Junk All Diesel Cars: They're A Health Hazard, So Scrap Them And Pay Owners £2,000, Boris Tells Mps

[Bloo Loo]

I would agree that this seems to be the main significant issue with some DPF equipped cars. However, in general this seems most common with the first generation of DPF equipped cars when they were new technology. Most manufacturers have now improved their DPF systems so even urban drivers should not expect too much trouble from them. Of course there will always be problems with some, but a lot will depend on drivers too. You see some drivers pull away from cold in towns and drive with a heavy right foot between traffic lights and queuing traffic. This kind of driving is bad for all engines, but especially with diesels, as they tend to produce excess soot on hard acceleration. Also when cold diesels have quite a bit of slack round piston rings etc, as they need to be hot to run best. If an engine does not get a chance to get hot on a short run and is driven to produce lots of soot which has to be arrested by the DPF it will eventually block. DPFs need to burn off soot once they contain a certain amount and this is generally done by the engine management system adjusting the fuel air/mix to increase exhaust gas temperatures to about 600 degrees C. This can generally only be achieved when doing a longer journey. However, a sensible driver taking a bit of care will likely not have many problems as they will not produce anywhere near as much soot to be trapped and the DPF will only very occasionally need to be cleared.

drivers with a heavy foot from the off risk damage to all parts of the engine, as the oil is cool and thick...think turbo, which spins up on heat from the exhaust at very high speeds receiving gunky oil...cant be good.

Course a turbo is always on, but gunning the thing from cold must be bad...course, petrol engines will be the same, but they warm up quicker.

[Neil D Possitt]

You may also just be seeing cars which happened to be late examples of a models which had been in production for quite a while. As far as I know, car manufacturers only need to comply with the regs in place when a model is first designed. They can then produce that until they design a new one, or make significant changes like fitting a newly designed engine. I drive an Audi diesel, but I know that my car had DPFs as standard several years before some others in the range, as mine was a model with a new engine, wheres the same car with an older engine design was still produced for several more years without a DPF being fitted.

Yes there were still older non-DPF models being sold new until autumn 2010 (when Euro V became compulsory for all new registrations), whereas some models had DPFs as long ago as 2001.

[Bug16]

I've owned both petrol and diesel cars and I'm back with a diesel mainly because I liked the car and I do the mileage to warrant one.

Turbo failure is always possible but most people don't follow the simple advice of turning your engine on and waiting for 10-20 seconds and the same again before you turn the engine off. Not doing that can result in turbo bearing failure.

Many people skimp on oil changes or put cheap half synthetic oil in instead of decent quality fully synthetic oil. It's all in your cars manual. Sure, some diesel engines have bad design that can attribute to turbo failure but pretty much anything big can go with a car, I know of people who've had turbo failure on petrol cars. I also know people who's diesels are well into 120k+ miles territory with no problems, just bog standard maintenance. The early mk2 Focus 1.6 TDCi had turbo issues due to the location of an injector feed and bad sump design and these were rectified. My neighbour has a 2005 plate Focus 1.6 TDCi that he bought from new and has never had an issue. For every horror story you read on the Internet you're not seeing the thousands of people who don't experience a problem. If my turbo does die I'll replace it then get rid of the car.

As for the DPF, again, people don't read their cars manual or understand how the system works. Roughly every couple of months do a good clear run and keep your revs well over 2000 for about 20 minutes uninterrupted and you'll be fine. For those here who are suggesting this will mean you'll spend all of your saved fuel money doing this, sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. My previous petrol cost me £38 a week in fuel and I've literally halved my fuel bill. Do people honestly think that 20 minutes every couple of months costs over £150 in fuel as they're suggesting? Bonkers.

If somebody is going to pootle around town doing 8k or less miles a year then they shouldn't buy a diesel. That's just common sense.

Btw, I see plenty of petrol cars with black smoke pouring out of their exhausts every day on my daily commute.

