Hi all, my diesel Transit (N reg 160k miles 2.5 litre) just failed the
MOT on its emissions.

I've been told that the 30% cooking oil in the fuel may have been the
problem. Other than using this up and filling with fresh diesel, is
there anything else I can do to try and get it through the MOT?

Cheers

wrote in message 
news:k8gtb49esuun4vfjo4b1n79lvi4q0pp1o1@4ax.com...
> Hi all, my diesel Transit (N reg 160k miles 2.5 litre) just failed the
> MOT on its emissions.
>
> I've been told that the 30% cooking oil in the fuel may have been the
> problem. Other than using this up and filling with fresh diesel, is
> there anything else I can do to try and get it through the MOT?


Assuming it's the soot test, you can replace the air filter, run this tank 
low of fuel, use plenty of injector cleaner combined with some Italian 
tuning *then* put in a substancial amount of a GTL diesel (BP Ultimate 
Diesel, Shell V-Power Diesel, Total Excellium Diesel) - ignoring the higher 
price - and resubmit the test.

All of the above assuming the engine wasn't too much higher than the limit. 
If the donk produces a smokescreen that a tramp steamer would be proud of, 
ignore the above... :-)

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:07:18 +0100, "DervMan" 
wrote:

> wrote in message 
>news:k8gtb49esuun4vfjo4b1n79lvi4q0pp1o1@4ax.com...
>> Hi all, my diesel Transit (N reg 160k miles 2.5 litre) just failed the
>> MOT on its emissions.
>>
>> I've been told that the 30% cooking oil in the fuel may have been the
>> problem. Other than using this up and filling with fresh diesel, is
>> there anything else I can do to try and get it through the MOT?
>
>
>Assuming it's the soot test, you can replace the air filter, run this tank 
>low of fuel, use plenty of injector cleaner combined with some Italian 
>tuning *then* put in a substancial amount of a GTL diesel (BP Ultimate 
>Diesel, Shell V-Power Diesel, Total Excellium Diesel) - ignoring the higher 
>price - and resubmit the test.
>
>All of the above assuming the engine wasn't too much higher than the limit. 
>If the donk produces a smokescreen that a tramp steamer would be proud of, 
>ignore the above... :-)

Thanks for that - I'll give it a try.

I was sure I read someone on here had used a tankful of bio-diesel or
cooking oil to get a vehicle to PASS the emissions test. I guess I
misunderstood.

> Assuming it's the soot test, you can replace the air filter, run this tank 
> low of fuel, use plenty of injector cleaner combined with some Italian 
> tuning

My dads' Astra diesel failed last week on emissions - the garage 
itself tossed him a bottle of stuff, but rather than using the 
measured amount per the instructions, told him to shove the whole lot 
in.

It used to be smoky on acceleration, but whatever it was cleaned it up 
noticeably apparently.

It was re-tested today, and passed quite happily.

In article , 
REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM.co.uk says...
> > Assuming it's the soot test, you can replace the air filter, run this tank 
> > low of fuel, use plenty of injector cleaner combined with some Italian 
> > tuning
> 
> My dads' Astra diesel failed last week on emissions - the garage 
> itself tossed him a bottle of stuff, but rather than using the 
> measured amount per the instructions, told him to shove the whole lot 
> in.
> 
> It used to be smoky on acceleration, but whatever it was cleaned it up 
> noticeably apparently.
> 
> It was re-tested today, and passed quite happily.
> 

Run the tank down a bit then add a bottle of "diesel magic", go for a 
ten mile drive and rev the hell out of it in third gear, keep dropping 
down to a crawl then rev it again.  It should clear most of the crap and 
result in a pass.

"pb"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.23299b2654e3d02798969c@news.virginmedia.com...

", go for a
> ten mile drive and rev the hell out of it in third gear, keep dropping
> down to a crawl then rev it again.  It should clear most of the crap and
> result in a pass.

That's the most important bit, plenty of full throttle acceleration through 
the gears right up to the rev limiter.

The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's just 
carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due to 
gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you don't need 
any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the MOT station.

Julian.

pjlusenet@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> I was sure I read someone on here had used a tankful of bio-diesel or
> cooking oil to get a vehicle to PASS the emissions test. I guess I
> misunderstood.

Yup, my friend did exactly that with his old Land Rover. Worked a treat, 
but the vehicle was old enough only to have to pass the visual test for 
excessive smoke, rather than a proper emissions test.
Probably stating the obvious, but it needs to be _unused_ cooking oil - 
home-filtered chip-shop waste is unlikely to improve anything.

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:29:44 +0100, "Julian"  wrote:

>
>"pb"  wrote in message 
>news:MPG.23299b2654e3d02798969c@news.virginmedia.com...
>
>", go for a
>> ten mile drive and rev the hell out of it in third gear, keep dropping
>> down to a crawl then rev it again.  It should clear most of the crap and
>> result in a pass.
>
>That's the most important bit, plenty of full throttle acceleration through 
>the gears right up to the rev limiter.
>
>The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's just 
>carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due to 
>gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you don't need 
>any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the MOT station.
>
>Julian. 
>

Thanks all, for your suggestions.
I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer.
Need to find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.

If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of
these tests is.

"Julian"  wrote in message 
news:x7Mvk.73932$Ff2.42624@newsfe13.ams2...
>
> "pb"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.23299b2654e3d02798969c@news.virginmedia.com...
>
> ", go for a
>> ten mile drive and rev the hell out of it in third gear, keep dropping
>> down to a crawl then rev it again.  It should clear most of the crap and
>> result in a pass.
>
> That's the most important bit, plenty of full throttle acceleration 
> through the gears right up to the rev limiter.
>
> The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's just 
> carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due to 
> gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you don't 
> need any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the MOT 
> station.
>

A good blast can be literally the thing. A couple of years ago the local 
kids found it extremely funny to shove a firework up the exhaust of my 
pick-up. I heard the bang, it was late October, so we were used to hearing 
them. Next morning I found a big black patch on the concrete below the tail 
pipe where the blast had loosened it from inside the rear box, and when I 
drove off, fuck me I was lucky not to be arrested I should think.

Passed the test a couple of days later though. :-))

Steve

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:55:35 +0100,  wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:29:44 +0100, "Julian"  wrote:

>
> Thanks all, for your suggestions.
> I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer.
> Need to find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.
>
> If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of
> these tests is.
>


Once you've passed you won't be smoking anymore.

wrote in message 
news:us4vb49l37l50b9kil197mt5l31ptim3t8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:29:44 +0100, "Julian"  wrote:
>
>>
>>"pb"  wrote in message
>>news:MPG.23299b2654e3d02798969c@news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>>", go for a
>>> ten mile drive and rev the hell out of it in third gear, keep dropping
>>> down to a crawl then rev it again.  It should clear most of the crap and
>>> result in a pass.
>>
>>That's the most important bit, plenty of full throttle acceleration 
>>through
>>the gears right up to the rev limiter.
>>
>>The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's just
>>carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due to
>>gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you don't 
>>need
>>any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the MOT station.
>>
>>Julian.
>>
>
> Thanks all, for your suggestions.
> I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer.
> Need to find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.
>
> If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of
> these tests is.

It's just some stupid hoop jumping through exercise, in common with about 
90% of other bollocks in the UK year 2008.

My tester, who I have known for several years, never pushes the pedal more 
than about 2/3rds of the way down. I always get the 'quick pass' and have 
given up on the annual boy racer routine now because I know what he will do!

Julian.

"Julian"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>> The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's just
>>> carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due
>>> to gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you
>>> don't need any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the 
>>> MOT station.

>> Thanks all, for your suggestions.
>> I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer. Need to
>> find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.
>>
>> If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of these
>> tests is.

