mdw
Part of things
Posts: 400 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
I have a 1993 e30 touring which is fitted with a 2.5 out of a 1989 e30.
My question is should it be tested as a cat equipped car or not? Should it be tested as a 1993 hence needing a cat or should it be tested as a 1989 not needing a cat?
Thanks
|
| |
1989 VW Caddy
1993 BMW 316/2.5 Touring
1985 BMW 316 (e30)
1984 BMW 316 (e21)
1992 VW Passat
1984 Porsche 924 - SOLD
1985 Volvo 340 GL - disfigured Now cubed
1990 BMW 318i - Sold
1989 BMW 535i SE - executive express SOLD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should be tested on the ages of the engine, but you need to provide some kind of paperwork to date the engine (Copy of donor V5 for example)
|
| |
|
|
mdw
Part of things
Posts: 400
|
|
|
|
|
How can prove age of engine without v5? The engine was already in the car when I got it.
|
| |
1989 VW Caddy
1993 BMW 316/2.5 Touring
1985 BMW 316 (e30)
1984 BMW 316 (e21)
1992 VW Passat
1984 Porsche 924 - SOLD
1985 Volvo 340 GL - disfigured Now cubed
1990 BMW 318i - Sold
1989 BMW 535i SE - executive express SOLD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if its on the brain for the enigne, i think it ll have a date on it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd take it nd see what happens I had an l reg 318 That I decatted and remapped and it went thru an mot
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trouble is if the car is meant to have a  but it has been taken out then it fails now. you might just be able to get away with it on a k reg though, as not all cars had  fitted standard. My 309 is on a k plate but never had a cat, so it passed. However the K plate vauxhall astra estate that cam in which did have a  fitted failed because it didn't meet the emission requirements. So it's a tough one. It's not your fault, MOT tests are a joke. For example, if you have a 11 mm stone chip within 40cm of your primary line of sight in front of you that fails. However, if you stick a disabled blue badge for example, (any government sticker will do.) right smack bang in front of you, it doesnt fail. explain that? |
| |
'72 Opel kadett coupe
'77 Opel kadett city sr
'92 Peugeot 309 Gti Goodwood
'93 Peugeot 205 GL auto
'88 Citroen BX 16v(Breaking)
|
|
Rich
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 6,249
Club RR Member Number: 160
|
|
|
|
However, if you stick a disabled blue badge for example, (any government sticker will do.) right smack bang in front of you, it doesnt fail. explain that? No, that's an RFR.. (Edit: RFR 1, www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s08000302.htm)Anyway, the vehicle emissions are tested based on whichever is older, the engine or the car, provided either is prove-able. If you have a 1995 mini for example and you can prove it has a 1973 engine fitted it has to pass the relevant emissions test for the 1973 year- in this case visual smoke emissions. Therefore it doesn't need a cat to pass and the engine wouldn't have had one fitted. |
| |
Last Edit: Mar 1, 2014 20:55:30 GMT by Rich
|
|
mdw
Part of things
Posts: 400
|
|
|
|
|
The reason I asked is it did fail on lack of cat and emissions although it's never been a problem before.
The mot tester did even notice the 2.5 6cylinder under the bonnet when the car came up as a 1.6 4pot!
I always thought that anything before 94 didn't have to have a cat, but tester has informed me that since last year anything after 1/8/1992 must have a cat!
I was also told that it's tested on the age of car, which is not what you guys are telling me!
|
| |
Last Edit: Mar 1, 2014 19:15:03 GMT by mdw
1989 VW Caddy
1993 BMW 316/2.5 Touring
1985 BMW 316 (e30)
1984 BMW 316 (e21)
1992 VW Passat
1984 Porsche 924 - SOLD
1985 Volvo 340 GL - disfigured Now cubed
1990 BMW 318i - Sold
1989 BMW 535i SE - executive express SOLD
|
|
Rich
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 6,249
Club RR Member Number: 160
|
|
|
|
This is what you want to look at, follow the flow chart. You won't find a match for your car technically as it has the wrong engine. www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s07000309.htmThe actual 'test on what's oldest' rule doesn't actually appear in writing in the VOSA manual. |
| |
|
|
mdw
Part of things
Posts: 400
|
|
|
|
This is what you want to look at, follow the flow chart. You won't find a match for your car technically as it has the wrong engine. www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s07000309.htmThe actual 'test on what's oldest' rule doesn't actually appear in writing in the VOSA manual. I was looking at this earlier and I interpret it as needing to be tested as a non cat but they need to check engine number for that. I think they just went on vin hence tested it as a cat equipped car. |
| |
1989 VW Caddy
1993 BMW 316/2.5 Touring
1985 BMW 316 (e30)
1984 BMW 316 (e21)
1992 VW Passat
1984 Porsche 924 - SOLD
1985 Volvo 340 GL - disfigured Now cubed
1990 BMW 318i - Sold
1989 BMW 535i SE - executive express SOLD
|
|
|
|
stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,840
Club RR Member Number: 174
|
|
|
|
|
Just bung the MOT tester a few quid not to notice that its missing.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if said 89 engine was cat equipped, it has to stay.
I have a 92 ZX 16v, they always had cats, even though its registered pre 93, has to stay. (its also borderline would probably pass emissions with a decat pipe too, but with recent regs cat has to be present, or at least look like it is...)
I had a 309 Goodwood a few years ago, was built in 92 without a car, registered in 93, non cat engine so didn't need one.
|
| |
|
|
Ryannn
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,421
|
|
|
|
|
August 92 is the start date for cats. I have a mini that's December 92 and have blagged it many times lol.
|
| |
|
|
insig
Part of things
Posts: 32
|
|
|
|
However, if you stick a disabled blue badge for example, (any government sticker will do.) right smack bang in front of you, it doesnt fail. explain that? No, that's an RFR.. (Edit: RFR 1, www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s08000302.htm)Anyway, the vehicle emissions are tested based on whichever is older, the engine or the car, provided either is prove-able. If you have a 1995 mini for example and you can prove it has a 1973 engine fitted it has to pass the relevant emissions test for the 1973 year- in this case visual smoke emissions. Therefore it doesn't need a cat to pass and the engine wouldn't have had one fitted. Taken from the testers manual: ‘Official’ stickers that are not readily removable, such as vehicle licences, parking and access permits, are only a reason for rejection if they seriously restrict the driver’s view. ‘Official’ stickers should be taken to be any sticker that is used in connection with ‘road enforcement’, ‘security’ or ‘crime prevention’ matters. These include: Disabled Persons Badges/permits, Parking Permits, Licences and Vehicle Anti-Theft Scheme stickers issued by a Police Authority So the first quote is a load of rubbish as anything directly in front of the driver will seriously restrict the drivers view. And Vehicles fitted with a different engine must be tested to the requirements of whichever is older, the engine or the vehicle. e.g. A 1995 car fitted with a 1991 engine (of whatever make), test to 1991 standards for emission purposes. Note: The onus is on the vehicle presenter to prove engine age. The second quote is correct, though proof must be provided as to the age of the engine. If the engine was from another model which was never fitted to the model being tested, the tester won't be able to find an exact match on the emissions database, which means for a car first used between 01/08/92 and 31/07/95 after it's failed the Basic Emissions Test (BET) the extended test will go to the default limits of 3.5% CO and 1200 ppm HC which will be easily achievable by a car without a cat. To answer the original question if you can't prove the age of the engine, I'll test it according to the age of the car. By providing all the data that you can, engine code, model code, VIN code, engine serial number and locating the engine number on the engine for the tester and making it legible, it may just lead the tester to conclude that there is not an exact match in the in service emissions book which will mean the the emissions test needs to be done to the higher limits above. That test will be a non cat test so it'll have the advantage of not getting a fail due to a missing cat. |
| |
Last Edit: Mar 4, 2014 20:59:15 GMT by insig
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to hijack the thread,but I was having a conversation at work today, and one of the guys said he trailered his car to the mot station with NO ENGINE. the car was tested and passed as apparently, because the engine wasn't there it couldn't be tested. He needed the mot because he only has on street parking and the car needed to be legal to be parked there.
Is this nonsence? Or potentially true?
|
| |
|
|
Rich
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 6,249
Club RR Member Number: 160
|
|
|
|
Sorry to hijack the thread,but I was having a conversation at work today, and one of the guys said he trailered his car to the mot station with NO ENGINE. the car was tested and passed as apparently, because the engine wasn't there it couldn't be tested. He needed the mot because he only has on street parking and the car needed to be legal to be parked there. Is this nonsence? Or potentially true? Tester should refuse to test, on the basis that it's ridiculous.  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to hijack the thread,but I was having a conversation at work today, and one of the guys said he trailered his car to the mot station with NO ENGINE. the car was tested and passed as apparently, because the engine wasn't there it couldn't be tested. He needed the mot because he only has on street parking and the car needed to be legal to be parked there. Is this nonsence? Or potentially true? Technically could be done but any testers should refuse to test as not suitable. How did they get it on and off the brake rollers, I doubt very much the tester would push it and the customer isn't allowed in the testing area and if post 1975 it still needs emissions testing. Exhaust system would either be missing or insecure which should fail it. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He said the tester and one of the mechanics pushed it on. I have no reason to believe he is lying but I just wondered if anyone else had ever heard of it. Oh and to the person who said it's ridiculous, well it's not really, is it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh aswell, the exhaust was removed completely so it couldn't fail if it wasn't there he said. No different to removing a spare wheel. Not a fail if it's missing, but a fail if it's bald. I think the same goes for many other things on an mot I.e. seatbelts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No different to removing a spare wheel. Not a fail if it's missing, but a fail if it's bald. I think the same goes for many other things on an mot I.e. seatbelts WRONG Spare are not checked on the MOT a completely bald spare tyre will not result in a fail, only road wheels that is wheels that are touching the road are testable items. As for seat belts is depends on the age of the car. |
| |
|
|
|
|
