scruff
Part of things
Posts: 621
|
|
Jul 19, 2011 15:15:13 GMT
|
|
Hey all,
I've just helped a mate rebuild his Porsche 924 Turbo after it's had a full engine rebuild. We've just got it all running again and it goes well but it needs running in. It's blowing a bit of smoke for the moment as it's had new rings and a hone. Emmissions are spot on (1.5% CO and 100 HC, MOT limit is 4% CO and 1200 HC)
It's just failed an MOT for visible blue smoke on acceleration but we can't bed it in until it's road legal and we can't get road legal until it's bedded in...
I was thinking an oil addative to thicken it up a bit - the oil will be changed shortly anyway post rebuild. Any top tips for a quick fix to get it through an MOT?
I'll get a pic of 'Percy' - named by his kids!
Thanks
Rich
|
| |
1994 Lotus Esprit - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights.
1980 Porsche 924 - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights.
I spy a trend...
|
|
|
|
prey
Part of things
Posts: 856
|
|
Jul 19, 2011 16:11:49 GMT
|
|
where are you? might help finding an understanding mot station near you.
|
| |
|
|
RobinJI
Posted a lot
"Driven by the irony that only being shackled to the road could ever I be free"
Posts: 2,995
|
|
Jul 19, 2011 16:53:06 GMT
|
Sounds like the MOT tester's being an  . From a quick google the reason for rejection for smoke under acceleration is worded as: "emits excessive dense blue or clearly visible black smoke during acceleration which would obscure the view of other road users." The way I'd read that some smoke is allowed, and it's only an amount capable of obscuring other peoples view that it should fail on. I can't imagine a re-built engine emitting anywhere near that amount of smoke, in fact you'd have to pretty much have no oil rings in there to manage that! |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2011 18:34:36 GMT
|
|
go back to the mot station, explain it's been rebuilt etc etc & that you can't get around it so will have to appeal against there decision of 'excessive dense smoke' ....?!?!
^^^ worthwhile or not?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2011 18:35:25 GMT
|
|
yup, the key word here is "excessive". A large number of vehicles puff some smoke on acceleration, but for it to fail it needs to be bad enough to obscure the view of someone following behind (or fill the whole test bay with smoke and force the tester outside...).
If that was the only fail, I'd be querying it with the garage in the hope of getting it passed, then probably going elsewhere. You do have the right to ask for a VT17 complaint form, but VOSA will want to retest the whole car and it can be a bit of a 'mare.
|
| |
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in |
|
scruff
Part of things
Posts: 621
|
|
Jul 19, 2011 22:22:06 GMT
|
|
Cheers chaps,
It failed on a steering UJ and an exhaust hanger as well. (Neither of which I was involved in!)
It's literally been running for 30 mins tops with good oil pressure throughout (Once we connected the sender adn switch wires the right way around...) Just to and from the station, around the yard a little (It's a small yard) and then too tune it ignition and mixture.
I certainly wouldn't say it was dense, it's just a bit blue with a bit of a puff under accel, it's certainly not obscuring anything. I'll see if he'll take it back and argue to smoke when the rest is fixed. Should at least be able to argue down to an advisory.
It's near Southport, I know a friendly place near Blackburn who'll see it right but it's a long way from Southport!
Thanks
Rich
|
| |
Last Edit: Jul 19, 2011 22:28:57 GMT by scruff
1994 Lotus Esprit - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights.
1980 Porsche 924 - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights.
I spy a trend...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOT testers can be such a bunch of arses sometimes. My classic failed on visible smoke once but it failed on about 6 other major points at the same time. The MOT tester was a bit surprised when I was back 24 hours later having changed the shocks, turbo, brake calipers, wipers, lights, number plates... I was supposed to be driving to Sweden so really had to get the spanners out. I'd left it a bit late. Not been back to that MOT place since. If I were running an MOT station I would try to get with the spirit of it rather than being an about it. I mean the point is to pick up on those people who never service their cars so that the road isn't flush with mobile death traps. No point in picking on the guy who's just restored a Porsche Turbo just for the hell of it. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOT testers can be such a bunch of arses sometimes. If I were running an MOT station I would try to get with the spirit of it rather than being an  about it. I agree with your opinion, but if you were running an MOT station you would know that it's not quite as simple as that.  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2011 10:03:03 GMT
|
Actually it is one of those areas of officialdom where an element of discretion still exists. MOT stations are spot-checked by the department at random and questions will come up from time to time. If the MOT tester operates as I say (and believe me, they do have a choice) they will not be strung-up for it. I work in the motortrade and although I don't own my own station I do get 4 or 5 MOTs a month and I know what can and can't pass. As far as I'm concerned the car shouldn't pass if there is something genuinely dangerous wrong with it. Something like the failure reported at the beginning of the topic shouldn't be a failure. My car which failed on so many points (it was about 5 years ago now) failed on visibility of the front numberplate (mounting position) and condition of the wiper blades (smearing). It had double front shocks and the guy didn't think the nylock nuts were biting enough of the thread on the lower mounts. With less damping and the second pair of front shocks removed he felt he could pass it. The difference is the car handled less well - so this was the right thing to do? It was a matter for his discretion and he choose to fail rather than advise or pass. He also felt the brake hoses weren't routed well so failed it on that as well. Result: fitted smaller callipers which were less effective. The brake hoses were fine but the guy was being an . Overall the car was more dangerous as a result of the MOT tester so he was not operating within the spirit of the test. The test is not designed to curse word on peoples fireworks. It is designed to keep the roads safe. Too many testers forget this when applying their discretion. They do have a choice and any tester who makes out that it has to be the way it is and that he’s just doing his job is a fool and you shouldn’t give him your business. |
| |
|
|
scruff
Part of things
Posts: 621
|
|
Jul 20, 2011 10:12:12 GMT
|
Agreed, I get the defiantely get the feeling that neither station really wanted to do anything but shopping cars. I take my cars to a place next to work as they are pragmatic, they also don't want anything but MOTs so aren't looking for work. They'll do simple things like adjust headlamps and so on FOC too. A place round the corner has been reported for disconnecting things to get a fail...  |
| |
Last Edit: Jul 20, 2011 10:18:22 GMT by scruff
1994 Lotus Esprit - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights.
1980 Porsche 924 - Fragile red turbo with pop up lights.
I spy a trend...
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2011 11:14:33 GMT
|
|
It is very expensive to setup as an MOT station these days. Some traders are finding it extremely difficult to make it pay and TBH even if you have back-2-back MOTs all day it takes years to finish paying off for the equipment. I'm not surprised to see and hear of so many 'trying it on' - I often get customers who come to me because the main dealer has failed their car and given them a bill, sometimes for more than a thousand pounds...! When really, at an ordinary MOT station the car just passes.
Apparently at the government-run test centres they can be a bit kak-handed as they aren't at all motivated by money. Any reasonable car will pass. I'm sure if there is something major wrong then it won't - but I suspect the one mentioned above would have passed. I've heard a story about a Morris Minor passing at the gov. test centre despite being made almost entirely from rust. The owner had been going there for years and had no idea he was driving round in a crisp packet. Got picked up when he went to a private mot testing station. The gov test centre didn't know about it because they weren't really checking properly. Not really a problem if you know your own car inside-out like I do.
|
| |
Last Edit: Jul 20, 2011 11:15:29 GMT by ejenner
|
|
