500 How long until your 500 fell apart, mine is not yet 6 !!
Currently reading:
500 How long until your 500 fell apart, mine is not yet 6 !!
Does DPF removal REALLY MATTER in the grand scheme of things ??
Well I've been thinking this over and I think the hammering diesel vehicles are getting is a bit of a witch hunt.
The reasoning behind this is OK diesels " apparently" will kill everyone due to their particle emissions, but what about :-
1. Motorcycles, not emission tested like cars as far as I know.
2. Ships, now they must pollute like mad.
3. Airplanes, pouring pollutants directly into the atmosphere.
4. Concrete production, produces 1 tonne of CO2 for every 1 tonne of concrete.
5. Production of EV batteries, more polluting than making a standard car making EV's more polluting over their lifetime !!!.
6. Recycling, most waste is sent abroad on ships to be sorted ergo not very environmentally friendly.
And the list goes on.
So what is really killing us ? Easy .........US.
Although they say we are getting killed off early by all these pollutants are we really ??? After all it wasn't that long ago people were lucky to reach 30-35.
In all honesty I think everyone should stop worrying and actually enjoy life, but also stop overcrowding the planet. How many more years can we go on increasing the planets population like we are, it won't be long before the trees and plants that give us life are gone under the concrete jungle.
Well I've been thinking this over and I think the hammering diesel vehicles are getting is a bit of a witch hunt.
The reasoning behind this is OK diesels " apparently" will kill everyone due to their particle emissions, but what about :-
1. Motorcycles, not emission tested like cars as far as I know.
2. Ships, now they must pollute like mad.
3. Airplanes, pouring pollutants directly into the atmosphere.
4. Concrete production, produces 1 tonne of CO2 for every 1 tonne of concrete.
5. Production of EV batteries, more polluting than making a standard car making EV's more polluting over their lifetime !!!.
6. Recycling, most waste is sent abroad on ships to be sorted ergo not very environmentally friendly.
And the list goes on.
So what is really killing us ? Easy .........US.
Although they say we are getting killed off early by all these pollutants are we really ??? After all it wasn't that long ago people were lucky to reach 30-35.
In all honesty I think everyone should stop worrying and actually enjoy life, but also stop overcrowding the planet. How many more years can we go on increasing the planets population like we are, it won't be long before the trees and plants that give us life are gone under the concrete jungle.
I wonder how many people that think DPFs are a waste of time (because there are bigger problems in the world/because it's a rip off/because there are old cars still around/because "I know better") also bemoan the loss of lead containing petrol.
What I was trying to imply Zanes is that people should actually think about the whole picture. I mean when they eventually kill of diesels they will start on petrols, then eventually even EV's will be bad for everyone and everything.
I've often wondered about how much of what we are told is true......logically thinking people devise tests that tell us these things, but people are not perfect so how can the tests be 100% perfect ???
Over the years we have been told this and that is bad for you, then a few years later its good for you because of some more tests. Confusing much !!!!
I suppose all I'm saying is think for yourself and don't believe everything you are told, after all if we believe everything then we wouldn't eat, drink or breathe because at one time or another we have been told practically everything is bad.
My theory is that the powers that be want us living back in caves and either walking or using a horse to go anywhere, of course they will still be attending their eco meetings in private jets and big luxury cars and dining extravagantly. If they want us to change shouldn't it be " lead by example " and not " we are rich so there ".
I've often wondered about how much of what we are told is true......logically thinking people devise tests that tell us these things, but people are not perfect so how can the tests be 100% perfect ???
Over the years we have been told this and that is bad for you, then a few years later its good for you because of some more tests. Confusing much !!!!
I suppose all I'm saying is think for yourself and don't believe everything you are told, after all if we believe everything then we wouldn't eat, drink or breathe because at one time or another we have been told practically everything is bad.
My theory is that the powers that be want us living back in caves and either walking or using a horse to go anywhere, of course they will still be attending their eco meetings in private jets and big luxury cars and dining extravagantly. If they want us to change shouldn't it be " lead by example " and not " we are rich so there ".
So don't bother at all because someone else is polluting? Great
Not at all 306maxi.
Read my last bit about leading by example, maybe the government and Royals should be leading the charge for a better and less polluted GB, and showing us mere mortals how its done. Maybe they should walk the 50 yards or so instead of getting driven in the big Jaguar XJ, also wouldn't eco summits be better via Skype instead of jetting off across the world ???
Most ordinary motorists have no choice but to drive to work, shift workers being a good example. I'm a bus driver so don't mention using buses, as we need to get to work to get the buses out.
I just think there is more obvious ways to start cutting harmful emissions starting with those that hammer the ordinary hard working folk, if you think about it what emissions are given out for one of those eco summits ??
