What An MOT Experience Today...

John wrote on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:11:53 GMT:

Nah, you're turning into too much of a troll for me.

"NT"

Thanks,

1) Emissions results will be posted to the group in the form of a link to a scan of part of the results (removing details of MOT garage). 2) Build date from VIN number (two letters before the last group of numbers) = SL 3) VT30 was on printed sheet.

John

SL = May 1995

Steve

Meanwhile, have you got the car booked for a test somewhere else?

clive

Here is a link to the printed details of the emissions results. I will try to carry out a better scan, as the quality is poor.

John

John ( snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Seems fairly clearly failed to me.

Both fast idle tests failed by a HUGE margin. CO .481 and .486 against .3 max.

Natural idle CO *RIGHT* on max limit, too. 0.5% HC barely scraping through on both fast idles. - 142 and 151 against 200 max.

And Im a layperson with experience of cheating MOT places and would like to know the difference on the cold day in hell I'll actually buy a ford...

Ta Simon

"Adrian"

So, cars can only be tested on dry days now then? Please behave yourselves gents. MOT tests have to be carried out in all weathers, whatever weather the MOT tester should not reflect this in his decision after he has accepted the vehicle for test.

John

I think the figure is 1.023 which is just on the lean side (Ox rich) of being correct.

IMO lambda sensor ok, either not hot enough (probably OK as we see an oil temp of 83deg and it has had a BET test + full cat test) or most likely a weak cat.

John ( snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Of course not. I was saying "Yep" to you getting off your arse, stopping whinging, getting the drums off the rear of the car and giving it all a damn good clean up in there so the rear brakes work well enough to pass the MOT.

Another thought aside from the tester testing the catalyst while it was not a normal working temperature... Has the database got the correct details within it for the engine fitted to this vehicle? I say this as you can see the engine type on the printout is not specified. Should a default test of been carried out?

John

"Adrian"

Oh dear Adrian :-) ...Think about your comment again.

John

John ( snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Which it was.

It doesn't matter.

The emission results your heap of s**te came up with are *filthy*.

Those pass/fail limits ARE correct for this age/engine Fiesta. the "default" limits (full cat test) are tighter than those.

John ( snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Read the rest of it, and accept reality. Let me help :-

"The emission results your heap of s**te came up with are *filthy*."

Those details are WAY outside the acceptible levels for ANY car of that age.

I repeat - My own car went in for the test on Monday. 1996. 120k miles.

Now - let me relate that to your results.

Your Fester is shoving out five times the Carbon Monoxide.

It's shoving out - are you ready for this? - THIRTY times the unburnt hydrocarbons.

Does that sound right to you? Because it doesn't to me.

"Jimmy" > Those pass/fail limits ARE correct for this age/engine Fiesta. the

VOSA: "...if the lambda is 1.06 and it fails on defaults but all vehicles of this type listed in the In Service Emissions data book are allowed between 0.95 to 1.09, then pass it...."

Bit clearer about that now?

John

Another VOSA quote:

(Q. When do testers use default limits?) A: "For any vehicle first used on or after 1 August 1995 which are 'passenger cars' but are not listed on the database or in the current edition of the In Service Emissions data book..."

John

John ( snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

It didn't fail on Lambda. It failed on CO.

Irrelevant. Read their instructions properly.

John