Conference terri::cars_uk

Tony,

   I also have a Pug. 205 Diesel which will have 100,000+ on the clock
when then next MOT is due (July). Did the garage tell you how much it would
cost to fix your car to get it through the MOT ???

Karen.

    Around 200 pounds, if the injectors are the problem. More if that
    doesnt solve it. The only thing I can think of doing is to resubmit it
    for test with the (2000 mile) air filter removed, this may be worth the
    test fee.
    
    Maybe I can increase the tickover speed, my guess is this will make the
    figure better or worse & I can hope for the best.  {8-[
    
    Tony.

    I've not got any personal experiences yet (I've got an Audi TD)of the
    new MOT tests, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the garages use
    the emissions test as a way of generating (Conning) extra money. I took
    an escort for an MOT recently, it failed on one thing, but passed on
    emissions. When I took it to another place (my tame and very reliable 
    mechanic could not fault the brakes, which had been "failed" before) it
    failed on emissions and I had to shell out for a �20plus krypton tuning
    while I waited before I could get the MOT certificate

    Other considerations for diesels aprt from the injectors are worn and
    out of calibration metering pumps.  This determins the amount of fuel
    that is delivered and the pressure (worn pump components will have
    redueced pressure).  The pump timing is also critical in the four
    stroke cycle to ensure that the fuel is injected at the right time.
    
    Injectors should be checked typically every 24K miles for spray pattern
    and weak springs, etc.  A friend of mine's 95K Sierra was passed in
    late December with the comment that it would fail after Jan 1 as the
    injectors probably needed replacing.  I don't know what value it
    `scored' on the smutometer but it would have been a definite fail.

    Just goes to prove what we have always said!
    
    Diesels are dirty and smelly and belong in Buses and Lorries!
    
    
    Oh no, not that rat hole again!!!!!!
    
    
    I don't mean it really ;*)

    Tony,
    
    	According to January's edition of Diesel Car the smoke meters
    measure " Opacity - the extent to which light can get through - in K
    units". The article doesn't clarify what K is but the smoke pass rate
    is:-
    
    	3.2K	for atmospheric engines (non-turbos)
    	3.7K	for turbos
    
    	Apparently the engine is revved to a maximum 10 times and a reading
    taken.
    	The PSA engines (as used in Peugeots and Citroens) are
    In-direct-injection engines (IDI) the Perkins diesel engine (as used in
    Rovers) are Direct injection (DI). It is a well known fact that DI
    engines, whilst being more economical, do produce more smoke than IDI
    engines. The said article doesn't clarify whether any allowance is made
    for this. Also I have found using some manufacturers diesel fuel does 
    produce more smoke.
    	It could be some adjustments maybe necessary and perhaps the
    injector springs could be weak but equally your grade of fuel may have
    an influence on the success or failure of the smoke test. 
    
    	Out of mild curiosity was your MOT carried out by a Peugeot/Citroen
    dealer?    
    
    	
    Cheers....Norm

    I also read an interesting comment in saturday's auto-express, borne
    out by .6
    
    It stated that drivers should make sure their engines were properly
    serviced and had edequate oil otherwise THE MOT COULD DAMAGE THE
    ENGINE. (It was an RAC report)
    
    From .6   >>Apparently the engine is revved to a maximum 10 times and a
    reading taken.<< would seem to explain this point.
    
    Bloody vandals! :-)
    
    Richard

    Who would be liable for the repairs in the event of damage being caused
    by this sort of treatment? (Assuming it can be proven that the testing
    caused the damage)
    
    Richard
    
    

RE:                <<< Note 1980.8 by PEKING::SMITHRW "Err....." >>>
                          -< testing to destruction! >-

�    (Assuming it can be proven that the testing caused the damage)
    
    Fat bloody chance.
    
    Laurie.

    Yes, I know.
    
    What's the rev limit for an engine with 150K on it?  Or a recon unit
    that's still being run in?
    
    
    Sorry, I've just got an attitude about things like this....
    
    Richard
    
    

     I replaced the Fuel Injectors, fire washers & copperwashers on the
    engine, fitted a new air filter & wound down the max speed governor by
    3 turns. I also had to refuel & chose BP diesel.
    
    Cost of injectors was 100 pounds trade.
    
    Previous K reading	present K (passed !)
    
    run 1	9.99		0.89
        2	5.52		0.99
    	3	3.82		0.87
        4	3.13		0.74
        5	2.10		Test finished
    	6	2.91
    	7	3.42
    	8	3.19
    	9	4.10
    	10	5.00
    
    So, I dont know what caused the dramatic decrease in K-factor. I'm
    telling myself it was the most expensive item so I feel better about
    it. I decreased the max.engine speed control to minimise the effect of
    allowing the engine to scream. Diesels are expensive to rebuild.
    
    My guess is that injectors could be a service item from now on.
    

    From today's Daily Telegraph:
    
    "A high-revving check on emissions from diesel cars in the MOT test
    have been suspended after only six weeks after complaints that it
    damaged engines.  Test stations have been told to carry out a visual
    check at normal idling speed to ensure that vehicles are not emitting
    excessive smoke."
    
    Hooray!  Now can we have a definition of "excessive"?

    "Excessive" means containing metallic particles from damaged valve
    gear....
    
    Richard
    

    
    	GRRRRRrrrr
    
    
    Looks like I was a Day-1 Guinea-pig, & I had to submit my car for a
    second thrashing to get the MOT.
    
    What chance suing the DoE for repairs to engines ? About zero I
    suspect. SNAFU'd again.
    
    Tony
    

    I expect there is no chance of getting any compensation. I heard that
    you had to sign a form saying that your engine had been maintained to
    factory standards and would take full resposibility.
    
    Simon

    No Simon,
    
    I was not offered a form, I wasnt even informed about the potentially
    destructive nature of the test. "Just come back in about an hour" was
    the extent of the consultation. I learned in this notefile just what I
    had allowed to happen to my car. I would not have accepted the
    responsibility for what I see as someone elses flagrant abuse. Maybe if
    it was a condition of accepting the test, then this questionable
    procedure would never have been accepted by owners & testers alike.
    
    The Fact that my engine did not blow up there & then makes any claim
    weak because the abuse is virtually unproveable.
    
    Has anyone else been asked to sign away their rights ?
    
    
    Tony.

    Just had the Land Rover MoT'd at my local LR dealer.  I asked them what
    they deemed excessive and they said they would look for black smoke on
    the tick-over of a hot engine, a small bit of blue was OK.  So there
    you have it......
    
    I asked about the test they discontinued but they wouldn't be drawn on
    that.  Curious.
    
    Alan

    re .12 My Peugeot dealer asked me when I last replaced the cam belt on
    my 190000mile 205 before they ran this test!  So has the test been
    reinstated or was the garage pulling a fast one???
    
    On a secondary issue the car also failed because the ball of the towbar
    was obscuring part of the number plate!  Apparently, i.e. according to
    the garage, there's some new requirement in the test on number plate 
    visibility, presumably to keep the cameras happy?
    
    Colin.