Do Not Sell My Personal Information Jump to content


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Relax Linas . You always come over as exactly that . Perhaps if you had a less condescending approach to the other members here ,they might take on board what you say . .........................only s

Well, this thread kind of went sideways, didn't it? 🙂 And why I am not surprised that Linas is involved?😉 Thanks for the pictures, very interesting.  It doesn't actually look that bad so I a

I would leap to Linas defence here. I you read his arguments constructively without any misconceptions about his person; I don’t find his comments on this thread condescending at all. Climate change i

Posted Images

Hi Matthew,

I asked this question before, here:

As you can see, on my thread it was claimed to be the date of manufacture, but that doesn't make sense since it would put yours in 2001...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If thought of the possibility that it could be the US style of date, so it would put mine in January of 2006. 

But being sold in Sept 2010, I doubt that they would produce engines from 4 years before. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, that would have put mine in Dec 2003, which is equally impossible.

So, the general upshot is that there hasn't been an answer as to what those numbers mean I'm afraid.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, rob_clio172 said:

Wasnt this same engine also put the Toyota Avensis? Was this engine in the Avensis before Lexus introduced the IS220d maybe?

This engine model was indeed used in the Avensis. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, even in the Auris SR180, and the RAV4. Later models of the engine did not give as much issues. It's why I'd like to know the year that my engine was produced. From 2008 onwards there weren't issues I believe. 

Owners who removed the EGR and DPF did not have any problems since then. Those are the root of the problem.

I've just cleaned the EGR and am in the process of removing the manifold for cleaning. Around 15k miles ago my EGR was replaced by Lexus under the previous owner (found it from the lexus owners portal). Couldn't believe the amount of soot present... and I do drive with a heavy foot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to clean my EGR every 5k miles and it was still full of soot, so I can only imagine what 15k would look like!

I am curious what your manifold it like.  I always meant to get it cleaned but never got around to it.  I suspect if I had I would have found it mostly blocked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shahpor said:

I used to clean my EGR every 5k miles and it was still full of soot, so I can only imagine what 15k would look like!

I am curious what your manifold it like.  I always meant to get it cleaned but never got around to it.  I suspect if I had I would have found it mostly blocked.

Will post some photos today. Definitely blanking my EGR, don't want to deal with this again any time soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bondis said:

Owners who removed the EGR and DPF did not have any problems since then. Those are the root of the problem.

Owners who owned petrol cars didn't have issues either, sadly DPF is part of the deal if you want to have diesel - removing DPF is illegal and immoral.

DPF is actually not an issue if you use car "properly" - that is drive the diesel car at least like 30-50 miles every time you start it, preferably on motorway. However, people do not know that diesel cars are not meant for short journeys in the cities, but I partially blame them for ignorance and partially not - in the end of the day who explained to the drivers that is the case, certainly not manufacturers and not the government(s) who supported sales of diesel cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Owners who owned petrol cars didn't have issues either, sadly DPF is part of the deal if you want to have diesel - removing DPF is illegal and immoral.

DPF is actually not an issue if you use car "properly" - that is drive the diesel car at least like 30-50 miles every time you start it, preferably on motorway. However, people do not know that diesel cars are not meant for short journeys in the cities, but I partially blame them for ignorance and partially not - in the end of the day who explained to the drivers that is the case, certainly not manufacturers and not the government(s) who supported sales of diesel cars.

I won't worry about it being illegal. Moralities are a different thing. The amount of trees I've planted this year make up for more than removing the DPF.

My journeys are around 40 minutes, and time spent in traffic is only minimal. 

The fact that you mention that the DPF problem can be solved by driving on the motorway is only solving part of the equation. What about the EGR? 

 

IMG-20210222-WA0004.jpg

IMG-20210222-WA0003.jpg

IMG-20210222-WA0000.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bondis said:

I won't worry about it being illegal. Moralities are a different thing. The amount of trees I've planted this year make up for more than removing the DPF.

My journeys are around 40 minutes, and time spent in traffic is only minimal. 

