New MOT rules from May 2018
Discussion
Wife's car sailed through the mot today with no advisories. Funny to think that in just a few weeks time it would fail because of the engine management light.
We have lost a few months on the old mot, but at least we get another year now before it will fail with the eml. Will look into it soon. Car is only worth 500 quid max so will need to gauge cost of a fix.
We have lost a few months on the old mot, but at least we get another year now before it will fail with the eml. Will look into it soon. Car is only worth 500 quid max so will need to gauge cost of a fix.
Sorry to drag up an old thread but have come a cropper with the new EML fail. My ST170 has had the EML on for the 2 years I've had it due to the IMRC being knackered. It's now sat at the local Ford garage and the replacement IMRC I got off ebay ages ago (supposedly working according to the seller) isn't working either. £416 is what Ford are asking for a new unit. I even get discount there.
Daft considering it doesn't affect how the car drives at all...
Daft considering it doesn't affect how the car drives at all...
Fury556 said:
Sorry to drag up an old thread but have come a cropper with the new EML fail. My ST170 has had the EML on for the 2 years I've had it due to the IMRC being knackered. It's now sat at the local Ford garage and the replacement IMRC I got off ebay ages ago (supposedly working according to the seller) isn't working either. £416 is what Ford are asking for a new unit. I even get discount there.
Daft considering it doesn't affect how the car drives at all...
Is it definitely the IMRC that is broken and not the wiring to it? I had this issue in my old ST24 (different engine, but same issue) and despite the IMRC circuit boards working correctly when tested it wouldn't operate when connected to the car. Turns out the wiring had suffered heat soak and shorted out, local garage was able to fix it quite easily after that. Daft considering it doesn't affect how the car drives at all...
I agree though, the EML being a fail is a stupid rule if the car is driving fine and passing the emissions tests.
Fury556 said:
Sorry to drag up an old thread but have come a cropper with the new EML fail. My ST170 has had the EML on for the 2 years I've had it due to the IMRC being knackered. It's now sat at the local Ford garage and the replacement IMRC I got off ebay ages ago (supposedly working according to the seller) isn't working either. £416 is what Ford are asking for a new unit. I even get discount there.
Daft considering it doesn't affect how the car drives at all...
Doesn't a failed IMRC affect power delivery? in which case, the car won't perform in the same way it might be expected to...Daft considering it doesn't affect how the car drives at all...
I think that it is reasonable to consider that anything which is serious enough to put up an EML would suggest that the car does not perform as the manufacturer would expect - and that is a good reason to fail an MOT...
Durzel said:
Don't cars typically drive like a bag of spanners with the EML on? Or does it vary by car/manufacturer?
Only times I've seen EMLs the car also won't rev past a certain (low) amount of RPM etc
Er, it kind of depends on what the fault is surely? There's certainly no certainty.Only times I've seen EMLs the car also won't rev past a certain (low) amount of RPM etc
"in limp mode" implies "EML on"
"EML on" does not imply "in limp mode"
Bert
Thesprucegoose said:
akirk said:
and that is a good reason to fail an MOT...
not if it passes the emissions test, it is stupid. the car ecu will run worse case, so no children get hurt.the poster above mentioned an issue with IMRC - my very limited knowledge is that this can in fords affect power delivery above certain revs...
driver puts foot down to avoid an accident / no power / crash...
EML can be an indication of something that changes the safety of the car...
ultimately - manufacturers get type approval for a car working in a particular way - if the car is no longer working as it should then the government feels it should not be on the road - seems logical...
BertBert said:
Er, it kind of depends on what the fault is surely? There's certainly no certainty.
"in limp mode" implies "EML on"
"EML on" does not imply "in limp mode"
Yep. I had a failing turbo actuator on my E320CDI. It went into limp mode intermittently without ever showing an EML. Turning off and on again would reset it. Then it properly died, permanent limp mode, EML on."in limp mode" implies "EML on"
"EML on" does not imply "in limp mode"
BertBert said:
Durzel said:
Don't cars typically drive like a bag of spanners with the EML on? Or does it vary by car/manufacturer?
Only times I've seen EMLs the car also won't rev past a certain (low) amount of RPM etc
Er, it kind of depends on what the fault is surely? There's certainly no certainty.Only times I've seen EMLs the car also won't rev past a certain (low) amount of RPM etc
"in limp mode" implies "EML on"
"EML on" does not imply "in limp mode"
Bert
vitesse2000 said:
The EML has been on in my CR-V for the past 4 years - knock sensor.
Has no effect on performance or emissions but suppose I either have to fix it or disconnect the eml before the next MOT
Ummm, nope. The MOT tester *should* check that the EML comes on, and then goes off once the engine starts. Disconnecting the EML shouldn't work to get it through MOT.Has no effect on performance or emissions but suppose I either have to fix it or disconnect the eml before the next MOT
It's a bit silly the new rules and regulations in regards to the EML being on and some other things.
