MOT Testers... HELP!

[Barry Cade]

I'm in an arguement on the Olvlov forum. It's getting heated, and I'm fighting my corner alone. A pre 1992 car that had a CAT, but does not need a CAT test. Does it have to have a CAT.

 

I've read and re-read the manual, and am 100% that it is no problem to remove the CAT on a car that doesn't get CAT tested. Different for a Diesel of any age, but fine on a petrol.

 

 

If I'm right, many Volvo's are being crushed for no reason.

[Tayne]

I de-catted my early '92 Range Rover Classic and it had no problems passing the MoT.

 

Mind you, it was on lpg.

Also, I'm not an MoT tester.

[sheffcortinacentre]

loads of pre 92 yanks have been de-catted (74ish on they where fitted) with no probs.

[Barry Cade]

Early catalyst equipped vehicles may not require a ‘CAT’ test. The flowcharts and notes must be carefully followed.

 

 

Method of Inspection

3. On spark ignition engine vehicles that qualify for a full catalyst emissions test and all compression ignition vehicles check the presence of catalytic converter(s) and particulate filter(s).

 

Reason for Rejection

3. A catalytic converter or particulate filter missing where one was fitted as standard.

 

I've read and re read this and I'm still sure that I'm right.

Guy who is arguing has a "friend" who has been a tester and mechanic for 35 years.... and does hundreds of MOT's every year.

 

AAARRRGGGHHH

[mouseflakes]

I know nothing about MOT testing.

 

This...

 

"3. On spark ignition engine vehicles that qualify for a full catalyst emissions test and all compression ignition vehicles check the presence of catalytic converter(s) and particulate filter(s)."

 

...would suggest to me that for spark ignition vehicles, only if the vehicle qualifies for the test does the tester have to check for the presence of a cat and filter?

 

If it doesn't qualify for the test - then there is no need to check for the presence of those items.

 

I've no idea how one knows if the car qualifies for the test.

 

From my understanding of the English language at least, I agree with you Barry.

[mouseflakes]

I can see that this might cause confusion...

 

"Reason for Rejection

3. A catalytic converter or particulate filter missing where one was fitted as standard."

 

...but if the vehicle didn't qualify for this check then it follows that it can't be rejected.

 

The point about "where one was fitted as standard" would fail those vehicles that qualify for the test and were fitted with these things as standard but no longer have them. Presumably it also allows for a 'pass' for those cars that qualify for the test but weren't fitted with cats as standard. I get the impression from what you say that some cars do not qualify for the test even though they were fitted with them as standard. These vehicles then shouldn't be rejected for the lack of cat/filter, because they don't qualify for the test in the first place.

 

Again - this is just how I would interpret the wording. I know nothing about MOT testing.

[sheffcortinacentre]

would think most testers wouldn't bother with a pre 92 if theres no evidence of one being there in the past.

[KruJoe]

This has been discussed at length on various forums (incl this one).

It generally depends on the tester.

I asked 'Jack the Test' who does mine, he ain't bothered on cars this age, so long as they pass on his emissions machine.

[nigel bickle]

My 1993 Gaz doesn't have a cat. Not yet been a problem..

[Sloth in a bowl]

If the car was first used before 1st August 1992 then it does not get checked for a CAT.

This is clearly marked on the non CAT test flowchart in section 7.3 of the mot testing manual (which is online)

[cort16]

My mate has a 1991 E30 318is that had been de-catted and never had any problems getting it through an MOT. That was about 10 years ago mind you.

 

Does VOSA not have a telephone line for MOT testers to check these things?

[panhard65]

Many years ago I rang VOSA about a car I was testing. It was not long after they brought in side repeater lamps. They got a bit stroppy saying have I not read the manual and why am I calling them. I did get one over on them as it was a yank I was testing at the time which didn't have side repeaters but did have "wrap round" indicators. According to the manual "wrap round" ones were ok if they had an "e" mark on them. These ones didn't but VOSA said it would be harsh to fail it so pass and advise. Hopefully they might be a bit more helpful now, but on the other hand they might mark it on your record for ringing up with questions that they assume you should know the answer to.

[dieselnutjob]

Reason for Rejection

3. A catalytic converter or particulate filter missing where one was fitted as standard.

 

 

How do they know what was fitted as standard ?  (I mean with respect to diesels)

[Lankytim]

AFAIK if it predates the need to have a CAT then it doesn't need one even if it was fitted as standard. I'm not a tester but id wager the internet expert on the VOC forum is RONG.

[red5]

7.3 Exhaust Emissions - Spark Ignition - General

 

The exhaust emission test

 

The catalyst test is part of the MOT test for most spark ignition petrol engined vehicles with four or more wheels first used on and after 1 August 1992

 

This tired old argument again.....

 

As V40ish said.

[brickwall]

Some manufacturers ie Rover had dispensation to carry on not using cats for a period of time due to stock levels. It would be by engine number. You can download all the engine numbers than must have a cat etc and the ones that don't.  My 92 rangie does not need one. I downloaded the 17th edition for the MOT tester, I think it is now 19th edition?

[dugong]

I'm in an arguement on the Olvlov forum. It's getting heated, and I'm fighting my corner alone. A pre 1992 car that had a CAT, but does not need a CAT test. Does it have to have a CAT.

 

I've read and re-read the manual, and am 100% that it is no problem to remove the CAT on a car that doesn't get CAT tested. Different for a Diesel of any age, but fine on a petrol.

 

 

If I'm right, many Volvo's are being crushed for no reason.

 

Link please. I will contribute. 

[Barry Cade]

It's not really the same old argument,as the testers manual has changed very recently.

 

The thread is here:

 

http://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=201964

 

 

I got confirmation in writing from VOSA today, that a car that does not get a CAT test does NOT need a CAT, even if it was fitted as standard. Diesels are different. 

 

I'm not venturing to any other forums anymore...I'm staying here!

[red5]

Errr - I linked that from the latest edition - it's not changed since the cut-off was bought in. It's exactly the same type of misinterpretation that was going on when I was testing back then. Blimey, 22 years ago...oooerr

 

Either way, its bob-on. Anyone who applies it differently is, well, wrongâ„¢

 

Edit - just read your link - didn't he actually argue against his own point?

[Barry Cade]

I was kinda losing the will to live near the end.. Now I remember why I don't do clubs anymore. I'm sure if he was being quoted 500 notes for a Cat and downpipe for his 1990 240 GL, the attitude would be very different...

[oldford]

It all depends on when the vehicle was first used, if it was first used before 31st July 1992 (the day before the K registration came out) it has a non cat test which is 3.5% CO and 1200ppm HC at idle.  It's all there in the MOT testers manual:

 

http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/doitonline/bl/mottestingmanualsandguides/mottestingmanualsandguides.htm

 

Take a look in the class IV testers manual, section 7.3 and look at the flow charts, as it's all there in black and white.

 

Once the tester puts the car details into the emissions computer, it will ask which band the registration letter falls into and the computer will prompt the tester so that the correct test is carried out for the age of the vehicle.

 

If you've got a Suzuki first used between 01/08/92 and 31/07/95 and it fails the cat test, you've got no problem as Suzuki don't provide any emissions data, so no exact match in the emissions book, which means that it has to have a non cat test.

[michael1703]

How do they know what was fitted as standard ?  (I mean with respect to diesels)

When the tester puts your vin or reg number into the VTS machine there is a thing called VSI (vehicle specific information) which tells the tester where the jacking points are,how the MIL for the ABS ESP etc should illuminate/extinguish but it will also tell the tester whether the car should have a CAT or DPF fitted

[michael1703]

Oldford just beat me to it above ^

 

I've just spent 3 days at vosa doing my NT course, my head is frazzled with anacronyms

[oldford]

When the tester puts your vin or reg number into the VTS machine there is a thing called VSI (vehicle specific information) which tells the tester where the jacking points are,how the MIL for the ABS ESP etc should illuminate/extinguish but it will also tell the tester whether the car should have a CAT or DPF fitted

The VSI is very good at looking comprehensive  but it is quite vague.  It doesn't detail emissions equipment and it'll sometimes give you conflicting advice, one example of which is where to jack 2 different model Jaguars (S type & XF) with identical suspension systems.  I tend to take it with a pinch of salt.  You'll also find that sometimes it doesn't come up automatically, so you have to go through loads of lists to get it.

 

Hope you passed your NT course, where did you take it?  Get some practice in for your demo test.

[Barry Cade]

The question/argument/toys oot ra pram wasn't what needed a CAT test, it was if a car did not need a CAT test, but had a CAT fitted from the factory, can it be removed without it causing a fail due to no CAT.

[oldford]

Not old enough for a cat test, therefore it doesn't qualify for one which negates the need for a cat.  If it was factory fitted and removed, it can't be failed for being removed.

 

If you're Tiff on the Volvo thread, you are correct.

[michael1703]

The VSI is very good at looking comprehensive but it is quite vague. It doesn't detail emissions equipment and it'll sometimes give you conflicting advice, one example of which is where to jack 2 different model Jaguars (S type & XF) with identical suspension systems. I tend to take it with a pinch of salt. You'll also find that sometimes it doesn't come up automatically, so you have to go through loads of lists to get it.

 

Hope you passed your NT course, where did you take it? Get some practice in for your demo test.

Passed ok,Did it at thetford roly batchelor was the tutor. I'm still not ready yet,I'm also the AE so I'm digging my floor up monday and hope to have a site visit from vosa so I can get a VTS from ATOS, I'll spend a week doing practice mots with it before my demo test

[Vince70]

I just wish I could bin the cat and go decat on my K plate Audi as it's 1st cat lasted 18 years and since then it's had two Micky mouse cheap ones..

I guess you only get what you pay for but a decent cat for it out values the car and I don't have that kind of Money.

It looks like I missed out by a matter of a few months as it's registered in March 93

[FredTransit]

what about taking the cat off, kicking around the garage, shaking it till the innards are gone then putting it back? As long as the car passes the emissions can it still fail as apparently the cats still in place?

[Gerald]

I've heard this anorl... ^^^

 

There are CAT-A-LIKES for K series gaylanders with the lambda boss built in and a comparable shaped 'Cat' housing.

 

Tried my 51 reg, 1800 gaylander yesterday with a new eggsauce and the second lambda in but disconnected and it seemed to honk steam out and run lumpy.

 

[NOT OMGHGF though...]