MOT Testers... HELP!

[danthecapriman]

Ive seen loads of 70s and 80s yanks that had cats from new, come over here, cats get chopped off and they pass mots no problems.

 

I used to have a 1991 J plate Volvo 340 catalyser. The original cat body died of rust and a replacement was expensive so I just bunged a non cat exhaust system on and it went through mots with no issues. (it even still had catalyser badges on the boot still!)

This car being a 91 didnt get emissions tested on its mot's for a cat equiped vehicle in spite of having one originally. With or without the cat it still got tested the same as old pre cat stuff.

[forddeliveryboy]

My neighbour's exhaust fumes are in competition with ten Deltics starting on a cold morning - his house runs on coal, burned with a severe lack of heat, compression and air even when up to temp. But his car is kind to the planet, apparently. What a lot of bowlocks this PC society is - any MoT tester who fails a pre-92 car on emissions because it was originally fitted with a cat needs a proper talking to.

[wuvvum]

I've seen decat pipes for L-series Rovers that are moulded to look like the cat is still there.  I might invest in one of those when I eventually get tRoD back on the road - they're not that much more expensive than the straight pipes.  Should still be OK on emissions as the cat on those cars is only a basic jobbie.

 

The Innocenti is a '93 but because it's a model that was never sold here there's no emissions data available, so it gets a non-cat test - although the results on its last two emissions tests have been such that it would have passed a cat test anyway.  Even the Lambda reading was within the limits - not bad for a carb engine.

[dieselnutjob]

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

 

My 607 had a DPF but being a 2001 X plate is on fixed rate tax which I thought meant that the government doesn't even know what the CO2 emissions are.  Frankly I would be amazed if they know or not whether it has a DPF.

[New POD]

my understanding is that the pre-92 car, must meet the emissions for a pre-92 car, and as a pre-92 car did not have to have a cat, even a car that had it fitted as standard only has to pass the test for a pre-92 car.

 

I say this because a mk3 astra I had which was 95 car, failed the MOT, as there was nothing in the cat box, and the emissions were too high, but the tester said, that had I an early one - Late J reg. He could have passed it, even though it would have had a cat as standard too.

[Barry Cade]

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.

Yup, thats me, and it is getting worse- He now has a letter from VOSA which proves that ANY car that was factory fitted with a CAT has to have one. Any of you who have a 72 onwards Yank car better get hunting........ I'm still fighting my corner but his "proof" is pretty damning, especially as it comes from the same person who I got a different answer from, but didn't want to name names...

 

I still think I am in the right. Testers are always told IT'S IN THE MANUAL.. and as far as I'm concerned, IT'S IN THE MANUAL 

 

I contacted another tester today, and just said -"1990 car, non cat test. Factory fitted CAT, which has been removed, pass or fail" 

At first he said straight away, fail, but after asking him to read the manual carefully, he then agreed with me. This is stupid.

 

 

 

AAARRRGGGHHH.

[Richard]

Life is too short to argue with people on the Volvo forum.

[PhilA]

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.

 

"We are not here to help, we are merely here to write the rules, conflict the rules, quietly publish the rules and stick the rules in Subsection J, in a dark basement. If you have to ask, you do not need to know. Either way, you are wrong, there is no correct answer, merely a gray area where the words picked by Bob in the typesetting department are poorly chosen. Please do not ask about Crystal Mark. Thankyou."

 

 

Government +1, Users of the Government 0

 

 

--Phil

[oldford]

Shadeymans post #10 is fundamentally flawed in that he's completely disregarded the method of inspection and gone straight to the refusal, which is not a shortcut that any MOT tester should take.  He should read the text on the picture he's posted as if the car doesn't qualify for a catalyst emissions test then it automatically does not qualify for inspection for the presence of a cat.  

 

If he were a tester would he be inspecting windscreens for damage from outside the car (like the Autoglass advert)? and failing for damage behind the rear view mirror not in the drivers view of the road.  Failing cars for no side repeaters, fog lamps, hazard warning regardless of the age of the car?

[scruff]

That's just it, he's not a tester, sod him Tiff.

[Barry Cade]

Grinds my gears, that's all.... and hate to think of an old giffer 740 getting crushed because a new cat is 600 quid.

[oldford]

I've signed up there and put my 2p worth in.

[mat_the_cat]

Very well put

[Barry Cade]

I messaged VOSA again today, and asked for clarification as it is causing a stink. Your reply was excellent by the way and put it perfectly what I have been trying (and obviously failing) to say....

[Barry Cade]

Reply No2 received and posted...

[oldford]

I saw that, nice one, it confirms that you are correct and that they are wrong, I wonder if they'll admit it?

[Mr Livered]

Seems pretty clear to me. Nice one

[forddeliveryboy]

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...

 

There are some who would make a huge point of handing over all the money, to sanctify/beatify themselves in club circles. One-make car clubs can tend to concentrate certain undesirable human qualities, I disengaged myself many moons ago.

 

These people need somewhere to go though - we don't want 'em cluttering up everyday life! As such, these clubs provide an invaluable (and cheap, for them, free for the rest of us) social service.

[Barry Cade]

Fuckin' LOL!

 

 

 

 

 

Erm?

The question you asked was " I really need clarification on catalysts being removed from vehicles which do not require a cat test"

The answer you got was " The inspection only applies to spark ignition vehicles that qualify for a full catalyst emissions test".

Again you ask a question to suit your theory.

Firstly, you ask about a vehicle that "doesn't require a cat test"(emissions test).

You don't qive the spec of the vehicle and allow them to answer, YOU tell them it doesn't require a CAT test.

This is wasting my time. If you, as a "qualified" person fails to ask the correct questions or fails to read the manuals correctly then good luck to you and your customers.
This is my last comment so please feel free to continue to justify yourself.

[mat_the_cat]

Why do some people seem unable to accept the fact they may be wrong? If that was me I'd hold my hands up and say "Sorry guys, I misunderstood." Not continue trying to defend my position!

[drum]

"This is my last comment" sounds to me like he doesn't want to have to admit he's wrong.

[garbaldy]

hes a man isn't he  we never admit when we are in the wrong

 

personably mr b cade I wouldn't bother wasting your time trying to save the guy money just let him buy a new cat then laugh at him for being a muppet.

[mouseflakes]

Shadeybollocks is beginning to tie his own noose.
 

If the CAT or DPF was factory fitted it must have one to pass an MOT.

 

"Thank you for your message.The inspection only applies to spark ignition engine vehicles that qualify for a full catalyst emissions test and all compression ignition vehicles,therefore a 1990 vehicle with a CAT removed can still pass,but a Diesel vehicle which has had a DPF removed which was fitted as standard will fail, whatever the age"

 

My friend, a grease monkey of 35 years. Does hundreds of MOT's every year, has just confirmed presence is checked on all vehicles if factory fitted regardless of whether a full emissions test is required.

VOSA might need to check hundreds of tests carried out by Shadey's chum.

[oldford]

Another 2p added.

[scruff]

I wonder what that bloke does for a living, I bet whatever it is, he is a total pain in the arse - either that or he's a character from 'W1A' constantly having to justify his existence. 

 

GR8 work though Tiff and oldford, and very educational! 

[twosmoke300]

You can't win with these dicks tiff/ Barry.

( are you actually the the Barry cade , our man in the trade ? 😃)

 

You just need to relax in the knowledge that you are right and at least you know how to read the manual correctly.

[Barry Cade]

LOL, not the real Barry Cade, he.along with Kowalski, were my childhood heroes. I always wanted to visit Cade's Garage, after reading my Dad's copies of Car Mechanics. He may have even been responsible for what I do today...

[twosmoke300]

Gutted ! Hoping I had stumbled on a legend.

No offence obviously 😊