Flamers to the Forum,
I have a 2015 Berlingo which has had endless ad blue problems. I've spent about £1000 a year on the adblue system over the last 3 years and the dreaded light has just come back on.
Local garage has suggested an "ad blue" delete removing it from the system completely via software. What do the great and the good of STW think of this from a mechanical/MOT point of view?
Joe
MOT is a failure if caught.
Why are you spending that much? Is that garages playing parts darts?
I assume they have changed the tank for the one with the vented cap? That caused issues which we experienced on ours, pressurising the tank and affecting the pump seals. Citroen contributed to the cost of replacement after a moan from me. Not sure what age they changed the cap so may be nothing to do with that…
Get a better garage?
Is there anything that will show up on the MOT that wil show it's had the delete ? e.g. warning light goes on then off ? Seems very common getting them deleted though due to failures costing a fortune. Over £1k for a mate's Audi and he's still getting an engine light issue that he can't solve due to it - car running not affected at all.
I'm a little disappointed that a garage is willing to recommend performing a modification that makes the vehicle illegal to use on public roads.
Get a better garage?
That was my thought as well.
Most expensive part of the system is the catalyst, followed by the tank assembly, the NOx sensor, then the injector.
I've never seen a catalyst fail, and if the tank is failing that often, then there is something really amiss. For 1k a year, you'd get a couple NOx sensors fully fitted at a dealer, let alone a local garage.
car running not affected at all.
Except for all the toxic pollution...
How many garages have you been to? Sounds like you need to ring a few specialists and talk to them. The ones that say 'these cars have x or y problem and we can fix it this or that way' are better than the ones that say 'bring it in, we'll take a look'.
You asked about this from a mechanical/MOT point of view.
There are other points of view that may need some consideration.
@molegrips, I said a mate, not me... Petrol only here at present. 22 years on my car.
There is an issue with failure on the Pug/Citroen/Toyota engines with add blue, it also affects the bigger newer van's, not just the "lingos".
Surely it will fail the engine emissions test on an MOT as the AdBlue is there to reduce the NOx. No Adblue, not NOx reduction in the exhaust gasses, no ?
Diesel MOT only tests for smoke opacity, so on something with a DPF, as long as there is no visible smoke, then it should pass.
It is something I think that should be clamped down on, but the motor trade will fight any attempt at making MOT test centres purchase more equipment.
Mines one month earlier than the adblue addition - also a 2015. Downside I can't go into the city center. Upside - I can't go into the city centre. Cars don't belong there anyway
Just treat it as euro5 post delete 😉
But the real answer is strip it down to components then trade it in in a hurry
There are multiple aspects of the ad blue system - I've had the injector changed originally (about £700 I think it was?), then had a new tank fitted (was about £1000) and also had the Nox sensor changed. So I'm lying - I've spent £2000 ish on this issue so far, but due another £1000 bill now as the pump has gone on the tank again.
There's not much that can be done about it - ad blue is sticky corrosive shit. The Berlingo's ad blue system is incredibly poorly designed and many owners find that they have constant issues with it. Nothing to do with the garage.
Just treat it as euro5 post delete 😉
As I understand it, vehicles with SCR have reduced EGR compared to their EGR-only euro 5 equivalents, so by disabling AdBlue, it will be more polluting than euro 5.
Many of the AdBlue delete services will also disable EGR at the same time.
Have you asked on the Berlingo forum? I'm on there as i run an older '04 Pug Partner and it's always useful/informative
Whilst it may not be picked up on this year's mot the test is being constantly updated so it wouldn't surprise me if something to catch coded out systems is added in future. Also the nox sensor would need changing regardless of adblue
There’s not much that can be done about it – ad blue is sticky corrosive shit. The Berlingo’s ad blue system is incredibly poorly designed and many owners find that they have constant issues with it. Nothing to do with the garage.
To be fair that doesn't sound like much of an improvement on the old eolys system but at least you can top it up and it's not highly toxic and carcinogenic. So there's that.
@nickfrog - this is WoodburnerTrackWorld, nobody gives a shit about the public health downsides.
😂
It's also singletrack****panzer owner world too.
I believe that system Eolys is also present but needs changing less frequently , I only know this because whrn ours crapped out in both citroens at 11 and 20k we discovered the amazing world of crap french design
@joe I deleted mine a year ago on a Renault Trafic, that I’d already spent 2k replacing all the components to no joy, doing the ‘right’ thing.
Renault UK and Renault France were at a loss. With an upcoming MoT, the only choice was to delete it or write the van off. I’m not rich enough to throw a van in the bin!
Deletion was fine, about £250. Sailed thru MoT, even after asking about it…it’s not a test item. Hasn’t missed a beat since.
I would do the same as soon as a vehicle left its warranty period….sadly I can’t subsidise the industry behind fixing these units.
mikertroidFree Member
@joe I deleted mine a year ago on a Renault Trafic, that I’d already spent 2k replacing all the components to no joy, doing the ‘right’ thing.Renault UK and Renault France were at a loss. With an upcoming MoT, the only choice was to delete it or write the van off. I’m not rich enough to throw a van in the bin!
Deletion was fine, about £250. Sailed thru MoT, even after asking about it…it’s not a test item. Hasn’t missed a beat since.
I would do the same as soon as a vehicle left its warranty period….sadly I can’t subsidise the industry behind fixing these units.
I don't understand this. How can it still be broken if you replaced all the components? Surely that just means the mechanics didn't understand what the real problem was. 🤷♂️ Or is the design just that shite that it failed again?
Does anyone use an audible additive? I have purchased a 125ml bottle of Wynn's Crystal Clear. I am a bit nervous about putting it in the tank.
I would do the same as soon as a vehicle left its warranty period….sadly I can’t subsidise the industry behind fixing these units.
I can sort of understand the sentiment behind disabling the system when it's beyond economic repair, but it seems wildly irresponsible to disable them preemptively as soon as they're out of warranty because they *might* cause you a little bit of inconvenience at some point in the future.
I don’t understand this. How can it still be broken if you replaced all the components? Surely that just means the mechanics didn’t understand what the real problem was. 🤷♂️ Or is the design just that shite that it failed again?
More likely that software wasn't updated or broken bits that *weren't* replaced damaged the bits that were changed.
Lots of mechanics don't have any idea whats going on with additive systems. Also, a good number of the early systems (i have history with eolys specifically) were bought in almost complete and integrated with the existing hardware, which is never easy, and can lead to issues down the line. Not sure if anyone does that with ad-blue systems though.
Does anyone use an audible additive?
I wouldn't. Unless you're an "out of normal range" user, it's just as likely to cause issues as fix them. Unless it's just snake oil. Which is also perfectly possible.
mertFree Member
More likely that software wasn’t updated or broken bits that *weren’t* replaced damaged the bits that were changed.
Yeah, sometimes when InsomniaScrolling on Youtube Shorts i will end up on DPF-trackworld and the customers will have already had a main dealer replace the DPF, EGR and various other sensors etc, only for it to be something like the thermostat or glow plugs preventing the regen from working resulting in the new parts getting the same issue.
Just annoying when it the customer is left footing the bill for it or they end up mapping it out when it could have been fixed.
Just annoying when it the customer is left footing the bill for it or they end up mapping it out when it could have been fixed.
Yeah that's a shame, but it sounds like PSA need to take a good chunk of the responsibility here.
I don’t understand this. How can it still be broken if you replaced all the components? Surely that just means the mechanics didn’t understand what the real problem was. 🤷♂️ Or is the design just that shite that it failed again?
Trafics/Vivaros had an issue where in certain conditions the AdBlue ECU would go into a non-start countdown that couldn't be reset, and the only option was to replace the ECU, ensuring you didn't copy over any stored data.
Other manufacturers would likely have fixed such an issue by releasing an update for the ECU, but IIRC Renault opted to make that ECU non-updatable.
mc
Trafics/Vivaros had an issue where in certain conditions the AdBlue ECU would go into a non-start countdown that couldn’t be reset, and the only option was to replace the ECU, ensuring you didn’t copy over any stored data.
Other manufacturers would likely have fixed such an issue by releasing an update for the ECU, but IIRC Renault opted to make that ECU non-updatable
Ha ha is that true? Awful 🤦
I have a 2015 Berlingo which has had endless ad blue problems. I’ve spent about £1000 a year on the adblue system over the last 3 years and the dreaded light has just come back on.
Until recently, I was the owner of a crap sixteen year old Italian diesel saloon and I can't believe that I put up with the amount of faffing around for so long. Regen mode merely burned more diesel and left soot stains all over the back of the car and made an already noisy car even more noisy. I had an exhaust sensor die, which left the car thinking that it needed to regen all the time, so limp mode for the umpteenth time quickly got old. I too had to fork out for an EGR and a new DPF over the years.
I'm glad that I didn't have to bother with pouring two different types of fluid into holes under the filler flap.
he old eolys system but at least you can top it up and it’s not highly toxic and carcinogenic
Wait. What?
it sounds like PSA need to take a good chunk of the responsibility here
Oof.
Other manufacturers would likely have fixed such an issue by releasing an update for the ECU, but IIRC Renault opted to make that ECU non-updatable
And Oof again.
Trafics/Vivaros had an issue where in certain conditions the AdBlue ECU would go into a non-start countdown that couldn’t be reset, and the only option was to replace the ECU, ensuring you didn’t copy over any stored data.
Yup....2 new Adblue ECUs didn't fix it....amongst other components....I had only 200km left in the end.
but it seems wildly irresponsible to disable them preemptively as soon as they’re out of warranty because they *might* cause you a little bit of inconvenience at some point in the future.
When it threatens to write off the vehicle, its more than a 'little' inconvenient. Would have no hesitation deleting Adblue again in the future.
he old eolys system but at least you can top it up and it’s not highly toxic and carcinogenic
Wait. What?
I was under the impression this was the case but after checking the MSDS it looks like it's just plain nasty shit rather than carcinogenic. Still don't want to get it on you.
but IIRC Renault opted to make that ECU non-updatable
to be fair, there are very *very* few cars that don't have some "fixed code" ECUs, or partitions within ECUs that are fixed, some of it is even legally mandated in certain markets (not many though!). The trick is making sure you've got it right before you sign off, and making sure any parameters that might need to be updated come from somewhere else!
Would have no hesitation deleting Adblue again in the future.
As a last resort, fine, but I wouldn't do it as a matter of course. If it worries you, in the future don't get a diesel.
As a last resort, fine, but I wouldn’t do it as a matter of course. If it worries you, in the future don’t get a diesel.
The biggest petrol van is a Nissan Townstar L2 AFAIK. Diesels power all bigger ones. Hence my next van will be diesel ( unless I can make a Townstar work-unlikely as I want to size up).
As soon as warranty runs out, I'll delete adblue, provided the law still allows it.
The issue is indeed with diesel. It is thankfully being (too slowly) killed off by EVs and urban regulations. Resorting to an illegal and health affecting bodge is very sad and quite inconsiderate but it's about the money, isn't it? I am surprised the authorities are so lenient on both those consumers and that particular cottage industry. Quite a serious crime in other countries.A particular shame on a cycling forum where health is a consideration.
I look forward to when a 400 mile range EV Van is available in Ducato L3 for the same as current prices.
Until then it's make do and mend accordingly. Preventative maintenance is part of that. Sorry some folk don't like it, but last year demonstrated the fragility and stupidity behind these systems. Not going there again!
For balance, I cycle and use public transport where necessary and minimise mileage where possible but still do 20k pa.
Preventative maintenance is part of that.
Disabling systems that were put in place to protect public health is not preventative maintenance.
I am surprised the authorities are so lenient on both those consumers and that particular cottage industry.
DVSA do occasionally target tuning/modification companies, but they simply don't have the resources to do more
Alternatively, manufacturers can make these systems robust and repairable, to avoid nearly writing off otherwise perfectly good vehicles. That would be the golden solution.
It's illegal to use the car on the public road without the Ad Blue or the DPF, for obvious reasons as they were there for a reason in the first place. So I assume that preventative maintenance is now firmly off the menu.
I have no hesitation thinking you might be a bit of a selfish sausage.
If you say so! My bank balance couldn't take the hit of binning a 5 year old van.
I also don't give two hoots what a total stranger thinks about me or my actions in response to what was a pretty dire situation.
if no-one else has mentioned it, I'm guessing it would also invalidate your insurance - removing/disabling the catalytic converter does and this is pretty much the same thing.
I think in theory ALL modifications/changes from OEM spec are meant to be notified
Whatever you choose to call it, provided its legal and MoT compliant
It's not legal to use on public roads, and it's not MOT compliant, they just don't currently check for it.
I also don’t give two hoots what a total stranger thinks about me or my actions in response to what was a pretty dire situation.
I assume that now that you've learnt it's illegal (for obvious reasons) thanks to total strangers, you have reviewed your plan of action. Or is it OK to break the law and impose your carcinogenic emissions on pedestrians in order to save yourself money?
Without passing (any more) judgement on the morality, I'd be a bit worried that if they were to introduce NOx testing for the MOT my van would be instantly worthless.
@b33k34 show me the case law for this. There is absolutely no reason this would invalidate your insurance. Without being rude to you, I think this is exactly the kind of "computer says no" thinking which I think is starting to make the UK a very exhausting place to live or get anything done. It's the same kind of
I understand the many points made on here by people who have no knowledge of Ab Blue systems of the problems that it causes in vehicles. But the truth is that changes on emissions and the environment in general need to be societal ones, and ones made between industry and government. I have a vehicle which I require for work, that simply doesn't work not because I have done something wrong - but because the technology which has been sold to me is a total bodge. Newer vans aren't available to buy at the moment (there are lead times of 9 to 12 months) and the electric options available are totally ridiculous at the moment for anyone who is a sensible human being and who leads a busy working life outside of a city.
Thanks to the members who messaged me privately to let me know they had removed the ad blue from their Citreon van's and that they hadn't had any problems and were pleased they had done it!
But anyway... I actually was reading through a Citreon forum and someone had managed to get their ad blue pump running again by using a bottle of the decrystalising Wynn's Crystal Ad Blue additive. @TroutWrestler was asking about. Anyway I bought two on my way home today and threw them in the tank - and drove for about 80 miles and hey presto the lights have gone off! First the UREA light went off, then after a couple of start stops the engine management light went off - so there is your answer!
So for now at least I'll be doing no ad blue deletes. For those who find this thread via a google search in the future - I also have been reading how many recommend topping up their ad blue little and often. Apparently it was a fairly short shelf life and if you only top it up in bulk once every 2 years (thanks to those silly 10 litre tanks) then that's what can cause gumming up of the tank and pump (which tends to be what dies!)
@mikertroid me as well mate. 400 mile range and I'll buy an electric tomorrow. For the moment the best of the electric vans is a VW buzz...but it's tiny inside and does 200 miles unloaded. It's also £40k!
That's good news. I wonder what the original problem is then, something to do with crystallisation?
That's good to hear (looking to buy a Pug Van in 12 months) ! The crystallisation does seem to be an issue - wonder if it happens if you don't keep the tank topped up ?
Cold weather and cold storage can contribute apparently:
https://www.tuffa.co.uk/how-to-avoid-adblue-crystallisation/
just based my contents on stuff like this
if it’s a mod that would cause it to fail an Mot if known about (even if not tested for) it seems unlikely the insurer wouldn’t consider it relevant
https://www.lv.com/car-insurance/car-modification-car-insurance#
https://blog.howdeninsurance.co.uk/does-your-insurance-go-up-if-you-modify-your-car/
There is absolutely no reason this would invalidate your insurance.
Insurance generally specifies that your vehicle must be roadworthy. Disabling or removing emissions systems makes it unroadworthy. I think it's unlikely that an insurer would pick up on it if you had to make a claim, but there's certainly reason for it to invalidate insurance.
but there’s certainly reason for it to invalidate insurance.
The case law surrounding it suggests that the removal of the emissions system would have to have played a part in the accident.
I guess if someone ran into the back of you because you were making clouds of smoke then possibly. But it's certainly not in the line of some of the extreme scaremongers posting up above.
Wait till they find out you can legally fit another engine from a different vehicle.
Just stop buying ****ing diesel vehicles. They should have been banned years ago.
@Aidy sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. Being unroadworthy is related solely to a dangerous condition, not having an adblue system connected or functioning isn't dangerous so isn't unroadworthy and an insurer couldn't refuse to pay out unless a claim directly arose from the disconnection of the system - considering all it does is spray piss into the last part of the exhaust I can't see what claim could arise from this not functioning.
This is a classic example of blaming the little guy rather than the giant corporation who designed and fitted this piece of shit system.
Out of curiosity what do you drive?
An undeclared modifications of the very mechanical specs of the car is ground to reject a claim or cancel a policy surely, particularly when it's illegal like this.
The carrier probably wouldn't find out about it though, but that's not the point.
The point remains it's illegal.
And the fact that it's a poor design by the large Corporate at the detriment of the little consumer doesn't change that, however unfair the situation is.
"Just stop buying **** diesel vehicles. They should have been banned years ago."
There isn't a viable alternative for plumbers/builders/tradespeople/transportation of goods.... yet. We are in the death throes of ICE before hydrogen and EV fully takes over. All the systems bolted to diesel engines are the fudges required to get us to that hydrogen/ev future but they are sometimes a bit shit. In 10years time it won't be an issue.
Hydrogen ? Is that still a prospect?
Being unroadworthy is related solely to a dangerous condition
That is not how the Ministry of Transport define it. If insurers use a different definition, then I've not seen it in their terms.
I know you mean "likely to cause a physical incident", but disconnecting or disabling emissions systems *is* a dangerous condition to people's health.
It must be nice living in your perfect world nickfrog.
surely
Oh so your speculating ?
Just stop buying **** diesel vehicles. They should have been banned years ago.
A properly functioning modern diesel is no worse than a petrol car and may even be better. What they should do or have done is introduce NOx testing in the MOT, then manufacturers would have had to make the systems work properly and reliably in the first place.
Hydrogen ? Is that still a prospect?
No. Using electricity to make hydrogen to power vehicles is something like five times less efficient than simply powering the car with it directly.
The case law surrounding it suggests that the removal of the emissions system would have to have played a part in the accident.
Yes, I think it's unlikely that they'd refuse to pay out. I was purely disputing that there was "no reason" it would invalidate insurance.
airvent
Free Member
It must be nice living in your perfect world nickfrog.
It's pretty neat I admit 😉 I think I have mostly stated obvious facts, haven't I?
It's illegal.
Oh so your speculating ?
I am not though. Mods invalidating a policy is in every motor policy wording I have read, ie quite a few. Have you found one that doesn't?
Declaring an illegal mod is not an option either.
I have a heritage railway pretty much at the end of my road that runs through the Valley. They use old obsolete diesel technology and coal powered trains both of which pump clouds of shit out to transport people who drive here for the pleasure! They have no plans to allow their tracks to become a commuting system into the nearby city that has gridlocked road connectivity.
One guy who has no financial or fuel source viable alternative isn't really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.
Fair comment.
I read recently that German scientists found the amount of airborne carcinogenic particules in a small remote village was a multiple of the amount in cities in winter because of wood fires.
Perhaps rules are indeed aimed at the wrong target while we decarbonise.
simondbarnesFull Member
Just stop buying **** diesel vehicles. They should have been banned years ago
Eh, why do you think diesels are bad then, they are by far the most efficient use of energy in transport we have available right now, and that won't change for a long time. There is a reason the Japanese are still developing diesels (as are some EU OEMs) and that's simply because no other tech will be ready this side of 2050 to replace them.
they are by far the most efficient use of energy in transport we have available right now
Um. Bicycles.
You need a van, it's diesel. You need a ****panzer, it's usually a big **** off diesel or a stupid fast, massively expensive and not efficient leccy version. We aren't there yet.
I'm a petrol driver, but the vehicle I would like (for low miles and holidays) is either a diesel van or a leccy one that won't do 100 miles. A 1 year ld leccy one is the same price as a 4 yer old oil burner used. I'm still going dino juice as 100 miles won't get me much into North Wales before you hit a hill or two loaded.
Diesel's are still far more efficient for fuel use than petrol.
sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about. Being unroadworthy is related solely to a dangerous condition, not having an adblue system connected or functioning isn’t dangerous so isn’t unroadworthy and an insurer couldn’t refuse to pay out unless a claim directly arose from the disconnection of the system – considering all it does is spray piss into the last part of the exhaust I can’t see what claim could arise from this not functioning.
There are very limited ways an insurer can refuse a third party claim, however there are many more ways they can get out an insured party claim, and undeclared mods is one of the easiest ways they can invalidate a policy. Any change from how the vehicle left the factory, is technically a modification.
However unless it's a very obvious mod (something like your stereotypical boy racer with an undeclared body kit glued on), it's very unlikely they'll check for anything else, unless lots of money is it stake, or they've had a tip off.
I did a training course where the guy taking the course also did insurance remapping investigations, which typically involved high powered cars, and they could quite quickly establish if any ECU contained non-original software. In those kinds of cases, a thousand pound spent on an investigation could avoid the insurance company having to pay out mid 5 figures upwards.
But as with all insurance, to them, it's a numbers game. If they spend 1k to avoid a 50k pay out, they only have to be right once every 50 claims to still be in profit. If they have to pay out 1k on vehicles valued at 10k, they need to find something every 10 claims, so the figures don't work, unless they are confident they'll find something.
There are plenty of mods that you can make that don't affect a policy, but you run a risk if you don't let the insurer make that decision
On "roadworthy". There's plenty of evidence, for example, to show that car and van tyres below 3mm tread increase stopping distances (as much as 44%), but the legal limit is 1.6mm. Is allowing a tyre to drop below 3mm unroadworthy?
I did a training course where the guy taking the course also did insurance remapping investigations, which typically involved high powered cars, and they could quite quickly establish if any ECU contained non-original software. In those kinds of cases, a thousand pound spent on an investigation could avoid the insurance company having to pay out mid 5 figures upwards.
Most manufacturers can tell that you've modded their car as soon as you plug into manufacturing diagnostics.
Even if you remove the mod (reflash the stock tune), or swap the ECU back and forth between a Mod and a Stock unit. There's lots of engine/diagnostics/usage data stored on other modules, some of which have parts that are only factory programmable. So they can tell that your fancy backstreet tune switched off half the onboard emission systems and changed pre-ignition detection thresholds for an extra 6bhp, *even if you change them back when the engine starts to make funny noises*.
