Advice about remapping and dpf removal
- Thread starter Sgt Tackleberry
- Start date
same reason you have a focus st instead of a less powerful model perhaps?
I wouldn't remove the dpf but remapping can transform a car for just a few hundred pound. My 320d was remapped from 163bhp to 210bhp 3 years ago and it's been rock solid reliable since, and it drives so much better now,.. you just need to do your research before getting it done.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 May 2008
- Posts
- 3,971
- Location
- North Wales
I imagine so, it'll just like catalytic converters. If there car was built without one (pre 1992 in the uk & 1996 for imports?) you don't need one.
It's pretty obvious when they have been removed. They only need updated equipment to confirm it. It's like removing the cat from a petrol car, you only need to smell it. Just driving behind a diesel engine that's been messed with and it smells like an old bus. There's no way it would pass a proper emissions test.
Anyway, found this from last year: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...emoval-air-pollution-department-for-transport . So it looks like removal services may become illegal at some point soon and they may even decide to trace cars which have already been done. So I wouldn't bother or you could be looking at a big bill to reinstall it anyway.
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Yes it is an offence.
It is currently illegal under the Road Vehicles Regulations to use a vehicle on the road if it has been modified in such a way that it no longer meets the air quality emissions standards it had when originally produced.
Potential penalties are £1,000 for a car and £2,500 for a van.
The legislation makes the owner or main user of the vehicle primarily responsible for its condition.
Whether the person who had removed the DPF, or had offered to remove it, had also committed an offence would be a matter for the courts to decide.
And also obviously as we all know, The Association of British Insurers have also said that ‘Applying for or renewing insurance knowing that the vehicle is illegal or unroadworthy, would amount to misrepresentation and potential fraud’ and ‘No insurance would be offered or renewed if the owner declared to the insurer that the vehicle was illegal to drive/unroadworthy’.
Also should a vehicle after an incident/crash be found to be not roadworthy due to modifications undeclared to the insurance company, then no claim will be upheld and the owner could be personally held liable for any claims by others against them.
It is currently illegal under the Road Vehicles Regulations to use a vehicle on the road if it has been modified in such a way that it no longer meets the air quality emissions standards it had when originally produced.
Potential penalties are £1,000 for a car and £2,500 for a van.
The legislation makes the owner or main user of the vehicle primarily responsible for its condition.
Whether the person who had removed the DPF, or had offered to remove it, had also committed an offence would be a matter for the courts to decide.
And also obviously as we all know, The Association of British Insurers have also said that ‘Applying for or renewing insurance knowing that the vehicle is illegal or unroadworthy, would amount to misrepresentation and potential fraud’ and ‘No insurance would be offered or renewed if the owner declared to the insurer that the vehicle was illegal to drive/unroadworthy’.
Also should a vehicle after an incident/crash be found to be not roadworthy due to modifications undeclared to the insurance company, then no claim will be upheld and the owner could be personally held liable for any claims by others against them.
Last edited:
It is an offence to remove and shouldn't pass an Mot without it. So i don't get why there is hundreds of garages openly advertising dpf removals when it's supposedly not allowed
They'll probably try to blag it with a "Novelty use only" disclaimer. Fine for use on the track, or some such guff.
It is an offence to remove and shouldn't pass an Mot without it. So i don't get why there is hundreds of garages openly advertising dpf removals when it's supposedly not allowed
Actually, the emissions test on current Diesel MOT will not fail if a DPF has been removed/gutted.
Only the visual check can fail an MOT for lack of DPF.
Obviously an alert well trained MOT tester will easily see that the canister has been modified, however if teh removal has been a very good job then it might be difficult to notice.
So much guff in this thread.
No MOT tester is going to know if a dpf is gutted. Yes it's obvious due to smell but they can NOT fail you if the shell is still there.
Well worth doing if you drive the car like a town car and low miles.
Otherwise no point removing it's guts.
If you do then 100% get a remap for performance with it. Just be careful that you may end up requiring a new clutch sooner rather than later.
My torque went up by 80nm... and that was enough to kill the clutch within 8k miles.
Be warned! The government is looking to alter the test to try and detect gutted DPF's... so tbh don't bother.
I'm even looking at buying a second hand dpf and storing it just in case.
No MOT tester is going to know if a dpf is gutted. Yes it's obvious due to smell but they can NOT fail you if the shell is still there.
Well worth doing if you drive the car like a town car and low miles.
Otherwise no point removing it's guts.
If you do then 100% get a remap for performance with it. Just be careful that you may end up requiring a new clutch sooner rather than later.
My torque went up by 80nm... and that was enough to kill the clutch within 8k miles.
Be warned! The government is looking to alter the test to try and detect gutted DPF's... so tbh don't bother.
I'm even looking at buying a second hand dpf and storing it just in case.
My car has its gutted. Downside is smell and a little bit more smoke. Does go well though with a remap to compliment it. I bought the car like this. On a recent MOT test the car passed on emissions on the first try. Testers thoughts were that it actually is still present. So I'm unsure.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 11,111
- Location
- West Yorkshire / Market Bosworth
peige;30479129 said:
True.
A remap I fully understand. If anything more effective on diesels then petrol engines. However I don't see the point when the car is just a taxi...you'd a taxi driver would be driving as efficient as possible not racing at le mans.
A DPF removal...no don't agree or recommend at all.
peige;30478550 said:
VW diesel on 125K? Its barely even run in... It will do 125K thrice over, easily. Taxi drivers will routinely get over 300,000 miles out of a car, and some have been known to reach double that or more.
Also "of that age"? Its 6 years old!
The engine won't be any more stressed than usual unless the OP floors it everywhere and routinely explores the new peak power and torque. As he himself said it is for economy, I doubt that will be a regular occurrence.
Really the only issue I see with this is the DPF gutting, and the legal and moral implications. Whether or not that bothers the OP is up to him.
Entai;30479117 said:
At the moment yes, but they are changing the emissions test this year after the whole VW scandal. The new methods will detect if the DPF has been removed once they are rolled out, there won't be a way to pass the MOT other than reinstalling it.
This will probably be how they force old diesels off the road.
How does that have any relevance to forcing old diesels off of the roads? The emissions targets they have to meet will be the same as always, this change is only relevant to new cars.
If they shifted the goal posts whenever they feel like it, all old cars would be forced off of the roads for having higher emissions than is currently allowed for new cars, or not having catalytic converters when they didn't have one when new, etc.
If they shifted the goal posts whenever they feel like it, all old cars would be forced off of the roads for having higher emissions than is currently allowed for new cars, or not having catalytic converters when they didn't have one when new, etc.