|
I have a car with a current MOT and a paper certificate which is described as a "Receipt style certificate". This states that I can get the test results and gives a web site URL. However, when I go there I get a slightly enhanced certificate but I have no access to the results of the emissions test. Do I have to get these from the test station or are they too available on line?It seems that they are not
|
|
I think you will find that the emissions test result sheet is only available from the station that did the test.It is not on line and not available from a different test station.The emission test equipt is a stand alone machine and not connected to vosa on line.hth
|
Thank you - you are right. Luckily my car was tested 5 miles away so I can check with them in person
|
|
It has an mot, so it passed the emissions test, what more do you need to know?
|
|
I want to know what the emissions figures were.
|
|
You might be able to bung them a tenner or so and ask them to do a new emissions test for you if they can't give you the print out.
|
|
I always get a copy of the Brake Test and Emissions test stapled to the certificate. IIRC the software prints duplicate copies and the MoT Station retains a copy.
|
>> I always get a copy of the Brake Test and Emissions test stapled to the
>> certificate. IIRC the software prints duplicate copies and the MoT Station retains a copy.
>>
I always get the Emissions test printout.
Never seen a brake test printout.
I will could never get one now because my car needs to be tested with a Tapley meter.
|
>> I want to know what the emissions figures were.
Why? do they actually mean anything to you? Do you know whats good or bad for your type of car? can you interpret them properly? It passed - thats all you need to know. They were given to you when you had it MOT'd. Doubtful the garage will keep a copy on the machine.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 20 Apr 13 at 12:19
|
|
I like the emissions sheet to say 'fast pass'. Not sure what it means but it seems reassuring.
|
It's reassuring to see mine are getting cleaner each year.
They were useful in diagnosing a previous car needed a 'head job'. I found the valve clearances had closed down (to nothing on one valve).
|
>> >> I want to know what the emissions figures were.
>>
>> Why? do they actually mean anything to you? Do you know whats good or bad
>>
Your blood pressure is fine Mr Zero, for a man of your age and build. It would only distress you if I gave you the actual figures.
All right, yes, it has been creeping up over the years, and we do like to try and stabilise it, but the important thing is not to worry about it, and just let us medicos look after it. If it reaches a level where we felt we ought to give you an advisory, we certainly would.
|
>> All right, yes, it has been creeping up over the years, and we do like
>> to try and stabilise it, but the important thing is not to worry about it,
>> and just let us medicos look after it. If it reaches a level where we
>> felt we ought to give you an advisory, we certainly would.
>>
Are you talking about car emissions or human blood pressures?
|
>>
>> Are you talking about car emissions or human blood pressures?
>>
Sarcasm, I'm afraid, or perhaps irony. Obviously missed.
I was supporting your wish to know the results, and getting in a little dig at Zero.
Sorry.
:)
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Are you talking about car emissions or human blood pressures?
>> >>
>>
>> Sarcasm, I'm afraid, or perhaps irony. Obviously missed.
>> I was supporting your wish to know the results, and getting in a little
>> dig at Zero.
>> Sorry.
>>
>> :)
Failed
Miserably.
Pope junior tries hard, but frequently fails to hit the mark.
|
|
Yes they do mean something, to me. No I was not given the figures at the time, the paper issued is called a "Receipt Style Certificate" with no figures supplied, nor are they available on line, just a slightly fuller version of the paper receipt. The garage does keep a record of the figures, probably in the event of an appeal or query.
|
>> Yes they do mean something, to me.
So why didnt you ask for them at the time of the MOT if they were that important to you? You must have noticed it was missing?
|
|
The figures are not recorded on the paper receipt, the figures are not available on the on-line version of the certificate, if you want them you have to ask for them. I want the figures and shall get them from the garage/test station on Monday. I had swapped cars and had to deal with a lot of paperwork, bill of sale, service history V5 signing etc. It is so long since I have owned a car the even needed an MOT I wasn't aware that the figures weren't supplied with the form any more.
|
>> >> I want to know what the emissions figures were.
>>
>> Why? do they actually mean anything to you? Do you know whats good or bad
>> for your type of car? can you interpret them properly? It passed - thats all
>> you need to know. They were given to you when you had it MOT'd. Doubtful
>> the garage will keep a copy on the machine.
>>
I asked in the old forum when the HC reading on our previous Jazz went from 6 one year to 95 the next. I know it's ppm and the limit is 200, but no one could explain why it would have changed by why seems like a lot.
Last edited by: Bill Payer on Sat 20 Apr 13 at 17:16
|
|
At its last MOT the document said that my car was allowed to emit up to 0.300% by volume carbon monoxide. The test result was 0.006 % which is a mere 2% of its allowance. That's taking as much advantage of the allowance as pootling along a motorway at 1.4 mph. I like to get my full due!
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 20 Apr 13 at 15:22
|
My local centre, out of curiosity, did a pre-cat test on a 1936 Riley and found it easily would have passed. Not sure the same would apply to my 1930 Morgan as I run a bit of two stroke oil in the fuel to make up for modern oil control rings.
Design of the engine is basic to say the least, it's a total loss dry sump with an exposed top end. The oil gets worked very hard, and originally, would have been chucked on the road! Car now has a catch tank which gets most of the oil - the rest just leaks out!
|
>>........... my 1930
>> Morgan as I run a bit of two stroke oil in the fuel to make
>> up for modern oil control rings.
Could you explain that for those of us that are unfamiliar with 1930 Morgans?
|
>>Could you explain that for those of us that are unfamiliar with 1930 Morgans?
1930 pistons didn't have as good oil control (piston) rings as are fitted today and I have modern pistons. As a result a bit more oil got up to the upper cylinder in the 30's. The valve stems would also see oil in a modern engine, so a bit of two stroke oil makes up for the fact the only oil mine see is when I squirt some oil from my can. Either on fill ups with petrol, or when I've got to my destination. I've got a very groovy oil can that works at any angle, Fred Dibnah had one for his traction engine!
Might seem, and is, a lot of faffing about, but it's a very expensive engine to get bits for so I take the attitude, oil is cheap, rebuilds aren't.
|
Without googling, I thought the MOT philosophy on a tax exempt car was "if the blue smoke isn't excessive (whatever that means) and the CO emissions are in the spirit of the way the thing was originally made, it's a pass."
Perhaps it was just a tame tester when we had a 1965 Morris 1000. It aways passed, despite only managing a few hundred to the pint: let it tick over for a couple of minutes and then rev it up - smoke on, go!
|
Is it a JAP engine Slidingpillar? Is there a recommended interval in miles or running time between squirts of oil on the valve stems? Nothing like a felt washer to hold extra oil?
After a drive is your face lightly spattered with oil as well as beaming contentedly?
|
>Is it a JAP engine Slidingpillar? Is there a recommended interval in miles
> or running time between squirts of oil on the valve stems?
>Nothing like a felt washer to hold extra oil?
>After a drive is your face lightly spattered with oil as well as beaming contentedly?
1098cc of twin cylinder JAP. As far as Morgans are concerned, the Matchless is a later engine. As for time between oil squirts, I'm not aware of any period recommendation. With only a 3.5 gallon tank, and gravity feed if you get to the last half gallon you'll run out going up hills (pickup is at the front of the tank). So I look for a petrol station at around the 100 mile mark.
Agreed a felt washer on the valve stems would have been a good idea, but the real solution would be a rocker box and oil circulation up there. I've heard JAPs of that period described as blacksmiths engines as although the power output is quite good at about 42bhp, the actual design is so crude that my 1914 Motor handbook identifies several points as now being superseded - that JAP engines still had in the mid 30s!
As with motorcycles of the same period, a happy driver/rider can be identified by flystains on the teeth and an oily complexion.
|
>> As with motorcycles of the same period, a happy driver/rider can be identified by
>> flystains on the teeth and an oily complexion.
>>
The lads to feel sorry for were the pilots of early rotary engined aircraft. Flystains, oily face and a never ending attack of the squits. That last from ingesting the castor oil continously exhaled in a mist by the engine in front of them.
|
|
Did you mean 'radial', TC?
|
>> Did you mean 'radial', TC?
Rotary engines were an early form of radial en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine.
Used up to WWI and perhaps for a little time afterwards. I think the Shuttleworth Collection still has one or two flying exhibits with rotaries.
|
Ah, I see. I've learned something today.
