|
Wozy68
Original Poster
1,361 posts
39 months
|
Probs posted in totally the wrong area, but hey ho, I was thinking of me dear old 993 whilst reading it. http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/car-servicing...Reading through this just now. Doesn't (I hope) really bother me at this time. Quite alot there though. However, looking down the list a couple of things stand out. Unless I'm wrong, and I'll be the first to admit that quite often I am. 1, Under the Lightening header - If you've replaced your ambers with whites, is this now illegal? 2, Under the Supplementary restraints - If you've replaced your heavy airbagged steering wheel for a tasty aftermarket one, is that now illegal? I feel a little worried about what it states under 'Exhausts' That could be interpreted as original type Cat, in some circles.
|
|
|
Magic919
7,536 posts
70 months
|
1. No
2. Not illegal, but they could fail MoT.
|
|
|
Wozy68
Original Poster
1,361 posts
39 months
|
Magic919 said: 1. No
2. Not illegal, but they could fail MoT. Okey doky ........ however ref the Exhaust CAT worry, it might become one. Just did a quick google search and this popped up. 3rd reply especially by the OP. http://bbs.scoobynet.com/general-technical-10/9246...I'm just starting to wonder how friendly my local MOT tester is.
|
|
|
Durzel
1,507 posts
37 months
|
As I understand it the changes as regards the 2012 onwards MOT test is that if a vehicle was originally fitted with a cat then it must be fitted, irrespective of whether or not it would pass without one.
Having said that, as always the weak link in the system is the human element, a tester mate can easily just ignore the lack of a cat and/or test another vehicle entirely, as they always have.
Edit: just read the linked thread above which explains the same as I've said above.
|
|
|
Magic919
7,536 posts
70 months
|
They have been slowly closing the door on cats. Supplying non-OEM cats became an offence, but I'm not aware of any actual convictions yet. It's just a visual check and knocking the guts out would be easiest option for a de-cat, provided the car didn't then fail emissions.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Wozy68
Original Poster
1,361 posts
39 months
|
Magic919 said: They have been slowly closing the door on cats. Supplying non-OEM cats became an offence, but I'm not aware of any actual convictions yet. It's just a visual check and knocking the guts out would be easiest option for a de-cat, provided the car didn't then fail emissions. So from March 2012, if you fit a non standard, non OE CAT to your old mid nineties 911 (ie mine) and you can't find a friendly MOT tester, by right the MOT tester should then fail the car? So much for the sports cat I was going to install, if that's the case. I thought that would at least pacify the MOT.
|
|
|
pikeyboy
1,790 posts
83 months
|
My man has a look around then tests mine, I drive home. Next day or last thing that day it has passes. He does this so if I get stopped for any reason and I've just got a ticket and it should have failed on damaged screen, no cat etc then he doesn't get any agro off the ministry. Been doing this for years, can't see this making a lot of difference.
|
|
|
Durzel
1,507 posts
37 months
|
Wozy68 said: So from March 2012, if you fit a non standard, non OE CAT to your old mid nineties 911 (ie mine) and you can't find a friendly MOT tester, by right the MOT tester should then fail the car?
So much for the sports cat I was going to install, if that's the case. I thought that would at least pacify the MOT. As with everything it's going to be open to interpretation. My other car has passed MOTs for 3 years running despite having aftermarket HIDs without headlight washers or self-levelling motors fitted. The problem seems to be that the Govt expect MOT testers to be able to identify OEM or lack thereof on every make and model of car that rolls into the workshop, which is a tall ask imo. The chances of an MOT tester knowing that your car had a certain brand/size catalytic converter fitted are remote. Strictly speaking yes you would run the risk of a failure with a sports cat, but you would imo be significantly more likely to get through with no issues if it can simply be seen to be fitted, vs having no chance at all (outside of a dodgy tester) of getting through with none at all.
|
|
|
Stevej33
170 posts
62 months
|
 boy said: My man has a look around then tests mine, I drive home. Next day or last thing that day it has passes. He does this so if I get stopped for any reason and I've just got a ticket and it should have failed on damaged screen, no cat etc then he doesn't get any agro off the ministry. Been doing this for years, can't see this making a lot of difference. I'm sure "Your man" is gonna be mightily please you've posted this on a public forum mate!! It'll not take a rocket scientist to work out who the tester is from the national database...
|
|
|
pikeyboy
1,790 posts
83 months
|
Stevej33 said: I'm sure "Your man" is gonna be mightily please you've posted this on a public forum mate!!
It'll not take a rocket scientist to work out who the tester is from the national database... And pray tell how will they do that?
|
|
|
Porkupine
1,553 posts
34 months
|
boy said: And pray tell how will they do that? It's a very stupid way of doing it anyway. Often the mot inspectors park outside or near a test station with their laptops. They wait until a car is issued certificate from the garage they are outside. As the car is driving out they stop the car and re-test. This is the testing procedure to ensure the tests are being carried out correctly.. I know this because a relative owns a test station an has happened to him a couple of times. So your great plan with your MAN would see him in app sorts of bother if caught in this way.
|
|
|
mrdemon
3,012 posts
134 months
|
Why would a MOT station risk all that for a customer,
Every thing is logged and traceable these days. I could find who did your MOT in a matter of minutes if I have seen your car.
No idea why some one would risk their business for passing a faulty car.
|
|
