HELP! - MOT Emmisions
Discussion
HELP!
My newly acquired CBR powered Striker has failed its MOT on emmisions. The garage that I have been to is not used to dealing with kits, and is therefore unsure on how to proceed. Just what is the law? I thought that depending on the age of the car then the vehicle emmisions level can vary.
Just to complicate the story, my car has 1977 on the MOT certificate as its age (it has an 1977 "L" registration having been build from a Mark1 Ford Escort donar). The CBR engine is of early 1990's vintage, yet the Vehicle registration certificate says 2002 i.e. when the build/SVA was completed.
Am I also correct in assuming that depsite Bike engines being exempt from emmisions regs, when installed into a car this is void.
This is rather urgent, so I would appreciate some help.
Cheers
Phil
My newly acquired CBR powered Striker has failed its MOT on emmisions. The garage that I have been to is not used to dealing with kits, and is therefore unsure on how to proceed. Just what is the law? I thought that depending on the age of the car then the vehicle emmisions level can vary.
Just to complicate the story, my car has 1977 on the MOT certificate as its age (it has an 1977 "L" registration having been build from a Mark1 Ford Escort donar). The CBR engine is of early 1990's vintage, yet the Vehicle registration certificate says 2002 i.e. when the build/SVA was completed.
Am I also correct in assuming that depsite Bike engines being exempt from emmisions regs, when installed into a car this is void.
This is rather urgent, so I would appreciate some help.
Cheers
Phil
The ruling changed recently. It used to be all kits were tested on pre 1970 rules, i.e. smoke test only.
Now though, all cars that have passed an SVA (which means yours as it was registered in 2002) have to pass the emissions based on the one it would have passed at SVA. For you this means 3.5% CO and 1200 hydrocarbons (assuming your engine date is pre August 1995).
It should mention the SVA link in the MOT tester book somewhere, but you'll have to prove what emissions your car was tested to at SVA. Could be worth contacting the SVA centre it was tested at.
>> Edited by KITT on Tuesday 17th May 14:39
Now though, all cars that have passed an SVA (which means yours as it was registered in 2002) have to pass the emissions based on the one it would have passed at SVA. For you this means 3.5% CO and 1200 hydrocarbons (assuming your engine date is pre August 1995).
It should mention the SVA link in the MOT tester book somewhere, but you'll have to prove what emissions your car was tested to at SVA. Could be worth contacting the SVA centre it was tested at.
>> Edited by KITT on Tuesday 17th May 14:39
They is a note regarding Kit Cars at the bottom of the page 
Please let us know what your V5 says. It's true that all SVA cars SHOULD have their emissions requirements on their V5s but I know that large numbers of them DIDN'T!
Basically, as has been said, it's true that once the bike engine goes into a car, it needs to meet car requirements. VOSA take the view that if you used a Rolls Royce jet engine, they don't care as long as it meets the relevant emissions standards for the car it is in!
The fact that you have a 1970s registration number is not really relevant to this case (or shouldn't be!) because the car might have got that plate by using components other than the engine from a 1970s car. The emissions at SVA goes on the age of the engine. I can't remember when they changed the SVA rules on this but initially, if you were unsure of the engine's age, they tested it to pre-CAT levels. After a while, they cottoned-on to the fact that a surprisingly large number of presenters of bike engined cars "couldn't remember" the age of their engines...
...so they changed the rules to make vehicles with engines of "uncertain age" do a CAT test instead. I can't remember exactly when this changed. It was a couple of years ago so you might be lucky. If it was before the change, you'll most likely have to do the last pre-CAT (i.e. pre-1995) emissions test (3.5% CO etc) If you are not lucky, you'll have to do CAT emissions. Either way, it should say on your V5. If it doesn't, please post again and we'll try to think of something else!
Basically, as has been said, it's true that once the bike engine goes into a car, it needs to meet car requirements. VOSA take the view that if you used a Rolls Royce jet engine, they don't care as long as it meets the relevant emissions standards for the car it is in!
The fact that you have a 1970s registration number is not really relevant to this case (or shouldn't be!) because the car might have got that plate by using components other than the engine from a 1970s car. The emissions at SVA goes on the age of the engine. I can't remember when they changed the SVA rules on this but initially, if you were unsure of the engine's age, they tested it to pre-CAT levels. After a while, they cottoned-on to the fact that a surprisingly large number of presenters of bike engined cars "couldn't remember" the age of their engines...