The fact that you mention that the DPF problem can be solved by driving on the motorway is only solving part of the equation. What about the EGR? 

Both problems can be solved by simply not having DERV engine, if you own one sadly no sympathies - you have to maintain it!

People think that they can "have their cake and eat it", but that is not the case. The only reason to own diesel car is if you doing excessive mileages (preferably motorway), like 30k miles every year - at that point savings on fuel should pay back for increased maintenance of these engines requires and still provide savings initiative over alternatives. Problem is that people only look at price of fuel * fuel economy and thinks DERV is good option because "it saves money", without considering that by design DERV engines requires frequent and extensive maintenance which is not free. 

And I don't care how many trees you planted - you destroying my and everyone else lungs around you, because you know that black plume of smoke isn't exactly healthy. And for what? That you save few hundreds on clearing EGR and replacing DPF - that is your problem not mine. It is like saying - "throwing tyres into bushes is fine, because I planted trees... "

I didn't say DPF problem can be solved by driving on motorway, what I said that avoiding short journeys solves it. Yes motorway is obviously preferable as DPF could only regen at something like 56MPH+ in 5+ gear, so you can be driving in city all day long and it will never regen. Finally, DPF regen in itself is questionable... not much different how trains dumps **** outside of stations really i.e. car manufacturers limit it to motorway speeds so that it won't happen in city, but it is still pollution regardless.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Both problems can be solved by simply not having DERV engine, if you own one sadly no sympathies - you have to maintain it!

People think that they can "have their cake and eat it", but that is not the case. The only reason to own diesel car is if you doing excessive mileages (preferably motorway), like 30k miles every year - at that point savings on fuel should pay back for increased maintenance of these engines requires and still provide savings initiative over alternatives. Problem is that people only look at price of fuel * fuel economy and thinks DERV is good option because "it saves money", without considering that by design DERV engines requires frequent and extensive maintenance which is not free. 

And I don't care how many trees you planted - you destroying my and everyone else lungs around you, because you know that black plume of smoke isn't exactly healthy. And for what? That you save few hundreds on clearing EGR and replacing DPF - that is your problem not mine. It is like saying - "throwing tyres into bushes is fine, because I planted trees... "

I didn't say DPF problem can be solved by driving on motorway, what I said that avoiding short journeys solves it. Yes motorway is obviously preferable as DPF could only regen at something like 56MPH+ in 5+ gear, so you can be driving in city all day long and it will never regen. Finally, DPF regen in itself is questionable... not much different how trains dumps **** outside of stations really i.e. car manufacturers limit it to motorway speeds so that it won't happen in city, but it is still pollution regardless.  

Well, I did not choose a diesel for the money. Let's start with that. The maintenance per se is not that bad on a diesel. It's preventative. 

The EGR system on this particular model of engine is worse than others, that's why it gives problems. It was definitely not designed to be removed and cleaned every 5k miles, in fact they issued a TSB several years later.

A diesel engine without an EGR and DPF which emits black smoke is one which is either badly maintained or badly tuned. I am yet to see a 2AD engine emitting black smoke... other than during regen 🙂

what sense does it make to keep carbon in the dpf only to ignite it later? Its better to let it flow freely. 

Also, to clean the EGR, you are not only releasing the soot back into the environment, but also toxic chemicals. So it really does make sense to let it flow freely without having to resort to other chemicals! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bondis said:

Well, I did not choose a diesel for the money. Let's start with that. The maintenance per se is not that bad on a diesel. It's preventative. 

A diesel engine without an EGR and DPF which emits black smoke is one which is either badly maintained or badly tuned. I am yet to see a 2AD engine emitting black smoke... other than during regen 🙂

what sense does it make to keep carbon in the dpf only to ignite it later? Its better to let it flow freely. 

Also, to clean the EGR, you are not only releasing the soot back into the environment, but also toxic chemicals. So it really does make sense to let it flow freely without having to resort to other chemicals! 

