Primary cat deletes - DVSA crackdown?
Discussion
AMV8Stuart said:
So should we therefore not use main dealers for MOT test if Cats have been changed on the basis that they would notice the mod whereas the local MOT station wouldn't?
That answer will vary as some MDs don't do MOTs, others do. It is purely down to tester knowledge as opposed to whether it is MD or local MOT station.The sad reality is said independent that has been banging on about the V12 issue for years is solely relying on the fact:
a) primary cat deletes are hard to see, if not impossible on a MOT as you cannot remove panels (hence we continue to see arse covering bits about panels obscuring a view)
b) it passing emissions, which is fine, but not the complete story.
c) lack of knowledge
d) or a biased look over
The secondary cat delete could in thoery be more "risky" due to the large gap left under the car, which will obviously look suspect when there is two smaller straight pipes in it. But again to a degree you are relying on b,c and d above.
But again this misses this point of the approach change from the DVSA, the DVSA is going after the businesses offering these services rather than trying to make the MOT more invasive either electronically or physically (if it could).
I think I can see why it would be better to approach the workshops doing the modifications, rather than MoT stations.
1. If the work is done, not by cutting removing and welding, but by internal extraction (V12 primaries and V8 Vantage 2005 to 2010), there is absolutely nothing to be seen externally. It all remains looking OEM.
2. My Vantage changed from 1,300 cat to 400 cat, and I paid close attention to the before and after MoT emissions figures.
Remarkably, the figures showed a slight improvement. They do vary from year to year anyway, but I would have expected a worsening.
"You are hereby accused of creating more emissions than OEM. How do you plead ?"
"Confused and not guilty Ma Lud, as proven by these government documents."
Can anyone explain why the emissions have improved ?
Dewi 2 said:
I think I can see why it would be better to approach the workshops doing the modifications, rather than MoT stations.
1. If the work is done, not by cutting removing and welding, but by internal extraction (V12 primaries and V8 Vantage 2005 to 2010), there is absolutely nothing to be seen externally. It all remains looking OEM.
2. My Vantage changed from 1,300 cat to 400 cat, and I paid close attention to the before and after MoT emissions figures.
Remarkably, the figures showed a slight improvement. They do vary from year to year anyway, but I would have expected a worsening.
"You are hereby accused of creating more emissions than OEM. How do you plead ?"
"Confused and not guilty Ma Lud, as proven by these government documents."
Can anyone explain why the emissions have improved ?
On the MD point, Works used to (and presumably still do) offer a secondary cat delete on V12V.
Dewi 2 said:
I think I can see why it would be better to approach the workshops doing the modifications, rather than MoT stations.
1. If the work is done, not by cutting removing and welding, but by internal extraction (V12 primaries and V8 Vantage 2005 to 2010), there is absolutely nothing to be seen externally. It all remains looking OEM.
2. My Vantage changed from 1,300 cat to 400 cat, and I paid close attention to the before and after MoT emissions figures.
Remarkably, the figures showed a slight improvement. They do vary from year to year anyway, but I would have expected a worsening.
"You are hereby accused of creating more emissions than OEM. How do you plead ?"
"Confused and not guilty Ma Lud, as proven by these government documents."
Can anyone explain why the emissions have improved ?
On the basis that the modifications have improved the emissions figures I’m perfectly comfortable with what’s been done and as said before believe the DVSA ‘crackdown’ is aimed at those who are de-catting cars completely which then cannot comply with the emissions regs rather than the mods done by BR, Quicksilver, Velocity AP and the like.
NickXX said:
They may have improved due to the new ones being less 'worn', or it may have been chance that the 2nd test was performed at more optimal temperatures.
On the MD point, Works used to (and presumably still do) offer a secondary cat delete on V12V.
On the MD point, Works used to (and presumably still do) offer a secondary cat delete on V12V.
Yes to your second point, but your first point is not applicable.
The 2005 to 2010 V8 Vantage only had one (for each cylinder bank) cat containing two 'bricks'. No primaries.
Therefore one brick is machined out (through one of the existing pipe openings), leaving the other 400 cell original in place.
