Shaun Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 This is a follow-up to the stolen cat converter thread, as there has been conflicting information about impending new MOT rules, not least from MOT testers themselves. Anyone who has not replaced a stolen cat converter, but who has instead had fitted a piece of normal pipe in its place (like me), might well be wondering what the implications are behind a specific new MOT rule from 1 January 2012. For some vehicles they now include a check for the cat converter where one was fitted from new. The cost implications for those of us who've simply fitted a piece of pipe are significant, due to the very high cost of a replacement cat and its supplementary fixings which are often damaged during the theft. I contacted VOSA, and they've come back promptly. Rather than perhaps commit themselves to a qualifying "It's no problem to fit a through pipe in place of a catalytic converter," their answer was to give me a link to the new "MOT Inspection Manual for Private Passenger and Light Commercial Vehicle Testing". They also drew attention to the part concerned. Here's the link, followed by the VOSA reply: http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/MOT%20Inspection%20Manual.pdf ********************************************* "Dear Sir, Thank you for your email enquiry dated 9th December, 2011 concerning the New MOT test regulations. Testers follow the flow charts in the manual to determine which type of emissions test to carry out. Dependant on when the vehicle is first used will depend on which type of emission test is carried out. Section 7.3 of the inspectiion manual covers which types of vehicles require cat/non cat tests." ************************************************ When the vehicle was first used doesn't appear to make a difference to diesels (or at least newer motorhomes,) as everything is based on a before or after 1979 first use. Actually, I should mention that rather than refer to diesel engines, the relevant part of the manual refers to "Exhaust Emissions - Compression Ignition" Anyway, I've scrutinised this manual and can find nothing to suggest that there should be any check for a catalytic converter, for the same old reason that diesels continue with just a smoke check, and they do not attract what the manual refers to as the Full CAT Test. It will be interesting to see whether testers obey this rule or take it upon themselves to make checks they're not supposed to, and possibly fail vehicles for having a missing catalytic converter. If anyone disagrees or is unsure as to the conclusions I've made, then please speak up now, so we can seek absolute clarification from VOSA before MOT time. Shaun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Sean, Good work sir! Having read the manual, it would appear that as long as the vehicle passes a smoke test that there would be no reason to fail a it for not having a cat; even if one was there (and deemed necessary by the manufacturer) at the time of build. I am not sure that I am happy about that because it rather means that they were never necessary to begin with, especially in the case of the Fiat Ducato Euro4 which is very 'clean' anyway! If you feel like pushing your luck why don't you ask your contact at VOSA if an MOT tester DID fail (or even issued an advisory note about a missing cat; would you be within your rights to appeal? At the end of the day we all know that some MOT testers think that they can do what they like and it would be a useful fact in our collective armoury that in clear English that tester would be wrong, and would be brought to task about it should he decide to act beyond his remit on this matter. I hasten to add that not all MOT testers are like that; far from it, but we know they exist don't we? Now that is out of the way I received a fax a few days ago from Online Automotive offering De-Cat pipes for Commercials and motorhomes. They list Ford, Iveco, Isuzu, Mercedes, VW and Fiat and are contactable on 0844 880 7878 or www.onlineautomotive .co.uk I cannot recommend them because I have had no dealings with them, but at least we know there is someone out there that supplies such things! Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 If the rules are changing on 1st January and you currently don't have a cat fitted - why not go get a 12 monthMOT ticket this week - at least it'll give you a year to save up for a new cat - if it becomes evident during 2012 that you will have to have one? There is a very nice man in a very nice MOT test centre near Kings Lynn who will be happy to test your van for the bargain cost of thirty quid! As far as I know the rules specify that you have to have a test every 12 months but if you choose to have your van tested more frequently for your own peace of mind and because you will be abroad when it next falls due then you are just being a good responsible citizen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spospe Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 If cats are not needed, why are they fitted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 They keep the mice away! :-D I'll get my own coat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 I'd rather not to have to circumvent the new rules and then have the same hassle each year. I'd prefer to rest easy knowing that the rule simply does not apply to diesels from January 2012, if that is indeed the case. I've written again to VOSA to try and elicit a definitive statement. This would be a useful addition to the wording in the tester's manual. Shaun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 spospe - 2011-12-12 5:43 PM If cats are not needed, why are they fitted? Why indeed! I am happy to be corrected by those with industry expertise but as I understand it - They are a misguided and pointless addition that has made a lot of politicians and their friends in automotoive industry very wealthy. They detract from the natural economy of any engine by virtue of the increased exhaust back pressure. They began in California - land of the ultimate corruption - and ultimate paranoia - and ultimate political correctness for 'being green' - green as in gullible - not as in ecoblahblah. Similar pollution results could be achieved in petrol