Focus Mk2.5 1.6 Tdci Dpf N Egr

[C_Paterson]

Car is currently in limp mode with engine malfunction on the dash. Ive got 7 fault codes on the DPF and 2 on the EGR I am aware this is a costly fix as I've been told I need a new full DPF but was wondering if it would be worth replacing the full DPF or get it removed and deleted even tho that seems to be illegal now and won't pass MOT, how ever there's that many people that still get this done there's got to be away around getting this passed at an MOT station?

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC

[MONDEO TXS 2.2]

If you want to potentially void your insurance & are ready for the unpleasant consequences ?

[Dee_82]

removing the inside of the DPF will not give the MOT testers any clue that its actually missing its DPF. Just now, no MOT tester will fail you unless its a really crap job (if you have a under tray they won't even be able to see the bottom part of the DPF which is where they cut in to)

Now I cant remember who said this but apparently in 2017(?) some new MOT changes are either on the way or being talked about that may actually test Euro V engines some how for it. Euro 4 predates this is isn't affected.

So in short, yes its a fail on an MOT but only if they see it and theres your loop hole.

edit

As for insurance, if you "knowingly" had removed the DPF and didn't declare it they you could be voiding the insurance for misleading information, unintentionally or intentionally, the latter is particularly nasty place to be, but lets suppose for a second that your presumably second hand car had its DPF removed before you got it. It would be unreasonable for them to expect you to know it had been done. So unless they can prove you deliberately or unintentionally but knowingly mislead them then they cant void the insurance. Course that's a risk you need to decide to take and be comfortable with in doing

[C_Paterson]

Obviously not how ever you hear so many people get it done so I thought it may be a suggestion instead of forking out about £1400 on a new dpf system, the garage has strongly advised me not to get it removed, but others say it's fine just wanted to see what the views and opinions were in here, the thought I had is if I had it removed I won't then get constant engine management light coming on and off and blockages but am unsure how the car would run without the DPF Hmm

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC

[Dee_82]

it will run very well without the DPF, if I shoved a sponge in your mouth you would find it hard to breath, same with a dpf, only it has knock on consequences which are all extremely expensive. New owners or nearly new owners who trade up their car never usually have to worry about these things, its only folk who cant afford the newer cars that get lumped with dealing with the expensive bills, seems a little unfair when you look at it like that don't you think!

[C_Paterson]

The car is a 10 plate and had it just over a year and this engine management light is intermittent on and off but now it's solid on with engine malfunction and had to get towed to the garage and they've told me that a new full DPF is needed, not only that injector 4 is leaking diesel and my rocker cover gasket is leaking oil so am just getting !Removed! off and looking at my options starting with the DPF as in what would be best to replace and pay for a new DPF or have it removed and deleted

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC

[Dee_82]

1400 quid is very expensive, a chap on here, Tom, did his himself, parts a couple hundred quid an a few hours work, but I think his having issues again now. the thing is, this part will fill up, it will increase back pressure, it will have a negative effect on the turbo and eventually it will kill your car, unlike most things in a car tho its not designed to be easily replaced, yours being 2010 an probably Euro V means it should have ceramic DPF, this should help reduce problems with soot buildup as it gets hotter quicker than the old version, but it will never fix the ash problem. So either your not driving it right and soot is building up, or its been driven a lot and its full of ash...

[C_Paterson]

Well the garage sourced a DPF and it was the wrong one and has made phone calls and for my car is dealer ship only so the bill for the DPF will be £900 from ford plus labour diagnostics and VAT the bill will come to approx £1400, as for mileage am driving bout 70miles a day 5-6 days a week,

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC

[C_Paterson]

Also to mention when the light first come on I only had 1 code p2944A am sure it was and said it was particulate pressure differential too low but after leaving it because I didn't have the means to get the repair done at that time it got worse and now stuck where I am currently trying to weigh up my options

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC

[simcor]

removing the inside of the DPF will not give the MOT testers any clue that its actually missing its DPF. Just now, no MOT tester will fail you unless its a really crap job (if you have a under tray they won't even be able to see the bottom part of the DPF which is where they cut in to)

Now I cant remember who said this but apparently in 2017(?) some new MOT changes are either on the way or being talked about that may actually test Euro V engines some how for it. Euro 4 predates this is isn't affected.

So in short, yes its a fail on an MOT but only if they see it and theres your loop hole.

edit

As for insurance, if you "knowingly" had removed the DPF and didn't declare it they you could be voiding the insurance for misleading information, unintentionally or intentionally, the latter is particularly nasty place to be, but lets suppose for a second that your presumably second hand car had its DPF removed before you got it. It would be unreasonable for them to expect you to know it had been done. So unless they can prove you deliberately or unintentionally but knowingly mislead them then they cant void the insurance. Course that's a risk you need to decide to take and be comfortable with in doing

The reason why I would urge caution is because of the following.

