Audi A4 2.0 tdi Cab 57 Problems

[SteBrown91]

the 2.0 PD 170 is notorious for DPF problems. The white smoke indicates there is something else wrong (has it had the injector recall?). If the DPF light keeps coming on I would get it looked at quick, before it causes undoable damage to the car.

There are plenty of reputable DPF removal companies (especially for VAG group). Some can provide a dummy dpf so it looks like it is there for the MOT.

[Dr G]

You need a full and proper diagnosis, sir.

Throwing money at it can end up throwing money away. 2.0 TDI PD diesels can suffer a few different issues and you don't want to replace A, B & C when you really needed D.

[Danger]

If a company provides DPF removal it is not reputable. DPF removal is illegal, supplying a dummy for MOT's is morally wrong.

As much as I dislike DPF reliability they are there for a reason, to prevent cancer causing particles from entering the environment and YOUR lungs.

DP

[Cupramax]

SteBrown91 said:

the 2.0 PD 170 is notorious for DPF problems. The white smoke indicates there is something else wrong (has it had the injector recall?). If the DPF light keeps coming on I would get it looked at quick, before it causes undoable damage to the car.

There are plenty of reputable DPF removal companies (especially for VAG group). Some can provide a dummy dpf so it looks like it is there for the MOT.

The A4 cab never had the 170hp engine, only the 140.

[SteBrown91]

Danger said:

If a company provides DPF removal it is not reputable. DPF removal is illegal, supplying a dummy for MOT's is morally wrong.

As much as I dislike DPF reliability they are there for a reason, to prevent cancer causing particles from entering the environment and YOUR lungs.

DP

Dpf removal is not illegal. If it still passes the UK MOT soot test then it is legal. The DPF is a visually inspected item.

Edited by SteBrown91 on Friday 5th September 13:42

[SteBrown91]

Cupramax said:

The A4 cab never had the 170hp engine, only the 140.

If that's the case then why is he getting a dpf light? The 140 did not have a particulate filter fitted

[Danger]

Wrong. DPF removal has been illegal since February

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-for-m...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10573720/DPF-r...
.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-new...


Legal requirements and the MoT test
From February 2014 the inspection of the exhaust system carried out during the MoT test will include a check for the presence of a DPF. A missing DPF, where one was fitted when the vehicle was built, will result in an MoT failure.
A vehicle might still pass the MoT visible smoke emissions test, which is primarily intended to identify vehicles that are in a very poor state of repair, whilst emitting illegal and harmful levels of fine exhaust particulate.
It is an offence under the Road vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulation 61a(3))1 to use a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet. Removal of a DPF will almost invariably contravene these requirements, making the vehicle illegal for road use. The potential penalties for failing to comply
1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/conte... Version 2

Edited by Danger on Friday 5th September 13:57

[Danger]

Wrong. DPF removal has been illegal since February

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-for-m...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10573720/DPF-r...
.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-new...


Legal requirements and the MoT test
From February 2014 the inspection of the exhaust system carried out during the MoT test will include a check for the presence of a DPF. A missing DPF, where one was fitted when the vehicle was built, will result in an MoT failure.
A vehicle might still pass the MoT visible smoke emissions test, which is primarily intended to identify vehicles that are in a very poor state of repair, whilst emitting illegal and harmful levels of fine exhaust particulate.
It is an offence under the Road vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulation 61a(3))1 to use a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet. Removal of a DPF will almost invariably contravene these requirements, making the vehicle illegal for road use. The potential penalties for failing to comply
1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/conte... Version 2

Edited by Danger on Friday 5th September 16:29

[Cupramax]

SteBrown91 said:

If that's the case then why is he getting a dpf light? The 140 did not have a particulate filter fitted

Check for yourself if you dont believe me, theres still a 2007 spec pdf for the A4 cab on audi's website...

http://www.audi.co.uk/content/dam/audi/production/...

[SteBrown91]

Cupramax said:

Check for yourself if you dont believe me, theres still a 2007 spec pdf for the A4 cab on audi's website...

http://www.audi.co.uk/content/dam/audi/production/...