...so they changed the rules to make vehicles with engines of "uncertain age" do a CAT test instead. I can't remember exactly when this changed. It was a couple of years ago so you might be lucky. If it was before the change, you'll most likely have to do the last pre-CAT (i.e. pre-1995) emissions test (3.5% CO etc) If you are not lucky, you'll have to do CAT emissions. Either way, it should say on your V5. If it doesn't, please post again and we'll try to think of something else!
Thanks for all the Replies.
I've spoken to the garage, and it appears that it was tested to the pre 1995 CAT levels i.e. 3.5%CO & 1200 hyrdocarbons. I have done some checking and this is the right test as the engine is a CBR1000L which is of 1990/1 vintage.
It easily passed the CO test, but was well over on hydrocarbons, which the garage put down to the engine running very rich. I think I will have the engine fully servieced by a bike mechanic and get him to look at the fuel/air mixture.
On another related note, it also failed because of the lack of a windscreen jet wash. When I bought the car it was fitted with a full windscreen, however it also came with an aeroscreen. I have already fitted the aeroscreen for the sake of retaking the MOT, but is this exactly legal? To have passed previous MOT's it must have had the Aeroscreen fitted, but am I legally allowed to switch it back to the full screen afterwards? Either that or I will have to retrofit a screen washer.
Phil
I've spoken to the garage, and it appears that it was tested to the pre 1995 CAT levels i.e. 3.5%CO & 1200 hyrdocarbons. I have done some checking and this is the right test as the engine is a CBR1000L which is of 1990/1 vintage.
It easily passed the CO test, but was well over on hydrocarbons, which the garage put down to the engine running very rich. I think I will have the engine fully servieced by a bike mechanic and get him to look at the fuel/air mixture.
On another related note, it also failed because of the lack of a windscreen jet wash. When I bought the car it was fitted with a full windscreen, however it also came with an aeroscreen. I have already fitted the aeroscreen for the sake of retaking the MOT, but is this exactly legal? To have passed previous MOT's it must have had the Aeroscreen fitted, but am I legally allowed to switch it back to the full screen afterwards? Either that or I will have to retrofit a screen washer.
Phil
pdw709 said:
.....On another related note, it also failed because of the lack of a windscreen jet wash. When I bought the car it was fitted with a full windscreen, however it also came with an aeroscreen. I have already fitted the aeroscreen for the sake of retaking the MOT, but is this exactly legal? To have passed previous MOT's it must have had the Aeroscreen fitted, but am I legally allowed to switch it back to the full screen afterwards? Either that or I will have to retrofit a screen washer.
Phil
The MOT (and SVA) is a reflection of the legal requirement so yes it would be illegal to fit the full screen without the washers.
Not rocket science to fit some though.
Steve
pdw709 said:
Thanks for all the Replies.
I've spoken to the garage, and it appears that it was tested to the pre 1995 CAT levels i.e. 3.5%CO & 1200 hyrdocarbons. I have done some checking and this is the right test as the engine is a CBR1000L which is of 1990/1 vintage.
It easily passed the CO test, but was well over on hydrocarbons, which the garage put down to the engine running very rich. I think I will have the engine fully servieced by a bike mechanic and get him to look at the fuel/air mixture.
On another related note, it also failed because of the lack of a windscreen jet wash. When I bought the car it was fitted with a full windscreen, however it also came with an aeroscreen. I have already fitted the aeroscreen for the sake of retaking the MOT, but is this exactly legal? To have passed previous MOT's it must have had the Aeroscreen fitted, but am I legally allowed to switch it back to the full screen afterwards? Either that or I will have to retrofit a screen washer.
Phil
High HC Normally indicates a Weak mixture
Not richAssuming your engine is post 92 then you would need a cat or some other way of passing the more stringent test. Sounds like your car slipped through the net on the SVA.
Or you could somehow find some evidence that the engine was pre 93 and be subject to the less stringent test (ahem).
So, it may be worth getting a new chassis number and re-SVA'ing the vehicle if you can't afford/don't want to fit a cat and fuel injection/air bleed system, or a whole new engine.
As regards emissions, it is worth also checking engine timing (especially if you fail on HC's).