The EGR valve was removed on my Fabia vRS about 10 years ago and the EML light has been on since. No change to the way it drives at all and never a problem with the smoke density test.
If the EGR valve had remained on, the dumping of all the diesel particulate matter into the intake manifold would have started to clog it up, reduced performance and in turn reducing fuel economy and increasing emissions. But keeping it on is needed now to pass and removal and ensuring term efficiency and cleaner emissions is a fail.
Likewise with older diesels. If you have a catalytic converter fitted and it's clogged up with soot then it'll not be working in any way, shape or form. With it being clogged up, fuel economy and emissions will be worse as a byproduct of less efficiency.
But it will likely still pass the smoke density test on the MOT
But if you remove the clogged up cat that isn't even working and this improves efficiency which in turn reduces emissions and improves fuel economy you will fail the visual inspection.
The EGR valve was removed on my Fabia vRS about 10 years ago and the EML light has been on since. No change to the way it drives at all and never a problem with the smoke density test.
If the EGR valve had remained on, the dumping of all the diesel particulate matter into the intake manifold would have started to clog it up, reduced performance and in turn reducing fuel economy and increasing emissions. But keeping it on is needed now to pass and removal and ensuring term efficiency and cleaner emissions is a fail.
Likewise with older diesels. If you have a catalytic converter fitted and it's clogged up with soot then it'll not be working in any way, shape or form. With it being clogged up, fuel economy and emissions will be worse as a byproduct of less efficiency.
But it will likely still pass the smoke density test on the MOT
But if you remove the clogged up cat that isn't even working and this improves efficiency which in turn reduces emissions and improves fuel economy you will fail the visual inspection.
Durzel said:
Don't cars typically drive like a bag of spanners with the EML on? Or does it vary by car/manufacturer?
Only times I've seen EMLs the car also won't rev past a certain (low) amount of RPM etc
The EML is a legally mandated emissions warning indicator (UN ECE regulation 83 for light vehicles); it must illuminate if a fault which may impact emissions is present, or which could impair the effectiveness of emissions control or monitoring.Only times I've seen EMLs the car also won't rev past a certain (low) amount of RPM etc
The EML must not illuminate for any other purpose, except to indicate an emergency start up or limp mode operation.
In your example, you are describing a particular type of limp mode operation. However, with modern emissions systems, many potential faults may not cause significant running problems, or pose sufficient risk to the engine that speed/load must be limited for mechanical protection. For example, something trivial like a sticking intake manifold runner will cause only very minor running issues which are unlikely to be noticeable, but may compromise emissions due to impaired air/fuel swirl, and therefore an EML would be required.
Edited by WatchfulEye on Friday 30th November 23:24
Fury556 said:
Sorry to drag up an old thread but have come a cropper with the new EML fail. My ST170 has had the EML on for the 2 years I've had it due to the IMRC being knackered. It's now sat at the local Ford garage and the replacement IMRC I got off ebay ages ago (supposedly working according to the seller) isn't working either. £416 is what Ford are asking for a new unit. I even get discount there.
The dealer will happily relieve you of that sum rather than investigate.Have you looked into why neither the original or s/hand IMRC is functioning correctly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4sSbmiDr60
Fury556 said:
Sorry to drag up an old thread but have come a cropper with the new EML fail. My ST170 has had the EML on for the 2 years I've had it due to the IMRC being knackered. It's now sat at the local Ford garage and the replacement IMRC I got off ebay ages ago (supposedly working according to the seller) isn't working either. £416 is what Ford are asking for a new unit. I even get discount there.
Daft considering it doesn't affect how the car drives at all...
£416!!!!Daft considering it doesn't affect how the car drives at all...
My dad's old ST170 needed a new one... he paid £50 ..
The other day, I noticed this in the emissions section:
If a vehicle first used before 1 September 2002 is fitted with an engine that's older than the vehicle, you must test it to the standards applicable for the engine. The vehicle presenter must have proof of the age of the engine.
If a vehicle first used on or after 1 September 2002 is fitted with a different engine, you must test it to the emissions standards for the age of the vehicle.
Was the pre/post September 2002 difference in the previous version of the test? I thought it was just words to the effect of "test as whichever is older, vehicle or engine".
https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/m...
If a vehicle first used before 1 September 2002 is fitted with an engine that's older than the vehicle, you must test it to the standards applicable for the engine. The vehicle presenter must have proof of the age of the engine.
If a vehicle first used on or after 1 September 2002 is fitted with a different engine, you must test it to the emissions standards for the age of the vehicle.
Was the pre/post September 2002 difference in the previous version of the test? I thought it was just words to the effect of "test as whichever is older, vehicle or engine".
https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/m...
gareth_r said:
Was the pre/post September 2002 difference in the previous version of the test? I thought it was just words to the effect of "test as whichever is older, vehicle or engine".
I remember hearing some words to that effect in the past as well so it appears that area has been updated with that regards.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff