I agree with unthrottled.

Your weekly motorway trip will enable the DPF to regenerate.

There's plenty of miles left in a 3 year old diesel Focus if you're only going to be doing 8k per year.

Just remember than when they get older, diesel cars can cost more to repair than an equivalent petrol one, so look at changing it again after around 3 years, by which time it will have done 83k - still below the mileage for a DPF change IIRC.

DPF/DMF are one of HJ's favourite recurring themes in the Telegraph motoring section and it has left a lot of people unnecesarily paranoid.

Agreed - but the recommended replacement for the DPF is 72,000 I believe, and the cost is around £900 which needs to be taken into account. when purchasing.

Personally I would just continue to drive until the thing clogged up & actually needed a change but if it's anything like my Volvo (with 2.0 PSA engine) if you don't get the DPF replaced at 72K and the ECU reset by the dealer the car is programmed to keep going into limp mode with the message "replace DPF" until you are forced to get it done even if your driving pattern has meant that the DPF is not clogged yet with many more miles life!

Crap isn't it

Thanks a lot! (and to everyone else who posted) It's good to hear about problems so you know what to prepare for but I think a lot of what is posted online has a very pessimistic slant.

.The potential repair costs from years 3 to 6 can be double the fuel economy saving"

This is a subjective opinion. If diesels were inherently cost ineffective, then big fleets would have got rid of them years ago. They haven't. The payback is obviously much longer with a small annual mileage, but to suggest that diesels are a ticking timebomb and then vaunt each new advance in petrol as the best thing since sliced bread is being disingenuous.

Notice how the Ecoboost has already had the HJ seal of approval when it has essentially no track record. I'd be amazed if the ecoboost engine proves to have long term reliability on a par with the TDCI-and given Ford's chequered history with diesels, that's not saying much.

In the Telegraph New Car Guide, March 2nd 2013, page IV, bottom right, HJ wrote:

"If you drive less than 15,000 miles pa and keep your cars for more than 5 years, do not buy a diesel.The potential repair costs from years 3 to 6 can be double the fuel economy saving"

By my maths, this car falls into this category.

You pays your money, you takes your choice.

Not true. The same old anti diesel rhetoric with no thought to the type of use and no mention of any figures.

We have 2 diesels, both with DPF's, one does 10,000 miles a year, the other 7,000 miles a year. Both cost the ame to service as the petrol version but fuel and RFL are way cheaper.

The one that does 10,000 miles a year saves just over £500 a year in fuel and £70 in RFL, over 5 years that is a £2850 saving. OK the car cost £1000 more to buy but according to Parkers its now worth £1000 more than the petrol.

The one that does 7,000 miles a year saves about £400 in fuel and £140 a year in RFL, over 5 years thats approx £2800 saving. The car cost £300 more than the identical petrol and according to parkers its worth £500 more now.

This proves that the information the the paper is wrong and badly wrong. One car is 5 years old now and has had no repairs carried out, even if it did need a new DPF next week (unlikely) we would still have money in the bank.

What does matter though is the type of journeys you do. Both are used in town but both get decent runs on our commutes plus the occational trip to the outlaws.

If you were to buy a diesel to only use 100% in town even if you did 15,000 miles a year you would be crazy and definitely have issues.

No publication makes this clear.

I have had two 1.6hdis and covered mega mileage and never had a turbo problem or any problem come to that.