Interesting that you mentioned the remapping guys in your last paragraph, that was just what I was thinking.   If I didn't think there was something fundamentally wrong with something in the system I'd be tempted to get it remapped, as it is I'd be happy if the darn thing would just do what it was supposed to. 

Had a day off from it today, will go back tomorrow and start from the beginning on the forscan testing.

Interesting that you mentioned the remapping guys in your last paragraph, that was just what I was thinking.   If I didn't think there was something fundamentally wrong with something in the system I'd be tempted to get it remapped, as it is I'd be happy if the darn thing would just do what it was supposed to. 

Had a day off from it today, will go back tomorrow and start from the beginning on the forscan testing.

Out of interest I did run some basic tests on my partners 2011 1.6 engine and as soon as it was running the egr was way open.  Mine seems to move around a fair bit.  Maybe I should do a plot of commanded position relative to actual position. 

Also looking to see if there is any turbo lag, maybe a sticky turbo wouldn't spool up fast enough to manage the rapid rpm rise?

There shouldn't really be any lag from a small VNT turbo.  If you can find a PID for 'requested boost pressure', that can be checked against the actual MAP readings on the graph setting.  I'm not sure if there is a PID for that though.

I have my suspicions that the previous owner managed to get a dodgy MOT on the car prior to selling it.  It failed twice then passed on some very dodgy looking figures shown in the bottom set of results.

You can see that it was way over the 0.5 limit on the first two accelerations then magically dropped to zero on the third. At that point the test should have been halted and started again but they carried on and used the false readings to give it a pass.

1 hour ago, Grand Tourneo said:

I have my suspicions that the previous owner managed to get a dodgy MOT on the car prior to selling it.

They only took the RPM to 3090 in the second test, no wonder it passed. In days gone by some people altered the Stop Screw on the outside of the Fuel Pump to limit the max revs to get their cars passed, unfortunately you can't do that on your car.

You have been given some good advice in this thread and to add to it, Live Data needs to be looked at while driving the car. You can rev the guts out of the car while stationary and the results will be mostly meaningless.

The Max Boost Pressure, it may be just called MAP in FORScan, is a shade over 240kPa for that car, but that is under extreme load and will only be for a few seconds. What Tom said about Graphing MAP and MAF is what is important. 

When Logging the Data, bring up the RPM, Speed and Accelerator Pedal position as well so you know what was happening when any strange thing happened.

38 minutes ago, Tizer said:

They only took the RPM to 3090 in the second test, no wonder it passed. In days gone by some people altered the Stop Screw on the outside of the Fuel Pump to limit the max revs to get their cars passed, unfortunately you can't do that on your car.

They did keep the revs low BUT if the first two tests are above limit, which they were and the third test drops to an unexpected figure the whole procedure should be repeated.   They just went on to do more tests that came out at zero and used those to get a bogus pass.

 

14 hours ago, Grand Tourneo said:

I have my suspicions that the previous owner managed to get a dodgy MOT on the car prior to selling it.  It failed twice then passed on some very dodgy looking figures shown in the bottom set of results.

You can see that it was way over the 0.5 limit on the first two accelerations then magically dropped to zero on the third. At that point the test should have been halted and started again but they carried on and used the false readings to give it a pass.

Take it back there then.  Problem solved.  

A bit more testing today...  Set up MAP and MAF on forscan relative to throttle pedal position.  Warmed the car up then went for a drive.

Not easy to see but MAF  at the top in red, middle in yellow is MAP bottom is pedal position. 

I took it to 3,500 rpm in first three gears.

The MAF and MAP both seem to follow the pedal position pretty well but MAP hits 255kpa and goes flat, maybe the limit of the forscan chart?

Does that 255kpa suggest a faulty MAP sensor?  I took it out and it looked pretty clean.

 

 

What is the MAP reading at Idle?, if it is not approx 100 kPa then something is wrong.

255 kPa is as high as it should go, the PCM will not let it go any further, in fact I thought it should have maxed out at slightly below 250 but I could be wrong about that.

P.S. best to send in Screenshots instead of taking a photo of your screen.

12 minutes ago, Tizer said:

What is the MAP reading at Idle?, if it is not approx 100 kPa then something is wrong.

255 kPa is as high as it should go, the PCM will not let it go any further, in fact I thought it should have maxed out at slightly below 250 but I could be wrong about that.

P.S. best to send in Screenshots instead of taking a photo of your screen.

Approx 100kPa at idle.

Not sure how to transfer files from the laptop to my phone which I'm using to post here.

Do the high readings seem too much or will the PCM just not add more fuel at the 255kPa position?

I guess that what these sensors show are the actual pressure and flow in the manifold irrespective of how anything else in the system is performing.

What next? 🤷‍♂️

2 hours ago, TomsFocus said:

Take it back there then.  Problem solved.  

I doubt they would do that for someone they don't know. It was a big risk doing it in the first place in that they provided evidence on paper!

3 minutes ago, Grand Tourneo said:

I doubt they would do that for someone they don't know. It was a big risk doing it in the first place in that they provided evidence on paper!

Tbh 99.9% of people won't read the smoke test sheet.  And of those that do, most won't know how many attempts it should be given. 

The first set of readings look like they're from a non-DPF car.  My 16v 1.6 TDCI didn't produce that much smoke even after the DPF was removed!  So I would suspect a faulty DPF if they're still the same now.  Have you got a printout of the current readings?

2 minutes ago, TomsFocus said:

Tbh 99.9% of people won't read the smoke test sheet.  And of those that do, most won't know how many attempts it should be given. 

The first set of readings look like they're from a non-DPF car.  My 16v 1.6 TDCI didn't produce that much smoke even after the DPF was removed!  So I would suspect a faulty DPF if they're still the same now.  Have you got a printout of the current readings?

Current readings are marginally down on the first set shown on the photo.  Would faulty DPF account for the high fuel consumption?

4 minutes ago, TomsFocus said:

Tbh 99.9% of people won't read the smoke test sheet.  And of those that do, most won't know how many attempts it should be given. 

The first set of readings look like they're from a non-DPF car.  My 16v 1.6 TDCI didn't produce that much smoke even after the DPF was removed!  So I would suspect a faulty DPF if they're still the same now.  Have you got a printout of the current readings?

I didn't read the smoke test results when I bought the car as I stupidly believed it was a genuine MOT.  It wasn't until it failed this time that I looked back and found the faulty figures. 

21 minutes ago, Grand Tourneo said:

Current readings are marginally down on the first set shown on the photo.  Would faulty DPF account for the high fuel consumption?

No.  But one problem at a time.  The priority is to get it through MOT to keep it road legal. 

As a heavy, non-aerodynamic van, I wouldn't expect much more than 40mpg combined.

If there is a crack through the DPF, or even a purposely drilled hole through it, nothing you change at the top end will get it to pass the tight smoke test on Euro 5 vehicles. 

I take it you have checked the plate value in the door jamb is 0.50?  I suspect it probably is, as I had a 2012 Focus with this engine and that was 0.55 plate value.  (Obviously vehicle weight is irrelevant for a static test.)

 

19 minutes ago, Grand Tourneo said:

I didn't read the smoke test results when I bought the car as I stupidly believed it was a genuine MOT.  It wasn't until it failed this time that I looked back and found the faulty figures. 

In fairness, it was only just over on the second test sheet.  If those were the readings this time, I'd be more inclined to believe an engine fault.

Presumably some work was carried out in between the tests, otherwise there wouldn't be such a big time gap.  Perhaps the DPF was partly cleaned without removal.  Perhaps they tried changing some other parts.  Or maybe they couldn't find the problem either so just stuck the probe up the exhaust of another car.  The irony when that one didn't quite pass either...  

I have had a few 0.00 readings on MOT's with my Golf so it isn't impossible to get those.  Doesn't necessarily mean they just left the probe out altogether.

1 hour ago, Grand Tourneo said:

Not sure how to transfer files from the laptop to my phone which I'm using to post here.

 

Log on with your Laptop or transfer the Screenshot to your Phone.

1 hour ago, Grand Tourneo said:

Do the high readings seem too much or will the PCM just not add more fuel at the 255kPa position?

The 255 is about right, it is correct at Idle so should be correct at Max Out, unless the car has been Mapped. I did say just above 240kPa in an earlier post and that may have been my memory playing tricks with me.

The PCM will vary the Turbo Vanes as well as reduce the Fuel and alter the Timing so that the Boost can't go over a predetermined level. 

Just took the car for a bit of a run, mixed back roads, motorway and dual carriageway and it is now reading 44mpg on the average fuel consumption.  That was normal acceleration and cruising at around 70.

Got it home and had the uvver arf give it a rev up to around 4,000 and there was a puff of smoke on the first one then nothing I could see after that.   It is a bit windy today so possibly more difficult to see properly. 

1 hour ago, TomsFocus said:

 

I take it you have checked the plate value in the door jamb is 0.50?  I suspect it probably is, as I had a 2012 Focus with this engine and that was 0.55 plate value.  (Obviously vehicle weight is irrelevant for a static test.)

 

In fairness, it was only just over on the second test sheet.  If those were the readings this time, I'd be more inclined to believe an engine fault.

Presumably some work was carried out in between the tests, otherwise there wouldn't be such a big time gap.  Perhaps the DPF was partly cleaned without removal.  Perhaps they tried changing some other parts.  Or maybe they couldn't find the problem either so just stuck the probe up the exhaust of another car.  The irony when that one didn't quite pass either...  

I have had a few 0.00 readings on MOT's with my Golf so it isn't impossible to get those.  Doesn't necessarily mean they just left the probe out altogether.

Limit is 0.5 as it says on the test sheets. If you look at the "pass" readings they were taken at much lower engine revs.

I think the likelihood of it reading just over the limit then suddenly dropping to zero is about on a par with me winning the lottery! 😉

Yeah I read the sheets, just wanted to double check that's what the car plate says.  Modern diesels are no longer a standard value, they all have their own plate value.  On Fords it's on a sticker just inside the driver's door.

I'll have to dig out my old Golf MOTs and have a look now.

 

Well, here's an interesting one.  Same car.  3 different garages.

 

But it did finally produce some smoke at 9 years after sitting unused for a few months.  Reading 0.07.  (Allowed plate value 0.6)

 

So what can we take from that? 

Either:

A. I have the cleanest Golf in the country or;

B. Most garages aren't doing the test correctly. 

 

Don't want to hijack the thread but if anyone else has recent smoke test sheets I'd be interested to see them.

1 hour ago, TomsFocus said:

Well, here's an interesting one.  Same car.  3 different garages.

 

But it did finally produce some smoke at 9 years after sitting unused for a few months.  Reading 0.07.  (Allowed plate value 0.6)

 

So what can we take from that? 

Either:

A. I have the cleanest Golf in the country or;

B. Most garages aren't doing the test correctly. 

 

Don't want to hijack the thread but if anyone else has recent smoke test sheets I'd be interested to see them.

 

Hijack away, I'm as interested as you in seeing what others have found. 

Yours look very interesting, no revs recorded, no temperatures recorded.  Very unlikely to be 0.00 surely?  The second one is brilliant, no test info, one run and zero smoke.

15 hours ago, Grand Tourneo said:

Very unlikely to be 0.00 surely?

Honestly, I'm not sure.  In a perfect world, the DPF should trap every single particulate, only allowing gas to pass through. 

It's basically a porous brick.  Doesn't have holes all the way through like a cat does.

And tbf, I've never seen any soot on the tailpipes of the Golf, let alone the bootlid, which I did on the many pre-DPF diesels I owned in the past.  So I was never expecting it to fail a smoke test.

However, I would guess that a very thin porous wall must have some sort of 'hole' limit, though I'm not sure how small particulates could get compared with that limit.

And as said near the beginning of the thread, the DPF core has to be sealed to the metal can somehow.  It's usually some fireproof wadding with a heat activated adhesive.  I doubt that seal is ever 100% perfect and is also likely to breakdown over a cars lifetime.

I had 3 different DPF equipped diesels MOT'd last year all at the same garage, but that garage didn't provide a print out of the smoke test for any of them unfortunately.  Would have been interesting to see the results of those now, but I wasn't interested at the time as they all passed anyway.

I guess it is different to mine in that in my case the car failed twice on separate occasions, was given some sort of cleaning process then tested the third time at much lower engine rpm and jumped from the first two accelerations still over limit to the third and subsequent ones being 0 to 2 decimal places!  I'm it is just me being cynical 😂👍

1 hour ago, Grand Tourneo said:

I guess it is different to mine in that in my case the car failed twice on separate occasions, was given some sort of cleaning process then tested the third time at much lower engine rpm and jumped from the first two accelerations still over limit to the third and subsequent ones being 0 to 2 decimal places!  I'm it is just me being cynical 😂👍

Maybe they were the only garage doing the test properly in the first place.   Or maybe Ford's are just poorly built rubbish...

I'm still not convinced yours was even tested the final time.  The probe may have been put up another cars exhaust instead.  That's how people used to get away with petrol decats.

Anyway, I think it's probably about time to get another exhaust check if you can get one free before putting through the retest.  Be interesting to know if everything you've done since has made any difference to the readings.

20 hours ago, TomsFocus said:

Maybe they were the only garage doing the test properly in the first place.   Or maybe Ford's are just poorly built rubbish...

I'm still not convinced yours was even tested the final time.  The probe may have been put up another cars exhaust instead.  That's how people used to get away with petrol decats.

Anyway, I think it's probably about time to get another exhaust check if you can get one free before putting through the retest.  Be interesting to know if everything you've done since has made any difference to the readings.

I'm taking it to a guy who a good friend recommended on Friday, first off check where we are with the emissions then if still too high look at the diagnostic information and see what it suggests is the problem.  He isn't just another "there ain't nuffink wrong mate, no fault codes" merchant and is happy for me to observe what is going on.

It is still running much better than it was before I changed the injectors, better fuel economy, accelerates more smoothly and is very quiet.

Fingers crossed that it doesn't still need something expensive such as a new DPF.  The Cat is combined on this one so at least buying that separately isn't necessary.