Hi Smedley. Volvo seem have issued a series of recalls, all at the same time, but each one including a different group of vehicles.

See here, search for 'Volvo' and from 2010 onwards.
http://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=94901

I had noticed the VOSA website doesn't include the S60 recall, and I don't know why.

When the Volvo DPF is getting full, the ECU switches to an enriched mixture which deliberately aims to pass unburned fuel into the exhaust, where it raises the temperature of the DPF enough for it to regenerate. Some of that fuel also finds its way down past the piston rings, and into the sump, where it is added to the oil.

The 185 D5 DOES have a DPF, the 163 does not. As I understand it the issue only occurs when regeneration doesn't happen correctly, so as long as you drive out of town regularly with the engine warmed up it should be fine? The S60s could be using a different DPF which the recall doesn't apply to? I've got an 06 185 and haven't received the recall, but then I would bother anyway as I'm going to get the car remapped soon.

Bill 56 .... what's the ECU?

Robbijay ... what do you mean when you say that you are getting your car "remapped"? What's that? Are you saying that this is something that would eliminate the problem?

Be grateful for your advices please.

Remapping is the same as tuning it , but with software, so you change the engine map to get better fuel economy or power (obviously not at the same time). It's the same as the method as getting a software update from Volvo.
ECU is the electronic/engine control unit, whcih controls every parameter of what the car does in relation to user input.

Robbijay Thanks for that

I was assuming that Volvo call their engine controllers ECU (Engine Control Unit), and I was assuming that was the device that controlled the injectors and enrichment.

I'm still trying to make up my mind whether to get an oil analysis done. I think my oil level has climbed about 2-3mm since I started watching it, but it's still about 5mm below 'max', since it was recently serviced to the new regime. It's been struggling and failing to regenerate for several days now as I've been off work and only got as far as the local shops, so it'll be interesting to see if it rises any more by the time it does regenerate.

I guess an advantage of getting it done now, even if it comes back clear, is that another analysis in six months time could then prove to Volvo that deterioration had occurred after the software 'upgrade'.

if manufacturers do not fix this problem I think there will be a mass market for disabling DPFs. I would far prefer it if motor manufacturers found a fix but 3- 5 years on there is no fix in sight. I would think that the cost of running back to the manufacturers dealer for new DPFs / engines / turbos (the two latter items lubricated with what is effectively vegetable oil) every few thousand miles would be unacceptably expensive to the majority of owners.
Volvo claim it is the bio diesel (vegetable oil) component which is getting into the sump which will not evaporate out.
With the expensive 0w-30 oil volvo spec for the engine it is laughable that they refuse to change the oil when it has been diluted with vegetable oil.
It is now a legal requirement that all diesel fuel has to contain 7% bio fuel.
The DPF engines were designed before this was a legal requirement.
The excess fuel getting into the sump was supposed to evaporate before causing problem. Bio fuel (vegetable oil) does not evaporate. Which is why we now are having this problem.
So the EU created the problem by insisting on DPFs being fitted to diesel engines and the UK government completed the stitch up by insisting on a 7% bio fuel component.
We have been stitched up good and proper the EU and UK legislators and the motor manufacturers.
End of Rant

I think that's a fair summary, Chunderground.

It may not be entirely Volvo's fault, and even as far if it is, other car makers may be equally at fault. Nevertheless, it is 100% not the owners' faults, and it is unacceptable that Volvo expect the owners to suffer the consequences, when it is - in part at least- the fault of Volvo. The fact other car-makers are as bad is no defence.

You raise the possibility of DPF-removal. Regardless of the practicality of that (such as new engine-management software) I had always assumed there would be laws against interfering with legally-required emissions devices. I wonder if anybody could comment on the legality of removing a DPF...?

The Doc has obviously got his teeth into this one! As a fellow engineer, I appreciate his attention to detail!

I am by no means an expert in this area and like everyone else, am concerned about this issue. However, I would query the usefulness of comparing the analysis of used oil with that of new oil. Over the service life cycle the oil will break-down and become contaminated and therefore you would expect used oil not to have the same analysis as new oil. That’s why you change your oil in the first place otherwise it would last forever! Volvo (and other manufactures) will base their specification of new oil on the expected degradation over the service interval such that the oil is still an 'acceptable' specification at the end of its service life.

Therefore, what needs to be proven is this dilution issue means the oil will be outside of the tolerance specified by Volvo or (perhaps) what would generally be regarded as acceptable. Currently we don't know what that tolerance is and Volvo may be (read almost certainly will be) reluctant to release this information.

In essence, I believe we need to prove that this issue causes the oil to degrade outside of Volvo’s tolerance, not simply that the oil has degraded. In the absence of this information, I would be reluctant to spend £60 getting an analysis to tell me the specification of my oil isn’t the same as it was when new since that is to be expected. To stand-up in Court, I would have thought that you would need to prove that you hadn’t done anything that would cause the oil to degrade such as using the wrong oil to top-up, using fuel that is outside specification etc. etc. Realistically, you would also need the oil to be sampled independently to prove that it did indeed come for the vehicle you are claiming for. I imagine all of that would be difficult to prove although weight of evidence from different sources would mitigate some of these issues (which would imply a group action by Volvo owners rather than individual claims).

So while Swansea Tribology Services Ltd. offer of free testing kits is generous, its good business for them! They are not providing an expert opinion on the suitability of the oil for a particular application, mainly an expert analysis of the oil you have provided. In my humble opinion, the analysis by itself without a comparison against what would be the expected / reasonable degradation of the oil for a particular service duty isn’t worth a whole lot.

In the meantime I am going to change the oil every 4000 miles with 0w30 grade oil an expensive option but cheaper than new engines and turbos outside of warranty.
The unexpected extra running costs of this car to me will be using cleaner burning diesel and replacing engine oil (£70 per time oil only) every 4000 miles.
But still like the car this just adds at least a couple hundred £s per year to running costs.