Question for mot testers - catalytic converter

Should be tested on the ages of the engine, but you need to provide some kind of paperwork to date the engine (Copy of donor V5 for example)

if its on the brain for the enigne, i think it ll have a date on it.

trouble is if the car is meant to have a
but it has been taken out then it fails now. you might just be able to get away with it on a k reg though, as not all cars had fitted standard. My 309 is on a k plate but never had a cat, so it passed. However the K plate vauxhall astra estate that cam in which did have a fitted failed because it didn't meet the emission requirements. So it's a tough one.
It's not your fault, MOT tests are a joke. For example, if you have a 11 mm stone chip within 40cm of your primary line of sight in front of you that fails. However, if you stick a disabled blue badge for example, (any government sticker will do.) right smack bang in front of you, it doesnt fail. explain that?

The reason I asked is it did fail on lack of cat and emissions although it's never been a problem before.
The mot tester did even notice the 2.5 6cylinder under the bonnet when the car came up as a 1.6 4pot!

I always thought that anything before 94 didn't have to have a cat, but tester has informed me that since last year anything after 1/8/1992 must have a cat!
I was also told that it's tested on the age of car, which is not what you guys are telling me!

I was looking at this earlier and I interpret it as needing to be tested as a non cat but they need to check engine number for that.
I think they just went on vin hence tested it as a cat equipped car.

if said 89 engine was cat equipped, it has to stay.

I have a 92 ZX 16v, they always had cats, even though its registered pre 93, has to stay. (its also borderline would probably pass emissions with a decat pipe too, but with recent regs cat has to be present, or at least look like it is...)

I had a 309 Goodwood a few years ago, was built in 92 without a car, registered in 93, non cat engine so didn't need one.

Taken from the testers manual:

‘Official’ stickers that are not readily removable, such as vehicle licences, parking and access permits, are only a reason for rejection if they seriously restrict the driver’s view. ‘Official’ stickers should be taken to be any sticker that is used in connection with ‘road enforcement’, ‘security’ or ‘crime prevention’ matters. These include: Disabled Persons Badges/permits, Parking Permits, Licences and Vehicle Anti-Theft Scheme stickers issued by a Police Authority

So the first quote is a load of rubbish as anything directly in front of the driver will seriously restrict the drivers view.

And

Vehicles fitted with a different engine must be tested to the requirements of whichever is older, the engine or the vehicle. e.g. A 1995 car fitted with a 1991 engine (of whatever make), test to 1991 standards for emission purposes. Note: The onus is on the vehicle presenter to prove engine age.

The second quote is correct, though proof must be provided as to the age of the engine. If the engine was from another model which was never fitted to the model being tested, the tester won't be able to find an exact match on the emissions database, which means for a car first used between 01/08/92 and 31/07/95 after it's failed the Basic Emissions Test (BET) the extended test will go to the default limits of 3.5% CO and 1200 ppm HC which will be easily achievable by a car without a cat.

To answer the original question if you can't prove the age of the engine, I'll test it according to the age of the car.

By providing all the data that you can, engine code, model code, VIN code, engine serial number and locating the engine number on the engine for the tester and making it legible, it may just lead the tester to conclude that there is not an exact match in the in service emissions book which will mean the the emissions test needs to be done to the higher limits above. That test will be a non cat test so it'll have the advantage of not getting a fail due to a missing cat.

Tester should refuse to test, on the basis that it's ridiculous.

He said the tester and one of the mechanics pushed it on. I have no reason to believe he is lying but I just wondered if anyone else had ever heard of it. Oh and to the person who said it's ridiculous, well it's not really, is it.