|
My last car I ran for 4 years a Peugeot 407 2l hdi ( very useful estate) diesel had no problems with the DPF/EGR. My current car Honda CRV 2.2l diesel I have had for two years and no problems with DPF/EGR.
I do have them regularly maintained, and use super diesel, and they get motorway runs on occasion.
Some emission systems don't seem to be reliable, so do your research before buying any car.
|
|
Interesting about the Mondeo and 407 2-litre diesels. For myself, I think I would be looking for a smaller engine, to help with the economy on the 'more local' trips. However the Ford/PSA 1.6 is notorious for problems with the turbo oil feed, and the 1.4 for problems with the injector seals, I believe.
I can't afford to buy something that is Euro 6, and what with these threats of ridiculous charges or bans on dirtier diesels from various cities, and non-plugin hybrids not being THAT economical on long motorway cruises, it looks like small-capacity petrol turbo will be the way to go (degas pipe notwithstanding - Oh! And the VAG 1.5 tsi, it seems) until 2040...
Edited by HandCart on 18/01/2019 at 22:37
|
|
I think the problem with the 1.6 oil feed is down to wrong oil and Peugeot's initial recommendation of 20,000 miles between changes.
|
I would second the Mondeo MK4 2.0 Diesel. I have had mine 9 years with all of it's life in stop start local traffic and never had a problem with the EGR or the DPF.
It does a regen every 500 miles so i take it for a good run when the car reaches this time.I also have always run it on Shell Optimax Diesel all it's life and used low ash oil using Magnatec oil.It's now done 56,000 miles and it's as good as the day i got it.
Edited by Graham567 on 21/01/2019 at 20:19
|
I would second the Mondeo MK4 2.0 Diesel. I have had mine 9 years with all of it's life in stop start local traffic and never had a problem with the EGR or the DPF. It does a regen every 500 miles so i take it for a good run when the car reaches this time.I also have always run it on Shell Optimax Diesel all it's life and used low ash oil using Magnatec oil.It's now done 56,000 miles and it's as good as the day i got it.
You've reminded me of owning mine, my driving pattern was lots of urban stop/start with a 200+ mile trip every couple of weeks.
I worked out that the ECU would start an 'active' regeneration every 450 - 500 miles like clockwork, irrespective of how the car had been driven over the previous days. On a couple of occasions it started an active regen the day after I'd done 400+ fast miles at 80mph which was bang on the peak torque rpm of 2,250 (i.e. ideal conditions for 'passive' regeneration). I figured the ECU had a mileage-based regen routine programmed into it.
The active regenerations were easy to spot as the exhaust note became quite boomy and resonant, so like you I could simply drive for an extra 5 - 10 minutes until it finished.
|
|
|
|
I think the problem with the 1.6 oil feed is down to wrong oil and Peugeot's initial recommendation of 20,000 miles between changes.
This echo's what i have heard. I was talking to someone i know who buys and sells cars and vans, and the PSA 1.6 came up in conversation. I said i would be reluctant to buy one due to this, he said that they were fine so long as, A, a reasonable service is adhered to, and, B, (in his words, this was critical) the correct oil was used. So while i'd still be a bit reluctant to buy used without a very detailed service history, i would be fine with buying one new.
|
|
Loads of failures happen on this engine despite regular servicing. It’s a flawed design, especially early versions and is best avoided. I’ve seen them with ruined turbos at less than 60,000 miles and know plenty of traders and dealer buyers who won’t touch them beyond 3yrs of age. The 2.0 is a different beast and is based on the older 8v 2.0 HDi.
|
|
For balance I'm poodling about in a car with the PSA 1.6 in it this week and it has......232130 miles on the clock. All original turbo etc. and probably DPF as well.
There is no such thing as a DPF which will last for ever in the same way there is no such thing as a tyre, brake, exhaust, engine, bearing, suspension bush, body control unit, bulb, ECU, blower fan, satnav reader, LCD display, seat spring, damper, or whatever which will last forever.
Everything wears out eventually and the car is scrapped.
The vast majority of DPFs do not cause a car to be scrapped. It is usually something else. Cleaning is usually about £100-£150 depending on the removal time. This usually keeps them going for a while.
They are something to bear in mind if your driving pattern is slightly unusual but most people never give them a second thought. For some reason this forum seems fixated on them at the expense of things which really do go wrong and cost a fortune.
|
|
I think the problem comes for people who drive essentially the opposite to you, but erroneously think that because they're driving a diesel that it must be more economical on ANY run that a petrol driven car.
People who drive low mileages with the vast majority made up of short urban trips from cold will see no mpg benefit over a modern petrol engine as they take far longer to warm up (and can be less fuel efficient when doing so), never mind the normal price premium in the car and the fuel.
They also convneiently forget to drive such cars sympathetically whilst they are warming up, hurting the components in the process and causing reliability problems to occur for earlier and far more frequently than if they didn't an/or, as you likely have done, mainly drove the car for longer distances per journey and did so sympathetically.
The DPF is no exception, and I remember people writing in to HJ and on these pages that they've had to have their DPF forcably regenned at the dealership once every couple of months, professionally cleaned out more than once a year and the component changed out (those cleaning methods don't work forever) only after 2 or 3 years.
This situation would be no different to someone owning a petrol engined car with a honking big turbo and ragging it all the time and shutting the car off before the turbo could cool down. The difference is that it's blindingly obvious to most people about not doing the latter; the former, not so much, mainly because so many have switched from a petrol car when such driving behaviour would be fine to a common-rail diesel with a DPF, where it certainly isn't.
Yes, the sales staff at dealerships have a reasonable degree of responsibility in not informing many such customers about this sort of thing, but to me, it's still the customer who is most to blame, especially from the late 2000s onwards when this problem in particular was well known, and could be found following a 5 minute search on the interweb. To me, such ignorance and laziness is no excuse.
|
|
Obviously buy a car aimed at your needs. And a DPF equipped car may not meet them (or any diesel for that matter).
Nonetheless these days it is rarely a failed DPF, engine or gearbox (on manual cars, maybe clutch excepted) which sends cars to their grave. It is often electrical failures (doesn't mater how you drive them there), expensive suspension work needed for MOT, auto or automated gearbox failure or just a combination of brakes/tyres/service being needed on a car someone is bored with.
Most cars are carted off to the scrap yard with the engine running just fine, even diesels, no matter how they have been driven.
|
|
The thing is that if someone is driving a DPF-equipped diesel car unsympathetically and has to get a forced regen at the dealership every couple of months and a professional clean once or twice a year, that will more than outweigh (even with no replacement of the unti) any fuel saving and more over a similar sized petrol-engined car.
Costs like this can easily mount up, and they under stay 'under the radar' because they aren't the several £000s or more that a big, if rare issue over an engine or suspension crops up in one go. In such circumstances, I think many people would be put off buying a diesel if they were told (for low mileage/short trip users) that there was a reasonable likelihood that they'd face an annual bill of £350 - £500 just to keep the DPF operational, on top of regular maintenance.
As I said, I have no problem if you buy a car with a 100% known usage and service history that you only intend to run on longer journeys (even if they are infrequent and the overall mileage is not that high [which is the type of driving I often do]), but this situation in combination is rare, as most people who do well under 10k miles a year normally make up that driving with shortish trips from cold.
|
|
I think the problem comes for people who drive essentially the opposite to you, but erroneously think that because they're driving a diesel that it must be more economical on ANY run that a petrol driven car.
Spot on. I went from a 2003 2L diesel to a 2010 1.4 petrol and found I was still getting the same sort of MPG. My first petrol since around 2001.
I imagine the newer petrol engines are even more fuel efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
