Big diesel barge modifications. Remap plus DPF / EGR delete.
Discussion
Murphy16 said:
Removing the DPF is something I'm considering when my 330d gets the dreaded clog. Why pay £1200 for BMW to replace it when i could pay someone £200 to remove it? And it would still pass MOTs.
Oh Murphy, surely one of the holier-than-thou types will get the bill for you, it is for the 'common good' afterall. 
Mr2Mike said:
I go for cars I can afford to run properly, but whatever floats your boat.
Sorry, I was unaware you had access to my bank statements and financial situation. Maybe you're my accountant? Never knew you were on this forum Julian, welcome! Jokes aside, I plan on keeping the car a long time and it seems like one less thing to worry about going wrong if I remove it completely.
Edited by Murphy16 on Sunday 25th June 18:45
Mr2Mike said:
I go for cars I can afford to run properly, but whatever floats your boat.
Having failure-prone nonsense strapped onto the engine to force it to sniff its own farts is a bloody stupid idea. If the stuff can't work right without clagging up the engine or breaking, chucking it in the bin is running the car "properly".InitialDave said:
Having failure-prone nonsense strapped onto the engine to force it to sniff its own farts is a bloody stupid idea. If the stuff can't work right without clagging up the engine or breaking, chucking it in the bin is running the car "properly".
you a confusing a few systems here.a egr is used as you say 'sniff its own farts', used mostly on cold start up to reduce nox produced.
a dpf is used to reduce soot particles produced. it doesn't 'break', there are no moving parts unless you count the additives used to increase temperature to burn off the soot. it has a fixed term life cycle, similar to any component. it can either be replaced or cleaned and not a big job really. The clagging up is,surprisingly the diesel soot. the engine won't break, it will detect a increase in pressure and reduce power to protect the engine, limp mode.
But this is the problem a lot don't really have a clue what it is so just make spurious comments to justify removing it. dpfs have been around mainstream cars since 2001 , similar to cats they are integral to the emissions system.
Edited by The Spruce goose on Sunday 25th June 19:13
So much hyperbole being chucked around in this thread now. Then again it is PH.
It is entirely possible to disagree with someone making their car more polluting for no good reason at all by removing the DPF, which gives marginal performance gains compared to a remap alone, without being some eco-mentalist.
I don't kid myself that my passion for cars is in any way environmentally friendly, but making a car needlessly worse for such a limited benefit just seems a bit of an odd move to me.
It is entirely possible to disagree with someone making their car more polluting for no good reason at all by removing the DPF, which gives marginal performance gains compared to a remap alone, without being some eco-mentalist.
I don't kid myself that my passion for cars is in any way environmentally friendly, but making a car needlessly worse for such a limited benefit just seems a bit of an odd move to me.
charltjr said:
So much hyperbole being chucked around in this thread now. Then again it is PH.
It is entirely possible to disagree with someone making their car more polluting for no good reason at all by removing the DPF, which gives marginal performance gains compared to a remap alone, without being some eco-mentalist.
I don't kid myself that my passion for cars is in any way environmentally friendly, but making a car needlessly worse for such a limited benefit just seems a bit of an odd move to me.
Its hardly a limited benefit though? It is entirely possible to disagree with someone making their car more polluting for no good reason at all by removing the DPF, which gives marginal performance gains compared to a remap alone, without being some eco-mentalist.
I don't kid myself that my passion for cars is in any way environmentally friendly, but making a car needlessly worse for such a limited benefit just seems a bit of an odd move to me.
I'd a 2.2D Jag X Type. 2005. Last of the non DPF models. 155BHP. The following year, same engine only with DPF 143BHP.
So theres an easy 10% lost on some cars to a DPF. Its allows your engine to breathe more freely, it removes what is for some people a bane in their lives (DPF light on, clogging, further engine problems), and can further enhance the already known benefits of a remap.
Petrol NA car tuners would give their left ball for an easy 10% uplift in power.
And its all very well disagreeing with someone but when all of a sudden behaviours with quite rational benefit to them are being labelled "needlessly odd", "a bell end move", "immoral", "a truly w
kerish thing to do" and backed up by untruths such as "it'll fail MOT", "your insurance will be invalidated" and "Pistonheads would have to disclose his IP to old bill stating he is going to break the law" then you can see why people might feel the right to respond?daemon said:
"your insurance will be invalidated"
if you remove the dpf, it will contravene the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulation 61A (using a modified car on the road which no longer meets the emissions standards applied to it when new).It is also likely to lead you to having a void insurance policy, which could lead to your insurer withdrawing insurance cover, if a vehicle examination as part of an insurance claim, discovers that the DPF has been removed or tampered with.
