DPF And EGR Devices.

[ips]

With respect I dont think a 90's tranny will have an EGr so think yourself lucky :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

ips - 2012-11-28 3:33 PM

 

With respect I dont think a 90's tranny will have an EGr so think yourself lucky :-D

 

Aaaaaw.......but I want one now :-( ...............

 

 

 

 

So I can take it off :D

[Rayjsj]

My elderly friends diesel 'town car' was a Corsa, his problem (recurring) was an increase in engine oil level. He is from the generation that check oil levels at least twice a week, so he was a bit 'perplexed'

it seems if the DPF isn't 'purged' by a 'Good thrashing' (a thing he would never do, as he was 'running the car in, generation thing again ) then it blocks and allows neat diesel to find it's way down into the sump ?? (just relaying what he was told). Thereby diluting the engine oil.

After the 4th trip back to the dealer with his 'New' car he got 'a bit Pixxed off' and traded it in against a petrol engined version.

All this is an 'Advance' in engineering ?? I don't think so ! Ray

[Guest peter]

I can't see why neat diesel can get into the sump, more like someone overfilled the sump and it was getting pumped up the breather pipe and burned by the engine and sooting up the EGR and DPF. One thing you must not do is overfill the sump on modern diesels.

[Derek Uzzell]

ips - 2012-11-28 3:33 PM

 

With respect I dont think a 90's tranny will have an EGr so think yourself lucky :-D

 

It may well be that pelmetman's 1990 Transit has no EGR-valve, but it's definitely not the case that all pre-2000 (Mk 6) Transits don't have one. I refer you to this Ford Transit Forum (FTF) thread:

 

http://fordtransit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=59752

 

Now, I wouldn't claim that the FTF is never wrong, but my Herald Templar (based on a 1996-built Transit Mk 5) certainly had an EGR-valve.

 

I note that pelmetman asked the FTF for advice on this about an hour ago, so it will be interesting to see what he's told.

 

http://fordtransit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=120603

[broc]

There are a lot of unhappy Mazda car owners who have suffered from diesel ending up in the sump as a result of failed regeneration. I believe the Mazda approach to trigger regeneration was to over-fuel the engine to increase DPF temperature & burn off the carbon particles. If the engine is switched off during the process the surplus fuel drains past the piston rings into the sump. Other manufacturers installed an extra injector into the DPF. I read somewhere that Mazda changed their design in 2009 or 2010....

 

Having suffered DPF problems with a 2008 Nissan XTrail we bought a 2011 Euro IV van to avoid the Euro V DPF anxiety.

[Dave Newell]

In year 2000 I worked for a local courier company as a driver/mechanic. We had a fleet of early to mid 90s Transits all with diesels and most had EGR valves and yes they were a regualar failure. When I say regular I probably need to put that into perspective, our vans covered on average 125K miles a year and on average I'd say we replaced the EGR every other year on most of them. Strangely we never had to replace the EGR on Vauxhall Combi vans of which we had two, both turbo jobs from mid 90s and interstellar milages covered. Transit "banana" diesel lump was generally good for about 250K before it was knackered, MT75 gearboxes never gave trouble and we almost never needed to replace exhaust system components.

 

D.

[Rayjsj]

peter - 2012-11-28 6:29 PM

 

I can't see why neat diesel can get into the sump, more like someone overfilled the sump and it was getting pumped up the breather pipe and burned by the engine and sooting up the EGR and DPF. One thing you must not do is overfill the sump on modern diesels.

 

Well. it was. He might be old but he isn't stupid, and knew the dangers of overfilling with oil, which was why he was 'Perplexed' as the oil level climbed, a less careful driver wouldn't have noticed.

