Theft of catalytic converter (yes, yet another!)

[neillking]

No-one has mentioned issues with the LEZ and of course the European equivalents - what are the issues here?  Plainly the requirements for LEZ and say Umwelt Zones are not simply 'it passes the MOT'. I appreciate this may not be of importance to all but am curious as to the situation and perhaps as to the responsibilities to notify when selling-on or even if selling cat by-pass units? Low emission zones seem set to spread, here and abroad, so this may become increasing important.

[euroserv]

Hello Campers,

 

Just to possibly put a spanner in the works.......

 

I have recently been informed that the MOT test is changing substantially next year and will become more stringent. That can only be a good thing.

 

One of the changes that I have been made aware of is that a vehicle that was originally fitted with a catalytic converter, it must be present.

 

I also recently received a fax from a firm that is specialising in 'cat replacement pipes' for many commercial vehicles, probably as a response to the problems that we keep hearing about/suffering with, but I think this is probably going to be a non starter unless you also buy a new cat and switch between the two pipes in between MOT tests (as the high performance nuts have been doing to their cars since 1992!).

 

Nick

[Rayjsj]

All of their 'Big Brother' records (from reading your Numberplate) come from the DVLA, they only record date of manufacture and what 'Euro' you are ( that word seems to be the 'Bane' of our lives lately !).

So until they get roadside monitors to check your emissions, which aren't 'That' effected by leaving off the Cat anyway, I don't think it matters.

The 'Cloud' on the horizon for DIYers, is 'Type Approval' and a bit of Pipe instead of a 'Cat' will not 'Conform'. But then again neither will a complete S/Steel system (and I Intend to fit one of those ASAP) . SO, provided it passes the MOT exhaust emission test everything should be ok.

Until the 'Unelected Bods' in 'Euro-La La-land' think up even more 'unaffordable schemes' to give us headaches. *-) Ray

 

After reading the 'Above' , i thought the 'eurobods' wanted 2 year MOT intervals (crazy) ? so why 'Tighten it up' ? And as a question: how would they (MOT tester)know if a Cat was originally fitted ? where does it say that ? Ray

[euroserv]

Hi Ray,

 

The MOT tester that I spoke to said that he was required to examine the exhaust system as normal and if he 'suspected' that there was supposed to be a cat there, and it was not he has to check with the manufacturer's specifications (a book will be supplied to him) and must fail it if it does not appear to comply, whatever the exhaust gas readings.

 

You know as much as I do there are testers who will be actively 'suspecting' and those that may not, but I would be wary of not fitting a cat just in case.

 

Nick

[billybob]

you can buy from a company in tarlton a cat gaurd . i know thess are fitted on commercial vehicles .

 

the number is 01772 812126 think there called w h hull

[billybob]

phone wh hull Tarleton they have a cat gaurd kit 01772 812126

[bazooka]

Hi Ray,I thought all road vehicles after 1992 have cats fitted.

Baz

[Airstream]

Hi Al

I checked last week whilst my MH was having its MOT (with CAT in place)

 

The tester stated that the new requirement did not apply to diesels and wrote down the actual text from VOSA form

 

Method of Inspection

On vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test, check the presence of the catalytic converter.

 

Reason for Rejection

A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard

 

Tester stated that diesels do not qualify for a full emissions test so no problem

 

He also stated that the smoke test is more exacting for vehicles first used after (I think he said) July 2008 but he was still passing decatted Range/Land Rovers without any problems meeting the smoke test limits

 

However if you simply replace your cat for the MOT no problem? and your X250 even without its CAT will be cleaner than earlier models

 

Regards Ray

[jhorsf]

John & Anne - 2011-07-06 7:43 PM

 

Hi everyone,

 

Sadly this epidemic seems to be spreading around the country. A friend of mine has had his catalytic converter stolen from his van - not a motorhome. This happened whilst he was parked up near a site he was doing a job on. It would seem that the tea leaves have decided its easier than breaking in to the van for tools to steal.

 

Based on this and considering that prevention is better than cure, together with the part sleepless nights we were having about a potential bill of £2000+ to replace the missing items, not to mention 'murphys law' that would ensure that we were hit just before leaving for a holiday! We have invested in a Cat Clamp. I must admit I was a little doubious about buying something like this without being able to view the product in my hands, but given all of the above we went for it.

 

I can only say that I have been very impressed by the whole experience of obtaining the Cat Clamp. The company were very helpful prior to order and within 18 hours of ordering it the courier was knocking on my door.

