Dead Cat on 416?

You'll not be able to 'adjust' that kind of problem out - especially on an injected car. Definitely sounds like the cat. to me, anyway.

I wouldn't buy a cat from a breakers, as it's likely to be just as knackered as the one you're taking off - and even if it isn't it'll be well on it's way to failure - so it's a false economy.

A new catalyst from Bodyshopwarehouse comes in at around £130, and it probably the only option.

Just lift the carcass off and leave it by the road, it's owner will find it in the end. There may be a number on its collar you can call.

Assuming it is the cat & not the lamda sensor.

If it were the lambda it would be running like a bag of s**te. I've had one fail, and it did.

That's bloody cheap. Bookmarked for future reference.

yeah, great link! Bookmarked here too :)

In message , Tim S Kemp writes

You sick fu**er, I just sprayed hot tea all over my nice LCD screen.

In message , Mike Faithfull writes

Definitely not, it should have been around 14%, the CO figure should have been under 0.3%.

Suggest you go around the engine and check all the breather pipes are clear, including the ports to the engine and throttle body etc. before you rush out and buy a cat.

Has anyone tried cleaning a cat (automotive one!). I read somewhere that you can wash them with diluted drain cleaner and then diluted washing up liquid to remove the soot and they work again! Probably not worth the effort here as new ones are 60quid but on a larger one for several hundred?

With a CO and HC level like that, its not the cat which is primarily at fault, the engine is running way too rich. its running well, just too rich.

You dont mention the lambda value, but I bet its not switching either (ecu is not in closed loop running)

Check

Come back to us when you have checked these.

Tim..

First, thanks for all the valuable replies. Second, an update ... When I got home this evening, daughter told me she had spoken to the chap who tested it last year (a "friend of a friend" kind of thing) and he said he had not touched any settings to get it through the test, and it passed with flying colours. His view is that the 3.2 figure is "ridiculously high" and he called into question the integrity of the tester and/or his equipment. He did say he "revved the engine vigorously" for several minutes to make sure the cat was nice and hot before taking the readings last time and yesterday's tester may not have done so. He has offered to "fit it in" among his other work for a small consideration but has made it very clear he'll tell it like it is and not "fiddle" the results. If it does need a cat he said to fit a new front pipe as well - presumably the one that attaches directly to the engine - 'cos of rusty flakes and contamination of the new cat and poor sealing and doubtless other reasons too. With the work she's already had done, that would mean the exhaust system will probably outlast the life of the rest of the car !

She obviously should have taken the car back to this chap again for this year's test, but he's not local, and as she had the new exhaust system fitted locally and it was a pain to have to collect the car and drive it 20 miles yadda yadda yadda, you know what daughters are like !!

If it DOES turn out to be a dead cat, that "buyparts" URL sounds almost affordable !!

In message , Mike Faithfull writes

Agreed, it is, but there are so many variables to take into consideration that it's not a statement that carries any weight.

The ability/willingness of the tester might be a better target as the equipment is, generally, very stable and reliable. The usual equipment generated failure is high lambda or high HC, not high CO. If the tester is an employee of a large franchise/dealership, he may simply not have had the time or will to perform the jiggery pokery to get it to pass. It might not seem very fair, but the emissions test is supposed to be 'as presented' If the cat needs extra revving to get it somewhere near the emissions, then this, by rights, should be a fail.

See above... The standard cat test used to be check the engine oil temp, check the gases at idle, check the gases at cruise (3000RPM or thereabouts), if they didn't get within spec then perform an extended cruise check, if they didn't get within spec then, it was a fail. There was no leeway in this procedure if the MOT is done by the book. I know the BET test has changed this but I've been out of the emissions game for a year or two now and can't talk with any authority about the new regs, except to say that, if the car fails the BET portion of the test, then the procedure is *supposed to be the same as the old procedure from thereon in, I.E. a full, specs based cat test.

Good man, I could tell you stories about MOT stations, but I'd probably get sued.

Final report: ...

Daughter had the car tested again today by the aforementioned "friend of a friend" who tested it last year, and it passed in all categories by a comfortable margin. Quite by chance, today also, I discovered that a work colleague has significant experience with programming engine management systems ("building 3-dimensional fuel maps" was how he described one process!), and his view was that with a 3.2 CO figure the engine would hardly run, and if it did, then it would be very apparent by fuel consumption, performance (or lack of it!) and smell from the exhaust that all was not well. None of those effects is apparent and it runs as sweetly and powerfully as you could expect any engine with 125K miles on the clock to do.

The owner of the garage that employs "friend of friend" heard of the tale of woe and passed the opinion that is suspected / known to indulge in sharp practices and he was not at all surprised to hear about what has been going on. Daughter was inclined to return to and demand her money back on the basis that their equipment was faulty, but was advised that if they listened to her complaint at all (unlikely!) the limit of their co-operation would most probably be to do the emissions test again, pronounce the vehicle fit and healthy and issue the MOT cert. She's decided not to bother, but to heed the lesson she has learned and stay away from the establishment in future. They've also lost the chance to MOT test / fit exhausts / fit tyres or batteries to two other cars in the immediate family ...