 | Home > Maintenance & Modifications > Widespread DPF removal fraud on EU wide level |
 
|
|
|
| ericvv Member Since: 02 Jun 2011 Location: Near the Jet d'Eau Posts: 5816   
|
Last night there was a long piece on the Flemish TV1 news about an investigation by one of their journalists about DPF removal fraud on cars which have been first time registered since 2011, so EU5 and later norm where a DPF is mandatory.
The basic journalist work was done in Belgium, but later expanded to findings from local investigations in the entire EU. In Belgium there is a well working illegal system where cars with a DPF malfunction get their DPF removed and not replaced by a new one which bring the repair cost down from roughly €2000 to €450. The journalist in question tested the system undercover at one garage with a hidden camera, and it seems that there are numerous garages which do 3 to 4 per day like this, and according the garage in question the job includes remapping the ECU so that no faults are thrown up. What allows this to happen is that the Belgium technical inspection has exhaust gas testing equipment which is more than a decade old and cannot test accurate enough for particles to throw up a problem between a DPF present or a DPF absent. The test centers work under government control, so follow their procedures and cannot go beyond that. It sounds like that is the case in all other EU countries, including the MOT in the UK. Seems in Belgium alone there are many 10.000s of post 2010 diesels with their DPF removed which pass the tech inspection without a DPF present. In the Netherlands there was research done too, and an estimated 6% of diesels there which should have a DPF, have it removed. And it goes on, there has been research done about this in 18 main EU countries (incl. UK/Ireland) and only in one country the issue does not exist, Norway. Switzerland was not included in the research, not because it is not part of the EU, but for the simple fact that here the government have abandoned already years ago exhaust gas emissions testing for all diesel and gasoline cars which are EU4 norm or higher. Below are the two items in last nights news on the subject, with English subtitles. Is this going to have a follow up? Could well be, because this piece of journalism was presented to the minister of transport, and of course he had to say that he will inform Brussels about this. And once some EU bureaucrats start looking into this, especially as it again is said here that fine diesel particles are the cause of 450.000 premature deceases in Europe every year.... Eric The basic journalist undercover research movie shown on the news (English subtitles) http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.3014387 The full news item as presented last night (Flemish only) http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/videozon...=1.3015916 The post research recap showing that this is a EU wide problem and the reaction of the minister (in Flemish) http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/videozon...=1.3015918 And a reaction of the test centers authority showing that they are limited in their possibilities (in English) http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.3015466 You never actually own a Defender. You merely look after it for the next generation. http://youtu.be/yVRlSsJwD0o https://youtu.be/vmPr3oTHndg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GtzTT9Pdl0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABqKPz28e6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLZ49Jce_n0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvAsz_ilQYU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8tMHiX9lSw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dxwjPuHIV7I https://vimeo.com/201482507 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSixqL0iyHw |
||
4th Jul 2017 5:15am |
|
| zsd-puma Member Since: 09 Aug 2016 Location: Kent Posts: 2720  
|
a visual check of the DPF was introduced in 2014, i expect we will likely see an upgrade of the testing equipment in the next few years.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syst...idance.pdf
But then you get idiots like this.... https://www.avontuning.co.uk/blog/dpf-remo...ss-or-fail Claiming it to be legal.... Another case of just because something will pass an MOT doesn't mean it's legal. With companies being so blatant about breaking the law, it's only a matter of time before things change.... |
||
|
4th Jul 2017 7:21am |
|
| zsd-puma Member Since: 09 Aug 2016 Location: Kent Posts: 2720
|
It was always illegal, by default it's illegal for someone to incite others to break the law, it doesn't matter what law. But it's going to be pretty low down on the list of enforcement priorities, until it becomes a priority..... |
||
|
4th Jul 2017 7:32am |
|
| roel Member Since: 08 Aug 2009 Location: Lelystad Posts: 2039  
|
It should be illegal to advertise with it, It should just be illegal to drive on the road with it. It's the drivers/owners fault not the mechanic who does it.
This is my opinion.  Roel
1984 90 2.5 na Diesel - RR V8 (1994-2001) 1997 Camel Trophy Discovery 300TDI (2001-2009) 2005 G4 Discovery III 4.4 V8 (2008-2018) It's gone but it still hurts. 2003 90 Td5 (2009-now) |
||
|
4th Jul 2017 8:50am |
|
| rallysteve Member Since: 10 Feb 2014 Location: Cumbria Posts: 2238 
|
I do find it quite amusing that everyone is so adverse to DPF removals however there is a post on here every few days where a load of folks are happy to remove their catylitic converters
Steve 02' 110 TD5 Double Cab Rebuild Thread |
||
|
4th Jul 2017 8:53am |
|
| Thon Member Since: 22 Nov 2015 Location: Salisbury Plain Posts: 696
|
I disagree - I think they are both responsible for the illegality. The mechanic knows it is illegal to remove the DPF and cannot deny responsibility. |
||
|
4th Jul 2017 9:02am |
|
| Thon Member Since: 22 Nov 2015 Location: Salisbury Plain Posts: 696
|
I find it strange too. Often it is the first thing a new owner wants to do. I've never felt the need to remove any of the equipment that helps reduce emissions and I find it hard to understand why it is necessary. To clarify before anyone comments, I know why people do it, I just don't understand it. |
||
|
4th Jul 2017 9:05am |
|
| tookaphotoof Member Since: 18 Mar 2013 Location: dordrecht Posts: 1279 
|
Don't get it anyways. It's not like you have to replace the DPF every 3 months, is it?
|
||
|
4th Jul 2017 9:05am |
|
| Rashers Member Since: 21 Jun 2015 Location: Norfolk Posts: 3600 
|
When Cats were first fitted on vehicles, there was a cry that the older cars with Cats would not be ecenomical to own and would price people away from driving.
Not sure whether Cats are cheaper than 25 years ago? Maybe the DPFs will come down in price with time? Interesting article.  |
||
|
4th Jul 2017 9:35am |
|
| Farmer58za Member Since: 20 Jan 2017 Location: Worcestershire Posts: 85  
|
I have just purchased two vehicles with DPF fitted and have absolutely no idea whether they need constant maintenance or regular replacement. What I do know is that a replacement DPF for a Landy costs about 500 GBP and you have to lift the motor to replace it. A DPF for a big lorry can cost over 5k. You can see why people want to remove or bypass them.
One thing is for sure, they do work: We took my wife's diesel car down to Portsmouth last weekend and when we got there, I ran my finger inside the exhaust tailpipe. Just a slightest dusting of soot. I have never seen that on a diesel before. Dave's not here man... |
||
|
4th Jul 2017 9:46am |
|
| Iggle piggle Member Since: 10 Sep 2014 Location: Wales Posts: 378 
|
Its a similar scenario with Commercial vehicles & Ad-blue,
Ad-blue started to appear on trucks around 2009 & the older vehicles (& some newer ones) throw an emissions warning light & go in to De-rate for fun! 8 times out of 10 it will be a NOX sensor of which there are two, they cost around £500 each to replace an emulator box to trick the ECU into thinking the Ad-blue is still being used costs around £300 fitted I know of large fleets that are running them! DVSA are supposed to be clamping down on them with road side checks but unless they physically find the box (which is normally well hidden) they have no way of telling its there |
||
|
4th Jul 2017 9:59am |
|
| davew Member Since: 02 Jan 2012 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 888  
|
The problem with reports like this is that, in the end, it's always the consumer that ends up paying and often it's not those that have the original issue. All that happens is some nameless official sat in an office draws up some stupidly restrictive legislation that gets signed off by a bunch of ignorant tossers that don't consider or care about the consequences. Vnuk is a typical example of how the EU imposes legislation without thought or consultation with member states and regardless of it's effect.
DPFs aren't really suitable for vehicles that are not "used". They clog up and will cause engine faults (turbo boost issues normally) and cost a fortune to replace at no real benefit to the consumer. Most of the particulates they "catch" are released anyway when they clean themselves or "regenerate" but they only do that over set speeds/rpm/temperature which many town cars never get to. Official advice is that, if you don't do significant mileage you should not use a DPF vehicle but get a petrol vehicle instead. The obvious solution to the problem is that diesel vehicles that do less than 10,000 miles a year be taken off the road and made illegal, would that be OK with you ? DPF increases fuel consumption and reduces the power of the vehicle by restricting the exhaust and this effect gets worse as the vehicle gets older and/or the unit gets clogged up. Replacing the DPF with a dummy unit, in the same way as people have been replacing cats for years, gives improved fuel consumption and improved power as well as preventing spurious limp mode triggers. I don't have a problem with people replacing restrictive emissions devices with dummy versions that are cheaper and have none of the drawbacks of the original. It's just the same as people having their vehicles re-mapped, you really think that having a re-map done is not going to effect emissions ? http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/ |
||
|
4th Jul 2017 11:04am |
|
| Thon Member Since: 22 Nov 2015 Location: Salisbury Plain Posts: 696
|
Isn't it fair that the consumer is the one paying? After all, they are the one doing the "consuming"?
Consumers have the choice to buy a petrol engine, so again, if they make a bad decision, shouldn't they pay? By condoning the defeating of these emissions-reduction devices you are saying that it's OK to pollute more than you should, and more than the vehicle was designed to do. Maybe DPFs aren't 100% efficient but I don't think they were introduced on a whim. Just to go on record - I do not live in a built up area that suffers from serious air pollution, and I also don't see why anyone else should have to either. I also have completely standard engines (un-remapped), including Cat and EGR systems, in both my Land Rovers. I would have a DPF too but couldn't afford a newer Defender  |
||
|
4th Jul 2017 11:33am |
|
| davew Member Since: 02 Jan 2012 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 888
|
A car with it's DPF removed still has much lower emissions than your Defender because it is more efficient, uses less fuel and burns that fuel cleaner. YOU are producing more pollution than you need to so your argument doesn't really hold. It's your choice to drive a Defender just as it's other people's choice to remove the DPF or remap to get more power.
The danger with this sort of report is the knee jerk reactions that come out of it that lead to unintended consequences which is why I pointed out the Vnuk judgement. The perceived problem is easy to fix, just pass a regulation that says that "any diesel without a DPF should be removed from the roads". There, problem solved and you'll happily hand over your keys for the scrappage value because you support the policy 100%. http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/ |
||
|
4th Jul 2017 12:12pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2025 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
