Perhaps all you "Home Mechanics' should read the invoice. To say that bill is 'a 'rip off' is absolute rubbish and suggest to me that none of you has any idea about running a business.
The bill is itemized properly, he has given a specific break down of what has been done, where the money has been spent and $100 per hour in my opinion is cheap. A four (4) hour labour charge for the work is more than reasonable No where on the bill does it suggest the engine 'is stuffed' or should be replaced. Given the condition of the oil it does not paint a good picture of the vehicles service history.
The mechanic has itemized what he has found and the suggested repairs to be done. Some of the 'experts mechanics' here should seriously think about what they post. The invoice posted has the business name on it and what you say amounts to 'slander and defamation'.
Check the brakes ???? What the 'f....' for. The vehicle was presented with an engine fault.
If you want to do a DPF delete which I might add is ILLEGAL, then buy a delete pipe. Knocking the center out DPF if found out has the same end result ... you will get fined and that is why no reputable mechanical shop would do that.
Get a second opinion and do the necessary suggested repairs. I would definitely use this mechanic as looking at the invoice he appears honest to me. Keep in mind, the suggested repairs may not necessarily fix the vehicles issues as NONE OF US ARE THERE TO LOOK AT IT.
I agree about not having looked at the brakes and what you say about the DPF. In fact, I replaced mine with a new one once I had solved my serious smoking issue, which had been causing the car to go into limp mode due to overheating of the exhaust due to a blocked DPF. I disagree with suggesting a delete pipe in preference to a hollowed-out DPF, as that will make it obvious to anyone taking even the briefest glance underneath. That would be like taking the car in for testing and telling them what you've done, whereas a hollowed-out DPF may well go undetected.
As for the rest...
I do indeed know about running a business, having owned and run my own in the past. It wasn't a mechanical workshop but that's irrelevant, as all the same fundamentals apply.
On the face of it, the bill may look honest when broken down because the price is fair for what was done. I called it a rip-off because of what was not done. He did an extremely poor job of diagnosing the engine, having only flushed and changed the oil and looked at and exhaust. As you say, the oil being so thick does indicate very little, if any, maintenance was carried out previously but it also suggests there isn't a lot of diesel in it, which suggests the engine is probably not too badly worn. I also wonder if he bothered to warm the engine before draining the oil, which for us amateurs is generally considered standard practice.
The invoice suggests that he may have checked for error codes but the failure to mention it suggest he didn't find any. I'm going to go further and say that, based on what he checked and found and based on his own invoice, that engine is quite possibly still good and just needs some proper TLC. Hence the best course is still to get a second opinion, rather than take his advice and scrap the engine (I'm prepared to believe the OP that this is what he was told to do, even though it's not on the invoice).
I have serious doubts that he could make that assessment about the turbo. Unless it's totally and obviously stuffed it needs to be removed for a proper diagnosis and that would have entailed more labour than what's on the invoice. I don't think he's aware that the turbo uses oil-sling, rather than regular bearings, so the shaft will always have some slop in it. I was told by the place where I purchased my new turbo that more than one person, including professional mechanics, has replaced a turbo because they thought the old one had worn bearings or shaft, only to find the new one has just as much play in it, only to take it back for a refund and refit the original.
In regards to 'slander and defamation', if he wants to tackle me for defamation I'll happily take him on but slander applies only to verbal comments, so doesn't apply here.