|
|
Nov 20, 2010 20:41:53 GMT
|
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2010 22:14:55 GMT by kapri
|
|
|
mk14dr
Yorkshire and The Humber
Posts: 4,472
Club RR Member Number: 85
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 20:46:08 GMT
|
So, the era of stance is over? At least, you won't be able to MOT a stance'd car?
|
|
|
|
ims
Posted a lot
Yaaaaaarrrrrrrrr
Posts: 1,055
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 20:46:50 GMT
|
Would this be as per hgv for the flaps? and I'm guessing so long as no catching you should be cool as it has no minimum value?
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2010 20:49:23 GMT by ims
1993 Rs2o0o
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 21:25:39 GMT
|
looks like there is a requirement for demisters and defrosters too, so I'm guessing that means you need a heater (for people that have removed them to have a smooth engine bay)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 21:30:37 GMT
|
So, the era of stance is over? At least, you won't be able to MOT a stance'd car? I took that more to mean no fenderless rods. currently no fenders is not an MOT fail
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 21:31:53 GMT
|
The demister section have a small x by the side...
"All the items listed should be considered as mandatory at a periodic test of vehicles, except those marked with the indication (X), which are related to the condition of the vehicle and its suitability for use on the road but which are not considered essential in a periodic test."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 21:38:31 GMT
|
kev, your link ain't working
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 21:43:12 GMT
|
I've seen the new additions - looks fair to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 21:43:31 GMT
|
You need to cut and paste the whole link as this site shortens them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 21:46:21 GMT
|
I've seen the new additions - looks fair to me. Most of it is tieing up loose ends by bringing in regs that already exist in C&U . The biggest concern is the defining of illegal engine tuning /modifications as mentioned in the other thread. However the other stuff needs to be taken on board if building now to save going back over stuff. However we are awaiting clarification as are the trade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 21:47:40 GMT
|
I've seen the new additions - looks fair to me. +1 i really don't know what all the fuss is about
|
|
Someone just shot the elephant in the room.
|
|
Seth
South East
MorrisOxford TriumphMirald HillmanMinx BorgwardIsabellaCombi
Posts: 15,537
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 21:57:21 GMT
|
There's plenty about lights not having their colour altered eg. yellow paint on lenses etc.
Reason for failure in "Springs and stabilizer" includes "(d) inappropriate repair or modification" which may get translated into no-no to spring chopping.
There's similar in bodywork too. "(d) Inappropriate repair or modification." How vague is "innappropriate" !
The way I read that mudguard ruling is that it would affect fenderless cars but I wouldn't describe a wheel arch liner as a spray suppression device in the way a (lorry) mudflap is.
Speedo seems to become a testable item.
Interesting that "Noise suppression system" is still by "Subjective evaluation"
Ah. Just found "note 1" right at the bottom.
"Inappropriate repair or modification means a repair or modification that adversely affects the road safety of the vehicle or has a negative effect on the environment."
|
|
Follow your dreams or you might as well be a vegetable.
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 22:06:46 GMT
|
My take on all this is that as long as we don't go stupid with our mods, and go to test stations that are reasonably sympathetic to our ways, we should be ok. But then isn't that how it always has been!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 22:07:47 GMT
|
is the MOT tester really the best person to judge environmental issues?
|
|
Someone just shot the elephant in the room.
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 22:12:08 GMT
|
Depends on whether the MOT tester is related to an oil company owning sheik or not!
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2010 22:12:21 GMT by Fennec
|
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 23:07:55 GMT
|
6.1.9. Engine performance Visual inspection (a) Control unit illegal modified (b) illegal engine modification
I hop the turbo converision I will be carrying out is not deemed illegal.
|
|
|
|
Copey
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,845
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 23:22:30 GMT
|
wonder if my bike carbs would be illegal, haha
|
|
1990 Ford Sierra Sapphire GLSi with 2.0 Zetec 1985 Ford Capri 3.0 (was a 2.0 Laser originally)
|
|
|
|
|
With regards to "Inappropriate repair or modification means a repair or modification that adversely affects the road safety of the vehicle or has a negative effect on the environment" If you fitted a more modern engine/drivetrain to have a positive effect on the enviroment would I pass? (As long as it was done by the book) My mini was a carb engine which I converted to run SPI from a later car. This has lowered my effect on the enviroment. * *It was done for that reason.... honest. Edited with working link. Link
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 21, 2010 0:31:18 GMT by Jackman
|
|
|
|
|
As this part is a done deal it depends on how that is going to be interpreted It is worrying, but as you said yourself in the other thread, exactly how worrying it all is depends on how VOSA interpret and apply these regs. I'm more concerned about the "illegal ECU" bit. I don't understand what would constitute and illegally modified ECU - is it only aftermarket chips? Or will my car, which had no ECU from factory but will have one along with the engine swap, be deemed illegal? What does this mean for aftermarket ECU's like MegaSquirt or Emerald? Plus, how will an MOT station be geared up to tell an illegally modified ECU? OBD2 and later might be alright as they have some sort of standard, but will testers be required to be able to read every ECU manufactured ever? Or is it only for post-2001 cars with the tax bands linked to emissions? I'm not firing all these questions at you - as you said in the other thread, nobody knows how they are going to be applied. But it could either be a storm in a teacup or a major sh*tstorm depending on which way VOSA goes with it. I suppose all we can do is wait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMO for "illegally modified" read newer cars as you said for tax based emissions but again,how can it be tested?I would say those piggyback style chips could be visually checked but as for everything else it's basically going to require rolling road technology.
UNLESS,it will relate to the data given to insurance companies regarding modifications I.e honest John tells his INS company his golf tdi is remapped to 150bhp from 130,therefore meaning this is logged on MID,which then transmits this info back to the Mot computer?again,pure speculation but if the left hand knows what the right hands doing etc,it could get interesting.
Another point,cars like the ford focus deliberately have their ecu's put in awkward plac
|
|
|
|
|