Ad-Blue Delete – experience

I look forward to when a 400 mile range EV Van is available in Ducato L3 for the same as current prices.

Until then it’s make do and mend accordingly.  Preventative maintenance is part of that. Sorry some folk don’t like it, but last year demonstrated the fragility and stupidity behind these systems. Not going there again!

For balance,  I cycle and use public transport where necessary and minimise mileage where possible but still do 20k pa.

Preventative maintenance is part of that.

Disabling systems that were put in place to protect public health is not preventative maintenance.

 I am surprised the authorities are so lenient on both those consumers and that particular cottage industry.

DVSA do occasionally target tuning/modification companies, but they simply don’t have the resources to do more

https://www.facebook.com/dvsagovuk/posts/pfbid03SsfQc4V3GhPYt5Yb9D6ZW5xdETBTv6jpAdvsYBMRy5xjsMu8kwAp4hZivRWjBYQl

Disabling systems that were put in place to protect public health is not preventative maintenance.

Whatever you choose to call it, provided its legal and MoT compliant, I’ll be preventive in disabling the Adblue system that is so fragile on many vehicles, to avoid a repeat of my last experience.

Am I semantically compliant now? 😎

Alternatively,  manufacturers can make these systems robust and repairable, to avoid nearly writing off otherwise perfectly good vehicles. That would be the golden solution.

Disabling systems that were put in place to protect public health is not preventative maintenance.

Whatever you choose to call it, provided its legal and MoT compliant, I’ll be preventive in disabling the Adblue system that is so fragile on many vehicles, to avoid a repeat of my last experience.

Am I semantically compliant now? 😎

When it threatens to write off the vehicle, its more than a ‘little’ inconvenient. Would have no hesitation deleting Adblue again in the future.

I have no hesitation thinking you might be a bit of a selfish sausage.

It’s illegal to use the car on the public road without the Ad Blue or the DPF, for obvious reasons as they were there for a reason in the first place. So I assume that preventative maintenance is now firmly off the menu.

I have no hesitation thinking you might be a bit of a selfish sausage.

If you say so! My bank balance couldn’t take the hit of binning a 5 year old van.

I also don’t give two hoots what a total stranger thinks about me or my actions in response to what was a pretty dire situation.

if no-one else has mentioned it, I’m guessing it would also invalidate your insurance  – removing/disabling the catalytic converter does and this is pretty much the same thing.

I think in theory ALL modifications/changes from OEM spec are meant to be notified

Whatever you choose to call it, provided its legal and MoT compliant

It’s not legal to use on public roads, and it’s not MOT compliant, they just don’t currently check for it.

I also don’t give two hoots what a total stranger thinks about me or my actions in response to what was a pretty dire situation.

I assume that now that you’ve learnt it’s illegal (for obvious reasons) thanks to total strangers, you have reviewed your plan of action. Or is it OK to break the law and impose your carcinogenic emissions on pedestrians in order to save yourself money?

Without passing (any more) judgement on the morality, I’d be a bit worried that if they were to introduce NOx testing for the MOT my van would be instantly worthless.

@b33k34 show me the case law for this. There is absolutely no reason  this would invalidate your insurance. Without being rude to you, I think this is exactly the kind of “computer says no” thinking which I think is starting to make the UK a very exhausting place to live or get anything done. It’s the same kind of

I understand  the many points made on here by people who have no knowledge of Ab Blue systems of the problems that it causes in vehicles. But the truth is that changes on emissions and the environment in general need to be societal ones, and ones made between industry and government. I have a vehicle which I require for work, that simply doesn’t work not because I have done something wrong – but because the technology which has been sold to me is a total bodge. Newer vans aren’t available to buy at the moment (there are lead times of 9 to 12 months) and the electric options available are totally ridiculous at the moment for anyone who is a sensible human being and who leads a busy working life outside of a city.

Thanks to the members who messaged me privately to let me know they had removed the ad blue from their Citreon van’s and that they hadn’t had any problems and were pleased they had done it!

But anyway…  I actually was reading through a Citreon forum and someone had managed to get their ad blue pump running again by using a bottle of the decrystalising Wynn’s Crystal Ad Blue additive. @TroutWrestler was asking about. Anyway I bought two on my way home today and threw them in the tank – and drove for about 80 miles and hey presto the lights have gone off! First the UREA light went off, then after a couple of start stops the engine management light went off – so there is your answer!

So for now at least I’ll be doing no ad blue deletes. For those who find this thread via a google search in the future – I also have been reading how many recommend topping up their ad blue little and often. Apparently it was a fairly short shelf life and if you only top it up in bulk once every 2 years (thanks to those silly 10 litre tanks) then that’s what can cause gumming up of the tank and pump (which tends to be what dies!)

@mikertroid me as well mate. 400 mile range and I’ll buy an electric tomorrow. For the moment the best of the electric vans is a VW buzz…but it’s tiny inside and does 200 miles unloaded. It’s also £40k!

That’s good news. I wonder what the original problem is then, something to do with crystallisation?

That’s good to hear (looking to buy a Pug Van in 12 months) ! The crystallisation does seem to be an issue – wonder if it happens if you don’t keep the tank topped up ?

Cold weather and cold storage can contribute apparently:

How to avoid AdBlue crystallisation

@joe

just based my contents on stuff like this

if it’s a mod that would cause it to fail an Mot if known about (even if not tested for) it seems unlikely the insurer wouldn’t consider it relevant

https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/car-modification-car-insurance#

https://www.keithmichaels.co.uk/modified-car-insurance/info/declaring-modifications-to-your-car-insurer/

Does your insurance go up if you modify your car?

There is absolutely no reason this would invalidate your insurance.

Insurance generally specifies that your vehicle must be roadworthy. Disabling or removing emissions systems makes it unroadworthy. I think it’s unlikely that an insurer would pick up on it if you had to make a claim, but there’s certainly reason for it to invalidate insurance.

but there’s certainly reason for it to invalidate insurance.

The case law surrounding it suggests that the removal of the emissions system would have to have played a part in the accident.

I guess if someone ran into the back of you because you were making clouds of smoke then possibly. But it’s certainly not in the line of some of the extreme scaremongers posting up above.

Wait till they find out you can legally fit another engine from a different vehicle.

Just stop buying **** diesel vehicles. They should have been banned years ago.

@Aidy sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about. Being unroadworthy is related solely to a dangerous condition, not having an adblue system connected or functioning isn’t dangerous so isn’t unroadworthy and an insurer couldn’t refuse to pay out unless a claim directly arose from the disconnection of the system – considering all it does is spray piss into the last part of the exhaust I can’t see what claim could arise from this not functioning.

This is a classic example of blaming the little guy rather than the giant corporation who designed and fitted this piece of shit system.

Out of curiosity what do you drive?

An undeclared modifications of the very mechanical specs of the car is ground to reject a claim or cancel a policy surely, particularly when it’s illegal like this.

The carrier probably wouldn’t find out about it though, but that’s not the point.

The point remains it’s illegal.

And the fact that it’s a poor design by the large Corporate at the detriment of the little consumer doesn’t change that, however unfair the situation is.

“Just stop buying **** diesel vehicles. They should have been banned years ago.”

There isn’t a viable alternative for plumbers/builders/tradespeople/transportation of goods…. yet. We are in the death throes of ICE before hydrogen and EV fully takes over. All the systems bolted to diesel engines are the fudges required to get us to that hydrogen/ev future but they are sometimes a bit shit. In 10years time it won’t be an issue.

Hydrogen ? Is that still a prospect?

Being unroadworthy is related solely to a dangerous condition

That is not how the Ministry of Transport define it. If insurers use a different definition, then I’ve not seen it in their terms.

I know you mean “likely to cause a physical incident”, but disconnecting or disabling emissions systems *is* a dangerous condition to people’s health.

It must be nice living in your perfect world nickfrog.

surely

Oh so your speculating ?

Just stop buying **** diesel vehicles. They should have been banned years ago.

A properly functioning modern diesel is no worse than a petrol car and may even be better. What they should do or have done is introduce NOx testing in the MOT, then manufacturers would have had to make the systems work properly and reliably in the first place.

Hydrogen ? Is that still a prospect?

No. Using electricity to make hydrogen to power vehicles is something like five times less efficient than simply powering the car with it  directly.

The case law surrounding it suggests that the removal of the emissions system would have to have played a part in the accident.

Yes, I think it’s unlikely that they’d refuse to pay out. I was purely disputing that there was “no reason” it would invalidate insurance.

“Hydrogen ? Is that still a prospect?”

Ask Toyota

airvent

Free Member

It must be nice living in your perfect world nickfrog.

It’s pretty neat I admit 😉  I think I have mostly stated obvious facts, haven’t I?

It’s illegal.

Oh so your speculating ?

I am not though. Mods invalidating a policy is in every motor policy wording I have read, ie quite a few. Have you found one that doesn’t?

Declaring an illegal mod is not an option either.

@nickfrog

I have a heritage railway pretty much at the end of my road that runs through the Valley. They use old obsolete diesel technology and coal powered trains both of which pump clouds of shit out to transport people who drive here for the pleasure! They have no plans to allow their tracks to become a commuting system into the nearby city that has gridlocked road connectivity.

One guy who has no financial or fuel source viable alternative isn’t really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

Fair comment.

I read recently that German scientists found the amount of airborne carcinogenic particules in a small remote village was a multiple of the amount in cities in winter because of wood fires.

Perhaps rules are indeed aimed at the wrong target while we decarbonise.

simondbarnesFull Member
Just stop buying **** diesel vehicles. They should have been banned years ago

Eh, why do you think diesels are bad then, they are by far the most efficient use of energy in transport we have available right now, and that won’t change for a long time.  There is a reason the Japanese are still developing diesels (as are some EU OEMs) and that’s simply because no other tech will be ready this side of 2050 to replace them.

they are by far the most efficient use of energy in transport we have available right now

Um. Bicycles.

You need a van, it’s diesel. You need a wankpanzer, it’s usually a big **** off diesel or a stupid fast, massively expensive and not efficient leccy version. We aren’t there yet.

I’m a petrol driver, but the vehicle I would like (for low miles and holidays) is either a diesel van or a leccy one that won’t do 100 miles. A 1 year ld leccy one is the same price as a 4 yer old oil burner used. I’m still going dino juice as 100 miles won’t get me much into North Wales before you hit a hill or two loaded.

Diesel’s are still far more efficient for fuel use than petrol.

sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about. Being unroadworthy is related solely to a dangerous condition, not having an adblue system connected or functioning isn’t dangerous so isn’t unroadworthy and an insurer couldn’t refuse to pay out unless a claim directly arose from the disconnection of the system – considering all it does is spray piss into the last part of the exhaust I can’t see what claim could arise from this not functioning.

There are very limited ways an insurer can refuse a third party claim, however there are many more ways they can get out an insured party claim, and undeclared mods is one of the easiest ways they can invalidate a policy. Any change from how the vehicle left the factory, is technically a modification.

However unless it’s a very obvious mod (something like your stereotypical boy racer with an undeclared body kit glued on), it’s very unlikely they’ll check for anything else, unless lots of money is it stake, or they’ve had a tip off.

I did a training course where the guy taking the course also did insurance remapping investigations, which typically involved high powered cars, and they could quite quickly establish if any ECU contained non-original software. In those kinds of cases, a thousand pound spent on an investigation could avoid the insurance company having to pay out mid 5 figures upwards.

But as with all insurance, to them, it’s a numbers game. If they spend 1k to avoid a 50k pay out, they only have to be right once every 50 claims to still be in profit. If they have to pay out 1k on vehicles valued at 10k, they need to find something every 10 claims, so the figures don’t work, unless they are confident they’ll find something.

There are plenty of mods that you can make that don’t affect a policy, but you run a risk if you don’t let the insurer make that decision

On “roadworthy”. There’s plenty of evidence, for example, to show that car and van tyres below 3mm tread increase stopping distances (as much as 44%), but the legal limit is 1.6mm. Is allowing a tyre to drop below 3mm unroadworthy?

I did a training course where the guy taking the course also did insurance remapping investigations, which typically involved high powered cars, and they could quite quickly establish if any ECU contained non-original software. In those kinds of cases, a thousand pound spent on an investigation could avoid the insurance company having to pay out mid 5 figures upwards.

Most manufacturers can tell that you’ve modded their car as soon as you plug into manufacturing diagnostics.

Even if you remove the mod (reflash the stock tune), or swap the ECU back and forth between a Mod and a Stock unit. There’s lots of engine/diagnostics/usage data stored on other modules, some of which have parts that are only factory programmable. So they can tell that your fancy backstreet tune switched off half the onboard emission  systems and changed pre-ignition detection thresholds for an extra 6bhp, *even if you change them back when the engine starts to make funny noises*.