So you have just paid to have your DPF removed....

[dav123a]

XJ Flyer said:

dav123a said:

XJ Flyer said:

leafspring said:

XJ Flyer said:

That seems to suggest that any car made since 1959 will automatically fail the MOT if it doesn't meet the required standards such as catalytic converters etc etc etc let alone post 1959 cars which have been subject to major tuning modificatios from standard spec as they were when new.Which,in that case would mean the death of the classic car enthusiast market and the tuning modifications industry.

Without wanting to blunder into the (already covered elsewhere) MOT exemption debate...

that is an issue for concern that will rear it's head in the future

It's probably best in that case to make the control freaks say exactly what their future intentions are now so that everyone knows exactly where they stand and can then hold them to account by way of an electoral mandate first before they can put their plans into action.If they manage to push such a policy through then it seems obvious that most post 1959 classic and/or modified cars will be limited to being trailered to off road events with all the implications of that regarding available track time,space and cost limitations.Although it's my bet that the control freaks wouldn't just stop at road use in that case.

Is there any evidence of anything pointing towards this ? It's seems tin foil hatter stuff so far.

The example and precedent set by the enforced re fit or scrapping of cars that have had DPF's removed aftermarket,at least seems to prove that all types of aftermarket modifications are under a similar type of threat,depending on the ministers responsible just giving VOSA the go ahead on and arbitrary summary basis as in this case.

Its not a precedent.The MOT has changed and evolved in the same way cars have changed. We have gone from talking about DPFs to talking about people coming after classics. DPFs are hardly an issue for classics. If 'they' were control freaks why did they give an exemption for pre 59 ?

Edited by dav123a on Sunday 15th December 19:57

[ouch]

jonah35 said:

Fair enough. If you remove something like a catalytic converter, horn, wheel or brakes that a car had when new and standard then so it should fail the mot.

Almost, but not quite. Diesels in the mid 90's onwards started to be fitted with catalytic converters, however these are not tested as the only tests, so far, for diesels are on soot/particulate emissions.

[XJ Flyer]

Lowtimer said:

technoluddite said:

There are signs that this is the way it's going: the recent change meaning that a car built with a catalytic converter must have it present /even/ if it can pass the appropriate emissions test without it, being a case in point.

That's not quite true though.

The recent change means that a car built with a cat must have it present if it was required to have it when it was built. If it was built with a cat before cats were mandatory - and lots were, Audis and Porsches pring to mind - it doesn't have to have one now.

The important point that people seem to be missing is the previous system whereby aftermarket modifications to things like engines and engine management systems etc etc have been mostly exempt from any form of controls with a few exceptions like lighting requirements which changed over the years and more recently some basic MOT emissions figures which are more relaxed than those required of the factory when obtaining type approval for example.

[technoluddite]

DPFs are hardly an issue for classics now. They will be a massive issue for classics in 20,30,40 years time.

[dav123a]

As I said the MOT has always been updated should we go back to the original 1960 rules for every car and never update it ?

[XJ Flyer]

dav123a said:

XJ Flyer said:

dav123a said:

XJ Flyer said:

leafspring said:

XJ Flyer said:

That seems to suggest that any car made since 1959 will automatically fail the MOT if it doesn't meet the required standards such as catalytic converters etc etc etc let alone post 1959 cars which have been subject to major tuning modificatios from standard spec as they were when new.Which,in that case would mean the death of the classic car enthusiast market and the tuning modifications industry.

Without wanting to blunder into the (already covered elsewhere) MOT exemption debate...

that is an issue for concern that will rear it's head in the future

It's probably best in that case to make the control freaks say exactly what their future intentions are now so that everyone knows exactly where they stand and can then hold them to account by way of an electoral mandate first before they can put their plans into action.If they manage to push such a policy through then it seems obvious that most post 1959 classic and/or modified cars will be limited to being trailered to off road events with all the implications of that regarding available track time,space and cost limitations.Although it's my bet that the control freaks wouldn't just stop at road use in that case.

Is there any evidence of anything pointing towards this ? It's seems tin foil hatter stuff so far.

The example and precedent set by the enforced re fit or scrapping of cars that have had DPF's removed aftermarket,at least seems to prove that all types of aftermarket modifications are under a similar type of threat,depending on the ministers responsible just giving VOSA the go ahead on and arbitrary summary basis as in this case.

