MOT Changes(Chipping)

[johnnerontheroad]

Just seen this on another forum may be of interest if you have chipped your M/H http://www.vxronline.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=113937

 

Dave

[Mel B]

Just bumping this up as it may be of interest to those poeple who have made changes to their vehicles, including ECU chipping.

[scramblers]

How can they tell a vehicle has been chipped?

 

I had my previous motorhome chipped but there was no visible evidence!

[Andy_C]

scramblers - 2010-12-17 6:11 PM

 

How can they tell a vehicle has been chipped?

 

I had my previous motorhome chipped but there was no visible evidence!

The consensus so far seems to be that it will be purely a visual examination for 'add-on' boxes, and possibly tampered seals on ECUs

 

Andy

[bob b]

I've got one on my motorhome thats easily removable. I'll just re-instate it after the MOT.

Another change to the MOT that I've heard of, is that number plates will have to have the manufacturers name and the BS number on them, otherwise its an automatic failure.

[nowtelse2do]

That's interesting Bob, both my cars have there original plates on 1984 & 1974 so haven't a clue who made the 1974 one, and the 1984 one are no longer in business, so will have to wait and see.

Dave

[Derek Uzzell]

The discussion on other forums appears to be based on a feature on Pages 8 & 9 of the following document relating to forthcoming changes in the UK's MOT testing procedures:

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/MoT%20-%20Issue%2048%20-%20Oct%202010.pdf

 

The relevant paragraph (start of Page 9) says:

 

"Other items – such as headlamp bulb and unit incompatibility, headlamp levelling devices and illegal engine ‘chipping’ – will need further thought before we can get a workable solution for MOT stations."

 

The feature refers to EU Directive 2010/48/EU which can be read on:

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:173:0047:0072:EN:PDF

 

The relevant entry on Page ref: L 173/64 states:

 

Item 6.1.9 – Engine performance

 

Method of testing – Visual inspection

 

Reasons for failure -

(a) Control unit illegal modified

(b) illegal engine modification

 

As Andy C points out, the method of testing to be employed is just a visual inspection, so no plugging in of diagnostic equipment will be involved.

 

What "Control unit illegal modified" or "illegal engine modification" actually MEAN, is anybody's guess and I presume there is guidance in the Directive's (inevitable) supplementary documentation.

 

As far as I'm aware 'tuning' of vehicle motors - however you do it - is not (and never has been) "illegal" in the UK.

 

While VOSA is considering how this test-requirement can realistically be met during an MOT test, there seems little profit in speculation.

[derek pringle]

Hi Bob B,

you say you have chipped your motorhome. What difference has it made to the performance and consumption, are you pleased? as I may consider fitting one.

Are certain types better than others or what, hope you can help.

derek

[scramblers]

derek pringle - 2010-12-19 11:36 AM

 

Hi Bob B,

you say you have chipped your motorhome. What difference has it made to the performance and consumption, are you pleased? as I may consider fitting one.

Are certain types better than others or what, hope you can help.

derek

 

Mine was installed by TB Turbo of Lancaster on my previous motorhome, a 2.0jtd Fiat powered Burstner. Unfortunately, they have gone out of business thanks to the recession.

 

The difference to mpg was from 22 to 23mpg but the torque increased by 25% enablling me to sail up hills that previously I had to crawl over in second gear (and occasionaly first).

 

I had the chip installed for 7 years with no problem. Well worth the initial cost.

[Derek Uzzell]

derek pringle - 2010-12-19 11:36 AM

 

Hi Bob B,

you say you have chipped your motorhome. What difference has it made to the performance and consumption, are you pleased? as I may consider fitting one.

Are certain types better than others or what, hope you can help.

derek

 

This earlier thread may be of interest

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=20010&start=1

[thebishbus]

Hi. The numberplate legislation does not apply to vehicles first registered before,I think 2000. 8-)

Brian B.

[scramblers]

An afterthought, don't forget to inform your insurance company. A 25%-35% increase in power is notifiable otherwise it will invalidate your insurance with a potential drastic effect.

[bob b]

nowtelse2do - 2010-12-18 2:44 PM

That's interesting Bob, both my cars have there original plates on 1984 & 1974 so haven't a clue who made the 1974 one, and the 1984 one are no longer in business, so will have to wait and see.

Dave

I had the Van Aken kit fitted in 2006. It cost £376.00 then, I've no idea what they cost now. The kit consists of an electronic box of tricks , with conections to the injectors. As I understand it the kit makes the injectors  pump in more fuel.

I  often tow a motorbike and trailer behind the motorhome and I just wanted a more relaxing drive, avoiding changing down when confronted with a slight hill. It certainly does work & I could feel the increase in power immediately. That said, I don't rush anywhere. I get to 60 / 65 MPh and set the cruise control. I really couldn't say what difference the kit has made to the fuel consumption, as I have never checked it before or since. 

As an aside, I was in Portugal earlier in the year and the motorhome just died. I lifted the bonnet and had a scout around. The only thing wrong that I could find was that the electronic box of trick had come unstuck from the bulkhead and fallen flat. I stuck it back up and continued on my way. I thought I'd get a fuel filter at the next Fiat garage and change that.

A couple of days later the camper died again. Of course it was the 'box of tricks' fallen off again. I gather that they must be kept vertical for some reason. I'd assumed that they were a solid state design. Since securing the box firmly, I had no more problems.

Oop's wrong quote. I was replying to Derek's query.

[Rayjsj]

Talking about MOT's, I have read that the EU wants us to 'harmonize' with them (how come they never 'harmonize' with us ??) and only have MOT's every 2 years, and not start them until a vehicle is 4 years old.

It wouldn't bother me, the main reason MOT's were first started was to get all the very dangerous 'old bangers' off the road, which it did. Now however it appears to be part of the 'Planned obscelesence' conspiricy to keep everyone buying a new vehicle every 3 years, and pursuing the 'Kill the internal combustion engine' brigade's agenda. To which i don't subscribe. Electric cars are rubbish, and a waste of resources. 8-) If re-chipping a vehicle releases more power and torque, why ? should that make it fail the MOT ? Provided the brakes and suspension are 'up to the job' why should it matter ? Ray

[Derek Uzzell]

Rayjsj - 2010-12-19 5:45 PM

 

Talking about MOT's, I have read that the EU wants us to 'harmonize' with them (how come they never 'harmonize' with us ??) and only have MOT's every 2 years, and not start them until a vehicle is 4 years old.

It wouldn't bother me, the main reason MOT's were first started was to get all the very dangerous 'old bangers' off the road, which it did. Now however it appears to be part of the 'Planned obscelesence' conspiricy to keep everyone buying a new vehicle every 3 years, and pursuing the 'Kill the internal combustion engine' brigade's agenda. To which i don't subscribe. Electric cars are rubbish, and a waste of resources. 8-) If re-chipping a vehicle releases more power and torque, why ? should that make it fail the MOT ? Provided the brakes and suspension are 'up to the job' why should it matter ? Ray

 

If you had used the link I provided earlier, you would have realised that there is already a long-standing EU-wide minimum frequency for vehicle-testing. This is the 4 years/2 years/2 years/etc. formula that you've mentioned and is unaffected by the revised Directive. It's a MINIMUM and, if the UK chooses to impose more frequent testing (eg. 3 years/1 year/1 year/etc.) there's no reason why the UK should not do so, nor will there be any pressure from the 'EU' to make the UK 'harmonise'.

 

As I tried to highlight (clearly without much success), the revised Directive talks only of 'illegal' engine modifications resulting in a test failure, and it is a VOSA statement that mentions "illegal engine ‘chipping’" as a throw-away line.

 

If a vehicle manufacturer designs a powerplant to be particularly eco-friendly emissions-wise, and that motor is subsequently 'chipped' for extra oomph, there's every possibility that its emissions figures will suffer. I doubt is anyone would see this as a Good Thing and I'm guessing that it's the eco-negative effect of 'chipping' that this element of the Directive seeks to address.

 

As add-on products like the Van Aaken "Smartbox" (Van Aaken went bust some years ago) are relatively uncommon nowadays, with ECU 're-mapping' being the preferred technique for performance enhancement, it's difficult to see how an MOT-test visual inspection will be effective in detecting an 'illegal' engine modification. Presumably that's why VOSA are pondering how that particularly Directive requirement will be framed in the UK MOT-test's regulations.

[747]

As my van is a 2003 model without particulate filters, it should not affect me as long as the emission figures comply at the time of the MOT. My Tunit box will stay put unless there is a change to the Mot and I am asked a direct question regarding chipping/boosting.

