DPF/EGR removal - 2007 2.4D

[steve...]

I have just bought a 2007 S80 2.4D and I gather it's got a DPF and I'd really like to remove it . . . has anybody had this done already ? Who is recommended ? I know it needs a remap too to remove the DPF functionality.

One company is also removing the EGR valve for £75 . . . is the EGR valve linked to the ECU on this engine ? On my current V70 2.5 TDi I simply disconnected the vacuum pipe and it was **** permanently but I'm quite happy to make a little aluminium plate to sit between the manifold and the valve if that's going to work.

Is there a catalyst too ?

(I don't get the car until next week, so can't have a look !)

[steve...]

Has nobody had this done ?

[outnumbered]

Not sure about the DPF but you can not blank the EGR it will not like it

[111]

I'm thinking of an S80 D5 & would also get this removed as it ruins MPG & doesnt really add anything, there is a Co near me that removes the DPF called Big Fish Tuning I think, but you will need to supply a bypass pipe to be fitted, dont know about the ERG valve though. The car I was looking at is a 2008 08 SE with 70k on the clock & FSH, Just under £8k.

[cloggers]

Does removing the DPF not make you leave a trail of soot where ever you go? And do they not check emissions when you get the MOT done?

Besides environmentally unsound it is probably illegal and might even count as a modification your insurance firm does not agree with...

[steve...]

Originally Posted by cloggers

Does removing the DPF not make you leave a trail of soot where ever you go? And do they not check emissions when you get the MOT done?

Besides environmentally unsound it is probably illegal and might even count as a modification your insurance firm does not agree with...

No and No.

It's not environmentally unsound and isn't classed as a modification.

[Absolutevolvo]

Originally Posted by steve...

No and No.

It's not environmentally unsound and isn't classed as a modification.

Interested in knowing your source that Insurers do not class this as a modification as the rule of thumb is that any change to the manufacturers spec is a modification and they must be told. Not doing so is a first class way to get claims refused whether it is relevant to the claim or not.

[steve...]

Originally Posted by Absolutevolvo

Interested in knowing your source that Insurers do not class this as a modification as the rule of thumb is that any change to the manufacturers spec is a modification and they must be told. Not doing so is a first class way to get claims refused whether it is relevant to the claim or not.

You are permitted in law to make any changes to your vehicle provided they do not change the risk accepted by the insurer. It's not only common sense but accepted in law and people who constantly harp on about "your insurer won't pay out if you do xyz" do everybody a great disservice.

An insurer is obliged in law to honour any third party claim against you regardless of what you have said about your driving history and vehicle. So the only risk is that you won't be paid for your car and an insurer would need a very good reason to refuse to pay out on a claim . . . eg in a theft claim such as expensive alloy wheels in place of steel wheels which therefore make the car substantially more attractive to thieves.

The DPF is not supposed to be a power sapping device, it's supposed to clean soot form the exhaust and then burn it so deleting it can't change the risk on the vehicle as it won't be making any more power without it, nor will it change the way the vehicle drives, handles or the way the driver interacts with it. We have assurances from the manufacturers that this is the case so the risk the insurer has accepted remains the same. The only reason for removing it is to ensure you're not stranded when it goes wrong . . . which may even assist your insurer as you won't be forced to leave the car in a potentially unsafe location.

You have more chance of having a damage claim (eg from a crash) rejected by fitting lower speed rated tyres than is specified for the car as that could materially affect the handling and the ability of the driver to stop/slow the car.

[Absolutevolvo]

Originally Posted by steve...

You are permitted in law to make any changes to your vehicle provided they do not change the risk accepted by the insurer. It's not only common sense but accepted in law and people who constantly harp on about "your insurer won't pay out if you do xyz" do everybody a great disservice.

An insurer is obliged in law to honour any third party claim against you regardless of what you have said about your driving history and vehicle. So the only risk is that you won't be paid for your car and an insurer would need a very good reason to refuse to pay out on a claim . . . eg in a theft claim such as expensive alloy wheels in place of steel wheels which therefore make the car substantially more attractive to thieves.

The DPF is not supposed to be a power sapping device, it's supposed to clean soot form the exhaust and then burn it so deleting it can't change the risk on the vehicle as it won't be making any more power without it, nor will it change the way the vehicle drives, handles or the way the driver interacts with it. We have assurances from the manufacturers that this is the case so the risk the insurer has accepted remains the same. The only reason for removing it is to ensure you're not stranded when it goes wrong . . . which may even assist your insurer as you won't be forced to leave the car in a potentially unsafe location.

You have more chance of having a damage claim (eg from a crash) rejected by fitting lower speed rated tyres than is specified for the car as that could materially affect the handling and the ability of the driver to stop/slow the car.

Sorry I disagree it does not matter whether removing the DPF changes to safety of the car it is a change that insurers would expect you to report. I checked a couple of sites and the clearest statement is here http://www.carinsuranceexplained.com...fications.html. You can ignore it but don't be surprised to be faced with an argument if you have a serious accident and whilst the third party is paid out under Road Traffic Act cover that is not the end of the matter for the insured party which can include criminal prosecution for serious cases.

The problem with insurance issues is that it is after a claim that trouble starts not before. I do know what I am talking about after working in the consumer advice sector for 20 years.

[cloggers]

Originally Posted by steve...

The DPF is not supposed to be a power sapping device, it's supposed to clean soot form the exhaust and then burn it

So you basically turn your clean diesel into a soot spewing monster like the diesels of yore. Great for the environment...