It has been suggested that the risks of driving diesel cars are not being taken seriously enough as a study has uncovered that people have been opting to have their diesel particulate filter (DPF) removed rather than pay £1,000 for a replacement. Vehicles that remove a DPF spread toxic pollution 20 times greater than a normal diesel car.
A DPF is vital in helping to cut pollution created by diesel engines as it traps soot from the exhaust which is then burnt into harmless ash using heat created by the vehicle’s engine. All diesel cars manufactured after 2009 have one of these filters fitted, but 1,800 cars have been caught without one since 2014.
Although 1,800 already seems like a high number, there are likely to be many more motorists who are also driving their diesel car without a DPF as this is not picked up in an MOT, and cannot always be detected during an emissions test. So the true scale of vehicles without DPFs is not clear but some experts are estimating that there are up to 20,000 vehicles with DPFs removed driving on UK roads.
Removing DPFs improves performance
The cost of a new filter is one of the main reasons why motorists would prefer to not have one at all, as a replacement is priced at around £1000 whereas a removal will only set them back a few hundred pounds in comparison. As well as saving on replacement cost, many drivers claim that after having the DPF removed it improved engine performance and fuel efficiency, a leading cause of why so many are taking DPFs out in the first place.
If you are caught without a DPF and prosecuted on a car the fine is £1,000 and van £2.500 but as it stands no penalty points are applied on a license for removing a DPF. The DVSA are planning on closing the loophole and as well as making annual checks of DPFs compulsory, putting in place stricter penalties for having them removed for both driver and the garage who did it.
DPFs work most effectively at high temperatures which means that those installed in cars which do a lot of motorway driving are the most effective, whereas those which are subjected to lots of short and slow urban journeys are more likely to get clogged and break, which is why this problem is one that is affecting a high number of diesel owners.
(Credit – morebyless/Flickr)
Most polluted towns and cities
If people were more aware of the risks involved in removing their DPF they might be less likely to do it, as the particulates released into the air can cause heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer, and affect unborn children too. In addition to this, it has been announced that around 40,000 premature deaths are caused by these deadly particles which are so small that they are inhaled deep into the lungs of individuals across the UK.
Plus, it is the whole of the UK that is being affected even though larger towns may be experiencing the most issues. A recent study has found that Glasgow and Scunthorpe are suffering the most, with London, Leeds and Birmingham also showing high levels of dangerous particulates in the air. Overall, there are 43 Uk towns which have pollution levels so high that they are breaking global safety limits, which shows just how serious this issue is.
Within London alone, 800 schools and many of its hospitals are in areas of high pollution which means that some of the city’s most vulnerable people are at risk of breathing in the most polluted air, surely another statistic that will help people to see how dangerous it is to drive a car that has been altered to allow more pollution to be emitted.
Diesel cars are now being placed at the top of the list of factors to blame for the increase in air pollution, which is partly down to the fact that people were encouraged to buy them by previous Governments due to the fact that they release less carbon dioxide than other vehicles which technically makes them a better choice in the fight against global warming. However, now that these new risks have come to light it is obvious that this promotion of diesel cars was a highly damaging one.
In May 2018 it is thought that tests will have been rolled out which can effectively test whether a diesel car still has its DPF intact, and with the new T-Charge being implemented in London it is hoped that this will help to reduce air pollution too.
In addition to this, diesel scrappage schemes are being made available by a number of car manufacturers to try to get as many as possible off of the roads as they work with the Government to try to make the world of motoring a more environmentally place to be.
What do you think of those who remove DPFs? Should they be penalised more harshly for polluting far more than other road users? What can be done to tackle pollution in our major towns and cities? Let us know in the comments below.
Why is it so expensive to replace the DPF. What’s involved to justify the cost. I’m a first time diesel owner with a 2015, 2 litre Ford.
Steve these drivers are removing the filters for a performance gain, they just refit them for the MOT, it’s not a question of cost.
I think the fact that they clog up and cause reliability problems and excess fuel usage may be a more common motive for removing them. Plus they are more prone to causing trouble in the very situations in which they are needed – dense urban commuting. What is ACTUALLY needed is for an engine manufacturer to devise reliable and inexpensive anti-pollution measures that DON’T use a DPF, which is, at best, a cobbled-together solution with all the engineering finesse of a lump-hammer.
They have, it’s the AdBlue catalyst. But it’s more expensive to buy initially and people will go for the cheapest options.
Car’s that use AdBlue (Euro 6 compliant) also have a DPF!
Yes, the two aspects of DPF and Adblue are entirely different. A DPF filters out soot for want of a better word. The Adblue process uses an ammonia-rich liquid (urea, or is it sheeps’ wee-wee?) to combine with the harmful oxides of nitrogen to turn them into nitrogen and water vapour (both present in air anyway).
The AdBlue system is also requiring very quick replacement (most under warranty) they need refilling more like weekly than what was advertised and becoming a serious problem for both car owners and manufacturers of cars. Use it in built up areas, stop/start ignition systems, never more than a 15 mile run and you have the same problems but it costs even more.
Weekly fill with AdBlue? You must be joking. I have never put any in my (almost) three year old C-class. MB put some in at the service, and they don’t put a lot in. Well, would they they if it cost?
Ad blue dosn’t stop particulates, it lowers NOX
Renault have already ditched diesel development as it cannot reliably meet newer proposed emission standards.
Generally speaking, it is the emission control equipment which makes modern engines unreliable.
How many know that if their premium VAG car is not serviced and diagnostically reset it won’t regen? That and the spectre of a £700-£1000 garage bill for a new EGR valve in the 1.6 TDI engines really starts to make diesels look very expensive compared to petrol running costs.
Nope diesel has just about had it’s day but don’t worry, unless some new petrol ideas become developed, petrol will follow.
My guess it is almost the end of the personal mobility era.
Its not an easy and straight forward procedure to remove a dpf, you have all the associated sensors and pipework to deal with and then have to get it deactivated in your ecu, so you wouldn’t remove it and then refit for the mot like you might a cat
That’s the best idea yet
Some are, but the majority are removing them because their vehicle is already in limp mode and drive it longer and the engine itself begins to get written off too.
