Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Am I screwed???


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#46 Sprocket

Sprocket

    Great on Injection faults

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,266 posts
  • Location: Warrington
  • Local Club: Manchester Minis

Posted 21 December 2006 - 11:43 PM

The gas analysers have an inbuilt database, which is why you have to input the engine number of the vehicle at the start of the emissions test (for vehicles from '92 onwards). If the engine is listed in that database, then surely it should set the gas analyser to test to the original specification of the engine? An MOT regulation cannot impose retrospective requirements upon a vehicle (cannot require a lower CO2 reading than original specification). If the engine number is not listed within the database, then the tester must carry out a non-cat test, no???

With that engine number, it should be tested as a non-cat car, as the database should tell them that the pass/fail criteria are a CO2 of <3.5% and a HC of <1200 parts per million, surely???


MOT testers best judgement :w00t:

#47 TheFunkyGibbon

TheFunkyGibbon

    Mini Mad

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 162 posts
  • Local Club: Non yet...

Posted 27 December 2006 - 04:29 PM

Sorry about the long delay....

Kwik-C**p gave me a very long and drawn out story that all they do is type in the car reg and the instrument auto sets it's limits....hence they made no mistake......then they added that 'even our bloke at VOSA hadn't heard of this loophole'...

In the end he accepted the the car shopuld be tested to the 3.5% standard (although by the Rover CD it should be 1.5, but I didn't point that out :w00t:)and said that he couldn't refund my test fee but would extend the time I had to get it re-checked there until after Christmas...

As you may have guessed I'll not be returning in the new year....this has been an expencsive lesson learnt, but a lesson all the same...

Cheers for your help all..

FG.

#48 Jimmyarm

Jimmyarm

    Entrepreneur of Adult Material

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,239 posts
  • Local Club: TMf

Posted 27 December 2006 - 04:59 PM

Bloody quick C**p, they argue it wasnt there fault and then agree that it should be tested to 3.5% ! Just shows how useless they are.

We need a big sticky in the tech section where we can post up reasons not too use them !




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users