Do you mean I don't know 'him' well enough, meaning Conor-the-conner, or do you mean I don't know 'Stuart Gray' well enough? Or do you mean Stuart Gray doesn't know *me* well enough or Stuart Gray doesn't know *Conor-the-conner* well enough?
By saying "he'd encountered"..who is he?
And finally, who is Jerry?
Getting very complicated I know: but sorry, but I can't make head nor tail of your post?
Right. Now we've established nearly enough what it is. ;-) can you post the details of the emissions fail? You should have been given a computer print out.
Luke ( snipped-for-privacy@1234nospamntlworld.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Find a new garage.
Balls. Please scan it and prove it.
It is NOW...
" "
In your previous posts, you have told us information that has led us to believe
your car is far older than it is - which would affect the emission test it requires. it's a diesel - which would affect the emission test it requires.
You haven't yet told us *HOW* it's failed the emission test - which will drastically affect the cost of the fix - anything between new engine required and warming it up a bit better.
That was my intention today. However, please see update below.
I haven't even looked at the V5 in the 3 yrs since I bought the car. Having looked at it now, I see that it is probably a duplicate V5. Why that is so I have no idea. Perhaps one of the two previous owners lost the original and got a duplicate. Frankly, I couldn't care less.
For what it's worth, here is what the V5 says..
Make. Rover Model/type. 820i 5 door Hatchback. Date of registration. 20 12 1994 Last change of keeper. 19 04 01 No. of former keepers. 2 VN chassis/frame no. --------------------- Engine no.--------------------------------- Cylinder capacity. 1994 cc Type of fuel. Petrol. Tax class. PLG Colour. Grey Document Ref.no.------------------------ 01 05 98 duplicate. Despatch codes--------------------------
I clearly stated the car was 1994.
At no time did I ever state it was a diesel engine.
I have not been able to give that information here for the simple reason I don't know myself yet. When I get the car back, together with the failed emission readings, I will let you know. I have already stated that the car has been in the garage for 3 days.
To give you (and others who may be interested) an update: I rang the garage this morning. Here is precisely what I was told...
"this morning, we ran a computer fault finding test on the engine. The computer test failed to show up any fault or any reason why the MOT emission test failed. Our standard procedure is then to fit a dummy 'lamda' sensor and that is what we have done. Since fitting the dummy sensor, the emission test now shows a pass. A new sensor will cost around £150 but we can get a
2nd hand one for around £40.. what do you want us to do?"
I asked if they would just leave the 'dummy' sensor in the car and let me have it back, together with their invoice. I was told "no we can't do that because it's the sensor we use for checking other cars." I then told them to go ahead and get a 2nd hand sensor and to ring me when the job was done.
That is the situation to date.
Now, before I get lambasted, I have never heard of a 'lamda' sensor and I don't even know if that is the correct spelling of the word.
And, whether or not I am being ripped off, will be for other more experienced people here (like you) to judge. I do not not know what the true facts are? All I can do (like most customers) is to put my faith and trust in the garage that is doing the job.
Of course it isn't. But then I always assumed that folks seeking help on any subject (cars or otherwise) are precisely those folk who are not as wised up on the particular subject, as others obviously are.
Stupidity (for want of a more appropriate description) is indeed a major part of the problem: hence my original post seeking help and advice here. Perhaps you'd be good enough to try and understand that fact.
Luke ( snipped-for-privacy@1234nospamntlworld.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
*DING*!
You originally said it was an Rover 2000 Auto. There is no such thing as a '94 Rover 2000 Auto. Rover haven't made a "2000 Auto" probably since the early 70s, perhaps the mid 80s - which is why we were asking what car you had, to try to figure out what you were on about.
There certainly *is* a '94 Rover 820, which is what you have, and a very different kettle of fish.
At one stage, you were saying it was an "sdi" which certainly led half the list to think it was a diesel and offer appropriate suggestions.
If the emissions are out due to a dead Lambda, then I'd have expected the warning light to have come up and a fault code to be logged at some stage. It'd possibly be thirstier than normal, and possibly running badly, too. Is it?
It's still possible that the car just wasn't warm enough when it was tested, though. I've not come across a "dummy" sensor, though. Anybody else? £150 sounds a bit steep for a replacement lambda, too - aren't universal replacements about £30-40?
Lambda Sensor - sits in the exhaust pipe, and tells the engine management whether the car's running rich (too much fuel) or lean (too little), to help keep the mixture as near as possible to optimum.
No, but most people get a clue about the basics before they ask - like what car they own.
Scott M (smorris_12@delete_this.yahoo.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Or if the Lambda's returned some result that the ECU recognises as being just plain wrong, surely?
Checking the diagnostic info for my car, there's a fault code allocated to the lambda - which should be returning a constantly changing 0 to 1v.
Presumably the ECU will validate the lambda's reading, and flag up a constantly wrong value, or one that doesn't respond to a mixture change?
If the lambda reads rich, the ECU leans out the mixture. What if the lambda reading then stays as rich or goes richer, no matter how much the mixture's leaned out - surely the ECU would assume a fault?
It would certainly make sense, but that doesn't seem to be the practise. My car failed on emissions just before Xmas and that was a lambda probe. No warning showed before, but I know for a fact that on the following years model (1995) the system has 2 probes and does flag up a failed probe.
Obviously a misunderstanding on my part. I am now told by the MOT garage that the car is *definitely* a Rover 820si.
Again, my error, for which I apologise.
Neither my Wife nor I have seen any warning light whilst driving the car. The petrol consumption seems good and the car runs very well.
I have now seen the replacement lambda on the car exhaust and it looks a bit like a spark plug to me. I don't for one moment believe a thing like that could cost "around £150 new" as I was told by the garage this morning.
I got the car back this afternoon and here (at last) are the two emission test results...
And just to c> ..but most people get a clue about the basics before they ask - like what
I know the car I own. It is a 1994 Hatchback Rover 2.0 Ltr Automatic. The model number, I didn't have a clue nor is it of the least importance to me. I now of course realise the model number *is* important when asking folks for help and advice in a newsgroup. We live and we learn.
The final bill was made up as follows..
Carried out computer test. Carried out various checks and test of connectors and multi-pin plugs. (£68)
Removed rear exhaust from catalyst and inspected Catalyst condition. Refitted exhaust. Removed oxygen sensor from exhaust. Difficulty in removing sensor due to seizure of component. Fitted replacement sensor and carried out further emission test. (£40)
Luke ( snipped-for-privacy@1234nospamntlworld.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Just like wot the V5 says, despite your protestations.
For future reference, the i/si difference is irrelevant here - that's just the trim level.
As one post here has said, that's about 2.5 to 3 times the price they could have got it for... A bit of a profit is fair enough, it's what keeps 'em in business, but...!
A 1994 2.0 Rover could be a 200/400, a 600 or an 800 - very different cars.
It's a bit like saying you have a "1994 1.6 Ford" without knowing if it's a Fiesta, Escort or Mondeo.
"I'd like a car insurance quote, please." "What sort of car is it?" "Umm... a small red one..."
Not quite: when insuring the car, my Insurance company never asked me for the model number of the car. All they wanted to know was the size (cc) of the engine, year, saloon, hatch or sports, the seating capacity and the estimated value. Then the usual personal details, any other driver, NCB, etc.
I suppose model numbers are irrelevant to most insurance companies for the following reasons..
The policy (f/cover or TPFT) is 99.99% not worth the paper it is written on.
The cover note is simply a piece of paper you show to the police, if asked to produce same at a police station.
Once the insurance company has the policyholder's money, and as far as the insurance company is concerned, the policyholder can now piss off!
I had to replace the lambda sennsor in a Rover 620 once..........it would have cost £200 to get the part from the dealers....I think they supply genuine honda imported ones.
The previous owner had conveniently removed the engine check light, it was only when I replaced it that I found that it stayed on after the engine was started..........the fault code indicated a Lambda sensor.
However the car had reverted to a preset ECU map, and was running fine. Was'nt even thirstier. I only replaced the sensor as I was woreid about frying the CAT.....which would have cost £££££ to fix.
Of course I looked around and found a universal, brand new one for about £40.....including delivery.....I think the vendor has posted on this thred.
Yes............so lets give the chap a break.
Don't I know it.!.......had to use a 3ft breaker bar to get mine off.
It's pedant month. Although if you look at the thread subjrct it does describe a completely different automobile. & your actual fail results do indicate a duff Lamda sensor
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.