There is not much point in taking it off should you blow black smoke with the police behind you and they send you to a named garage that day. This is not unlikely to happen, more especially moving forwards. Do you think that after paying the fine, which will be increased, and with points, perhaps disqualification, that they just permit you to drive away? We have to bite the bullet, and if necessary just bin the £15000 we spent on our diesel van.
Join the discussion
Its mainly the materials used in construction, because it has to be able to deal with temperatures in excess of 550 degrees C. Usually stainless steel on the outside and the core is made up of a very complex ceramic grid type construction that traps the particles. My advice is keep your fuel tank filled above 1/4 as most manufactures won’t allow the DPF to regen if under 1/4. So by the time you fill up it will be blocked that bit more and will have to run for longer. Drive at least once a week in 4th instead of 5th if you are manual for approx 10 miles or if auto drive in sport. Also if you ever get the warning light on you must drive for at least 20 miles in lower gears with high engine revs, above 2000 if possible. If that doesn’t work unfortunatly its a trip to the dealer for a forced re gen. that will cost you. My wife car is a 2011 seat Altea diesel. I have told her the advise about the 1/4 of a tank rules and the car has done 55000 miles in the last 3 years with no DPF issues.
And this is merely the filter, the entire DPF system is vast, sure though, it includes the labor, this is the most expensive part. Others will spend twice this amount and fix absolutely nothing.
Their vehicle will be worth its scrap value, and even the manufacturers themselves make no guarantee other than they will charge you £100 per hour plus parts for their time, perhaps a £100 for having a look too. Those that have bought otherwise high performance cars, they might well have them removed to enhance performance but commercial drivers do so when the vehicle is about to die on them, when it is about to no longer run at all. It is costing some their lives savings just for the luxury of being able to work, they are currently not even thanked!
Same goes for CATs I know of many sports car owners that “decat” their cars just to make them louder, totally irresponsible and anti social behaviour.
The point to remember here is that we were encouraged to buy diesels on the premise they polluted LESS than petrol cars. Someone has now decided this is not the case but how long before new research shows this lot we’re wrong?
Cows apparently pollute more than cars but remember 127% of statistics are made up.
Paul,
Excellent comment and very true. As someone who used to own a 2009 diesel and was totally ripped off by a main Ford dealer and the PDF fiasco, never again. Will never have another diesel.
And the latest report says that the Hybrid cars are not as frugal as the Diesel powered cars as the MPG claims are vastly wrong in the Hybrids.
Youare 100% correct. More than politicians certainly are. I’m sure it’s a job for the boys to concoct a new agenda to cost motorists more money. We are taxed to death in this country. Maybe if they spent time and money on building an adequate bus and train system at reasonable prices people would then use public transport. We are fortunate we have a community bus which is a charity now. Bad job we can’t go 10miles though without a car.
Slightly paranoid and wrong. We pay relatively little tax in the UK as a proportion of income and wealth. Who do you think will pay for the buses and trains you sensible call for?
Agree Michael. I would like to see the revenue from excise duty ringfenced for public transport. Won’t happen because no Government wants to be seen as a tax increaser. UK overall tax rate is one of the lowest in the western world leaving less public funds available to invest.
You and Michael are obviously brainwashed and easily led.
You are one MORON
and John you are 2
Overseas aid should be abolished to keep the UK healthy Simple Job Done !!!!
We should STOP sending money abroad, it’s a total nonsense when we need the money here, politicians are total ar5eholes
We get more benefit from overseas aid than we give. Most aid is given in kind produced here and there is always a kickback for us – jobs?
So right Isabel. One day the whole truth about the Marples-Beeching relationship will come out…
Quite correct Isobel.
I live in Hong Kong and the transport system is second to none. Trains, Buses all every few minutes and taxis. All run on gas or electric and have very low emissions. So why, if the British government is so concerned, can’t hey do the same. I am sure suspending all overseas aid for a few years will pay to keep all UK citizens healthy !!!
And who pays the emission price for generating your electricity?
“The point to remember here is that we were encouraged to buy diesels on the premise they polluted LESS than petrol cars.” You have forgotten what the issues were at the time . Diesel engines produce less CO2 per mile than an equivalently performing petrol engine . This is still the case . Now it is known that diesel engines are more polluting than equivalent petrol engines . So- do you drive diesel and save the planet – or drive petrol and save your fellow citizens from health hazard pollutants ? Hard choice . Depreciation on electric and plug in hybrid cars is still much too high to make me consider one at the moment ( even allowing for leasing the battery rather than outright purchase )
Sit in your nice safe non-polluting petrol car after connecting a pipe to the exhaust and feeding it in through a window. Make sure all the other windows are closed and breathe deeply whilst running the engine.
How safe is that? Ohh sorry of course you aren’t able to answer questions any more are you? Cos you’re DEAD!!
Petrol emissions kill instantly, diesel fumes MAY kill you very slowly if at all – not one person can be shown to have died SOLELY from diesel emissions but a friend of mine died SOLELY from petrol emissions.
Good point.
Won’t work. The engine won’t run rich enough to produce enough CO and even if it did, the cat would convert it to CO2.
Hey look, another Alasdair. Weird!
Why would you try to kill your cat? Poor moggy.
Why the government doesn’t subsidize these vehicles is beyond me. They could divert the money from the massive overseas aid spending to save us instead ! But that would be too much to expect from a British Government eh ?
I prefer to save the planet… And I used to work in the NHS.
