Avoneer
|
 posted on 5/12/05 at 10:12 AM |
|
|
CAT and future MOT worries
Hi Guys,
Someone mentioned this to me the other day and i've been pondering on it now:
Once I pass my SVA with my '97 bladed Locost and borrowed CAT, I'll be putting on my bike can or something similar.
When my 1st MOT comes round, won't it be on the new computerised system that my car will need a CAT and then be tested for a CAT and not the
usual Q-plate visual smoke test?
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 5/12/05 at 10:54 AM |
|
|
Hi Snoopy - hope all is well.
Yep, I know this is the case now, but won't it all change now everything is going computerised?
Like the computer will have the engine age on it (from the DVLA) and won't the MOT station have access to this same database - whether your car
in on a Q or not?
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
andyd
|
| posted on 5/12/05 at 11:21 AM |
|
|
I know it's maybe not "cool" to have one but seriously, what's the problem with having a cat fitted as a permanent fixture?
I think I'm correct in saying that a Hayabusa has a cat as standard. I know it may be a cost issue for some but if there are Hayabusa engines
from wrecks then it stands to reason the exhaust system also exists. Not ideal I know but maybe a damn sight easier that faffing about each year
trying to get the car through an emissions test.
I'll be looking to use a cat as a standard fit on my middy but I appreciate that my exhaust system will be hidden under the back whereas on a 7
it can look ugly sitting inline just before the silencer.
Just my 2p.
[Edited on 5/12/2005 by andyd]
Andy
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 5/12/05 at 11:34 AM |
|
|
I've no problem with fitting a permanent CAT in the system - just worried about the bloody emissions every year as even with a CAT, it's
still a fight isn't it!
Almost got me to the point of looking for a pre-95 blade!
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
andyd
|
| posted on 5/12/05 at 11:59 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Avoneer
just worried about the bloody emissions every year as even with a CAT, it's still a fight isn't it!
I'm no expert so I don't really know how much of a struggle it is.
Tie a few dead cats to the system. When they get nicely warmed up the MOT tester won't care if you're above a certain emission level! 
Andy
|
|
|
highspeeddirt
|
| posted on 5/12/05 at 05:14 PM |
|
|
I brought a cat exhaust can and will be using a power commander to get through SVA/MOT. I'm thinking that if I have a map for MOT's with
the cat fitted and another map for power with a non cat exhaust, then once it is all set up I should just have to swap the can and the map for the
yearly MOT then swap it back again.
I'm sure it won't be that easy but it seemed like a good idea at the time
Steve
|
|
|
piddy
|
| posted on 5/12/05 at 05:30 PM |
|
|
I believe I am correct when I say that the new V5 has the emissions stated on it and the mot inspector uses these as the limits.
|
|
|
highspeeddirt
|
| posted on 5/12/05 at 05:41 PM |
|
|
Been talking to my MOT tester a few weeks ago and the new computerised system has all the information logged on it. The first thing he does is enter
the VIN and the computer gives a print out of the emissions levels and braking performance for him to check. He enters the values from the test and if
it all passes then the DVLA logs the vehicle as having an MOT. All you get is a worthless printout. The trouble is that there are may mistakes on the
V5 documents and if the DVLA type in the VIN wrong then you have to prove that your car isn't a ringer.
I was also told that he couldn't issue an MOT before SVA as he wouldn't know what emissions levels to use. He wasn't 100% sure of
this though.
Steve
|
|
|
bigrich
|
| posted on 5/12/05 at 10:34 PM |
|
|
i hope this helps if car is registerd pre august 98 then as a kitcar it is treated as a visual smoke check only after august98 it should be subject to
an sva inspection and the emmision value will be that as tested at sva and is printed on your v5 log book (this is the info that is supplied to the
mot tester by computorisation) the problem with bike engines is they dont exist in the engine code references used by testers so they are subject to
the strictist bet test limits(basic emmisions test)if you dispute the infomation on your log book regarding emmission level then it is up to you the
presenter to prove age of your engine the info on your log book is not always correct so it may be worth checking this well before mot time but that
should'nt be for 3years after sva(in theory) I hope to post a copy of the mot manual page on this subject in very near future as it seems to
cause a lot of concern Big Rich
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 6/12/05 at 12:25 AM |
|
|
I'm still panicking now...
This could be a right kick in the teeth for a lot of us.
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 6/12/05 at 08:17 AM |
|
|
well as time goes on it should get better as the bikes are more and more likely to be restricted to the same emissions regulations as cars (a biker
friend of mine has said that there are alot of rumours sround of much harsher noise regs and ermisson standards coming in over the next couple of
years.
for becs it means that in the future the bike engine will be closer to the regs we have to conform to so easier to pass. for engines now the best
(least likely to go wrong but not the cheapest) is to go for a fuel injected engine and use a power commander to modify the area (the idle/fast idle
tested part) to pass with a cat then inbetwwen tests all you have to do is take out the cat and swap the map. most bikes are now fuel injected so lots
of engines to choose from.
if youve got a carbed engine maybe sell the car beofre the 3 years of no mot are up and move onto a new project.
|
|
|
andkilde
|
| posted on 8/12/05 at 12:59 AM |
|
|
Not really helpful on the whether or not you need it front but there are some snazzy looking stainless cats on ebay at the moment. Nice seamless
shell.
Quite reasonably priced, though shipping from the US might be a concern.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=8002230219&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT
Cheers, Ted
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 8/12/05 at 02:43 PM |
|
|
Those look really neat - you can also get a 2" one.
Anyone know if that'll work for my '97 blade engine if I welded it after the downpipes and then stuck a can of some form after it?
Would look quite neat as well.
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 8/12/05 at 04:51 PM |
|
|
they look pretty good and should hopefully be fine for the new on going emissions problems (ie having to recat for mot)
see if they intereested in sending a bulk buy order over here?
|
|
|
froggy
|
| posted on 8/12/05 at 07:21 PM |
|
|
ive never seen what sort of emissions a modern bike puts out but if it doesnt use a lambda sensor or closed loop management i doubt a cat would last
long if fitted permanently
|
|
|
highspeeddirt
|
| posted on 8/12/05 at 07:59 PM |
|
|
I've no idea about the cat not lasting but the '04 CCM R30 had a small cat in the exhaust and that had a pair of carbs. Also in the US
they started fitting cats to all cars in 1975 and most of those had carbs. So I don't see why you need to have a closed loop system with a cat
other than to pass the latest emissions and make the engine more efficient.
Steve
|
|
|
%20(WinCE).JPG)