DPF filters are making diesels, 'unreliable'. Ray

[cyclops2]

I have a 2008 Fiat 500 1.3 multijet diesel with DPF. I only pay £20 a year road tax partly I think due to the DPF restricting emissions. When the DPF starts getting clogged I'm told the control unit increases the fuel amount to burn off the particles. If the car is switched off before cleansing is completed excess fuel can get down the cylinder walls into the sump causing the level to rise.When driving, the only indication that the filter is being cleaned, is an increase in fuel consumption if you are watching, however the tickover is faster and lumpy. The filter warning light only comes on when the engine is stopped consistently during cleansing. Apparently to cleanse the filter the engine should be driven at 2000 revs for about ten minutes. My car is nearly 5 years old and a 1.3. Times have changed and motorhome engines are bigger, they probably do things differently now

Pete

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

If ever there was a ridiculous idea, it is to run exhaust gases back into the inlet manifold, engines burn oil to a degree, some more than others, the result being the EGR valve, and the internals of the engine will eventually coke up. It is becoming a major issue with Toyota diesel engines and I know first hand because I had one, and a good many more manufacturers suffer the same problem, and the advice to give the vehicle a good extended run to clear the DPF, or in my Toyota's engine case a fifth injector into the DPF in an attempt to burn off deposits, is just another example of this flawed technology IMO.

[Dave Newell]

1footinthegrave - 2012-11-29 6:39 PM

 

If ever there was a ridiculous idea, it is to run exhaust gases back into the inlet manifold, engines burn oil to a degree, some more than others, the result being the EGR valve, and the internals of the engine will eventually coke up. It is becoming a major issue with Toyota diesel engines and I know first hand because I had one, and a good many more manufacturers suffer the same problem, and the advice to give the vehicle a good extended run to clear the DPF, or in my Toyota's engine case a fifth injector into the DPF in an attempt to burn off deposits, is just another example of this flawed technology IMO.

 

35 years ago when I did my apprenticeship in a BL main dealer one pint of oil burnt in 500 miles was the limit of acceptance, any more and the engine got pulled, stripped, rebored etc. Show me a modern enigne that burns one pint in 5000 miles and I'll show you an abused motor. Modern engine materials and lubrication is just so much better than years ago and modern engines produce more power for less fuel consumed with lower emissions to boot. EGR is one of the features that hepls to reduce emissions and in general it works pretty well.

 

The real truth is that internal combustion engines do not readily fit into modern day air quality requirements.Much like the industrial areas of GB (Manchester, Birmingham/Black country etc) didn't fit in with the air quality needs of the mid 20th century. Anybody feeling they'd like the old steam powered cloth mills of the 19th Century back?

 

D.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Dave, I can, a Toyota Avensis. Toyota specifically state in some of their vehicle handbooks that some of their engines can use up to 1 litre of oil every 600 miles, petrol or diesel versions, and for Toyota at least that is perfectly acceptable otherwise that information would not be in their handbooks, and with my avensis my complaints like so many other avensis owners fell on deaf ears. And I'm sure you're aware of the ever increasing costly problems with DMF's EGR's and DPF's, that so called "progress" has bought with it, and for cars at least will IMO see people switching back to petrol in droves in the nest year or two ( well I have ) ;-) ( A satisfied customer of yours by the way )

[Colin Leake]

1footinthegrave - 2012-11-29 7:54 PM

 

Dave, I can, a Toyota Avensis. Toyota specifically state in some of their vehicle handbooks that some of their engines can use up to 1 litre of oil every 600 miles, petrol or diesel versions, and for Toyota at least that is perfectly acceptable otherwise that information would not be in their handbooks, and with my avensis my complaints like so many other avensis owners fell on deaf ears. And I'm sure you're aware of the ever increasing costly problems with DMF's EGR's and DPF's, that so called "progress" has bought with it, and for cars at least will IMO see people switching back to petrol in droves in the nest year or two ( well I have ) ;-) ( A satisfied customer of yours by the way )

 

Our Avensis uses absolutely no oil between services. The level simply does not move on the dip stick. None of the previous makes of cars we have owned (Peugeot, Rover, Nissan) have used oil. Could driving style be anything to do with it? Come to think of it our motorhomes have never used any oil either.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Colin Leake - 2012-11-30 7:13 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2012-11-29 7:54 PM

 

Dave, I can, a Toyota Avensis. Toyota specifically state in some of their vehicle handbooks that some of their engines can use up to 1 litre of oil every 600 miles, petrol or diesel versions, and for Toyota at least that is perfectly acceptable otherwise that information would not be in their handbooks, and with my avensis my complaints like so many other avensis owners fell on deaf ears. And I'm sure you're aware of the ever increasing costly problems with DMF's EGR's and DPF's, that so called "progress" has bought with it, and for cars at least will IMO see people switching back to petrol in droves in the nest year or two ( well I have ) ;-) ( A satisfied customer of yours by the way )

 

Our Avensis uses absolutely no oil between services. The level simply does not move on the dip stick. None of the previous makes of cars we have owned (Peugeot, Rover, Nissan) have used oil. Could driving style be anything to do with it? Come to think of it our motorhomes have never used any oil either.