In view of this topic, it is interesting that a main dealer (especially one owned by AML) has been tinkering with cats.
Men in big coats, with false hands and speaking into their sleeves, might turn up at Newport Pagnell on Monday morning.
Quick, cover up all the cat. delete cars.
Dewi 2 said:
I think I can see why it would be better to approach the workshops doing the modifications, rather than MoT stations.
1. If the work is done, not by cutting removing and welding, but by internal extraction (V12 primaries and V8 Vantage 2005 to 2010), there is absolutely nothing to be seen externally. It all remains looking OEM.
2. My Vantage changed from 1,300 cat to 400 cat, and I paid close attention to the before and after MoT emissions figures.
Remarkably, the figures showed a slight improvement. They do vary from year to year anyway, but I would have expected a worsening.
"You are hereby accused of creating more emissions than OEM. How do you plead ?"
"Confused and not guilty Ma Lud, as proven by these government documents."
Can anyone explain why the emissions have improved ?
All else equal, the greater the catalyst surface area presented to the gas the greater the conversion. Simply put, a denser matrix is going to be better at converting your CO and unburned HC into CO2.
The primary cats are there for start up. They get hotter quicker and ‘light off’ the secondaries making them also warm up quicker, though most primaries are so good there isn’t often much left for the secondaries to do, the reason why even OEMs can delete secondaries.
Fact is every time you start up from cold, without primary catalysts you will be producing more pollutants for the time it takes for you secondaries to get hot. Could be 10mins, could be half an hour, depends on how you drive.
My car has no pre cats and the 200cell race cats. In winter, driven quietly, sometimes they would not ever get hot enough to work properly. It is possible to tell by the smeet smell of uncatalysed HC. They don’t work well when cold because they are designed to work most effectively on a track. To flow with minimal loss and convert efficiently when an engine is working hard.
It’s why I have to be careful when going for MOT in winter. I make sure the engine is hot and try to ensure it doesn’t stand long before the measurement. When I do this it flies through, but the minute the cats get too cool it fails. I am usually able to persuade the tester to try again after a couple of minutes at fast idle. Then it will pass. Testers I find tend to be quite sympathetic. They are mechanics, and mechanics, especially young ones are usually but not always petrol heads.
Edited by Calinours on Saturday 13th January 15:20
Calinours said:
My car has no pre cats and the 200cell race cats. In winter, driven quietly, sometimes they would not ever get hot enough to work properly. It is possible to tell by the smeet smell of uncatalysed HC. They don’t work well when cold because they are designed to work most effectively on a track. To flow with minimal loss and convert efficiently when an engine is working hard.
Is your Vantage post 2010, in which case, (theoretically) it will have had pre-cats when built to meet regulations?
Mine is 2009. Pre-cats were not a requirement when built, so it has never had any.
Originally each cat. had a total matrix of 1300, but is now 400.
Since the change there have been several annual MoTs (main dealer, who does not subcontract) and the emission figures have not changed from the OEM days. Have never been concerned about cat temperatures for the test.
Happy days. It all seems to work for MoT and everything appears entirely stock. Not even an aftermarket weld on the OEM cats.
Only by revving the engine, would any beurocrat's eyebrows be raised and when everything looks OEM, well they all do that Sir.
After all, these are end of era cars, so the exhaust sounds were always bound to be louder than the present Aston Martins.
Just one of many reasons, why it is a keeper.
Dewi 2 said:
Calinours said:
My car has no pre cats and the 200cell race cats. In winter, driven quietly, sometimes they would not ever get hot enough to work properly. It is possible to tell by the smeet smell of uncatalysed HC. They don’t work well when cold because they are designed to work most effectively on a track. To flow with minimal loss and convert efficiently when an engine is working hard.
Is your Vantage post 2010, in which case, (theoretically) it will have had pre-cats when built to meet regulations?
Mine is 2009. Pre-cats were not a requirement when built, so it has never had any.
Originally each cat. had a total matrix of 1300, but is now 400.
Since the change there have been several annual MoTs. Have never been concerned about cat temperatures for the test.