engines by modern lean burn technology and electronics alone but the lobbyists and vested interest parties are too well entrenched in the corridors of power to get catalysts stopped now. I have often heard it said that they are pointless on a modern diesel but am not well enough informed to be able to substantiate that? There may have been an argument for them in the early 90's when vehicles were a lot more inefficient - in theory - although in practise few family cars cars still today do more than 40mpg in the real world despite their makers wild claims - and whilst actual fuel economy might be better it's not anything like the politicians and car makers would have you believe. And if you complain to the maker about poor mgm they bring out their favourite get out clause - 'it must be the way that you drive sir as everyone else gets more mpg than you do'. And they are bloody expensive to replace. Apart from that they are a good idea! Progress eh - don't you just love it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallii Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 DPF (Diesel Particulate Filters) may or may not also use catalytic coversion technology. So a DPF is not always a cat, nor is a cat always a DPF (mainly on petrol engines). The fact remains, a DPF is designed to trap soot particles and burn them off in one way or another. Ford put theirs near to the exhaust ports so that they run hot and keep clear. I am not sure where others are. But being in the engine bay makes them difficult to remove as well. One up for Ford. Since they work mainly at tickover and low revs they make no difference to the running of a diesel engine at higher revs other than to slightly restrict the gas flow. (Unless they get blocked, not uncommon) So removing the DPF from a diesel engine will not affect it to any noticable amount, you might get a couple of BHP more and a bit more soot at tickover. That's as I understand it, but I am willing to learn :-) H If mine goes I will simply fit a legth of pipe in it's place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave225 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I fully accept to being dumb but do we have cats fitted to diesels? I know they were fitted to petrol engines to trap the nasty gases produced but was not aware of them being on diesels. Being full of platinum they were expensive and care had to be taken to ensure they were not damaged. My own Volvo does not have one to my knowledge. What it does have is a Diesel Particulate Filter which is supposed to trap all the sooty bits that diesels produce and allow the engine to meet Euro Regs. The DPF traps the soot and after a long run the soot gets burned off. If you do alot of town driving then the engine does not get hot enough and the computer floods it with diesel to ignite it. This can of course use extra fuel. There are also instances of the excess fuel being dumped into the engine sump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Tracker - 2011-12-12 6:59 PM spospe - 2011-12-12 5:43 PM If cats are not needed, why are they fitted? Why indeed! I am happy to be corrected by those with industry expertise but as I understand it - They are a misguided and pointless addition that has made a lot of politicians and their friends in automotoive industry very wealthy. They detract from the natural economy of any engine by virtue of the increased exhaust back pressure. They began in California - land of the ultimate corruption - and ultimate paranoia - and ultimate political correctness for 'being green' - green as in gullible - not as in ecoblahblah. Similar pollution results could be achieved in petrol engines by modern lean burn technology and electronics alone but the lobbyists and vested interest parties are too well entrenched in the corridors of power to get catalysts stopped now. I have often heard it said that they are pointless on a modern diesel but am not well enough informed to be able to substantiate that? There may have been an argument for them in the early 90's when vehicles were a lot more inefficient - in theory - although in practise few family cars cars still today do more than 40mpg in the real world despite their makers wild claims - and whilst actual fuel economy might be better it's not anything like the politicians and car makers would have you believe. And if you complain to the maker about poor mgm they bring out their favourite get out clause - 'it must be the way that you drive sir as everyone else gets more mpg than you do'. And they are bloody expensive to replace. Apart from that they are a good idea! Progress eh - don't you just love it! I agree with you Rich, as i recall, Ford were working on 'Lean Burn' technology before 'cats' became compolsory (petrol) and were almost there, with emissions as low as 'cat' fitted vehicles, and with Much better MPG figures as well. But of course the 'Edict' came down from Where ? that 'CATS' MUST be fitted, and of course Lean burn engines don't work properly when there is a 'Blockage' (cat) stuck in the exhaust system, So 'Lean Burn' and better MPG got 'shelved' only now are petrol engines getting back to MPG figures found using 'Lean burn' back in 1992, how much Extra petrol has been burned because of Catalytic Converters. Not That Evironmentally Friendly ! is it ? *-) Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Shaun, I agree with your conclusion. There is no mention of a 'CAT test' for compression ignition engines or any mention of checking for a CAT in the inspection of the exhaust system. As a further note:-- I have a 'spark ignition 'car first registered in1991 and it was originally fitted with a CAT. It is not a legal requirement for a car of that age ( I think that it is cars after about October 1992 but not sure )and I replaced the CAT with a plain pipe some years ago and no mention has ever been made of it by any MOT tester because when they check the year of the car they see that no 'CAT emissions test' is required and that is all that concerns them. If your vehicle does not have to have a CAT by law then I see no reason for a tester to query it as long as it passes the apropriate emissions test. Harvey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 hallii - 2011-12-12 8:03 PM But