 

As for the Cat Clamp itself I can only say that it is a substantial piece of kit and quite easy to fit. It took me about 90 mins single handed and that was laid on the floor shuffling about under the MH. With help I could have probably done it in half the time.

 

At least we are sleeping better now in the knowledge that we have probably done all we can to deter theft and that if the worst did occur, Cat Clamp gives insurance cover as part of the purchase price.

 

We have included a couple of photos to show you the finished product.

 

I hope it helps others who may be going through the same dilema as we were.

 

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

 

 

 

 

 

Although this looks like a good idea to guard the cat if the clamp bolts are cut will it then be easy to steal

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

bazooka - 2011-12-07 7:34 PM

 

Hi Ray,I thought all road vehicles after 1992 have cats fitted.

Baz

 

I don't think there are any regulations specifying that motor vehicle manufacturers MUST fit catalytic converters. However, there are regulations specifying maximum exhaust-emissions levels and, in order to comply with those regulations, motor manufacturers have found it necessary to fit 'cats' and, in more recent years, (for diesel engines) Diesel Particulate Filters.

 

I think Ford began to fit catalytic converters to Transit diesels around 1994 (though my 1996-built Herald didn't have one) and all Transits since 2000 have one.

[Guest Peter James]

jhorsf - 2011-12-08 1:41 AM

 

Although this looks like a good idea to guard the cat if the clamp bolts are cut will it then be easy to steal

 

 

 

Hopefully the clamp bolts will be hardened so as hard to cut as the cables?

[Shaun]

It's now five months since I had mine nicked and I replaced what had been there with a straight pipe. Now this confusing situation regarding new test rules re-opens old wounds.

 

We really need absolute clarification as to whether or not a diesel-engined vehicle which had a factory-fitted catalytic converter will be subjected to the new MOT rules, which check for said item to be in place at the time of the test. Already we have two diffent testers with opposing views - and that's before the new rules are in place.

 

This is no easy matter to resolve. I was quoted well over two grand by my Fiat dealer to replace the stolen and damaged parts. The second hand market is almost non-existent, and I've just checked once again as to availability. So it's not so simple as to pick up a cheap cat and stick it on for the MOT, then change it back to the straight pipe for the rest of the year, so as to avoid the risk of another theft. I'd happily do this if I could pick up the bits at reasonable cost.

 

So what's the alternative? To cough up for new parts at significant cost, then leave them in place, only to be protected by another expensive item, which may or may not be a deterrent to thieves.

 

I'm not so concerned about MOT testers getting it wrong. If they do, they'll be shown the appropriate rule and, so long as it's not a discretionary matter, the tester will have to accept the failure was incorrect. We need a 100% authoritative VOSA statement to what the situation really is. Is this a failure or is it not? There should be no discretion whatsoever on the part of testers, if the rule should simply not be applied to a diesel-engined vehicle.

 

Shaun

[Guest Peter James]

Shaun - 2011-12-08 9:59 AM

 

We need a 100% authoritative VOSA statement to what the situation really is. Is this a failure or is it not? There should be no discretion whatsoever on the part of testers, if the rule should simply not be applied to a diesel-engined vehicle.

 

Shaun

 

If we get that it will inevitably be that decat pipes are illegal. Because the alternative would be politicians being asked awkward questions as to why the cat had to be fitted in the first place.

 

I think the best we can hope for is a blind eye being turned when a stolen cat is replaced with a de cat pipe.

[euroserv]

Hello,

 

The rules are clear for petrol engined cars and commercials; All have had to be fitted with Cats since 1992 and they will not pass an MOT without one at present and in the future.

 

Diesels are a different matter and the emphasis has always been more on paticulates (soot etc) so far with the various levels of Euro emissions standards meaning that manufacturers had a free hand to acheive these by whatever means necessary. First there was common rail to give precise fuel metering and some makers used cats to get within the emissions standards, others managed this without. In the HGV arena most makers have had to introduce a secondary treatment of exhaust gases which involves spraying a chemical into the catalyser, and a couple have managed to acheive the desired results by just using more EGR, which usually involves more heat and stress on the engine (and higher fule consumption). Each has it's merits and some van and even car makers found the latter undesirable and used the chemical route instead. Peugeot, VW and Mercedes are among them.

 

For Euro5 it seems impossible to meet the requirements without a DPF (particle filter) and a cat and that is why these expensive devices are commonplace now.

