If anyone's left wondering what a DPF achieves, perhaps read Diesel particulate filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The rest of this is my perspective, I know that many will disagree.
I wish people would separate the trendy concept of reducing CO2 from the largely-forgotten concept of reducing air pollution. I'm not going to quote anyone, but it seems there are many people writing in other threads who are happy to create their own air pollution at levels far beyond what they might have achieved with a petrol-powered car.
CO2 is a non-toxic gas (it's added to drinks) that is said to unbalance the earth's atmosphere and lead to the greenhouse effect (80s), global warming (90s), and climate change (00s) - obviously there is not a unanimous agreement on this. Many countries signed the Kyoto Protocol to promise that they would reduce their CO2 emissions for the greater good of the planet.
Air pollution - leads to a far more local problem last seen in the 1950s and 1960s. Coal fires in winter cause a blanket of smog. Dirt beside roads disfigures buildings. Particulate matter is breathed in by city dwellers, reducing lung function. This situation is directly caused not only by coal fires (and coal-fired power stations) but also trucks and buses, and now, thousands of diesel-powered cars. It's no wonder that Germany has banned vehicles without DPFs from entering city centres. If Germany is able to do that, why not the rest of the world?
Belgium came to much the same conclusion after they measured air pollution from diesel engines and petrol engines, and found that the diesels emitted up to ten times the levels of particulate matter. See http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct...aidSv0rtKDMTDQ
London already has a problem with particulate matter exceeding EU limits - see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/5...ions-in-london
. What will be done?
Isn't it worth giving some serious thought to leaving the DPF in place and making it illegal to remove it?