Well true, that was a big mistake by European governments to promote diesel as a green fuel and to introduce tax incentives. Back then you just had to look at the soot coming out of the diesel vehicles or smell the filth to realise it was not green. Many could understandably not distinguish CO2 emissions from pollution. A little known fact is that a litre of diesel produces over 10% more carbon dioxide and energy than a litre of petrol, so this makes diesel seem even more frugal than it actually is. As a result it is cheaper to emit CO2 from diesel than it is with petrol. Given also that diesel engines are more efficient there has been an unintended consequence, what has actually happened is many have opted to buy larger heavier cars, just look around, this would not have happened without the switch to diesel. This means the CO2 savings from a move to diesel have been much less than forecast, but we now have a severe problem with particulate pollution and Nitrogen compounds that would not be the case if cars were mostly still petrol. Another point is that the governments were promoting diesel more than 15 years ago, so those now arguing that they should be allowed to pollute unhindered indefinitely should consider themselves lucky to have been allowed to cheaply pollute for so long but realise the party is over now, things move on. Some of us don’t want the health of our children to be blighted for the sake of someone being allowed to rattle around in their miser wagon, or freakishly outsized Chelsea tractor. Then there is the removal of DPF filters, or other mods often made to Diesel cars to improve performance and economy at the cost of much higher pollution, or failure of new diesels to even get close to the specified pollution in real driving conditions. So for now I would think if Electric or Hybrid is too expensive, LPG or petrol are the options. To minimise running costs buy as small as possible and consider alternative transport where feasible.
Cows and Sheep produce 10’000 times more greenhouse gases than diesel cars. Merchant ships and cruise liners produce 10,000,000 times more greenhouse gases than diesel cars. We were encouraged buy diesel cars but the main problem esp in London are diesel taxis and busses that have done 250,000 plus miles with knackered worn out engines and are the main polluters. The government won’t do anything about taxis’s as they are worried about the backlash of protests where the taxis’s clog up London. That said most of the oldest most polluting vehicles are being (Slowly) replaced with cleaner electric/hybrid cars. Just don’t ask where all the electricity comes from.
Some of the biggest city polluters are intact construction equipment such as cranes, JCBs etc. I’ve never heard any politician or environmental activist challenge this why. No cash
Exactly.
Same way they don’t pay attention to the turbofan engines of aircraft which are still devoid of anti pollution equipment.
They will soon though but not just yet…
I operate plant machinery for a living and you’re wrong, all the new plant machinery legally has to have the “ad blue” additive now and they also have “muffler regenerations” which is basically their DPFs. many selectable work modes can be chosen to make the engine behave for the specific task and thus not over revving the engine needlessly. For me it’s the older busses and trucks. New trucks also have the “ad blue”
I like your comment, I see air pollution being more likely from the Aircraft landing at Heathrow. But those who fly all over the planet then talk about problems are just encouraging others to visit and pollute even more. How many moaners are flying off to their winter warmth this year ? Stop leaving the Earth and start saving it instead. Air pollution means all types of emissions. Petrol use will mean more CO2 next.
A DPF doesn’t reduce greenhouse gasses it reduces soot and other particulates which clog up your lungs, I’m no biologist but I doubt very much that cows produce soot.
Correct – it comes from burning coal, oil and gas in a power station with up to 65% loss of energy in generation, transmission and battery storage. Just moves pollution from one place to another.
Let’s face it – electric cars may have zero exhaust emissions but they are just as polluting as any other car. The pollution us just dumped somewhere else where the cows and sheep already pollute.
Utter nonsense, electric cars pollute much less because they are far far more efficient at converting energy into motion than internal combustion engines. The power produced for the grid does produce a degree of pollution but this is also decreasing due to a greater mix of renewables, the gradual phasing out of coal and improvements in generating efficiencies. The pollution produced by power stations is well away from people so although still too much, is not at ground level where vehicle exhaust emissions are. Even brake dust from electric cars will be less due to the use of regenerative braking where the motor slows the car returning the energy to the battery.
And cows can’t drive….!
but you stiil have to breathe the air they pollute…
That is fine.. but who encouraged us to remove dpf and increase polution 20 times?.. nobody. Driving diesel is fine, but removing dpf is crime!
They should face compulsory community service, ideally somewhere where they can experience first hand the harm caused by their reckless and selfish behaviour. And that in addition to points on their licence and a heavy fine. It is utterly unacceptable and must be stamped out immediately with a serious deterrent.
Sounds like the right solution. Hanging, drawing and quartering will stop them too.
Since the “harm caused” varies according to the conditions under which the vehicle is operated, I hope we can come up with an equitable sliding scale of punishment according to the degree of damage caused in each case. Except of course that would let off lightly anybody driving twenty miles a day across country in a DPF-less diesel but crucify an urban commuter in a brand new SUV, who doubtless considers him/herself utterly blameless.
Consider the number of miles travelled by commercial vehicles, public transport and Cruise Ships, Container ships which pour out much more pollution than diesel cars.
I live near the port of Southampton where all the time these ships are in dock their Diesel engines are running to charge
the generators. Some ports abroad don’t allow this and the dock authorities have go provide ” plug in power ” which is ultimately charged back to the shipping companies. Our docks should be made to do the same!! Roger, Southampton.
Spot on I can not believe most of the replies here they are selfish and ignorant, I suffer with COPD and if I go to a city I always pay a heavy price health wise.
Leamington Spa is one of the worst towns for this type of pollution and I have COPD and live there!
My only comment is regarding the author of the article.. I presume Sasha Davison is a member of the green party and goes to work in Scunthorpe on a bike. Talk about scaremongering. If lack of a DPF causes 20 times more pollution how come it can’t be picked up in an emissions test? 1800 offenders is not ‘Thousands’. The ‘40,00 aggravated deaths’ is a figure plucked out of the air using other statistics and has no base in fact. My DPF (on a 2006 vehicle) costs £250, the same price as a back box.
Think about what you’re writing Sasha. This kind of writing gives Journalists a bad name
A diesel MOT ’emissions’ test just measures the density of the particles of soot. This is the (basic) indicator of determining that the engine is, basically, running as intended and allowing for some deterioration as the engine and its systems age. It does analyse any of the exhaust gases.
Sorry, we don’t invite facts here, just opinions.
It’s probably an educated guess based on the number of companies that will provide this illegal service and the millions of diesel cars in the UK.
Does the number upset you? Or is it something yiud rather ignore?
An educated guess? or just made up to suit…
Some garages openly advertise DPF removal in magazines. Maybe such advertising should be banned with penalties for the advertiser and the periodical in which the ad appears. I’m very skeptical of the figures published in relation to deaths caused by ‘diesel cars’ and the media don’t help by painting with a broad brush. To them it’s always diesel cars, never diesel vehicles (buses and goods vehicles etc.) and no account is taken of the greater causes of atmospheric pollution. A definitive study of the problem is needed. It was recently reported that the average life-span is greater than ever, so it can’t all be bad.
The shocking news that people will die prematurely is an exaggeration. Though I have yet to find good peer reviewed research into such claims, it is actually the likelihood that someone will die between a few days and several years earlier than they would if they had not been subject to polluting substances, rather than dying many years earlier. However many people will have lifetime disease, heart problems, lung disease and lower immunity being the major problems. Alongside the problems of pollution life expectancy has improved dramatically in the last 100 years so, on balance, I personally don`t see what all the fuss is about! I do have two co-morbid diseases so I will, very likely, die several years earlier than I may have done! I see that as a blessing because I may not have to endure several years of extreme discomfort in a hideous nursing home!!
I’d rather that I and my children didn’t die even ‘several years earlier’ because some toerag illegally removes his DPF. Fines that deter and a serious detection policy are needed.
*…my children and I
Why toerag? If the units weren’t price £1000 upward to replace plus VAT people might do it. Don’t worry there is already a software fix for modern diesels to pass any tests at MOT time etc. I removed mine over two years ago, not to save £1k as my RRS cost me £80,000.
Austin u are an absolutely selfish toe-rag, but far too thick to realise it, all you do is boast about your gas guzzling ultra polluting material possession that has an illegal fix but fail to see what would happen if everyone was like you & is too much of a tightarse to maintain said TOY responsibly !!!
Micheal sounds like one of those annoying Greens
better ban all those nasty aircraft that take you on holiday,.. oh and all those polluting vehicles that deliver food to your supermarket, Oh and of course we need to get rid of all the diesel bin wagons… etc etc etc.
How would I know if my dpf has been removed? I only bought my 2005 diesel this year. I’d be a bit miffed to be fined if the previous owner has removed it!
The article states cars made after 2009 have them fitted so seeing as yours is a 2005 model then you have nothing to worry about!
My 56 plate Peugeot has one fitted as manufacturers started to do so in anticipation of changing legislation. Hopefully it won’t be checked under this new legislation because I have been enjoyed the increased fuel economy since I took an SDS chisel to it
Paul, if you have ECUs to control engine management there will be/is a software update fix that will stop the detection of removal of DPF, they will be on EBay very quickly, I should think Volkswagen already have it featured on their programs.
Peugeot started fitting them around 2001 on the 307! As with many ‘technologies’, others adopt and improve later.
As per most of the article, the figment date is utter kibosh. They were fitted many years before 2009.
Not so, I had a 2008 Vectra that had one, as did certain models in the range for years before (automatics, some estates/hatchbacks)
The government should subsidise the cost of replacing a broken DPF so that it is free of charge.
So please answer why it’s just us motorists who are being penalised? what about all the people who use oil for there central heating boilers..they burn Diesel, also agricultural vehicles (tractors), canal boats with diesel engines, mobile cranes (classified as agricultural vehicles) virtually all commercial vessels, from small fishing boats to cruise ships?
Motorist are the easiest and softish optional every time
Just remove it, I did two years ago, and the 15% performance gains and more mpg prove yet another government con.
Ironically, it’s when taking advantage of those performance increases by putting your foot down that you produce the massive cloud of black smoke. Disgusting!
Absolutely, hopefully the new MOT testing standards will catch out all those smug selfish idiots. Some of us would like to breath clean air.
Not forgetting that ships and locomotives have two stroke diesel engines.
Most new agricultural vehicles have DPFs from around 2015 onwards. I worked on a farm in 2015 that bought 2 new John Deere tractors and both had them fitted. I have worked most of my life with Diesels in the motor trade and having training on what DPFs do I would never remove one. When I first started out as an aprentice if a truck was started up in the workshop you would have to go outside just to stop your eyes smarting and being able to breathe. Now you can look into the exhaust of a vehicle that has a properly functioning DPF and it is clean metal, No soot and they can be running with for up to 5 minutes with no real problems. Just for comparison a Mercedes truck DPF SCR unit is the best part of £10000. We all know they dont work well in start stop traffic. Simply buy petrol or hybrid /electric if you live in citys. If you live in the countryside as I do buy a Diesel.
My vocation is similar however, my viewpoint is completely different. Sure, old diesels were and often are smelly. However, so are new ones.
Only DPF equipped engines make me cough and develop a thumping headache within 60 seconds.
I don’t need scientific research to prove that the particle size from DPFs is so small it goes straight into my bloodstream.
No wonder 3 year olds get cancer these days.
DPF price is just a joke. the whole DPF is just a ceramic insert with holes closed to force gasses pass through ceramic and leave soot behind.
Another brilliant cock up by the government. They went out of their way to promote the manufacture and performance of diesel engines. How come their not used in F1 !!
What are we going to expect in another 30 years from electric. See Tesla have made a $ 600 million dollar loss in first half of his year. Another DeLorean maybe ??
Yes, another thing the government got wrong and it’s the everyday man in the street who now has to pay!
‘Fight against global warming’ my aunt fanny. When will people realise they’ve been had, big time, by this politically motivated nonsense ?
Correct
It is clearly selfish and wrong to remove these things, or any other item designed to reduce pollution. As for Mr Sim’s comment earlier, why should any car part be free? We choose to drive, choose to buy a car and both are expensive – also convenient and, if you live in a rural area, essential. I will look at electric vehicles when they invent one that will to our (small) caravan.