In the eyes of the law (i.e in a court) as the owner of a vehicle you are responsible for it's roadworthiness, regardless of any knowledge on vehicles you may or may not have. In law as I understand it ignorance is no defence, so saying it was like it when you bought it would not absolve you of any responsibility.

At the very least if removing the DPF you should inform your insurance company and see if they will insure it, that way your car is as legal as it can be with the DPF removed, and should the worst happen in a court you are as legal as you can be.

But my removing an item that was fitted and is supposed to be present and working you are invalidating your MOT and Tax, because they are now invalid then your insurance is also invalid even if the insurance company is aware and insures it as modified, it really is not a situation I would to be in should the worst happen.

Obviously it is down to the persons own feelings on the subject and how legal you want it to be.

I am not saying this is 100% fact but after many conversations about these kind of things this is what I have learn't to be pretty much the case. But I do think a word of caution to those who don't know the ramifications on this rather than just telling people to remove the DPF.

Just my 2p on the subject.

[Dee_82]

in terms of law, its only "illegal" if you knowingly and intentionally mislead, now, this is actually exactly what your doing by gutting the dpf and why folk need to be cautious, this will void the insurance an is deemed fraud, you lose your money and your insurance, but it comes down to burden of proof, they have to prove you did that, if you unintentionally mislead and in doing so putting the insurance people in a contract they wouldn't have accepted your insurance would be void but you can reclaim your premium. It all comes down to what is deemed reasonable, would it be reasonable for you to know if a previous owner lowered the car and put 18s on it, yeah, probably is, but its not reasonable to expect an owner to know if an egr plate has been installed or the dpf has been gutted, in fact passing an MOT would reasonably suggest to jo punter that the dpf was intact because surely it would have failed the MOT remaps are the same, is yours remapped, is mine? I don't know for sure, I'm not going to download the ECU and compare it to a stock original, that would be unreasonable.

as for roadworthiness your right, but if you pass an MOT designed to test that worthiness then how are you to know? course if you pass an MOT with regular headlamps then change them the MOT station could testify to it so you would be screwed if you didn't inform the insurance, it would also be reasonable for you know your lights are different to everyone else.

end of the day, its as clear as mud :)

[mudman]

I removed my dpf a couple of weeks ago as it coursed my turbo to blow :( sins removing it the cars mpg has shot up , I was getting 30 mpg when it was blocked know I'm in the 50's an that's local driving , im just about to go an drop it off to have the dpf deleted from the ECU I found a place by me that does it for 130 pound , don't pay fords stupid money to have it fixed if you know the difference between a spaner an a ratchet you'll be able to do it yourself , dpf of eBay 200 Haynes Manual couple quid in Halfords an away you go or if you can weld cut it out

[simcor]

in terms of law, its only "illegal" if you knowingly and intentionally mislead, now, this is actually exactly what your doing by gutting the dpf and why folk need to be cautious, this will void the insurance an is deemed fraud, you lose your money and your insurance, but it comes down to burden of proof, they have to prove you did that, if you unintentionally mislead and in doing so putting the insurance people in a contract they wouldn't have accepted your insurance would be void but you can reclaim your premium. It all comes down to what is deemed reasonable, would it be reasonable for you to know if a previous owner lowered the car and put 18s on it, yeah, probably is, but its not reasonable to expect an owner to know if an egr plate has been installed or the dpf has been gutted, in fact passing an MOT would reasonably suggest to jo punter that the dpf was intact because surely it would have failed the MOT remaps are the same, is yours remapped, is mine? I don't know for sure, I'm not going to download the ECU and compare it to a stock original, that would be unreasonable.

as for roadworthiness your right, but if you pass an MOT designed to test that worthiness then how are you to know? course if you pass an MOT with regular headlamps then change them the MOT station could testify to it so you would be screwed if you didn't inform the insurance, it would also be reasonable for you know your lights are different to everyone else.

end of the day, its as clear as mud :)

I get what you are saying buddy, but as far as I understand the law reasonable does not come into it, regardless of if you know or don't know a car has been altered in a court of law you could be in a very serious predicament, i.e you should have had it checked out by a competent garage to ensure the car is as it should be.

If your car passes an MOT, it does not mean it is roadworthy in any way shape or form, it just means on that day at that time in the testers opinion the car was roadworthy, if you are involved in an accident then they can assess the whole car and should they find anything that is not fit for use then the car would have been dangerous to be on the road, that is the drivers responsibility.

The same when you drive a works or a hired vehicle, you are fully responsible for the vehicle whilst in your possession.

As I say it might be a rare occurrence but should you be in that position I would not like to rate the outcome.

