DPF removal and Insurance

[Osinjak]

There's a bit of a debate going on over in BMWLand about removing DPFs and invalidating your insurance. According to the AA's website, if you remove your DPF you should tell your insurance company who will likely cancel your insurance as the car has been illegally modified.

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-env...

However, one chap here is arguing that an insurance company is highly unlikely to discover it but another chap disagrees.

http://www.bmwland.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&...

What's the general feeling from the insurance types on here?

Some caveats:

1. I'm neither of those blokes on BMWLand.
2. I have a BMW.
3. But I have no intention of removing my DPF.

[Magic919]

AA's website doesn't say that. It says -

"You must notify your insurer if the vehicle is modified but such a modification could in turn invalidate any insurance cover because it makes the vehicle illegal for road use."

Note they use the word 'could'. I wouldn't rely on their website for advice about anything.

I don't have a dog in this particular fight.

[Engineer1]

Highly unlikely to be spotted, and unless you owned the car from new or had a quote and a reciept for the work to be done very hard to prove you knew it had been done or comissioned it to be done, how many cars have had a re-map the 3/4th owner know nothing about?

[Type R Tom]

If you mod your car in a way that makes it illegal (fail MOT) i.e. window tints, coloured lights, the general max power scene etc. does that void your insurance?

[kiethton]

Having a DPF gutted, or indeed a bypass fitted, would not invalidate your insurance unless you told them following an accident....in the worst case just play dumb (if a pre-owned car).

On the flip side its a general consumable. Do you notify them if you switch the factory conti's to pirelli/wanli or the standard brake pads to pagids from ECP?

[Osinjak]

Magic919 said:

AA's website doesn't say that. It says -

"You must notify your insurer if the vehicle is modified but such a modification could in turn invalidate any insurance cover because it makes the vehicle illegal for road use."

Note they use the word 'could'. I wouldn't rely on their website for advice about anything.

I don't have a dog in this particular fight.

Which is why I said 'likely' as opposed to 'will' but like you, I have no particular dog in this fight either, just idle curiosity.

[Type R Tom]

kiethton said:

On the flip side its a general consumable. Do you notify them if you switch the factory conti's to pirelli/wanli or the standard brake pads to pagids from ECP?

I have heard that upgraded pads should be declared but never thought about tyres, especially as it’s possible to buy really cheap ones that can’t be any good.

I would have thought the increase risk of putting £30 tyres on would be more of a concern to the insurance companies than the green stuff pads fitted.

[kiethton]

Type R Tom said:

kiethton said:

On the flip side its a general consumable. Do you notify them if you switch the factory conti's to pirelli/wanli or the standard brake pads to pagids from ECP?

I have heard that upgraded pads should be declared but never thought about tyres, especially as it’s possible to buy really cheap ones that can’t be any good.

I would have thought the increase risk of putting £30 tyres on would be more of a concern to the insurance companies than the green stuff pads fitted.

Indeed mate, totally agree...was thinking more along the lines of going in there giving the reg and buying the cheapest/indi garage fitting pattern parts over upgraded/performance items which should be declared IMO

[Osinjak]

kiethton said:

On the flip side its a general consumable. Do you notify them if you switch the factory conti's to pirelli/wanli or the standard brake pads to pagids from ECP?

I wouldn't have thought so given that changing your pads/tyres is not potentially illegal which seems to be the crux of the problem with DPFs and emissions regulations. Nor does changing them potentially fail your MoT. Not really a sensible comparison to be honest.

[Magic919]

People have be de-catting cars for years. No big dramas have unfolded. Can't see DPF removal being so different.

[Osinjak]

Magic919 said:

People have be de-catting cars for years. No big dramas have unfolded. Can't see DPF removal being so different.

But it is different because as of Feb 2014 it's supposedly 'illegal.'

[kiethton]

Osinjak said:

But it is different because as of Feb 2014 it's supposedly 'illegal.'

Surely if the car passes the MOT with the core knocked out/skin place AND passes the emissions test it is legal.

[Magic919]

Osinjak said:

Magic919 said:

People have be de-catting cars for years. No big dramas have unfolded. Can't see DPF removal being so different.

But it is different because as of Feb 2014 it's supposedly 'illegal.'

Is 'illegal' in quotes any different to being illegal? What is the new law that is enacted from that date regarding DPFs?

[just_william]

Had chat about this the other day with respect to BMW fitting run flat tyres. If you change them to normal tyres, I had heard that insurance might get grumpy as it is a fairy significant change from the manufacturer spec as would be no DPF. It makes the car quicker doesn't it?

[Osinjak]

Magic919 said:

Is 'illegal' in quotes any different to being illegal? What is the new law that is enacted from that date regarding DPFs?

Yes it is, it indicates that I'm not entirely sure about it hence the apostrophes. For the last part of your question, the info is in the AA link above.

[Osinjak]

kiethton said:

Osinjak said:

But it is different because as of Feb 2014 it's supposedly 'illegal.'

Surely if the car passes the MOT with the core knocked out/skin place AND passes the emissions test it is legal.

You would think so but really my question is about how interested insurance companies would be in DPF removal and whether they'd go looking for it in the event of a claim, etc.

[Engineer1]

Osinjak said:

Magic919 said:

Is 'illegal' in quotes any different to being illegal? What is the new law that is enacted from that date regarding DPFs?

Yes it is, it indicates that I'm not entirely sure about it hence the apostrophes. For the last part of your question, the info is in the AA link above.

Or because it is a law that will be damned near impossible to police how will they check if the dpf is present? And if it appears to be present is actually functional?

[kiethton]

Osinjak said:

kiethton said:

Osinjak said:

But it is different because as of Feb 2014 it's supposedly 'illegal.'

Surely if the car passes the MOT with the core knocked out/skin place AND passes the emissions test it is legal.

You would think so but really my question is about how interested insurance companies would be in DPF removal and whether they'd go looking for it in the event of a claim, etc.

I doubt they'd care unless you mowed down a bus stop of aspiring young footballers, they aren't going to be taking an apparently standard looking DPF apart.

Plus there is then the fact that you may not have owned the car from new - unless you show them receipts play dumb

[Magic919]

Osinjak said:

Magic919 said:

Is 'illegal' in quotes any different to being illegal? What is the new law that is enacted from that date regarding DPFs?

Yes it is, it indicates that I'm not entirely sure about it hence the apostrophes. For the last part of your question, the info is in the AA link above.

I can't see any new law referenced on that page. Can you see one?

[pork911]

kiethton said:

....would not invalidate your insurance unless you told them following an accident....in the worst case just play dumb (if a pre-owned car).

Great advice