Its not a precedent.The MOT has changed and evolved in the same way cars have changed. We have gone from talking about DPFs to talking about people coming after classics. DPFs are hardly an issue for classics. If 'they' were control freaks why did they give an exemption for pre 59 ?

Edited by dav123a on Sunday 15th December 19:57

If they aren't control freaks then what happened to the effective exemption which applied relating to such types of aftermarket modification.As we've seen it is a precedent because it's only now that the minister concerned wants an issue related to aftermarket changes to engine management/exhaust systems enforced in a way which obviously didn't apply previously.It's not difficult to see that such enforcement couldn't be widened to other types of aftermarket non standard changes to vehicle specs on an arbitrary and summary basis as and when the government see fit.

The idea that the system of car MOT testing has been changed to provide exemption in the case of only up to 1959 and the MOT itself seems to be changing from one of just safety checks to one of type approval compliance suggests that there's a far more serious agenda behind it all.

[MG CHRIS]

Drive Blind said:

technoluddite said:

Out of interest, do you know when catalytic converters became mandatory?

1992 iirc

Correct but imported cars are different from what I gather it's 94 for imports aslong as you can prove the engine number is the same year as when the car was made this is from what ive made out on various mx5 debates about it.
However for me building a kit car from a 94 imported mx5, the iva still requires me too have a cat fitted even though when I need to mot it 3 years later it will be tested as a non cat vehicle due to it being a 94 import.

[XJ Flyer]

dav123a said:

As I said the MOT has always been updated should we go back to the original 1960 rules for every car and never update it ?

I don't think the MOT has ever been 'updated' to include the failing of a car on grounds of an aftermarket modification that isn't a safety issue.

[technoluddite]

dav123a said:

As I said the MOT has always been updated should we go back to the original 1960 rules for every car and never update it ?

No, of course not.

But the MOT is meant to be a safety and emissions test, not a type approval test. If it's appropriate to test the particulate output of diesels (and it probably is) then amend the emissions test for cars registered in future, as was done when the stricter test was introduced for petrol cars in 1993.

Don't retroactively change the rules for cars that already exist.

[kambites]

I suppose the question should come down to whether it was ever actually legal to remove DPFs. If it was illegal but not tested, I have no real problem with the change; if it was legal then the changes are ridiculous.

Does anyone actually know for certain? Is there a law against removing OEM emissions control devices?

[dav123a]

XJ Flyer said:

If they aren't control freaks then what happened to the effective exemption which applied relating to such types of aftermarket modification.As we've seen it is a precedent because it's only now that the minister concerned wants an issue related to aftermarket changes to engine management/exhaust systems enforced in a way which obviously didn't apply previously.It's not difficult to see that such enforcement couldn't be widened to other types of aftermarket non standard changes to vehicle specs on an arbitrary and summary basis as and when the government see fit.

The idea that the system of car MOT testing has been changed to provide exemption in the case of only up to 1959 and the MOT itself seems to be changing from one of just safety checks to one of type approval compliance suggests that there's a far more serious agenda behind it all.

Its still not a precendent, the MOT changes and is updated all the time , its not set in stone. If you 've got a link to cover DPFs not ever being part of the MOT Im happy to read it. No its not difficult to see the MOT rules changing and widening for reasosn I have already said.
Whats the serious agenda ? If they have one why give an exemption to pre 59. To follow your position if they were control freaks then they wouldn't have done so.

[XJ Flyer]

technoluddite said:

dav123a said:

As I said the MOT has always been updated should we go back to the original 1960 rules for every car and never update it ?

No, of course not.

But the MOT is meant to be a safety and emissions test, not a type approval test. If it's appropriate to test the particulate output of diesels (and it probably is) then amend the emissions test for cars registered in future, as was done when the stricter test was introduced for petrol cars in 1993.

Don't retroactively change the rules for cars that already exist.

In this example it's probably more a case of it being seen previously as no big deal for the MOT test pass a de catted car which was registered after the cut off date which was modified on an aftermarket basis whereas with this precedent it is now probably using the case of DPF's as a Trojan Horse.

It would be ironic if the government has managed to get away with setting a precedent,which could affect all types of aftermarket modifications,all based on an issue which mainly arose because of diesel engines being used in their worst type of environment and usage regime.To the point where the arguable savings in fuel,in the case of diesels,are more than offset by the costs of maintaining their emissions equipment required to cater for that wrong usage environment.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 15th December 20:30

[XJ Flyer]

kambites said:

I suppose the question should come down to whether it was ever actually legal to remove DPFs. If it was illegal but not tested, I have no real problem with the change; if it was legal then the changes are ridiculous.

Does anyone actually know for certain? Is there a law against removing OEM emissions control devices?

If there was then anyone who's converted a Jaguar V12 engine to Weber carburreters from the factory Stromberg or injection system would have had the thing failed at the MOT.

[dav123a]

technoluddite said:

No, of course not.

But the MOT is meant to be a safety and emissions test, not a type approval test. If it's appropriate to test the particulate output of diesels (and it probably is) then amend the emissions test for cars registered in future, as was done when the stricter test was introduced for petrol cars in 1993.

Don't retroactively change the rules for cars that already exist.

I would agree it shouldn't be retroactively done. For what is worth I don't have an issue with mods , from changing air filters to building kit cars to rebuilding classics. I just don't agree they have are trying stop it.

[kambites]

XJ Flyer said:

If there was then anyone who's converted a Jaguar V12 engine to Weber carburreters from the factory Stromberg or injection system would have had the thing failed at the MOT.

My question was nothing to do with MoTs. It was whether removing the DPF is legal.

[dav123a]

kambites said:

My question was nothing to do with MoTs. It was whether removing the DPF is legal.

Not the best source but http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/hone...

The other issue is enforcement at the minute I'm not sure anyone has been prosecuted for it or who would do so.

[XJ Flyer]

dav123a said:

technoluddite said:

No, of course not.

But the MOT is meant to be a safety and emissions test, not a type approval test. If it's appropriate to test the particulate output of diesels (and it probably is) then amend the emissions test for cars registered in future, as was done when the stricter test was introduced for petrol cars in 1993.

Don't retroactively change the rules for cars that already exist.

I would agree it shouldn't be retroactively done. For what is worth I don't have an issue with mods , from changing air filters to building kit cars to rebuilding classics. I just don't agree they have are trying stop it.

It's simply a question of wether aftermarket modifications which don't affect safety fall within the remit of the MOT which is/was/should be just a test of mechanical safety.It's difficult,if not impossible,to see how enforcement related to after market decatting of petrol types or removal of the DPF in diesels,won't also set a precedent in regards to all types of aftermarket modifications that take a car away from OE type approval.

[powerstroke]

dav123a said:

technoluddite said:

No, of course not.

But the MOT is meant to be a safety and emissions test, not a type approval test. If it's appropriate to test the particulate output of diesels (and it probably is) then amend the emissions test for cars registered in future, as was done when the stricter test was introduced for petrol cars in 1993.

Don't retroactively change the rules for cars that already exist.

I would agree it shouldn't be retroactively done. For what is worth I don't have an issue with mods , from changing air filters to building kit cars to rebuilding classics. I just don't agree they have are trying stop it.

depends who "They"are ???our dft or the red tape creating unelected beurocrats in
Brussels the eu are always looking for new ways to fk things up
So a no modification directive would fit the bill dispite it having a very negative affect on business and quality of life

[kambites]

dav123a said:

kambites said:

My question was nothing to do with MoTs. It was whether removing the DPF is legal.

Not the best source but http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/hone...

The other issue is enforcement at the minute I'm not sure anyone has been prosecuted for it or who would do so.

As you say, that's hardly the best source. However if that is correct, I see nothing wrong with the MoT changes because they're simply enforcing an existing law.

[XJ Flyer]

kambites said:

XJ Flyer said:

If there was then anyone who's converted a Jaguar V12 engine to Weber carburreters from the factory Stromberg or injection system would have had the thing failed at the MOT.

My question was nothing to do with MoTs. It was whether removing the DPF is legal.

It's obvious that they're saying that aftermarket removal of a DPF now isn't legal whereas before it was.In which case that would probably make the Jaguar example illegal too.In which case what we're seeing is effectively an abitrary and summary change in the law done without electoral mandate or proper hearing in parlaiment.