 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > It has happened AGAIN !!! |
 
|
|
|
| grafty99 Member Since: 15 Aug 2012 Location: North Devon Posts: 4785   
|
Not the kind of thing you want to be reading after just buying a new 2.2!
I had already intended to half the service intervals before reading this. Will definitely be doing it now! Hopefully all is sorted under warranty 2002 90 Td5 Station Wagon 1990 Vogue SE Triumph Tiger Explorer 1200 Td5 90 Thread http://www.defender2.net/forum/topic50767.html Tdi 110 Thread https://www.defender2.net/forum/topic69562.html RRC Thread http://www.defender2.net/forum/topic54492.html Instagram http://www.instagram.com/george_grafton |
||
1st Mar 2015 9:17pm |
|
| Dave-H Member Since: 08 Feb 2011 Location: Surrey Posts: 1507  
|
Without a doubt! We only stock two types [both 5W/30] ... ACEA A5/B5 for non dpf motors, and ACEA C3 for dpf ... The make/brand we use covers most manufacturers oil spec, but they all get one or t'other ... Guns and Landrovers .... anything else is irrelevant. |
||
|
1st Mar 2015 9:39pm |
|
| MOve Member Since: 24 Dec 2014 Location: East Anglia Posts: 54 
|
Pardon my ignorance:
How does the waste from the fuel system end up in the oil? Does removal of the DPF solve this? Is it legal to remove the DPF? Thanks. |
||
|
2nd Mar 2015 7:26am |
|
| Jonno Member Since: 06 Mar 2012 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 234 
|
I think you must be referring to the comments about oil degradation. On dpf equipped diesels during the regen cycle, oil contamination via fuel can occur. To the extent some diesels have a low, full and change it now mark on the dipstick as they tend to fill up their sumps with diesel.
I think Pete from bas mentioned a figure of 7% is often allowed. None of this can be good for the oil or the engines. I suspect this is why we seem to be heading into the realms of diesels not lasting like they used to and having more random early life failures. Jonno |
||
|
2nd Mar 2015 8:14am |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17382 
|
As I understand it (and I look forward to being corrected if wrong) DPFs are regenerated by being heated to a temperature at which all the soot particles are incinerated. This is achieved by one of two means.
Either a separate injector provided specifically for the purpose injects measured quantities of fuel into the DPF or into the exhaust pipe immediately upstream of the DPF; the fuel then ignites in the (very hot) DPF increasing the temperature still further until the necessary regeneration is achived. Alternatively there is no additional injector and the ECU is programmed under regeneration it inject fuel into the cylinders during the xhaust stroke when the exhaust valves are open. In theory this achieves the same result - unburnt fuel is carried by the exhaust gasses into the DPF where it ignites and has the same effect as the method describe above. The problem is that not all the unburnt fuel is carried out tof hte cylinder - a certain amount remains and is distributed into the bore on the induction stroke, eventually passing into the lubrication system and diluting the oilm, and also of course carrying undesirable combustion products from the exhaust gas with it. The second method is the one which causes the greatest probelms, and all in all is one of those ideas that probably seemed very good on paper but is actually a very unsatisfactory idea. It is illegal in the UK (and EU) to use a vehicle which left the factory with a DPF fitted with the DPF removed or rendered unserviceable by any other means. |
||
|
2nd Mar 2015 10:05am |
|
| Rickydodah Member Since: 14 Jul 2014 Location: East Sussex Posts: 1091 |
I remember years ago before DPF's had been thought of many engines particularly large stationary engines which used to idle for long periods of time suffered from horrendous diesel wash which if left unchecked would literally fill up the sump with the resultant overfill and sometimes catch fire because of the very high temperatures that the bottom end of the engine would achieve due to the lack of lubrication. I've recently changed from a vehicle with this type of filter although the taxation class was low the additional cost of the extra fuel and service arrangements far outweighed the saving in RFL costs.
 I started with nothing and still have most of it left! |
||
|
2nd Mar 2015 10:21am |
|
| munch90 Member Since: 26 Oct 2013 Location: guildford Posts: 3558
|
yep sounds about right , second method seems to be most common and leads to oil contamation
then there is the other system that uses a extra fluid iloys or pats fluid one is active and one passive ( cant remember which is which ) one regens every now and then ( high temp regen ) , one uses the fluid as a sort of catalyst to regen all the time (not high temp regen ) if we went back to lower effiency diesel then we could do away with dpf , there only used now because the soot is much smaller particles with the modern diesel engines the smaller particles get deeper into your lungs then the older larger particles if you ever in a closed space with a modern diesel especially a merc sprinter , it makes your eyes sting and cough more then a old diesel progress ? not so sure about that one ! |
||
|
2nd Mar 2015 10:28am |
|
| munch90 Member Since: 26 Oct 2013 Location: guildford Posts: 3558
|
the main problem with rising engine oil is if it gets beaten to a mist by the crank then goes through breather the engine will start running on its own oil and you cant stop it ( unless you can stall it ) , they just run flat out getting faster until it goes bang and its all over
|
||
|
2nd Mar 2015 10:38am |
|
| SS90 Member Since: 16 Nov 2013 Location: Uk Posts: 372
|
Can this be made a sticky?
|
||
|
2nd Mar 2015 10:40am |
|
| taazzukcb Member Since: 30 Aug 2013 Location: Derbyshire Posts: 663
|
munch90: Agree with that progress comment.
It's utterly stupid ... By making diesels "Greener", they're making them more toxic ... the irony there is ludicrous! A friend of mine is in a working environment that let him test an old smokey diesel against a modern 'clean' diesel. The effect on the human body these 2 had was massive, but massive in the sense that the old smokey was far healthier to the human body than the modern diesel. Our bodies cant process the big lumps of muck quick enough so we dont take much in. However the finer 'cleaner' particulates are small enough for the body to take in a much much high percentage! Thus being more harmful! |
||
|
2nd Mar 2015 11:04am |
|
| SS90 Member Since: 16 Nov 2013 Location: Uk Posts: 372
|
Following on by the points raised by Cuthbert in another thread http://www.defender2.net/forum/post388266.html#388266
Could this be the case that Land Rover Dealers are using the incorrect Spec Oil with engines that have the 2.2 with DPF. Most use Mobil oil, but as Cuthbert found out that if you go onto the Mobil site and search for the grade of Oil for your Defender they have 2.2 engine without DPF filter which recommends Mobil Super 3000 X1 Formula FE 5W-30 (b). However they don't specify any of their oils to be used in the 2.2 engine with DPF....?! Make LAND ROVER incl. RANGE ROVER Model Defender 2.2 TDCi (90kW) Engine DT Year 2011- New Search More Details Buy Now Application Recommendation Capacity (ltr) Engine (DT) (No DPF) Mobil Super 3000 X1 Formula FE 5W-30 (b) 6.9 Make LAND ROVER incl. RANGE ROVER Model Defender 2.2 TDCi DPF (90kW) Engine DT Year 2011- New Search Application Recommendation Capacity (ltr) Engine (DT) Refer to Owners manual 6.9 Hide Notes Hide Oil Change Intervals Lubricant / Capacity Notes a. Manufacturer's recommendation, Refer to Owners manual General Notes Cuthbert also raised the points on the Land Rover Customer Section of this forum about 6 weeks ago but his thread has gone unanswered. So are we seeing these failures due to the incorrect spec oil being used by Land Rover Main Dealers? |
||
|
2nd Mar 2015 11:09am |
|
| Rickydodah Member Since: 14 Jul 2014 Location: East Sussex Posts: 1091 |
That's what I believed also. Large soot particles could be trapped in the nose or coughed up but the smaller particulate caused by the filtration process was more injurious. I started with nothing and still have most of it left! |
||
|
2nd Mar 2015 12:46pm |
|
| munch90 Member Since: 26 Oct 2013 Location: guildford Posts: 3558
|
surely all the 2.2 with dpf needs is a 5/30 fully syn low saps ( c spec which means its low saps/low ash ) and they are lots of different oils in that spec |
||
|
2nd Mar 2015 12:51pm |
|
| Jonno Member Since: 06 Mar 2012 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 234
|
Yes progress is a strange thing. First came the egr to lower cylinder temperatures and reduce output of I think nitrous oxides which can cause smog. The egr has an unfortunate other effect of reducing combustion efficiency meaning you use a touch more fuel. It also reduces the quality of the burn meaning more soot, which in turn leads to the use of the dpf...
.which can lead to all sorts of engine problems. But as said above I would wager that the new high efficiency, high pressure injection engines produce more pm 10s and smaller particles which are the most harmful. Jonno |
||
|
2nd Mar 2015 1:15pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