 

Apparently this affected vvti engines, and it WAS stated in the handbook about high oil consumption being normal, my understanding this started to happen after 40/50 k miles, and had absolutely nothing to do with driving style, not sure if newer models have shown similar problems, perhaps they've got it sorted in the last few years with newer models.

[Dave Newell]

1footinthegrave - 2012-11-29 7:54 PM

 

Dave, I can, a Toyota Avensis. Toyota specifically state in some of their vehicle handbooks that some of their engines can use up to 1 litre of oil every 600 miles, petrol or diesel versions, and for Toyota at least that is perfectly acceptable otherwise that information would not be in their handbooks, and with my avensis my complaints like so many other avensis owners fell on deaf ears. And I'm sure you're aware of the ever increasing costly problems with DMF's EGR's and DPF's, that so called "progress" has bought with it, and for cars at least will IMO see people switching back to petrol in droves in the nest year or two ( well I have ) ;-) ( A satisfied customer of yours by the way )

 

Hi 1foot, I hesitate to argue with you as I haven't seen a Toyota handbook but 1 litre in 600 miles? Really? I have extreme difficulty beleiving this of a modern motor vehicle manufacturer, especially as good old BL wouldn't have accepted that level of oil consumption way back in 1977! I have a 1994 Mazda MX5 with 1.8 twin cam 16 valve engine that's done 113,000 miles and it readily howls round to 7k RPM and uses no oil whatsoever. I haven't seen a healthy engine that burns oil for over twenty years, even my 05 plate 2 litre Ducato with 197,000 miles under its wheels doesn't burn oil!

 

D.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Dave Newell - 2012-11-30 8:10 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2012-11-29 7:54 PM

 

Dave, I can, a Toyota Avensis. Toyota specifically state in some of their vehicle handbooks that some of their engines can use up to 1 litre of oil every 600 miles, petrol or diesel versions, and for Toyota at least that is perfectly acceptable otherwise that information would not be in their handbooks, and with my avensis my complaints like so many other avensis owners fell on deaf ears. And I'm sure you're aware of the ever increasing costly problems with DMF's EGR's and DPF's, that so called "progress" has bought with it, and for cars at least will IMO see people switching back to petrol in droves in the nest year or two ( well I have ) ;-) ( A satisfied customer of yours by the way )

 

Hi 1foot, I hesitate to argue with you as I haven't seen a Toyota handbook but 1 litre in 600 miles? Really? I have extreme difficulty beleiving this of a modern motor vehicle manufacturer, especially as good old BL wouldn't have accepted that level of oil consumption way back in 1977! I have a 1994 Mazda MX5 with 1.8 twin cam 16 valve engine that's done 113,000 miles and it readily howls round to 7k RPM and uses no oil whatsoever. I haven't seen a healthy engine that burns oil for over twenty years, even my 05 plate 2 litre Ducato with 197,000 miles under its wheels doesn't burn oil!

 

D.

 

I've just dug out the handbook it states "oil consumption" Max 1.0 Litre per 1000 km, I do believe however Toyota extended the warranty on some engines if it fell below this and indeed were quietly fitting short engines because of a bore or piston issue at the time of manufacture ( over glazed bores I once read, but on another occasion undersized pistons, who knows ) ). Having said that was a few years ago now and I think they eventually sorted it on more modern cars.

 

The general point I was trying to make however is that whilst modern vehicles are light years better in very many respects, they have brought with them in some cases very expensive new problems as the OP alluded too, so it's not all win win with modern vehicles, that's all I was trying to say. ;-)

[graham]

I think it is not exactly uncommon for manufacturers of all kinds of things to set very high tolerance limits on their equipment. This can be oil consumption, noise etc etc. so that it can always be claimed to be within acceptable limits. I am pretty certain that Toyota would rework an engine using a litre of oil every 1000kms but it gives them cover when someone complains about having to put in a drop every month or so or indeed if the level is never checked and a failure occurs.