MOT Emissions for 1987 Crossflow

[bahf]

I thought the car was exempt - or visible test only to be precise. MOT tester doesn't think so. Does anyone have a definitive answer and DoT or dot.gov evidence?

On twin 40 DCOEs of course!

Thanks in advance

[ECR]

From my notes (not sure how up to date .....)

You can tell by looking at your Vehicle Identification Number (VIN).  To quote the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency:

"Where the 10th digit of the VIN is equal to or less than 'W' and the 6th digit is 'C' or 'K', the vehicle concerned should be considered as 'amateur built' and as such should receive a visual smoke test only."

[Jonathan Kay]

Private Message sent.

[NS]

Hi

Sorry I can't help as I experience the same problem each year. Last time the Tester hooked it up for a normal emissions test despite admitting it would fail    then passed it visually. Because mine was assembled from all new parts (1996) a tester has also argued that it wasn't a kit / amateur built.
 

I'll be interested in any advice you get. 

[Golf Juliet Tango]

Visible smoke only.  Caterham Cars used to have a definitive explanation. No secrets here.

See also:- in the Guides section. https://www.lotus7.club/guides/frequently-asked-questions/what-applicable-mot-emissions-test-seven

Lots of testers don't know the regulations fully. Sadly they don't like being told that they are wrong. You are best off going elsewhere. Have you spoken to your locsl AR or nearby members?

[orangepeel61]

For the last 4 or 5 years my car has passed its mot with visual smoke test only. (1987 1700 Supersprint).

Section 8.2.1.2. Of the MOT inspection manual states:

For emissions purposes only you should treat the following as first used before 1 August 1975:

kit cars and amateur-built vehicles first used before 1 August 1998
Wankel rotary-engined vehicles first used before 1 August 1987
Q plated vehicles

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/8-nuisance#section-8-2-1

[John Vine]

My understanding is that it will depend on whether your 1987 car is kit-built or factory-built. 

See MOT Manual Section 8.2.1.

• Kit cars and amateur-built vehicles first used before 1 August 1998 are treated as first used before 1 August 1975 (visual smoke only)
• Factory-built cars are treated according to the flowchart in Chart 1 in the above MOT Manual (namely, CO <= 3.5%, HC <= 1200 ppm)

I believe the VIN check that Roger mentions in #2 applies only to 1990+ cars.

If any of this is wrong, someone will correct me!

JV

 

 

[john g]

Somewhere in the archives (someone my be able to find it) there is a flow chart detailing the MOT emission test for a xflow. My 95 xflow is just visual smoke test.

[7 wonders of the world]

To be fair the Ministry have buggered about with the criteria a god few times so its not uncommon for the requirements to change year on year.

If you read the testers manual at the time of testing it is very specific on VIN characters CKD etc and VIN digits which define the emissions values which are applicable, it would help if the Ministry used plain English though.

 

 

[bahf]

Great feed back everyone and thank you very much. The good news is that I got sorted.

As far as I can tell the onus is on the vehicle owner to provide evidence that the crossflow engine is a pre ’75 design. Now it’s pretty clear that it is, but the MOT tester has to be provided with evidence that this is the case.

So, to make it easy for owners and testers, an official note from Caterham would be great, stating “crossflow engine cars are powered by a pre-1975 homologated engine.” This should satisfy the most rigorous of MOT testers.

Note that my car was NOT built by the factory but by it’s original owner BUT still was “Declared new at first registration” on the V5 and has no mention of “Kit Built”.  It is NOT on a Q plate, it is “D” registered, 1987.  I think that this was normal practice at that time as I had the same situation with another kit car that I built in 1984.

So how do we solicit such an official note from Caterham that we can download and present to the MOT testers? Is this one for the management team to pick up? – I’m willing to help.

[OldAndrewE]

I may be wrong but I thought is was the actual date of manufacture of the individual engine, not the date of original design that dictates the emission requirements

[John Vine]

Re #10:

I'm puzzled by that.  I would have thought that, as your car is amateur-built, all you need to do is demonstrate that fact to the MOT tester.  Normally, you'd do this via the VIN, which would show whether or not the car is kit-built (see here under Caterham Series 3).

Can you tell us your VIN?

JV  

[John Vine]

Re engine age, this chart may help.

JV

[HendrixsWhiteStratReturns]

To the OP - Glad you got it sorted.

I have a 90 Xflow, only ever had a visual smoke test. If the tester is being awkward I would find a Caterham friendly MOT centre as one of the posters said.

[bahf]

Just catching up with all the posts and thank you to all who have commented. This is a long one…

By way of background I believe that many crossflow engine sevens will get caught out by the regulations and MOT testers applying those regulations as written (because they need to earn a living). Few of these cars will pass the first level emissions test if it is applied and I do not believe that is what the legislation intended to do. The acid test is “the MOT test that the car had to pass when it was first used should NOT become stricter now – otherwise it may have to be taken off the road”.  So I wish to construct a case that adheres to the regulations as written and allows crossflow engine sevens to stay on the road with a visible smoke test. Anything classified as pre 1975 is a simple smoke test. Bear with me and be sensible with your posts ...

First observation

#7

For emissions purposes only you should treat the following as first used before 1 August 1975:

kit cars and amateur-built vehicles first used before 1 August 1998

I would contend that the seven is a kit car and whether it is built by the factory or an amateur is irrelevant.

#11

Vehicles fitted with a different engine

If a vehicle first used before 1 September 2002 is fitted with an engine that’s older than the vehicle, you must test it to the standards applicable for the engine. The vehicle presenter must have proof of the age of the engine.

This is an interesting point – date of manufacture OR date of introduction? Many engines were manufactured for a long time after their introduction to the market to the SAME specification as the first one. It is unreasonable to expect such a specification to pass tougher emissions legislation if it’s specification hasn’t changed. I contend that the age of all crossflow engines is pre 1975 (Mk1 Escort for example).

The second point on this regulation is that the “vehicle presenter must have proof of the age of the engine”. This is where I believe that a simple downloadable statement from Caterham would help both the owner and the MOT tester. Taking on board some of the comments on this thread I would change my request to Caterham to be “crossflow engine cars are powered by a pre-1975 engine.”

Now to answer some other queries:

#10 VIN / Chassis number as it appears on the V5C “5LCxxxx 16RD” which I don’t think helps the MOT tester

#11 Engine number as it appears on the V5C “16GTxxxx” which doesn’t identify the age or date of manufacture of the engine. Age is different to date of manufacture as I contended earlier.

To conclude, there is a case for a crossflow engine to have an emissions smoke test as part of an MOT in 2021 according to the rules, BUT to make it bulletproof and not rely on a “friendly MOT tester” who may end up being compromised, we need that statement from Caterham.

Will someone from the management team lead this request to Caterham and I will support for the sake of all crossflow engine seven owners?

[flaps7]

The post by ECR has the matter covered; the VIN code identifies the applicable test. It is clear in the regs (when I last had to look) under the heading for 'Caterham'. No need for a 'friendly' garage to risk anything. My car passed emissions at KwikFit.

Rick

[rkeywood]

This is not the case for pre’ 90 cars which don’t have VIN identification for the MOT tester to use. The requirements are however clear from the guide in #5 and I don’t see that Caterham can, or need to, provide anything further to support us X-flow owners.

In this case the V5 says the car was new at time of registration, it has a period registration and the chassis number does not identify it as a kit build (‘K’ as first character) which may well lead an MOT tester to insist on a pre ’92 3.5% metered test. I’d have thought the key was to get confirmation from Caterham that the car was supplied as a CKD with all new parts for amateur build, or at least confirm it wasn't factory built.

If kit built then the original owner will have submitted a V627/1 Build Up Vehicle Inspection Report when the vehicle was inspected for registration declaring which of the principal parts were new or otherwise. In order to have a period plate, rather than a Q, then all will have been declared new and a Certificate of Newness would (should?) have been issued by Caterham. This information should be available from the DVLA but may be difficult / long winded to get verified. If, as it seems, the engine was declared new then I’m pretty certain that the age of the engine will be considered to be the year of manufacture declared on the V627 ie. that for the car as a whole.

