Primary cat deletes - DVSA crackdown?

[Ninja59]

Well that is a real turn up, McGurk's got contacted (without any contact prior) by the DVSA, mainly following a post in December discussing primary cat deletion.

I am sure some have heard about the prosecution late last year for the pop and bang remapper, well the DVSA have prosecuted another this month!

Is this a crack down by the DVSA on all modifications in terms of emissions and exhausts?

Link to the McGurk blog with the update at the bottom: https://mcgurk.com/insights/cat-removal-v12-engine...

Link to the video: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1099728914511068

[Ninja59]

Phil74891 said:

Quick question - does anyone know exactly (or approximately) how many Aston Martin V12 engines have actually failed due to primary cat ingestion?

All I have heard quoted is a small number, I think getting an exact figure will be impossible if trying to combine AMs internal figures and any external figures.

I think the difference with this is the DVSA getting into contact without prompt and they are clearly continuing to go after businesses which have the potential to do services that may make cars illegal for road use (whether that be for C&U or RTA reasons).

[Ninja59]

CatalystV12V said:

Exhaust modifications are done all the time… YouTube is full of people doing cat-deletes. There are many businesses offering these services to many makes of car… I think DVSA will have their work cut out..

I think they will be working on the viewpoint of catching enough to make it a problem for those that do and therefore persuade those from doing it instead of using a stick as such.

The fact they have decided to prosecute is a major change though.

[Ninja59]

Caslad said:

Quite. There’s a difference between doing cat deletes such as the recent case of the Ford Fiesta in Wakefield which left the car incapable of passing the MOT emissions test and removal of primary cats on a V12 Aston where the secondary cats are retained and the emissions test is still passed.
I note in his latest video McGurk talks about ‘full disclosure’ and telling the buyer of your car that it ‘hasn’t got any catalytic converters’ when in fact the aforementioned V12 Aston does still have the secondary cats and does still pass the emissions test. Maybe a genuine slip of the tongue or maybe a well considered and cynical ploy but I think he’s just as guilty of scaremongering as those whom he criticises over cat ingestion concerns.

Technically both cars should fail an MOT, there is not degrees of failing it.

The only reason a V12 with primary deletes gets through is lack of knowledge and if known a slightly biased eye or two.

But you are still overlooking the very fact the DVSA with no prompting have elected to layout the legal stand point based on a single video, and given the other independents social media activity it could draw unwanted, at least in their view, attention from that party given their frequent highlight of primary cat deletes on the V12 and other recent videos regarding emissions equipment.

[Ninja59]

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).

[Ninja59]

Jon39 said:

Could 'Quaker Oats' have anything to do with the DVSA's target selection ?

Judging by their selection criteria so far it would appear the ones making the loudest noises via website and/or social media.

[Ninja59]

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.

Edited by Calinours on Sunday 14th January 23:32

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?

[Ninja59]

john ryan said:

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.

I must agree your statements about McGurk and BR are completely fair - McGurk only gave their opinion.

The fact BR have strayed into personal attacks is ridiculous. But Mike has history of doing this with others that dare to disagree with his outlook/viewpoint.

[Ninja59]

LTP said:

I'm not going to get in between two dogs fighting on video (unedifying though it is), but I will express an opinion that Aston drivers who delete primary cats but still ensure their cars pass the MOT are probably not the main target of the DVSA.

For that I would guess they are looking more at the "tuners" of hot hatches, with tailpipes the size of dustbins and more engineered-in explosions on over-run than a salute from a Royal Artillery battalion, that go "cruising" up and down dual carriageways and through supermarket car-parks late at night.
Councils are having to take out injunctions so that the police can act

Time for the pipe and slippers and a nice mug of tea

I don't think any owners necessarily are the target of the DVSA, that is more for the police using S.59s where relevant, businesses are definitely the agenda of the day and having nosed at their criteria for 2024 we can only expect more of it.

I think the car community (including the businesses offering such services) in entirity only have themselves to blame for this irrespective of type of owner, the DVSA are clearly showing it is easier to make businesses compliant than the owners.

Fundamentally, noise is noise to many people whether that be a 4 cylinder or a V12, same for decats.

[Ninja59]

Caslad said:

McGurk has put 2 videos on primary decat on YouTube in the last 3 weeks. Given that he doesn’t offer the services he criticises it does beg the question as to why he feels the need to repeatedly raise the issue. It may be altruism (admittedly a trait rarely expressed by used car salesmen) but unwittingly or calculated it’s a direct attack on a core part of Mike’s business and whilst I don’t condone the manner of Mike’s retort he has every right to be p***** off.

To be fair to McGurk he did one video giving their opinion with no name calling and one video as a follow up because of the DVSA contact, not because he planned (at least I believe) on doing 2 videos. In regards to the subject matter itself, anyone is welcome to voice an opinion, whether that agrees or not with other views. I do think this is part of a wider "campaign" though to highlight common issues/mistakes for owners of AMs by McGurk (he did an air filter height video prior to this cat one), how helpful they are is obviously up to an individual.

Flipside, given this is not the first time of Mike personally attacking someone in a few months via his videos (the ECU video he personally attacked Matt Riddles, who works for AML currently (okay he did not highlight this) and directly named in that video without prior contact) he can be a peeved as he wants, but he comes across as unprofessional and it does him no favours (but given what I have heard about Mike's time at AML then it is no surprise apparently). Bottom line is anyone resorting to name calling and personal attacks is the lowest of the low, let alone naming someone in a public video with screenshots without warning to that person.

[Ninja59]

stevemcs said:

You won't get an MOT.

I'd rather DVSA crack down on people offering DPF deletes than Cats, its very rare you find a petrol with iffy cats is that bad on emissions.

A valid point, but if throwing DPFs for the sole reason of particulates then GPFs need to be considered as well surely?

[Ninja59]

stevemcs said:

Possibly, but lots of people seem to knock the DPF out because of them blocking, which is usually because of neglect and not servicing. I'd probably say soot particles are worse than what comes out of a petrol

To be fair it is the same thing really they are all particulates if anything research has shown the petrol ones to be smaller and therefore more harmful.