DEFENDER2.NET - View topic - Widespread DPF removal fraud on EU wide level

↓ Advertise on Defender2 ↓

Home · FAQ · New Posts · My Posts · PMs · Search · Members · Map · Calendar · Profile · Donate · Register · Log In

Home > Maintenance & Modifications > Widespread DPF removal fraud on EU wide level

Page 2 of 3

Print this entire topic ·

zsd-puma

Member Since: 09 Aug 2016
Location: Kent
Posts: 2720

2010 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 USW Santorini Black

The thing is DPF's are still relatively new technology. Just like when catalytic converters came out early ones were relatively inefficient in terms of gas flow, so removing them made a massive difference. My understanding is removing more modern catalytic converters makes a minimal difference to performance.

The official guidance regarding vehicles used for short mileages its better to have petrol is more than just to do with the DPF. The simple fact is Diesels are more expensive to buy they always have been and like a petrol a diesel engine is only efficient once it reaches full operating temperature. However Diesels take longer to warm up than a petrol engine because they waste less energy through heat. Which means for short trips a petrol engine is generally more efficient than a diesel one. So when you take into account the slower warm up time and the additional cost of buying a diesel car, if you only do low mileages you'll never get back the extra you spent on buying a diesel. If however you did regular long journeys then the fuel costs of running a petrol engine would soon outweigh the savings in buying the car to begin with.

Quote:
It's the drivers/owners fault not the mechanic who does it.

That's a bit like saying that if a criminal uses a gun to shoot someone, the person who smuggled the gun into the country isn't to blame.

Lets be clear though, it is and always has been illegal under UK law to remove or disable DPF's, Cats, EGR's etc. The fact it's not been enforced is more a question of the relatively small number of vehicles it's been done to. However once it reaches critical mass it will inevitably draw the attention of the authorities who will be forced to act. We also have VW to thank, as the authorities can't really chastise VW while allowing consumers to disable all and any equipment fitted. I see we're also seeing people doing the typical blame the EU for stuff you dont like argument, the fact is even if we hadn't been a member of the EU we would likely have introduced all of these emissions reduction devices ourselves, much like the US has, even in the US some states (like California) are stricter than others.

4th Jul 2017 12:45pm

Thon

Member Since: 22 Nov 2015
Location: Salisbury Plain
Posts: 696

This isn't an argument Dave, and I am not trying to make it into one.

My vehicle is of a size and shape that suits my needs. It is operating as the manufacturer intended, and meets the emissions standards of an EU4 class engine. A Defender with an EU4 engine with the CAT and DPF removed will emit more. Yes I am sure there are other cars that could emit less but that's hardly the point. My personal choice of vehicle is irrelevant in this case. My choice of driving a Defender is 100% legal and compliant with emissions regulations, just as other people's choices to remove those devices is not.

By removing a DPF / CAT you are modifying the emissions system in such a way as to make it pollute more than was intended when it was originally built to whichever classification. Are you telling me that these measures increase pollution?

Your solution is (obviously) unworkable. I don't have, and i'm sure there doesn't exist a "perfect" solution, but this is the one that the industry, government and researchers have come up with.

4th Jul 2017 1:50pm

ericvv

Member Since: 02 Jun 2011
Location: Near the Jet d'Eau
Posts: 5816

2009 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 SVX Station Wagon Santorini Black

Just a little note about why I posted this. The posted news topic highlights the fact that there seemingly are numerous problems with DPF as installed on all EU5 and later diesel cars. I have not seen much reported about this before yesterday's piece, but the number of issues seems to indicate that governments/EU have put a frequent and expensive problem in new car drivers hands. Given that there seemingly is an entire European fraudulous industry to take care of cars with DPF problems without a very expensive replacement is sufficient indication of the size of the problem. It seems like the entire DPF should get a serious rethink.
Oh, and EU4 cars, including the pre 2011 Puma 2.4 engines do not have a DPF, only a CAT.
Our Aussie friends down under also don't have this problem. I believe all Pumas including the most recent 2.2 remained EU4 and thus DPF-less until the very end. Good for them.
Eric 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 2:45pm

Rashers

Member Since: 21 Jun 2015
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 3600

2014 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 USW Corris Grey

CAT's DPF's all seem to be drip trays to solve an oil leak rather than a 'new oil seal'?? If you see what I mean

4th Jul 2017 2:53pm

zsd-puma

Member Since: 09 Aug 2016
Location: Kent
Posts: 2720

ericvv wrote:
Just a little note about why I posted this. The posted news topic highlights the fact that there seemingly are numerous problems with DPF as installed on all EU5 and later diesel cars. I have not seen much reported about this before yesterday's piece, but the number of issues seems to indicate that governments/EU have put a frequent and expensive problem in new car drivers hands. Given that there seemingly is an entire European fraudulous industry to take care of cars with DPF problems without a very expensive replacement is sufficient indication of the size of the problem. It seems like the entire DPF should get a serious rethink.
Oh, and EU4 cars, including the pre 2011 Puma 2.4 engines do not have a DPF, only a CAT.
Our Aussie friends down under also don't have this problem. I believe all Pumas including the most recent 2.2 remained EU4 and thus DPF-less until the very end. Good for them.
Eric

Really it's down to the manuafacturers marketing and governements drive for diesel. Dealers were often selling people diesel cars even though a petrol would be more suitable for their needs. On the other hand many people were walking into dealerships and saying they want a diesel, they wouldn't even consider anything else even if the dealer advised them to buy a petrol engine.

4th Jul 2017 3:06pm

dorsetsmith

Member Since: 30 Oct 2011
Location: South West
Posts: 4554

or soft ware frig

4th Jul 2017 3:07pm

Thon

Member Since: 22 Nov 2015
Location: Salisbury Plain
Posts: 696

ericvv wrote:
Oh, and EU4 cars, including the pre 2011 Puma 2.4 engines do not have a DPF, only a CAT.

Well done - you are quite correct Eric.

My intention was to indicate any emissions-control device that could be simply bypassed.

4th Jul 2017 3:44pm

Thon

Member Since: 22 Nov 2015
Location: Salisbury Plain
Posts: 696

Quote:
Really it's down to the manuafacturers marketing and governements drive for diesel. Dealers were often selling people diesel cars even though a petrol would be more suitable for their needs. On the other hand many people were walking into dealerships and saying they want a diesel, they wouldn't even consider anything else even if the dealer advised them to buy a petrol engine.

Agreed but I think "Government" is changing its tune now.

Consumers need the correct, unbiased information to be available with which to make a logical choice for their needs. Then if they still buy a diesel irrespective of logic then they have to endure the consequences of the additional emissions equipment they need to maintain. The information needs to come from an unbiased source, not the PR machine of a manufacturer.

4th Jul 2017 3:51pm

leeds

Member Since: 28 Dec 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 8582

roel wrote:
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.

I believe under the Road Traffic Act (I may get the wording wrong).

" It is an offence to supply, fit or use a defective item on a vehicle"

Now the argument could be what constitutes "defective"

A tyre with less then 1.6mm tread is defective as it is below the legal minimum.

An exhaust pipe with a dummy cat in on a vehicle fitted with a cat must be defective by definition?

Any item which by law must be type approved which does not have a valid type approval must be defective by definition.

Any item which is type approved by the manufacturer and is then subsequently modified without the manufacturers consent must be defective as the type approval no longer applies!

Please learn what a type approval looks like! An E + a number in a circle is not an E mark!

The E mark constitutes 3 parts, the regulation or amendment, the country which has done the approval, and the actual approval number.

Unfortunately there are either unscrupulous or ignorant suppliers who are breaking the law by selling illegal parts often to unsuspecting customers.

Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

Illegal parts on a vehicle and your motor insurance can be declared void!

Brendan

4th Jul 2017 5:43pm

Rashers

Member Since: 21 Jun 2015
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 3600

Nicely put Brendan

But you quote "It is an offence to supply, fit or use a defective item on a vehicle"

Haven't Land Rover been getting away with that for years??

Hijacks the post for cheap laughs. Sorry, I'll get me coat then.......

4th Jul 2017 7:24pm

rockster57

Member Since: 15 Nov 2014
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 945

2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 CSW Zermatt Silver

DVSA starting to get tough?

https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/diese...integrity/

25th Sep 2017 3:35pm

leeds

Member Since: 28 Dec 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 8582

An interesting read

Brendan

25th Sep 2017 7:32pm

zsd-puma

Member Since: 09 Aug 2016
Location: Kent
Posts: 2720

Disabling factory fitted emissions control systems or otherwise making the vehicle non-compliant with the emissions standards it was originally built to meet is an offence under Construction and use regs. Unless it was a Diesel built before 1973.

Even the boy racers who put those little filters on their crank case breathers instead of feeding them into the inlet are breaking the law if the car was made after 1972.

26th Sep 2017 4:16am

bpman

Member Since: 21 May 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 8069

2008 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 SVX Station Wagon Santorini Black

^^ so you are saying that all those ”provent” modifications are illegal?

26th Sep 2017 7:26am

zsd-puma

Member Since: 09 Aug 2016
Location: Kent
Posts: 2720

I think the provent things are effectively like oil catch cans, so they don't just vent the crank case fumes to the atmosphere. But the cheap filters people put on their 1ltr hatchbacks most definitely do, as they spread oil vapour all over the engine bay.
I think the crankcase vent rules only apply to spark ignition engines not diesels anyway.

26th Sep 2017 11:14am

Page 2 of 3

All times are GMT + 1 Hour

Jump to

< Previous Topic | Next Topic >

Posting Rules

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum