FAP removal - the official line.

[Bob L'eponge]

Hi all,

There is often discussion on here regarding the removal of diesel particulate filters. Personally, I think there are great and the difference between the emissions of my X7 C5, which has a FAP, and my wife's diesel Nissan Note, which doesn't, is amazing. I have thoughtlessly started up my car in the garage without even been aware of it. With my wife's car I would be choking withing seconds. Looking at the readings on Diagbox, the latest systems seem to go for around 100,000 miles before the fluid needs changing and the filter cleaning, which is not bad, and the whole system seems to be much better thought out than those on many other vehicles that don't use an additive and are much more prone to clogging the filter.

Anyhow, I have just come across the following, which was only published a few weeks ago and gives the official line regarding FAP removal. It should add to the debate if nothing else!

Legal requirements

It is an offence under the Road vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulation 61a(3)) to use a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet. Removal of a DPF will almost invariably contravene these requirements, making the vehicle illegal for road use.

A vehicle might still pass the MoT visible smoke emissions test, which is primarily intended to identify vehicles that are in a very poor state of repair, whilst emitting illegal and harmful levels of fine exhaust particulate.

Social Implications

Air pollution causes an estimated 29,000 early deaths in the UK, and has annual health costs of roughly £15 billion

The health effects of PM are more significant than those of other air pollutants. Chronic exposure contributes to the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases and lung cancer. Current evidence suggests that there is no “safe” limit for exposure to fine particulate matter. The Report of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) from 2008 concluded that, although there had been improvements in pollutant levels, the average reduction in life expectancy as a result of airborne particulate matter across the population was 6 months

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... dance-note" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mooseshaver]

Thanks for that, most useful as I have a friend who wants to remove it from how BMW

[micky707]

Thanks Bob, very interesting

[SaabC5]

What i find preposterous is the argument for DPF's is that they allow the exhaust system to release less small particles into the air that can cause lung/breathing and cancer problems. The solution employed is Eolys fluid which clearly states on the bottle that its a biohazard that is harmful to skin/eyes and shouldn't be handled without safety equipment of gloves,apron and goggles. It also clearly states on the bottle its a cause of cancer if handled incorrectly! How is it an advancement in pollution if the answer causes exactly the same problems as the cure? They should have just saved everybody the expense and not put the bloody thing on in the first place!

[Xaccers]

What i find preposterous is the argument for DPF's is that they allow the exhaust system to release less small particles into the air that can cause lung/breathing and cancer problems. The solution employed is Eolys fluid which clearly states on the bottle that its a biohazard that is harmful to skin/eyes and shouldn't be handled without safety equipment of gloves,apron and goggles. It also clearly states on the bottle its a cause of cancer if handled incorrectly! How is it an advancement in pollution if the answer causes exactly the same problems as the cure? They should have just saved everybody the expense and not put the bloody thing on in the first place!

Does it still have those hazards once it has been burnt through the exhaust system though?

[addo]

Probably to an extent; combustion will not be 100% effective.

[Xaccers]

Probably to an extent; combustion will not be 100% effective.

But the amount you would be exposed to from an exaust passing you by would be negligable compared to spilling some from a bottle on yourself (hence the hazard warnings on the bottle)

[Bob L'eponge]

I don't see how the need to handle Eolys fludi correctly suggests that it causes 'the same problems' as it is designed to cure.

Firstly, aren't the warnings on a bottle of Eolys only the same as those found on a bottle of white spirit? This is hardly high-grade toxic material!

Secondly, only a few ml of the fluid are introduced into each tank full of fuel, with the ratio of additive to diesel currently being around 2500:1. (And it seems that as these systems are further developed less and less fluid needs to be added to treat each tank of fuel.) So, for each litre of fluid burnt the particulates from burning 2500 litres of diesel are all but eliminated. That is a huge cost/ benefit ratio, especially given that burning only a couple of cc of diesel in a car without a FAP in an enclosed space will see you choking, which gives some perspective on just how much particulate matter is released over the lifetime of a vehicle.

Thirdly, most of the additive is simply a combustible hydrocarbon, so burning this is hardly any different to burning diesel itself.

Also, the ash left from burning the 'active ingredient' of the fluid - cerine - is retained in the FAP itself and the system does not release cerine into the atmosphere. This is why after 100,00 miles or so the FAP needs to be swapped for an exchange unit that has had the ash residues, which have been left behind by the additive, cleaned out.