Having said that, £1k to fit a new DPF does sound suspiciously high. I’m not sure that moving back to petrol is really an advantage – climate change has not gone away; there is a lot to do and not much time to do it. I don’t drive in big towns if I can help it, but in my view the greatest harm is likely to be buses and HGVs. Sorry, any HGV drivers who read this – I know you have a job to do, but most freight should do most of it’s miles on the railway. Switzerland have managed it. You just drive the truck onto a flatbed wagon, secure it and either sleep in the cab or move to the buffet car and a comfortable seat. The truck goes back on the road for the local bit or when it gets to Italy (or another neighbouring country). What’s not to like? (not achievable overnight, but….)
Derrrr. If you remove the DPF, what goes in its place? A bit of rusty drainpipe? How can you be missing a factory fitted exhaust component undetected?
climate change is NOT caused by CO2, please read a book on basic physics, understand the thermodynamic laws & gas laws.
Climate change is affected by the overall temperature of the atmosphere – if heat radiation is reduced due to the atmospheric makeup then the climate will change as heat is retained by the planet and its atmosphere. The top four acknowledged ‘greenhouse’ gases are: water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone in approximate ratios of 42:14:5:4, so atmospheric carbon dioxide is unfortunately a major contributor to climate change. I am not really sure why you refer to the thermodynamic and gas laws.
The gas laws (Boyle, Charles, Gay-Lussac, Avogadro) relate volume, pressure and temperature and are combined in the Ideal Gas Law – PV = nRT
The thermodynamic laws relate temperature energy and entropy. Greenhouse gases do not change the entropy, they effectively act as insulators by reflecting infrared energy – i.e. they do not allow the infrared energy to be radiated away from the planet.
If we had no greenhouse gases the average temperature of the planet would be about minus 18 centigrade instead of plus 15 centigrade. Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 40% higher than pre-industrial revolution so we need to seriously start reducing our CO2 emissions and increase planting of new forests.
So removing one increases performance? Hmmm.
A DPF is essentially a very fine filter, and the presence of the filter causes back-pressure on the engine. Effectively the engine power is being used in part to push exhaust through the DPF. Remove the DFP, and the back-pressure drops a fair bit, which makes the diesel engine more efficient.
A good number of years ago, James Dyson invented a diesel exhaust filter which did the same as a DPF and precipitated diesel soot out of the exhaust. This was before the EU regulations, and this system also needed cleaning out at every service, but it didn’t clog and didn’t cause back-pressure. Vastly superior but needed regular maintaining, so an inferior system was chosen instead of paying Dyson royalties.
To be completely honest, a system that used a Dyson filter as a first stage, and a DPF / AdBlue catalytic filter as the second would be much, much cleaner than anything in use today. AdBlue gets rid of nitrous oxides, which are much more prevalent in engines that are set to run hot and clean and to produce very little soot; once again the problem is that they need service and maintaining and more AdBlue put into that tank.
Certainly does and the MPG to, both up by 15% average.
how can you check the filter is still fitted to your vehicle,if you bought it 2nd hand
Good point. I did so I don’t know!
I agree that as a society we should try to improve the poor levels of pollution that affects us all. I certainly agree that the MOT should be improved to stop this practice. The real issue of course is much wider than just the filters. It needs to consider the whole air polution issue which is why the filters are there in the first place.
The scandalous and imbalanced attack on the diesel car owners as being the demons of the road is totally unfair. Diesel cars only emit a small minority of the particulates that cause the problem. All cars emit some and railway locomotives emit much more. Furthermore many buses lorries and coaches have diesel engines and are also adding to the problem. The extent to which councils are now planning to go may reduce public access to town centres are draconian. Oxford is talking of banning all but electric vehicles within 4 years. Other councils will no doubt follow. There is the retort by the green lobby that all people have to do is to use public transport. Yet public transport in this country is abysmal and extremely expensive. It can cost 2 to 3 times the cost if using a car to travel by bus and trains are even more costly. This is inevitable because the amount of bureaucracy and H&S regulation around a very inefficient transport system guarantee that even with good managers the transport companies cannot solve the problem. If nothing else they only go to and from particular transport hubs and it often takes 2 to 4 separate and unconnected journeys simply to cross a town and the limited times that buses and trains can offer make many journeys impossible. So when the greens declare that the car is an evil monster and that they want to ban it they are completely ignoring the massive social disruption that they will impose on the population if they achieve their aims.
We do need to reduce pollution but not this fast. Aims of ending vehicle pollution by 2030 are never going to be achieved even with all the draconian plans that so many councils seem eager to introduce.
The modern society is very spread out and many families need the car to be able to visit families and friends who might live 100-200 miles away. The cost of such a journey by car can be £30 to £60 in total car costs and only about a third of that for the fuel only costs. To go by train the same distance can cost from £30 to £180 just for the train alone and you still have to get to and from the station which could be another £20 to £40 as many buses to not encourage people with suitcases to use them so taxi is the only other option. Making the total journey cost to see long distance family anything from £60 to £250 per person. The car can do the same journey for up to 4 people for no more than £60 and the journey will not take all day each way. Of course if towns ban the car totally then taxi would not be an option so the journey could not be made at all if the greens get their way.
We would be going back to the 19th C when families only ever met up at Christmas, if then.
This rapid change where cars become virtually banned would greatly reduce all transport activity across the whole country. The car industry would collapse, the social damage of many people being unable to see family and friends who are in a different town, the social activities that currently rely on the car to get people to attend them such as theme parks, family holidays or activities by the thousands of clubs that people are currently able to enjoy will all be in great jeopardy because the public transport system cannot meet these needs with their current expensive and inefficient systems that rarely go to and from many of the places that people would like to visit.
We may be able to solve these problems in the long term but not at the crazy panic speed that is being demanded of us now. It will take 1 or 2 generations to make such massive changes to the transport system in this country. yes we have to start now but we should not panic and try to complete this massive and hugely disruptive change in a matter of a decade or less as some people want.
I know that there are some interesting suggestions to establish car clubs to allow people access to car transport when public transport cannot do the job. However this will only have limited impact on the problem. Look at the transport problems at holiday periods. So many people want to get on the road at the same time that we get traffic jams. The car pool solution might eliminate the traffic jams but only because most people would not be able to book a car as someone else booked it before them.
Some have said go by bike because most journeys are not the long ones I have discussed above. However that is not always practical. Firstly not everyone can use a bike. It has been suggested that 10% of the population are disabled and often that disability prevents them from being able to use a bike whereas they might be able to use an adapted car. Of the rest of the population there significant numbers who cannot physically use a bike because of leg injuries or health issues (ironically). These people do not count as disabled but would be significant numbers over and above the disabled population. So by banning the car we would be being divisive and banning a significant minority from taking part in society. Of course they could try to rely on the bus but as mentioned before that could mean that even a local journey would be 2 – 3 times longer with the bus changes required and be more expensive and time limited because of bus timetables. After all buses cannot visit everywhere at all times which a car can. So many local clubs would close and their activities which will be beneficial to people’s health and social well-being would also cease. There are many local activities that benefit society and rely heavily on the motor car. So many of these would cease that it would change society and my guess is that many people would simply stay at home and watch telly. Many are doing that now and there is another health crisis about the lack of physical activity among huge numbers of the population that it is putting a serious burden on the NHS – a much bigger number than the hyped numbers that some claim might be brought to an early death because of the car.
So in conclusion this is not a simple problem with a simple solution. Society and especially councils and government should not panic because a few “experts” claim that 40,000 people are being killed annually by the car (which personally I very much doubt). We need to start finding sensible solutions that will gradually provide a steady, not rapid panic driven, change to move towards solutions that allow society to continue to function and encourage not punish people with harsh penalties and massive public transport costs for simply wanting to take part in activities that we find interesting and helpful to society.
We have retired, spent money on a diesel 2ltr car to pull our 1800 cwt caravan which was our treat after working all our lives. Now we are supposed to scrap the idea and buy an alternative on a standard pension. Electric vehicles do not have the power to do the job,and even if they did who would pay for them. Such briliant decisions these government people make .
I am sick enough to put my cross on any ballot paper to oppose the government that wishes to pass this law. Our country is not for the general public (deceitful robbers). If everybody did the same about these laws it might just make them think which would be a novelty. Hitting the motorist again.
For penalties, just make the at owner pay to have the DPF replaced and a fine dependant on miles he’s covered since the filter was removed.
Along with our drainage system, why can’t a system of pollution scrubbers be implemented? Much more useful than HS2 train link, esp in the more polluted cities The system would draw in air, scrub it clean of damaging particulates and gases and return it to the atmosphere again.
I’ve mentioned this same idea several times but… maybe no one is listening.
Punishments today never fit the crime It will harm them if punished hard brigade run this country no one else
Have a DPF never been a problem.MOT recently passed. A big fuss over nothing. Never had regeneration.
So fine them well heavy.
Global warming is the biggest con job of all time and the billions wasted could feed the world for years, so I don’t believe a word I am told about any of the ‘stats’ that are routinely plodded out as if true. There are a significant number of people who will not be satisfied until every road is dug up and we are back on horse back. Most of them occupy social media and are offended by the slightest thing.
One minute one thing is the right thing to do the next it isn’t, the one and only truth re cars is that drivers have been milked mercilessly since Tony Blair’s fuel accelerator. Lets stop cars entering cities, next minute ‘our city centre’s are dying what shall we do?’. it’s all a con.
With all that evidence you must be right!
“The time has come the walruse said” for
a complete ban on private diesel vehicles and capacity restriction of less than 1.5 liter for petrol vehicles.
Makes me laugh, reading the article and the comments, there are 3 adverts to have the DPF removed!? I also don’t understand some of the article. If the DPF is a tool to lower emissions, why is the lack of one sometimes not detected in the emissions test?! Also if the fuel consumption is lowered by not having a DPF, would it not stand to reason that the emissions are also lowered? Please help an ignorant woman out guys?! It stands to reason that if the fine for NOT having one is £1000 and the replacement cost is in excess of £1000, you can understand why!
DPFs dont lower exhaust gas emmisions, its your EGR and catalytic converter that does that. A DPF turns soot particles into ash witch isn’t carsnigenic like soot.
Simple solution
Slash the cost of replacing the DPF
Only £50 on most cars to remove it without any damage to car and improving performance and MPG by up to 15%. One big con, a software update is almost/is ready to defeat new government and MOT test next year, I haven’t had one for two years now, some cars far more than £1000 to replace.
Derrrr. If you remove the DPF, what goes in its place? A bit of rusty drainpipe? How can you be missing a factory fitted exhaust component section undetected?
Drill the core out. If the ends aren’t straight to do that, cut a flap on the top to remove the core, then reweld the empty pipe shut. Or just fit an exhaust system that doesn’t have the DPF.
You are aware that there are cars which were sold without a DPF that are perfectly legal. Fit an exhaust section from the earlier model.
Very easy, they are hidden, tester isn’t allowed to remove panels to look for it, and it only take 20 minutes to refit for MOT. There sure software upgrades meaning you don’t need it fitting and won’t show up when new MOT out.
Edit (wish you could) there “are” software……
What is often done is to just rip the components of the DPF out, leaving an empty shell. So it is there but not functional at all.
In all our towns and cities there are sewers which could be used to suck out exhaust gasses at ground level.. all that would be required are fans to draw the gasses away and a filtration system where the gasses are expelled far away from the city or town centre. How hard can it be..?
Diesels were never going to pollute less than diesel cars and it was obvious to anyone involved with engines that this was a lie when the government first promoted diesel cars. There is a place for diesels in large engines but not as cars, vans or even busses.
The statement in paragraph two in the article “burnt into harmless ash” suggests no pollution but this is also not true.
Interesting headline. Surely 1800 is ‘hundreds’ not ‘thousands’. Never let the facts of the story hinder the imagination of the headline writer!
Here is a really interesting article, which is very relevant to DPFs … http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_toxic_is_your_car_exhaust
I was quoted £450 by a Main Ford dealer to have the DPF fluid topped up, if I didn’t have this done then the filter would need replacing in a few months. I found out the yes the DPF fluid is expensive RRP Ford dealer £200 for 5 litres. They had told me about the £200 but not that I only need 1 litre, so they were going to charge £200 for 1 litre. No other spare parts required this was just for topping it up. Spoke to my local mechanic that did it all in for £80 – rip-off Ford
What dpf fluid? Unless you had one of the addblue models, dpf’s do not have fluid to be topped up, they’re ceramic inside a metal tube that filters out the soot them burns it to ash.
More and more companies just don’t give a damn about ripping off customers!
This is a catch 22 because some drivers don’t even know there filters are missing as there is a lot of dodgy garages selling cars that they have had the filters removed from so they don’t foot the bill and yes some drivers are braking the law and only drivers whom have had there cars from new should be fined or even take there cars and crush them because buying new they can’t then say it must have been the previous owner who had it removed so catch the drivers whom have had there car from new and now not got a dpf
I cannot believe the selfishness and ignorance of most of these posts, If you are caught taking the DPF out of your car you should be given a fine, 6 points and a 6-12 month driving ban just because you own a diesel car does not give you cart Blanche to get on your high horse in defense of a criminal act. Instead of moaning and spurting out how hard done by you are either sell the car or comply with the law, As for those saying the government should pay what utter crap next you will be asking for them to pay for your fuel, You knew the costs when you bought the car and if you did not then you only have yourselves to blame for not doing your research remember you only bought the diesel car you have to scrimp on costs.
People bought their diesel in good faith because the the government were singing its praises. We do not all have the time to “research” which bit of the car will fail and how much it is going to cost (and buying new, where would that information be gained from – the manufacturer? I think not!)
It is not unreasonable for the government to be liable for costs when they misled the general public – remember, the banks are having to do it with PPI! The government gave out false information and encouraged people to buy diesel – they have now u-turned and left the public to pick up the cost! Scandalous!
What happens to a diesel car owner who has bought his car pre-used which has had its DPF removed without his knowledge?
ignorance is no defence.
I as many others I think will be in agreement with the dpf filter in principle. The cost factor of replacement is though disproportionate to the real cost of the manufacture of the part. None can tel me a dpf filter cost about 2 to 5% cars total cost
Not many cars that cheap, my Range Rover Sport cost £80,000 and has had DOF removed and ready with software update to fool new tests.
DPF silly auto spell.
I am so glad I have a petrol powered 5 litre Mercedes SL!!
I hope you get pulled up & nicked then you selfish person !
i dont condone this practice and but i think you will fine that the major reason people have them removed is for the sheer problems they cause. i had a zafira that gave me nothing but trouble going in to limp mode yada yada, so i had a new dpf fitted at some cost, 3 months later same issues arose.after trolling the internet seems like this is a common issue on all sorts of vehicles. perhaps the main issue is with the concept or the quality of manufacture who knows. but i recon not so many people would be taking the option of removing them if they worked more efficiently.
Did’t even know such things existed. The fine is ridiculously high and I feel very strongly that the government should have them fitted free as it’s their idea ! Motorists have always been penalised far too much and personally I need my own car as their is no public transport whatsoever where I live so I have no choice.
Apart from the miss information the government gave out a few years ago, Diesel is the way forward ,now the opposite is the way forward, most confusing but which is cleaner a petrol engine doing 30 -35 mpg or my diesel doing 51 mpg bearing in mind it takes a petrol car 1.5 worth of fuel to do the same distance and also my Diesel is taxed at £30 a year where as my old petrol was £225 how does that make sense. Electric cars are OK for work and back or the school run and shopping but what about going on holiday, doing the 400 mile journey with a range of 200 miles do you stop until its charged up, how long is that 8 hours, no more splash and dash fill ups
The cost of electric cars has to be drastically reduced along with the cost of replacement batteries. The range also needs to be comparable to petrol & diesel vehicles, ie approx 600 miles & to recharge the batteries should take no more than 5 minutes, which is still longer than to fill a normal vehicle with petrol/diesel. Until this happens, electric vehicles are just going to be a niche vehicle for nipping around town, for distance work they’re a non starter.
“A recent study has found that Glasgow and Scunthorpe are suffering the most, with London, Leeds and Birmingham also showing high levels of dangerous particulates in the air.“
Which of the big UK cities (say a population of 500,000 or more) have the cleanest air I wonder?
The government needs to take responsibility for encouraging the take up of diesel vehicles and not ensuring that the car manufacturers fitted devices that worked well and last the life of the vehicle. Not a device that breaks within a short time meaning owners are penalized by having to replace a poorly performing expensive part of the car. (oops I forgot it’s because people are doing the wrong sort of driving) I don’t recall the sales team advising me that I should NOT buy one of these diesel cars, because my driving didn’t match a very limiting set of criteria! Car purchasers have been duped and now face additional loss in value to their vehicle, the added costs of replacing a poor device that fails frequently through the life of the vehicle and the stigma of being branded anti social. What a load of balderdash No mention was made of or is mentioned about the additional 4-5 litres of diesel fuel that is drained into the DPF during the process of burning off the bucket of soot collected ( the fuel is needed to heat the DPF to the extraordinary temperatures required to burn carbon soot to ash) – what does that do to the emission figures I wonder – oh yes the test isn’t carried out when that activity happens- only a minor omission! – diesel vehicles prior to 2009 didn’t have all this poorly performing anti emission gear! Lots of media folk are now busily trying to concoct a story with the motorist at the centre of it, who’s crime was to purchase a diesel car post 2009 fitted a poor system – and is now stuck with the piece of rubbish that was created as a result of ill researched green policies and a greedy German motor industry. Quickly followed by the rest in the race to separate motorists from their cash. I wonder how much money passed from the industry to policy makers at the time – anyone in the Blair/Brown government care to comment? – I doubt it! The car industry and the present government needs own up and pick up the tab for the debacle and pay the car owners the cost of comparable replacement vehicles. I doubt that anyone who has paid out to have the DPV modified wanted to do this and felt sorely aggrieved at the cost then and now the government and environmental enforcers are going after the soft target (motorist) who did not set out to commit a crime, instead of targeting the perpetrators. The previous government/s and the auto industry, who well new the mess they were creating and if the didn’t were professionally negligent and therefore still guilty. Ever been driving down the outside lane of the motorway, with full inside lanes and your car suddenly looses power and the engine light has come on – because the DPF/EGRV monitoring system has kicked in. A very scary and dangerous situation, when the car is rapidly slowing down from 70 mph to sub 30 – which I’m sure that anyone who has experienced it will have lead them to the conclusion the the emission system isn’t fit for purpose and perhaps want it out of their vehicle.
The world’s 16 largest ships create as much CO2 as every car on the planet. It is better for the environment to keep running a 20-year old car than to scrap it…quote from article in autocar.co.uk
what a load of bull here they talk about global warming and pollution and yet we are still making these cars we are a small country already vastly over populated still willing to not control are borders and invite more and more people into are country potentially another car for each person and build more houses on yet more greenbelt and they still say the danger to the environment is getting worse as for the dpf particulate filter licence to print money makes a mockery of the whole system especially as an mot cant pick it up
Over populated in some areas, yes. Fly over England and you can see how much land there is for expansion, however, most is privately owned. Time for a few new towns providing work for thousands!
Why is the government not pushing lpg as a cleaner fuel?
As the waste emissions is water!
Where on earth did you read that load of Bollox?
LPG on producing water as emissions?????
REALLY?
I think you mean HYDROGEN.
on = only
Why isn’t there an edit button??????????????????????????????
A hydrogen fuel cell produces water – an LPG engine produces CO2 and CO levels higher than diesel but lower than petrol engines.
The article says the particles are burned, and turned into ‘harmless ash’. As i understand, the particles are carbon. Burn these and you get CO2. There is no ‘harmless ash’, except possibly from trace elements in the diesel fuel. You either get carbon particles and less CO2, or no particles and more CO2. Correct me if I am wrong.
Many taxis near to where I live (Peterborough) have definitely removed their DPFs. I think that taxi fleets must get them done at a ‘friends’ garage who can get them through the MOT.
Same where you live?
I don’t even believe these ‘prosecution figures’; probably just scaremongering propaganda because, 1- How do they detect the offence if emissions tests don’t indicate it’s missing, other than by random roadside mechanical examination ? 2- If the owner hasn’t had the car from new how can they prove who removed it ? or 3 – that the owner should have known it was absent when the MOT doesn’t detect its missing ?
A huge mountain made out of a mole hill once again to sting the motorist as we are a soft touch. It’s never mentioned that diesel engines are the most efficient motive power on the planet that cover far more MPG than anything else yet invented & therefore use less fuel per mile than any petrol engine which is no doubt the real reason why the government has made yet another U turn as the tax take on diesel fuel overall is much lower than petrol due to their efficiency & as a result they are becoming increasingly worried due to the number of diesel vehicles on the road since we were all encouraged to buy diesel by the government in the first place. This is not a cynical view but a plain fact. They are the main motive power for marine engines, agricultural & industrial machinery of all types, pumping machinery, emergency generators for hospitals & factories & so on, central heating systems, locomotives, etc. etc. etc. Like so many others my car has the latest Euro 6 diesel engine that uses Adblue which injects into the exhaust system to burn off any emissions that have escaped the DPF & when the engine has reached its normal operating temperature you can smell nothing from the exhaust at all. While all this inflated hype that both the media & the press have got hold of by the tail may be true for pre-Euro 6 diesel engines it is certainly NOT the case for the latest batch of diesel engines so don’t be fooled by everything you read in the press as most of it is smoke & mirrors especially on a slow news day. Mercedes, among others, have spent at least ten years developing their current diesel engines in a specialist facility such that they are among the cleanest & most fuel efficient engines ever invented & work is still going on to improve them even further.
The current offering of all electric & hybrid vehicles are a joke as the range of an all electric vehicle in particular is pathetic unless you only need it to do the weekly shop or to take granny for a spin in the country. As for hybrid, again unless you only intend to use it for shuffling about town, as soon as you hit a motorway the petrol engine soon cuts in & this makes a lie of the quoted average MPG figure which is much less than an equivalent diesel engine & far more expensive to buy in the first place even with the government subsidy on this type of vehicle. In addition you will be paying a penalty in fuel costs for lugging a huge great Li-Ion battery around in addition to the normal petrol engine.
We haven’t even mentioned the environmental cost of producing these massive batteries or their associated electronics & charging them from the grid but that’s another story. The upshot of all this is that you will be doing the environment a bigger favour overall by buying a modern diesel engine than any electric or hybrid vehicle yet invented.
You would have to be an idiot not to put it back on for the Mot it’s a really quick job.
Your main dealer will refit it for MOT for £45, PDF not currently required to be fitted for MOT, and I haven’t had mine on for over two years. Software bypass will be available to upgrade ECU to still bypass new rule and not needed to be refitted.
The majority of taxi drivers around here have all had the DPF’s removed from there cars. Additionally, it’s funny how the mayor of London’s mates can get away with poisoning everyone, and yet it is he who charge’s people for the privilege of driving into London.
call it a “filter” and the public will assume it is a periodic replacement.it should be a 5 bolt fitting in a position that does not involve any other dismantling
Most cars with dpf’s are unsuitable for short journeys where the car does not warm up sufficiently for it to work and not clog up.I think much blame for these issues lies with car salesmen not informing of these issues and advising customers to buy a petrol alternative if they do mostly short journeys.
Something has to be done about pollution so fines are appropriate.
So £1000 guaranteed cost to replace, or £1000 fine if you are really unlucky and get caught?
i wonder which I’d choose?
The cost is £1000 + Labour and service plus VAT so government sting you even more. Taking them off doesn’t alter pollution while we have Lorries, busses, taxis, aeroplanes and trains pumping out far more. That’s why I removed mine and there is a software program already in the wings to bypass the new government check on MOT, simples.