>> Edited by denisb on Friday 20th May 08:07
Or you could somehow find some evidence that the engine was pre 93 and be subject to the less stringent test (ahem).
So, it may be worth getting a new chassis number and re-SVA'ing the vehicle if you can't afford/don't want to fit a cat and fuel injection/air bleed system, or a whole new engine.
As regards emissions, it is worth also checking engine timing (especially if you fail on HC's).
>> Edited by denisb on Friday 20th May 08:07
denisb said:
Assuming your engine is post 92 then you would need a cat or some other way of passing the more stringent test. Sounds like your car slipped through the net on the SVA.
Or you could somehow find some evidence that the engine was pre 93 and be subject to the less stringent test (ahem).
>> Edited by denisb on Friday 20th May 08:07
The VIN number indicates that the engine is a CBR1000L which according to the Haynes manual means its was built in 1990/91 and therefore should NOT need to meet the more stringent test.
Phil
You're OK up to the middle of 1995 without a cat - the authorities gave every possible dispensation to the amateur builder when drafting the regs. It's true that some mass produced cars had cats in 1992 but there were various derogations which meant that some vehicles could "enter into service" (they might have actully been MANUFACTURED earlier and sat in a field) as late as 1995.
The screen washers is a more interesting one. In SVA there is a set height above which the screen is considered to be a windscreen and below which, it is a "wind deflector". The former needs wipers and washers, the latter doesn't. Unfortunately, the "height" is defined by a piece of kit that the SVA stations all have and is based on the assumed height of the driver's eye and distance from the screen so its messy to measure.
As your car is already registered, the SVA requirements no longer apply. It now has to meet the "Construction and Use" regs. For the most part, the SVA requirements closely reflect the C&U requirements so you're always OK going for the SVA requirements. The actual wording of Contruction & Use Reg 34 (wipers and washers) is interesting though:
"34. (1) Subject to Paragraphs (4) and (5), every vehicle fitted with a windscreen shall, unless the
driver can obtain an adequate view to the front of the vehicle without looking through the
windscreen, be fitted with one or more efficient automatic windscreen wipers capable of
clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road in front of both
sides of the vehicle and to the front of the vehicle."
In true C&U style its is full of subjective terms like " adequate" so there's scope for "interpretation". You'd have to be prepared for a court battle (and to my mind it just wouldn't be worth it) but if you could provide any credible evidence that you had an "adequate" view of the road without wipers, you might just get away with an aero screen!
The rest of the reg. just goes on to say that if the car has to have wipers, it also has to have washers.
The screen washers is a more interesting one. In SVA there is a set height above which the screen is considered to be a windscreen and below which, it is a "wind deflector". The former needs wipers and washers, the latter doesn't. Unfortunately, the "height" is defined by a piece of kit that the SVA stations all have and is based on the assumed height of the driver's eye and distance from the screen so its messy to measure.
As your car is already registered, the SVA requirements no longer apply. It now has to meet the "Construction and Use" regs. For the most part, the SVA requirements closely reflect the C&U requirements so you're always OK going for the SVA requirements. The actual wording of Contruction & Use Reg 34 (wipers and washers) is interesting though:
"34. (1) Subject to Paragraphs (4) and (5), every vehicle fitted with a windscreen shall, unless the
driver can obtain an adequate view to the front of the vehicle without looking through the
windscreen, be fitted with one or more efficient automatic windscreen wipers capable of
clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road in front of both
sides of the vehicle and to the front of the vehicle."
In true C&U style its is full of subjective terms like " adequate" so there's scope for "interpretation". You'd have to be prepared for a court battle (and to my mind it just wouldn't be worth it) but if you could provide any credible evidence that you had an "adequate" view of the road without wipers, you might just get away with an aero screen!
The rest of the reg. just goes on to say that if the car has to have wipers, it also has to have washers.
MR2Mike said:
High HC Normally indicates a Weak mixture
HC is unburnt fuel, so could be caused by a weak misfire, or by dodgy igntion e.g. coils, plugs, leads etc. or even by incorrect cam/ignition timing.
Thanks Mike, I will investigate further.
As far as the Windscreen/Aeroscreen goes, I think I will live with the Aeroscreen for now, and retrofit the washer jets over the winter when its off the road.
Phil
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff