Diesel Particulate Filter - New Regulations

[Conniff]

DPA filters are a pita and have been removed successfully in many instances by owners without a visible increase in the exhaust smoke emissions.

 

However, New Regulations come into effect in February 2014 that makes it illegal to run a vehicle that was fitted with a DPF by the manufacturer as standard.

 

Garages and testing stations will be required to check for a diesel particulate filter in the inspection of the exhaust system as part of the MOT test (or annual test for heavy vehicles) from February 2014.

 

The vehicle will automatically fail the MOT test if the filter had been fitted as standard but is found to be no longer present

[Hammy1962]

Well, yes, that's one up the bum for all the so-called experts then isn't it.

 

H

[scaniaman]

Conniff, i read on another website that with some of these DPF's the guts can be removed without any external signs, so getting over this dastardly problem.

My understanding of the new rules is that only a visual inspection is required.

[Surfer01]

Conniff, i read on another website that with some of these DPF's the guts can be removed without any external signs, so getting over this dastardly problem.

My understanding of the new rules is that only a visual inspection is required.

 

We must have read the same website. A MOT inspector cannot do any work on a vehicle to inspect anything.

[Conniff]

That's correct, they aren't allowed to dismantle anything. That also means that cars that have plastic oversills could be in a dangerous condition but no one will know.

 

Although it's mainly soot particles, I will check if removal increases the co2 content so making it measurable and let you know.

[heliosuk]

That's correct, they aren't allowed to dismantle anything. That also means that cars that have plastic oversills could be in a dangerous condition but no one will know.

 

Although it's mainly soot particles, I will check if removal increases the co2 content so making it measurable and let you know.

 

They are not designed to remove CO2 Conniff but are there to control soot emissions. It's an EU only regulation brought in to control the soot emissions from old design engines. Current engines developed in the Europe currently meet current emissions regs without the use of a DPF but there are so many overseas manufacturers which don't which has led to a blanket regulation of all diesels having this fitted.

 

They are a pain which does not work and leads to many other problems, some of which can be very serious.

 

Future regs coming in involve the use of a particularly nasty substance which smells like strong cats ****.

 

Where the EU bods would be better employed would be reducing the amount of water spray from lorries tyres especially on motorways.

 

It seems odd that car manufacturers have to persistently conform to safety and emission regs yet 44 tonne trucks can trundle aimlessly along the roads and motorways chucking gallons of water into the air.

[Conniff]

...from old design engines

 

Ah right, that will be why the French cars have them then - Merry Christmas you old bugger and a Prosperous New Year.

[labrat]

We must have read the same website. A MOT inspector cannot do any work on a vehicle to inspect anything.

 

dont i know it, many times brother in laws borrowed our kids car seats to hide fraying belts

or put duct tape over areas of body work he knows wont pass

[scaniaman]

Firstly Mr. Heliosuk, may i wish you and Mrs. Heliosuk a very Merry Christmas and a sale for your Saxo in the new year.

I take issue on some of the points in your last post though---44ton trucks do not "trundle aimlessly" along the road--they are too bloody expensive to run so they must be "on a mission".

I have always maintained that the European vehicle manufacturing industry is large enough and has enough clout to tell the EU where to shove these ridiculous regulations especially when applied to diesels. I suspect though, by agreeing to fit the junk to meet these regulations they can increase profit levels!!!!!!!

In regards to spray suppression, i was in the industry when these regs. first applied. What was wrong was that the Govt. didn't allow enough time for research into proper ways to combat excess spray. They seemed quite happy to allow what was marketed at the time and nothing has changed since then.

I can tell you however, that a firm did invent a spray suppression system that almost eliminated excess spray, but this was not widely marketed because of massive problems with water being trapped and entering the braking system. Where salt had been spread and subsequently melted ice / snow this water caused problems with corrosion on the braking system and other under chassis components.

Looking at the problem from a different angle, would it not be possible to do something with road design to reduce surface water??

At the time i was involved, i noticed that trucks did not cause the spray problem you refer to if speeds were kept at or under 50mph. The higher the speed the worse the spray.

It would appear that these EU morons are to be allowed (by maker and user) to continue to overload us with ridiculous regulations. It's high time that the public were told the truth about global warming and pollution especially as Europe itself can do little to change the situation.

In relation to "cats urine", you are aware that at present some diesels require a highly toxic chemical to be fed into the fuel system!!

I,ll drink to you at New Year old son.

[heliosuk]

Ah right, that will be why the French cars have them then - Merry Christmas you old bugger and a Prosperous New Year.

 

And a merry Christmas to you as well Conniff ( Though I do take issue with the old bugger bit you grumpy REALLY old git !!! )

 

When DPF's are used as designed they actually work very well but the downside is increased fuel consumption and the cost to produce in emission terms of raw materials and energy probably negates the benefits given.

 

As you know I have been working abroad a fair bit this year in countries with little or no pollution control and it's quite clear that emission control systems do work if they are fitted like in Europe and the States.

[heliosuk]

Firstly Mr. Heliosuk, may i wish you and Mrs. Heliosuk a very Merry Christmas and a sale for your Saxo in the new year.

I take issue on some of the points in your last post though---44ton trucks do not "trundle aimlessly" along the road--they are too bloody expensive to run so they must be "on a mission".