> It's just some stupid hoop jumping through exercise, in common with
> about 90% of other bollocks in the UK year 2008.
> 
> My tester, who I have known for several years, never pushes the pedal
> more than about 2/3rds of the way down. I always get the 'quick pass'
> and have given up on the annual boy racer routine now because I know
> what he will do!

From http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm
"depress the accelerator pedal quickly and continuously but not 
violently, to reach full fuel position in less than 1 second"

Are you meaning that your MOT man deliberately ignores the MOT procedure 
in order to permit cars that shouldn't pass to do so?

Is that just for exhaust emissions, or does he do so for other areas of 
the car, too? Tyres, p'raps? Structural rot? Let's hope VOSA don't catch 
him at it, eh?

Yes, smoke being emitted may just be a build-up of particulate matter 
inside the exhaust - but it may equally be excessive emissions due to an 
injection fault. Are you suggesting that diesels shouldn't be subject to 
any emissions test? Or do you have a constructive proposal for an 
alternative test?

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:6i9sitFpjnnnU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Julian"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>>> The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's just
>>>> carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due
>>>> to gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you
>>>> don't need any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the
>>>> MOT station.
>
>>> Thanks all, for your suggestions.
>>> I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer. Need to
>>> find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.
>>>
>>> If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of these
>>> tests is.
>
>> It's just some stupid hoop jumping through exercise, in common with
>> about 90% of other bollocks in the UK year 2008.
>>
>> My tester, who I have known for several years, never pushes the pedal
>> more than about 2/3rds of the way down. I always get the 'quick pass'
>> and have given up on the annual boy racer routine now because I know
>> what he will do!
>
> From http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm
> "depress the accelerator pedal quickly and continuously but not
> violently, to reach full fuel position in less than 1 second"
>
> Are you meaning that your MOT man deliberately ignores the MOT procedure
> in order to permit cars that shouldn't pass to do so?
>
> Is that just for exhaust emissions, or does he do so for other areas of
> the car, too? Tyres, p'raps? Structural rot? Let's hope VOSA don't catch
> him at it, eh?
>
> Yes, smoke being emitted may just be a build-up of particulate matter
> inside the exhaust - but it may equally be excessive emissions due to an
> injection fault. Are you suggesting that diesels shouldn't be subject to
> any emissions test? Or do you have a constructive proposal for an
> alternative test?

Oh do fuck off. If you want a debate regarding particulate testing and 
alternatives then start another thread.

Julian.

pjlusenet@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:07:18 +0100, "DervMan" 
> wrote:
> 
>>  wrote in message 
>> news:k8gtb49esuun4vfjo4b1n79lvi4q0pp1o1@4ax.com...
>>> Hi all, my diesel Transit (N reg 160k miles 2.5 litre) just failed the
>>> MOT on its emissions.
>>>
>>> I've been told that the 30% cooking oil in the fuel may have been the
>>> problem. Other than using this up and filling with fresh diesel, is
>>> there anything else I can do to try and get it through the MOT?
>>
>> Assuming it's the soot test, you can replace the air filter, run this tank 
>> low of fuel, use plenty of injector cleaner combined with some Italian 
>> tuning *then* put in a substancial amount of a GTL diesel (BP Ultimate 
>> Diesel, Shell V-Power Diesel, Total Excellium Diesel) - ignoring the higher 
>> price - and resubmit the test.
>>
>> All of the above assuming the engine wasn't too much higher than the limit. 
>> If the donk produces a smokescreen that a tramp steamer would be proud of, 
>> ignore the above... :-)
> 
> Thanks for that - I'll give it a try.
> 
> I was sure I read someone on here had used a tankful of bio-diesel or
> cooking oil to get a vehicle to PASS the emissions test. I guess I
> misunderstood.
> 

My 306 passed it's MOT on bio no problem

-- 
Abo

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:6i9sitFpjnnnU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Julian"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>>> The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's just
>>>> carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due
>>>> to gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you
>>>> don't need any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the
>>>> MOT station.
>
>>> Thanks all, for your suggestions.
>>> I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer. Need to
>>> find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.
>>>
>>> If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of these
>>> tests is.
>
>> It's just some stupid hoop jumping through exercise, in common with
>> about 90% of other bollocks in the UK year 2008.
>>
>> My tester, who I have known for several years, never pushes the pedal
>> more than about 2/3rds of the way down. I always get the 'quick pass'
>> and have given up on the annual boy racer routine now because I know
>> what he will do!
>
> From http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm
> "depress the accelerator pedal quickly and continuously but not
> violently, to reach full fuel position in less than 1 second"
>
> Are you meaning that your MOT man deliberately ignores the MOT procedure
> in order to permit cars that shouldn't pass to do so?
>
> Is that just for exhaust emissions, or does he do so for other areas of
> the car, too? Tyres, p'raps? Structural rot? Let's hope VOSA don't catch
> him at it, eh?
>
> Yes, smoke being emitted may just be a build-up of particulate matter
> inside the exhaust - but it may equally be excessive emissions due to an
> injection fault. Are you suggesting that diesels shouldn't be subject to
> any emissions test? Or do you have a constructive proposal for an
> alternative test?

I've always considered the test flawed. I'm old enough to remember old 
Fodens, Seddons Atkinsons and the like trundling up hills emitting clouds of 
black smoke, so I wouldn't want to go back to no testing, but the smoke 
always comes when the engine is working hard under load. Revving the 
bollocks off an engine at no load is a  nonsense IMHO. No wonder when they 
started they knackered loads of engines. I'm sure a better way could be 
found.

Steve

"Julian"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Oh do fuck off. If you want a debate regarding particulate testing and
> alternatives then start another thread.

Oh, please forgive me for pointing out the slight flaw in your load of 
bollocks...

I'll tell you what, I'll cut it down to the basics if you like.

>> Are you meaning that your MOT man deliberately ignores the MOT
>> procedure in order to permit cars that shouldn't pass to do so?
>>
>> Is that just for exhaust emissions, or does he do so for other areas of
>> the car, too? Tyres, p'raps? Structural rot? Let's hope VOSA don't
>> catch him at it, eh?

shazzbat wrote:
> "Adrian"  wrote in message 
> news:6i9sitFpjnnnU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Julian"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>>> The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's just
>>>>> carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due
>>>>> to gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you
>>>>> don't need any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the
>>>>> MOT station.
>>>> Thanks all, for your suggestions.
>>>> I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer. Need to
>>>> find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.
>>>>
>>>> If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of these
>>>> tests is.
>>> It's just some stupid hoop jumping through exercise, in common with
>>> about 90% of other bollocks in the UK year 2008.
>>>
>>> My tester, who I have known for several years, never pushes the pedal
>>> more than about 2/3rds of the way down. I always get the 'quick pass'
>>> and have given up on the annual boy racer routine now because I know
>>> what he will do!
>> From http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm
>> "depress the accelerator pedal quickly and continuously but not
>> violently, to reach full fuel position in less than 1 second"
>>
>> Are you meaning that your MOT man deliberately ignores the MOT procedure
>> in order to permit cars that shouldn't pass to do so?
>>
>> Is that just for exhaust emissions, or does he do so for other areas of
>> the car, too? Tyres, p'raps? Structural rot? Let's hope VOSA don't catch
>> him at it, eh?
>>
>> Yes, smoke being emitted may just be a build-up of particulate matter
>> inside the exhaust - but it may equally be excessive emissions due to an
>> injection fault. Are you suggesting that diesels shouldn't be subject to
>> any emissions test? Or do you have a constructive proposal for an
>> alternative test?
> 
> I've always considered the test flawed. I'm old enough to remember old 
> Fodens, Seddons Atkinsons and the like trundling up hills emitting clouds of 
> black smoke, so I wouldn't want to go back to no testing, but the smoke 
> always comes when the engine is working hard under load. Revving the 
> bollocks off an engine at no load is a  nonsense IMHO. No wonder when they 
> started they knackered loads of engines. I'm sure a better way could be 
> found.

Banning diesels would be my suggestion. Horrible things.

-- 
Pete M - OMF#9

BMW 325i SE Touring
Range Rover V8 Turbo

"Wait! We can't stop here, this is Bat Country"

> I've always considered the test flawed. I'm old enough to remember old
> Fodens, Seddons Atkinsons and the like trundling up hills emitting  
> clouds of
> black smoke, so I wouldn't want to go back to no testing, but the smoke
> always comes when the engine is working hard under load. Revving the
> bollocks off an engine at no load is a  nonsense IMHO. No wonder when  
> they
> started they knackered loads of engines. I'm sure a better way could be
> found.
>
> Steve
>
>


But applying full throttle to a diesel at idle gives you full load.

In article <op.ugyj3xm9haghkf@lucy>, Duncan Wood says...
> > I've always considered the test flawed. I'm old enough to remember old
> > Fodens, Seddons Atkinsons and the like trundling up hills emitting  
> > clouds of
> > black smoke, so I wouldn't want to go back to no testing, but the smoke
> > always comes when the engine is working hard under load. Revving the
> > bollocks off an engine at no load is a  nonsense IMHO. No wonder when  
> > they
> > started they knackered loads of engines. I'm sure a better way could be
> > found.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> 
> 
> But applying full throttle to a diesel at idle gives you full load.
> 
ROFL.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"shazzbat"  wrote in message 
news:g9oh8b$n92$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> "Adrian"  wrote in message 
> news:6i9sitFpjnnnU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Julian"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>>> The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's just
>>>>> carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due
>>>>> to gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you
>>>>> don't need any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the
>>>>> MOT station.
>>
>>>> Thanks all, for your suggestions.
>>>> I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer. Need to
>>>> find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.
>>>>
>>>> If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of these
>>>> tests is.
>>
>>> It's just some stupid hoop jumping through exercise, in common with
>>> about 90% of other bollocks in the UK year 2008.
>>>
>>> My tester, who I have known for several years, never pushes the pedal
>>> more than about 2/3rds of the way down. I always get the 'quick pass'
>>> and have given up on the annual boy racer routine now because I know
>>> what he will do!
>>
>> From http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm
>> "depress the accelerator pedal quickly and continuously but not
>> violently, to reach full fuel position in less than 1 second"
>>
>> Are you meaning that your MOT man deliberately ignores the MOT procedure
>> in order to permit cars that shouldn't pass to do so?
>>
>> Is that just for exhaust emissions, or does he do so for other areas of
>> the car, too? Tyres, p'raps? Structural rot? Let's hope VOSA don't catch
>> him at it, eh?
>>
>> Yes, smoke being emitted may just be a build-up of particulate matter
>> inside the exhaust - but it may equally be excessive emissions due to an
>> injection fault. Are you suggesting that diesels shouldn't be subject to
>> any emissions test? Or do you have a constructive proposal for an
>> alternative test?
>
> I've always considered the test flawed. I'm old enough to remember old 
> Fodens, Seddons Atkinsons and the like trundling up hills emitting clouds 
> of black smoke, so I wouldn't want to go back to no testing, but the smoke 
> always comes when the engine is working hard under load. Revving the 
> bollocks off an engine at no load is a  nonsense IMHO. No wonder when they 
> started they knackered loads of engines. I'm sure a better way could be 
> found.

I remember about 15 years ago when I had a Pug 205 Diesel. Prior to MOT I 
used to adjust the throttle cable outer sleeve (just a ''R'' clip and a 
number of grooves IIRC) so that full pedal travel gave about half pump lever 
travel.

It only revved up about 1/2 way and easily passed the smoke test. For the 
record it would easily pass the test ''properly,'' but I can't resist 
finding ways to fiddle the system and the Adrians of the world!

Julian.

"Pete M"  wrote in message 
news:g9ojbq$nv0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> shazzbat wrote:
>> "Adrian"  wrote in message 
>> news:6i9sitFpjnnnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Julian"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>> saying:
>>>
>>>>>> The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's 
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due
>>>>>> to gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you
>>>>>> don't need any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the
>>>>>> MOT station.
>>>>> Thanks all, for your suggestions.
>>>>> I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer. Need 
>>>>> to
>>>>> find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.
>>>>>
>>>>> If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of 
>>>>> these
>>>>> tests is.
>>>> It's just some stupid hoop jumping through exercise, in common with
>>>> about 90% of other bollocks in the UK year 2008.
>>>>
>>>> My tester, who I have known for several years, never pushes the pedal
>>>> more than about 2/3rds of the way down. I always get the 'quick pass'
>>>> and have given up on the annual boy racer routine now because I know
>>>> what he will do!
>>> From http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm
>>> "depress the accelerator pedal quickly and continuously but not
>>> violently, to reach full fuel position in less than 1 second"
>>>
>>> Are you meaning that your MOT man deliberately ignores the MOT procedure
>>> in order to permit cars that shouldn't pass to do so?
>>>
>>> Is that just for exhaust emissions, or does he do so for other areas of
>>> the car, too? Tyres, p'raps? Structural rot? Let's hope VOSA don't catch
>>> him at it, eh?
>>>
>>> Yes, smoke being emitted may just be a build-up of particulate matter
>>> inside the exhaust - but it may equally be excessive emissions due to an
>>> injection fault. Are you suggesting that diesels shouldn't be subject to
>>> any emissions test? Or do you have a constructive proposal for an
>>> alternative test?
>>
>> I've always considered the test flawed. I'm old enough to remember old 
>> Fodens, Seddons Atkinsons and the like trundling up hills emitting clouds 
>> of black smoke, so I wouldn't want to go back to no testing, but the 
>> smoke always comes when the engine is working hard under load. Revving 
>> the bollocks off an engine at no load is a  nonsense IMHO. No wonder when 
>> they started they knackered loads of engines. I'm sure a better way could 
>> be found.
>
> Banning diesels would be my suggestion. Horrible things.
>
> -- 
> Pete M - OMF#9
>
> BMW 325i SE Touring
> Range Rover V8 Turbo

Given the global warming issue and the obvious frugality of a Diesel then 
you should be in prison running that antiquated V8 Range Rover!

Psss, I've got a 500cid Jensen :-)

Julian.

"Julian"  wrote in message 
news:%9Pvk.278852$D01.272617@newsfe17.ams2...
>
> "Adrian"  wrote in message 
> news:6i9sitFpjnnnU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Julian"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>>> The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's just
>>>>> carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due
>>>>> to gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you
>>>>> don't need any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the
>>>>> MOT station.
>>
>>>> Thanks all, for your suggestions.
>>>> I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer. Need to
>>>> find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.
>>>>
>>>> If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of these
>>>> tests is.
>>
>>> It's just some stupid hoop jumping through exercise, in common with
>>> about 90% of other bollocks in the UK year 2008.
>>>
>>> My tester, who I have known for several years, never pushes the pedal
>>> more than about 2/3rds of the way down. I always get the 'quick pass'
>>> and have given up on the annual boy racer routine now because I know
>>> what he will do!
>>
>> From http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm
>> "depress the accelerator pedal quickly and continuously but not
>> violently, to reach full fuel position in less than 1 second"
>>
>> Are you meaning that your MOT man deliberately ignores the MOT procedure
>> in order to permit cars that shouldn't pass to do so?
>>
>> Is that just for exhaust emissions, or does he do so for other areas of
>> the car, too? Tyres, p'raps? Structural rot? Let's hope VOSA don't catch
>> him at it, eh?
>>
>> Yes, smoke being emitted may just be a build-up of particulate matter
>> inside the exhaust - but it may equally be excessive emissions due to an
>> injection fault. Are you suggesting that diesels shouldn't be subject to
>> any emissions test? Or do you have a constructive proposal for an
>> alternative test?
>
> Oh do fuck off. If you want a debate regarding particulate testing and 
> alternatives then start another thread.


This one seems fine.  Your MOT tester, however, is something else.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"shazzbat"  wrote in message 
news:g9oh8b$n92$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> "Adrian"  wrote in message 
> news:6i9sitFpjnnnU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Julian"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>>> The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's just
>>>>> carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due
>>>>> to gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you
>>>>> don't need any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the
>>>>> MOT station.
>>
>>>> Thanks all, for your suggestions.
>>>> I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer. Need to
>>>> find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.
>>>>
>>>> If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of these
>>>> tests is.
>>
>>> It's just some stupid hoop jumping through exercise, in common with
>>> about 90% of other bollocks in the UK year 2008.
>>>
>>> My tester, who I have known for several years, never pushes the pedal
>>> more than about 2/3rds of the way down. I always get the 'quick pass'
>>> and have given up on the annual boy racer routine now because I know
>>> what he will do!
>>
>> From http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm
>> "depress the accelerator pedal quickly and continuously but not
>> violently, to reach full fuel position in less than 1 second"
>>
>> Are you meaning that your MOT man deliberately ignores the MOT procedure
>> in order to permit cars that shouldn't pass to do so?
>>
>> Is that just for exhaust emissions, or does he do so for other areas of
>> the car, too? Tyres, p'raps? Structural rot? Let's hope VOSA don't catch
>> him at it, eh?
>>
>> Yes, smoke being emitted may just be a build-up of particulate matter
>> inside the exhaust - but it may equally be excessive emissions due to an
>> injection fault. Are you suggesting that diesels shouldn't be subject to
>> any emissions test? Or do you have a constructive proposal for an
>> alternative test?
>
> I've always considered the test flawed. I'm old enough to remember old 
> Fodens, Seddons Atkinsons and the like trundling up hills emitting clouds 
> of black smoke, so I wouldn't want to go back to no testing, but the smoke 
> always comes when the engine is working hard under load. Revving the 
> bollocks off an engine at no load is a  nonsense IMHO.

Lower load than the road load and not no load, though.

> No wonder when they started they knackered loads of engines.

That was because owners didn't look after their vehicles...

> I'm sure a better way could be found.

They have looked into it.

-- 
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

Following some of the advice given I ran my Tranny until it
was nearly empty then put in a few gallons of BP Ultimate.
I then proceeded to drive like a maniac in 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc..
and put my foot down on the motorway for a few miles.

I'm pleased to say it passed! So thanks again.

During the retest I was surprised they didn't rev the engine like mad.
I thought they'd done that in the past but apparently that was to try
and shake the soot out of the exhaust. Obviously I'd done that part
this time.

Why do they have warnings on display saying diesels must have cam
belts that are within the recommended mileage, i.e not old and
knackered, if they don't need to rev them like mad?