The Association of British Insurers quote
“It is the responsibility of the vehicle owner to ensure that their vehicle is legal to drive and roadworthy, and to declare it as such when applying for or renewing insurance. Applying for or renewing insurance knowing that the vehicle is illegal or unroadworthy, would amount to misrepresentation and potential fraud. Terms and conditions of motor insurance policies normally specify that the vehicle must be registered in the UK (or in the process of being registered), and that the vehicle is roadworthy. No insurance would be offered or renewed if the owner declared to the insurer that the vehicle was illegal to drive/unroadworthy.“
So it is up to you, but i posted i don't agree with it. get a petrol if you don't want a dpf.
The Spruce goose said:
bearman68 said:
And it's worth repeating again (and again and again), that there is no current evidence to show that diesel exhaust pollution is harmful,causing cancer,
very wrong i am afraid, and i will stick to scientific journals for sources.'International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – part of the World Health Organisation – announced that it had reclassified diesel exhaust as a ‘definite carcinogen’ – putting it in its highest category (Category 1).'
'As it has bacon....
But to be fair, you are right, and I did misquote I'm afraid. The study I quoted showed that living next to a busy road did not cause significant rates of increase in bad things.
There is a graphic earlier showing COPD in various areas of England. If the graphic had been extended, showing Scotland, the rate of Lung cancer in the Highlands is higher than Central London. How is that possible if diesel fumes are so toxic?
I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the middle, and there is some limit of diesel fumes that may cause problems - but it isn't yet apparent. However, the claim that 10 million people a minute are being killed to death by diesel engines is hugely disingenuous, and the idea of banning diesel engines is not understand the nature of the risk. I suspect Sadiq Khan for example of having a political agenda for attacking the diesel. (Wouldn't be so bad if he said I want to ban diesel engines to make London a nicer place to live - but no, let's pull some imaginary science to support my political ambitions)
As you were......
daemon said:
Its hardly a limited benefit though?
I'd a 2.2D Jag X Type. 2005. Last of the non DPF models. 155BHP. The following year, same engine only with DPF 143BHP.
So theres an easy 10% lost on some cars to a DPF. Its allows your engine to breathe more freely, it removes what is for some people a bane in their lives (DPF light on, clogging, further engine problems), and can further enhance the already known benefits of a remap.
Petrol NA car tuners would give their left ball for an easy 10% uplift in power.
And its all very well disagreeing with someone but when all of a sudden behaviours with quite rational benefit to them are being labelled "needlessly odd", "a bell end move", "immoral", "a truly wkerish thing to do" and backed up by untruths such as "it'll fail MOT", "your insurance will be invalidated" and "Pistonheads would have to disclose his IP to old bill stating he is going to break the law" then you can see why people might feel the right to respond?
Absolutely, hence hyperbole. I never suggested there was no right to respond or discuss, was jut disappointed at the level of debate from both sides. I'd a 2.2D Jag X Type. 2005. Last of the non DPF models. 155BHP. The following year, same engine only with DPF 143BHP.
So theres an easy 10% lost on some cars to a DPF. Its allows your engine to breathe more freely, it removes what is for some people a bane in their lives (DPF light on, clogging, further engine problems), and can further enhance the already known benefits of a remap.
Petrol NA car tuners would give their left ball for an easy 10% uplift in power.
And its all very well disagreeing with someone but when all of a sudden behaviours with quite rational benefit to them are being labelled "needlessly odd", "a bell end move", "immoral", "a truly w
kerish thing to do" and backed up by untruths such as "it'll fail MOT", "your insurance will be invalidated" and "Pistonheads would have to disclose his IP to old bill stating he is going to break the law" then you can see why people might feel the right to respond?Unfortunately some people have gone all "climate change denial" on the evidence about how nasty exhaust particulates are whereas on the flip side some people are going just as hard in the opposite direction.
I certainly do accept that DPFs reduce performance and MPG, but personally I think it's a cost worth paying. Early DPFs were a nightmare for a lot of people, but the technology has moved on a long way now.
Given the gains a simple remap returns on most turbo diesels, removing the DPF too gives a *relatively* minor improvement by completely removing the unit that takes a known carcinogen out of the exhaust gas. It just doesn't strike me as a particularly sensible thing to do and I'd welcome more stringent checks on exhaust pollutants at MoT time.
I'm old enough to remember similar arguments over the demise of leaded fuel and the introduction of catalytic converters - how bizarre it seems now that people were actually arguing over it. This doesn't seem to be any different.
I think it is strange how attitudes change, mainly fueled by the mainstream media.
If someone came on here a few years ago and asked the same question, I am pretty sure they would have got very different answers, helpful hints on how to achieve a clean dpf removal that wouldn't be picked up on at MOT time, suggestions of the sort of gain that could be achieved etc. What has happened to piston heads? emissions, mpg, NO NO NO, it used to be HP, handling mods, how to get the best from your vehicle and enjoy the drive.
I agree that breathing particulates is never going to be good for our health and there is a serious issue here, but one man looking to make his vehicle drive better, be probably more efficient is not going to result in the death of human kind.
