DPF's

[ringway]

What sort of car do you drive?

Obvious isn't it?

 

[st4]

Obvious isn't it?

Lol!!!!

 

[Bellow]

What sort of car do you drive?

A petrol engined one. Why do you ask?

 

[markjay]

Consider DPF removal as passive smoking for the rest (outside the car) and now apply the same zeal for the banning of smoking in public places and the issue should be easily policed.

Or put another way. I don't blow smoke in your face so don't expect me to breathe your particulates.

I don't disagree, my only point was that someone who removes his/her DPF are just as socially irresponsible as someone buying a V8 AMG or a V8 Range Rover.

Both pollute the environment needlessly and knowingly to satisfy their own needs.

The difference is of course that removing the DPF is not just irresponsible but also illegal .

(Just to clarify, I don't actually drive a diesel car, and if I did I would not have anything removed from it...)

 

[Dieselman]

A petrol engined one. Why do you ask?

Because it won't have a particulate trap and produces more particulate matter by volume than a diesel one.

Stop blowing your particles in our faces...

 

[Dieselman]

There's one on mine - you only have to stand at the back of the car when its running, and hot. It doesn't smell like diesel fumes at all.

That's not a DPF, that's the Cat working.

 

[st4]

A petrol engined one. Why do you ask?

In case it was a petrol car, so I could post a reply like this:

Because it won't have a particulate trap and produces more particulate matter by volume than a diesel one.

Stop blowing your particles in our faces...

Also, I was curious about what you drove, it is a car forum after all.

 

[Oli]

I don't disagree, my only point was that someone who removes his/her DPF are just as socially irresponsible as someone buying a V8 AMG or a V8 Range Rover.

Both pollute the environment needlessly and knowingly to satisfy their own needs.

I've had a V8 AMG and a V8 Range Rover, I like them and personally I'm not really interested in CO2 emissions, car emissions amount to the grand sum of f**k all in the greater scheme of things anyway.

I actually would pick a car with no DPF over one that had one fitted on the second hand market, not because I actively want to be more polluting but because a DPF is a hinderence and more trouble than it's worth if you do alot of town driving.

 

[markjay]

Which essentially narrows down the scope of the moral argument to the fact that removing the DPF is illegal...

 

[st4]

Which essentially narrows down the scope of the moral argument to the fact that removing the DPF is illegal...

Is it illegal? News to me but I don't have a car equipped with one

 

[grober]

The reality I fear with more stringent inspections in the near future for the majority of car owners with diesel or petrol engined cars who have removed their DPF or catalytic converter [fitted as standard equipment from the factory] moral arguments not withstanding, is that they can discuss at length-- personal freedoms, the deficiency of the technology, the saving of the planet by reducing C02 emissions and better fuel consumption, the heavy hand of European legislation, the odious tree hugging brigade/ green party and corrupt politicians-- with their MOT tester - who will nod sagely --may even sympathise ! --- then fail your car!

As I said early on I would rather folks devoted their energy/ invective towards improving a deficient and often downright inconvenient/expensive technology surrounding the present DPF's rather than trying to circumvent them. Because ---not only is that the right thing to do --- but also because its pretty much inevitably they are here to stay.

 

[markjay]

Is it illegal? News to me but I don't have a car equipped with one

Well I asked the same question a few posts earlier... my understanding from the replies was that the law does not actually say 'Thou shall not remove thy DPF', but if you do then this contravenes the new MOT rules and as such it is 'illegal'. Or something like that.

 

[markjay]

The reality I fear with more stringent inspections in the near future for the majority of car owners with diesel or petrol engined cars who have removed their DPF or catalytic converter [fitted as standard equipment from the factory] moral arguments not withstanding, is that they can discuss at length-- personal freedoms, the deficiency of the technology, the saving of the planet by reducing C02 emissions and better fuel consumption, the heavy hand of European legislation, the odious tree hugging brigade/ green party and corrupt politicians-- with their MOT tester - who will nod sagely --may even sympathise ! --- then fail your car!

