MOT failurer on emissions, HELP!

[jekel 10]

I'd forget about the CAT mate, a half decent running VR6 should pass emmissions with no CAT on it. Mines sailed through every year miles under, this year it passed, admittedly just, with I'm sure 1 or 2 worn valves, it was starting to very slightly misfire when warm and couple of small puffs of smoke after coasting downhill, passed MOT then drove straight in to garage and fitted rebuilt engine in it.

With 60 000 miles it should be sailing through, putting the CAT on is just masking any probs., a blocked breather valve can create havoc with emissions, easy check and fix, and check all other sensors etc. people's suggested. Those emissions are sky high, if you can't get it passing easily without a CAT you havn't fixed the prob. With 60 000 it should be nothing major or expensive, sensors, MAF, something blocked or choked etc.

[g0ldf1ng3r 15]

I'd forget about the CAT mate, a half decent running VR6 should pass emmissions with no CAT on it. Mines sailed through every year miles under, this year it passed, admittedly just, with I'm sure 1 or 2 worn valves, it was starting to very slightly misfire when warm and couple of small puffs of smoke after coasting downhill, passed MOT then drove straight in to garage and fitted rebuilt engine in it.

With 60 000 miles it should be sailing through, putting the CAT on is just masking any probs., a blocked breather valve can create havoc with emissions, easy check and fix, and check all other sensors etc. people's suggested. Those emissions are sky high, if you can't get it passing easily without a CAT you havn't fixed the prob. With 60 000 it should be nothing major or expensive, sensors, MAF, something blocked or choked etc.

 

is it not an MOT fail if the car left the factory with a CAT but is then missing it

[dr_mat 0]

Looks like it was running *very* rich. Most likely a failed lambda sensor.

[jekel 10]

is it not an MOT fail if the car left the factory with a CAT but is then missing it

 

You need a friendlier MOT tester, mines a 94 on an L with CAT removed, (and sitting in garage but never needed it), before removed MOT place told me so long as passes emissions not bothered if has CAT on and that car will fly through it's mint. I'm pretty sure legally their right, some manufacturers started putting CAT's on before law changed, there's nothing to say cars got to be as factory prior to law change, think it was about 94,95,96 ish

[g0ldf1ng3r 15]

You need a friendlier MOT tester, mines a 94 on an L with CAT removed, (and sitting in garage but never needed it), before removed MOT place told me so long as passes emissions not bothered if has CAT on and that car will fly through it's mint. I'm pretty sure legally their right, some manufacturers started putting CAT's on before law changed, there's nothing to say cars got to be as factory prior to law change, think it was about 94,95,96 ish

 

that may be all well & good but are you not then infringing on your insurance

 

insurers are complete arses & will wriggle out of any payments they can - if you were in an accident & they saw you had no CAT they could say it invalidates your MOT & as such invalidates your insurance

[jekel 10]

that may be all well & good but are you not then infringing on your insurance

 

insurers are complete arses & will wriggle out of any payments they can - if you were in an accident & they saw you had no CAT they could say it invalidates your MOT & as such invalidates your insurance

 

Well having been a Claims Negotiator for 10 years I can definitely say that one's bollocks, I'm now a Senior Civil Servant and could send the first one off to the DfT for a definitive answer but something tells me that's not an efficient use of taxpayers resources

[g0ldf1ng3r 15]

Well having been a Claims Negotiator for 10 years I can definitely say that one's bollocks, I'm now a Senior Civil Servant and could send the first one off to the DfT for a definitive answer but something tells me that's not an efficient use of taxpayers resources

 

really!? now that is interesting

 

I thought it would be along the same lines as not declaring a modification as if they sent the car for an independent MOT it would fail

 

I have heard horror stories of insurers trying to get out of paying out. for example I read in the news a while ago about co-op refusing to pay out to a woman who was hit head on by another driver but because the other drivers fell asleep at the time of the accident the co-op were trying to say that person couldn't be held responsible for their actions

 

no personal offence meant in what I say next BUT since when do our taxes in the UK get used resourcefully!! PMSL

[jekel 10]

really!? now that is interesting

 

I thought it would be along the same lines as not declaring a modification as if they sent the car for an independent MOT it would fail

 

I have heard horror stories of insurers trying to get out of paying out. for example I read in the news a while ago about co-op refusing to pay out to a woman who was hit head on by another driver but because the other drivers fell asleep at the time of the accident the co-op were trying to say that person couldn't be held responsible for their actions

 

 

no personal offence meant in what I say next BUT since when do our taxes in the UK get used resourcefully!! PMSL

 

None taken mate, there are fly by night insurers out there that'll try anything on, Lloyds syndicates mainly, not normally the Co-Op, and strange as it sounds that one's not as "out there" as it sounds, it's called "agony of the moment", and in certain circs. they'd have a winnable case. Fair point on the taxes but might not win the day at next audit, lol

[g0ldf1ng3r 15]

None taken mate, there are fly by night insurers out there that'll try anything on, Lloyds syndicates mainly, not normally the Co-Op, and strange as it sounds that one's not as "out there" as it sounds, it's called "agony of the moment", and in certain circs. they'd have a winnable case. Fair point on the taxes but might not win the day at next audit, lol

 

blimey, is it really not as out there as it sounds. it shocked me as surely the person who fell asleep was not driving with 'due care'....as they couldn't bloody see due to being asleep lol

 

indeed, hiding that kind of query could be tough during audit lol

[jekel 10]

blimey, is it really not as out there as it sounds. it shocked me as surely the person who fell asleep was not driving with 'due care'....as they couldn't bloody see due to being asleep lol

