For several years I received an emmissions test report at each MOT, recording CO, HC and Lambda.
Yesterday the report only listed CO and HC. There is no mention of Lambda at all. Why has this been dropped?
It is unusual to say the least for anything to be dropped from an MOT test requirement - or is it now reckoned that it is adequately covered by the other two?
|
|
My last car passed an MOT with flying colours even though it had a faulty lambda sensor causing it to hunt between 300 and 1300 RPM when idling. Perhaps it was old enough not to be tested for emissions or something, but I was staggered. I was hoping they'd put it right.
|
|
|
|
My A6 was tested a month ago and the LAMBDA was listed at 0.97.
|
My Fiesta was tested today. Lambda wa 1.00. Limits are 0.970 to 1.030
I noote the new computerised all singing and dancing MOT system linking testers to central database will not be on line till August - so my tester said. (He was 100% unimpressed:-)
madf
|
|
The MoT computer system at my local ATS station was linked about a month ago. I had to wait about 15 minutes before connection could be made.
|
|
Wife's Clio was tested on Monday, Lambda was quoted on the report.
|
|
|
|
The lambda value is still checked on MOT tests for most* cars from 1992 onwards.
*There are a few exceptions
The MOT computerisation has been rolling out since April.
The August date is the deadline, at which all 19,000 test stations must be live or lose their testing license! (apparently)
|
|
Wife's Clio was tested Monday, the centre was going to be computerised today.
|
Update on this one: I have been told that it was almost certainly a mistake - the tester misread the year, and applied the earlier emisions rules.
Alternatively, I have read that vehicles with more than 5 seats are not technically cars, so are tested at less stringent standards. The car has two fold-away seats in the boot, which maybe the tester took into account. I'm not sure I believe this though.
|
That is true Cliff, but it's 7 seats (excluding driver) not 5.
This was due to some early 90's people carriers not being able to conform to the then new emissions limits.
The manufacturors argued that the new limits should not apply because these vehicles were already in production and are not 'cars'
This range of vehicles was dificult to classify, as it falls somewhere between a car and a mini bus.
It was probably easier and cheaper for the DOT (as was) to ignore them and not apply the new limits, than to introduce a new testing class.
|
|
|
|
