MOT Emmisions Failure

Jun 29, 2004 44 Replies

Hi all


4.6 LPG Range Rover failed the emissions test today...... Its never just a blown bulb is it!!!

Its a 1998 4.6HSE



What makes it worse is that the Cats were changed less than 8 months ago.



When I compare the figures from the last two years I have seen a decrease in HC levels but an increase in CO



The figures on today's were



Limits Actual CO:


Sounds like the LPG system needs some adjusting, theres no need to run CAT's if your running on LPG.

The vehicle was tested on petrol and LPG..... Petrol was significantly worse at CO: 8.18%

Spencer

In news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de, Jack expelled:

Blocked air filter/intake air hose sucking flat or shed it's inner lining.

Funny you mention that.... I changed the complete air box and filter the other day because it had cracked due to a misfire about six months ago. But surely i would have noticed a decrease in power if a heavy breathing 4.6 wasn't getting enough air????

Regards

I have just read somewhere that vehicles with a gross vehicle weight in excess of 2500kg are exempt from the emissions test. Is this correct.

Regards Jack

Some classic vehicles are exempt from the MOT altogether but I have no idea which. Tanks maybe ?

In news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de, Jack expelled:

Probably not - emissions will rise significantly before you'll notice a loss of power from a large engine!

always wanted a road legal one, wonder what Ken would say about that ?

On or around Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:54:59 +0100, "Jack" enlightened us thusly:

the LPG thing is out of tune. what LPG system is it?

Hi Austin

Its an EMMEGAS system that mixes in the air intake.

I have been doing some google research and it is possible I think that the air flow meter is damaged after a back fire six months ago. I think I am right in saying this could be the source of the problem as the tests were pants on petrol too.

Regards

I've known someone run a V8 on seven cylinders, we think for about a month, and not know the difference .. ;) We know it was on seven because there wasn't a spark plug in the cylinder, well, there _was_ a spark plug, this one didn't have any central core, and wasn't connected to a HT lead either .. ;)

I was told mine was running on 7 cylinders once. I hadn't noticed either.

LOL

Had a friend with a Dodge Charger, Aus import so rhd, with a 7.2 (I think) V8 .. he ran it on one bank for a weekend without noticing too much difference, just that his fuel bill went up, and it wouldn't quite spin both wheels, only one side .. Minedewe, he was a right pillock ;)

Had my V8 running on 7 cylinders for a few weeks, spent all day with it off-roading at that time as well. I never noticed a lead had dropped off the plug untill I happened to change the plugs.

Alex

Applies to heavy vehicles (over 3500kg) registered before 1960. Also applies to Fire Engines, Recovery vehicles and some other esoteric things, as described under Goods Vehicle Plating & Testing Regulations

1988, schedule 2, reg 4.

formatting link
It its MGW is less than 3500kg, then it comes under Motor Vehicle (Test) regulations 1981, which is not available online, so I can't check it.

Alex

On or around Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:18:38 +0100, "Paul - xxx" enlightened us thusly:

I've had a rover V8 running on about 5½, and it still pulled quite well. makes it harder to start.

On or around Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:17:28 +0100, "Jack" enlightened us thusly:

which petrol system is it? some AFMs are more prone to damage than others.

check all over the place for pipes blown off.

I had a KH 250 that only ran on two pots in the rain .. but then _all_ Kawasaki triples did that .. ;)

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required