MOT Emmisions Failure

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:

Reply to
Jack
Loading thread data ...

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

Reply to
murphwiz

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

Spencer

Reply to
Jack

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

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

Reply to
EMB

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

Reply to
Jack

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

Reply to
Jack

No.

Reply to
SimonJ

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

Reply to
Larry

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!

Reply to
EMB

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

Reply to
Hirsty's

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?

Reply to
Austin Shackles

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

Reply to
Jack

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 .. ;)

Reply to
Paul - xxx

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

Reply to
David French

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 ;)

Reply to
Paul - xxx

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

Reply to
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

Reply to
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.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

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.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

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

Reply to
Paul - xxx

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.