[Mk2] [Turbo] MOT failure as no CAT (checkout the results!)

[spannerman]

As mentioned my Rev3 Tubby failed on Emissions test due to there being no CAT present.

Apparently there has to be a CAT present post 93, I explained about the Engine versus model type etc and this went down like "yeah, spin me some more sh*t, just go get a CAT on it.

3hrs later and the CAT is back on for retest.

Results:-

Without CAT CO=4.8%

With CAT CO=0.02%


I didn't realise they made that much difference, pretty amazing really. Seems they do what it says on the tin, shame it sacrifices horse power

Spannerman

[nailmonkey]

Hi,

When was your car registered? If it was made before 1st August 1995 then it only needs to pass a basic emissions test, after that and it needs to pass the stricter emissions test. Cats aren't required for any tests as long as it passes.

Having said that at 4.8% CO your car wouldn't even pass the basic emissions test as the limit is <=3.5%

See http://www.imoc.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=43072 and http://www.motuk.com/mot_manual/6-4.asp#14

Are you sure your car is running ok, that's pretty high for the CO?

Nik

[spannerman]

Seems to be running ok, though that said it has the occasional misfire at times.

I've just ordered a whole host of service items ready for a major service. Should sweeten things up a little

[simmo490]

what the mot tester said what a load of b0ll0cks

its 95 and newer

and yeh sounds like the first test you car was not running right anyway a cat will not make that much difference, if i remember it makes about 0.03 diffefference.

did he give you the print out of the first failure?

[SW20Paul]

Yep mines a 94 without a cat and that passed fine.

check your O2 sensor(lambda) could be faulty as you emissions are pretty high without the cat

[spannerman]

Dint even print owt out, saw the high CO readings, looked over the car and said "there aint a CAT on it, sorry its failed".


Anyways, 12months hassle free now and soon will have the Link controlling things so next year shouldn't be a problem.

I believe the fueling could be leaned off for the test, is this true?

[raptor95GTS]

so the MOT guy did not follow the procedures as laid down in the MOT test??? As said though your car would have failed anyway so you'll need to get the fuelling looked into. Dumb mechanics give the rest a bad name

sticky in mechanical section

http://www.imoc.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=43072

[simmo490]

waste of time that mot`er

[gidders]

This is something that is concerning me about my g limited ive just bought.It has a magnex exhaust and decat pipe.Its been through 3 mots with the decat pipe on though.It has a build date of 94,but is registered on a P plate,didnt realise it was before 95 for the basic emissions so fingers crossed i should be ok

[nailmonkey]

This is something that is concerning me about my g limited ive just bought.It has a magnex exhaust and decat pipe.Its been through 3 mots with the decat pipe on though.It has a build date of 94,but is registered on a P plate,didnt realise it was before 95 for the basic emissions so fingers crossed i should be ok

It's not the 1st August 1995 for all cars, for us that only applys to turbos as that combination of chassis and engine is not in the mot handbook as it was not sold in the UK.

However your combination SW20 + 3SGE is in the handbook as the same combination is found in UK cars. Which means it would have to pass the stricter emissions test if it was manufactured after 1992. So either the previous owner knew a friendly tester, or your car just has really low emissions.

Nik

[scoops]

After 92 the car MUST have a cat physically fitted. or it will fail regardless of results.

[skinthespin]

No it doesnt scoop, ready my sticky that a couple of guys have put links up to, not only that but NO car HAS to have a cat, regardless of age, it just has to pass the emisisons test, if thats could be achieved without a cat (which it wont of course) then thats ok.

Nail is correct that the combination of chassis and engine was available so it needs to pass the 'cat' test, however i've know MOT testers pass RX7's and the like as there imports, even though they were available too.

[raptor95GTS]

After 92 the car MUST have a cat physically fitted. or it will fail regardless of results.

nope, as skinthespin says read the MOT handbook. All there

[whitworthmike]

as mentioned above, as long as the car passes the emmisions test and there are no major leaks on the exhaust it will pass, there does not need to be a cat fitted, it is not part of the test.

[TNM]

After 92 the car MUST have a cat physically fitted. or it will fail regardless of results.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Please show me where it says 'YOU MUST HAVE A CAT FITTED' this is the biggest load of rubbish that some MOT testers come out with.

If the car passes it passes. It might need a CAT to help it pass.

[Harry]

Slightly off track how much benefit can/will an aftermarket ECU be to make settings to pass the test/s?

And what actually does the mapper set to make the difference is it ignition
advance which can be retarded off the hand held fc commander for example, or is it more complex?

Good to know