mechanical cars - are there still cars around that don't use electronics

+AD4- It happens a +ACo-heck+ACo- of a lot in the Ford modding scene. Plenty of newer +AD4- stuff running old school (I believe the term is +ACI-old skool+ACI-) turbocharged +AD4- CVHs.

I've seen a few KAs around with Silvertop zetecs (pre-95 emmissions) fitted too, no cat needed...

"Note: The onus is on the vehicle presenter to prove engine age."

That means a letter from the maker confirming date of manufacture or if maker defunct whoever has the makers records.

As opposed to the engine serial no.?

I don't really see why you'd want one. Granted, a lot of the later CANBUS stuff is hugely complicated and flakey, but a 90s car that just has an engine ECU has very little to go wrong.

In message , DervMan writes

Wonder how they test a ZVH hybrid?

>

but maybe he want's a car that will still run after the EMP from a Nuclear war has destroyed all electronics. (go to scrap yard, buy a complete set of electronics and place in Faraday cage - biscuit tin connected to earth)

The advent of electronics on cars is the single greatest contributor to modern cars reliability. You don't get ham fisted monkeys messing with points and "tweaking" carbs every 6 months. The first major event for most engines is a cam belt and long life plug change at 3 years /

60K miles. Could there be some connection that the warranty on many cars runs out at this age/mileage?

& that you get continous bleating from people who've not read the severe usage bit of the manual & changed it when they should.

Without a letter from the maker the MOT tester has no way whatsoever to work out the engines age from a serial number. VOSA database used by MOT tester only has date of first use for the chassis.

Here's some engine serial numbers taken from log books in my possession

1: CA18-089910 2: CA18-267702 3: CA18-287540 4: CB500-E-2160115 Can you tell me what year were they made? [1]

If you don't know then the MOT tester doesn't know either. He doesn't have a data book of engine serial numbers and dates of manufacture.

You can't even claim an engine went out of production at date the last car using it was made as being proof. Ford EAO T88 (Pinto) continued to be made by the power products division long after it was dropped from cars.

A photocopy of a log book stating chassis first used 1975 isn't proof of an engines age when it's been fitted in a 2001 chassis. It just means that engine was declared as being fitted to that old 1975 chassis on the date that log book was issued. Few people would have had foresight to keep a copy of a pre '92 log book to prove engine was in use and thus older than that. Due to updates to V5C the oldest logbook in my possession is dated 10/11/03 (I had it returned when updating logbook to V5C in 05) but that can only prove that the engine recorded on it was in use in '03 and not the '89 date the chassis was first used in UK.

Some makers have been known to discontinue engine production but stockpile engines for 2-3 years run out production of low volume models. This has led to a car made in Dec'93 and reg in Dec'94 that should going on date "of first use" be tested to fast idle "cat" emissions test being tested to pre '92 low idle test - easy to pass without a cat. Though a letter isn't needed as in this case the MOT tester finds he doesn't have emissions data on the VOSA database to test the vehicle to later high idle test (so any engine can be fitted to this '94 car and low idle test will still apply). Fit one of those engines to some other car made post '92 that does have "cat" test data on VOSA's database and without a makers letter stating "engine serial number xxxxxxx was made 19xx" there's no way to determine age of motor and thus correct test.

[1] I don't know either. All I can say is 1: Is fitted to a vehicle chassis first used 13/9/89 and made 04/89. 2: chassis first used 13/5/91 and made 01/91. 3: chassis first used 22/12/94, made 12/93. 4: chassis first used in UK 28/10/75. None of which proves the age of the engines as I can't prove they are the original engines. 3 and 4 have 8 former keepers, 2 has 3 and 1 has 5 any of whom could have done an engine swap. I know the date of manufacture of cars 1-3 as I have access to the makers parts database, which requires the VIN to be entered. It shows car's build date but doesn't record the engine serial number or it's date of manufacture, only the type of engine is shown.

Peter Hill gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

You can prove, easily, that that's the engine fitted at first UK registration. Or not.

Mercedes was still making cars with dizzys and KE-jetronic mechanical injection until 93/94. Had an ECU for mixture control but if it failed the car would still run...

johannes gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Yes, you could.

Not all do. But whether they do or not, you could still pootle along as Dave did.

Water-cooled turbos use the exact same cooling circuit as the rest of the engine, so the temperature of the turbo will reflect through. Non-water- cooled turbos are cooled solely by the oil - but, again, that'll reflect through.

Mostly? E.g. Saab added water cooling already from 1987!

johannes gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Put those goalposts back...

Indeed. So that's "only" the thick end of a decade they were building turbocharged cars without.