Read my last bit about leading by example, maybe the government and Royals should be leading the charge for a better and less polluted GB, and showing us mere mortals how its done. Maybe they should walk the 50 yards or so instead of getting driven in the big Jaguar XJ, also wouldn't eco summits be better via Skype instead of jetting off across the world ???
Most ordinary motorists have no choice but to drive to work, shift workers being a good example. I'm a bus driver so don't mention using buses, as we need to get to work to get the buses out.
I just think there is more obvious ways to start cutting harmful emissions starting with those that hammer the ordinary hard working folk, if you think about it what emissions are given out for one of those eco summits ??
MarginWalker
New member
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 179
- Points
- 33
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,537
- Points
- 276
So you encourage DPF removal?
So in your opinion, diesel vehicles without DPFs are less hazardous to health?
All I'm saying is that DPF's aren't really the answer to the problem. If you believe CO2 is bad then surely fitting a device that results in 20% more CO2 is not a solution? If millions will die in a future AGW apocalypse, then we're really just shifting the burden. Further, if modern diesels were capable of running Bio-D we wouldn't have either problem (the DPF is part of the problem in this case). If I'd kept my TDi I'd have probably gutted the DPF in time, I'd have gained 20% in power and economy, and simply kept it in good tune, a well tuned diesel shouldn't produce black smoke in normal driving anyway. I'm no fan of diesel in general, but nowadays you simply can't buy large petrol vehicles anymore, and that's largely a result of 'clean' diesels with DPFs.
Oil companies sponsor a lot of 'studies', like the one that found a Hummer to be more economical than a Prius. According to Toyota, the manufacture of a Prius battery makes as much Co2 as driving it for a year, since hybrid tech can in some cases halve a driver's Co2 output, it doesn't take long to payback. A typical ICE car uses 20% of it's energy during production, even if an EV uses 30%, the lion's share is still in the day to day running, plus I can recharge it from the solar panels on my roof - which is a near 70% pollution saving. Even if you need to replace the battery at the ten year mark, that still leaves 60%.
Agreed, but IMO it's an important discussion and worth continuing.
Yes. The overwhelming body of scientific research is telling us that diesel pollution is a serious long term health hazard which potentially affects us all. Right now DPF's are the 'least-worst' option we have to control that pollution in the short term. Longer term solutions will likely see the phasing out of diesel powered private cars, but commercial, economic and political factors mean that solution can't be implemented tomorrow. Imposing financial penalties on operating diesels in cities has already started in some parts of London.
Regrettably it's the poorest motorists who were incentivised into buying diesels by past administrations that are likely to pay (proportionately) the heaviest price for this.
You (and others) have made a number of well-reasoned arguments concerning other forms of pollution and the (mostly bad) examples being set by those in positions of power, and whilst I'd agree with most of those comments, IMO they can't be used to justify DPF removal. Using an existing example of poor behavior to justify one's own environmentally irresponsible actions can never be correct; it's like throwing litter out of your car window and using the abysmal state of the verges to justify what you have done.
Last edited:
I don't condone DPF removal, so I apologise if it came across that way. I was just trying to point out that there is also a lot more stuff out there polluting heavily that seems to get ignored because " diesels are the big killer".
Also diesel engines weren't originally designed to run on the diesel we use these days, iirc they were designed to run on peanut oil. Which is basically a biofuel and something a modern diesel cannot use, which if you ask me is barking mad.
At the minute I run a 2.0 TD Jag XType, but I'll soon be changing it for a 500 TA 105 ( when it gets here). And to be honest I cannot see myself buying another diesel in my life, the addition of adblue to cars is a headache I don't want. I've seen what adblue does to our buses, and how it has crystallised in the feed lines. Not too bad for the company as any work on the buses is done in house, but for Mr ordinary motorist it will be BIG bills.
I've said for a long time that the only real solution would be hydrogen powered vehicles, Honda already have them in the USA so why aren't they developing them faster ???
I know its hard to make hydrogen, but considering the advances made in technology between the start of the 1st world war and the end of the 2nd world war, where is the advances now ? The technology now is much better, it just seems to me that we aren't advancing at all and making do with the ICE, albeit attaching some batteries and electric motors to make hybrids.
I know we have full EV's but the mining and manufacturing process still relies on a lot of vehicles with ICE's, so take in their emissions and the emissions of making them and they really are no better than a standard vehicle. Its a vicious circle.
Also diesel engines weren't originally designed to run on the diesel we use these days, iirc they were designed to run on peanut oil. Which is basically a biofuel and something a modern diesel cannot use, which if you ask me is barking mad.
At the minute I run a 2.0 TD Jag XType, but I'll soon be changing it for a 500 TA 105 ( when it gets here). And to be honest I cannot see myself buying another diesel in my life, the addition of adblue to cars is a headache I don't want. I've seen what adblue does to our buses, and how it has crystallised in the feed lines. Not too bad for the company as any work on the buses is done in house, but for Mr ordinary motorist it will be BIG bills.
I've said for a long time that the only real solution would be hydrogen powered vehicles, Honda already have them in the USA so why aren't they developing them faster ???
I know its hard to make hydrogen, but considering the advances made in technology between the start of the 1st world war and the end of the 2nd world war, where is the advances now ? The technology now is much better, it just seems to me that we aren't advancing at all and making do with the ICE, albeit attaching some batteries and electric motors to make hybrids.
I know we have full EV's but the mining and manufacturing process still relies on a lot of vehicles with ICE's, so take in their emissions and the emissions of making them and they really are no better than a standard vehicle. Its a vicious circle.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here about DPF filters, I run two (well three but one doesn't have a DPF) diesel cars and our mini is now over 3 years old we bought it with a couple of thousand miles on the clock and since we've had it, it has never had to do an active DPF regeneration.
The reason being my partner gets in it every morning and drives it 30miles to work then 30 miles home again at motorway speeds. When a diesel is run like this, soot does not build up and it will burn off anything in the filter that has built up from driving around town etc, this is called passive regeneration and the majority of vans lorries and cars that trundle up and down the A roads and motorways will work like this and are largely very efficient and clean.
If 90 year old dorris drives her little diesel corsa around to the shops once a week for a mile and home again the particulates build up in the filter and never get burnt off at about 45-50% capacity the ecu will initiate an 'active' regen where it pours more fuel into the engine to increase exhaust temperatures and burn off the particles. If this happens a lot the filter will wear out quickly. However this is not representative of the majority of Diesel engines on the road.
If you use a diesel car in the way it was designed to be use you should never see an active regen and you should never have any problems with the DPF and on average it will still be as clean or cleaner than a petrol and emit less CO2 combined with a more energy dense fuel which will get you further for less and the overall benefits of a diesel (when used in the correct situations) are much higher than the petrol equivalent.
In addition I still see hugely old diesel cars on the roads where their petrol counterparts have long been scrapped meaning that the extra longevity of a diesel over a petrol means that over the course of its life the diesel will be less polluting as it won't need replacing with another car as early as a petrol model.
The reason being my partner gets in it every morning and drives it 30miles to work then 30 miles home again at motorway speeds. When a diesel is run like this, soot does not build up and it will burn off anything in the filter that has built up from driving around town etc, this is called passive regeneration and the majority of vans lorries and cars that trundle up and down the A roads and motorways will work like this and are largely very efficient and clean.
If 90 year old dorris drives her little diesel corsa around to the shops once a week for a mile and home again the particulates build up in the filter and never get burnt off at about 45-50% capacity the ecu will initiate an 'active' regen where it pours more fuel into the engine to increase exhaust temperatures and burn off the particles. If this happens a lot the filter will wear out quickly. However this is not representative of the majority of Diesel engines on the road.
If you use a diesel car in the way it was designed to be use you should never see an active regen and you should never have any problems with the DPF and on average it will still be as clean or cleaner than a petrol and emit less CO2 combined with a more energy dense fuel which will get you further for less and the overall benefits of a diesel (when used in the correct situations) are much higher than the petrol equivalent.
In addition I still see hugely old diesel cars on the roads where their petrol counterparts have long been scrapped meaning that the extra longevity of a diesel over a petrol means that over the course of its life the diesel will be less polluting as it won't need replacing with another car as early as a petrol model.
Nothing. I suspect it's a false causation due to the large premium diesels currently command; simply put, they are economically viable to repair for longer (this will almost certainly change with more modern diesels).
However, that on its own does not totally disqualify Andy's point.
Last edited:
Sticking my neck out here!
Older diesel cars last and last because the engines are solidly built to withstand the 25:1 (?) compression ratios and the fact that they are underpowered and unstressed. A well maintained old diesel will go on almost forever.
Modern diesel engines have similarly designed internals but they have boosted power levels and more often than not they have turbos combined with very expensive injectors and intake systems. These combine to stress the engine and therefore they won't last as long. Maybe the bottom end will last, but the head and all the ancillaries will pack up and make the whole unit uneconomic to repair.
Regards,
Mick.
Older diesel cars last and last because the engines are solidly built to withstand the 25:1 (?) compression ratios and the fact that they are underpowered and unstressed. A well maintained old diesel will go on almost forever.
Modern diesel engines have similarly designed internals but they have boosted power levels and more often than not they have turbos combined with very expensive injectors and intake systems. These combine to stress the engine and therefore they won't last as long. Maybe the bottom end will last, but the head and all the ancillaries will pack up and make the whole unit uneconomic to repair.
Regards,
Mick.
Exactly MickF.
