Eolys?

[haydent]

btw the fuel cap sensor is pin 15 and 16 on the additive ecu behind the glove box, and is 150k ohm present, 15 ohm absent

[cachaciero]

Additive ECU behind the glove box? on the Mk1 and Mk2 C5 it's down behind the drivers seat.

[haydent]

nope, i have c5 II and i found it behind box on firewall, i can show a photo if required

[cachaciero]

If your going by R.P. number upto 9491 is DPX 42 & 9492 onwards is Eolys 176.

Just so but will PATS do both?

For changes in fluid there are two things to consider 1) The dosing rate of the additive system, and 2) the burn / regeneration characteristics built into the Engine Injection system.
The additive injection system would appear to work differently between a DPX42 and Eolys 176 system and my best guess is that the DPX 42 system adds more fluid than the 176 system, this deduction being based upon the fact that the fluid quantities are similar but the 176 systems do more miles.

Having looked into this some it is my belief that fitting an additive tank complete with pump from a later car plus the ECU would be all that would be needed and should almost be plug and play, (at least on a 2.2) will need a Lexia to configure the ECU as the later ECU comes pre-programmed for a range of vehicles.

The injection side I hav'nt really gone into at the moment but I feel that it should be possible to get the injection ECU programmed to a later level of software that incorporated the later regeneration routines.

Back to the question will PATS do both? my belief is that it will but on an earlier DPX42 system fluid usage will be higher and because of that filter life probably about the same as DPX42, a full conversion should give you better i.e less fluid use and better filter life.

NOW to save me opening up another thread anyone know what the resistance value of the low level thermistor should be on a DPX42 system?

[cachaciero]

nope, i have c5 II and i found it behind box on firewall, i can show a photo if required

Anybody following the diagrams from Citroen Service would be well stuffed then they show it in the same place on Mk1 and Mk 2 and I know that it is behind the drivers seat on a Mk 1 because I have been playing with it (well two of them actually .

Actually it makes more sense to put the later ECU at the front of the car as there are only two wires to go to the tank, the earlier one required six wires from the ECU to the tank.

Just shows Citroens Documentation is not all it should be Haynes anyone

[haydent]

1) The dosing rate of the additive system,

i wonder if you could use this to differentiate what additive system you, maybe the figures shown in lexia could be compared.

[cachaciero]

1) The dosing rate of the additive system,

i wonder if you could use this to differentiate what additive system you, maybe the figures shown in lexia could be compared.

Lexia doesn't give you that degree of control, to get that degree of control you would need to modify the underlying ECU firmware, not an impossible task but not for the faint hearted even given access to the tools required

However having done some more thinking about this I believe that Eolys 176 should be usable in a DPX42 system my reasoning is as follows:-

In the systems as designed the life limit on the filter life is dictated by the amount of additive by product (cerin) required to clog the filter, remember in a correctly operating system all the carbon will (in theory) be burnt off leaving only the cerine or whatever other compound they use to reduce the carbon combustion temperature which will eventually clog the filter.
Now it follows that if you can reduce the amount of additive for the same effect then ultimately you will increase the time taken to clog the filter.
It is my belief that this is what Eolys176 is about, it requires less of this additive to produce low temperature burnable carbon in the filter which in turn means less additive residue in the filter, ergo longer filter life.
Now what happens when you inject more Eolys176 than is required?, well I am not sure but my best guess is not a lot except faster build up of additive residue in the filter.
Using Eolys176 in a DPX42 system will in effect mean that you are injecting more of this addiive than is required to achieve the desired effect, however I would expect the residue build up in the filter to be the same as DPX42 i.e filter life to be the same.
There is one caveat to this, the regeneration cycles which is an engine injection function may need to be optimised to get the best out of whichever additive is being used again my gut feel is that running Eolys176 in a car designed around DPX42 is unlikely to show much in the way of gains or losses in terms of filter life, but running a car with a modified additive system using Eolys176 where the engine is still set up for DPX42 may not show all of the increased filter life that one might expect.
On the assumption that PATS Fluid is an Eolys176 equivalent then comments for Eolys176 can be taken for PATS.

None of the above should be taken as absolute fact, just my thoughts on the issues involved.

[ACTIVE8]

Thanks for all your help guys , now I'm sure there
was a illustrated step by step guide on how to do the job somewhere

Like this one...............



No sound on it, but it shows how it's done.

[jimmymarsbar]

Definitely make sure that it's the correct type. They aren't interchangeable. And they're extremely toxic.

[cachaciero]

Definitely make sure that it's the correct type. They aren't interchangeable. And they're extremely toxic.

Who says? PAT fluid claims to cover both EOLYS 176 and DPX which says to me at least that there isn't that much difference see my previous post and while undoubtedly toxic I would hesitate to use the word extremely as I see it as being no more toxic than say petrol.

[jimmymarsbar]

It doesn't cause major issues on external contact, but Cerium and it's oxides (which is found in fuel additives and catalysts) causes rapid cardiovascular collapse in mammals in large enough doses. I wouldn't like to risk too much of it in my bloodstream. Pretty nasty for fish too.

I've been given trusted advice to use the correct fluid, purely to maintain cat/dpf lifespan.

[cachaciero]

It doesn't cause major issues on external contact, but Cerium and it's oxides (which is found in fuel additives and catalysts) causes rapid cardiovascular collapse in mammals in large enough doses. I wouldn't like to risk too much of it in my bloodstream. Pretty nasty for fish to

References please...... Even water administered in an incorrect way will kill you.

Now when you stop believing everything PSA and your mates down the pub tell you and do the research this is what you will come up with
http://www.solvay.com/en/binaries/Ceriu ... 139543.pdf.
Don't see anything about Cardio vascular collapse there irrespective of quantity and nothing at all about fish.
So if there is anything really nasty in Eolys it's not Cerium, so lets see what else there is in there, well reference to the safety sheets for EOLYS 176 is interesting when you get down to it, the major component is....Parrafin. Parrafin ingested in large enough quanities would make you ill but you would have to drink a lot of it to kill yourself, and yes it can give you lung problems if you ingest enough of it and yes it will destroy your complexion if you wash your face in it but at the end of the day it is no more dangerous to humans or the wider environment than diesel.
The other paragraph of interest is the phrase "for professional use only", this as far as I am concerned is about job and product protection, "lets keep this in a small circle chaps lets keep the DIY fraternity out, lets have scare stories about how dangerous it is for amateurs to play with this stuff that way we can all charge a lot more than it's worth"

I've been given trusted advice to use the correct fluid, purely to maintain cat/dpf lifespan.

Anybody in the trade will have no alternative but to say that. It's the line handed down by PSA they are the design authority and that is who would be quoted should issues arising from the use of an incorrect fluid be raised in a court of law irrespective of what common sense says i.e lot'sa dosh at risk here.
Having said that it is safe advice although not necessarily the most cost effective.

Now read my previous book on thoughts on Eolys think about PAT fluid which is marketed as a substitute for both DPX42 and Eolys 176 and ask yourself; if the use of their fluid was going to seriously impact on the life of the filter leading to expensive court cases would they sell it if they didn’t believe the risk of a court case was minimal to non existent.

@jimmymarsbar
Please understand I am NOT having a go at you personally, I am sure that you believe the advice you have been given and are passing it on in good faith, however over the years I have had a 2.2 and frequenting various forums I do get annoyed how various erroneous scare stories get passed around as though they were gospel when in fact a little research shows them to be without foundation.
There is a lot of good info available on the internet but also there is a lot of crap disinformation, spread sometimes i feel deliberately, but usually in good faith. The "dangerous FAP additive liquid " being one of them and "mixing / changing of additives will cause the world to end or at least your engine" being another.

My belief based upon logic and such information I have leads me to believe that changing DPX42 for EOLYS 176 or PAT fluid with no other change is not likely to cause the filter to need cleaning much earlier that it would otherwise have done using the original fluid, FAP load being quite dependant on driving cycles anyway and alone could I believe account for as much as +-10K miles variation on filter life.

One tip I will pass on here check your filler cap has both magnets fitted on a regular basis, they fall out quite easily and the lack of a magnet will cause errors in additive injection with resultant early coking of the FAP.

Regards cachaciero

[GiveMeABreak]

1) The dosing rate of the additive system,

However having done some more thinking about this I believe that Eolys 176 should be usable in a DPX42 system my reasoning is as follows:-
In the systems as designed the life limit on the filter life is dictated by the amount of additive by product (cerin) required to clog the filter, remember in a correctly operating system all the carbon will (in theory) be burnt off leaving only the cerine or whatever other compound they use to reduce the carbon combustion temperature which will eventually clog the filter.
Now it follows that if you can reduce the amount of additive for the same effect then ultimately you will increase the time taken to clog the filter.

As far as I understand it - it is the soot that clogs up the filter not the Cerium - the Cerium being the chemical in the additive that lowers the soot combustion temperature (which saves fuel).
Unless PSA who (invented their system) have it wrong - or am I missing something?
Filter operation: a two-stage process
The additive diesel particulate filter uses a two-stage process

Mechanical filtration of particulates formed by fuel combustion
To start with, the filter fills gradually with the soot produced by the engine. Soot build-up in the filter walls is measured by pressure sensors, and once it reaches a given threshold, corresponding to a certain mass of soot, the filter is cleaned (or "regenerated") automatically without any input required from the driver. The regeneration interval is included between 300 and 1,000 km. Mechanical filtration allows to reach emission levels down to below 1 mg/km by mass (whereas the standard specifies 4.5 mg/km), and usually to below 1.10 1O (superscript 10)#/km in number (compared to a requirement of 6.10 11 (superscript 11) #/km). The filter is therefore highly efficient, even on ultrafine particulates smaller than 100 nm.

User-transparent filter regeneration, to remove particulates stored in the filter
To eliminate the particulates stored in the filter, the engine exhaust temperature is increased by applying a special engine calibration that triggers fuel post-injections. This has no impact on vehicle response or noise. Regeneration burns off the stored particulates to produce water and CO2. Once regenerated, the filter starts a new filtration cycle from 300 to 1,000 kilometres. Regeneration is assisted by introducing an additive to the fuel. This lowers the soot combustion temperature by a hundred or so degrees, which substantially reduces the amount of fuel injected during the post-injections. Additive-assisted technology regenerates the filter four times faster than the catalysed competitor system.

[RichardW]

But you get some ash from the soot combustion process (especially if you use the wrong oil) and the cerium in the additive doesn't burn off. Thus after 100 -120k miles, the pressure drop across the filter increases when it is 'clean' and regen frequency increases, and I suspect becomes less efficient. It is this which eventually needs a clean or replacement of the DPF filter (although failures in other areas can result in earlier failures). I'm going to change the cambelt and water pump on my 307 in the summer, will be near 120k by then. So I'm thinking that as removal of the DPF requires a drain down of the rad, I might as well change that at the same time when the coolant is drained - new ones are not horrifically dear. I know some have cleaned them out with pressure washer etc, but given that the effluent may be nasty I'm not that inclined to go down that route!

[GiveMeABreak]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up Richard - I knew that there was always going to be a proportion that wouldn't get burnt up leading to eventual replacement - otherwise we would never have to replace them (more's the pity)!