So even the early Mk3 Polos will need to have a cat now to pass the MOT?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/MOT%...on%20Manual.pdf

Yes kwijibo - this is what pisses me off the most is the fact that a CAT is now required. Put even the new MOT Inspection Manual reads is ambiguous. Section 7.1 reads:

Under "Method of inspection"

3. On vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test, check the presence of the catalytic converter

Under "Reason for Rejection"

3. A catalytic converter is missing where one was fitted as standard

(my own bolding of the text, not the manual's)

So, strictly speaking, any car that came with a CAT will now have to have one. Even if it was removed well within the law 15 years ago! Bastards!

You've only got to hope the MOT tester cannot find an exact match in their Analyser Database or In-Service Emission Book - in which case anything pre-01/09/02 will get the non-CAT test.

Another point which is annoying is that the driver's seat must be able to be adjusted in to at least 3 positions - why the hell does that matter?!

Edit: I suppose it's so the MOT tester can operate the car comfortably during the tests.

Edited 24 December, 201114 yr by cheys03

One day the laws will be soo strict that it will cause an uproar within the entire modified car scene from vintage cars to the modern its only a matter of time. They need to focus on the british economy and getting more jobs in the uk than messing with MOT guidlines to make peoples lifes more difficult.

But couldn't you buy de-cat pipes from VW back in the day when cats weren't a legal requirement?

So how do they prove that your car didn't actually came out the factory like that?

Hope I don't now have to buy a cat for the G40 :(

It sucks, they worry too much about the wrong things

God bless low spec old sheds

Vehicles Fitted with a different engine

Test according to which is older, engine or 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.

So if you can prove the engine in your car is older than the car and therefore does not require a cat, then you should be able to wriggle out of it!

Shame VW specced all RHD G40's with cats!

Right... STOP for a minute and think about this.

Looking at the MOT test manual (posted earlier), this is likely to cause more of a headache for owners of newer cars, I think. And as with any MoT test it depends who is looking over the car and how lenient they're prepared to be. So just to calm you all down a bit.

Catalytic Converters

As far as having a catalyst is concerned, though this has been quoted (Section 7.1, point 3):

A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard

It missed out the important point right next to it, which says:

On vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test, check the presence of the catalytic converter.

Vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test being, logically, those registered after August 1992. So no change there, if you've got a newer car and you've removed the catalytic converter then you've been taking your chances for years!

Seats

AA says:

It must be possible to secure the driver's seat fore and aft adjustment mechanism in two or three different positions. On electric seats the motors must move the seat fore and aft.

Not to be misread as meaning you can't have fixed seats. But if you have moving seats they must be able to secure themselves in a position properly. Section 6.2 again:

Original Design characteristics and specialised modifications (e.g. to enable wheelchair access) are to be accepted.

When checking the driver’s seat adjustment it is not necessary to check that the seat can be secured in all possible positions.

Admittedly it's vague but if you read it you'll find DfT is more concerned with whether the seats are securely fastened to the car. That's fair enough.

HIDs

These have always been a grey area, and as someone who spends a lot of time on the road I wish the DfT would tighten up on them. At the very minimum they should be fitted to a car with projector style headlamps, not reflectors as on old cars. I'm sick of being dazzled by them and, tbh, they look tacky anyway. Yes I agree they probably improve your vision, but so would strapping stadium lighting to the front of your car, and that's just as antisocial.

Anyway, despite the AA saying this:

HID headlights can cause dazzle if they are dirty or aimed too high so car manufacturers must fit headlamp cleaning and levelling systems. A car will fail if a mandatory headlamp cleaning or levelling system is missing, doesn't work or is obviously defective.

Vehicles fitted with aftermarket HID systems must also be fitted with properly working washer and levelling systems.

It sounds like you antisocial headlight types are in for another ambiguous ride through the MoT process. Section 1.7 says:

Vehicles equipped with High Intensity Discharge 3. (HID) or LED dipped beam headlamps may be fitted with headlamp washers and a suspension or headlamp self levelling system.

Where such systems are fitted, they must work; however, it is accepted that it may not be possible to readily determine the functioning of self levelling systems. In such cases, the benefit of the doubt must be given.

A lot of cars have a manual height adjustment knob on them anyway though, for towing and heavy loads. My old Passat did, anyway. This could be helpful for arguing your case.

Tinted Lighting

TBH, why would you want to reduce the effectiveness of your lighting anyway? Aside from helping you see, it helps others see you and know what you're doing. But if you must, the AA says:

Products on the lens or light source that obviously reduce the light's intensity or change its colour will become a reason for failure – applies to front/rear position lamps, registration plate lamps, stop lamps, rear fog and direction indicators.

Justifiably, this is considered hazardous, but the guidelines for what constitutes a rejection are vague (Section 1.1):

c. obscured so that less than 50% of the lamp illuminating surface is visible from the front or rear as appropriate

d. not visible from a reasonable distance due to excessive damage, deterioration, or having products on the lens or light source

That's down to the tester to judge.

Air Bags

Bad news for those of you who've ditched your original wheel - you might need to put it back on for the MoT. Section 5.4, including DfT bolding, is very clear:

As far as practicable, check that all airbags fitted as original equipment are present and not obviously defective.

Not totally sure I agree with it (if you take the airbag out, you're taking the risk and it won't harm anyone else) but hey ho.

Doors

Nobody has picked up on it, but the AA says:

A rear door that cannot be opened from the outside using the relevant control is a new reason for failure.

If you've smoothed your rear door handles then this sounds like a disaster in waiting. But, the manual says (Section 6.2):

A lack of door handles because of original design characteristics or specialist modification is not a Reason for Rejection provided the door can be latched securely in the closed position.

Contrary to popular belief, the DfT and Police aren't out to create a nanny state or victimise modified car owners. We've actually got it pretty easy here, as in some countries the test is far stricter, with some actually outlawing anything that steps outside manufacturer spec.

The UK is the home of world motorsport, remember. Bespoke is what we do best.

(had to split it as i had too many quotes)

That said, what does worry me is this:

Other items – such as headlamp bulb and unit incompatibility, headlamp levelling devices and illegal engine ‘chipping’ – will need further thought before we can get a workable solution for MOT stations.

Which comes from page 9 of this VOSA publication

I can't see them trying to enforce it for existing cars though, it'll make thousands of them completely undriveable. It's more than likely it'll get introduced through Europe as a mandatory test on new cars. That'll make things bloody difficult if you want to modify something box fresh. Mind you it's quite easy to reflash the ECU before the MoT.

I'm just gonna take mine as normal 1 month before and see what happens

Catalytic Converters

As far as having a catalyst is concerned, though this has been quoted (Section 7.1, point 3):

A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard

It missed out the important point right next to it, which says:

On vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test, check the presence of the catalytic converter.

Vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test being, logically, those registered after August 1992. So no change there, if you've got a newer car and you've removed the catalytic converter then you've been taking your chances for years!

Thanks Alex for some clarification of the points, but I think you've missed a bit.

When I pointed out

On vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test, check the presence of the catalytic converter.

above I am trying to highlight the key change here - that under <2012 testing rules, it was necessary (as a general rule) for cars post '92 to pass stricter emissions standards for the MOT, but the use of a CAT was never stipulated as mandatory. Practically speaking, yes, you had to have a very clean running car to pass the tighter standards without a CAT, but it was possible. Now with this change a post-92 car (again, general rule) must have a CAT.

But the catalytic converter was tested for by more stringent emissions tests, wasn't it?

Basically, after 1992 the emissions were supposedly unachievable without a catalytic converter. If it could pass them without, then whatever.

So because mine was registered before 1992, it doesn't need to pass as stringent emissions tests, and is therefore fine.

I'm not worrying, anyway.

What I'm saying is, it's tightening up the loophole that was in place before rather than bringing the date forward.

December 2011 VOSA publication says so: Click

A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard. (Vehicles subject to a full cat test only.)

Cars registered before August 1992 aren't subject to a full cat test. Cars registered afterwards will now fail regardless of emissions.

Edited 27 December, 201114 yr by Alex

But the catalytic converter was tested for by more stringent emissions tests, wasn't it?

Basically, after 1992 the emissions were supposedly unachievable without a catalytic converter. If it could pass them without, then whatever.

So because mine was registered before 1992, it doesn't need to pass as stringent emissions tests, and is therefore fine.

I'm not worrying, anyway.

Mk2f's after Aug 92 are tested to the same value as the pre aug 92 ones.

Which is something like 1250ppm's and 0.35%

OK so maybe it's cars homologated after 1992 then, I don't know.

Like I say though, I'm really not worried. My car was neither manufactured, homologated or registered after 1992. It's not subjected to a cat test. I can't see this being a problem for me.

What I'm saying is, it's tightening up the loophole that was in place before rather than bringing the date forward.

December 2011 VOSA publication says so: Click

A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard. (Vehicles subject to a full cat test only.)

Cars registered before August 1992 aren't subject to a full cat test. Cars registered afterwards will now fail regardless of emissions.

Unless there is evidence that the engine fitted to the car is from a pre-1992 model car, then this section of the mot is tested on the age of the engine not the car it is in.

hopefully this will put an end to stupidly bright poorly aligned hid installations

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/In%2...h%20Edition.pdf

Makes interesting reading. Item 2 at the bottom of Page 5 makes the 'Pre-01/08/95 and not listed' point. However, most (if not all) Mk2f engine configurations are listed on Page 115 and are subject to the stricter test if post-92. You could argue that some engine conversions, even those from a car of the same era would allow the car to be tested to the more lax limits providing the car was pre-01/08/95 and not on page 115. Something like an ABD-GT for example.

Randombadger - yes, you raise a good point about age of car Vs age of engine. I've a '91 engine in the garage that may well be pressed into service if I MOTs become a problem providing a) I can get a suitable document specifying it's manufacture date from VW and b) make the necessary changes to the new V5 doc for the engine number. However, if following the rules to the letter, even though that engine would then be tested to the more lax emissions, it would still have to have a CAT fitted to pass.

Mk2f's after Aug 92 are tested to the same value as the pre aug 92 ones.

Cymro - where did you get this information from?

Alex, I'm jealous of your pre-'92 status! But for many of us this is a genuine concern.

Oh yeah not dismissing that, just saying I don't think it changes anything. It's always been a risk running a decat on a post 92, now I guess it's just moreso.