Kia Owners Club Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Found this on the SEAT forum regarding DPFs

<hr style="color:#D1D1E1; :#D1D1E1" size="1">






Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF)

Reducing diesel soot emissions by 80%



Changes to new car emissions legislation scheduled for 2009, the
so-called 'Euro 5' standards, will make particulate filters as
commonplace in diesel car exhausts as catalytic converters are on petrol
cars.



The goal is an 80% reduction in diesel particulate (soot) emissions but
the technology's not without problems ""“ AA patrols are already being
called to cars with the particulate filter warning light illuminated (indicates a partial blockage).



It's clear that changes to driving style may be required too for maximum benefit from these systems.



How do they work?

Diesel Particulate filters (DPF) or 'traps' do just that, they catch bits of soot in the exhaust.



As with any filter (think of the bag in
your vacuum cleaner) they have to be emptied regularly to maintain
performance. For a DPF this process is called 'regeneration' ""“ the
accumulated soot is burnt off at high temperature to leave only a tiny
ash residue. Regeneration may be either passive or active.



Passive regeneration

Passive regeneration takes place automatically on motorway-type runs
when the exhaust temperature is high. Many cars don't get this sort of
use though so manufacturers have to design-in 'active' regeneration
where the engine management computer (ECU) takes control of the process.




Active regeneration

When the soot loading in the filter reaches a set limit (about 45%) the ECU can make small adjustments to the fuel
injection timing to increase the exhaust temperature and initiate
regeneration. If the journey's a bit stop/start the regeneration may not
complete and the warning light will illuminate to show that the DPF is
partially blocked.



It should be possible to start a complete regeneration and clear the
warning light simply by driving for 10 minutes or so at speeds greater
than 40mph.



If you ignore the light and keep driving in a relatively slow,
stop/start pattern soot loading will continue to build up until around
75% when you can expect to see other dashboard warning lights illuminate
too. At this point driving at speed alone will not be sufficient and
the car will have to go to a dealer for regeneration.



Expensive repairs

If warnings are still ignored and soot loading continues to increase
then the most likely outcome will be a new DPF costing around £1000.



Mainly town based driving

If your own car use is mainly town-based, stop/start driving it would be
wise to choose petrol rather than risk the hassle of incomplete DPF
regeneration.



DPF additives

The most common type of DPF features an integrated oxidising catalytic
converter and is located very close to the engine where exhaust gases
will still be relatively hot so that passive regeneration is possible.



There's not always space close to the engine though so some manufacturers use a different type of DPF which relies on a fuel additive to lower the ignition temperature of the soot particles so that the DPF can be located further from the engine.



The additive is stored in a separate tank and is automatically mixed with the fuel whenever you fill up. Tiny quantities are required though so a litre of additive should treat around 2800 litres of fuel, enough to cover 25,000 miles at 40mpg.



With this type of DPF regeneration will be initiated by the ECU every
300 miles or so depending on vehicle use and will take 5 to 10 minutes
to complete. You shouldn't notice anything other than perhaps a puff of
white smoke from the exhaust when the process is completed.



AA experience

We're seeing some evidence of these systems failing to regenerate too,
even on cars used mainly on motorways. It seems that on cars with a very
high sixth gear engine revs are too low to generate sufficient exhaust
temperature. Occasional harder driving in lower gears should be
sufficient to burn off the soot in such cases.



