MOT question

[Avocet]

I find this rather confusing. Is the 1.30 limit a value assigned to the vehicle's NOx emission? If so, your readings seem to be nearer to those of petrol (see below) - 0.07 is around 5.5% of 1.30. If that was genuine presumably you could claim your Euro 4 vehicle to be ULEZ compliant? Just one other concern: The list of readings seem to have been provided on what appears to be a supermarket receipt - is this what customers now have to accept. Usually all of the technical details were provided on a couple of sheets of A4.

Euro emissions standards | AA

Euro emissions standards were put in place to improve air quality and health. The Euro 6 standard imposes a reduction in exhaust emissions from car diesel engines. Get the full lowdown on the limits and the background to them...

www.theaa.com

Euro 4 (EC2005)​

January 2005 (January 2006)


Euro 4 (January 2005) and the later Euro 5 (September 2009) concentrated on cleaning up emissions from diesel cars, especially reducing particulate matter(PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).


Some Euro 4 diesel cars were fitted with particulate filters.

Euro 4 emission limits (petrol)​ CO – 1.0 g/km HC – 0.10 g/km NOx – 0.08 PM – no limit Euro 4 emission limits (diesel)​ CO – 0.50 g/km HC+ NOx – 0.30 g/km NOx – 0.25 g/km PM – 0.025 g/km

He can't because they use different units to measure in the MOT test and the "Euro" 4, 5 and 6 type approval test. (Also because the MOT test can't even measure NOx emissions).

 

[Mottie]

Just one other concern: The list of readings seem to have been provided on what appears to be a supermarket receipt - is this what customers now have to accept. Usually all of the technical details were provided on a couple of sheets of A4.

Eh? No, they haven’t. That is just a copy of the results of the smoke test. The ministry just need to know whether the car passed or failed the emission test as one part of the MOT test. The testing station also has to keep a copy of the results for 3 months.

 

[matlob]

Just an update on the original question in case it helps others

Car passed with the pad warning and non working third brake light and they didn't go on as advisories

Thanks for the help!

 

[Burnerman]

Got an advisory on 'er indoors 19 plate HRV......
Clutch pedal rubber wearing thin
Rear discs 0.1 mm thinner than recommended.......fail
Pretty intense, what?
John

 

[Mottie]

Got an advisory on 'er indoors 19 plate HRV......
Clutch pedal rubber wearing thin
Rear discs 0.1 mm thinner than recommended.......fail
Pretty intense, what?
John

lol. My bike failed on rear pads the other week. Literally paper thin. Literally.

 

[Burnerman]

Happily I know the mechanic at Newcastle Honda who was sorting the car......I whisked it away to fit new rear discs and pads - had a small nightmare retracting the caliper pistons courtesy of the electronic handbrake but eventually figured it out. The O/S rear caliper was sticking on a bit but I didn't realise that.
The discs were pretty moth eaten on the inside, and being the original parts I didn't baulk about replacing them. Haven't got the bill for them yet though!
John

 

[Stivino]

Rear discs 0.1 mm thinner than recommended.

How do they know that?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Got an advisory on 'er indoors 19 plate HRV......
Clutch pedal rubber wearing thin
Rear discs 0.1 mm thinner than recommended.......fail
Pretty intense, what?
John

Interesting fail.

from the manual.....

A brake disc or drum must be significantly worn before you should reject it. Being worn below the manufacturer’s recommended limits is not a reason in itself.

 

[Burnerman]

How do they know that?

The minimum disc thickness is engraved on the outer perimeter......I guess the guy used a micrometer or vernier to measure it.
How the measurement comes about is unknown to me!
John

 

[Burnerman]

Interesting fail.

from the manual.....

A brake disc or drum must be significantly worn before you should reject it. Being worn below the manufacturer’s recommended limits is not a reason in itself.

I guess 'significantly worn' is too open to interpretation - I've seen discs worn to a wafer, and also one or two that have parted company from their hub.
No complaints from me, the discs have done pretty well and the car has two more years to run with us so they won't need replacing again.
John

 

[Stivino]

The minimum disc thickness is engraved on the outer perimeter......I guess the guy used a micrometer or vernier to measure it.
How the measurement comes about is unknown to me!
John

I know all that. I was more interested to know why, during an M.O.T., they would put a micrometer on a brake disc.

 

[Burnerman]

So they could claim it was worn below 'recommended limits' and flog me a pair of new ones!
I can't argue with that.
John

 

[Mottie]

So they could claim it was worn below 'recommended limits' and flog me a pair of new ones!
I can't argue with that.
John

I would have done. There's no micrometer needed for a mot test!

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I guess 'significantly worn' is too open to interpretation - I've seen discs worn to a wafer, and also one or two that have parted company from their hub.
No complaints from me, the discs have done pretty well and the car has two more years to run with us so they won't need replacing again.
John

Yes if you know they are poor it's a no brainer to fit new ones

But the tester could have got himself in trouble if you had kicked off as it was an incorrect reason for failure .

Excessively weakened would have been better.

 

[Burnerman]

Fair comment. (Mottie) I would have raised this, but as the discs were crumbly anyway I'm happy to have replaced them.
I guess the car would still have passed an MOT even if the discs were worn wafer thin......so long as they provided the necessary braking force.
Honda would claim that they are looking after my interests in the matter of safety - bill of health etc, and presumably guarding their private parts.
John