DPF removal
- Thread starter omph
- Start date
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 15,214
- Reaction score
- 1,190
- Country
Contrary to popular opinion, slower speed limits often increase traffic flow.
Not always something I like, but the facts are out there
Seems the Woke Brigade have piled in on the thread.
Some companies used to blatantly advertise "dpf and egr solutions" but not so much now although i do know of a few near me that would do it.
I know quite a few that have it done and there is no way to detect it really if done correctly, not sure how the Mot will ever change to pick it up.
Im led to believe if the vehicle is running well tailpipe emissions and soot should still be fine unless it has a silly remap.
I know quite a few that have it done and there is no way to detect it really if done correctly, not sure how the Mot will ever change to pick it up.
Im led to believe if the vehicle is running well tailpipe emissions and soot should still be fine unless it has a silly remap.
Totally fabricated boll@x!
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 15,214
- Reaction score
- 1,190
- Country
As I said, I don't always like slower speed limits.
But there are many many investigations and reports into it. Slower limits often increase traffic flow, whether we like it or not.
When I was testing, I’m sure there was a special notice issued to all testers along the lines of any mot stations caught advertising or carrying out cat/DPF deletion/removal would lose their licence to test.
Seems the "I-like-to-pee-in-the-public-swimming-pool" brigade have piled in too...
Oh it's relatively easy to do with a portable particulate counter. Other countries are doing it right now:
news: PN-PTI testing starts in more European countries
We just need the UK government to get its finger out and do the same, but for some reason, it prefers throwing resource at the NHS to treat breathing disorders, rather than trying to reduce the problem at source. Still, it's not like the NHS is struggling, or anything...
Sadly not. People think of "particulate emissions" as "visible smoke", but the stuff you can see, isn't really the problem. That's why the MOT smoke meter is so useless for checking particulate emissions.
Nobody chooses to spend £100's getting these things removed - the fact is they're not fit for purpose and instead of the government making manufacturers produce something that is and will last the life of the car, or making it an affordable consumable part, or giving grants to help people replace them they penalise the poorest motorists in society while giving thousands in grants to people who can already afford to buy new cars.
I have a car with one of these and I appreciate they are there for a purpose, if it went wrong I would try to get it properly replaced but I wouldn't bankrupt myself over it.
Facebook is full of business's advertising this service (including some attempting to replicate factory seam welding) so the practice must be rife, same with adblue deletes on newer vehicles.
I occasionally browse "Testing Matters" and the DVSA seem to just mutter about using software to detect tampering at some future time while putting a bit too much onus on testers to police it in the meantime.
I have a car with one of these and I appreciate they are there for a purpose, if it went wrong I would try to get it properly replaced but I wouldn't bankrupt myself over it.
Facebook is full of business's advertising this service (including some attempting to replicate factory seam welding) so the practice must be rife, same with adblue deletes on newer vehicles.
I occasionally browse "Testing Matters" and the DVSA seem to just mutter about using software to detect tampering at some future time while putting a bit too much onus on testers to police it in the meantime.
"Entitled"... much?! Sorry, but owning and running a car has never been a fundamental human right. (Access to clean air is, though). DPFs are, by and large, pretty reliable. I've only once had a DPF problem and it was a relatively cheap sensor. If people are buying the wrong tool for the job, that's on them, I'm afraid. It would be nice if everything on a car lasted forever, but we have to live in the real world, I'm afraid.
That's why we need better regulation. What you're really saying, is that your maintenance costs trump someone else's right to breathe clean air.
Sadly, yes. They need to "grow a pair" and catch up with more forward-thinking countries.
Meanwhile in the real world, people are doing what they (feel entitled to) do in the tens of thousands and the world is exporting it's dirty vehicles to the third world where all the pollution control is just cut off - hopefully their smoke doesn't drift back here.
Not yet in my case - I've never tampered with emissions controls - but I pay my taxes and I don't believe the governments approach of trying to replace the entire car fleet in the country in a short time by subsidising the wealthy while poor people with a sense of entitlement to own a car make do and mend.
I say again, that's why we need better regulation. Sure, people are inherently selfish and short-sighted. It's the "peeing in the public swimming pool" analogy - usually accompanied by the justification of "well... It's just me, it won't make any difference"!
You probably don't want to start keeping a scoreboard of emissions per capita with the Third World - especially not as we've got about a 200 year head start on them...
By and large, it doesn't. Air quality tends to be pretty localised. That's why the air in central London smells different to the air up here in Cumbria.
And that's very much to your credit. I wish more people were the same.
That's a different issue. Everything we've been talking about so far, (DPFs, smoke, particulates, etc) has been about air quality. The move to EVs is mostly to do with CO2 reduction and future energy security. Sure, EVs are better for air quality too, but a well maintained Euro 6d (or later) ICE car will also be pretty good on air quality. If people didn't mess with them and delete emission control stuff, I think we'd get air quality in our cities down to within WHO recommended limits anyway.
I'm not sure what makes you think they're trying to replace the nation's car fleet "in a short time" though? They've been incentivising EVs since at least 2020 and they want to ban the sale of new pure ICE vehicles in 2030, followed by hybrids 5 years after that. So that's 15 years for a start! And then, of course, a typical ICE car lasts about 15 years before it is scrapped, so that's 30 years before we even START seeing the last ICEs disappearing from our roads in any significant numbers! I'm unlikely to even be alive in 30 years, let alone still driving! That said, I do agree that the 2030 target is over-ambitious and largely driven by vanity. Alignment with the rest of the EU at 2035 would be far more sensible.
With regard to subsidies, did you complain when the government was subsidising diesel cars over petrol ones with cheaper road tax?
Surely it's the other way around - he had to disable these devices because they are insanely complicated? Probably has to do it so his car keeps working without onerous maintenance so he can earn a living.
Can hardly blame a cabby if the manufacturers, VW, etc, were producing cars that produce excess emissions and are fitted with cheat tech to cover up this fact.
Yes, it's true. They're always trying to slow and restrict the flow of traffic here in the vain hope of pushing us onto public transport. One eg. is the traffic lights on main roads that turn to red on the main carriageway, to let cars out of lesser side roads. Except there are no cars coming out of the side roads. Why not leave the lights on the main road green all the time unless a car is waiting to join from a side road? I'm often driving along the main road at night and have to stop on a red, while the side roads at that junction go green to let nothing out. Just stopped me for nothing.
