Dpf warning

[Lighty]

I am not going to argue the case for or against DPF removal, the thing is it simply doesn't work well in practice in UK traffic situations.
If part of a DPF is missing, then it obviously could have happened due to wear and tear, so let's see the lawyers prove otherwise.
Whilst Governments are shipping waste oil around the world to be disposed of where the laws are less stringent, and China are burning so much stuff that they are almost permanently in smog, don't come on here accusing me of murder thanks!

[qprdude]

I am not going to argue the case for or against DPF removal, the thing is it simply doesn't work well in practice in UK traffic situations.
If part of a DPF is missing, then it obviously could have happened due to wear and tear, so let's see the lawyers prove otherwise.
Whilst Governments are shipping waste oil around the world to be disposed of where the laws are less stringent, and China are burning so much stuff that they are almost permanently in smog, don't come on here accusing me of murder thanks!

Christ, talk about getting the wrong end of the stick.
Nobody accused you of murder. What I said was more or less that anything to do with climate change is perceived as a worse offence than murder.( tongue in cheek??)
Of course, I should have said registered MOT station, not just garage. My point is, if it's illegal, you're breaking the law. No two ways about it.
As regards insurance mods. A local guy had his Saab 9-3 chipped by Hirsch? (an absolute flying machine) and he ran into a taxi. He is still trying to get his insurance to pay as they checked the car thoroughly and decided the modification made it uninsurable for him. That is just an example and not in any way similar to the removal of an original manufacturers part, but if the pay out is big enough, they can and do check to see if they can avoid payment. Mind you, with chromed wheels and an exhaust the size of the Mersey tunnel, it was a bit more obvious than a missing DPF!
I don't personally care what anyone does to their car to get better performance, but with .gov making the rules, it's kind of difficult to avoid the "big brother is watching" syndrome.
Another thought just occurred though....what if I buy a car that has already had the DPF removed by a previous owner and the MOT station miss it . Am I then breaking the law.
Yes, it's a grey area for garages and owners . Not being a mechanic, is DPF removal performance enhancing, or just economy related?
I doubt if I will have my car for long enough, or do enough miles for it to be worthwhile for me in any case.

[addo]

Prosecution would claim it is for increased performance over manufacturer's intention.

Defence would state it has been done to preserve the observed or implied performance.

Beyond that, it comes down to where the burden of proof lies; in many statutory offences the burden of proof has been transferred to the defendant.

The chipped Saab example cited, I suggest had what would be called "aggravating" factors by way of external items that might prejudice a certain type of person. It also sounds as though repudiation of the claim is a bit "grey" and possibly relying on the party with most assets to triumph - rather than a legal ruling in black and white.

[deano1970]

lighty,please don't murder anybody before you fix my handbrake.....lol.....but I honestly don't know.I looked at buying a peugeot 307 estate,looked really nice and the guy was selling it with full mot and tax,and stated the dpf had been professionally removed......so,the mot station there have passed it no problem.........seems the government are concerned about the emissions being too high,but as lighty points out, countries are pumping that much crap out,they are almost always in darkness and smog............does seem a bit silly........

[SwissSPEC]

qprdude - it was they way you said it, you may not have actually meant that, but thats how it read. Anyway, you've explained what you meant so all's good. The main reason for people to alter/fix/modify their DPF is because it makes the car use more fuel & because it gets blocked it causes reliability issues. I agree to a certain degree about the environment, so if they made DPF's mega cheap & easy to fit, i'd be quite happy changing one every few years, just like a fuel filter, but you can't I don't want my car to have an issue because of a device fitted that will eventually soot up. If gov'ts around the world were uber serious about the environment, no more new cars should be made period. Emissions is just one of a long list of environmental factors that contribute to global warning, however, bovine methane causes more issues than what comes out of an old diesel motor, thats the irony about pollution, there are so many other worse offending things than cars, but from a govt perspective, its very easy to tell motorists that they are bad & need to pay lots of road tax & fuel duty, in the grand scheme of things its nonsense. Can you imagine if they bought in a bovine methane tax, everyone would think they were mad & lots of people would never believe that methane was produced in such vast quantities & does it really contribute to global warming??? This particular subject can get so complicated its mad, you can't even get scientists to agree whether global warming actally exists or not.

[Stickyfinger]

LOL....you know when a thread has gone off course when you see COW FARTS mentioned .....

[Northern_Mike]

We need to ban volcanos too. One decent eruption will produce more CO2 than all the cars ever made so far... plenty of ash and particles too.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[myglaren]

Not to be too pedantic but it is bovine belches that emit the methane, them being ruminants.
Termites produce way more than cows though.

[Hell Razor5543]

The problem with numbers (like CO2 levels) is that the various 'experts' don't always put them into clear context. Not long after the Eden Project first opened its doors a 'Green' organisation suggested that access should be public transport only (as the Millennium Dome was, in London), due to the massive increase in CO2 levels in the area due to the increase in traffic from all the visitors. There was no advice on how to do this, or acceptance that this would probably kill off the project. There was also a deafening silence over the fact that, while there was more CO2 being produced, it would only take something like 6 trees to soak up the extra CO2 and, as there were a lot more plants than this in the Project, the air was cleaner after the Project opened than before.