environment because it emits CO2, not soot.

        Reply
        • On regen they still produce soot and lots of it!!
          That’s the black stuff that comes out lol
          The dpf set up is a very poor design
          When india with 1.7 billion people stop using fossil fuels as a primary energy source we might make a dent in emissions issues globally until then its a money maker.
          Every time a jet flys over it makes a mockery of any emissions controls for our cars.

          Reply
  5. Yet another way to rip us off dont they take enough from us as it is, rob the poor feed the rich yet again.

    Reply
    • I DO AGREE WITH mr cassidy of being ripped off and garage who don’t have a clue so to solve the problem of the dpf diesels , diesel owners of cars pay £6000 road tax with £5000 to be given to cancer research to find the answer of us getting cancer and solving it just like the dpf is doing and people who cut them out mmmmmmmmm attempted
      murder because diesels are killing me

      Reply
  6. Yet another way to rip us off dont they take enough from us as it is, rob the poor feed the rich yet again.

    Reply
    • I DO AGREE WITH mr cassidy of being ripped off and garage who don’t have a clue so to solve the problem of the dpf diesels , diesel owners of cars pay £6000 road tax with £5000 to be given to cancer research to find the answer of us getting cancer and solving it just like the dpf is doing and people who cut them out mmmmmmmmm attempted
      murder because diesels are killing me

      Reply
  7. Removal is not the only option , you can get the filter professionally cleaned weather it’s soot or ash.

    Reply
    • and how many times must i have the stupid thing cleaned ? they are a terrible design

      Reply
  8. Removal is not the only option , you can get the filter professionally cleaned weather it’s soot or ash.

    Reply
    • and how many times must i have the stupid thing cleaned ? they are a terrible design

      Reply
  9. Agreed with Trev, how can the government turn around And tell people “it was illegal to remove your DPF” when at the time there was nothing in place to prevent it, I haven’t problem with measures being taken to prevent future DPF removal, such as a start date for DPF’s to be mandatory, such as catalytic converters in the 90’s, but for the vast majority of owners with a DPF removed vehicle many of them was not to know, by this sort of rule people would be fined for smoking in pubs before the smoking ban was put in place

    Reply
  10. Agreed with Trev, how can the government turn around And tell people “it was illegal to remove your DPF” when at the time there was nothing in place to prevent it, I haven’t problem with measures being taken to prevent future DPF removal, such as a start date for DPF’s to be mandatory, such as catalytic converters in the 90’s, but for the vast majority of owners with a DPF removed vehicle many of them was not to know, by this sort of rule people would be fined for smoking in pubs before the smoking ban was put in place

    Reply
  11. If there are to be legal consequences for using a vehicle on the road that has had it’s DPF removed, and additional legal consequences for the people who remove them, then lets have a level and fair playing field. There should also be legal consequences for designers and manufacturers for making money out of flawed, under manufactured and over priced DPF systems. It’s these failings that are forcing people to have DPF’s removed. Take away the recurring failures and excessive repair costs and the problem will evaporate. So, rather that spending £££ on legislation and prosecuting the vehicle owners ( the real victims ) make the designers and manufacturers responsible for the systems they supply. Simple. Rant over.

    Reply
    • Completely agree

      Reply
  12. If there are to be legal consequences for using a vehicle on the road that has had it’s DPF removed, and additional legal consequences for the people who remove them, then lets have a level and fair playing field. There should also be legal consequences for designers and manufacturers for making money out of flawed, under manufactured and over priced DPF systems. It’s these failings that are forcing people to have DPF’s removed. Take away the recurring failures and excessive repair costs and the problem will evaporate. So, rather that spending £££ on legislation and prosecuting the vehicle owners ( the real victims ) make the designers and manufacturers responsible for the systems they supply. Simple. Rant over.

    Reply
    • Completely agree

      Reply
  13. In that case what if you were to buy a car second hand that had already had a dpf removal would that make you liable as how do I know my car hasn’t had the modifications? I don’t know of mine has or not. Also didn’t they bring in mandatory dpf as of 2009 on all diesels?

    Reply
  14. In that case what if you were to buy a car second hand that had already had a dpf removal would that make you liable as how do I know my car hasn’t had the modifications? I don’t know of mine has or not. Also didn’t they bring in mandatory dpf as of 2009 on all diesels?

    Reply
  15. TREV REALLY SHOWS WHAT IS WRONG. IF YOU ARE DOING LOTS OF SHORT JOURNEYS DON’T BUY A DIESEL.VERY RARELY DOES A DPF NEED REPLACING. IF IT IS BLOCKING THERE IS ALWAYS A REASON BEHIND IT. PEOPLE ARE DYING AND SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THE POLUTION. MODERN CARS COST! IF YOU ARE NOTPREPARED TO PAYS BUY A BIKE

    Reply
    • ‘If your only do small distances your in the wrong vehical get a petrol..
      Find me a petrol transit and we will talk. There are very few petrol vans to choose from.

      Reply
  16. TREV REALLY SHOWS WHAT IS WRONG. IF YOU ARE DOING LOTS OF SHORT JOURNEYS DON’T BUY A DIESEL.VERY RARELY DOES A DPF NEED REPLACING. IF IT IS BLOCKING THERE IS ALWAYS A REASON BEHIND IT. PEOPLE ARE DYING AND SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THE POLUTION. MODERN CARS COST! IF YOU ARE NOTPREPARED TO PAYS BUY A BIKE

    Reply
    • ‘If your only do small distances your in the wrong vehical get a petrol..
      Find me a petrol transit and we will talk. There are very few petrol vans to choose from.

      Reply
  17. Most dpf faults are caused by the owners. Not letting it regen when it needs to is the biggest cause of a blockage or even engine failure. Let it do what it needs to and 99% of dpf faults will be eradicated

    Reply
    • The majority of people still don’t know about dpf’s and such like and I find them worse than a car without a dpf

      Reply
    • I’m an owner and drive diesel vans – what is this “regen” thing that you are talking about? If owners knew what we had to do we would do it!

      Reply
      • Read your owners manual.

        Reply
  18. Most dpf faults are caused by the owners. Not letting it regen when it needs to is the biggest cause of a blockage or even engine failure. Let it do what it needs to and 99% of dpf faults will be eradicated

    Reply
    • The majority of people still don’t know about dpf’s and such like and I find them worse than a car without a dpf

      Reply
    • I’m an owner and drive diesel vans – what is this “regen” thing that you are talking about? If owners knew what we had to do we would do it!

      Reply
      • Read your owners manual.

        Reply
  19. DPF’s can be cleaned for a fraction of the cost to replace. This should be done at every service. It should be illegal to remove the dpf from a vehicle, The garage owner as well as the driver should be held responsible for removal.

    Reply
    • Hi Nick, making DPF cleaning part of a regular ‘service’ has other problems to consider. Firstly all service items are optional. There is no legislation to enforce someone to have their vehicle serviced.
      Then there is the cost of cleaning which ranges anywhere between £80 and £150. I can’t see many owners having this ‘optional’ service item being done bearing in mind how difficult it can be to justify a cheap item like a wiper blade to some people.
      So cleaning would have to be part of the MOT ? but even then there is still the cost issue to the owner and the garage.

      In general DPF’s don’t work properly across the whole range of vehicle driving scenarios. In addition to that the aftermarket parts sector sells DPF’s that do not perform to OE spec despite them saying they can ( as well as many other components ) which also needs addressing, but that’s another story.
      Also I suspect having to complete a DPF driving cycle every few hundred miles isn’t something that was discussed when most town based people where handing over their £££ at the dealerships who were under pressure to make quota. As I said before i believe this is a designer/manufacturer failure and they should be picking up the pieces of this mess as they are the ones who have ( and still are ) making money from it.

      Reply
      • Hi, not sure I agree with you manufacturer making money on DPF. Why would they want this on their car to start with, it’s not helping performance or economy. Fact is they have to abide by the Euro emissions hence why all these stupid things are fitted….no different to EGR’s really, not really required but added to get around emissions normally until another better engine is designed. If the euro emissions keep going as they are, diesels will disappear as won’t be worth the cost of research. Probably why manufacturer are going down the electric route, but these will cost fortune to buy and maintain, never mind the fact electric isn’t environmentally friendly anyway.

        Reply
        • Hi Anonymous 🙂
          I agree with a lot of what you say, the MFRs are forced to comply with legislation and it’s not their choice as such but at the end of the day they aren’t a non profit organisation so are making money even though they are ‘forced’ to supply these systems. Compare that to MOT’s being mandatory, the garages have to tool up and provide the service at a cost and they do still manage to make a small profit doing this. The difference is the MOT price is capped by VOSA, which keeps it sensible. DPF parts and repairs are not capped so the MFR can charge what they like for a MANDATORY item ?? You think that’s ok ? To sell something that is required by law at whatever price they want whether it works properly or not ? I don’t think that’s fair on the motorist.
          My point is if DPF’s are going to be legally required (and removing them made criminal) then the designers/manufacturers should also have consequences.
          Your spot on regarding diesels becoming extinct, high pressure petrol injection and electric is the future.

          Reply
  20. DPF’s can be cleaned for a fraction of the cost to replace. This should be done at every service. It should be illegal to remove the dpf from a vehicle, The garage owner as well as the driver should be held responsible for removal.

    Reply
    • Hi Nick, making DPF cleaning part of a regular ‘service’ has other problems to consider. Firstly all service items are optional. There is no legislation to enforce someone to have their vehicle serviced.
      Then there is the cost of cleaning which ranges anywhere between £80 and £150. I can’t see many owners having this ‘optional’ service item being done bearing in mind how difficult it can be to justify a cheap item like a wiper blade to some people.
      So cleaning would have to be part of the MOT ? but even then there is still the cost issue to the owner and the garage.

      In general DPF’s don’t work properly across the whole range of vehicle driving scenarios. In addition to that the aftermarket parts sector sells DPF’s that do not perform to OE spec despite them saying they can ( as well as many other components ) which also needs addressing, but that’s another story.
      Also I suspect having to complete a DPF driving cycle every few hundred miles isn’t something that was discussed when most town based people where handing over their £££ at the dealerships who were under pressure to make quota. As I said before i believe this is a designer/manufacturer failure and they should be picking up the pieces of this mess as they are the ones who have ( and still are ) making money from it.

      Reply
      • Hi, not sure I agree with you manufacturer making money on DPF. Why would they want this on their car to start with, it’s not helping performance or economy. Fact is they have to abide by the Euro emissions hence why all these stupid things are fitted….no different to EGR’s really, not really required but added to get around emissions normally until another better engine is designed. If the euro emissions keep going as they are, diesels will disappear as won’t be worth the cost of research. Probably why manufacturer are going down the electric route, but these will cost fortune to buy and maintain, never mind the fact electric isn’t environmentally friendly anyway.

        Reply
        • Hi Anonymous 🙂
          I agree with a lot of what you say, the MFRs are forced to comply with legislation and it’s not their choice as such but at the end of the day they aren’t a non profit organisation so are making money even though they are ‘forced’ to supply these systems. Compare that to MOT’s being mandatory, the garages have to tool up and provide the service at a cost and they do still manage to make a small profit doing this. The difference is the MOT price is capped by VOSA, which keeps it sensible. DPF parts and repairs are not capped so the MFR can charge what they like for a MANDATORY item ?? You think that’s ok ? To sell something that is required by law at whatever price they want whether it works properly or not ? I don’t think that’s fair on the motorist.
          My point is if DPF’s are going to be legally required (and removing them made criminal) then the designers/manufacturers should also have consequences.
          Your spot on regarding diesels becoming extinct, high pressure petrol injection and electric is the future.

          Reply
  21. A welded dpf doesn’t necessarily mean the core has been removed, and that’s problem with a visual check, current welding practices can effect an almost seamless and perfect weld. So some improved inspection, testing clarification is required.

    Reply
  22. A welded dpf doesn’t necessarily mean the core has been removed, and that’s problem with a visual check, current welding practices can effect an almost seamless and perfect weld. So some improved inspection, testing clarification is required.

    Reply
  23. The whole MOT thing is a rip off. Basic brakes, steering and lights are all that need testing.

    Reply
    • It’s strict mot tests that keep people like you safe

      Reply
  24. The whole MOT thing is a rip off. Basic brakes, steering and lights are all that need testing.

    Reply
    • It’s strict mot tests that keep people like you safe

      Reply
  25. All these emission Control methods are flawed. Anyone who believes they actually reduce long term pollution without questioning is deluded. The carbon footprint of an older car used for 20yrs is less than the throw away cars of today. The article also states it’s an offence for a vehicle to be altered in a way that it does not produce the pollution levels it was design for yet the mot test itself makes allowances for this feature if an older engine it fitted to a newer car. Go figure.

    Reply
  26. All these emission Control methods are flawed. Anyone who believes they actually reduce long term pollution without questioning is deluded. The carbon footprint of an older car used for 20yrs is less than the throw away cars of today. The article also states it’s an offence for a vehicle to be altered in a way that it does not produce the pollution levels it was design for yet the mot test itself makes allowances for this feature if an older engine it fitted to a newer car. Go figure.

    Reply
  27. There should be a debate as to Wether the DPF is the only option, there doesn’t seem to be enough scientific evidence that this is THE most efficient solution.Catch all the harmful pollutants in a filter and while that’s happening increase engine wear through back pressure increase ,therefore increasing oil consumption which in turn reduces engine efficiency , oh and then just heat the filter up and burn the toxins away, there’s got to be a more intelligent way !

    Reply
    • There is another way. SCR technology has been used on Heavy goods vehicles for 10 years. No DPFs. And the emissions are lower. Biggest problem there is that you have to have 2 tanks. One for diesel and one for AdBlue. So effectively you are paying more at the pump. £120 per litre for diesel and another 50p per litre for AdBlue. The tax would have to be nullified on AdBlue for any real benefit, but based on the miles an individual does it could be more cost effective than a DPF

      Which poses another problem its Bad enough professional drivers putting them in the wrong tanks without Joe Public doing the same.

      Reply
      • Most current euro 6 trucks do have a dpf fitted, it’s only iveco that don’t at present. I work at volvo trucks and spend a lot of time repairing these systems, they only seem to work correctly on long haul applications. Storing up the soot until you need a regeneration I question the extra fuel being pumped in to superheated the system, has anyone checked the emissions at that point and let’s not forget the vw scandal, it did not even work correctly from new, I run a petrol car these days and our other car in the future will be a petrol.

        Reply
  28. There should be a debate as to Wether the DPF is the only option, there doesn’t seem to be enough scientific evidence that this is THE most efficient solution.Catch all the harmful pollutants in a filter and while that’s happening increase engine wear through back pressure increase ,therefore increasing oil consumption which in turn reduces engine efficiency , oh and then just heat the filter up and burn the toxins away, there’s got to be a more intelligent way !

    Reply
    • There is another way. SCR technology has been used on Heavy goods vehicles for 10 years. No DPFs. And the emissions are lower. Biggest problem there is that you have to have 2 tanks. One for diesel and one for AdBlue. So effectively you are paying more at the pump. £120 per litre for diesel and another 50p per litre for AdBlue. The tax would have to be nullified on AdBlue for any real benefit, but based on the miles an individual does it could be more cost effective than a DPF

      Which poses another problem its Bad enough professional drivers putting them in the wrong tanks without Joe Public doing the same.

      Reply
      • Most current euro 6 trucks do have a dpf fitted, it’s only iveco that don’t at present. I work at volvo trucks and spend a lot of time repairing these systems, they only seem to work correctly on long haul applications. Storing up the soot until you need a regeneration I question the extra fuel being pumped in to superheated the system, has anyone checked the emissions at that point and let’s not forget the vw scandal, it did not even work correctly from new, I run a petrol car these days and our other car in the future will be a petrol.

        Reply
      • I work on HGV and specifically Adblue systems and they all have a particle filter, these systems are riddled with faults and on HGVs. It’s not very often the dpf is to blame it is the Adblue injection system that causes no end of problems.

        Reply
  29. I think it’s a big con they want all this stuff to make a car run clean but penalise the drivers with massive repair bills when they go wrong and they wonder why they take them off! I know I would. Government ripping of the public that’s what it is !

    Reply
  30. I think it’s a big con they want all this stuff to make a car run clean but penalise the drivers with massive repair bills when they go wrong and they wonder why they take them off! I know I would. Government ripping of the public that’s what it is !

    Reply
  31. The first time you need to replace a dpf negates all fuel cost savings……just buy a petrol 🙂

    Reply
    • Not when you do 35k a year!!!!

      Reply
  32. The first time you need to replace a dpf negates all fuel cost savings……just buy a petrol 🙂

    Reply
    • Not when you do 35k a year!!!!

      Reply
  33. So when you buy a second hand car how do you know if it’s had its dpf removed and who is liable seller or buyer?

    Reply
  34. So when you buy a second hand car how do you know if it’s had its dpf removed and who is liable seller or buyer?

    Reply
  35. Doesn’t matter what you do people will always find a way round it

    Reply
  36. Doesn’t matter what you do people will always find a way round it

    Reply
  37. Having been a MOT tester and master tech for the past 16 year I can confidently say the DPF system might be good for the environment but one of the most expensive issues for a customer , agreed you can TRY and regenerate the DPF system if you are one of the few lucky ones it might work for a short while , the avg cost to replace a DPF system is above £500 the avg cost for a customer to have it taking off is £200 , from a customer point of view is a no brainer , government need to go to the manufacturers and tell them to design a more efficient system instead of punishing the customer or the garage for trying to help the customer for putting the car back on the road at a price they can afford

    Reply
  38. Having been a MOT tester and master tech for the past 16 year I can confidently say the DPF system might be good for the environment but one of the most expensive issues for a customer , agreed you can TRY and regenerate the DPF system if you are one of the few lucky ones it might work for a short while , the avg cost to replace a DPF system is above £500 the avg cost for a customer to have it taking off is £200 , from a customer point of view is a no brainer , government need to go to the manufacturers and tell them to design a more efficient system instead of punishing the customer or the garage for trying to help the customer for putting the car back on the road at a price they can afford

    Reply
  39. All they do is store the particles until the car is on the open road and then burn them off, they’re not a system to prevent or reduce emissions, they just hold them for a period of time and then get rid of them. So what’s the point? most of them burn off by using more fuel again making the emissions worse. The entire system is designed to fail making the car owner fork out for the fix. If you want to solve the problem then make it a serviceable item, something you can open up, change the filter and close again. People are always going to remove them, the same way petrol car owners still remove their cats.

    Reply
    • Burn Matt? Incorrect, the correct word is ‘incinerate’
      The soot is incinerated therefore how does it go out of the exhaust? It is no longer there? The small amount of fuel used has a minute increase on CO2 emissions, not soot.

      Reply
  40. All they do is store the particles until the car is on the open road and then burn them off, they’re not a system to prevent or reduce emissions, they just hold them for a period of time and then get rid of them. So what’s the point? most of them burn off by using more fuel again making the emissions worse. The entire system is designed to fail making the car owner fork out for the fix. If you want to solve the problem then make it a serviceable item, something you can open up, change the filter and close again. People are always going to remove them, the same way petrol car owners still remove their cats.

    Reply
    • Burn Matt? Incorrect, the correct word is ‘incinerate’
      The soot is incinerated therefore how does it go out of the exhaust? It is no longer there? The small amount of fuel used has a minute increase on CO2 emissions, not soot.

      Reply
  41. Dpf or not it makes no odds as the emissions dont really change, so its pointless

    Reply
  42. Dpf or not it makes no odds as the emissions dont really change, so its pointless

    Reply
  43. what about people that have got a car that had it taken off before you got it how much will it cost to have 1 fitted again as to me there is no difference with it on or off as we have 2 focus

    Reply
  44. what about people that have got a car that had it taken off before you got it how much will it cost to have 1 fitted again as to me there is no difference with it on or off as we have 2 focus

    Reply
  45. I do like the hand wringing from those proclaiming dpf removal and the pollution is killing people whilst there’s no mention of the diesel car being a big problem, ban the filthy oil burners altogether, if not don’t worry about a few dpf’s being removed lol

    Reply
    • And then let’s just rely on petrol cars with catalytic converters that a by product of is green house gasses how about we all start cycling instead

      Reply
  46. I do like the hand wringing from those proclaiming dpf removal and the pollution is killing people whilst there’s no mention of the diesel car being a big problem, ban the filthy oil burners altogether, if not don’t worry about a few dpf’s being removed lol

    Reply
    • And then let’s just rely on petrol cars with catalytic converters that a by product of is green house gasses how about we all start cycling instead

      Reply
  47. Seriously, we remove and delete the DPF for customers when they come to us after spending in some cases over £1000 on fixing and replacing, yes there are systems around the DPF that can fail causing it it to block up and yes these can be fixed but when it hits this point it is mostly to late for the DPF, also when blocked massive back pressure puts huge strain on the turbo and we have seen turbo failures as a result! Saying get a bike, buy a petrol is all well and good in a perfect world but we don’t live in one, fact, DPF’s are flawed and are wildly expensive, Fact Diesel engines are so clean these days this negates the need for a DPF, when a DPF is doing a regen do you seriously think what is coming out of the exhaust is completely harmless!?!?! Come on people use your brain would you put your mouth over an exhaust and breath these “harmless gasses” as a DPF is regenerating!?!?!? Just let people get on with it its been 7years of DPF’s and 50+ years of diesels so really when was the harm done? The very small percentage of DPF’s being removed or all the other smoke producing older cars and busses and lorrys etc etc! DPF’s use extra fuel to heat up so less economy more oil being used producing more fuel! Let it go WE ARE NOT GOING TO DIE because a very very small percentage of DPF’s have been and will be removed!

