|
Very well put over, Oilrag (as always). DPFs as I understand it were invented to make the air we breathe less polluted - very laudable, but unfortunately the inventors failed to finish the job, i.e. to ensure that diesels continue to have the advantage of long life and reliability, like your Panda van or Glenn's SEAT.
We are going to have to accept that (a) we should buy a diesel only if we do regular long trips (to avoid the DPF clogging), and over 15,000 miles a year (to cover the extra initial cost), and (b) we should be very careful if buying a used diesel car to make sure that it has been used for long trips.
A lot of us buy diesels not just for economy , but because we like the strong low-end torque which suits our style of driving. The new generation of high-powered petrol engines may be the answer to most 'normal' motoring - although time will tell whether they have the ability to last for 100,000s of miles.
It is, generally, an unfortunate dvelopment - and hardly in the nature of progress - that cars are being sold which aren't suitable for all reasonable types and conditions of use.
|
|
I think the whole DPF on this forum is getting a little bit over the top like the obsession with DMF's.
Like when catalysts first came in for petrol cars the early diesel DPF's are a step back but they are getting better. The newer ones seem more reliable and longer lasting and the support base for them is growing. To start with, replacing one always seemed to be a £1000 main dealer job but now there are plenty of suppliers, most 3rd party diagnostic software can programme and reset them and the garage trade in general is becoming far more familar with them.
Would it be better from the cost and maintenance point of view if they'd never been invented? Almost certainly, but there are a loads of cars happily running around with them without fault. It is only the bad ones or the ones which have fundamental design flaws which become big issues.
|
|
"you would be better off buying a 1.4 petrol car"
Probably so as long as the largest size you need is a supermini.
Please tell me where I can buy a car as large as my X type estate with a petrol engine and auto gearbox powerful enough to pull it about and I'll have one. Only VAG are testing the water at the moment with their 1.4T DSG.
Our taxation system puts buyers off family cars with large petrol engines - the upper ends of the tax bands increase more than the lower ends every year and this trend won't stop - there's 170bn to find!
|
|
I must say at this point that I see the need for both CAT`s and DPF`s on petrol and diesel cars. You have only to follow a pre CAT petrol running on choke and get the fumes into the cab, to remember what we once accepted as `normal` regartding health risks.
The same with smoke belching diesels.
My argument is with technology being introduced that is still causing some families severe financial hardship through the (what should be) simple act of buying a car for normal use.
We know about it. It`s talked about a lot on forums - sure. But out in the real world it`s often found out about too late for an un- technologically minded owner.
Where does the responsibility (both morally and legally) fall regarding informing potential purchasers?
With diesel DPF engines still being fitted into small city cars and `school run` people carriers- not just big motorway cruisers - I think it`s an issue being ducked.
Edited by oilrag on 29/05/2010 at 14:45
|
|
|
"you would be better off buying a 1.4 petrol car"
Probably so as long as the largest size you need is a supermini.
Please tell me where I can buy a car as large as my X type estate with a petrol engine and auto gearbox powerful enough to pull it about and I'll have one. Only VAG are testing the water at the moment with their 1.4T DSG.
Our taxation system puts buyers off family cars with large petrol engines - the upper ends of the tax bands increase more than the lower ends every year and this trend won't stop - there's 170bn to find!
I was comparing a 1.4 Tdi Ibiza with a 1.4 petrol. Obviously people have different needs and an X Type is a totally different car. I do actually have a friend in Poole with a 2.2 X Type diesel estate and this is an excellent car as he does 20,000 miles a year and has two dogs. If you are doing a high mileage and like the X Type, the 2.2 diesel is capable of 50 mpg on the open road and does over 130 mph with very little of the Jaguar refinement being sacrificed. By contrast his two litre petrol only did 30 mpg.
|
|
Given that a car is quite often the second most expensive purchase that most people make, you'd think they'd do a little more research and ask a few more questions before buying one. Sadly, most people today ignore what's under the bonnet until it goes wrong.
|
|
Good point, Andy, there are a lot of cars around today that are sold to people purely on "looks" rather than actually if they are fit for purpose... a certain "car for the city" on another thread where visibility is rubbish springs to mind...
|
|
Strangely enough, i bought a 57 reg E280 cdi thinking it would have the dreaded DPF, and to my joy it didn't. Apparently not all late Euro 4 mercs had DPF's, well pleased.
|
|
|
Good point, Andy, there are a lot of cars around today that are sold to people purely on "looks" rather than actually if they are fit for purpose... a certain "car for the city" on another thread where visibility is rubbish springs to mind...
True, any many more also buy those Indian and Hungarian built Korean things on these 7 year warranties which need 7 years of nearly £400-(sometimes £600) services bi-anually in order for the warranty to be honored. (£4700+ over period)
The tools don't read small print and end up with a sub-standard vehicle from a cheap labour country and wonder why their car is costing them and they're kids are struggling to find jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Entirely agree with PD -- it IS deplorable that some manufacturers (especially a Japanese manufacturer with a 5-letter name beginning with M) seem to have got their early implementations wrong on some models, and are leaving customers high and dry.
However, back in 1992 / 3, I remember Top Gear and various motoring magazines going apoplectic about how catalytic converters are robbing engines of power, increasing fuel consumption, costing £1000 to replace because the matrices break when going too fast over a bump, etc etc.
Yet how many of us even give their car's cat a second thought these days? Having had various cat-equipped cars, both new and used, none has ever given me a problem related to the injection or emissions systems.
|
|
Hi,
There is a lot of talk of the cost and potential failure DPF on this forum.
I am thinking of buying a mondeo diesel 04-07 and I like a lot the idea of the mpg the diesel gives. The gist I get is that lots of short journeys are the problem.
Obviously as a used car you don't know fully how it has been used but I am looking for a car for general use and mainly motorway / A road motoring. I don't live in a city so don't get stuck in traffic all the time so limited stop start journeys. Kids walk to school.
Probably do 20k a year , some years more.
I have run petrol motors to 170k or so with no problems.
Is the DPF something to be really worried about?
Can anyone inform me
Ta Iain
|
|
If you spend more than 15 minutes on a motorway then the DFP shouldn't be a problem. As long as the engine reaches 2000rpm for 15 minutes on a regular basis then the DPF won't clog up and need to go through a regeneration cycle. I've had my BMW for over 12 months now, covering 300 miles a week, 200 of which are on motorways, and I've not had any problems at all, and I'm getting over 38mpg to boot.
|
|
My motoring is mainly shorts trips, to tesco under 4 miles return trip, twice a week a round trip of 15 miles, all on B roads, probably with a average speed of 30mph. Six times a year i might do return trips of 150 miles, towing a caravan. On top of that high speed motorway trips off 250 miles three times a year.
Over 16 months i have only covered 7.5k miles.
My question is, do you consider me to be driving short trips?
Because to date i have yet to see a regen light on my 171bhp xtrail, with dpf
Edited by xtrailman on 01/06/2010 at 23:29
|
|
|
|
|
The 04 - 07 Mondeo IIIs don't have a DPF, so no worries :)
|
|
The 05 Multijet Mk2b Punto van don`t have a DPF, DMF, co-axial Clutch slave cylinder or cambelt..
You would think we would be surrounded by them - but no. I`ve only seen half a dozen in the nearly five years I`ve owned mine and none the last couple of years.
Maybe it`s the looks? ;-)
|
|
But presumably there are lots of Punto hatches, if not vans, similarly unblessed with DMF, DPF, NBG etc. I don't see all that many small vans at all - they fulfil a particular need, such as yours, but a lot of traders wanting a "small van" would probably go for the next size up.
Looks? I'm trying to visualise a Punto van, which I imagine looks like a 3-door Punto without rear windows. If so, it should look somewhat better than a van the next size up, and incomparably better than the Fiat Doblo, which has looks that only its mother could love....
|
|
Hi Avant,
There are a few differences between the van and car versions.
Here is a pic of the `boot` (as we call it) taken this AM.
picasaweb.google.com/spamtrap362/Puntoboot?authkey...#
(this may be a temporary image)
There`s a full size spare under there - while the car only has a space-saver.
Also the van has unpainted plastic bumpers and mirrors, a black dashboard, wind up windows and non electronic door locks. And of course white, non metallic paint!
It also had a 100,000 miles warranty - as standard.
|
|
For some reason this site is full of negativity about diesel cars. Everytime I read a thread o this forum about diesel cars, it makes me feel like I shouldn't even touch a diesel car in my dream! However I've had 3 diesel cars in a row now in past 6 years and never had any major problem.
All cars have a problem whether its petrol or diesel. IMO electrics in cars are the biggest culprits, why not get rid of them?
|
|
I drive a Ford Focus diesel with the DPF filter,I would't have got the car without the filter.My reason is that the soot what escapes in diesel engines without the filter is dangerous to us .If the goverment encouraged enviriomental cars we all would be driving on LPG gas or electric cars.
|
All cars have a problem whether its petrol or diesel. IMO electrics in cars are the biggest culprits, why not get rid of them?
Unfortunately Mazman, there will no doubt be ever increasing electrics in cars from now on. We have already got auto lights, wipers. Soon you will be able to press a button and a hand will emerge from the side of the seat and scratch your back, or press another button and the seat will turn into a sort of temporary toilet to relieve yourself into (the exhaust could double as a sewage pipe), very useful for the ever increasing number of traffic jams we will find ourselves in.
I must sort out that patent one day.....
Edited by corax on 25/10/2010 at 15:18
|
|
"IMO electrics in cars are the biggest culprits, why not get rid of them?"
Well designed electrics are OK.
Of course, if you buy badly designed or badly implemented ones, then you are correct.
Think Renaultetc and avoid...
|
|
I realise that this thread is pretty old but having read thro it - and having contemplated buying a PEUGEOT HDI EGC - am now having serious doubts as to the wisdom of inheriting a PDF model
Question I wold like to ask is: "Are there ANY models these days that do NOT employ a PDF"?
I have tried searching but do not seem to come up with anything
|
|
The VAG 1.9 TDi engine managed without a DPF - managed well - until quite recently.
I think all currently-produced diesels have them, and will continue to unless some scientist comes up with the idea that DPFs don't protect the environment after all.
Unbless you do over 15,000 miles a year or so, you might be better off with a petrol engine.
|
|
No. The manufacturers don't fit them voluntarily. They are effectively required for Euro V emissions compliance. Buy em while you can. They'll need Nox traps as well for Euro VI.
You might find Post Script Exhaust after treatment. ;)
|
|
Isnt it funny how they've spent the last 20 odd years telling us how carbon dioxide is evil (you know, that stuff you breath out a few million times a day) and how we need to act on carbon etc and obviously the first big step to that was the catalytic converter, very worthy invention and everything but is it me or has the industry, scientists, politicians etc sort of forgotten about particulates until now? Diesel has been kicking them out, which are far more dangerous than co2, for decades. I remember when i was a kid, in the back of my Dad's Granada and if we were behind a diesel at any point there'd be this massive cloud of blue fog would be following it. It seems they've all got so sidetracked by co2 that out of nowhere they've gone 'OH!! Particulates!! Yes!! Forgot that!! ok lets do something!" and now bulldozing this DPF through for Euro emissions requirements. Wouldnt it be better to wait a decade for them to get tried and tested in mass produced cars first before making them law? That way people and manufacturers could save a few quid by not having them rushed onto their car.
unthrottled do you know if Buses are going to be required to have these anytime soon? We all know Buses pollute our cities with their dangerous particulates chucked out of relic diesel engines, they pollute our cities and urban areas far more than cars yet buses have been labelled 'green' and cars labelled 'polluting' despite maths not supporting that. The Bus has shamefully been let off the hook in all this pollution argument while the car has been picking up the bill.
|
|
Buses and trucks have them as well.
They also need urea injection to deal with the NOx. Don't worry-they're not getting away with it any more!
|
|
Good, ive had enough of buses, particularly buses getting away with it for far too long. For years we've been told 'be green, take the bus' the bus is the most polluting form of road transportation. Take all the buses out of London and air quality would be magnificent. Its actually quite good already despite what the Guardian thinks.
*looks around* Ive turned back into myself. After a day of sensibleness.
Good to be back!
|
|
All buses, well all that spend each day in or close to their start point, should be electric.
|
|
I'd rather have particulates in the air than milk floats trundling around our streets. Big diesels add character to our cities. LT4 cabs on the other hand can't be scrapped soon enough.
|
|
Carbon dioxide is actually what cats were designed to produce, it is a "greenhouse gas" and it's debatable as to whether it is better or worse than having CO in abundance, a gas which will "steal" haemoglobin from delivering oxygen (hence its popular choice for suicides). Cats also reduce HC and in some instances NOx. Again HCs are a greenhouse contributor, but far more immediate is the effect on people, so the petrol cat is not to be under estimated in its significance.
The drive to limit, or eradicate particulates is perhaps a little less clear. Only a certain size if particle is "respirable", and many particles will go in and out without effect. You could say that the proliferation of diesel powered cars has prompted this action, thirty years ago, diesel car drivers were something of a oddity - given the poor specific output of the engines then. However, the particles have another less obvious effect. They travel the world and settle eventually, colouring the icecaps with an almost invisible to the eye darkness which will capture IR and have a storage heater effect. Technology is dealing with (or trying to) the problems as they are discovered, and in order of detriment. Petrol/Gas engines are not the answer though. The concern now is with nano particles, they can penetrate much deeper into the respiratory system and have a more profound toxicological effect, these particles having such a small size are more disinclined to settle ie remaining repirable for longer. The great appeal of petrol engines is in itself a contributor, steady state cruising is better (which is a diesel's appeal for me) but the petrol heads need for speed and acceleration is killing children.
|
Carbon dioxide is actually what cats were designed to produce,
Does that mean if we were to remove them all, scrap them today, that all co2 would die, the greenies would be happy, the icecaps would re-freeze, endangered species would come back to life, the future, our lives and our children would all be saved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