Check the handbook

If you buy a car with a DPF fitted it's important to read the relevant
section of the vehicle handbook so that you understand exactly what
actions to take if the warning light illuminates and how, if at all,
your driving style may need to be adjusted to ensure maximum DPF
efficiency and life
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I can totally back this up. I have just traded a Fiat Doblo Diesel in and purchased a Kia Caren Petrol, due to this DPF Filter. Because i only did 4000 miles a year, theengine management warning light was coming on due to the filter being blocked. Interesting i was not told when i bought the Fiat about this, but at my local Kia garage, i was advised i would be better with a Petrol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Hi Davy,Thanks for posting that info.
Since my cee'd is only about 3 weeks old I presume it has the DPF unit fitted.
I'll bear that in mind, again thanks for the very useful info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
great find but makes me want to have mine removed even more! doubles fuel consumption?? that be why a couple weeks ago I used quarter tank and got 50 miles!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I have many issues in relation to emissions reduction things. firstly its not reducing it, its spitting it out the back end as something else. 2nd the mere presence if it is killing 5mpg to start with. correct me if I'm wrong but if I'm using more fuel, which is supposed to be scarce as it is, then I'm emitting more, therefore making the reduction redundant. its some bloke in the EU justifying their existence. at end of day cars emit just as much and whatever its hidden to be, I don't think anything is going to be much good for our lungs. the answer to lower emissions is reduced fuel consumption with a more complete burn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
I have two years experience with DPF on my Cruze Diesel 6 speed auto ,I drive only 8000 miles per year mainly short journeys but twice a week do an 8 mile each way run at 50 mph or 70 mph on the motorway. In that time I have never noticed a regen taking place. However the Yellow warning light has come on three times in the past two years and a quick run either at 50 mph in 4th gear or faster on the motorway cures the problem. Whilst the car has good acceleration the downside is high insurance costs and only 27.8 mpg overall despite the displaying showing quite often up to 44 mpg. I shall probably buy the new CEED auto Diesel and it will be interesting to find out its true mpg for my style of motoring. I have driven the Hyundai 130 and find the auto box seems to be the same as the one in the Chevrolet Cruze both operate the same way. Does anyone know who makes this autobox ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Disbeliever said:
I have two years experience with DPF on my Cruze Diesel 150 bhp 6 speed auto ,I drive only 8000 miles per year mainly short journeys but twice a week do an 8 mile each way run at 50 mph or 70 mph on the motorway. In that time I have never noticed a regen taking place. However the Yellow warning light has come on three times in the past two years and a quick run either at 50 mph in 4th gear or faster on the motorway cures the problem. Whilst the car has good acceleration the downside is high insurance costs and only 27.8 mpg overall despite the displaying showing quite often up to 44 mpg. I shall probably buy the new CEED auto Diesel and it will be interesting to find out its true mpg for my style of motoring. I have driven the Hyundai 130 and find the auto box seems to be the same as the one in the Chevrolet Cruze both operate the same way. Does anyone know who makes this autobox ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Disbeliever said:
Disbeliever said:
I have two years experience with DPF on my Cruze Diesel 150 bhp 6 speed auto ,I drive only 8000 miles per year mainly short journeys but twice a week do an 8 mile each way run at 50 mph or 70 mph on the motorway. In that time I have never noticed a regen taking place. However the Yellow warning light has come on three times in the past two years and a quick run either at 50 mph in 4th gear or faster on the motorway cures the problem. Whilst the car has good acceleration the downside is high insurance costs and only 27.8 mpg overall despite the displayshowing quite often up to 44 mpg. I shall probably buy the new CEED auto Diesel and it will be interesting to find out its true mpg for my style of motoring. I have driven the Hyundai 130 and find the auto box seems to be the same as the one in the Chevrolet Cruze both operate the same way. Does anyone know who makes this autobox ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
what I'm getting at is the mere presence of it causes increase in consumption regardless of a regent or not. the actual regen cycle would only affect MPG on active regen, as it messes with injection timing, on a run you will have passive regen which wouldn't affect MPG. the fact that my sedona gets 35 to 40 MPG proves that the engine is where investment is needed. a cleaner more complete and efficient burn will create a cleaner back end as well as save on limited oil. but the EU wont push this as it will amount to less fuel being used and less tax income. my 5mpg reduction relates to having the brick taken out and ecu reprogrammed to stop fault codes and future regen attempts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I've not had it done yet. the 5mpg is a theoretical estimate of having it removed and ecu dealt with. not necessarily remapped. I'm fully aware that there are dodgy firms out there hence fully researching before spending anything. I know a couple who have had chips installed that work well
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
The way I see it, Kia spend millions and pinch the best engineers from all over the world to build cars. They are regulated tightly by government and tested for safety, environmental impact ect...

Your putting your £10-20k motor in the hands of some idiot that HACKED an ECU and changed its internal coding then had some in line box made in the remotest part of china by 9yr olds and then paying to have it fitted by a grease monkey straight of of collage and raping your pocket of £400 in the process LEAVE THE IMPORTANT PARTS ALONE. Mod the hell to the looks for all I care but if you wanted a car that used less fuel...get a smaller one...or a push bike. And if you wanted a faster car you should have put the extra 400 notes towards a quicker car with a more powerfull engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
RichieD76 said:
The way I see it, Kia spend millions and pinch the best engineers from all over the world to build cars. They are regulated tightly by government and tested for safety, environmental impact ect...

Your putting your £10-20k motor in the hands of some idiot that HACKED an ECU and changed its internal coding then had some in line box made in the remotest part of china by 9yr olds and then paying to have it fitted by a grease monkey straight of of collage and raping your pocket of £400 in the process LEAVE THE IMPORTANT PARTS ALONE. Mod the hell to the looks for all I care but if you wanted a car that used less fuel...get a smaller one...or a push bike. And if you wanted a faster car you should have put the extra 400 notes towards a quicker car with a more powerfull engine.
the car being a 7 seater is for my kids and step kids. so smaller car is out of the question, I don't care how fast it and don't have any interest in Modding the looks. research the difference. I've had numerous quotes around 250-300 quid. I do about 25k a year. It seems I would save at least 5mpg which is significant enough for me. and my car is out of warranty anyway.

at end of the day if it made no difference, how are these people still in business? Edited by: jamesbw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
jamesbw said:
RichieD76 said:
The way I see it, Kia spend millions and pinch the best engineers from all over the world to build cars. They are regulated tightly by government and tested for safety, environmental impact ect...

Your putting your £10-20k motor in the hands of some idiot that HACKED an ECU and changed its internal coding then had some in line box made in the remotest part of china by 9yr olds and then paying to have it fitted by a grease monkey straight of of collage and raping your pocket of £400 in the process LEAVE THE IMPORTANT PARTS ALONE. Mod the hell to the looks for all I care but if you wanted a car that used less fuel...get a smaller one...or a push bike. And if you wanted a faster car you should have put the extra 400 notes towards a quicker car with a more powerfull engine.
the car being a 7 seater is for my kids and step kids. so smaller car is out of the question, I don't care how fast it and don't have any interest in Modding the looks. research the difference. I've had numerous quotes around 250-300 quid. I do about 25k a year. It seems I would save at least 5mpg which is significant enough for me. and my car is out of warranty anyway.

at end of the day if it made no difference, how are these people still in business?
You might want to check the emission limits for cars with DPFs. It wouldn't surprise me if they aren't supposed to be lower (for MOT purposes) than non-DPF fitted cars. You won't save much if you have to refit the DPF to pass an MOT. You'll also have to inform your insurance company that you're now running a modified car.

Still, if it does turn out to be legal be sure to come back and tell us how much you're saving fuel wise. Personally, I think the minimal reduction in economy is probably a price worth paying to abolish black smoke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
there seems to be a lot of Greenpeace style stuff going on based on the theory of it. what about the fact that put your foot down and it smokes like any other diesel. my 440bhp wagon at work smokes less than any car without additives, without dpf etc etc. another reason why I believe the research needs to be put into engines themselves not just strapping a load of useless gadgets and tempremental electronics
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
jamesbw said:
there seems to be a lot of Greenpeace style stuff going on based on the theory of it. what about the fact that put your foot down and it smokes like any other diesel. my 440bhp wagon at work smokes less than any car without additives, without dpf etc etc. another reason why I believe the research needs to be put into engines themselves not just strapping a load of useless gadgets and tempremental electronics
You're not really comparing like with like though. I don't know what kind of wagon you're talking about but I'm willing to bet it has a very different duty cycle to the average car which may operate over very mixed load conditions. I'm sure it's relatively easy to make an engine clean burning over a narrow rev range or load, rather harder to do for one with much wider ones.

I'm sure if the manufacturers could clean up car diesels without DPFs etc, they would be doing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I'm an agency driver so I drive a huge variety of different wagons for various different firms. I have a few suspicions around car engines. I think it's very controlled in lots of ways that isn't for us to know about.

example, a 44tonne wagon at 440bhp will get between 8-14 MPG depending on weight of load. this doesn't sound a lot, but before anyone bites my head off consider it this way. if I put a 14" high slab on the front of your car (a few aerodynamic tweaks but its still an aerodynamic nightmare) how well do think your cars MPG will do? now put equivelent scaled weight on a trailer. say 2 tonne. I'm going to suggest you will be lucky to keep up 15mpg if not knocked down to single figures.

before anyone says its a bigger engine so will pull better, I've already scaled down weight. also in my experience the bigger an engine, the thirstier it gets.

another point is ecu re mapping. I can improve my MPG by having engine re mapped. implying its limited anyway. backed up by some manufacturers release cars with slightly improved bhp a few years after first released. but it's the same engine. so why limit it in the first place? if a wagon engine had its MPG purposely limited they would never sell.

I could go on (I have a lot of time randomly thinking while trunking up and down everywhere)

this is just my opinion and other people will have theirs but I feel my points above are valid ones. what I would like to see is a truck manufacturer built a scaled down but otherwise identical engine, put it in a car and see what the results are
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
jamesbw said:
I'm an agency driver so I drive a huge variety of different wagons for various different firms. I have a few suspicions around car engines. I think it's very controlled in lots of ways that isn't for us to know about.
I think you're being a wee bit paranoid. When it comes to efficiency, size matters. In the same way that an elephant is much more energy efficient than a mouse, so big engines are intrinsically more thermally efficient than small engines. Also, as I said before, lorries have a very different duty cycle which makes comparisons more difficult. Perhaps if we limited our cars to 56 mph we'd all see a significant improvement in consumption? ;-)

If car engines aren't as efficient as they could be, it's because they are as good as they currently *need* to be to from a sales point of view. Nothing is "controlling" car engine efficiency other than market economics.

Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
timdownieuk said:
Perhaps if we limited our cars to 56 mph we'd all see a significant improvement in consumption? ;-)

If car engines aren't as efficient as they could be, it's because they are as good as they currently *need* to be to from a sales point of view. Nothing is "controlling" car engine efficiency other than market economics.

Tim
I did 2 160 mile trips yesterday, one way doing a steady 55, return 65-70. traffic was quiet enough not to effect economy, my average consumption generally is 34mpg, on this run I got 39mpg. although an increase, not really significant.

timdownieuk said:
If car engines aren't as efficient as they could be, it's because they are as good as they currently *need* to be to from a sales point of view. Nothing is "controlling" car engine efficiency other than market economics.

Tim
from a sales point of view. not an efficiency or green point of view.....I'd say that's a good point in my favour to be honest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,698 Posts
Why would anybody want a scaled down wagon engine in a car thats designed for very high torque for pulling high loads at lower revs.Yes you can remap some diesel and petrol engines however there is a saying in Yorkshire and that is "you don't get owt for nowt" ,if you want extra performancethen you will use more fuel,this means extra power or extra torque. Someengines are sold in cars that have a lower output than the same engine fitted in other modelsat a higher output but the lower outputs are done for lower mpgor/and emmissions. These engines have aremap possibilty that is designed into it plus some other minor changes are also needed,VW 1.6-9diesels are a good example as fitted to all Audi,Seat and Skoda as well.The new 2.0 lit dieselSportage has been mapped for several outputs for instance.There are a lot of very poor remap companies around selling junk socautionis called for other wise you are wasting money and in some cases total wrecking of the engine.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top