|
Well this is interesting, my 3 litre Landcruiser is a 2005 model, but according to the MOT test conducted by our local garage (who appear to have it wrong from BJ's post) was subject to the 1.5 l/m not the 3.0 figure Big John mentions?, i'm presuming Absorbtion coefficient reading is the actual test figure, which 0.72 l/m.
A previous MOT from before i bought it had three tests (3.0 limit applied), 1.98, 1.93, 2.80...see told yer Millers works wonders :-)) oh and supermarket fuel.
Its up for MOT in April so i'll try to remember to update the thread with those results, now the question is should i annoy our fiendly garage by pointing out their mistake or keep schtum.
Edited by gordonbennet on 05/02/2019 at 17:45
|
|
Our main MOT's in France are every other year after 4 years old, but my old 2.5 litre Mitsubishi L200 has to have an emissions test every other year in between the main tests as it is classed as a ' utilitaire' or light commercial.
The limits and the units are the same as BJ posted - we're all in this together in the EU - OK?
Took it last week and got these results.
Standard is 3.0 m-1 as no plated figure - as printed on the result sheet.
It came out as C1 = 0.39 m-1 and C2 = 0.13 m-1 so well inside the limit.
(Two acceleration tests are C1 and C2)
Puzzled as the results are so low, for an old 2005 2.5 litre turbo diesel, indirect mechanical injection, no coddling, no snake oil, cheapest diesel from supermarket, engine oil by Mr Lidl - It doesn't do many miles, it's our second car/utility vehicle, average is about 2k miles a year. I didn't do anything to prepare it for the test, I was going to do an oil and filter change but it's been too d@mn cold for that.
The other difference is that Controle Technique testing depots in France are not allowed to do any repairs, so there is no incentive to fail, quite the opposite, if it fails you go to another test depot!
|
Our main MOT's in France are every other year after 4 years old, but my old 2.5 litre Mitsubishi L200 has to have an emissions test every other year in between the main tests as it is classed as a ' utilitaire' or light commercial.
The limits and the units are the same as BJ posted - we're all in this together in the EU - OK?
Took it last week and got these results.
Standard is 3.0 m-1 as no plated figure - as printed on the result sheet.
It came out as C1 = 0.39 m-1 and C2 = 0.13 m-1 so well inside the limit.
(Two acceleration tests are C1 and C2)
Puzzled as the results are so low, for an old 2005 2.5 litre turbo diesel, indirect mechanical injection, no coddling, no snake oil, cheapest diesel from supermarket, engine oil by Mr Lidl - It doesn't do many miles, it's our second car/utility vehicle, average is about 2k miles a year. I didn't do anything to prepare it for the test, I was going to do an oil and filter change but it's been too d@mn cold for that.
The other difference is that Controle Technique testing depots in France are not allowed to do any repairs, so there is no incentive to fail, quite the opposite, if it fails you go to another test depot!
An update on my previous post, took our main car, the Accord tourer 2.2 type S diesel 180 hp for the initial (first) french mot yesterday.
My two concerns were the emissions and conforming to the headlight beam specs.
I fitted brand new LHD headlight units last week - a bit of a marathon job but that's another story.
Good result - total clean sheet.
The emissions came out very low again.
Opacity limit 1.5m-1 Test result C1 < 0.1 C2 < 0.1 (presumably < means less than)
So probably what's coming out of the exhaust is cleaner that what's going into the air filter, if driven in London or Paris!
|
|
|
|
Well this is interesting, my 3 litre Landcruiser is a 2005 model, but according to the MOT test conducted by our local garage (who appear to have it wrong from BJ's post) was subject to the 1.5 l/m not the 3.0 figure Big John mentions?, i'm presuming Absorbtion coefficient reading is the actual test figure, which 0.72 l/m.
A previous MOT from before i bought it had three tests (3.0 limit applied), 1.98, 1.93, 2.80...see told yer Millers works wonders :-)) oh and supermarket fuel.
Its up for MOT in April so i'll try to remember to update the thread with those results, now the question is should i annoy our fiendly garage by pointing out their mistake or keep schtum.
www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-changes-fro...s
Edited by Big John on 05/02/2019 at 19:18
|
Note I said from 20th May 2018 - so surely April 2019 will be new rules but April 2018 would have been old rules
If a plate can't be found on a 2005 car then the 3.0 limit applies for that age of diesel. Some people have been defacing/removing the plate!
Ah, in that case definately keeping schtum, cos egg on face reasons.
|
|
The plated value on my previous 2003 Superb 1.9 pd shows 0.8 - fortunately has just passed MOT in December at well over 210,000 miles (under new ownership) but could imagine it might be a problem for some worn diesel cars
|
|
|
|
I also appears that AFAIK the units of how much smoke have changed to this **m-1.
Looking it up it seems it's a measure of how many particles in a cubic meter of exhaust gas.
If anybody has a better or clearer explanation I would be glad to hear it!
|
|
Like GB's Landcruiser, my Mercedes A Class also appears to be improving with age like a fine wine.
2007 A180CDi (80k miles), no DPF, on Sainsburys diesel, no additives, mainly short journeys with an occasional Italian tune-up.
Tested to the 1.5 limit each year
2014 when I purchased: 1.28
2018: 1.02
2019: 0.40
Unfortunately I don't appear to have been given the printouts (or have mislaid them) for the 3 intervening years.
|
|
The prevalent use of supermarket fuel by persons replying is interesting given the debate on here about the benefit of premium fuels.
Maybe the difference is performance and MPG, and the emissions side is about the same?
|
The prevalent use of supermarket fuel by persons replying is interesting given the debate on here about the benefit of premium fuels.
Maybe the difference is performance and MPG, and the emissions side is about the same?
I side with the premium fuel sceptics - certainly have seen no improvement in economy (or performance, but I'm not a boy-racer!) when I've given premium fuels a fair trial before, but have always wondered whether the claims for a cleaner engine with lower emissions were a valid reason to bite the bullet & fork out for Shell's liquid gold.
Put my diesel Verso through its MOT today - it's tagged with a pass limit of only 0.50, so I was mildly concerned that reading might be marginal ... result 0.11, so I'll be sticking with whatever supermarket fuel is cheapest for another year.
|
|
As promised, my ageing Toyota passed today with flying colours, though the reading has gone up a fraction, now 0.96 @ 2840 l/min...note to self, more Millers more Millers :-)
Again the limit applied was 1.50, even though noted on the test sheet No Limiits Plate visible, so i would have expected the 3.0 limit to apply, however not going to argue cos it's a pass anyway, i'll argue that point if she fails at just over 1.50 sometime in the future.
Might have got a lower score if the engine had been hotter, water @ 78' C oil @ 80' C.
Still running mainly on Morrisons Diesel fuel, very sweetly too.
Oh and i slipped an oil change in a couple of weeks ago, been in since October and we can't have that.
Edited by gordonbennet on 02/04/2019 at 21:04
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
