Forum menu
Ford have seen a drop off in diesel engined sales as a result of DPF issues. They are introducing 'technology' on new diesels that will heat the DPF from start up to make it work on shorter journeys.
Nice.. electrical heating? Or some kind of fuel burner?
Ford have seen a drop off in diesel engined sales as a result of DPF issues. They are introducing 'technology' on new diesels that will heat the DPF from start up to make it work on shorter journeys.
I'd venture its also because small petrol engines are becoming a lot more effecient
If you haven't seen it, this is part of an article about MOT fails on PistonHeads this morning.
Still to come are requirements to fail a car on a lit engine management light and also to fail diesels if a factory-fitted particulate filter has been removed. This comes into force next month and might scupper anyone who's had theirs whipped out by any of the companies offering removal service and ECU reflash. However you might get away with it if the job's a clean one. A spokesman for the DVSA told us that rather than check via computer whether the car was fitted with a DPF it's "a visual inspection of the exhaust system".
Still to come are requirements to fail a car on a lit engine management light
I'll be in the shit then 🙁 I think that's outrageous - some EMLs are nothing remotely to do with safety.
I'd venture its also because small petrol engines are becoming a lot more effecient
Yes, and people are learning where diesel's appropriate and where it's not.
yep, diesel is typicaly a RON of 15-18 compared to arround 92-100 for petrol.Not sure diesel would count as low octane, if they measured it that way...?
Thats why it burns with no need for a spark.
typicaly ocyane goes down with increacing molecular weight, which is why petrol goes off in the tank as the butane evaporates leaving low octane stuff behind. You can build very high compression LPG engines for this reason.
Thats why it burns with no need for a spark.
Well you are right about the octane number, but that's not the reason diesels don't have a spark. The fuel is chosen because it suits compression ignition, not the other way round 🙂
People are working on comression ignition petrol engines.
[url= http://blog.caranddriver.com/hyundai-developing-gasoline-burning-compression-ignition-engine/ ]This is cool - compression-ignition petrol engine[/url]
Just think of all that green fail,
Think you're mixing up your arguments. A lot of these devices are required to be fitted, knowing that they will *decrease* the fuel efficiency, in order to reduce emissions which are harmful to health when released in congested cities and so on.
NOx (EGR) and Diesel Paritulcates (DPF) mainly cause health problems.
Excessive CO2 released from fossil fuels causes climate change.
Unnecessarily building and scrapping cars because they need a new DPF (it that's happening) probably causes more Co2 but not much Nox or DP.
Unnecessarily building and scrapping cars because they need a new DPF (it that's happening) probably causes more Co2 but not much Nox or DP.
Yes and almost certainly not near the ground in city centres where kids breathe it in.
Why do you think the DPF and EGR are supposed to be there OP?
Well, I now know [i]exactly[/i] what they are there for...
When the car went wrong and the garage quoted £600+ to repair and warned that I could see another failure within a year or two (apparently thats not unheard of) they suggested I could bypass them for a lot less and get an improvement in economy that would offset the cost of the bypass.
When I asked what they did I was told it all lowered CO2 emissions, and given my car had quite low emissions anyway I was happy with that explanation.
The economics were simple though - would you pay £600-£700 on a 9 year old car with 90,000 miles plus on it knowing that you could face the problem again, or get them removed and plan to run the car into the ground over the next 2-3 years?
Even knowing what I know now about the EGR and DPF I believe I still made the right choice and saved a car from the scrap yard. IMO the technology as implemented on my car in 2004 was not proven and the move towards diesel by many on the basis of better MPG was poor judgement.
The question is, why would it fail again? There has to be an underlying cause as to why the DPF got blocked up.
I do spend money on old cars, because if you take market forces out of the equation there's no difference between an old car and a new car. Just because people arne't willing to pay much for it doesn't mean it's any less valuable as an object.
There was no reason your car would be junk after 12 years anyway. It costs money to look after yes, but nothing like as much as a new car costs to buy. The low monetary value of old cars has consigned far more cars to the scrapyard than any technology has.
Well I'm certainly happy to spend money on older cars to keep them running but you do have to call a day when you could potentially buy another older car that has been well looked after.
At the time I had to take what the garage told me as I had a knackered car and not a huge amount of time available ergo - get it fixed as economically as possible or sell for spares/repair.
I've since learned that for my 407 the most likely cause was it running out of some fiendishly expensive liquid used by the DPF for a regen cycle - there is nothing on the dash to warn you this has all gone and its not a self service item either.
On the plus side I've also been told that as my car is a 1.6HDi the EGR bypass should help keep whatever bits cleaner that contribute towards turbo failure. Whether this is a fact I'm not sure, but sounds plausible.
The car now drives great and it'll be kept until it becomes cheaper to buy something else than fix - hence my earlier comments about switching back to a NA petrol engine when the time comes.
To bring back an old post:
Has anyone had a car with DPF removed tested yet?
Did it pass or fail?