}:---)
|
|
The mass of the rotating cylinders generated gyroscopic effects which made the aircraft hard to manoeuvre. tinyurl.com/cntfetl
|
A classic with a rotary was the Sopwith Camel, reputedly if you want to turn 90 degrees to the left, it was quicker to go 270 degrees to the right.
A very hard plane to fly as it had other quirks and weight distribution issues.
|
Rotary engine was the most perverse piece of aero engine design ever. What pilot or engineer would have thought it a good idea to have the crankshaft bolted to the airframe and the rest of the engine, with the propeller fixed to it, rotating at whatever speed? Perhaps it was thought that it would aid cooling.
Perverse. No doubt it was claimed that one thing had led to another.
|
Must have been a nightmare to cool this - 2 banks each of 7 cylinders, never mind plug changes and valve clearances! tinyurl.com/blzscj2
|
Whatever happened to UCL? Back in the sixties it was common to buy 4 gallons and 4 shots. Then when self-service stations started the shots were free provided you could find a bottle that wasn't empty!
|
Sorry, Tel, I have literally no idea what you mean.
I'm backing UCL to win this series of University Challenge, and not just because it's such fun hearing Roger Tilling say "UCL Pappaphilipopoulos". Can't help feeling a little sorry for his multiconsonantal Polish team-mate, who must be miffed to have only the second-most unpronounceable name in the tournament.
|
UCL=upper cylinder lubricant. Redex was the brand leader.
Love your university challenge note though!
|
>> Whatever happened to UCL?
You can still buy Redex and other similar products from any accessory shop.
|
>>My local centre, out of curiosity, did a pre-cat test on a 1936 Riley and found it easily would have passed.
My old Kia had an upper Lambda limit of 1.3 (it had a carb and cat). The tester used to mutter under his breath when it turned up each year. It would initially fail the emissions, then they had to go and read the instruction book and enter the appropriate parameters. I always wondered what it would do without the (tiny) cat.
|
Provided it passes, I wonder if the figure will mean anything?
I was concerned that my last year's emission result was only just under what was allowed. So, this year, before taking it for the test, I used my Chinese fault analyser and was pleased when it said my sensors were OK -- perhaps I will still be OK.
Then I watched how he did the test. He put the probe in the exhaust and then leaned on the back of my car and conducted business on his mobile. Occasionally he looked to see what the reading was.
So the reading he records is likely to be the first one he sees that is a pass. No hanging about to see is it gets any better. This year it was back to being a very good reading.
The lesson? The actual pass figure recorded gives no indication of the state of you cat or sensors.
|
>> Then I watched how he did the test. He put the probe in the exhaust
>> and then leaned on the back of my car ...........
He obviously wasn't bothered about the effect of the emissions on himself.
|
>> >>My local centre, out of curiosity, did a pre-cat test on a 1936 Riley and
>> found it easily would have passed.
Pre-cat test I can easily believe. The limits are not very exacting, and any petrol engine in good order and decent tune should pass them.
(Not Trabant, obviously)
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Sun 21 Apr 13 at 09:46
|
I used to set up my old MGB myself.
Set timing, balance carbs by ear, two colourtunes[1] for balanced mixture. Then ram a Gunsons' CO emissions oojah up its pipe and tweak the mixture screws evenly until the right number is achieved.
That's all it ever needed. Local MOT bloke never did figure out why I had the only one he never needed to fiddle with to get it to pass.
[1] Because bunging in two is much quicker and easier than swapping one between cylinder pairs and I'm a lazy SOB at heart.
|
>> I used to set up my old MGB myself.
>>
>> Set timing, balance carbs by ear, two colourtunes[1] for balanced mixture.
>> [1] Because bunging in two is much quicker and easier than swapping one between cylinder pairs and I'm a lazy SOB at heart.
>>
Only way to get it spot on....
Adjusting one carb always affects the other(s) as the idle speed will change, and thus the air pressure.
Anyway - 2 carbs is pretty easy, try a bank of four, or six... that is entertaining...
Last edited by: swiss tony on Mon 22 Apr 13 at 21:29
|
MOT test - emission results - carmalade