How ethical his decision is should also depend on where he does most of his driving, as the dpf filter is designed to regen when out of the city as is, so just moves most of the pollution to a location here it is likely to disperse quicker and less likely to be directly breathed in. If the OP spends most of his time driving cross country and not in a large metropolitan area then removing the DPF will make little difference to the city center pollution levels. To be honest we should be focused on why buses exhaust their filth at pram/toddler face level and don't have elevated stacks to encourage better dispersal. Why at a national level more has not been done to migrate buses and taxi's to cleaner alternative fuels, short term LPG then electric rather than picking on the private motorist.
I think the biggest issue with DPF's and to some extent egr's is not that they have a detrimental effect on the vehicle performance but the lack of reliability and large bills associated with them, I can't argue with anyone who goes down this route for this reason. I would not buy a diesel with a dpf for this reason.
As an aside, those who want criminal charges against people who mod their car and remove emissions gubbins, do they also want criminal charges against every VAG owner who hasn't yet taken their car in for its "fix"?
rant over!
If someone came on here a few years ago and asked the same question, I am pretty sure they would have got very different answers, helpful hints on how to achieve a clean dpf removal that wouldn't be picked up on at MOT time, suggestions of the sort of gain that could be achieved etc. What has happened to piston heads? emissions, mpg, NO NO NO, it used to be HP, handling mods, how to get the best from your vehicle and enjoy the drive.
I agree that breathing particulates is never going to be good for our health and there is a serious issue here, but one man looking to make his vehicle drive better, be probably more efficient is not going to result in the death of human kind.
How ethical his decision is should also depend on where he does most of his driving, as the dpf filter is designed to regen when out of the city as is, so just moves most of the pollution to a location here it is likely to disperse quicker and less likely to be directly breathed in. If the OP spends most of his time driving cross country and not in a large metropolitan area then removing the DPF will make little difference to the city center pollution levels. To be honest we should be focused on why buses exhaust their filth at pram/toddler face level and don't have elevated stacks to encourage better dispersal. Why at a national level more has not been done to migrate buses and taxi's to cleaner alternative fuels, short term LPG then electric rather than picking on the private motorist.
I think the biggest issue with DPF's and to some extent egr's is not that they have a detrimental effect on the vehicle performance but the lack of reliability and large bills associated with them, I can't argue with anyone who goes down this route for this reason. I would not buy a diesel with a dpf for this reason.
As an aside, those who want criminal charges against people who mod their car and remove emissions gubbins, do they also want criminal charges against every VAG owner who hasn't yet taken their car in for its "fix"?
rant over!
I'm surprised the Gov are not jumping all over DPF deleting. Aside from the potential health angle, isn't the fact the DPF is there is the reason they give significant reductions on road tax on vehicles to which it is supposed to be fitted?
Isn't removing the reason for such a hefty road tax discount and still claiming the benefit essentially tax fraud?
I've chosen to not buy a diesel car with DPF fitted due to the mostly short hops I do which has limited my choice in used car purchases. Deleting the DPF would be an answer but I would be far too uncomfortable with the idea for a number of reasons.
Isn't removing the reason for such a hefty road tax discount and still claiming the benefit essentially tax fraud?
I've chosen to not buy a diesel car with DPF fitted due to the mostly short hops I do which has limited my choice in used car purchases. Deleting the DPF would be an answer but I would be far too uncomfortable with the idea for a number of reasons.
Tucker1 said:
I'm surprised the Gov are not jumping all over DPF deleting. Aside from the potential health angle, isn't the fact the DPF is there is the reason they give significant reductions on road tax on vehicles to which it is supposed to be fitted?
Isn't removing the reason for such a hefty road tax discount and still claiming the benefit essentially tax fraud?
I've chosen to not buy a diesel car with DPF fitted due to the mostly short hops I do which has limited my choice in used car purchases. Deleting the DPF would be an answer but I would be far too uncomfortable with the idea for a number of reasons.
Look at Co2 emissions of 2.0 BKD 140bhp Golf Mk5 vs a CXXX 140bhp Mk6 Common Rail. Not much difference. Isn't removing the reason for such a hefty road tax discount and still claiming the benefit essentially tax fraud?
I've chosen to not buy a diesel car with DPF fitted due to the mostly short hops I do which has limited my choice in used car purchases. Deleting the DPF would be an answer but I would be far too uncomfortable with the idea for a number of reasons.
DPF doesn't really stop or alter co2 emissions.
charltjr said:
I'm old enough to remember similar arguments over the demise of leaded fuel and the introduction of catalytic converters - how bizarre it seems now that people were actually arguing over it. This doesn't seem to be any different.
And i am too. However we're not arguing over the introduction of DPFs - that ship has long since sailed - we're debating removing a DPF from "a" car, relative to tuning it.Just like people do / have removed catalytic converters from cars to tune them.
I have a diesel with a DPF. I've no particular urge to remove it (if it was about power i'd have bought a faster one in the first place) however i just find the hand wringing and name calling bemusing.
Build a 600BHP Subaru that shreds tyres and does 10MPG and pumps god knows what into the environment and you're a hero. Remove the DPF from your diesel and remap it and you're the Son of Satan.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff