Silliest MoT failure

It had a transponder in the key for the immobiliser, but no keypad. There was also only one wire to the pump for the solenoid cut off, I think that was to prevent fuelling after ignition off.

The 306 went non-indirect injection with the HDI lump.

The one I had did not have an engine ECU that I remember, I sold it in 2004. I took the broken exhaust pipe to various 'fast-fit' centres that all agreed that is was a cat. Even back then, only one of the testers I spoke to stated that if the car was designed to have a cat, then it should fail the MoT if it did not have one fitted. I actually welded it back together. The down pipe joint was meant to be able to absorb the flexing of the engine twisting on the mounts relative to the exhaust, but it had seized putting strain on the pipe that had the cat. Probably a stress fracture.

David

David gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

OK, so definitely an electronic pump.

No, it went common-rail.

Common rail is also direct injection ie "non-indirect".

The Lucas CAV pump was a mechanical pump with cam and rollers to pressurise the fuel, and mechanical injectors spraying into pre-combustion chambers. In the mornings, the thing could wake the dead.

There was no fuel pressure / flow monitoring sensors, air flow sensors, nor was there any air temperature sensors, accelerator pedal position sensors so I cannot imagine how you think it was electronically controlled. I also investigated if the car could be, what was called then, in

2002-ish, 'chipped', but it could not as it was not electronically controlled. There was no map to change. So I took it to Van Aarken for them to 'adjust', or what they called 'optimised'. If there were any electronics controlling that engine, the tuners I visited would have known.

I know it went common rail, I said that the 306 went direct injection with the HDI lump. Are you saying that the HDI was still indirect injection, because I don't think it was ?

I thought petrol cars already had to have a working cat in the MoT if one was originally fitted. Even if a cat isn't specifically required, wouldn't one be necessary anyway to meet emissions standards for a car that isn't too old to have one? Or is this new ruling specifically aimed at cars manufactured when cats were optional?

I don't think diesel cats are as rare as you think. I've definitely read that they were fitted to the Rover L-series and that you can remove them and still pass the MoT.

it was a DPF it even said as such in the hand book

No purely mechanical until they went HDI,

(ignoring the elect stop solenoid, and early immobilizer which was just wired to the stop solenoid)

-

Tony Houghton gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

No, it only has to meet the emissions limits.

Probably...

They don't _require_ them, though, so wouldn't fall under this new clause.

David gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

I'm saying that "direct injection" usually refers to pre-common-rail direct injection.

Mark gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

A DPF is not an oxidisation catalytic converter.

Oh, I see.

Agreed.

It was not a DPF on my 1997 model.

Wiki states that DPFs were first fitted by Peugeot in 2005. I do not know how accurate that is.

I have just been to various retailers on line for exhaust parts, and they all say it is a cat, not a DPF. I put the reg. number in, and viola.

For example:

Happened to me once - I have clear lenses on some of my classic Minis. It's never happened since, nor will it, as I routinely repaint my coloured bulbs with bulb paint before every MOT!

as it stands at the moment we dont check whether a cat is fitted or not, we are only interested in what is being poked out of the exhaust, some vehicles will pass the emmissons even though the cat is missing.

as from Jan 1st we will check whether a cat is fitted to a vehicle that requires one, as the cat test is is for vehicles with 4 wheels or more & first used on or after 1st August 1992.

you wait till it goes to paper-less certificate's, in the not so distant future!!!! you want a certificate, then print one off, that'll be interesting ! but prior to that, they are thinking about introducing laser printers for us as there wont be any coloured certificates (cut backs), just printed on plain paper in black & white but all this is at the discussing stage at the moment.

then there is talk of 4-2-2 test intervals............

What about vehicles that were made after 1st Aug 92 and before 31 July

95 but there is no exact match in analyser database or in service book for them? That is vehicles that hit the 2nd box down on right hand side of this flow chart.

doesn't have a cat test so will it need a cat? You have to punch the VIN code in to get to that box. Failing to put the VIN in and just doing the CAT test could get you a V17.

As no car maker would run an engine plant for one low volume model, I'm fairly sure the engines were made in early 92 and stockpiled. Only

1397 made for sale in RHD European market from Aug 92 up to end of production in Dec 93. Most would have been for UK but some would have gone to Ireland, Malta and Cyprus. In all other markets that the engine had been sold in they swapped to a new engine in late 1991.

Eh?

"It can be noted that as part of the Peugeot 306 exhaust system there is a diesel particulate filter located under the front seat section of the car, which is commonly mistaken for a catalytic convertor. This partical filter is not a catalyst and it can be removed,"

from

-

asahartz gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

First test at 4yr from new, then every two years - bringing the UK into line with most of Europe.

Last I'd heard it'd been more-or-less kicked into the long grass.

Although it would appear a lot of people also mistake a two way cat on an old diesel for a DPF. It was there to reduce the NoX output.