[dpg50000]

We have a 1.6 TDI engine in our 2008 car with 45k on it and have had the Turbo go on it. Once it goes then you are very lucky if the sludge and any metal doesn't get into the rest of the engine and we went through 3 replacements before we got one that has so far lasted a year. This same engine and flawed turbo design is on cars made by Bmw, Citroen, Ford, Mazda, Peugeot, VW amongst others so I would highly recommend anyone to Google "Car Make + model turbo problems" to see if yours is one of those known in the industry to be dodgy. Oh and that's separate to the DPF issues that most modern Diesel owners will also face. If I was buying again I would buy petrol.

Bloody 'ell. I must have been extremely lucky - I do 40 miles a day of motorway driving (roughly 35 mins each way) and my 4 year old Ford diesel car has done 55000 miles with no issue at all.

Either that or it's true what they say - the minority who are affected by issues make a much larger noise than the unaffected silent majority. :-)

[Neil D Possitt]

Btw, I see plenty of petrol cars with black smoke pouring out of their exhausts every day on my daily commute.

I've been surprised by the amount of smokey petrols I've seen around of late, reckoned to be caused by the widespread switch to direct injection petrol technology. It's enough of a problem that PPFs or petrol particulate filters are being talked of now.

[BalancedBear]

I've been surprised by the amount of smokey petrols I've seen around of late, reckoned to be caused by the widespread switch to direct injection petrol technology. It's enough of a problem that PPFs or petrol particulate filters are being talked of now.

There is always a trade off, and improvements in efficiency seem to lead to more particulates. It just shows that people like Boris spout rubbish without doing any research. The newest direct injection petrol engines can emit up to a 1000 times more particulates than diesel engines fitted with DPFs ! It is the prejudice of those making laws, not keeping up with technology.

http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/2014/01/17/fit-petrol-engines-with-particulate-filters-says-te/

[South Lorne]

There is always a trade off, and improvements in efficiency seem to lead to more particulates. It just shows that people like Boris spout rubbish without doing any research. The newest direct injection petrol engines can emit up to a 1000 times more particulates than diesel engines fitted with DPFs ! It is the prejudice of those making laws, not keeping up with technology.

http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/2014/01/17/fit-petrol-engines-with-particulate-filters-says-te/

..doesn't help the car industry when he spouts off....industrial leaders will be afraid of these blustering utterances....

[Zaffer]

I would agree that this seems to be the main significant issue with some DPF equipped cars. However, in general this seems most common with the first generation of DPF equipped cars when they were new technology. Most manufacturers have now improved their DPF systems so even urban drivers should not expect too much trouble from them. Of course there will always be problems with some, but a lot will depend on drivers too. You see some drivers pull away from cold in towns and drive with a heavy right foot between traffic lights and queuing traffic. This kind of driving is bad for all engines, but especially with diesels, as they tend to produce excess soot on hard acceleration. Also when cold diesels have quite a bit of slack round piston rings etc, as they need to be hot to run best. If an engine does not get a chance to get hot on a short run and is driven to produce lots of soot which has to be arrested by the DPF it will eventually block. DPFs need to burn off soot once they contain a certain amount and this is generally done by the engine management system adjusting the fuel air/mix to increase exhaust gas temperatures to about 600 degrees C. This can generally only be achieved when doing a longer journey. However, a sensible driver taking a bit of care will likely not have many problems as they will not produce anywhere near as much soot to be trapped and the DPF will only very occasionally need to be cleared.

Indeed, no doubt DPFs may have improved but still with the flaws and but few of us can afford brand new cars and i would still argue petrol engines are more forgiving of low mileage urban drivers with a heavy foot as they do not have to go through a high temp burn cycle with an add on like a DPF in the first place which are very expensive to replace. Car forums are full of people complaining about not being told about this when sold these cars and not warned about their driving habits, annual mileage or average speeds or have not been warned even to go through DPF burn cycle when buying these cars.

As i said, i would have bought a diesel if i thought it was cost effective by my annual mileage and driving habits ie 12000 plus a year and mostly on A roads or Motorways where diesel is still King.

I still think apart from Hydrogen fuel cell technology, petrol ecoboost engines will be the future for non high mileage user as they don't chuck out polluting solid soot particles and require DPF's or the more expensive high tolerance cost and requirements and maintenance costs of turbo diesels for average motoring.

[ChumpusRex]

I still think apart from Hydrogen fuel cell technology, petrol ecoboost engines will be the future for non high mileage user as they don't chuck out polluting solid soot particles and require DPF's or the more expensive high tolerance cost and requirements and maintenance costs of turbo diesels for average motoring.

Except that they DO chuck out particulates, it's just that politicians and car manufacturers have been slow to address the particulate problem for direct-injected petrols.

There are solutions to DI petrol particulates, and they are simpler than DPFs, but they're not free and the car manufacturers will need a bit of a nudge to design them into new models.

[BalancedBear]

Except that they DO chuck out particulates, it's just that politicians and car manufacturers have been slow to address the particulate problem for direct-injected petrols.

There are solutions to DI petrol particulates, and they are simpler than DPFs, but they're not free and the car manufacturers will need a bit of a nudge to design them into new models.

It is more than that. Politicians have only regulated particulate levels for diesels, on the the incorrect assumption that petrol engines do not produce particulates so therefore do not need any regulations to curtail them. However we know that modern direct injection petrol engines do produce significant levels of particulates and manufacturers are not reducing the levels as they are not required to do so. Just the same as car manufacturers would not fit particulate filters to diesel engines if there was no limit of particulate emissions for diesels.

[ChumpusRex]

It is more than that. Politicians have only regulated particulate levels for diesels, on the the incorrect assumption that petrol engines do not produce particulates so therefore do not need any regulations to curtail them. However we know that modern direct injection petrol engines do produce significant levels of particulates and manufacturers are not reducing the levels as they are not required to do so. Just the same as car manufacturers would not fit particulate filters to diesel engines if there was no limit of particulate emissions for diesels.

There has been regulation (at time of presentation for type approval) of particulates in petrol DI cars since 2009, and it has been largely harmonised with diesel particulates - in terms of total particulate mass (grams/km).

The problem has been that DI petrol particulates are smaller than diesel particulates and arguably more damaging, as regulating total particulate mass means more total particles.

New petrol DI car models since Sep 2014 are regulated to a limit of 6x10¹²particles per km, and from 2017, the limit for new models will be 6x10¹¹ particles per km.

[Byron]

The problem is that politicians like Boris only think in terms of votes.

Boris got where he is by playing the likeable buffoon, but that image is beginning to date so he needs new 'clothes'

The Tories will always vote for him, so he has to go after the swing voters and right now he thinks that 'Green' might help him.

If he detects that it will not help, he will ditch it fast.

[BalancedBear]

There has been regulation (at time of presentation for type approval) of particulates in petrol DI cars since 2009, and it has been largely harmonised with diesel particulates - in terms of total particulate mass (grams/km).

The problem has been that DI petrol particulates are smaller than diesel particulates and arguably more damaging, as regulating total particulate mass means more total particles.

New petrol DI car models since Sep 2014 are regulated to a limit of 6x10¹²particles per km, and from 2017, the limit for new models will be 6x10¹¹ particles per km.

I was not aware of this part of the regulations. I now see petrol engines are only subject to the regulations if they have direct injection, which will catch most petrol engines producing significant particulate matter. However I guess some manufacturers may try and enhance indirect injection petrol engines and avoid the new strict limits on particulates, although that may not be so bad if they inherently produce fewer.

It is the very fine particulates which are worst for human health. The big clouds of visible soot you see from old diesels may ironically not be as bad for humans as the very fine particulates from modern engines.

[nnails]

I allways wanted to ask this.

Are diesel cars safer in crash as the fuel is not explosive? does anyone know if there as been tests?

Or should i email topgear and ask the gang to test on tv for me and crash some cars jsut to be sure