I have always maintained that the European vehicle manufacturing industry is large enough and has enough clout to tell the EU where to shove these ridiculous regulations especially when applied to diesels. I suspect though, by agreeing to fit the junk to meet these regulations they can increase profit levels!!!!!!!

In regards to spray suppression, i was in the industry when these regs. first applied. What was wrong was that the Govt. didn't allow enough time for research into proper ways to combat excess spray. They seemed quite happy to allow what was marketed at the time and nothing has changed since then.

I can tell you however, that a firm did invent a spray suppression system that almost eliminated excess spray, but this was not widely marketed because of massive problems with water being trapped and entering the braking system. Where salt had been spread and subsequently melted ice / snow this water caused problems with corrosion on the braking system and other under chassis components.

Looking at the problem from a different angle, would it not be possible to do something with road design to reduce surface water??

At the time i was involved, i noticed that trucks did not cause the spray problem you refer to if speeds were kept at or under 50mph. The higher the speed the worse the spray.

It would appear that these EU morons are to be allowed (by maker and user) to continue to overload us with ridiculous regulations. It's high time that the public were told the truth about global warming and pollution especially as Europe itself can do little to change the situation.

In relation to "cats urine", you are aware that at present some diesels require a highly toxic chemical to be fed into the fuel system!!

I,ll drink to you at New Year old son.

 

And the compliments of the season to you too Mr Scania. Mrs Helios was seen trying to smuggle in a rather good Jura this morning so if it's what I think it is then I'll be drinking to you as well at midnight ( and Conniff as well I expect).

 

Lorries do trundle along the motorways though as are limited to 60mph so when you get a group of them all on their own individual missions, sometimes 4 miles long on the M6, it makes it nigh on impossible to overtake in the outside lane when it is wet.

 

Tyre design has moved on in leaps and bounds over the past few years especially with wet weather performance so whilst this technology is good news for safety of the individual driver there seems to be no consideration of the consequences of these improvements. It's not rocket science now with computer driven modelling of water flows but what it needs is legislation to force truck manufacturers into doing it just the same way as they force car manufacturers to deal with emissions.

 

By the way, the original DPF systems you refer to I believe are now banned from new because of what you say and the problems they cause but it seems odd this wasn't known about at the time. From memory it was probably a knee jerk reaction to some sort of Kyoto conference by the EU. Current systems don't use it and future systems use this cats pee substance (urea??). Not had a lot to do with it as yet ....but then I only go and fix the issues when it all goes pear shaped!!!

 

I trust your Swedish bird is performing well?? (Now that will put Conniff's mind into overdrive ;-) )

[j66]

We don't measure CO2 at all on the MOT for either diesel or petrol engines. Emissions equipment such as cats and DPFs (which can contain a cat) actually increase the amount of CO2 emitted as the reactions in a 3 way cat turn the nasty stuff into into water, Nitrogen, CO2 and O2.

 

We have not been instructed how to check and why we can fail as of yet, though it would be obvious to me that a DPF is not functioning by the smoke test result and the presence of soot in the tailpipe. I would hope that they would drastically reduce the pass threshold on the smoke test for vehicles registered after a certain date. On a car with a working DPF our smoke tester frequently fails to detect that the engine has been revved, which means that the smoke reading is 0.00/m, where currently the most stringent pass level is 1.50/m for turbo diesels first used after 01/07/2008.

 

It looks as though legislation is pushing the manufacturers to clean up the emissions after combustion, rather than lowering emissions by using less fuel and having more efficient combustion.

[Conniff]

Though I do take issue with the old bugger bit you grumpy REALLY old git !!!

 

Love it and thanks for the well wishes. Mine naturally go to Scania as well and will drink to you both on NYE.

 

As for the Swedish bird, that's brought me all out in a sweat.

 

J66 makes some really good up-to-date points and really well taking note of.

Despite what it may sound like in the posts above j66, all my work wasn't on Ford Anglia's and Prefects lol.

[scaniaman]

.Reference your last paragraph J66. Rather hits nail on head. Previously, i have written our PM (Broon!!!!) and explained that DPF actually increases fuel consumption and is therefore counter productive.

They (our wise govt.) cannot understand that "Bankrupt Britain" should be working flat out to reduce fuel consumption by increasing MPG, and therefore reduce our balance of payments to politically unstable countries.

It would appear that the Green Welly brigade have very quietly gained enormous power in deceiving the british public about global warming and pollution. I hope in the new year, to get a genuine expert to tell us the whole truth on this subject.

To other posters, i wish you all the best for the comming year, and the Swedish bird is currently in winter storage. All being well she will be made ready to go like **** off a shovel in the spring!!

PS. Lorries limited to 56mph unfortunately.

[Conniff]

You're dead right about the green welly brigade, they whinge about everything but never come up with an alternative.

 

I think the bus companies should have tax and duty free fuel then we wouldn't use the car if we could get into town for say 10p.

[Surfer01]

You're dead right about the green welly brigade, they whinge about everything but never come up with an alternative.

I think the bus companies should have tax and duty free fuel then we wouldn't use the car if we could get into town for say 10p.

For the two of us to travel by bus into town would cost us about £7 for the round trip of about 5 miles. It is cheaper and quicker to jump in the car and pay the £2 parking fee than to use the bus.

[ericsbrother]

My problem is I have to carry 600kg of stock so public transport is rarely an option. they wont even let you take a flat bed trolley on the bus, let alone the boxes piled on it.