being in the engine bay makes them difficult to remove as well. One up for Ford. A couple of years back a driver at local firm went to start his transit and no go, on lifting the bonnet he discovered the cylinderhead had been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Hello, This Petrol engine malarky is very interesting. In the early 80's there were two ways of achieving better fuel economy, or efficiency and the driving forces were Audi with their very low drag coefficients (think back to the Audi 100 cd.30) and BMW with their 6 cylinder 2.5 Auto that was very low revving (called 525'ETA'). Both resulted in 35mpg average consumption. I always wondered what they would have achieved if the two firms had collaborated? I have been saying it for years; the obsession with reducing specific elements of the exhaust gasses such as hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides along with carbon monioxide is just stupid, but it was all that the eurocretins could understand! They laid down the law and continue to do so. If the motor industry had been left to their own devices for the last 20 years they would have concentrated on producing more power (reliably) from smaller engines and using less fuel. It is an inevitable consequence of using less fuel that there is less of anything offensive coming out of the exhaust! Company car taxation has had more to do with driving down emissions than anything else because the need to have low CO2 emissions (and therefore paying less tax) has put a great many fuel efficient vehicles on the road, and these are the used cars of the future so that is a good thing. Apart from the fact that the typical owner of an ex fleet car, purchased for a quarter of the original price may not be able to afford to maintain or repair these highly complicated vehicles over the years. There is one other question that bugs me though.... What were BMW up to for 20 years while they just 'towed the line' and preserved a mediocre power/economy balance? All of a sudden, perhaps 3 years ago, they started launching powerful but highly fuel efficient engines and leap-frogged most other makers by a mile. I reckon they could have done this 10 years ago but suspect the fuel firms were holding them back! I love a good conspiracy theory.... Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted December 14, 2011 Author Share Posted December 14, 2011 I can't see that VOSA are going to play ball any further. I asked whether they would be prepared to confirm at the time of MOT, that a tester was incorrect in applying the full CAT test to a compression-ignition (diesel) vehicle, if that were to happen. They have answered as follows: ****************************************************** Dear Sir, Thank you for your email enquiry dated 12th December 2011, concerning the new MOT requirements. There are Seminars throughout the Country that MOT testers will need to attend where they will receive advice on the new MOT standards that are coming into force in 2012. We also have a Customer Service Centre (CSC) in Swansea where Testers call should they need any assistance or clarity with aspects of the MOT. If once they have attended the seminars they are still unable to follow the flow charts regarding emissions they can contact the CSC on 0300 123 9000 and select option 3. Our opening hours are Monday - Friday. I hope this information has assisted you with your enquiry, but if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us again. ****************************************************** So, in theory, MOT testers should be well clued up and have no reason to incorrectly check for missing catalytic converters. However, despite their seminars, my Fiat dealer still managed to initially fail an MOT for my motorhome, for what it believed to be a knackered rear suspension, despite the spring assisters concerned being part of the Ducato suspension, a design which they should have been well aware of. Shaun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 This is an excellent string Shaun, although it has lost some of its clarity through slightly pointless discussion of why (mainly Italian) manufacturers fit cats, if VOSA do not choose to include them in the MoT. Cart and horse perhaps? However, it seems that you have teased out a very valuable remedy for anyone whose cat has been stolen: to replace the cat with straight pipe, and if this is done it will not be a ground for MoT failure. That should save those affected a considerable sum of money, and I am sure they will be grateful for the time and effort you have taken in finding this out. Plainly it will be necessary to await the MoT before you discover whether the absent cat causes trouble, but from the manual it seems clear enough to me that, as the full cat test is not a requirement on diesels, the presence of the cat is not required to be verified, and its absence will not result in failure, unless the smoke level is consequently increased. If the absence of the cat is cited as an issue, you will just have to argue/appeal. Please let us know how you get on. Good luck with the MoT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granddad Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 reason for rejection. 2. A major leak of exhaust gases from any part of the system. 3. A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard 4. A silencer in such condition, or of such a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 granddad - 2011-12-14 9:54 PM reason for rejection. 2. A major leak of exhaust gases from any part of the system. 3. A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard 4. A silencer in such condition, or of such a Seconded, in case you've missed it Shaun Sec7.1 page 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted December 14, 2011 Author Share Posted December 14, 2011 There are two columns adjacent to each other. The first is entitled: Method of inspection The second is entitled: Reason for rejection What I'm seeing is that the item in column 1 is read in conjuction with the corresponding item in column 2. So, the reason for rejection in the second column, item 3: A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard..... ......is read in conjuction with item 3 in the first column: On vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test, check the presence of the catalytic converter. As there's no full cat emissions test for diesel engines, then the reason for refusal doesn't apply. Well that's how I see it, anyway. Anyone else care to comment? Shaun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airstream Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Hi Shaun, Is that not what I reported in the prev post ? my tester says diesels can not have a full cat test only the smoke test = all the new rules have done is halved the allowed smoke emissions from 3 to 1.5 on later vehicles post 2008 I think Where did you get your decat pipe from? All I can find are a real rip off at £78 plus P n P is the lowest to date - I can get a full system for my Herald for lesss Regards Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted December 15, 2011 Author Share Posted December 15, 2011 It was the difference between what your tester told you, Ray, and the contrary view from a tester which Nick knows, which made me take this up with VOSA. I had a bellyful of incorrect MOT testing earlier this year and all the excuses which came with it, about the garage not having been informed by VOSA, nor the tester in question. As for the de-cat pipe, Nick pointed in me in the right direction there. Basically, various tyre and exhaust fittters do 'Powerflow stainless steel exhausts'. It cost over £90 for mine, but it wasn't straightforward. Apparently, the flange from the exhaust downpipe which matches same on the stolen cat, wasn't a standard part, so they had to saw it off, weld another in place, then fabricate the through pipe. They also had to make up the support for the new pipe to the chassis. All in all, I thought it was decent value - certainly compared to the alternative of an insurance claim to the tune of well over £2,000. You also have a valid point, Ray, about the revised smoke test (which, incidentally came in from July 2011), and this could be relevant to anyone who's had the cat removed. For vehicles first used after July 2008, the smoke test is tighter. When my MOT falls due, I'll scrape in to attract the previous higher allowable reading, as I have an April 2008 van. Here's the extract from Special Notice no. 1 of 2011: *********************************************** Item 1: Diesel Smoke Limits from 01 July 2011 On 01 July 2011 the diesel smoke limit for vehicles first used on or after 01 July 2008 will be reduced to a maximum of 1.5m-¹. As advised in SN 3 – 2010 all diesel smoke meters require an update to test to the new limit on this date. You are reminded to contact your equipment supplier to arrange for this update to be carried out if you have not already done so. *********************************************** Shaun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve928 Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Airstream - 2011-12-15 12:41 AM Where did you get your decat pipe from? All I can find are a real rip off at £78 plus P n P is the lowest to date Regards Ray Could you tell us where they're available at £78 please. Ray? Personally, I don't consider that a rip-off: I've made-up a couple now and the parts (in stainless) run to c. £45 and they take a good while to make. The laser-cut 10mm thick flange costs £20 alone.. Supply and parts of the catalyser itself seem to have stabilised somewhat now I note: both OE and after-market cats. can be found for under £300 new. If I hadn't de-catted I think I'd be buying a spare just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted December 15, 2011 Author Share Posted December 15, 2011 Where are these aftermarket cats, Steve? I looked last week and could only find them for pre-2006 Ducatos. Thanks. I would also be inclined to buy one at a few hundred quid but only if a) this MOT test issue becomes a real chore, or b) the lack of cat meant an MOT failure relating to the smoke test, or c) some van running problem manifested itself which seems to be linked to the lack of cat. I prefer the straight pipe, given the continued theft of these things, and would be very reluctant to fit a new one. Shaun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve928 Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 A couple from ebay: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Genuine-Fiat-Ducato-2-3JTD-Underfloor-Catalyst-2006-/370564543990 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/FIAT-DUCATO-2-3-JTD-04-06-DIESEL-CATALYTIC-CONVERTER-CAT-/150689994085 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted December 15, 2011 Author Share Posted December 15, 2011 Thanks, Steve. It seems odd looking at these, as I've not seen one, mine having been nicked. This is good news if they are indeed the right ones, but I would be hampered by the lack of fitting kit. It doesn't help that I've also had the original downpipe flange sawn off and replaced, and the rubber mounts sawn through, so there would be some extra parts needed. Nevertheless, what a difference to Fiat's prices. We could with someone confirming they've had one of these aftermarket jobbies fitted. I can then stick two fingers up (or is it just one these days; I never quite remember which is the most rude) at my local Fiat dealer who were all to keen to capitalise on my cat theft with a cost of over two grand. Shaun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Shaun - 2011-12-14 11:16 PM There are two columns adjacent to each other. The first is entitled: Method of inspection The second is entitled: Reason for rejection What I'm seeing is that the item in column 1 is read in conjuction with the corresponding item in column 2. So, the reason for rejection in the second column, item 3: A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard..... ......is read in conjuction with item 3 in the first column: On vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test, check the presence of the catalytic converter. As there's no full cat emissions test for diesel engines, then the reason for refusal doesn't apply. Agree Shaun, that is exactly why my car has passed many MOT's with a CAT replacement pipe fitted.......people just need to read what it says ........ :-D Harvey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.