The other thing to consider is that the engine is not as it was originally supplied which, from the chassis no, would been a 1600GT with a single 32 downdraught. If the engine was replaced then this should be seen from the V5. 

[Tazio]

In 4 years, mine won't need an MOT

[bahf]

A couple of responses as follows:

#16 Rick, I believe that pre ‘90 cars don’t have the VIN configuration that you mention. I can’t find any reference to “Caterham” in the regulations. Can you tell us what emissions test your car had at Kwik-Fit and car details? Many thanks – Brian

#17 Robert, your post is all absolutely correct. I'm less interested in my car but on those supersprint spec cars that were built at that time and will probably subject to the CO & HC test with the regulations written as they are (if they don't have the original paperwork) and will probably fail. I'm trying to interpret the rules in their favour to get an exemption via the engine "age", not engine build date, being pre-'75.

Not everyone will have the original paperwork and it will be a burden on Caterham to provide individuals with their original build details, hence my proposal to go the engine route.That would be easiest for everyone who may be affected.and indeed Caterham.
 

[Golf Juliet Tango]

I thought that once the central DVLA has the car as "visible smoke only" that is what the yester ran.

[John Vine]

Re #15:

I can't help but think that you're over-complicating what is in essence something simple.  To me, the question seems to boil down to whether or not the car is amateur-built.  Amateur-built cars appear to follow one set of MOT rules, factory-built cars another.

I would contend that the seven is a kit car and whether it is built by the factory or an amateur is irrelevant.

I don't think that's correct.  The term "kit car" is very confusing here.  There are in effect two types of Caterham offered to the public: factory-built, and self-assembly (of a kit of new parts).  The latter is what the DVSA call "amateur-built", provided the actual assembly meets specific conditions.  Indeed, the GOV.UK vehicle registration page defines a kit-built vehicle as "one where all the parts are supplied new by the manufacturer."  Note that, if CC were to withdraw self-assembly kits tomorrow, this would not make factory-built cars "kit cars".

If an amateur-built XF is to benefit from the "visual smoke only" test, it's up to the owner/presenter to demonstrate that the car is amateur-built.  As noted in earlier posts, there are several ways this could be done, including VIN characters, built-up vehicle inspection report, or a letter from CC.  I think engine age is nothing more than a red herring here, and I feel your wish "to get an exemption via the engine "age", not engine build date, being pre-'75" will get nowhere with DVSA, on the grounds that the rules as stated are perfectly clear.

By the way, Is there any firm evidence that factory-built XFs are failing the MOT on emissions grounds (that is, CO <= 3.5%, HC <= 1200 ppm)?

Perhaps the surest way forward would be to ask DVSA for their opinion?  I've dealt with them in the past and generally found them to be helpful.

JV

[HendrixsWhiteStratReturns]

#15 - no offence meant but I agree with other posters, I think you are over-engineering what in practice is pretty straightforward.  Also my earlier comment on "friendly" testing stations stands - and I think you misunderstand what I was saying, there should be no question of  anyone being compromised. By "friendly" I mean that they know our cars and understand those regs that are peculiar to the various configurations of the 7.

Not all are used to testing 7s and if it's clear that they are either not au fair with (or will accept) the relevant test for emissions for your car then why persevere and risk a fail ? Take it to a tester who knows the marque ...surely ?

[flaps7]

The term friendly garages being compromised was mentioned by Brian. I fully agree with you in that using a garage (friendly) that understands our cars makes life a lot easier. My car passed emissions (visual smoke) at KwikFit but failed because the fog light went out when full beam was selected. Had to appeal to VOSA to get that sorted.

Rick

[bahf]

...

[flaps7]

Brian, what is the 6th digit on your vin as you give 5LCxxxx 16RD?

Rick