[1.6 HDI 187kkm FAP 109KM] - Risk of particle filter clogging: see handbook

The following message appeared on the display:
Risk of particle filter clogging: see handbook
And the indicator Orange exclamation mark is lit.

Average distance between the last 5 regenerations: 205km
Distance from the last 360km
18% filter filling level (yesterday it was 5% at a distance of 308 - which I found strange)
Differential pressure max 40mbar at about 3300rpm with quite sharp acceleration in the city
weight of additive in the filter 112g
All the readings seem okay, the fluid is (I had a leak and the new tank was fitted from 1.5 years ago), and if ca. 10ml per refueling is ok, it's dosed, the additive pump works.

Mileage 187000km

2 errors in BSI:
1. Rear fog lamp
2.no communication with the dot matrix display (but everything works)
Other modules without errors.

I am not able to find or specify the reason for this message, the only thing that comes to mind is the weight of the additive in the filter and / or the mileage suggesting that the filter should be replaced.

Anyone have any other suggestions?

Probably the filter killed with ash. Firing like this after 600-800 should be

The fact that I have been driving rather short routes recently and sometimes the regeneration had to be interrupted. In addition, I come across traffic jams almost every day. There is no way to speed up. When regeneration starts while driving home, I can afford an extra round, but in the morning it is not possible. I will track the parameters for a few days (the current ones are not bad), but it looks like I will either have to wash it or replace it.

Several charts:

Air flow volme:


Exhaust differential pressure:


Engine speed:


Vehicle speed:

hello, it is probably a wet particulate filter, the pressure on the filter is 40 mbar at 3000 rpm. You may have two drivers or all in the engine control unit. Frequent burnout and the message displayed may be due to incomplete regenerations

Added after 18 [minutes]:

with this fluid, I meant the value in the controller because not every tank has a level sensor and if you had a flexible tank and no replenishment saved, it may already demand an additional success with your course

If not, try forced firing at a standstill after connecting the computer

@zyganps:
There is liquid and both calculators see it (although each other value is ca.900ml-ecu, ca.1500ml addition calculator or whatever it is called)

@ Cysiek89:
In order for the filter to burn out, it must first clog (currently it is only 18%), and firing at a standstill is the last thing I would like to do. Also, this message does not speak of a BLOCKED filter, but RISK of a blocked filter.

I remembered one more curiosity.

For about 5 years, the car has not met the standards for the content of solid particles in the exhaust gas. Level exceeded by 25% to 75%.

Isn't it the case that in these cars it always throws such an error after driving 180,000 km? I already had a few cars with such a problem and each had barely exceeded 180,000.
I do it so that I burn it, then check the pressure difference, like below 7mbar at idle speed, then click on the computer that the filter has been replaced.
If you have more than 7mbar, it is better to take it out and clean it

willyvmm wrote:

@ Cysiek89:
In order for the filter to burn out, it must first clog (currently it is only 18%), and firing at a standstill is the last thing I would like to do. Also, this message does not speak of a BLOCKED filter, but RISK of a blocked filter.

Unfortunately, you are wrong here, it can activate firing earlier, it does not have to be clogged, when it is already clogged, the firing effect may be poor. Also, why the computer runs the procedure earlier and does not wait until it is fully clogged ??

But for me the pressure difference is 0mbar. In post # 3, there are graphs from a city ride. Barely 40 shoots at over 3200rpm under load as such (compare with airflow)
For now, I will watch for some time, and if it will be ok, I will convince him that the filter has been replaced and you will plan cleaning for some warmer days (or at least how I can use the garage with the sewer).

So the flow is 100%, then the computer is behaving strangely or maybe one of the probes is slowly talking and increasing the dose and then the error will not light up.

willyvmm wrote:

But for me the pressure difference is 0mbar

it is bad, the sensors fell and, of course, the hoses were tight.

adam7009 wrote:

willyvmm wrote:

But for me the pressure difference is 0mbar

it is bad, the sensors fell and, of course, the hoses were tight.

And where does this conclusion come from?
Could you justify it somehow?
If there were any leaks, it would be either a negative value (hose before damaged) or just> 0 on free (hose damaged). Physics is not what you are looking for.

In turn a fallen sensor would show a strange offset or a negative value.

As the rudder sees 0 it is like dpf is not there.

andrzej20001 wrote:

As the rudder sees 0 it is like dpf is not there.

One more visualization of the logo from post # 3

Exhaust differential pressure:



Are you suggesting these readings are unreliable?
Coincide with meter readings and others. They also overlap with the values reported by other users in various other places for similar engines.
So why would they be bad?

willyvmm wrote:

In turn, one sensor has fallen

not one, but the pressure difference, apart from the fact that there is actually something wrong with the dpf, it crumbles or who drilled the hole and it will not work.

adam7009 wrote:

it is bad, the sensors fell and, of course, the hoses were tight.

You yourself suggested that there are sensors there, which is a minimum of 2.

I still think the sensor is working properly.

So further discussion is pointless ...

adam7009 wrote:

So further discussion is pointless ...

And I am still asking for a factual justification.

