Omega 2.5v6 MOT fail

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

It can't even do that. It can only try to clean up the results of a rich or lean mixture - which it does MUCH less well than cleaning up the results of a stoichiometric mixture.

BULLSHIT.

Only stuff in the D-box (though it's actually labeled C in bottom left corner on VT30) and marked **DANGEROUS** is unfit for the road. Emissions, headlamp aim or bulb out, horn, pretty much nothing gets given a D-box entry.

Ones I have seen are for leaking union on brake caliper and brake imbalance.

but it can clean up hydrocarbons? if not, then what does it do?

Thanks for the pointers Peter. It's a 1997 one so just needs the battery disconnected for a while. I changed the thermostat about 5 years ago when I did the head gaskets.

Coolant temp sensor is easy enough to do and I'll clean and check the breather while the plenum is off. I'm convinced it's blowing from up front so I'll have a look at the exhaust downpipes and manifold.

I'll post back how I got on but it's not going to be quick. I'm disabled and can only manage 20 minutes or so a couple of times a week. It took me a year to change the head gaskets :-)

"Mrcheerful" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

They wouldnt issue a fail certificate if the vehicle was roadworthy in accordance with the rules laid down by the government would they thats why we have these tests

This is totally different to wether the vehicle is safe to be driven on the roads dependant on the fault and at what time of day its driven .

Faulty headlamps are of no consequence during daylight hours but many accidents have resulted from the offside lamps not working during darkness on unlit roads

"steve robinson" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

So - if the bulb/tyre/whatever is fixed, what then?

What if it failed on a rear seat belt - but there's no rear seat occupants?

And that differs whether an MOT's been failed or not, does it?

Then you have corrected the problem , the vehicle would again be roadworthy and you should then get the vehicle retested to comply with relevant regulations

The point is the vehicle is designed to cary x passengers and as such the seat belts if fitted should be available for x passengers

Well yes unless your suggesting cars with faulty headlamps should be issued with a mot for daylight usage only or those with faulty seat belts should be issued with a mot for driver only use (assuming of course his belt does work.

"steve robinson" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

With you so far...

Care to cite these "regulations" that say that a fail trumps an expiry date, and cancels out the old ticket?

So I've removed the rear seat. Rear passengers _can't_ be carried. Now what?

No, I'm not suggesting that.

So you're adamant that if your car is taken for an MOT, fails on something trivial, you fix it - but don't take it back for a retest - it is not legal to use, even though the previous test hasn't expired, and the vehicle is fully roadworthy?

I don't doubt that the old MOT certificate is still valid. What I am asking is whether it is a criminal offence to run a car on the road if the emissions are wrong - in the same way as it it is illegal to operate a vehicle with bald tyres whether or not you have a valid MOT.

Well lets see , its called the MOT and is required on all vehicles over 3 years old exept for specific vehicles that are either exempt, or require earlier testing

I have not said it does , i just pointed out that the car is not seen as roadworthy if it fails a test , an mot only states that the vehicle meets or fails specific standards on the day of the test.

I have never said that your making assumptions

a vosa roadside check may include exhaust emission or opacity tests, failure may result in a prohibition notice being issued, which may mean having your vehicle towed away to be repaired or scrapped. So yes, it is illegal, if it is discovered.

I have often known vehicles fail at one station and (without any repair) pass straight away somewhere else, so does the previous fail nullify the subsequent pass?

Thats an argument best left to lawyers

"steve robinson" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Or, just maybe, the bit on the MOT certificate that says it's not a promise of roadworthiness, actually means what it says?

The tester _on that time, on that day, at that place_ found it met the standards. No more, no less.

'course, the disadvantage with that interpretation is that it shoots your whole angle on the effects of a failed test down in flames.

"steve robinson" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Umm, yes, you have.

A car isn't roadworthy if it isn't roadworthy. The test certificate's presence or absence, or the presence or absence of a fail sheet, doesn't affect that at all.

Indeed. No more or less than that.

No, I'm merely pointing out PRECISELY what you have said. You just said it above with reference to headlights...

This bit here...

You really do seem to be suggesting that a car that goes in for a test, fails on a headlight, which is then fixed but not resubmitted for a test, is somehow "less legal" than one that goes in for a test, passes, then the headlight blows - and isn't fixed.

Exactly that. If a vehicle fails its MOT test, it is illegal to use that vehicle on the road (With exceptions) until a new valid test pass certificate is obtained. This prohibition even applies if the old test certificate hasn't expired, as the failure certificate acts as notice that the vehicle is not roadworthy. It has been known, at VOSA test centres, for a vehicle to drive in, fail the test and have to be taken back on a low loader,in spite of going in for test a good couple of months before it was due.

If vehicle has a valid test certificate, and a bulb blows, then it is accepted that you may use the vehicle until the first opportunity to get it fixed. i.e., until the next stop. It is illegal to start a journey with a defective light, although, most of the time, if the police stop you, they will accept an innocent look and "It worked when I left". They may stop you from continuing your journey until it's fixed, though. If, on the other hand, when they check the DVLA records after stopping you, they find that a fail certifcate has been issued, they will take action, as you are using that vehicle illegally.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:04:48 +0000, steve robinson ranted:

I find VOSA more helpful than a solicitor in cases like these. At least IMO anyway. The mere threat of involving VOSA usually sorts problems like this out with a mutually beneficial conclusion. i.e. "Give me the money for the failed test back or I'll call VOSA as it passed down the road with no work needed, unlike your £550 estimate to get it through".. "certainly Sir, here's your £50".

Then call VOSA and drop them in the s*it anyway.

At least that's what I did.

John Williamson gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

But what if that fault is repaired or doesn't affect the vehicle's roadworthiness?

What if a second vehicle, with an identical fault, isn't taken in for a test? Is that still unroadworthy and therefore illegal?

Yes, if it's deemed dangerous to drive. Which very, very few test failures are.

How about if they've stopped you for a headlight gone, and the fail cert was because of a bald tyre (now replaced)?