Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favourites
New Topic New Poll New Reply
Author: Subject: 1st MOT - xflow emissions confusion

posted on 16/3/21 at 07:19 PM Reply With Quote
1st MOT - xflow emissions confusion

My locost had its first MOT yesterday. Thankfully it passed but not without some drama!

I'm glad I jacked the front suspension to the max (4" becoz it very nearly grounded the sump driving through the brake testing rollers which subsequently couldn't cope with the cars lack of weight so the brakes had to be tested manually, however, that was not the worst part.......

My car has a 1600cc xflow running carbs (from a 1976 Escort). The car was completed/SVA'd and registered back in 2007, driven (a bit) for 3 years and then parked up for a while (OK 10 years). Back in 2007, I must admit to being a bit surprised when DVLA sent me a V5 detailing the car as a LOTUS (no type, variant or version) 1800cc with a W plate. At the time i didn't question it but I beginning to think I should have.

During the MOT the tester spent an inordinate time trying to get it through the emission test, he explained that he was trying all the test parameters from the different Lotus models sold in 2007, of course it wasn't going to pass any of these.

I explained that the car had an old carb engine from the mid seventies vintage and I thought it only needed a visual smoke test? Eventually, he managed to get the system to accept this and the car was passed.

My question is, should i get DVLA to amend my V5 to better describe the car/engine so this doesn't happen every year?

Thanks in advance.


[Edited on 16/3/21 by GaryM]

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
rusty nuts

posted on 16/3/21 at 08:22 PM Reply With Quote
Been a few years since I was last testing but I think kit cars only need a decelerometer brake test . Q plates only need a visible smoke test IIRC and I believe if the car is fitted with an engine older than the car it should be tested according to the engine age , Burtonpower website shows engine manufactured dates for Fords even without that the last RWD X Flow was well before any cat test
View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member

posted on 16/3/21 at 08:43 PM Reply With Quote
It's probably advisable to get the details corrected, the v5 should also have the applicable emission limits in the additional notes section but that may also be missing going by the rest of the v5 details.
If they assigned an age related 'w' plate, it indicates it should be tested to 1980/1 emissions standards(4.5%co, 1200ppm hc), not exempt but not a problem with any half decent xflow.

The older engine fitted limits don't apply to vehicles first registered after 2002, but they've added to the manual for kit/amateur built vehicles: test emissions to limits of engine fitted at sva/iva where no limits are available, they've never told any testers how to find what the sva limits were at the time, but it is part of the type code on the mac certificate as detailed in this thread - - some things in the thread are no longer applicable.

I take it you got the car running better while the site was down?


View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member

posted on 16/3/21 at 09:05 PM Reply With Quote
Hi Dave

Yes, i had some success with the starting problem thanks, i have now updated my original post.

My V5 contains the following in section 3. Special notes.

1. Rebuilt - assembled from parts some or all of which were not new
2. SVA/IVA cert issued ** ** 2007 emission limit - %CO 4.5; HC 0.12

at the MOT my car tested at

CO = 0.22% (pass max 4.50)
HC = 897 ppm (pass max 1200)


[Edited on 16/3/21 by GaryM]

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member

posted on 16/3/21 at 09:32 PM Reply With Quote
That all looks to be in order, i guess your car is named ...... Locost on the mac certificate, but that became lotus at registration.
My car has no model on the v5, but sylva striker mk11 as the make, it was correct on the mac and they nearly got it right on the v5.

Your mot figures look good for a xflow, you might find running a touch richer (ie co at 1.5-2%)will actually lower the hc value but probably not worth touching if it drives fine.


View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member

New Topic New Poll New Reply

go to top

Website design and SEO by Studio Montage

All content 2001-16 LocostBuilders. Reproduction prohibited
Opinions expressed in public posts are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
the views of other users or any member of the LocostBuilders team.
Running XMB 1.8 Partagium [ 2002 XMB Group] on Apache under CentOS Linux
Founded, built and operated by ChrisW.