Euro V was introduced on the new ‘S’ 2011, these were the first cars with the pre-cats. It’s why despite the new spark strategy (+10hp with 98 RON fuel) and the active airbox (+10hp), the S did not make 440hp it made 430, at a push and only with 99Ron. The extra new pre-catalysts sapped performance robbing the new car of 10hp, plus the usual losses from the ‘value engineered’ exhaust manifolds.
Mine is a 2011 S, I had the OE exhaust manifolds removed and replaced with very nice large bore equal length stainless things. For good measure the secondary cats (or just ‘cats’ if you are a Euro IV owner were removed and replaced with high flow 200 cell race cats. Then the V8S back box was removed and replaced with a V12S box (it’s half the size and weight, and is completely bypassed when the valves open).
All this was just for a bit more power, less weight, better noise and a sharper engine. I have however retained all the OE exhaust components so it can be put back to standard spec, as one day may well be unavoidable judging by this thread.
Sure, I will have a go.
It seems that the owner of BR has been quite rattled by the McGurk video, as perhaps McGurk was by some of Mikes previous digs. Whatever, there is clearly some sort of beef between the two, and I don’t think it helpful for either business to be engaging like this, especially Mike who is perhaps a tad less diplomatic with the finger pointing.
As regards personal experience, I do not know McGurk, but have dealt with BR a couple of times, As far as you’d want from any independent garage, Mike does know his onions and is someone good to sort out problems with your VH car. He isn’t a saint and a HR bod would send him on god know what courses (and he’d rightly tell them to f
k off) but I for one would always be happy to have him and his team spannering any of my cars - and that is all that matters.
I’ve been a pro mech eng for years, and do understand all the various semantics under discussion. Without commenting too deeply on the specifics of both videos, claims and counter claims, I’d state that overall, and as things stand in terms of the law and how it is enforced today, Mike definitely has the argument, if indeed the riposte could have been articulated a little better. While the law explicitly states that you can’t bugger about with any emissions control devices, that rule is all but unenforceable in practise. Thus, there isn’t anything to worry about if your car can pass an MOT. All a tester will be checking for is the standard idle and fast idle HC & CO emissions, checking that ‘the or a’ catalyst is indeed present, that there are no leaks or ‘blows’ a la your old Ford Escort and deciding if the car is quiet enough (keep the fuse in or the switch to ‘valves closed’ position. AFAICS, there won’t be any change to this in the short or medium term.
As regards plod, not a chance they will be interested unless you are clearly doing other, usually much worse stuff and this is just something else they can chuck at you if needed. Again, racing though town centres at night with the valves jammed open just isn’t advisable.
DVSA? - well, roadside checks for red diesel, the old tachograph test and overweight/unsafe vans and lorries have been around for donkeys, but would the scarce resources ever get diverted to normal cars of any stripe to check whether someone had buggered with the after treatment ? - well, even if they could be trained up on what every cars exhaust ‘should’ look like, and be issued with x-ray to check if the precious metals are still there in a pre cat, I would strongly doubt it. There are always just so much easier fish to fry, like those knackered diesels puking out thick black smoke. They’d only go after the stuff that is visibly creating pollution, and as always there are plenty of targets.
Perhaps it’s true that dealers and garages undertaking certain types of work will in the near future start getting warning letters and visits etc, and there is maybe going to be some sort of risk for them as more time passes, starting with the real piss takers who completely delete all after treatment and sell ‘MOT kits’.
But the risks for you and I, the end user, will remain negligible as long as the car can pass an MOT. I would, however, always advise not to do anything irreversible, and keep all OE components so they can be reinstalled come sale or trade in time, as I can see some folk using the ‘discussion’ to drive down the value of your car come resale.
It seems that the owner of BR has been quite rattled by the McGurk video, as perhaps McGurk was by some of Mikes previous digs. Whatever, there is clearly some sort of beef between the two, and I don’t think it helpful for either business to be engaging like this, especially Mike who is perhaps a tad less diplomatic with the finger pointing.
