UKC

I've seen people on here and on singletrackworld.com posting about driving without the filters, or considering removing them due to the costs involved in maintaining them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41761864?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchan...

The negative health consequences include lung cancer, heart attacks, strokes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and unborn children in the womb being affected.

It's a very selfish thing to do.

In reply to Timmd:

I don't read STW, but you'd think that cyclists would appreciate the need for a DPF.

In reply to captain paranoia:

That occurred to me as well.

In reply to Timmd:

There are plenty of older diesels too which weren't fitted with them to begin with. Like mine.

In reply to Fraser:
I'm sure there are, but it's still damn selfish to remove them. This thread is an 'Oi!' aimed at people who might.

In reply to Timmd:

Yep, I realise that. My own point is that there are probably way more people, like me, who are legitimately driving cars which also don't have a DPF. I'm not sure if one can be retro-fitted, but I suspect not.

In reply to Fraser:
I guess one could look at the figures for what cars and things are still on the road, age wise, and vaguely figure it out perhaps?

In reply to Timmd:


It's more than selfish. It's illegal.

In reply to Chris Harris:
Not everything which is illegal is selfish, and not everything which is selfish is illegal.

Even if it wasn't illegal, it'd still be damn selfish.

In reply to Timmd:
It's a fashion


youtube.com/watch?v=6wfzUAF2X5s&

In reply to Timmd:

and lots of people driving diesels don't know what one is, or if their car has one or not.

Me for example.


Sure, I can go and find out now I have been told about them etc etc. But most people driving diesels just thought ' hmm, engine performance is now on par with a petrol, fuel economy better. I'll have a diesel please.'

In reply to ClimberEd:


I'm not at all out to criticise diesel drivers. There's nothing in my OP or posts which suggests that, I would hope.

In reply to Timmd:


Hi, it was the title of the thread, more than the content. By saying 'thousands of diesel drivers' you are implying most.
Rather than a few idiots.

In reply to ClimberEd:

"it was the title of the thread, more than the content. By saying 'thousands of diesel drivers' you are implying most.


Well thousands of people have been caught doing this so the title is factually correct.

In reply to Timmd:

Ah DPF Filters. Another excellent example of RAS syndrome

In reply to gethin_allen:



Don't be a pedant, it's tedious.

In reply to ClimberEd:


We'll just ignore the fats then as they are obviously inconvenient.

In reply to Timmd:

Genuinely amazed by number of dislikes (over 2/3rds) that the OP has recieved

Air pollution is killing thousands of people a year and diesel particulates are a major factor

Given the apparent ease with which it is possible to circumvent the law, then we can assume that the 1800 people caught is just the tip of the iceberg.

Selfish is a very mild comment IMHO

In reply to Timmd:

I had a diesel 8 or 9 years ago and took mine out if of its what I think it is. I had a filter in the exhaust and a straight pipe was cheaper than a new one by a long way

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Have you never read any of the many threads discussing "Likes and Dislikes"? I have, so I can state that it is highly likely here that people are expressing that they dislike that so many people are removing their DPFs, rather than that they dislike Timmd's statement that it's not a very nice thing to do.

You are being sensitive on Timmd's part.

In reply to gethin_allen:


Sizeist.

In reply to Timmd:

i don't know why anyone would be suprised that drivers might remove the DPF in a deisel car - they are a very fragile, horrifically expensive part that provides no immediate advantage to the owner.

if you need a regeneration it will cost you between £300 and £600, if its properly shagged - which is easy to do - it will cost you £1000 to replace. it doesn't make your car more fuel efficient, it doesn't make it last longer, it doesn't mean you can drive faster or park more easily, its just a cost.

air pollution is, for the overwhelming majority of diesel drivers, a theoretical problem. yes, its a problem that needs sorting, but it doesn't affect them - or they don't know it effects them - but the possibility/likelyhood of having to fork out somewhere between £300 and £1000 every 12 months to get your car through the MOT is not a theoretical problem, its a getting-to-work tomorrow problem, and as such sits much higher up the priorities list than some invisible thing that probably doesn't effect them.

In reply to ballsac:
I see what you mean.

In reply to ballsac:

I've driven diesels for the last 7 years averaging 18000 miles per year and have never had to replace a DPF yet. As long as you keep them at correct operating temperatures they last a long time, drive lots of short distances and you will kill the DPF which is why diesel cars are not appropriate for low mileage drivers.

In reply to CasWebb:
They do get a bad reputation. If there's any problems with the air fuel ratio it'll produce more soot and fill the dpf quicker.
If your having to unclog it frequently (or at all) it's probably a problem upstream. If it's clogging then it's working ie stopping particles getting in the atmosphere.

In reply to ClimberEd:

No he's not implying most. Go look up the numbers of diesels on UK roads. Then compare that number with "thousands". Then try to justify "implying most". Good luck....

In reply to CasWebb:


When I bought my diesels, I was doing 15-18,000 miles a year.

Literally a month after I bought my current one, the company announced it was moving premises - unexpectedly closer to home and in the range of cyle commuting. That car now typically does about 50 miles a week tops now my wife has a company car. Fortunately, most of the miles it does involve motorway and I give it a proper run every now and then to clean the DPF. If that wasn't the case, I would have sold it on by now. As it is, I've just had to have the EGR valve replaced.

In reply to Timmd:

Was surprised there was no mention of blanking off the EGR valve, very common. Chuck out lots of nitrous oxide, lovely.

In reply to Paul Evans:

'thousands' is usually used as a euphemism for most/the majority/lots.
I'm not going to back down on this. It read like an alarmist Daily Mail headline.

In reply to ballsac:


Every time I accelerate away from a car behind me with its lights on at night in my 1003 yd22ddti Nissan X-Trail the filth is anything but invisible. Or when I pull away from a stop with the sun low in the sky behind me.

Replacing it is however pretty low down my priorities list as it’s used perhaps once per month and is clinging on because hire cars are to smart for the tip, it’s impossible to get a hire van in to a tip, and occasionally we need a good winter weather car. Our priority is going electric with the two mid-high mileage cars in the household. We’ve just replaced the petrol one with an EV and will be replacing the modern diesel in 1-2 years.

In the mean time I feel pretty awful when I drive the X-Trail and won’t take it in to towns if I can avoid it. I’m considering swapping it for a petrol one of a similar era but that’s just money wasted from the pot for taking our second main runner electric.

In reply to ian caton:


More than a few people apparently don’t bother topping up the ‘pig piss’ tanks on the urea catalytic vehicles.

Years ago I saw a talk on the designed a camera + spectrometer based automatic roadside emissions monitor. Guess it was to complicated to robustly deploy.

In reply to wintertree:




I admire your sense of integrity, and conscience etc. It's nice to know that some people care.

In reply to ClimberEd:



On which planet?

In reply to wintertree:

2003, not 1003...

In reply to Timmd:

Surely the much bigger question is why is the MOT failing to pick up vehicles that have had the DPF removed!! If the filter is doing the right job then vehicles that have had them removed should be failing emissions tests and flagged for maintenance before a certificate is issued.

In reply to CasWebb:


The MOT emissions test is a waste of time as it only checks for a few things, CO and hydrocarbons I think. It doesn't check CO2 NOx or particulates, if it did VW probably would have been found out much sooner than they were.

The people who "remove" the DPFs only really remove the core of the filters and keep the outside looking normal, and often they have electrical cheats to tell the engine management that everything is OK.

Saying this it should be possibly to design a fairly simple test to detect DPF failure/tampering.

In reply to Timmd:

Is being a smoker in an unpopulated area less harmful than being a non smoker in a city?

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Carbon monoxide readings when I was cycling in London and giving up smoking were very low, although on a par with an occasional smoker. Not sure about other pollutants though.

I have a camper and I’m amazed at the crazy scene and community that promote dpf deletes, retunes etc. I bought a stainless exhaust last year and the guy found it odd that I simply wanted a stainless version of the configuration I already had.

In reply to pencilled in:


My parents have a campervan with a bespoke exhaust design so when it rusted through they went to Longlife exhausts as they're pretty much the only place that makes their own exhausts rather than just buying in replacements.
My dad couldn't stop laughing when the bloke asked him if he wanted the exhaust tone to sound "sporty", and he had to remind the bloke that this was a 4 ton van not a chaved up escort and he wanted the exhaust to be as quiet as possible.

In reply to wintertree:

I thought the car refuses to start if the AdBlu tank is empty? Or is that another thing that a quick insert of a cheat code into the electronics somewhere gets around for those too cheap/stupid to add a few pounds worth of fluid per multi thousand miles?

Playing by the rules my Euro 6 Passat would definitely refuse to start if I didn't fill that tank.... and filling the tank costs me about £10 per 6,000 miles so I'm certainly not resenting keeping it topped up I have to say.

In reply to Ferret:


It’s a more complex bypas that I think involves sitting something on the CAN bus that emulates the various removes sensors and actuator controllers. This emulator then gives the impression that the urea system is functioning normally.

Some of the outfits offering this note it’s for off-road use only... grrrr...

In reply to dunc56:

OMG, words fail me

In reply to wintertree:

Sounds like a fair bit of hassle to save about 0.16p per mile based on my costs... some people.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londons-air-as-bad-as-smoking-6959600.html

I think it depends on the city and on the amount smoked, and the conditions at the time? In the worst parts of London, it's less harmful to be a moderate smoke out at Burbage or similar, than to be a none smoker there, as far as certain harmful chemicals go, at least, there's possibly still some things in cigarettes which you don't ingest from air pollution .

It's a false choice in the end I guess, in people not being required to smoke in the way they are to live in cities.

In reply to ClimberEd:



Thousands out of millions?

In reply to ClimberEd:


Don't be a fool. Thinking that thousands equals most.