33 replies to this topic

[HarrysMini]

My 1993 SPi Cooper would have needed a CAT to pass the MoT, however I took it to the scrappy and got £15 for it.

 

I'm currently building a 1983 MG Metro carburettor engine which will replace whatever original unit it had and all traces of fuel injection are being removed. This of course, doesn't require a CAT and it is perfectly legal to run without one, as it will have to pass 1983 emissions standards. 

[DomCr250]

My 1993 SPi Cooper would have needed a CAT to pass the MoT, however I took it to the scrappy and got £15 for it.

 

I'm currently building a 1983 MG Metro carburettor engine which will replace whatever original unit it had and all traces of fuel injection are being removed. This of course, doesn't require a CAT and it is perfectly legal to run without one, as it will have to pass 1983 emissions standards. 

That is why Caterham purchased a stack of Red Top 16V Vauxhall engines before CAT became mandatory fitment to production cars - it allowed them to produce very high performance cars registered after the law changed with no CAT fitted. 

 

I love what the Italian supercar manufactures do ... basically the CAT is bypassed by a valve when the engine hits a certain rev figure and this is 100% legal, these cars pass MOT's every year - true Italian engineering 'find a way round the rules'!

Edited by DomCr250, 08 March 2014 - 09:48 AM.

[tiger99]

I like that, except that the Vauxhall red top will not fit a Mini without a huge amount of work, and an IVA if you want to be legal. (Yes, I know you never suggested that it would, and I am going off topic, but it is a very nice engine, and Minis are very nice cars, so I can't help but think that way...) But it will fit many other cars, FWD or RWD, and used to be a favourite choice for many odd conversions. Not so much nowadays, as I think the supply is drying up, and/or other, newer and better engines have become available.

 

Not sure about the Italians however, it seems that it "should" be illegal.

[tiger99]

cradley-heathen,

 

I understand why you will not name the garage, however my intention is not to get a classic-friendly garage to pass something that should really fail (I am very much against that), but rather to avoid getting into stupid disputes, and appeals to VOSA, when a garage without recent classic experience fails something that should actually pass. I also expect that a car that is unsafe should be failed, although sometimes thay are not, due to limitations of the MOT test. The point of the MOT is, or should be, to prevent unnecessary accidents, incidents,injuries, damage and pollution.

 

A common example used to be the lower ball joints on the front suspension of older Vauxhalls. The joint is always under tension, because the spring/damper acts on the lower wishbone, and an end float of over 0.1" is allowed, in fact the end float of a new joint was not closely set during manufacture because there was no need. (Think of a Mini knuckle joint, that is always under compressive load.) The correct check involved an external measurement with a simple gauge, to see if the ball had sunk seriously into its seating. (In case of severe wear it could pull through, with potentially fatal results.) However, MOT testers frequently jacked the car up, and used a crowbar between upright and wishbone to assess free play, and promptly failed it, even if the ball joint was brand new. I never owned one of these cars, and don't like them, due to stodgy handling, but I knew people who did, and they soon realised that if they went elsewhere than to a Vauxhall garage there was a good chance of a bogus failure. Now, even Vauxhall garages will have lost the knowledge...