So it can't be a dpf light then that is showing? Hmm

[SteBrown91]

Inphase said:

Thanks for replies so far

It's definitely a 140 model

In that case it shouldn't have a dpf?

[SmithyAG]

Copied from wiki for the A4 cab 2.0 Tdi.

There were two different versions – one had an 8 valve cylinder head the other had 16 valves. They had the same power and torque output and performed equally. Customers could no choose directly between those two engines. They got the 16-valve version when they ordered the DPF otherwise they got the 8-vavle version. In many countries the DPF became standard equipment for all B7 diesel engines from model year 2006 on and the 8-valve engine was no more.

[SteBrown91]

SmithyAG said:

Copied from wiki for the A4 cab 2.0 Tdi.

There were two different versions – one had an 8 valve cylinder head the other had 16 valves. They had the same power and torque output and performed equally. Customers could no choose directly between those two engines. They got the 16-valve version when they ordered the DPF otherwise they got the 8-vavle version. In many countries the DPF became standard equipment for all B7 diesel engines from model year 2006 on and the 8-valve engine was no more.

You learn something new every day

[Adrian E]

Danger said:

Wrong. DPF removal has been illegal since February

It's been part of the MoT inspection since February, but was in fact most likely illegal before that too. It was included in the test because a lot of these dubious garages relied on the fact it wasn't specifically checked at MoT to justify their statement that it is legal to remove 'because it's not part of the MoT'.

Construction & Use Regs, which govern vehicles used on UK roads, states that a vehicle's emissions must be maintained within the limits set for Type Approval when the vehicle was new. In all likelihood to prove that you'd have to run a test that costs thousands, but since manufacturers have never fitted DPFs for the fun of it, you can rightly assume the car would never pass the particle mass and number limits at Type Approval without one, so a car without a DPF will inevitably fail the test. Potential fine of £1000.

[SteBrown91]

Adrian E said:

It's been part of the MoT inspection since February, but was in fact most likely illegal before that too. It was included in the test because a lot of these dubious garages relied on the fact it wasn't specifically checked at MoT to justify their statement that it is legal to remove 'because it's not part of the MoT'.

Construction & Use Regs, which govern vehicles used on UK roads, states that a vehicle's emissions must be maintained within the limits set for Type Approval when the vehicle was new. In all likelihood to prove that you'd have to run a test that costs thousands, but since manufacturers have never fitted DPFs for the fun of it, you can rightly assume the car would never pass the particle mass and number limits at Type Approval without one, so a car without a DPF will inevitably fail the test. Potential fine of £1000.

I think people are taking all this a bit far to the letter of the law. If this is the case all remaps would potentially be illegal, as would removing precats (like on mr2s) and also fitting an induction kit. (More air, more fuel, more emissions).

Also, I wouldn't call companies like shark, rs tuning and evo chips "dubious"

[Dr G]

Whilst removal is illegal a physical inspection is rarely possible (and even if they are a 'gutted' DPF will pass this) and as long as the car passes emissions *and* it doesn't have a stupid/smoky map (a black cloud is a fail) it will pass an MOT.

Should you remove an emissions device? No, of course not.

Will you get away with it? Probably.

[Adrian E]

SteBrown91 said:

I think people are taking all this a bit far to the letter of the law. If this is the case all remaps would potentially be illegal, as would removing precats (like on mr2s) and also fitting an induction kit. (More air, more fuel, more emissions).

Also, I wouldn't call companies like shark, rs tuning and evo chips "dubious"

This is true, however it is best to go into something knowing what you might potentially be doing is illegal, not just 'dodgy' or even 'legit' or however else it's wrapped up. Getting away with a de-catted petrol car is in the same avenue, although it should fail the MoT emissions test in most cases but we're all aware there's enough daft MoT testers that will risk their livelihood by stuffing the probe up the back of another car for a back-hander.

Most remaps would potentially be considered illegal IF tested in court - unless they could demonstrate no change on the Type Approval drive cycle applicable when the car was new. I don't know any mapping companies that've checked....but similarly no court cases either