[Dee_82]

Technically the law doesn't come in to it at all in terms of insurance, not unless they can prove you are trying to defraud them. unintentionally misleading them isn't a legal matter at all. The word Reasonable comes from their own guides. defining what is reasonable might be interesting for some things but pulling the car to bits to check for things prior to purchase, which you wont be able to do anyway, is pretty unreasonable. Course if they had proof that you knew it was done, or could find proof that you knowingly knew it wasn't there, then your gubbed, unless you can prove that it was unintentional, in either case you lose the insurance but unintentional doesn't become a legal matter.

Course it is illegal from a different perspective as its altering the emissions meaning its not doing what it is designed for, in this instance VOSA could pull you over an your gubbed, irrespective of insurance. you could probably contact VOSA to have that amended tho and the effect would be high payouts for vehicle tax.

as I said, its as clear as mud, but their own guide lines spells it out reasonably clearly, just a little ambiguous in its wording! lol

[C_Paterson]

How would the car run tho without a DPF and a blanking plate over the EGR? Or does it run better with those 2 working actively on the car?

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC

[Dee_82]

those two things are made to kill your car, they do absolutely nothing to help it in any way shape or form other than to hit some targets set by a man in a suite working in Brussels.

they are debatable when it comes to health, yes your not spraying around nasty gasses, what you do do however is dump a lot of nasty crap in a single location every now and then and you also use more fuel, which isn't exactly environmentally friendly either!

remove them and your performance will increase, you will use less fuel, yes some particularly nasty gasses will escape in to the world, but then we are producing less carbon

So you could potentially harm the health of other but equally save some polar bears.

I say deliberately wrecking ones car and burning more fuel in the process to hit some numbers is a crappy idea. but then I don't have to stand behind a diesel breathing its exhaust so, yes a little selfish but no one helps you an me with the 1400 bill your about to get for the dpf or the blown turbo bill or the intake manifold blocked with carbon from the EGR, and on top of that, diesel drivers don't even get a pat on the back for saving the homes of penguins! ;)

[TomsFocus]

Not sure everything in this thread is 100% accurate tbf...

Anyway, yes I changed my DPF, cost £200 though yours may be more expensive being the ceramic one. And I really wish I hadn't!! 3 months later it's blocking up again and throwing fault codes. I was doing a lot of 'fast' driving assuming that would get the DPF hot enough to keep it clear, but 70mph doesn't even get it close! Nor does 95 (3k rpm) out of interest...not that I suggest you try that in public lol. So basically, there doesn't seem to be any way to keep the thing from clogging. It forces a regen every 500 miles or so but usually on the one 5 minute journey I make in each week or just as I'm hitting town traffic...clever system on paper, but doesn't work in the real world.

I will be removing mine asap but that'll cost nearly £200 again time I've paid for the remap and the welding. And of course the 'new' DPF I bought is now completely worthless as well. Unfortunately I've been unwell for a few weeks but as soon as I'm better and can source a used DPF to have gutted, that's what I'll be doing!

MOT isn't an issue, it's just visual as has been said, plus mines Euro4 so the new regs won't affect it even if they do come into play...not that I'll still have the Focus by then. I'll be in a petrol, probably something EcoBoost as diesel just isn't worth the hassle since DPFs came out imo. If they focussed on getting the MPG higher rather than the emmisions lower everyone would be better off...well except the DPF manufacturers I guess lol.

As for insurance being an issue, tell them you've made exhaust changes, stick on a shiny tailpipe if you like, but if you've stated you've made 'changes', how can you be in the wrong? Not that I can see them checking the DPF if you've had a crash anyway, they have MUCH easier ways of not paying out that don't involve having to pay an investigator a few hours to remove a DPF...

[C_Paterson]

Am not sure on the reason but the garage had soured one and when it got delivered it was the wrong one so he phoned his mate who works at ford in Dunfermline and was told for my car it's dealership only so the cost soared as you can imagine with it coming from FORD themselves so now am left weather to go through with it or not, if am honest the cost isn't my issue my issue is that is it going to fix the car and stay fixed or is it going to give me bother a year down the line or so, that's why I was maybe contemplating just having it removed and deleted with the EGR and get it power tuned, but was wanting to se what people on this forum thought or had similar experiences or have done one of the options but wish they had done the other,

Also just to throw this out here my injector 4 is leaking diesel would that be covered in a 2 year extended warranty with evans halshaw? Also my rocker cover gasket has a hole which is causing an oil leak problem and where the rocker cover sits it's a pain in the !Removed! job to get fixed which is annoying as the part only costs about £20 I reckon lol

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC

[TomsFocus]

Well, your DPF will be the ceramic one, so maybe its only the Eolys one that is being made as a pattern part. I was also quoted £800 for a genuine Ford one lol.

The thing is, I've done live tests and can't find any sort of driving that heats the DPF enough, I had wrongly assumed lots of 70mph would help but it doesn't seem to. This is the reason mines causing issues again already which is why I decided its gotta go this time! Its not a decision any of us can make for you though.

Leaking injector should be covered under warranty I reckon, you can always ask them anyway. DPF isn't covered unfortunately, as I guess you know already. No idea on the rocker gasket on these though I'm afraid.

[Dee_82]

Not sure everything in this thread is 100% accurate tbf...

As for insurance being an issue, tell them you've made exhaust changes, stick on a shiny tailpipe if you like, but if you've stated you've made 'changes', how can you be in the wrong? Not that I can see them checking the DPF if you've had a crash anyway, they have MUCH easier ways of not paying out that don't involve having to pay an investigator a few hours to remove a DPF...

the insurance stuff sounds thin I know but its from their own guidelines! :) I'm not saying do it and don't tell, its a risk without a doubt and potentially any claim could result in civil court action before being able to use that defence.

but the fact is, they can only refuse a claim if you knowingly mislead them or enter a contract that they wouldn't normally accept through unknowingly misleading them.

"The policyholder applied for motor insurance, answering "no" to the following two questions on the proposal form:

"Has the car been altered/modified from the maker's specification (including the addition of optional fit accessories such as spoilers, skirts, alloy wheels etc.-)"

"Have YOU or ANY PERSON who will drive ... during the past five years been involved in any accident or loss (irrespective of blame and of whether a claim resulted)-"

When the insurer investigated a new claim, it came to light that the car had been fitted with oversized alloy wheels, spoilers, and chrome wheel arches, and that the policyholder's husband, a named driver on the policy, had made two significant claims in the previous five years. The insurer refused to meet the claim and cancelled the policy from its start date.

The policyholder stated that she had bought the car with the all the modifications already fitted, and she assumed they were all part of the car's original specification. She further explained that she did not realise her husband had made one of the two earlier claims, and that his other claim had been rejected because he had only third party cover at the time.

complaint rejected

On the evidence presented, we accepted the policyholder genuinely believed the car was not modified when she bought it. The fact remained, however, that she failed to disclose her husband's previous claims. The question in issue was clear and unambiguous, and asked for details of any "loss" irrespective of whether a claim was made. The policyholder ought, therefore, to have appreciated the need to disclose those previous incidents. By not doing so, she misled the insurer into accepting a risk it would only otherwise have agreed to cover, if at all, in return for a substantially higher premium."

http://www.financialombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/1/non-disclosure-case-studies.htm

the site is littered with examples, if you tell them something that's wrong and is something you should know, then your gubbed, if its unreasonable for you to know something then its up for grabs.

the example above shows this in practice, the mods ere fine, its the fact she failed to disclose that got her

[Gaznffc86]

Had mine removed and remapped last year. The car feels totally different. Mines the 1.6 110 bhp but now I would say it feels more like a 2.0 tdci. The torque is really good! No turbo lag either.

But.

I now want to sell the car as we've got an ever growing family and I'm now stuck in a rut as to how to sell it. Do I mention it's had it removed? Or do I list it as being removed knowing that people aren't going to buy it if it's been tampered with.

Sorry if I messing up your forum thing, I'm new to all this.

Thanks

[TomsFocus]

Replace it with a new one and sell me the gutted one. ;)

But seriously, you need to state it tbh. Sure some people will be put off but you'll find a lot of people won't be if you sell it right (stating that its for reliability rather than thrashing round maccys car park lol).

I'd be annoyed if I bought a car and later found someone had tampered with it, voiding my insurance and not passing MOT so I'm always truthful in car ads (and I've written several of them lol).

[Gaznffc86]

Thanks mate. Wished I'd never bought the !Removed! thing! Not enough is mentioned (if anything at all) about DPF's when buying a car. Fair to say I'll not be touching a diesel again.

[TomsFocus]

I have a fair bit of knowledge about DPFs and was still daft enough to buy one with one after buying diesels without DPFs for years lol. Problem is, I've done plenty of live tests now and in the real world can't seem to ever heat the DPF enough to regen passively regardless of how hard I push it. And it's active regens come at the worst times so are often not completed first time and are just wasting fuel anyway.

I'm not even sure the dealers understand exactly how the car should be driven as they give different advice and aren't willing to be too specific.

Unfortunately it's put me right off diesels with DPFs as well now, I'll also be going for a petrol next but aiming to keep this for another couple of years first....well that'd be about 8 DPF changes on my current rate so I'll be removing it when I can lol.

[Gaznffc86]

Yes fair enough they let off bad particulates into the atmosphere when removed but you end up with better mpg. So it's a catch 22 ain't it. But the difference in performance from having it removed and remapped is unreal! I've got a 1.6 tdci and it feels more like a 2.0 now with the extra torque