Does it looks like I am born yesterday? For what other possible reason you have IS220d? Just because you prefer less reliable engine which sounds like tractor? Apart of being cheaper and "more fuel efficient" than petrol there is no other benefit of diesel car. So let's finish with that - it was money!

Yes and maintenance includes things like cleaning EGR and replacing DPF when needed, not blanking off one and removing another.

Like every single IS220d no matter how well maintained it is, this is just part of DERV engine ownership... I have seen many people who say their diesel does not smoke, I am yet to see one which doesn't. It is always some excuses... "it was regen, it is only when you rev it" etc. No - they all smoke! BTW regen should not smoke if done correctly, it is only forced regen when stationary which smokes. I guess the only exception is when diesel cars are used as their are supposed to be used - that is only for long journeys and maintained properly, then the smoke is minimal, still there thought. 

First of all you clearly don't understand what DPF does, because it is not about carbon. DPF is about soot and other particles which are not fully burn in DERV engines and which are cancerogenic. DPF filters it and completely burns it into presumably Co2 and Nox. Co2 and Nox are not good for global warming, but by themselves are inert gasses, not toxic and not cancerogenic.

Well it is your choice - if you do it properly and discard the waste properly, then it should not go back into environment. But yes if you throw it to the bushes next to the tyres then you right - it pollutes environment not only with soot, but as well other things like oil and diesel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Does it looks like I am born yesterday? For what other possible reason you have IS220d? Just because you prefer less reliable engine which sounds like tractor? Apart of being cheaper and "more fuel efficient" than petrol there is no other benefit of diesel car. So let's finish with that - it was money!

Yes and maintenance includes things like cleaning EGR and replacing DPF when needed, not blanking off one and removing another.

Like every single IS220d no matter how maintained it is, this is just part of DERV engine ownership... I have seen many people say they diesel does not smoke, I am yet to see one which doesn't. It is always some excuses... "it was regen, it is only when you rev it" etc. No - they all smoke! BTW regen should not smoke if done correctly, it is only forced regen when stationary which smokes. I guess the only exception is when diesel cars are used as their are supposed to be used - that is only for long journeys and maintained properly, then the smoke is minimal, still there thought. 

First of all you clearly don't understand what DPF does, because it is not about carbon. DPF is about soot and other particles which are not fully burn in DERV engines and which are cancerogenic. DPF filters it and completely burns it into presumably Co2 and Nox. Co2 and Nox are not good for global warming, but by themselves are inert gasses, not toxic and not cancerogenic.

Well it is your choice - if you do it properly and discard the waste properly, then it should not go back into environment. But yes if you throw it to the bushes next to the tyres then you right - it pollutes environment not only with soot, but as well other things like oil and diesel. 

You really are ****** off, aren't you? 😄

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe... depending what ****** means?

Point is - there is not justification nor excuse for removing DPF. If you don't want to be dealing with DERV issues and you don't have morale, money or whatever to stay on top of maintenance and without polluting and poisoning around you with cancerogenic soot... then don't buy DERV.

You may be surprised, but I am not even anti-DERV, there are benefits and weaknesses of this fuel type and engine design. If your use case takes advantages of benefits and justifies the costs of weaknesses then DERV is still an option.

What I hate are the people who think they are smart, wants all the benefits, but does not want to deal with weaknesses and are rather happy to poison and kill everyone around them to save few £ on maintenance. This is inexcusable! 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

What I hate are the people who think they are smart

Relax Linas . You always come over as exactly that . Perhaps if you had a less condescending approach to the other members here ,they might take on board what you say . .........................only saying !

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, nicnac said:

Relax Linas . You always come over as exactly that . Perhaps if you had a less condescending approach to the other members here ,they might take on board what you say . .........................only saying !

Thanks for advice, but my post meant to be... I would say maybe "challenging, instructive, dictating"... you can call it "condescending", even "hateful" if you like... and it is hateful, because I hate people who thinks that other people health is not their problem and saving few £ justifies spreading cancerogenic soot and letting other to breath it.

What I said is still very kind (overly kind), because I would like for people to be jailed for this at very least. I can't describe what I would like to happen "at very most" because that probably would get me banned from this forum 😄

As I already said, removing DPF or even contemplating it is inexcusable - no difference from throwing tyres into the bushes or spilling oil into the river. It is crime and we should not be careful or sorry for spelling it out to people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Thanks for advice, but my post meant to be... I would say maybe you can call challenging, instructive, dictating... you can call it condescending, even hateful if you like... and it is hateful, because I hate people who thinks that other people health is not their problem. What I said is still very kind, because I would like for people to be jailed for this at very least. I can't describe what I would like to happen "at very most" because that probably would get me banned from this forum 😄

As I already said, removing DPF or even contemplating it is inexcusable - no difference from throwing tyres into the bushes or spilling oil into the river. It is crime and we should not be careful or sorry for spelling it out to people.

You just proved my point .🤣.............if you drive a car like yours it is really best that you don't dictate to others ,but perhaps persuade by rational debate . 😁If you were driving an eco friendly car , perhaps we would take your concerns more seriously. walk the walk so to speak !

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, nicnac said:

You just proved my point .🤣.............if you drive a car like yours it is really best that you don't dictate to others ,but perhaps persuade by rational debate . 😁If you were driving an eco friendly car , perhaps we would take your concerns more seriously. walk the walk so to speak !

Yes I proven your point, by agreeing with it... any surprise there?! And what is my car - ****ty 2.0l turbo petrol?! wow - what a massive polluter! 

Besides, my car doesn't blow tons of black soot from the tail pipe, nor I have removed mandatory equipment which meant to reduce the pollution. And here is the thing - I am not saint, never pretended to be one and I appreciate that being alive means creating waste and pollution. Just a way of life of human being... and that is okey.

What is not okey is to unnecessarily pollute more than necessary... examples of that I already provided, but I can go into more detail e.g. having car means buying tyres and tyre wear is pollution, there is no way of avoiding it right? However, it is possible to minimise the waste:

It would be logical to drive the tyres all the way to legal limit to maximise the useful life from them, keep them at optimal pressure, probably buy premium tyre which has loads of mileage in it (to minimise the frequency of replacement) and then dispose of the tyres properly (as much as possible). It is still waste, but you did all what was possible for you to reduce and minimise it.

-Or-

You can get cheapest set of dirtiest tyres which barely last 6000 miles, never check the pressure, drive them underinflated and then get another set and throw old ones into the forest to save £2 "recycling" charge. 

Removing DPF is the equivalent to second option. I guess we don't need to discuss which of above two behaviours should be encouraged and which needs to be discouraged?

We can even go simpler - you were thirsty and only option was to buy bottled water. Water bottle is inevitable by-product, the waste, but you have a choice to put it into recycling bin, even keep it and refill from tap and take it with you next time... or you can throw it to the bushes.... I mean it doesn't get simpler than that to understand. Waste and pollution is inevitable, but where possible we should, could and must avoid it or reduce it.

Now as for driving the cars, that is interesting topic - you see transportation worldwide only contributes ~10% of pollution (that is everything included - ships, planes, trains, public transport). From total 10% private vehicles and vans are ~2.4% and petrol cars are 0.3%, whereas diesel cars are 2.1%, but that is assuming they have all their equipment in place. These are probably 2016 stats, but they haven't changed significantly. So again - I don't cry about not driving the cleanest eco ****-box on wheels, nor I cry about people using diesel cars, but when people decide they are above all else and can pollute and poison everyone around them... then it is not okey and that pisses me off.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Yes I proven your point, by agreeing with it - any surprise there?! And what is my car - ****ty 2.0l turbo petrol?! wow - what a massive polluter! 

Besides, my car doesn't blow ton of black soot from the tail pipe, nor I have removed mandatory equipment which meant to reduce the pollution. And here is the thing - I am not saint, never pretended to be one and I appreciate that being alive means creating waste and pollution. Just a way of life of human being... and that is okey.

What is not okey is to unnecessarily pollute more than necessary... examples of that I already provided, but I can go into more detail e.g. having car means buying tyres and tyre wear is pollution, there is not way of avoiding it right? However, it is possible to minimise the waste:

It would be logical to drive the tyres all the way to legal limit to maximise the useful life from them, keep them at optimal pressure, probably buy premium tyre which has loads of mileage in it (to minimise the frequency of replacement) and then dispose of the tyres properly (as much as possible). It is still waste, but you did all what was possible for you to reduce and minimise it.

-Or-

You can get cheapest set of dirtiest tyres which barely last 6000 miles, never check the pressure, drive them underinflated and then throw them into the forest to save £2 "recycling" charge. 

Removing DPF is the equivalent to second option. I guess we don't need to discuss which of above two behaviours should be encouraged and which needs to be discouraged?

We can even go simpler - you were thirsty and only option was to buy bottled water. Water bottle is inevitable byproduct, but you have a choice to put it into recycling bin, even keep it refill from tap and take it with you next time... or you can throw it to the bushes.... I mean it doesn't get simpler than that to understand. Waste and pollution is inevitable, but where possible we should, could and must reduce it.

Now as for driving the cars, that is interesting topic - you see transportation worldwide only contributes ~10% of pollution (that is everything included, ships, planes, trains, public transport). From then 10% private vehicles and vans are 2.4% and petrol cars are 0.3%, whereas diesel cars are 2.1%, but that is assuming they have all their equipment in place. These is probably 2016 stats, but they haven't changed significantly. So again - I don't cry about not driving the cleanest eco ****-box on wheels, nor I cry about people using diesel cars, but when people decide they are above all else and can afford to pollute and poison everyone around them... then it is not okey!

 

well Linas .......... you are a piece of work alright ............... my 2008 CRV does not have a DPF as standard ........... will I be burnt in hell ??or in the Court of Linas !

Link to post
Share on other sites

For one, I would be surprised that 2008 diesel car does not have DPF, but secondly that would be Honda's and governments issue, that first one made such car and second one allowed it to be made/sold.

Many old diesel cars didn't have DPFs (but to my knowledge by early 2000's all had it), sure they are not very clean, but nobody deliberately made them that way. Simple matter is - over time we realised issues with DERV and fitted solution which limits the damage. This is normal... I mean people used lead paint in the past and burned coal - does it means they should all burn in hell? No! I reckon in 18th century it was okey to keep slaves, but we don't do it anymore... right?

But when you buy this never car with DPF, then you should keep it that way an maintain it, because it is there for a reason.

Do you see the basic difference between old car not being fitted with DPF and somebody being "smart" and going out of their way to remove it? Clearly not a same thing...

Finally, if you say 2008 CRV blows plumes of black smoke from the back... I would not feel very bad about it, I probably would try to fix it, but if not then then I would still be concerned, likely I would get rid of it and not only "rid of it", but I would make sure it is crushed, never to be used again.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Linas.P said:

For one, I would be surprised that 2008 diesel car does not have DPF, but secondly that would be Honda's and governments issue, that first one made such car and second one allowed it to be made/sold.

For example many old diesel cars didn't have DPFs, sure they are not very clean, but nobody deliberately made them that way. Simple matter is - over time we realised issues with DERV and fitted solution which limits the damage. This is normal... I mean people used lead paint in the past and burn coal - does it means they should all burn in hell? No!

But when you buy this never car with DPF, then you should keep it that way an maintain it, because it is there for a reason.

Do you see the basic difference, between car not being fitted with DPF and somebody being "smart" and going out of their way to remove it?

You have me intrigued ? Linas . Not about DPFs but about you !................. may I enquire what you do for gainful employment?. People are an eternal study for me to see what backgrounds and professions form their views on life .

PS :2008 CRV,some had and some hadnt got them . It was the changover year ! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.








×
×
  • Create New...




Forums


News


Membership