2012 MOT Test

[GermanGorilla]

Hi,

I thought it worth noting for anybody
undertaking an Engine Swap for a Road
Car, that from Jan 1st 2012, the Engine
Emissions will be Tested on ''Year of Engine''
not year of Car if Engine is a replacement,
and that any Missing Cats required with
that Engine or on any Car will also be a fail.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[Zetecvan]

Is this for cars built after a particular date? I've got a two litre Zetec in my van, and god knows what year its from...

Do you have a link to the new regs?

[Duke137]

Well if my M50 block wasn't stamped 15-12-1992 I wouldn't have known, and I only knew that as the inlet and gubbins were removed to expose it, other wise it was an ebay special and I didn't have a clue!

There are some shyte rules coming through at the moment

[GermanGorilla]

Hi,

This is from another Forum, but it all
checks out.

On engine Swaps there is no more after date,
its the year of engine now, so if your Car
is 1989 and your Engine is 2000+ then you will
be required to meet the 2000= emissions with
all Cats Present !!!

Info gathered from another forum.

Know Your Legislation

I am creating this post not for scaremongering, but to educate on current and proposed legislation with regards to modified vehicles. Most of this legislation has been in place for years, but many people either have never heard of it or have no understanding of it. Recently the organisations involved in policing these regulations have begun to enforce them more thoroughly.

Forthcoming MOT regulations

First the good news. After consultation with a number of agencies and organisations the proposed changes to the MOT system to be implemented in January 2012 have been amended. Therefore:

Ӣ There will NOT be a total ban on the use/sale of aftermarket HID kits, which was a major part of the proposal. The current MOT rules state

High Intensity Discharge (HID) and LED dipped beam headlamps (whether original fitment or after-market) must be fitted with a headlamp washing system (a wiper is not required) and be self levelling. This may be achieved by the use of either headlamp or suspension levelling systems. However, some high performance vehicles fitted with HID headlamps that have limited luggage space and stiff suspension do not require a self-levelling system.

Reason for failure: A mandatory headlamp levelling or cleaning device missing, inoperative or otherwise obviously defective

”¢ There will not be a ban on ”aillegal”a engine tuning. Frankly there was no way a visual inspection could identify an aftermarket chip or re-map anyway, and this proposal was met with universal contempt by MOT testers. The only reference in the new manual to this is that modified cars must meet the correct emissions level for the year of engine.

Changes to the MOT that could affect lowered cars

These are the changes that have been implemented.

Ӣ Check that there is enough clearance of the axle or suspension with the bump stop or chassis
Ӣ Check that there is sufficient clearance from body to wheels

Reason for failure:
Inadequate Clearance of the axle or suspension with the bump stop or chassis.

Inadequate clearance between body and wheels.

Deliberate modification which significantly reduces the original strength, excessive corrosion, severe distortion, a fracture or an inadequate repair of a load bearing member or its supporting structure or supporting panelling within 30cm of any sub-frame, spring or a suspension component mounting, that is, within a ”˜prescribed area

The key word in the first definitions is ”˜inadequate’. This leaves it to the discretion of the MOT tester on what classes as inadequate. It’s not a massive problem, as I’d imagine most lowered car owners will have a friendly MOT tester that they use anyway. If not it might be time to find one. The 2nd part is interesting, for instance a chassis C notch could be seen as reducing the strength of the supporting structure for the front subframe.

That’s about all we can find that affects modified cars in the new manual, so much better than first thought.


Regards,

The Gorilla.

[bigwinn]

superb, watch the prices of headlamp wash/wipe sets go up....

[Duke137]

The HID thing is a ridiculous rule.

When you think that AFAIK the Americans don't have MOT's or equivalent it's just pathetic.

There are countries such as China polluting the world at vast rates and it turns out according to the government that it is me with my TV on standby and my old BMW that makes all the difference

[Zetecvan]

I've found a thread on Retro Rides about it - http://retrorides.proboards.com/index.c ... ead=101676

And the link to the changes themselves - http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/publications ... papers.htm

And here's some more, again on Retro Rides which includes some of the text you've just posted.

http://retrorides.proboards.com/index.c ... ead=105184

But there's no info on engine swaps...

[Gwynleym10]

Hi,

This is from another Forum, but it all
checks out.

On engine Swaps there is no more after date,
its the year of engine now, so if your Car
is 1989 and your Engine is 2000+ then you will
be required to meet the 2000= emissions with
all Cats Present !!!

Info gathered from another forum.
.

This is plane wrong if you look at the link that Zetecvan put up - http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/publications ... papers.htm

then look at page 171 (section 7.3) it clearly states

"Vehicles fitted with a different engine must be tested to the requirements of whichever is older, the engine or the vehicle."

i.e nothing is changing on this front.

I urge everyone NOT to take snip bits from other forums, but to actually look at the proposed legislation on the DFT website. There is no point believe rumor on this stuff.

Having a quick look through the only substantial change that I can see is about the HID needing a wash / level system. I actually don't think this is a bad thing, yes it makes the conversion more difficult / expensive but bright lights straight in your eye are friggin dangerous.

I actually wish the rules on normal lights were tightened up...

[Gwynleym10]

Also we are all to late worrying about this as the consultation is closed, on the 27th May.

[GermanGorilla]

Hi,

If I am incorrect then I stand corrected,
but I was reading a VOSA poster at an
MOT Station just a couple of weeks back
where it clearly stated that Emissions
were going to be on the Age of the Engine.

Thus a 2000 engine in a pre August the 1st
1992 Car would be tested for not only the
2000 emissions but that Cats would also
be required.

This is a EU Directive and as such it is law
in nearly all other European countries.

The MOT at present is as you have stated,
which is ever the older, car or Engine,
determines the Emission Test applicable.

I believe that come Jan 1st 2012 this will
change.

This Country's current 'Carbon Agenda'' means
that all these irrelevent small points are being Targeted
as in reality there is no chance whatsoever of
getting anywhere near the targets.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[GermanGorilla]

Hi,

I have now looked into this a bit further.

A pre August 1st 1992 car does not require
a Cat, but if it is fitted with a newer engine
from Post August the 1st 1992 then the
engine emissions Test will be on the
year of the engine not Car.

So if your engine was originally running Cats
then I fail to see how your going to pass
and Emissions Test without them ?

And if Cats are Fitted on any pre August 1st 1992
car then they become part of the Test.

Regards,

The Gorilla.

[320Touring]

m30 FTW!

all pre 1992

[Zetecvan]

Cheers for checking that, Gorilla.

I've just been down to the MOT station because my van is currently being tested and he said there are no proposed changes to the rules. He also said most of the time if there has been an engine swap there's no way of telling the age of the engine so they always test it using the age of the vehicle.

[Gwynleym10]

Seems a bit confusing Gorilla - but where are you getting this information from?

I'm sure you could be right it kinda sounds like a proposal that could be true, but the actual impact in terms are carbon savings would be soo limited as there arn't that many cars like this. I suspect the cost benefit analysis of this really doesn't weigh up that well.

- but having years of experience writing legislation in government there is always lots of hearsay about stuff, but what is actually in the proposals is often quite different.

It is also proposals as well - so things still can change at a flick of a ministers hand (which they do!).



Being in a EU directive does NOT mean it is is law here. Directives have to be converted in to laws in the UK, yes they are supposed to be the same - but often we have other laws which may also cover elements of what is in the EU directive - so it is not literally cut and pasted. It is also down to interpretation and how good ones lawyers are...

The UK (I think) has the most unsuccessful infractions (being taking to the European court for not implementing directives) which means we are pretty good at arguing our corner.

[greg124]

Are any of you guys aware of the proposals for MOTs every two years, as they have in parts of continental Europe.
According to the guy who does my MOTs, if it becomes law a test will take about half a day (I can just imagine the cost), and, for example, the whole braking system will be stripped down, thoroughly inspected, and any parts which are not 'as they left the factory' replaced. The proposals will include:

If one tyre fails the test you have to repalce all four.
If there is corrosion in one part of the exhaust system, you have to replace the whole system.

It is easy to see how you could be faced with a bill much greater than the value of the car, BUT you would then expect two years of safe, trouble free motoring.

I should stress that this comes from the guy who does my MOTs, and I have not taken the time to verify this elsewhere, so please don't brand me a scaremonger.

[Jim320i]

Thats just mad Greg! Pretty much all cars in the UK would be scrapped within the first year of that surely?

I wouldnt want to be paying for half a days labour for carrying out an MOT... Then to find the car would fail regardless on what you said above... I think somethings are just people saying the worst outcome were as it wont come down to that... And if it does, i'll continue to drive my E30 until they phsically remove it from my fighting hands.

Not everyone can afford a new car and Stupid city cars really arent for some people.

[UweM3]

Glad I haven't started on the exhaust system yet. My cats are still in place. Was anyway thinking to leave them in place for noise reduction but not happy with the heat they generate which would mean I have to fit extra heat shilding

[UweM3]

The HID thing is a ridiculous rule.

When you think that AFAIK the Americans don't have MOT's or equivalent it's just pathetic.

There are countries such as China polluting the world at vast rates and it turns out according to the government that it is me with my TV on standby and my old BMW that makes all the difference

they may not have an MOT but states like California have a very strict smog test which you can fail just by the tester not liking the VISUSAL condition of your intake system (i.e. he THINKS it's not OEM). Would you rather have this?
I much prefer a MOT to make sure not every rusty shed with half the brakes only working is T-boning me.

What's the fuss with the CAT's anyway? Common practise in Germany for 15 years+. Almost nothing over there is running without a cat. Or you pay big money for road tax.