As I said early on I would rather folks devoted their energy/ invective towards improving a deficient and often downright inconvenient/expensive technology surrounding the present DPF's rather than trying to circumvent them. Because ---not only is that the right thing to do --- but also because its pretty much inevitably they are here to stay.

Well I think that if something is prohibited by law, it should be respected... you can't jump a red light just because the junction is empty and 'it makes no sense' to wait.

As for the contribution to pollution... as I said earlier I think this is a personal choice, where you can legally pollute - e.g. by driving a car with large engine, or by driving at all when it is not essential - it is down to the individual car owner to choose and act responsibly.

CO2 may still be controversial, but there's plenty of other stuff coming out of car's exhausts - petrol or diesel - and common sense says that we should breath less of it, rather than more.

 

[Sp!ke]

I dont think the law should mandate anything so totally flawed.

If they weren't such a problem people wouldn't feel forced to remove them.

 

[markjay]

I dont think the law should mandate anything so totally flawed.

If they weren't such a problem people wouldn't feel forced to remove them.

You wouldn't drive without brakes just because the SBC failed and it is a rubbish system that is too expensive to fix...?

 

[grober]

I agree with Spike in so far the problem lies in an poorly developed and implemented technology. In the main people have excepted the presence of a catalytic converter on their car because by the time it came to the UK it was a mature technology and caused very few day to day running problems. [ people often didn't even know they had one fitted!!] Of course there is the problem of eventual cat failure which causes "financial distress " down the line as the car ages, but money spent and cat replaced with a unit of decent quality= many more years of uneventful motoring then follows. The problem with DPF's is premature failure from a design that is obviously not robust enough to cope with all forms of vehicle use-- time to change the design /technology--- and not simply offload that problem onto the car owner rather than lay it at the feet the car manufacturer where it rightly belongs.

 

[st4]

Well I think that if something is prohibited by law, it should be respected... you can't jump a red light just because the junction is empty and 'it makes no sense' to wait.

As for the contribution to pollution... as I said earlier I think this is a personal choice, where you can legally pollute - e.g. by driving a car with large engine, or by driving at all when it is not essential - it is down to the individual car owner to choose and act responsibly.

CO2 may still be controversial, but there's plenty of other stuff coming out of car's exhausts - petrol or diesel - and common sense says that we should breath less of it, rather than more.

I don't really care about pollution from my car so I'll tour around in it regardless

 

[DrNick]

So whats the difference then between buying a car without a factory fitted DPF, and buying a similar one with DPF and then removing it? (Given that they are not compulsory).

Has the moral obligation gone just because it wasn't fitted at the factory?

 

[Oli]

All that making it compulsory that all new diesels have to have a DPF on is going to do for me is make me buy the petrol version of the same car.
What year did DPFs start being compulsory on all cars?.

 

[Bellow]

In actual fact, diesels emit more particulate matter by MASS. These are therefore in the PM10 bracket and the mucas in the nasal passage prevents this passing to the blood stream.

A petrol car on the other hand, emits less particulate matter, but the stuff that comes out lies in the PM2.5 bracket which is more harmful to human health as it can pass directly through the nasal passages and into human blood.

*** is correct, Diesels emit more particulates by mass due to them being larger PM10, but petrols emit more by volume because they are PM2.5 and smaller, which will pass through the lung wall into the bloodstream.



I would be very wary of any USA papers as last I knew the long term study they are all based on, which did show health deterioration of elderly, infirmed and ill people on high particulate days, was carried out in a town where there were no diesel engined vehicles, even the busses were petrol.

Will someone please explain the above? By volume - which volume and of what? By mass - which mass and of what?
Never in all the years I've been following engine development have I heard of SI engines having problems with particulates.

The issue with particulates is blood thickening.

The issue with particultaes (as intimated elsewhere) is all to do with the toxic matter that attach to the particulate and are then absorbed into the lung, some of which due to the CI combustion system are unique to Diesels and formaldahydes are part of the toxic cocktail. The particulate is a carrier.