 

indeed, hiding that kind of query could be tough during audit lol

 

Depends on why they fell asleep, if he/she hadn't slept for a week and jumped in car, fair play, if it's a narcoleptic who decided or forgot to take meds, fair play, if it's a non-diagnosed narcoleptic who had no prior warnings "a reasonable man" could have recognised, their off Scot free, in hands of half decent handler. The fact you obviously caused the acc. ain't in itself enough to prove negligence. The classic one, and the most used case law is stung by a wasp, so next time you plough into the back of the Bugatti Veyron mate, "wasp flew in car window and stung me in head just before acc. officer", a "reasonable man" could not be expected to maintain control in those seconds following, ohh and get out and find a wasp quick, lol

[g0ldf1ng3r 15]

Depends on why they fell asleep, if he/she hadn't slept for a week and jumped in car, fair play, if it's a narcoleptic who decided or forgot to take meds, fair play, if it's a non-diagnosed narcoleptic who had no prior warnings "a reasonable man" could have recognised, their off Scot free, in hands of half decent handler. The fact you obviously caused the acc. ain't in itself enough to prove negligence. The classic one, and the most used case law is stung by a wasp, so next time you plough into the back of the Bugatti Veyron mate, "wasp flew in car window and stung me in head just before acc. officer", a "reasonable man" could not be expected to maintain control in those seconds following, ohh and get out and find a wasp quick, lol

 

great explanation thank you, even if it is a little scary to read.

 

I do like the wasp thing, very interesting lol

[Dox 23]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/429032/mot-inspection-manual-classes-3-4-5-7-vehicles.pdf

 

Go to 7.3 page 9

[jekel 10]

Just had quick look at that, my reading of that is between Aug. 92 and July 95, which will be most VR6's, if can find exact match on database do a CAT Test, that means it's got to get under 0.3%, not that it's got to have a CAT, nothing on their says car needs to have CAT fitted, if it can pass the CAT test which is only defined by % CO2, not any exhaust hardware, then you've passed, so my MOT place applying correctly, mines always got well under 0.3 without a CAT, even with a couple of worn valves (though otherwise engine was mint, MOT bloke thought I was mad for changing it.

Interestingly butit says if can't find an exact match on database do the non CAT test, which is 3.5%, think I heard something about this along lines of if you insist it's tested as a Corrado VR6 2.9 there's no chance it'll still be on database if ever was, they might be testing as a Golf 2.8 or Passat or something but that ain't an exact match, so worthwhile bearing in mind for anyone who's got an old, or very worn VR6 who's looking for a pass.

 

My point with the 60 000 miler though is it should fly through just like mine always did, without CAT, so even if you scrape a pass by putting CAT on your car still ain't running right, so diagnose and fix it properly now, if you can't get under 0.3 without a CAT keep looking until it's 100%

[Dox 23]

I think you'll find ABV is on the database.

 

Although I cant find it on that link, anything that has emission equipment removed "should" be a fail as of earlier this year due to the amount of people removing DPFs etc from diesels. A gutted DPF is a pass, but the item has to be in place and appear as it left the factory etc etc

[dr_mat 0]

I think it was only introduced recently to require diesels to have dpf and catalyst fitted. Prior to that it was a pure emissions test, now the actual specification is checked to make sure these environmental devices are still present.

None of this matters for 20 year old VR6s..

[Dox 23]

I think it was only introduced recently to require diesels to have dpf and catalyst fitted. Prior to that it was a pure emissions test, now the actual specification is checked to make sure these environmental devices are still present.

None of this matters for 20 year old VR6s..

 

If they have ABV engines on there database they will also know it came cat equipped from the factory and it "should" fail on a missing cat

[jekel 10]

If they have ABV engines on there database they will also know it came cat equipped from the factory and it "should" fail on a missing cat

We've probably done this to death but the DfT docs. that bloke posted are very black and white in that VR6's of that era don't need a CAT merely need to pass the "CAT" emissions.

When thinking bout it the only thing my car has on it that most prob. don't is :

a) a oil catch can, the oil breather never gets near intake, it gets fresh air and fuel only, maybe that makes a diff.

b) Broquet fuel catalyst in tank, I've used these on a host of old Fords mainly Capri's since unleaded petrol came out, ran one Capri on unleaded (non hardened leaded valve engine) for good 50 000 miles with no mods. without any issues. Though all my Capri's after that had rebuilt engines always seemed to run better and very clean with Broquet. My dad started using them on every car he had since he was in RAF (they were first used to enable Spitfires to run on the incredibly rough Russian petrol during the war) and all RAF and ex RAF tend to swear by them. He ran one on an Audi ur quattro new from factory for over 100 000 and I swear it ran sweeter the day he sold it than brand new.

From memory my VR6 was less than 0.1% at every test till last when it scraped under at bout .27 or .28 think, but there was deffo. something slightly worn in head area then, I'll bet it'll be way under again with the new engine.

Mines got aftermarket intake, and it's remapped now, but also passed easily on standard ECU.

If you've got a VR6 in really top notch nick and it's not sailing below 0.3, maybe 1 or both of the above things makes a difference.

[Dox 23]

1995 "N" UK reg onwards was the first date for mandatory cat testing. K,L & M reg only get a full cat test if there is an EXACT match on VIN & engine codes in the EGA database.

 

This is where you need to go to the online book. Lots of Renault models of this era also asked for a match on the make of ECU/injection system eg Bosch, Siemens, Magnetti Marelli etc.

 

From a qualified tester on a technicians forum