Jaguar X Type 2.0D like I have for example :-
A combined LP/HP fuel pump, breaks up and takes out injectors, repair bill approx £2000+
Clutch + DMF ( Dual Mass Flywheel) approx cost £800+
Electronic turbo actuator approx cost £300+
But then you have the fact they rot from the inside out ( all models of X Type, and S Type) which by the time you've spotted it on the outside sills ( under the plastic covers) its too late. That's because its rotted the inner sills, A,B and C pillars and floor pan. Repair cost £ lots.
JLR V6 diesels have 2 turbos and actuators, and they are more expensive than the X Types. I live close to Eurojag which is probably the UK's biggest Jaguar breaker, and the amount of diesel engined cars they have in is unbelievable. Some of them have never been crashed but scrapped out due to costs of getting knackered parts replaced. Of course there are ones in there that have blown 2.7 V6 diesels due to oil dilution due to DPF, and as they are automatic you cannot stall them when they start running on their own oil.
I think the biggest problem with DPF is manufacturers don't tell buyers that the car isn't suitable for their requirements.
Jaguar X Type 2.0D like I have for example :-
A combined LP/HP fuel pump, breaks up and takes out injectors, repair bill approx £2000+
Clutch + DMF ( Dual Mass Flywheel) approx cost £800+
Electronic turbo actuator approx cost £300+
But then you have the fact they rot from the inside out ( all models of X Type, and S Type) which by the time you've spotted it on the outside sills ( under the plastic covers) its too late. That's because its rotted the inner sills, A,B and C pillars and floor pan. Repair cost £ lots.
JLR V6 diesels have 2 turbos and actuators, and they are more expensive than the X Types. I live close to Eurojag which is probably the UK's biggest Jaguar breaker, and the amount of diesel engined cars they have in is unbelievable. Some of them have never been crashed but scrapped out due to costs of getting knackered parts replaced. Of course there are ones in there that have blown 2.7 V6 diesels due to oil dilution due to DPF, and as they are automatic you cannot stall them when they start running on their own oil.
I think the biggest problem with DPF is manufacturers don't tell buyers that the car isn't suitable for their requirements.
generally made of better quality parts ( for longer service life)
also don't tend to REV as hard,
and, of course, - diesel is a lubricant, petrol is a solvent
15 years ago .....diesel was the recommended engine for
" trips to the shops" type of motoring. before the DPF was commonly used..
my old tech 1.9 Fiat TD did @120 miles with NO OIL in it after an incident wiping off both the oil cooler, and oil pressure sensor wiring ( no warning light :bang
fixing the damaged parts and refilling with oil restored normal service for another 300,000 miles :worship:
now you know why I still buy FIAT's
Last edited:
I don't get what compression ratio has to do with it.
The days of engines actually going pop and having bits physically break is all but over. Aside from cam belts, sensors and ancillaries, engines are reliable these days.
The days of engines actually going pop and having bits physically break is all but over. Aside from cam belts, sensors and ancillaries, engines are reliable these days.
I wouldn't say it's a "false causation" in fact it's a perfectly justified reason that these old diesels are still on the road, that and an old diesel car is considerably more efficient than their old petrol equivalents.
Old diesels have turbos and complicated expensive injector systems and pumps. Yes they may be more powerful these days but then the same applies to petrol cars. In addition modern petrol cars now often have turbos and complicated injection systems and valve management and timing systems which all add together to make them no more or no less complicated than any diesel car.
I'm not entirely sure why we're so Jaguar-centric here however diesel pumps have always been expensive.... In the past that is, modern high pressure fuel pumps are actually quite cheap these days and a new 500 multijet pump can be bought for as little as £200. I remember old 1.7 Vauxhall diesel pumps used to break all the time and cost around £1800 about 10-15 years ago. If you're going to talk about a £45k when new car then you're going to have to expect expensive repair bills.
Petrol cars have dual mass fly wheels, the 2001 onward mondeo was well know to destruct the flywheel just out of warranty. As I mentioned before most new petrol cars have turbos and complicated valve and throttle systems so turbo actuators etc are just as liable to fail on a petrol.
Basically their is an us and them attitude when it comes to petrol versus diesel cars, (usually petrol owners complaining about dirty dervs) however if you take like for like cars from any point in time their is no real vast difference between the two. If used properly for what it was designed to do then neither a petrol or a diesel should give you adverse trouble.
As for dealers and DPF filters, I couldn't disagree more, I've just bought a brand new diesel VW and they were extremely careful to explain the DPF filter and make sure that it was suitable for my needs, they also told me stories about people who still insist on buying a diesel and using it to trundle round town once a week and still come back and complain when the fuel economy is crap and the filter clogged.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,579
- Points
- 828
Out of interest, why the need for a dual mass flywheel?