 

On another thread last week, I was advised to fit a K & N filter. This can give a slight boost in power as it is more efficient than the Fiat paper cartridge. Some official in Brussels might consider that illegal shortly. 8-)

[Brian Kirby]

I would assume the vehicle would only attract attention when it fails exhaust gas analysis, which might result in some further investigation of cause.  Otherwise, there seems little point in seeking to detect the presence of remaps, unless that is evidence that some are releasing sufficient power that braking performance may become inadequate.

OT, but what I thought interesting is the need for the country identifier to be recorded on the test certificate, appearing to indicate that foreign registered vehicles may be tested (otherwise, why bother?).  There is, as yet, no mention of a requirement for a "pass" vignette to be displayed, or of a move for other states to emulate UK practise, of electronically recording test status and insurance status against vehicle registration data.  But a gleam in someone's eye for the future?  First harmonise the tests, then allow anyone to have their vehicle tested anywhere, irrespective of the country of registration, but with cross border electronic checks made possible?

[euroserv]

Hello all,

 

This whole thing bothers me considerably.

 

I should like to give you a couple of examples;

 

Iveco 35S12 and 35S14. Both use 2.3 engine but one is 120hp the latter is 140hp. The only difference (according to the manufacturer) is that the more powerful version has a variable rate turbo. For this extra power you are charged about £1000 extra. In reality, we have replaced Turbo's on both types of van and the turbo's are exactly the same. The only difference is the program in the ECU.

 

The Fiat Scudo/Peugeot Expert is a similar setup with 120 and 140hp 2.0 litre versions being only differentiated by the ECU program. This costs over £600

 

Finally, the Fiat Ducato x250 2.3 is available as 120hp or a 'camper specific' 130hp. This is again nothing more that a re-profiling of the ECU parameters.

 

These are just examples in commercial vehicle applications; look at BMW and you will find a single 2.0 engine known as anything from 116 to 323 and spanning 100hp of differences and many thousands of pounds. It would seem that you should buy the cheapest one and chip it to at least half of the maximum available power for a fraction of the cost of buying the one you really wanted!

 

If the manufacturers can vary the ECU program and charge us a lot for it (and this is ethical and legal) then why can we not do it ourselves?

 

What they cannot see, they cannot criticise or deem illegal. As long as your emissions are still within acceptable limits and you do not 'over-tax' your engine I don't see how you can fall foul of the law, or compromise the integrity of your vehicle.

 

If the purpose of the changes proposed is to irradicate the hugely modified turbocharged street racers that only fit a legal exhaust once a year and have little or no regard for the law of the land then it is a good thing; and those are easier to spot too.

 

Nick

[Brian Kirby]

Just to be clear, Nick, are you saying you believe no other modifications are made to other components to accommodate this extra OEM power?

By that I mean such items as radiators, ABS programs, transmission ratios, clutch linings, brake discs, callipers, pads, suspension settings, damper settings, ESP or ASR programmes, wheel/rim sizes, tyres etc etc. 

Surely, the long established rules of intelligent tuning must still be observed, which is to up-rate other items to handle the extra power safely?

Bit frightening to think that the bog-standard shopping-trolley Bloggmobile might be turned into the Super-F1 Bloggmobile by just remapping its ECU, and leaving the rest unaltered.  Surely it is those other mods (plus the glint in the accountant's eye :-)), that must account for at least part of the price differential?

[euroserv]

Hi Brian,

 

Actually, if we throw out the established 'rules' regarding tuning because vehicles are built to much higher standards these days then it would be more practical to think of these vehicles as built to handle the higher (but not necessarily the max) power and then dumbed down in the name of emissions or fuel economy but mostly the opportunity to extract more money from the customer, you will arrive at the same conclusion that I have.

 

We are talking about (at most) 20% extra power here; demonstrably easily extractable using just re-mapping and for a reasonable cost. If we were looking for 50% more power then we would expect to need other enhancements for safety purposes. That amount of power, in the case of a commercial vehicle would entail higher boost pressures, bigger intercoolers and other expensive extra parts, and probably a lower compression ratio than we have come to expect so that the whole thing remains reliable. Then, of course you would need better brakes, suspension and tyres to cope with it all; thankfully that is not where we are going with this.