As regards personal experience, I do not know McGurk, but have dealt with BR a couple of times, As far as you’d want from any independent garage, Mike does know his onions and is someone good to sort out problems with your VH car. He isn’t a saint and a HR bod would send him on god know what courses (and he’d rightly tell them to f
k off) but I for one would always be happy to have him and his team spannering any of my cars - and that is all that matters.I’ve been a pro mech eng for years, and do understand all the various semantics under discussion. Without commenting too deeply on the specifics of both videos, claims and counter claims, I’d state that overall, and as things stand in terms of the law and how it is enforced today, Mike definitely has the argument, if indeed the riposte could have been articulated a little better. While the law explicitly states that you can’t bugger about with any emissions control devices, that rule is all but unenforceable in practise. Thus, there isn’t anything to worry about if your car can pass an MOT. All a tester will be checking for is the standard idle and fast idle HC & CO emissions, checking that ‘the or a’ catalyst is indeed present, that there are no leaks or ‘blows’ a la your old Ford Escort and deciding if the car is quiet enough (keep the fuse in or the switch to ‘valves closed’ position. AFAICS, there won’t be any change to this in the short or medium term.
As regards plod, not a chance they will be interested unless you are clearly doing other, usually much worse stuff and this is just something else they can chuck at you if needed. Again, racing though town centres at night with the valves jammed open just isn’t advisable.
DVSA? - well, roadside checks for red diesel, the old tachograph test and overweight/unsafe vans and lorries have been around for donkeys, but would the scarce resources ever get diverted to normal cars of any stripe to check whether someone had buggered with the after treatment ? - well, even if they could be trained up on what every cars exhaust ‘should’ look like, and be issued with x-ray to check if the precious metals are still there in a pre cat, I would strongly doubt it. There are always just so much easier fish to fry, like those knackered diesels puking out thick black smoke. They’d only go after the stuff that is visibly creating pollution, and as always there are plenty of targets.
Perhaps it’s true that dealers and garages undertaking certain types of work will in the near future start getting warning letters and visits etc, and there is maybe going to be some sort of risk for them as more time passes, starting with the real piss takers who completely delete all after treatment and sell ‘MOT kits’.
But the risks for you and I, the end user, will remain negligible as long as the car can pass an MOT. I would, however, always advise not to do anything irreversible, and keep all OE components so they can be reinstalled come sale or trade in time, as I can see some folk using the ‘discussion’ to drive down the value of your car come resale.
Edited by Calinours on Sunday 14th January 23:32
Being new to the Aston world, but now owning a DB9, I find the whole topic and the back-and-forth most interesting.
In the US, the emissions rules are quite a patchwork between the Federal level via the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and various different State level agencies. The most stringent state is California with their aptly named CARB, for California Air Resources Board. Any modification to any OE emissions kit is automatically illegal unless it is pre-approved by CARB and has a recorded exemption called a CARB EO number.
If hypothetically BR had been located in California, they would have to have applied for a CARB EO number. If their arguments and analyses are correct, and the net emissions were reduced or the same, they might well have received the exception, and then could legally sell their modification. Without this pre-approval in place, any engineering arguments would be simply dismissed and the modifications seen as illegal. Quite likely the company would be prosecuted by CARB.
Obviously I do not know how the UK DVSA agency works, but in principle BR should proactively / pre-emptively apply for an exception for their modification (if such a thing were possible).
In the US, the emissions rules are quite a patchwork between the Federal level via the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and various different State level agencies. The most stringent state is California with their aptly named CARB, for California Air Resources Board. Any modification to any OE emissions kit is automatically illegal unless it is pre-approved by CARB and has a recorded exemption called a CARB EO number.
If hypothetically BR had been located in California, they would have to have applied for a CARB EO number. If their arguments and analyses are correct, and the net emissions were reduced or the same, they might well have received the exception, and then could legally sell their modification. Without this pre-approval in place, any engineering arguments would be simply dismissed and the modifications seen as illegal. Quite likely the company would be prosecuted by CARB.
Obviously I do not know how the UK DVSA agency works, but in principle BR should proactively / pre-emptively apply for an exception for their modification (if such a thing were possible).
Edited by ram_g on Sunday 14th January 23:57
karatemaserati said:
As said before Mike knows his onions... probably because he literally developed them for Aston Martin.
lol automotive engineer or dealer with a shady history... you choose.
There seems to be an assumption that just because someone worked for an OEM they must be brilliant .lol automotive engineer or dealer with a shady history... you choose.
When I worked for an automotive OEM , I can tell you that wasn’t the case, most of the time.
Does anyone know if MB was any good whilst at Aston? Was he involved in putting the primary cats where they are ? Was he planning his pension whilst at Aston ?
For me , slagging off a competitor is a no-no and as such BR crosses that line all the time. He always comes across as someone looking for a fight. One day I suspect the chickens will come home to roost
ram_g said:
Being new to the Aston world, but now owning a DB9, I find the whole topic and the back-and-forth most interesting.
In the US, the emissions rules are quite a patchwork between the Federal level via the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and various different State level agencies. The most stringent state is California with their aptly named CARB, for California Air Resources Board. Any modification to any OE emissions kit is automatically illegal unless it is pre-approved by CARB and has a recorded exemption called a CARB EO number.
If hypothetically BR had been located in California, they would have to have applied for a CARB EO number. If their arguments and analyses are correct, and the net emissions were reduced or the same, they might well have received the exception, and then could legally sell their modification. Without this pre-approval in place, any engineering arguments would be simply dismissed and the modifications seen as illegal. Quite likely the company would be prosecuted by CARB.
Obviously I do not know how the UK DVSA agency works, but in principle BR should proactively / pre-emptively apply for an exception for their modification (if such a thing were possible).
It’s not really any different in Europe. The German TUV for example has famously made it illegal to make any unapproved modification at all from OE spec, the process is called ‘type-approval’ and has been upsetting certain groups of motorists (particularly bikers) for decades. The fear was that the EU would try to push for similarly enforced legislation across the bloc. In the US, the emissions rules are quite a patchwork between the Federal level via the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and various different State level agencies. The most stringent state is California with their aptly named CARB, for California Air Resources Board. Any modification to any OE emissions kit is automatically illegal unless it is pre-approved by CARB and has a recorded exemption called a CARB EO number.
If hypothetically BR had been located in California, they would have to have applied for a CARB EO number. If their arguments and analyses are correct, and the net emissions were reduced or the same, they might well have received the exception, and then could legally sell their modification. Without this pre-approval in place, any engineering arguments would be simply dismissed and the modifications seen as illegal. Quite likely the company would be prosecuted by CARB.
Obviously I do not know how the UK DVSA agency works, but in principle BR should proactively / pre-emptively apply for an exception for their modification (if such a thing were possible).
Edited by ram_g on Sunday 14th January 23:57
Thus while the ‘anti tamper’ rules were sort of rolled out across the continent, the different countries of Europe have always taken differing and much more pragmatic approaches than the Germans to the whole idea of enforcement. Insurance companies also take a pragmatic approach, as long as you inform them what you have done they don’t seem to care much. I’ve been declaring all of the dozens of changes I’ve made to all my vehicles for years and there is no apparent change to any premium. Some insurers are better than others.
Under the type approval rules, it is in theory illegal to even put a different type of tyre on your car to that specified by the OEM, but I have never heard of any sort of legal or insurance challenge, as long as the tyre is of the correct size and load and speed rating and has the legal minimum tread depth.
The general approach where there has been some sort of enforcement has generally been limited to those modifications which are likely to detrimentally affect the safety of vehicle occupants or other road users, or cause nuisance (ie noise). Thus over bright or badly adjusted lights and noisy exhausts may have got you some attention, as would some of the more extreme lowering modifications to a vehicles suspension.
It is only the societal shifts with regard to the environment and sensitivity to pollution which have more recently led to a new focus from simply noise to both noise and emissions as regards exhausts. Hence the increasing sophistication of OEM exhaust systems to ensure homologation compliance and this sort of debate among owners about the risks of modification.
As I mention above, those end users who I would deem to be first in any enforcement ‘firing line’ are going to be the boy racers running around with completely decatted hot hatches, simply reinstalling the OEM cats come MOT.
As regards the cohort reading this thread, and the two very different concerns or risks under discussion, ie:
the risk of prosecution? it is negligible to zero if your car passes an MOT.
of resale or trade in issues? if this may be an issue for you, don’t butcher your OE kit, just put it to one side and refit if needed. If it isn’t, you can later sell it on.
V12 catalyst ingestion? - well, in theory, due to valve overlap, cat proximity and the consequences of poor maintenance, this must be considered at least to be a future possibility however low and controllable (via maintenance) the actual risk, it is a known but rare phenomenon on other similarly specified cars. Given what decent exhaust manifolds do for the performance of that V12, the added possible benefit of also removing that risk, however small, can simply be seen in the round. Again, if it was my car, I’d go for the full high performance stainless manifolds and retain the OEM ones if a main dealer asks for them, as opposed to the much cheaper but very performance-suboptimal alternative and much cheaper solution of butchering the catalysts. But that’s just me.
As regards any actual changes to the cars emissions - removing the precats means your car will be emitting more pollution, principally more unburned HC and more CO. It is after all the reason they are there in the first place. However, this is just on initial cold start up, thus if you use a VH Aston as most of us do, high days, holidays, long runs and trips, the impact of no precats goes from small to negligible. Once hot, practically any secondary cats clean up the gases well enough, however my 200 cell units are probably about as ‘fag packet’
close as it gets as stated above.ram_g said:
Being new to the Aston world, but now owning a DB9, I find the whole topic and the back-and-forth most interesting.
If hypothetically BR had been located in California, they would have to have applied for a CARB EO number. If their arguments and analyses are correct, and the net emissions were reduced or the same, they might well have received the exception, and then could legally sell their modification.
If hypothetically BR had been located in California, they would have to have applied for a CARB EO number. If their arguments and analyses are correct, and the net emissions were reduced or the same, they might well have received the exception, and then could legally sell their modification.
As I mentioned previously, that was exactly the point that intrigued me.
The only official emissions figures available to me, are those issued on behalf of the government, with annual MOTs.
I was surprised that several years after a cat. alteration, each annual MoT document revealed no change to the emissions.
Calinours said:
Sure, I will have a go.
As regards personal experience, I do not know McGurk, but have dealt with BR a couple of times, As far as you’d want from any independent garage, Mike does know his onions and is someone good to sort out problems with your VH car. He isn’t a saint and a HR bod would send him on god know what courses (and he’d rightly tell them to fk off) but I for one would always be happy to have him and his team spannering any of my cars - and that is all that matters.
Surely if Mike and his team were that good at spannering (and as they continually point out other AM MD or indepedent mistakes with vitriol) then they would not have missed the broken spring of the owner last year surely? That was left to DAE to find?As regards personal experience, I do not know McGurk, but have dealt with BR a couple of times, As far as you’d want from any independent garage, Mike does know his onions and is someone good to sort out problems with your VH car. He isn’t a saint and a HR bod would send him on god know what courses (and he’d rightly tell them to f
k off) but I for one would always be happy to have him and his team spannering any of my cars - and that is all that matters.Edited by Calinours on Sunday 14th January 23:32
Maybe I wasn't explicit, but the CARB in California and similar entities in other US states rarely, if ever, prosecute individual owners, the maximum downside to an owner being the potential failure to pass an annual emissions test (similar to your MOT). They do however prosecute aftermarket manufacturers and resellers of unapproved emissions modifications. I am not a lawyer by any description but it would seem to me that were BR to have been a California entity, they would be taking quite a risk here.
I don't particularly like McGurk, but his you tube posts were reasonable, and a fair point of view. Mike Beake comes across as unhinged, especially as he rambles off topic and strays into personal abuse. There is an essential difference between legislative requirements (always open to interpretation), and what can be spotted during an Mot test. I wonder if DVSA will now target certain Aston specialist businesses, as they have done with the vintage and replicar trade by withdrawing car registration; it's the car owners who are the potential losers. Who can say if an increasingly automated Mot test will not look for remapping or some more precise evidence of cat behaviour? Keeping the deleted kit is obviously wise.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff