bahf

#25 fifth digit is 6 - I believe my VIN is pre the format that gives the information required.the xxxx in my original post is 4 numbers which are the same for the engine number. But this is not about my case as my car is amateur built. It's about cars that are factory built of the same era that the rules may point to having the CO & HC test. #21 is quite correct in stating that if these cars pass that test then no problem ....... but I doubt it.

...

PM sent

I'll take those if they're still available - cheers, Brian

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.

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?

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.

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

Still looking .....

Give John a ring at Dave Mac - Dave is John's retired father, Dave McMahon. They actually send them off somewhere to be done.

TomB - it was driveshafts but Dave Mac do both. JLR, Aston Martin and Triumph Motorcycles use them a lot for prototype parts and shaft evaluation.

I went for a full refurb of my existing shaft via Dave Mac Propshafts, Coventry. Reasonable price and a 2 year guarantee.

Does anyone know the total free length of a driver's side driveshaft for an S3 dedion with Ford Diff? Thanks in advance

Any condition considered as I will refurbish if necessary, thanks in advance.

Does anyone have any experience of this gauge?

Still for sale

I'm not sure if the following technique is well known to fellow seveners. I came across a spinning rivnut "securing" the fuel sender in the tank and was worried that this could be a problem if the rivnut spun when I next came to remove the sender. To avoid this issue in the future I fixed a 20mm long M5 grub screw into the rivnut (after making sure that the rivnuts were re-secured) and then used a standard M5 nut to secure the fuel sender in place. When I next come to remove the fuel sender I it's a simple spanner and hexagon key with no risk of spinning the rivnut. I guess the same solution can be used for wings, etc.

Still looking .....

Any condition considered, pale blue like on my profile picture, live in the Rugby area I know that I should have posted this on the "Wanted" forum but it's not up and running yet, so please forgive me.

Hello lamscotticus I believe that the sender is giving the correct resistance values because when connected to the Caterham VDO gauge the fuel level readings corresponded to the sender float level. However, there must be a reason for your question that's sown some doubt in your mind - what made you think that they may be wrong? Cheers

Just thinking out of the box a bit ...... usually dangerous!! Tazio - if the aluminium central tunnel was removed and the propshaft removed do you think it may be possible? I know that this will only apply to certain cars.

I thought this might be useful for someone at some time. See picture below for the measured resistance of a VDO fuel level sender. Empty circa 5 ohms, full circa 200 ohms. Sender markings are 73033, 824/10/4, 3 89 38/5 26

I'm amazed that no-one has got one of these lurking in a box ...... Alternatively a sender unit for a Caerbont gauge that has the characteristic Low = 237 ohms, high = 20 ohms approximately Yep - opposite to the VDO !!!

A VDO fuel gauge to suit the VDO fuel level sender in the photo below sought. Empty 3 Ohms, Full 200 ohms approximately. Thanks in advance.

shame, I've got what I believe is a live axle one, though it fits an '87 dedion - work that one out if anyone can ....