 

From what I can determine (and the specific details are hard to find) it seems that vehicles built after 2008 are going to be most likely under the microscope for the absense of a cat fitted at manufacture. I don't think that there will be a definitive answer until the MOT testing stations receive their documents in January but I would warn anyone thinking of fitting a de-cat solution to wait and see what happens, and that may mean that it would be prudent to replace a stolen cat with another new one in the short term.

 

There are several other new items in the test such as plugging into the OBD socket of your vehicle and checking that there are no emissions or safety critical faults, warning lights for safety related items must not be lit, but curiously the engine management light is not included at present! Xenon lights should always have been equipped with headlamp washing and automatic levelling and this will now be checked. The condition, security and integrity of batteries and wiring will now be checked along with fuel pipes and engine/gearbox mountings. The additional test are reported to be expected to take an extra 7 to 20 minutes to complete and this will undoubtedly lead to increased charges but there is no word on that yet.

 

What staggers me though is that these enhancements to the test have come about from en EU directive and 'have to be implemented by the end of 2011'. The same worthless morons think that we should relax out testing regime to 2 year intervals to match their own!

 

Am I the only one that thinks that the tunnel should be filled in and Europe to to go to hell?

 

The Mayor of London is equally inept (or was, anyway) because he is making me spend £4000 on each of my trucks so that they can still drive within the M25 after 3rd January 2012 while anyone unlucky enough to drive a 1985 Austin Metro (that produces 5x more pollution than my 2006 Iveco trucks) can drive freely and cheaply. Insane. If i had my way we would avoid London permanently.

 

Nick

[Shaun]

Well, yes, I suppose ideally anyone affected should cover themselves with a new cat pending the dust settling around the new rules. But given that ancilliary pipes and brackets are usually damaged in order to removed the cat, replacement of that little lot is easier said than done, as the bill could be a couple of grand for replacement, or a big loss of future insurance discounts, if a claim is made.

 

I really don't see why we should have to cough up such sums (and more to protect the new stuff) if the lack of catalytic converter is not intended to be an MOT failure. I looked further into this today and found this MOT special notice to examiners, no. 9 of 2011. This is the relevant part of that notice which draws attention to a new guidance manual 'going live' from January 2012 (note that RfRs are 'reasons for refusal'):

 

Section 7 – Exhaust, Fuel and Emissions

1. Exhaust system checks amended and RfRs removed, for a part of the exhaust system missing or excessively deteriorated.

2. New RfR where catalytic converters are not fitted to vehicles subject to a full cat test.

3. For Class 5 vehicles, there is now a check to ensure that the exhaust tailpipe is not positioned so that fumes are likely to enter the driver’s or passenger area.

4. New RfR for excessive chafing or damage to fuel pipes and hoses.

5. The presence of a leak on gas powered vehicles must now be confirmed with the use of a leak detection product.

6. Diesel engine vehicles with a dual exhaust system fitted must now have the smoke assessed from both tailpipes and the readings averaged.

7. Addition of 1.5m-1 smoke limit for vehicles first used on or after 1 July 2008.

8. Information about the action necessary when a vehicle cannot be revved to maximum RPM and also where the DSM cannot record a smoke reading.

 

Item no. 2 above is the most pertinent, and it all seems to hinge on whether the vehicle is subject to a full cat test. This is emphasised in the introduction to this special notice which states: "On 01 January, all changes should be incorporated into the inspection routine as appropriate to the vehicle under test."

 

So, unless diesel-engined vehicles are to be subject to a cat test from January 2012, on what grounds could a tester consider whether a diesel-engined vehicle originally had a cat fitted, and if so, but it's missing, the tester can/should refuse an MOT?

 

Shaun

[rolyk]

Reading all the posts about the exorbitant cost of replacing a stolen cat I'm getting a bit nervous!

 

I've spent the last half hour searching for a source for a decat pipe for a 2.2 Boxer x250. All I can find is one on eBay at a ripoff price. If anyone can point me in the right direction I'd be most grateful. At least I could get through the winter layup period without any worry.

 

Roly

[Shaun]

I've emailed VOSA and drew attention to the fact that due to the continued threat of theft that some owners have fitted a straight through pipe, and we would like to know what the MOT situation will be from January 2012.

 

Essentially, I've asked whether testers should even consider a catalytic converter on a diesel, but more to the point, on any basis at all are they able to fail the vehicle if one was fitted from new but it's now absent.

 

I'll post VOSA's reply if I get one.

 

Shaun