 

20% will make a significant difference to the way a vehicle performs, often without too much of a penalty at the fuel pumps. Think in terms of 'releasing built in potential' rather than 'testing the limits'.

 

In any case, that extra power will be coming from computer programming and not from oily bits so it was there for you or the manufacturer to release, just more cost effectively if you do it later.

 

Nick

[Brian Kirby]

Nothing changes then!  Buy the basic model with minimal bling for best value, and then breathe on it for better performance.  Keeps everyone guessing!  :-)

[Colin Leake]

euroserv - 2010-12-20 1:37 PM

 

Hi Brian,

 

Actually, if we throw out the established 'rules' regarding tuning because vehicles are built to much higher standards these days then it would be more practical to think of these vehicles as built to handle the higher (but not necessarily the max) power and then dumbed down in the name of emissions or fuel economy but mostly the opportunity to extract more money from the customer, you will arrive at the same conclusion that I have.

 

We are talking about (at most) 20% extra power here; demonstrably easily extractable using just re-mapping and for a reasonable cost. If we were looking for 50% more power then we would expect to need other enhancements for safety purposes. That amount of power, in the case of a commercial vehicle would entail higher boost pressures, bigger intercoolers and other expensive extra parts, and probably a lower compression ratio than we have come to expect so that the whole thing remains reliable. Then, of course you would need better brakes, suspension and tyres to cope with it all; thankfully that is not where we are going with this.

 

20% will make a significant difference to the way a vehicle performs, often without too much of a penalty at the fuel pumps. Think in terms of 'releasing built in potential' rather than 'testing the limits'.

 

In any case, that extra power will be coming from computer programming and not from oily bits so it was there for you or the manufacturer to release, just more cost effectively if you do it later.

 

Nick

 

Just to wish you a happy christmas Nick and thank you for the very informative post you have posted during the year.

[euroserv]

Thank you Colin, you are most welcome.

 

There is an awful lot of B.S. in this industry and I hope to be able to steer you and the other members of the forum away from trouble where I can.

 

I wish you and everyone else that I have conversed with over the year an very Merry Christmas.

 

Our firm will be closed from 24th December to 4th January but if anything interesting crops up, please feel free to e-mail me; I should be checking that daily.

 

Nick

[Mel B]

Very interesting thread this - thanks guys for all the info you're providing!

 

Just one 'hypothetical' question relating to the LEZ in London.

 

Taking as an example a motorhome which currently is within the LEZ emissions limits and therefore doesn't get charged to go into the LEZ area. If that motorhome is then chipped/tuned, could it potentially take it out of the 'no charge' group, into the 'chargeagle' group? If so, what would happen in PC plod stopped you to check and found you didn't comply .... hopefully it can't/won't happen, but it would be interesting to know if there is even the slightest possiblity .... :-S

[euroserv]

Hi Mel,

 

To answer your question i should like to give the following hypothetical answer;

 

Let's say that one of my trucks that is Euro 3 and after Jan 2011 is non compliant with LEZ is modified to Euro 4 by addition of a particulate trap (authorised and fitted by an approved supplier at a cost of about £4000).

 

We then have to take it to the VOSA test station along with the documentation provided by the supplier and it will then and only then be recorded by DVLA as compliant with the LEZ. When the truck goes to London and passes one of the cameras, the registration number will be checked and recognised as compliant, so no charges will arise.

 

All good so far.....

 

Now; if I was a bit devious and removed the particulate trap from that vehicle and replaced the original exhaust, and then took the truck to the LEZ it would pass un-noticed. Unless someone from VOSA decided to pull the vehicle over and check it very carefully, nobody would know. I doubt even that VOSA would check that it is there at the next annual test. Why would they care?

 

More generally, a 'chipped' vehicle should not be producing any more smoke or other particulate matter, and the emissions of CO will be only slightly higher than a standard vehicle and if the device is provided by a proper company that has tested them fully, it should still be well within the limits for the MOT test.

 

I believe that unless someone fits a device that is so obviously not supposed to be there and is lime green with pink spots within a scene of rusty steel and oxidising aluminium under a bonnet, no MOT tester is going to be any the wiser. Particularly if there is a cover over the device that would require un-screwing or cutting ty-raps etc to identify it because MOT testers are not allowed to remove ANYTHING during a test.

 

I would not worry.

 

Nick

 

PS. For the record, I am not going to be doing that with my trucks; it would be naughty.