At the moment it reads "Because Yes. I am older and I am right" and it does not differ from the advice of the exchangers.

I took a little trouble and found a replacement datasheet of the type that is installed in my place, and the indications are reliable and meaningful.

willyvmm wrote:

and the indications are as credible and meaningful as possible.

only for you, because for the driver in the car and not for me.

willyvmm wrote:

And I am still asking for a factual justification.

Anyone can write. Internet forums accept even more than paper ... and they say paper will accept anything.

You still haven't explained WHY you think so. "Mr. Józek" (not offending anyone) from the garage around the corner can also say that, and such an answer is unfortunately worse than NONE .

Since you are so sure of yours and do not want to justify it, will you take up the gloves?
I will go to an Authorized Service Center, and I request the replacement of this sensor. If I don't help, YOU you cover the costs.
It suits ?

What are you tense? A friend did more drivers than we did

willyvmm wrote:

If it doesn't help, YOU cover the costs.
It suits ?

what do you give how will help?

Hello, the topic is still up-to-date before replacing the sensor, check if it works correctly, how can you connect the manual pump to the sensor and see if the value from the manometer coincides with the reading from the computer and if you are suspicious, check the signal with the oscilloscope. But I do not know that you insisted on this sensor, it should be an error, although if it works in the parameters, it will not register it as it will not even work properly. Do you have any errors in the drivers or not?

adam7009 wrote:

willyvmm wrote:

If it doesn't help, YOU cover the costs.
It suits ?

what do you give how will help?

And what do you want?

@zyganps: By. My sensor is working fine and giving me reliable readings. I have already asked several times to justify the opinion that the sensor should be replaced.
Unfortunately, to no avail. For me, even the opinion of the best professional without any justification, or "because that's how I already" - is worth nothing.
There are graphs in post # 3, all readings in # 1. Of course, there are no errors.
The message itself is not an error in itself, but a warning. The car does not run in emergency mode.

You rely on the readings and graphs from the tester that are generated by the ECU and misinformed by the sensor. The manometer as above and then it will be possible to verify whether the sensor is alive.

That I will allow myself to lead you on the trail .....

willyvmm wrote:

For about 5 years, the car has not met the standards for the content of solid particles in the exhaust gas. Level exceeded by 25% to 75%.

willyvmm wrote:

But for me the pressure difference is 0mbar.

andrzej20001 wrote:

As the rudder sees 0 it is like dpf is not there.

adam7009 wrote:

apart from the fact that there is actually something wrong with the dpf, it chip or who drilled the hole and it won't work.

Adding to the same sensor fault, for diagnosis you need to check the sensor operation with a pressure gauge and if it turns out to be good, pull out the dpf to check for a leak or in reverse order.

willyvmm wrote:

I have already asked several times to justify the opinion that the sensor should be replaced.
Unfortunately, to no avail.

For an efficient filter at idle, the correct pressure is 3-7mbar, at a load of up to 200mbar.
How much do you have? ZERO, under load, probably 40 max, it means that you either have a damaged sensor or leakage on the hoses to the sensor or the filter itself is partially empty.
The system works in such a way that it must see the right pressure, too high or too low or zero causes the same symptoms, i.e. afterburning, smoking, etc. and it doesn't work that way.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your justification.

Let me now present my analysis of the problem.

ECU: EDC16C3
Sensor OEM number Peugeot 1618.Z9
Pressure range, 0- 100 mbar -> which gives an analog signal of 500 - 4500mV. Pressure range half of what you say.

Graph I shows that the quantization levels are a multiple of 4. Therefore, at idle speed, the reading is 0 (and this reading probably covers a large range of pressures).

The data provided by the manufacturer of the sensor replacement (FAE) also shows that the pressure value at the max flow in the above graphs from # 3 is in the upper ranges of the values for this flow. (request filter blocked)

Data found in various parts of the internet also suggest both low and high pressures for this engine are within expected limits, and a 0 reading at idle is not unusual.

If the value 0 was a sign of the lack of a filter for the controller, it would have signaled it a long time ago with a critical error and switching to the emergency mode.

The last premise is the information that this controller does not use the readings of this sensor to assess the filling of the filter, but only estimates it based on the driving style. The sensor is an additional protection (probably in the event of a complete blockage of the filter or its removal, it could also explain poor sampling of the pressure sensor indications). Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read about it.

Last thing, a lower (as you suggest) reading should not generate a warning about possible filter odors, but rather an error (not a warning) related to a leak / missing fap / sensor or an error with unrealistic readings.

Greetings.

https://www.google.pl/search?ei=btIOWu_cKcaD6....313.01.0i13.0i30i8.0i13.138.39.0i13.138.39.0 .3.0 .... 0 ... 1.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.351 .... 0.jrhBeqs87Ew


Don't indulge ...

willyvmm wrote:

Last thing, a lower (as you suggest) reading should not generate a warning about possible filter odors, but rather an error (not a warning) related to a leak / missing fap / sensor or an error with unrealistic readings.

that's why I say that it doesn't matter, it's always bad for the system if it goes out of range, no matter which way, for example, you just need to blind the EGR and despite the filter working, the same dpf message will appear after a few days. That's just general.