    Reply
    • I completely agree with you. DPF’s are designed to catch soot. That means they’re designed to get blocked. That means they’re designed to fail at some point. Anyone saying they’ll never get blocked when driven correctly etc is not looking at the complete picture. I’ve seen vehicles without problematic DPF’s fail MOT’s just as i’ve seen vehicles with DPF’s removed pass MOTs. And this leads me to question the true effectiveness of DPFs in achieving what they’re designed to achieve… particularly when trucks don’t have DPF’s and have alternative systems in place. In my opinion DPFs are parts designed to appease politicians, they’re not designed to truly achieve the policy maker’s objectives. It’s more a case of let’s be seen to be green rather than actually being green… and where do DPF’s mostly regenerate? When exhaust temps are up which is typically on A roads, B roads or motorways which mean’s they’re regenerating in the countryside… so they’re stopping pollution in the cities and dumping it in the countryside… to me that’s just hypocritical. It strikes me policy makers are taking the band aid approach for their policy rather than actually looking at the motorists needs, environmental impact of DPFs as a whole and in general taking a truly objective approach to such a touchy subject

      Reply
      • DPF’s reduce soot. When regenerating, they still reduce soot. They are a filter and filter soot is all they do, they do not empty their soot capacity in the countryside.

        Reply
  48. Seriously, we remove and delete the DPF for customers when they come to us after spending in some cases over £1000 on fixing and replacing, yes there are systems around the DPF that can fail causing it it to block up and yes these can be fixed but when it hits this point it is mostly to late for the DPF, also when blocked massive back pressure puts huge strain on the turbo and we have seen turbo failures as a result! Saying get a bike, buy a petrol is all well and good in a perfect world but we don’t live in one, fact, DPF’s are flawed and are wildly expensive, Fact Diesel engines are so clean these days this negates the need for a DPF, when a DPF is doing a regen do you seriously think what is coming out of the exhaust is completely harmless!?!?! Come on people use your brain would you put your mouth over an exhaust and breath these “harmless gasses” as a DPF is regenerating!?!?!? Just let people get on with it its been 7years of DPF’s and 50+ years of diesels so really when was the harm done? The very small percentage of DPF’s being removed or all the other smoke producing older cars and busses and lorrys etc etc! DPF’s use extra fuel to heat up so less economy more oil being used producing more fuel! Let it go WE ARE NOT GOING TO DIE because a very very small percentage of DPF’s have been and will be removed!

    Reply
    • I completely agree with you. DPF’s are designed to catch soot. That means they’re designed to get blocked. That means they’re designed to fail at some point. Anyone saying they’ll never get blocked when driven correctly etc is not looking at the complete picture. I’ve seen vehicles without problematic DPF’s fail MOT’s just as i’ve seen vehicles with DPF’s removed pass MOTs. And this leads me to question the true effectiveness of DPFs in achieving what they’re designed to achieve… particularly when trucks don’t have DPF’s and have alternative systems in place. In my opinion DPFs are parts designed to appease politicians, they’re not designed to truly achieve the policy maker’s objectives. It’s more a case of let’s be seen to be green rather than actually being green… and where do DPF’s mostly regenerate? When exhaust temps are up which is typically on A roads, B roads or motorways which mean’s they’re regenerating in the countryside… so they’re stopping pollution in the cities and dumping it in the countryside… to me that’s just hypocritical. It strikes me policy makers are taking the band aid approach for their policy rather than actually looking at the motorists needs, environmental impact of DPFs as a whole and in general taking a truly objective approach to such a touchy subject

      Reply
      • DPF’s reduce soot. When regenerating, they still reduce soot. They are a filter and filter soot is all they do, they do not empty their soot capacity in the countryside.

        Reply
  49. Simple answer buy an older car. balls to all this new stuff.

    Reply
  50. Simple answer buy an older car. balls to all this new stuff.

    Reply
  51. A dpf if used and maintained correctly doesn’t go wrong, i.e. people driving with the eml light on, not servicing their vehicles properly (resetting the light) using wrong / poor quality oils. Cars / vans are offered with and without a dpf people choose them because they are cheap on tax but don’t read the book that comes with the car, I’ve never had to replace a dpf since they came out and I work on at least one dpf equipped car a day, and with regards to them wearing out I have a pug 407sw on the books and that has a lifespan of 78,000 miles but the cars done over 250,000 still on its original dpf and working perfectly if you look after something it will last.

    Reply
  52. A dpf if used and maintained correctly doesn’t go wrong, i.e. people driving with the eml light on, not servicing their vehicles properly (resetting the light) using wrong / poor quality oils. Cars / vans are offered with and without a dpf people choose them because they are cheap on tax but don’t read the book that comes with the car, I’ve never had to replace a dpf since they came out and I work on at least one dpf equipped car a day, and with regards to them wearing out I have a pug 407sw on the books and that has a lifespan of 78,000 miles but the cars done over 250,000 still on its original dpf and working perfectly if you look after something it will last.

    Reply
  53. MOT was never intended to ‘rip off’ anyone it is just to check basic maintenance is carried out and in this sort of instance vehicle basically complies with original approval. My opinion is that you need not ‘fear’ test if you care for your vehicle!!

    Reply
  54. MOT was never intended to ‘rip off’ anyone it is just to check basic maintenance is carried out and in this sort of instance vehicle basically complies with original approval. My opinion is that you need not ‘fear’ test if you care for your vehicle!!

    Reply
  55. After a certain age the cost of repair for DPF issues will out weigh the price of the car, and there are a lot of people that can’t afford to replace a car for the issues of a DPF fault, maybe the over paid government office dwellers need to see what its like to be on the poor side of owning a motor vehicle.
    australia and south africa don’t have to have them, due to failing issues and arid area which can cause fires. Lets wake up britain and look at our own pockets for a while rather than being scared of good doers and brussels

    Reply
  56. After a certain age the cost of repair for DPF issues will out weigh the price of the car, and there are a lot of people that can’t afford to replace a car for the issues of a DPF fault, maybe the over paid government office dwellers need to see what its like to be on the poor side of owning a motor vehicle.
    australia and south africa don’t have to have them, due to failing issues and arid area which can cause fires. Lets wake up britain and look at our own pockets for a while rather than being scared of good doers and brussels

    Reply
  57. I think the penalty should be harsh if you have the dpf removed, like a £5000 fine or your driving licence revoked. Too many people in this country think it’s their right to drive when it’s really a privilege. If you can’t afford to run a modern diesel then get off the road buy a bicycle and free some space up for us that can.

    Reply
  58. I think the penalty should be harsh if you have the dpf removed, like a £5000 fine or your driving licence revoked. Too many people in this country think it’s their right to drive when it’s really a privilege. If you can’t afford to run a modern diesel then get off the road buy a bicycle and free some space up for us that can.

    Reply
  59. What a horrible costly design for the car owner. As soon as I buy a diesel I have the dpf ripped out immediately, causes nothing but headaches. Lots of garages doing removal for a worthwhile price, sure to hope these garage will sort a workaround to get around these new tests if they come in. They have my support. #FreeThaDPF

    Reply
  60. What a horrible costly design for the car owner. As soon as I buy a diesel I have the dpf ripped out immediately, causes nothing but headaches. Lots of garages doing removal for a worthwhile price, sure to hope these garage will sort a workaround to get around these new tests if they come in. They have my support. #FreeThaDPF

    Reply
  61. If the removal is done right and is remapped it still makes the vehicle emissions within the law it’s just another stealth tax against the motorist

    Reply
  62. If the removal is done right and is remapped it still makes the vehicle emissions within the law it’s just another stealth tax against the motorist

    Reply
  63. DPF’s are fitted for a reason, particle matter from diesel exhaust fumes is carcinogenic and responsible for causing cancer. You might think twice if you thought for a minute that one of your family died because you choose to have your DPF removed instead of having the problem diagnosed properly, always remember a blocked DPF is the victim of another issue and DPF removal is just bypassing the issue not fixing it.

    Reply
    • Funny you should say that carcinogenic materials are found in nearly every thing we use did you know that no you probably didn’t cars with dpf’s fail more mot’s where I work because they are a bad fix to a problem that DID NOT EXIST where as there are a few that always pass strangly because they have had them removed and software deleated and the emissions are lower than the same vehicle with a dpf

      Reply
  64. DPF’s are fitted for a reason, particle matter from diesel exhaust fumes is carcinogenic and responsible for causing cancer. You might think twice if you thought for a minute that one of your family died because you choose to have your DPF removed instead of having the problem diagnosed properly, always remember a blocked DPF is the victim of another issue and DPF removal is just bypassing the issue not fixing it.

    Reply
    • Funny you should say that carcinogenic materials are found in nearly every thing we use did you know that no you probably didn’t cars with dpf’s fail more mot’s where I work because they are a bad fix to a problem that DID NOT EXIST where as there are a few that always pass strangly because they have had them removed and software deleated and the emissions are lower than the same vehicle with a dpf

      Reply
  65. People should be taught how to drive diesels with a dpf fitted and make people more aware of consequences and costs, as said above they should be cleaned on an annual service, but people are so dumb these days they get in and drive not even worrying about basic service items air filter, oil change etc, but blame the car manufacturer when things go wrong. I do agree that with the amount of technology and science I think something else could be thought up to help reduce emissions, or maybe the dpf manufacturers should be held partly responsible. maybe dealers selling diesel cars should ask a question like what kind of milage would you do and use the car for tootling to shop once a day is no good for a diesel so shouldn’t sell them one.

    Reply
  66. People should be taught how to drive diesels with a dpf fitted and make people more aware of consequences and costs, as said above they should be cleaned on an annual service, but people are so dumb these days they get in and drive not even worrying about basic service items air filter, oil change etc, but blame the car manufacturer when things go wrong. I do agree that with the amount of technology and science I think something else could be thought up to help reduce emissions, or maybe the dpf manufacturers should be held partly responsible. maybe dealers selling diesel cars should ask a question like what kind of milage would you do and use the car for tootling to shop once a day is no good for a diesel so shouldn’t sell them one.

    Reply
  67. Yeah because everyone drives daily on roads long enough to do a dpf regeneration

    Reply
  68. Yeah because everyone drives daily on roads long enough to do a dpf regeneration

    Reply
  69. If it passes the emissions test on the MOT, what’s the problem, whether it’s there or not.

    Reply
  70. If it passes the emissions test on the MOT, what’s the problem, whether it’s there or not.

    Reply
  71. I’m confused. If the DPF doesn’t go through its regular regen then it gets blocked eventually ???
    So if a DPF gets 45 min of continuous driving every now and again it does not get blocked.?
    Where do the so called bad emissions / particles go ??
    MAGIC ????

    Reply
    • Its called incineration. DPF’s catch soot particles and then incinerate them.

      Reply
      • It’s still carbon it does not magically dissapear!
        Its stored then released under a further burn
        The soot is still then released

        Reply
  72. I’m confused. If the DPF doesn’t go through its regular regen then it gets blocked eventually ???
    So if a DPF gets 45 min of continuous driving every now and again it does not get blocked.?
    Where do the so called bad emissions / particles go ??
    MAGIC ????

    Reply
    • Its called incineration. DPF’s catch soot particles and then incinerate them.

      Reply
      • It’s still carbon it does not magically dissapear!
        Its stored then released under a further burn
        The soot is still then released

        Reply
  73. It’s about time that everyone realises that diesels are not the answer. Car manufacturers are not wrong which is why we are seeing a lot of small cc turbo petrol engines. The main issue is that the government / eu were targeting CO2 where as a diesel pumps out loads of other noxious stuff.

    Reply
  74. It’s about time that everyone realises that diesels are not the answer. Car manufacturers are not wrong which is why we are seeing a lot of small cc turbo petrol engines. The main issue is that the government / eu were targeting CO2 where as a diesel pumps out loads of other noxious stuff.

    Reply
  75. So when you buy a car that is to be used for a mix of town driving and long journeys it would be fair to assume that you would be told at the time of the sale about the DPF and the effect it will have given the mix of driving. No mention though was made ’til we went in and asked why we were only getting 250/300 miles to a tank of diesel (70 lt)! ‘Oh you need to let it regen, get on the motorway drive for 15 miles in 5th gear at 70 mph, get off at the closest junction then get back on and do the same again, that will force a regen on the vehicle, Sir!!’ This was direct from the dealer service centre, no wonder people are having them removed. Retrospective enforcement will create havoc, draw a line and go from there!!!!

    Reply
  76. So when you buy a car that is to be used for a mix of town driving and long journeys it would be fair to assume that you would be told at the time of the sale about the DPF and the effect it will have given the mix of driving. No mention though was made ’til we went in and asked why we were only getting 250/300 miles to a tank of diesel (70 lt)! ‘Oh you need to let it regen, get on the motorway drive for 15 miles in 5th gear at 70 mph, get off at the closest junction then get back on and do the same again, that will force a regen on the vehicle, Sir!!’ This was direct from the dealer service centre, no wonder people are having them removed. Retrospective enforcement will create havoc, draw a line and go from there!!!!

    Reply
  77. Most who buy diesel cars with dpf’s don’t have a clue what they are or how they work. More then likely used to petrol cars, And with all this start / stop tech just makes it worse. The dpf failure rate would go down if the end buyer is shown or informed what to do when it’s comes to re gen time, but that won’t help line the pockets of the manufacturers of them. Sure it may state in the manual, but who really going to sit a read it cover to cover?

    There will a petition up soon enough and it will hit the 100K mark easy

    Reply
  78. Most who buy diesel cars with dpf’s don’t have a clue what they are or how they work. More then likely used to petrol cars, And with all this start / stop tech just makes it worse. The dpf failure rate would go down if the end buyer is shown or informed what to do when it’s comes to re gen time, but that won’t help line the pockets of the manufacturers of them. Sure it may state in the manual, but who really going to sit a read it cover to cover?

    There will a petition up soon enough and it will hit the 100K mark easy

    Reply
  79. It’s all just a money spin, only people to lose out is the motorists as they are an easy target. What about all the companies doing tax avoidance, why not hit them to pay for global warming?

    Reply
  80. It’s all just a money spin, only people to lose out is the motorists as they are an easy target. What about all the companies doing tax avoidance, why not hit them to pay for global warming?

    Reply
  81. What people have to reamber that they run on stupid fluid that you have to make is topped up and any new desiel hate short jounerys and dpf came out around 2009 but they did not come mandatory until 2010. So I think they need to design it better or get rid of it completely and think of something else to put on, also my father in law spent over £1200 to put dpf right and still not fixed.

    Reply
  82. What people have to reamber that they run on stupid fluid that you have to make is topped up and any new desiel hate short jounerys and dpf came out around 2009 but they did not come mandatory until 2010. So I think they need to design it better or get rid of it completely and think of something else to put on, also my father in law spent over £1200 to put dpf right and still not fixed.

    Reply
  83. My last Skoda had the DPF removed, my new one hasn’t, the emissions where lower on the old one, than the new, both with the same 2ltr 140 cr units

    Reply
    • What emissions are you reading here? Soot opacity?

      Reply
  84. My last Skoda had the DPF removed, my new one hasn’t, the emissions where lower on the old one, than the new, both with the same 2ltr 140 cr units

    Reply
    • What emissions are you reading here? Soot opacity?

      Reply
  85. It’s 2016 there’s always a way to get round their tests. So many naive people on here who think it’s how u take care of your car etc etc. I have seen cars with 16k needing a dpf at £1200 because it is beyond a regen cycle. You think that’s a fair expense just for the filter not including labour? Secondly yes there are plenty places that will clean the dpf with solutions etc but to properly do so it needs to be removed and have many of you tried or seen how difficult it is to remove half these filters again resulting in labour costs on top of the clean.

    If manufacturers weren’t so greedy and made the filters accessible so it was a simple bolt off bolt on job that was serviceable then you would likely find most folk would keep them.

    I for one think they are a terrible design that is a money maker and only way to keep them functioning is to kick the s**t out your car or have high revving for a journey now and then which then could result in penalty points if speeding to clear it or secondly just shortening the life span of your engine.

    A simple cat will probably have your car sailing through these new tests, a cheap alternative to a dpf which is less likely to muck up, costs much less and will still reduce the little amount of emissions your properly configured car puts out.

    As for penalising companies removing them then you need to penalise companies for everything that’s not legit for road use. Companies offer a service it’s the customers responsibility how it is used just like illegal lighting and stretched tyres etc etc.

    Good day to you all

    Reply
    • A simple cat will not stop soot, therefore less than useless. Diesels need DPF’s to control this carcinogenic byproduct. Also if they are to reach the required temperature to incinerate its contents then does it not make sense to mount it as close to the engine as possible?

      Reply
  86. It’s 2016 there’s always a way to get round their tests. So many naive people on here who think it’s how u take care of your car etc etc. I have seen cars with 16k needing a dpf at £1200 because it is beyond a regen cycle. You think that’s a fair expense just for the filter not including labour? Secondly yes there are plenty places that will clean the dpf with solutions etc but to properly do so it needs to be removed and have many of you tried or seen how difficult it is to remove half these filters again resulting in labour costs on top of the clean.

    If manufacturers weren’t so greedy and made the filters accessible so it was a simple bolt off bolt on job that was serviceable then you would likely find most folk would keep them.

    I for one think they are a terrible design that is a money maker and only way to keep them functioning is to kick the s**t out your car or have high revving for a journey now and then which then could result in penalty points if speeding to clear it or secondly just shortening the life span of your engine.

    A simple cat will probably have your car sailing through these new tests, a cheap alternative to a dpf which is less likely to muck up, costs much less and will still reduce the little amount of emissions your properly configured car puts out.

    As for penalising companies removing them then you need to penalise companies for everything that’s not legit for road use. Companies offer a service it’s the customers responsibility how it is used just like illegal lighting and stretched tyres etc etc.

    Good day to you all

    Reply
    • A simple cat will not stop soot, therefore less than useless. Diesels need DPF’s to control this carcinogenic byproduct. Also if they are to reach the required temperature to incinerate its contents then does it not make sense to mount it as close to the engine as possible?

      Reply
  87. Strange. Diesel vehicle manufacturers employ defeat devices to cheat emissions, and there are no fines in the EU and governments protect them. Joe public tries to save himself some money because the vehicles are unreliable and expensive to repair. And the government introduces better checks to catch the public out and fine them for cheating. And the whole reason that manufacturers cheated NOx was to reduce soot emissions and prolong the life of the engine and the problematic DPF. And then the government encourages manufacturers to “fix” the NOx emissions by fitting software that will reduce NOx but increase soot and so make the DPF less reliable. And the press and the government and motoring organisations know this, and still they want to catch out motorists and fine them. Honestly it’s a farce. If you made it up no one would believe you!!!

    Reply
  88. Strange. Diesel vehicle manufacturers employ defeat devices to cheat emissions, and there are no fines in the EU and governments protect them. Joe public tries to save himself some money because the vehicles are unreliable and expensive to repair. And the government introduces better checks to catch the public out and fine them for cheating. And the whole reason that manufacturers cheated NOx was to reduce soot emissions and prolong the life of the engine and the problematic DPF. And then the government encourages manufacturers to “fix” the NOx emissions by fitting software that will reduce NOx but increase soot and so make the DPF less reliable. And the press and the government and motoring organisations know this, and still they want to catch out motorists and fine them. Honestly it’s a farce. If you made it up no one would believe you!!!

    Reply
  89. I thought the MOT test was all about safety and road worthieness? Garages are becoming enforcement agencies. There is little wonder the public think we are ripping them off! Let`s get a grip in this country….it`s all about politicians, government bodies and generally people who don`t have a clue about the real world.

    Reply
  90. I thought the MOT test was all about safety and road worthieness? Garages are becoming enforcement agencies. There is little wonder the public think we are ripping them off! Let`s get a grip in this country….it`s all about politicians, government bodies and generally people who don`t have a clue about the real world.

    Reply
  91. And this is why I run a 2000 Mondeo 2.0 petrol. No costly dmf, injectors, turbo, dpf, egr etc. Averages around 38mpg so while these modern diesels get better mpg and cost less to tax while I have it. I’m sure my running costs will be lower as it only needs petrol and only cost £160 to buy so I can spend more on petrol ?

    Reply
  92. And this is why I run a 2000 Mondeo 2.0 petrol. No costly dmf, injectors, turbo, dpf, egr etc. Averages around 38mpg so while these modern diesels get better mpg and cost less to tax while I have it. I’m sure my running costs will be lower as it only needs petrol and only cost £160 to buy so I can spend more on petrol ?

    Reply
  93. Buy a Morris Minor and save the environment! Problem solved. The damage caused to the environment by manufacturing new cars far outweighs keeping old ones on the road. Get a classic enjoy free tax low insurance appreciating value and the thrill of motoring. At the expense of a few less mpg and less creature comforts!!!!

    Reply
  94. Buy a Morris Minor and save the environment! Problem solved. The damage caused to the environment by manufacturing new cars far outweighs keeping old ones on the road. Get a classic enjoy free tax low insurance appreciating value and the thrill of motoring. At the expense of a few less mpg and less creature comforts!!!!

    Reply
  95. Don’t know why they bother wasting money and time trying to stop something that will not be stopped. If a device comes out that’s able to check if dpf in or out (which I doubt) within a month someone will have a way around it. There’s nothing in the world that can’t be cheated or tricked. Dpf removal is sometimes the only way to get the car back on the road for some people. Average person these days do not have the funds waiting if a new Dpf is needed (£1000+) so mostly a removal for £300 is a no brainer. Why is someone going to waste money on something that is not needed, can’t be seen, and will fail again.
    Few prices for dpf related parts as follows- new Dpf = £1000+
    Temp sensor = £130+
    Pressure sensor = £80+
    Garage labour rates & force regen prices £120+. Dpf cleaning/terraclean £110+ Even if you add the cheapest part there it’s still £200 with the risk of failure in the future. So for the extra £100 you could get the Dpf removed. Saving money in the long run. Better performance. Better mpg. And no problems or needing to regen every week. These people ain’t got a clue. You will not stop Dpf removals!!!

    Reply
  96. Don’t know why they bother wasting money and time trying to stop something that will not be stopped. If a device comes out that’s able to check if dpf in or out (which I doubt) within a month someone will have a way around it. There’s nothing in the world that can’t be cheated or tricked. Dpf removal is sometimes the only way to get the car back on the road for some people. Average person these days do not have the funds waiting if a new Dpf is needed (£1000+) so mostly a removal for £300 is a no brainer. Why is someone going to waste money on something that is not needed, can’t be seen, and will fail again.
    Few prices for dpf related parts as follows- new Dpf = £1000+
    Temp sensor = £130+
    Pressure sensor = £80+
    Garage labour rates & force regen prices £120+. Dpf cleaning/terraclean £110+ Even if you add the cheapest part there it’s still £200 with the risk of failure in the future. So for the extra £100 you could get the Dpf removed. Saving money in the long run. Better performance. Better mpg. And no problems or needing to regen every week. These people ain’t got a clue. You will not stop Dpf removals!!!

    Reply
  97. hydo machine with diesel give cleaner co,s but once again the tax revenue lost fuel giants sales lost so stop gripping dpf is a way to make money hydro is a way to save money

    Reply
  98. hydo machine with diesel give cleaner co,s but once again the tax revenue lost fuel giants sales lost so stop gripping dpf is a way to make money hydro is a way to save money

    Reply
  99. I cant believe the comotion being caused over this dpf issue, all i can see is a money making sceme targeting again the motorist because some jumped up wally who dont live in the real world sits in his constiuency dreaming up crap. If the mot test is to toughen up then start looking closer at the life threatening things e.g tyres min tread depth, brake pad thickness , play found on inner steering rack joints. The mot is so bent in itself its unbelievable, take the emmisions test for example, a 1988 petrol car is still allowed to pump out 3.50% carbon monoxide gasses, yet a 1994 petrol vehicle will fail for pumping out 0.031% carbon monoxide. A prev1960 vehicle doesnt even need a damn test yet can be driven on our roads? , a motorcycle doesnt even have an emissions test so please ask yourselves HOW WRONG IS ALL OF THIS?. Yet you all still go on moaning about a dpf filter being removed from a diesel car, really?

    Reply
    • I think its a question of peoples different perspectives. DPF’s are expensive but they do a great job lowering soot emissions. Soot is hazardous to human health. CO on the other hand does damage that has only recently been seen and still widely ignored (global warming) so while they prioritise which emission they need to reduce, they cannot expect any engine to emit less emissions that what it was designed to emit.

      Reply
      • I think you’ll find cigarettes cause slightly more health issues than Bill removing his DPF, yet our environmentally friendly government extort 80% of the cost in ‘tax’.

        Reply
  100. I cant believe the comotion being caused over this dpf issue, all i can see is a money making sceme targeting again the motorist because some jumped up wally who dont live in the real world sits in his constiuency dreaming up crap. If the mot test is to toughen up then start looking closer at the life threatening things e.g tyres min tread depth, brake pad thickness , play found on inner steering rack joints. The mot is so bent in itself its unbelievable, take the emmisions test for example, a 1988 petrol car is still allowed to pump out 3.50% carbon monoxide gasses, yet a 1994 petrol vehicle will fail for pumping out 0.031% carbon monoxide. A prev1960 vehicle doesnt even need a damn test yet can be driven on our roads? , a motorcycle doesnt even have an emissions test so please ask yourselves HOW WRONG IS ALL OF THIS?. Yet you all still go on moaning about a dpf filter being removed from a diesel car, really?

    Reply
    • I think its a question of peoples different perspectives. DPF’s are expensive but they do a great job lowering soot emissions. Soot is hazardous to human health. CO on the other hand does damage that has only recently been seen and still widely ignored (global warming) so while they prioritise which emission they need to reduce, they cannot expect any engine to emit less emissions that what it was designed to emit.

      Reply
      • I think you’ll find cigarettes cause slightly more health issues than Bill removing his DPF, yet our environmentally friendly government extort 80% of the cost in ‘tax’.

        Reply
  101. We have a 2.5l Pathfinder and it’s DPF light comes on all the time because we mainly do short journeys.

    THE SOLUTION:
    Hi Revs. When our light comes on, I jump on the M6 and travel a junction (about 5 miles) in 3rd gear pulling 3.5k RPM and then back down again. Works every time. If the light has been on for longer then a longer journey is essential.

    The biggest problem is that people don’t know how to use there car properly! a DPF Clean requires the engine to warm for a length of time for it to burn out the soot build up.

    The cost of DPF’s is fair to high when compared to the cost of an ageing vehicle which is most likely to need it doing. I have a 2008 Fiat Scudo and a DPF for that will set me back about 500+ labour. A bit crap when it’s not worth 2k!

    Reply
  102. We have a 2.5l Pathfinder and it’s DPF light comes on all the time because we mainly do short journeys.

    THE SOLUTION:
    Hi Revs. When our light comes on, I jump on the M6 and travel a junction (about 5 miles) in 3rd gear pulling 3.5k RPM and then back down again. Works every time. If the light has been on for longer then a longer journey is essential.

    The biggest problem is that people don’t know how to use there car properly! a DPF Clean requires the engine to warm for a length of time for it to burn out the soot build up.

    The cost of DPF’s is fair to high when compared to the cost of an ageing vehicle which is most likely to need it doing. I have a 2008 Fiat Scudo and a DPF for that will set me back about 500+ labour. A bit crap when it’s not worth 2k!

    Reply
  103. fuel companies should shoulder some of the blame having taken most of the additives out of fuel how many times have motorist had to buy additives to get there cars to pass emission limits set by the manufactures bring back the old days lol gallon of fuel and couple of shots of redex

    Reply
    • I’m afraid that this is not the case. Additives are still put in fuels and if you need a bottle of something to pass an emission test then you clearly have an underlying issue that needs addressing.

      Reply
  104. fuel companies should shoulder some of the blame having taken most of the additives out of fuel how many times have motorist had to buy additives to get there cars to pass emission limits set by the manufactures bring back the old days lol gallon of fuel and couple of shots of redex

    Reply
    • I’m afraid that this is not the case. Additives are still put in fuels and if you need a bottle of something to pass an emission test then you clearly have an underlying issue that needs addressing.

      Reply
  105. I had two vw bora tdi’s one with and one without a Dpf. The one with was twice as high emissions as the one without so I can’t see how can having a Dpf be better?

    Reply
    • Are you referring to M.O.T test smoke emissions? I’ve been a tester for 9 years and never has a non DPF engine emitted less than a DPF fitted one.

      Reply
  106. I had two vw bora tdi’s one with and one without a Dpf. The one with was twice as high emissions as the one without so I can’t see how can having a Dpf be better?

    Reply
    • Are you referring to M.O.T test smoke emissions? I’ve been a tester for 9 years and never has a non DPF engine emitted less than a DPF fitted one.

      Reply
  107. A few small things that would help DPF filters reduce clogging..
    Shorter service intervals, the dirty oil full of carbon needs flushing and changing more regularly.
    Make the Air filter & fuel filters an annual replacement with a good fuel treatment.
    Make EGR gasses come from after the DPF So they are clean gasses and also cooler so no need for the EGR coolers that also clog almond fail!

    Make the vehicle go into limp mode as soon as an EGR sensor fails or heater plug faults appear as it won’t regen then anyway and the consumer will ignore the EML light as long as possible as they are stupid.

    Reply
  108. A few small things that would help DPF filters reduce clogging..
    Shorter service intervals, the dirty oil full of carbon needs flushing and changing more regularly.
    Make the Air filter & fuel filters an annual replacement with a good fuel treatment.
    Make EGR gasses come from after the DPF So they are clean gasses and also cooler so no need for the EGR coolers that also clog almond fail!

    Make the vehicle go into limp mode as soon as an EGR sensor fails or heater plug faults appear as it won’t regen then anyway and the consumer will ignore the EML light as long as possible as they are stupid.

    Reply
  109. Courious as to what it would cost to have a DPF professionally cleaned?
    I’m thinking along the lines of if it’s not overly expensive would it be worth while having it done as part the of the service i.e. Oil filter ect and DPF saturation checked and cleaned if necessary??

    Reply
    • Cleaned while on the car can be anywhere between £80 and £150 in my area. Cleaned off the car would be a lot more as there is additional labour to pay for removing the DPF. In some cases this can be half a day’s work ! Then there’s the quality of the cleaning process……do you have it power washed with TFR, which isn’t a great option as it won’t clean it properly and can damage the DPF if done aggressively, or do you have it sent away and ‘reconditioned’ professionally which means having the car off the road and is more expensive. Then the cause of the DPF blocking is still to be addressed or it will do it again !
      I also have a question….vehicle emissions are linked to the cost of road tax, which is why removing a DPF is potentially fraudulent ( because the road tax should be higher if its causing more pollution ) but how does a lower emission vehicle cause less wear and tear etc on the roads ?

      Reply
      • The tax you speak of is set by what CO2 emissions are measured when new. DPFs only filter the soot.

        Reply
  110. Courious as to what it would cost to have a DPF professionally cleaned?
    I’m thinking along the lines of if it’s not overly expensive would it be worth while having it done as part the of the service i.e. Oil filter ect and DPF saturation checked and cleaned if necessary??

    Reply
    • Cleaned while on the car can be anywhere between £80 and £150 in my area. Cleaned off the car would be a lot more as there is additional labour to pay for removing the DPF. In some cases this can be half a day’s work ! Then there’s the quality of the cleaning process……do you have it power washed with TFR, which isn’t a great option as it won’t clean it properly and can damage the DPF if done aggressively, or do you have it sent away and ‘reconditioned’ professionally which means having the car off the road and is more expensive. Then the cause of the DPF blocking is still to be addressed or it will do it again !
      I also have a question….vehicle emissions are linked to the cost of road tax, which is why removing a DPF is potentially fraudulent ( because the road tax should be higher if its causing more pollution ) but how does a lower emission vehicle cause less wear and tear etc on the roads ?

      Reply
      • The tax you speak of is set by what CO2 emissions are measured when new. DPFs only filter the soot.

        Reply
  111. It’s ok for government testing stuff on a track it’s a fdifferent store when cars ect or 5+years old owl egr valves and filters ect blocking up haveing to pay garages to take off and clean load off parts in engine And buy bottles off cleaner to clean stuff if they would think logic they should make filters that you can remove plate on exhaust and clean and put back in no problems

    Reply
  112. It’s ok for government testing stuff on a track it’s a fdifferent store when cars ect or 5+years old owl egr valves and filters ect blocking up haveing to pay garages to take off and clean load off parts in engine And buy bottles off cleaner to clean stuff if they would think logic they should make filters that you can remove plate on exhaust and clean and put back in no problems

    Reply
  113. early research on DPFs questioned their whole design. All they do is store the particulates and then burn them off as a fine ash , which is so small it will penetrate much further into human lungs than large particles! A bigger health risk than big particles. Better design of EGRs as Jim said above, would be desirable and injectors. the accountants at motor manufacturers try to meet regs as cheaply and crudely as possible .

    Reply
  114. early research on DPFs questioned their whole design. All they do is store the particulates and then burn them off as a fine ash , which is so small it will penetrate much further into human lungs than large particles! A bigger health risk than big particles. Better design of EGRs as Jim said above, would be desirable and injectors. the accountants at motor manufacturers try to meet regs as cheaply and crudely as possible .

    Reply
  115. Here’s a thought.

    If they’re going to fine people for DPF removed vehicles then they’re going to have to PROVE the owner knew that it had.
    Most people don’t know anything technical under the bonnet and of the car was bought used then how would they?

    Reply
    • I think they will just use the ‘ignorance isn’t an excuse’ card. Same as driving a friends car, or a hire car with a bald tyre……you should’ve checked.

      The legal stance seems to be that ‘it is illegal to drive a vehicle in the UK without a DPF if it was originally designed with one.’

      So currently, only the person driving the vehicle is liable ?

      Reply
  116. Here’s a thought.

    If they’re going to fine people for DPF removed vehicles then they’re going to have to PROVE the owner knew that it had.
    Most people don’t know anything technical under the bonnet and of the car was bought used then how would they?

    Reply
    • I think they will just use the ‘ignorance isn’t an excuse’ card. Same as driving a friends car, or a hire car with a bald tyre……you should’ve checked.

      The legal stance seems to be that ‘it is illegal to drive a vehicle in the UK without a DPF if it was originally designed with one.’

      So currently, only the person driving the vehicle is liable ?

      Reply
  117. Everything I was going to add to this has been covered by a few informed posts above.
    The whole problem, as said, can be traced back to EU legislation and bureaucracy, trying to fix a problem that didn’t really exist. The car manufacturers develop an engine based around the technology available at the time to the criteria demanded by the legislation. That cycle takes time, goalposts are moved and then additional technology needs to be implemented to make said engine comply with emissions.
    The band-aid analogy is very apt here as is the fact that older cars, maintained and kept running have a much greater lifetime carbon footprint than ‘throw away’ white goods cars produced today.

    Nobody has mentioned the inherent failure of the whole DPF concept. It is a FILTER. Just like your air, oil, fuel and pollen filter it isn’t designed to last the life of the vehicle yet as said, it isn’t a serviceable item that can be easily removed, cleaned and refitted. You wouldn’t run an air filter for 120,000 miles yet DPFs are expected to work that duration. Throw in to the mix, fuel quality, short journey driving, low RPM/heat/duration, not to mention any other vehicle fault that can result in increased fuel consumption/unburnt AND burnt byproducts ie injectors and you can see this was a doomed addition to modern diesesal motoring.

    Don’t even get me started on close coupled combined DPF/CAT units made with new silicon carbide material costing near twice as much as the old monolith style and when your DPF is blocked you then need to replace a dual unit which has a CAT combined.

    Euro 6 Diesel emissions will see potentially a £12k car being written off needing a full exhaust system as cars are set to come with up to 2 DPFs, 2 CATs then O2 and NOX sensors up and downstream checking they are still working effectively.

    Still, I work in the aftermarket car parts industry – Should keep me busy until manufacturers have it their own way in years to come and only they and a select few will be able to work on modern vehicles.

    Reply
    • Best post so far!

      Reply
  118. Everything I was going to add to this has been covered by a few informed posts above.
    The whole problem, as said, can be traced back to EU legislation and bureaucracy, trying to fix a problem that didn’t really exist. The car manufacturers develop an engine based around the technology available at the time to the criteria demanded by the legislation. That cycle takes time, goalposts are moved and then additional technology needs to be implemented to make said engine comply with emissions.
    The band-aid analogy is very apt here as is the fact that older cars, maintained and kept running have a much greater lifetime carbon footprint than ‘throw away’ white goods cars produced today.

    Nobody has mentioned the inherent failure of the whole DPF concept. It is a FILTER. Just like your air, oil, fuel and pollen filter it isn’t designed to last the life of the vehicle yet as said, it isn’t a serviceable item that can be easily removed, cleaned and refitted. You wouldn’t run an air filter for 120,000 miles yet DPFs are expected to work that duration. Throw in to the mix, fuel quality, short journey driving, low RPM/heat/duration, not to mention any other vehicle fault that can result in increased fuel consumption/unburnt AND burnt byproducts ie injectors and you can see this was a doomed addition to modern diesesal motoring.

    Don’t even get me started on close coupled combined DPF/CAT units made with new silicon carbide material costing near twice as much as the old monolith style and when your DPF is blocked you then need to replace a dual unit which has a CAT combined.

    Euro 6 Diesel emissions will see potentially a £12k car being written off needing a full exhaust system as cars are set to come with up to 2 DPFs, 2 CATs then O2 and NOX sensors up and downstream checking they are still working effectively.

    Still, I work in the aftermarket car parts industry – Should keep me busy until manufacturers have it their own way in years to come and only they and a select few will be able to work on modern vehicles.

    Reply
    • Best post so far!

      Reply
  119. I understand why they are doing these tests but when a replacement DPF costs £2000+ can you really fault people for removing them?

    If the cost of the filter was £100-£300 a time then less people would have them removed and the government would not have this problem.

    But what is less economical? Punishing people who can’t afford to have the dpf repaired so the alternative is getting rid of the car as effectively it would be written off?

    OR

    Reducing the actual cost of dpf repair/replace?

    Reply
  120. I understand why they are doing these tests but when a replacement DPF costs £2000+ can you really fault people for removing them?

    If the cost of the filter was £100-£300 a time then less people would have them removed and the government would not have this problem.

    But what is less economical? Punishing people who can’t afford to have the dpf repaired so the alternative is getting rid of the car as effectively it would be written off?

    OR

    Reducing the actual cost of dpf repair/replace?

    Reply
  121. I have read all the comments above;you are all right. One good comment says that DPF is the most dangerous tiny soot which all human being breathes.There are millions of aviation fuel burnt in the air, millions at sea and millions on agricultural fields and building sites. We do not hear anything about them. I repeat that only the motorists are pushed to suffer financial loss.Many times I have come to a halt to solving the problem of DPF and I come out a loser. I do not the labour as I look after my customers. WHO CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITHOUT FINANCIALLY AFFECTING THE MOT GARAGES AND THE MOTORISTS? Who dares pinning this serious health problem to the car manufacturers? They are too big and strong. There are some very good suggestions above and very arrogant ones as well. We talk big and no action!

    Reply
  122. I have read all the comments above;you are all right. One good comment says that DPF is the most dangerous tiny soot which all human being breathes.There are millions of aviation fuel burnt in the air, millions at sea and millions on agricultural fields and building sites. We do not hear anything about them. I repeat that only the motorists are pushed to suffer financial loss.Many times I have come to a halt to solving the problem of DPF and I come out a loser. I do not the labour as I look after my customers. WHO CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITHOUT FINANCIALLY AFFECTING THE MOT GARAGES AND THE MOTORISTS? Who dares pinning this serious health problem to the car manufacturers? They are too big and strong. There are some very good suggestions above and very arrogant ones as well. We talk big and no action!

    Reply
  123. Hi,my reasons for being against not just DPF’s but EGR valves too is the damage they do to engines by in the case of DPF’s causing so much restriction in exhaust flow so as to hinder both fuel economy and power,dilution of the engine oil and premature turbo failure due to excess diesel being injected during regeneration cycles.I see so any turbo’s failing at little over 100k and DPFs due to this . EGR’s almost completely block inlet tracts and cause swirl valves failure due to the abrasive nature of the carbon and massively reduce performance and fuel economy thereby negating the supposed advantage they have.I have been in the slightly unusual position of knowing cars that were remapped and had DPF’S removed and EGR’S blanked at very low mileage and are running like new at 170k plus with no wear in swirl valves etc and are making as much power as when first remapped .We were all hoodwinked into buying diesels to a degree in the first place by successive governments but in reality there are easy ways to reduce emissions if they really wanted to promote to.Things like HHO injection ,if developed correctly would help far more than the stupid DPF’S and EGR valves etc especially when you realise that the soot given out during regeneration is much finer and more carcinogenic than regular diesel soot.

    Reply
  124. Hi,my reasons for being against not just DPF’s but EGR valves too is the damage they do to engines by in the case of DPF’s causing so much restriction in exhaust flow so as to hinder both fuel economy and power,dilution of the engine oil and premature turbo failure due to excess diesel being injected during regeneration cycles.I see so any turbo’s failing at little over 100k and DPFs due to this . EGR’s almost completely block inlet tracts and cause swirl valves failure due to the abrasive nature of the carbon and massively reduce performance and fuel economy thereby negating the supposed advantage they have.I have been in the slightly unusual position of knowing cars that were remapped and had DPF’S removed and EGR’S blanked at very low mileage and are running like new at 170k plus with no wear in swirl valves etc and are making as much power as when first remapped .We were all hoodwinked into buying diesels to a degree in the first place by successive governments but in reality there are easy ways to reduce emissions if they really wanted to promote to.Things like HHO injection ,if developed correctly would help far more than the stupid DPF’S and EGR valves etc especially when you realise that the soot given out during regeneration is much finer and more carcinogenic than regular diesel soot.

    Reply
  125. If having a dpf is such an issue then why not force the removal of aircon due to the ozone depleting refrigerant still used in brand new cars. I can bet that in its lifetime every vehicle will have dumped it’s entire charge of refrigerant at least once.

    Reply
    • Um, Ozone depleting refrigerants were made illegal in Europe at least 15 years ago.

      Reply
  126. If having a dpf is such an issue then why not force the removal of aircon due to the ozone depleting refrigerant still used in brand new cars. I can bet that in its lifetime every vehicle will have dumped it’s entire charge of refrigerant at least once.

    Reply
    • Um, Ozone depleting refrigerants were made illegal in Europe at least 15 years ago.

      Reply
  127. Iv got a Volvo s40 diesel how am I supposed to no if or when my car is doing a regen as it doesn’t tell me that it’s doing so on the dash otherwise i’d let it do its thing. ( save me money and also keep air pollution down as well as keep my car running smoother and more efficiently). I also have fitted within my car something calmly PAT fluid that’s also supposed to help reduce pollution etc etc but yet their is no indication of when the PAT fluid is running low only way to really tell is when engine management light comes on do a diagnostics test to find fault but if driven while PAT fluid is empty it will crush your engine and all other connected parts to the cars engine seems like a lot of great ideas to reduce pollution but without taking time to sit back and think of ways to help make vehicle owners aware of what their vehicle is doing or using.

    Reply
    • Hi Mike. Every time you fill up, your car will take some of this PAT fluid and mix it with you diesel in your tank. If you put £10 in every two days then your additive tank will empty quickly. If you fill it every time then it will last you many thousand miles before needing topping up. Running it empty doesn’t harm your engine, only stops your DPF from doing a successful regeneration. Your manual will tell you more.

      Reply
  128. Iv got a Volvo s40 diesel how am I supposed to no if or when my car is doing a regen as it doesn’t tell me that it’s doing so on the dash otherwise i’d let it do its thing. ( save me money and also keep air pollution down as well as keep my car running smoother and more efficiently). I also have fitted within my car something calmly PAT fluid that’s also supposed to help reduce pollution etc etc but yet their is no indication of when the PAT fluid is running low only way to really tell is when engine management light comes on do a diagnostics test to find fault but if driven while PAT fluid is empty it will crush your engine and all other connected parts to the cars engine seems like a lot of great ideas to reduce pollution but without taking time to sit back and think of ways to help make vehicle owners aware of what their vehicle is doing or using.

    Reply
    • Hi Mike. Every time you fill up, your car will take some of this PAT fluid and mix it with you diesel in your tank. If you put £10 in every two days then your additive tank will empty quickly. If you fill it every time then it will last you many thousand miles before needing topping up. Running it empty doesn’t harm your engine, only stops your DPF from doing a successful regeneration. Your manual will tell you more.

      Reply
  129. My take on all this as an MOT tester and vehicle technician….basically I blame all the EU governmental departments that produced the regulations, of which ours was part. They took the view that the only emission they were concerned with was CO2 and so taxed cars on that basis which led to the explosion of diesel cars on the roads. Bare in mind that even while they were doing this courts were upholding compensation claims from people suffering serious lung problems from working in London bus garages so the health risks were known. But then, a few years down the line, someone, somewhere said “Well, CO2 emissions are down a tiny bit but we do seem to be killing rather a lot of people.” So it was decided to cut back on particulate emissions. Which gave the manufacturers a problem. So they designed DPF’s which will work well IF the car runs under certain conditions which are often unrealistic, certainly if you live in a rural area. And EGR systems which work fine out of the factory, and maybe for a few years afterwards, if you’re lucky. And injectors which are horrendously expensive, unless you do what at least one major manufacturer did and buy cheaply the ones which failed the post production test, but they got round that with a software fix which enabled the “failed” injectors to perform well enough for a while.
    So, regulations created, by a financial incentive, the demand for diesels but THEN told the manufacturers who are primarily profit led that they had to clean up the diesels that were now running out of the showrooms.
    And now here we are with this mess. Cars which are unfit for purpose, government agencies thrashing about trying to sort it out, people dying and global warming no better then before. Who wins? Nobody!

    Reply
  130. My take on all this as an MOT tester and vehicle technician….basically I blame all the EU governmental departments that produced the regulations, of which ours was part. They took the view that the only emission they were concerned with was CO2 and so taxed cars on that basis which led to the explosion of diesel cars on the roads. Bare in mind that even while they were doing this courts were upholding compensation claims from people suffering serious lung problems from working in London bus garages so the health risks were known. But then, a few years down the line, someone, somewhere said “Well, CO2 emissions are down a tiny bit but we do seem to be killing rather a lot of people.” So it was decided to cut back on particulate emissions. Which gave the manufacturers a problem. So they designed DPF’s which will work well IF the car runs under certain conditions which are often unrealistic, certainly if you live in a rural area. And EGR systems which work fine out of the factory, and maybe for a few years afterwards, if you’re lucky. And injectors which are horrendously expensive, unless you do what at least one major manufacturer did and buy cheaply the ones which failed the post production test, but they got round that with a software fix which enabled the “failed” injectors to perform well enough for a while.
    So, regulations created, by a financial incentive, the demand for diesels but THEN told the manufacturers who are primarily profit led that they had to clean up the diesels that were now running out of the showrooms.
    And now here we are with this mess. Cars which are unfit for purpose, government agencies thrashing about trying to sort it out, people dying and global warming no better then before. Who wins? Nobody!

    Reply
  131. I think we all know the problem its Diesel, when we take our petrol cars in for test we measure for five gases to see if the vehicle is compliant. With a diesel we only measure for soot the solids that come out of the tailpipe hence the particulate filter. If we measured the gases we would understand the damage diesels are actually doing to your health. A petrol with a cat is still by far the best for your health and the environment. We can blame the government for these issues if we want but at the end of the day they only take advice from the so called experts in this field and most of these experts are money driven and if you look at the total costs of ownership of a diesel ie cost to buy is more, cost of repairs inc egr, injectors, turbos, dpf, are more and this is only part of the story, having been in the motor trade for 40 years I can without any doubt say the petrol is best and by far the cheapest to own and the few miles per gallon saved are soon gobbled up in repair costs.

    Reply
  132. I think we all know the problem its Diesel, when we take our petrol cars in for test we measure for five gases to see if the vehicle is compliant. With a diesel we only measure for soot the solids that come out of the tailpipe hence the particulate filter. If we measured the gases we would understand the damage diesels are actually doing to your health. A petrol with a cat is still by far the best for your health and the environment. We can blame the government for these issues if we want but at the end of the day they only take advice from the so called experts in this field and most of these experts are money driven and if you look at the total costs of ownership of a diesel ie cost to buy is more, cost of repairs inc egr, injectors, turbos, dpf, are more and this is only part of the story, having been in the motor trade for 40 years I can without any doubt say the petrol is best and by far the cheapest to own and the few miles per gallon saved are soon gobbled up in repair costs.

    Reply
  133. SO if the regulation wording is ” it is illegal to drive a vehicle in the UK without a DPF if it was originally designed with one.’” What about the VW/Audi/Skoda 2.0 140 PD engine, it was never originally designed to be used with a DPF ! VAG just jumped on the band wagon at the time and bolted one on and tweaked the software (their good at that), unfortunately it was NOT a successful relationship between PD and DPF not only is this one of the most troublesome combinations, there is NO control from the ecu over the injection cycle to instigate a regen so hence the problems of them blocking, UNLESS you get your exhaust up to a high temp it is NOT going to do a regen full stop! After several months of trying to find a garage with enough knowledge to clean/replace with a g/tee that it would not happen again with the next 500miles. I took the only answer that was logical and had my DPF removed. The car on a run is now achieving almost 20mpg MORE than when it had its DPF fitted @upto 59.6mpg at a steady 70mph, and on average around town it gets an amazing 44mpg not bad for an 8yr old 140k oil burner, Oh and the emissions are lower now ever they were when it had its DPF fitted. So which is best ? A lower emission, cleaner burning engined vehicle that does not create so much pollution and those that is does are the larger less ingestable particulates than an equivilent vehicle with a DPF fitted and using more fuel to travel the same miles and put out particulates that are going to get deeper into your system ? I know which I’d opt for. Oh back to the wording of the law/regulation… which was “it is illegal to drive a vehicle in the UK without a DPF if it was originally designed with one.” How are they going to argue that one, it was never designed to have one VW just added one as an option thinking it was the latest greenest thing. Bye the way the car had to have a replacement engine at 30k probably due to blocked DPF knackering it.

    I would personally like see a system where your tax rate is decided and set at the time of testing at the annual MOT, even if that means one year you might pay more or even less tax depending on how clean your engine is running when its tested. That way those that pollute the worst (within the existing limits) simply go into the next tax/emissions bracket which will mean they are paying the correct rate of duty (which is all the Gov are worried about) that maybe more or less depending on how well you look after your car’s servicing etc which seems to be the argument of those who say “the people that service their cars properly don’t have the problems”…. Thus everyone is happy, well kind of, The Gov are getting more money OR less depending on how polluting your car is which is their problem solved and to you it makes sense to have your engine serviced on a regular basis to minimise those emissions (so they are low at MOT time).

    Reply
  134. SO if the regulation wording is ” it is illegal to drive a vehicle in the UK without a DPF if it was originally designed with one.’” What about the VW/Audi/Skoda 2.0 140 PD engine, it was never originally designed to be used with a DPF ! VAG just jumped on the band wagon at the time and bolted one on and tweaked the software (their good at that), unfortunately it was NOT a successful relationship between PD and DPF not only is this one of the most troublesome combinations, there is NO control from the ecu over the injection cycle to instigate a regen so hence the problems of them blocking, UNLESS you get your exhaust up to a high temp it is NOT going to do a regen full stop! After several months of trying to find a garage with enough knowledge to clean/replace with a g/tee that it would not happen again with the next 500miles. I took the only answer that was logical and had my DPF removed. The car on a run is now achieving almost 20mpg MORE than when it had its DPF fitted @upto 59.6mpg at a steady 70mph, and on average around town it gets an amazing 44mpg not bad for an 8yr old 140k oil burner, Oh and the emissions are lower now ever they were when it had its DPF fitted. So which is best ? A lower emission, cleaner burning engined vehicle that does not create so much pollution and those that is does are the larger less ingestable particulates than an equivilent vehicle with a DPF fitted and using more fuel to travel the same miles and put out particulates that are going to get deeper into your system ? I know which I’d opt for. Oh back to the wording of the law/regulation… which was “it is illegal to drive a vehicle in the UK without a DPF if it was originally designed with one.” How are they going to argue that one, it was never designed to have one VW just added one as an option thinking it was the latest greenest thing. Bye the way the car had to have a replacement engine at 30k probably due to blocked DPF knackering it.

    I would personally like see a system where your tax rate is decided and set at the time of testing at the annual MOT, even if that means one year you might pay more or even less tax depending on how clean your engine is running when its tested. That way those that pollute the worst (within the existing limits) simply go into the next tax/emissions bracket which will mean they are paying the correct rate of duty (which is all the Gov are worried about) that maybe more or less depending on how well you look after your car’s servicing etc which seems to be the argument of those who say “the people that service their cars properly don’t have the problems”…. Thus everyone is happy, well kind of, The Gov are getting more money OR less depending on how polluting your car is which is their problem solved and to you it makes sense to have your engine serviced on a regular basis to minimise those emissions (so they are low at MOT time).

    Reply
  135. I wouldn’t worry too much about the dpf situation. The way diesel prices are going since November none of us will have a job or be able to afford diesel soon. Does the government think we haven’t noticed the prices creeping up again?

    Reply
  136. I wouldn’t worry too much about the dpf situation. The way diesel prices are going since November none of us will have a job or be able to afford diesel soon. Does the government think we haven’t noticed the prices creeping up again?

    Reply
  137. My friend had a jag 2.7td, garage said dpf was blocked, original jag one with new sensor £2000 or place round the corner removes it and cleans it £140, £140 later still in limp mode with no difference, then they reckoned a terraclean another £150 with still no difference. I told him from the beginning to get it removed for £400. If these dpf’s were priced better then sure you would change them, but 2k really come on, the dept of transport should put a price limit on these dpfs so people can afford them!!! So my friend in the end had the dpf removed cost £400 and had 3 years trouble free with no further lights on the dash and when presented for mot was given the fast pass on the emmisions. These dpfs im sure are part of the motoring industry CASH COW for parts, There needs to be a better solution for dpf’s out there or place a maximum price of £500 on them or maybe a contribution from the dealer brand?

    Reply
  138. My friend had a jag 2.7td, garage said dpf was blocked, original jag one with new sensor £2000 or place round the corner removes it and cleans it £140, £140 later still in limp mode with no difference, then they reckoned a terraclean another £150 with still no difference. I told him from the beginning to get it removed for £400. If these dpf’s were priced better then sure you would change them, but 2k really come on, the dept of transport should put a price limit on these dpfs so people can afford them!!! So my friend in the end had the dpf removed cost £400 and had 3 years trouble free with no further lights on the dash and when presented for mot was given the fast pass on the emmisions. These dpfs im sure are part of the motoring industry CASH COW for parts, There needs to be a better solution for dpf’s out there or place a maximum price of £500 on them or maybe a contribution from the dealer brand?

    Reply
  139. I work with mostly Vauxhall and time and time again i see astra j’s and insignia’s with dpf issues. The dpf system on both cars is useless and does not give any notification to the driver that the car is doing a regen, so how is the driver meant to know and what is the reason vauxhall removed the software? Because customers brought the car back with flashing glowplug lights thinking it was a fault when it wasn’t, this was done on the preface facelift Vectra. If you ask me Vauxhall should be held accountable for this and dpf filters should be banned and removed because they are nothing more than a money making scheme.

    Reply
  140. I work with mostly Vauxhall and time and time again i see astra j’s and insignia’s with dpf issues. The dpf system on both cars is useless and does not give any notification to the driver that the car is doing a regen, so how is the driver meant to know and what is the reason vauxhall removed the software? Because customers brought the car back with flashing glowplug lights thinking it was a fault when it wasn’t, this was done on the preface facelift Vectra. If you ask me Vauxhall should be held accountable for this and dpf filters should be banned and removed because they are nothing more than a money making scheme.

    Reply
  141. Got my first bmw last year and was told it was soon due a new dpf at the cost of £1800 by bmw after it went in for an inspection. Was told it should regen itself but now I’ve been told it won’t regen because it needs x you and z to working without faults for it to work.

    Reply
  142. Got my first bmw last year and was told it was soon due a new dpf at the cost of £1800 by bmw after it went in for an inspection. Was told it should regen itself but now I’ve been told it won’t regen because it needs x you and z to working without faults for it to work.

    Reply
  143. We had no problems like this before dpf’s were put on diesel cars so why are they being put on now? I bought a BMW 520d unknown to me the dpf was blocked nothing came up on the dash to tell me something was wrong, I only found out it was blocked was to take the dpf off so I gutted it and put it back on, now the car drives much better. For a new dpf is expensive which some people cant afford to pay,I certainly cant afford a new dpf so gutting it and having it mapped out is the best solution and cheaper. I probably will get it replaced but for now its staying as is. DPF’s are not needed and a money making scam for the dealers so they need bining.

    Reply
  144. We had no problems like this before dpf’s were put on diesel cars so why are they being put on now? I bought a BMW 520d unknown to me the dpf was blocked nothing came up on the dash to tell me something was wrong, I only found out it was blocked was to take the dpf off so I gutted it and put it back on, now the car drives much better. For a new dpf is expensive which some people cant afford to pay,I certainly cant afford a new dpf so gutting it and having it mapped out is the best solution and cheaper. I probably will get it replaced but for now its staying as is. DPF’s are not needed and a money making scam for the dealers so they need bining.

    Reply
  145. DPFs cab always burn off the soot they are designed to trap, but they can’t burn off ash that is caused by metal compounds in the oil and fuel. Over the years, the DPF becomes poisoned with a ceramic/mineral deposit and can no longer regenerate. They should have designed them with a replaceable core. Many cars with DPF removed pass the MOT emmissions limit with less that 1/20th of the current limit. Why not just lower this smoke limit and have one for EU3, EU4, EU5 and EU6 regime cars.

    Reply
  146. DPFs cab always burn off the soot they are designed to trap, but they can’t burn off ash that is caused by metal compounds in the oil and fuel. Over the years, the DPF becomes poisoned with a ceramic/mineral deposit and can no longer regenerate. They should have designed them with a replaceable core. Many cars with DPF removed pass the MOT emmissions limit with less that 1/20th of the current limit. Why not just lower this smoke limit and have one for EU3, EU4, EU5 and EU6 regime cars.

    Reply
  147. If in doubt cut it out!!

    Reply
  148. If in doubt cut it out!!

    Reply
  149. thermostat can be a cause of regens not happening as engine is not getting up to required temperature in cooler months

    Reply
  150. thermostat can be a cause of regens not happening as engine is not getting up to required temperature in cooler months

    Reply
  151. They’re a pain in the backside.

    Tell me why my car now achieves 10MPG more without a DPF and a remap? The car is now more efficient and more powerful!

    Could an ad-blue system work like on the buses and lorries?

    Reply
  152. Do all my own maintenance on my classic cars, know them and how they work inside out very well through hands on experience and fixing faults. I doubt very much if l took both my classic Fords into an authorised Ford they would have clue, not to say they won’t be experts on the the latest and greatest brand new shiny Ford Mustangs.

    I think it should be up to the owner to decide with, a voluntary MOT for those that want to have one. If l stripped my old classic Fords down to a shell and thousands of bits in a major renovation, then put them all back yes l would love a MOT tester to give it a second look all over in a voluntary MOT just in case something has been missed by me personally, but after that l doubt very much if l would encounter any problems, l personally would not want to have it MOT for a least another 12-14 years., before then next major overhaul.

    I absolutely love my classic Fords would never put them at risk, l would never take them out on the road in an unroadworthy condition.

    Put me down for making MOT’s for pre-1973 to be done on a voluntary basis at the owners discretion, and let the police throw the book at any classic car owner is caught driving it around in a unroadworthy condition.

    Reply
  153. When I bought my e90 i went for. 2005 model as I knew it didn’t have a dpf ….

    2008 onwards there has to be one fitted

    So where do I stand regarding this matter as mine hasn’t got one at alll and was never fitted with one x

    Reply
  154. I was told by a big garage chain that my Porsche cayenne DPF is blocked & need removing to fix the problem costing £700 can we claim it back as how was I supposed to know any different.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Have your say!

17 7

Lost Password

Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.