Julian wrote:
> "Pete M"  wrote in message 
> news:g9ojbq$nv0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> shazzbat wrote:
>>> "Adrian"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6i9sitFpjnnnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "Julian"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>>> saying:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's 
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year due
>>>>>>> to gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you
>>>>>>> don't need any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at the
>>>>>>> MOT station.
>>>>>> Thanks all, for your suggestions.
>>>>>> I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer. Need 
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of 
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> tests is.
>>>>> It's just some stupid hoop jumping through exercise, in common with
>>>>> about 90% of other bollocks in the UK year 2008.
>>>>>
>>>>> My tester, who I have known for several years, never pushes the pedal
>>>>> more than about 2/3rds of the way down. I always get the 'quick pass'
>>>>> and have given up on the annual boy racer routine now because I know
>>>>> what he will do!
>>>> From http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm
>>>> "depress the accelerator pedal quickly and continuously but not
>>>> violently, to reach full fuel position in less than 1 second"
>>>>
>>>> Are you meaning that your MOT man deliberately ignores the MOT procedure
>>>> in order to permit cars that shouldn't pass to do so?
>>>>
>>>> Is that just for exhaust emissions, or does he do so for other areas of
>>>> the car, too? Tyres, p'raps? Structural rot? Let's hope VOSA don't catch
>>>> him at it, eh?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, smoke being emitted may just be a build-up of particulate matter
>>>> inside the exhaust - but it may equally be excessive emissions due to an
>>>> injection fault. Are you suggesting that diesels shouldn't be subject to
>>>> any emissions test? Or do you have a constructive proposal for an
>>>> alternative test?
>>> I've always considered the test flawed. I'm old enough to remember old 
>>> Fodens, Seddons Atkinsons and the like trundling up hills emitting clouds 
>>> of black smoke, so I wouldn't want to go back to no testing, but the 
>>> smoke always comes when the engine is working hard under load. Revving 
>>> the bollocks off an engine at no load is a  nonsense IMHO. No wonder when 
>>> they started they knackered loads of engines. I'm sure a better way could 
>>> be found.
>> Banning diesels would be my suggestion. Horrible things.
>>
>> -- 
>> Pete M - OMF#9
>>
>> BMW 325i SE Touring
>> Range Rover V8 Turbo
> 
> Given the global warming issue and the obvious frugality of a Diesel then 
> you should be in prison running that antiquated V8 Range Rover!
> 
> Psss, I've got a 500cid Jensen :-)

Bastard, the Jensen I play with is only a 440, but it's a convertible :-p

-- 
Pete M - OMF#9

BMW 325i SE Touring
Range Rover V8 Turbo

"Wait! We can't stop here, this is Bat Country"

"Pete M"  wrote in message 
news:g9pcbf$69n$2@registered.motzarella.org...
> Julian wrote:
>> "Pete M"  wrote in message 
>> news:g9ojbq$nv0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> shazzbat wrote:
>>>> "Adrian"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:6i9sitFpjnnnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> "Julian"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they 
>>>>> were
>>>>> saying:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ''smoke'' the makes the MOT failure isn't smoke as such, it's 
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> carbon on the inside of the exhaust that's built up over the year 
>>>>>>>> due
>>>>>>>> to gentle driving - it needs to be dislodged. 9 times out of 10 you
>>>>>>>> don't need any additives, just a good blast prior to arriving at 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> MOT station.
>>>>>>> Thanks all, for your suggestions.
>>>>>>> I'll put some BP diesel in and do my impression of a boy racer. Need 
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> find a baseball cap and some blue LEDs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If what you say is true then it makes me wonder what the point of 
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>> tests is.
>>>>>> It's just some stupid hoop jumping through exercise, in common with
>>>>>> about 90% of other bollocks in the UK year 2008.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My tester, who I have known for several years, never pushes the pedal
>>>>>> more than about 2/3rds of the way down. I always get the 'quick pass'
>>>>>> and have given up on the annual boy racer routine now because I know
>>>>>> what he will do!
>>>>> From http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm
>>>>> "depress the accelerator pedal quickly and continuously but not
>>>>> violently, to reach full fuel position in less than 1 second"
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you meaning that your MOT man deliberately ignores the MOT 
>>>>> procedure
>>>>> in order to permit cars that shouldn't pass to do so?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that just for exhaust emissions, or does he do so for other areas 
>>>>> of
>>>>> the car, too? Tyres, p'raps? Structural rot? Let's hope VOSA don't 
>>>>> catch
>>>>> him at it, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, smoke being emitted may just be a build-up of particulate matter
>>>>> inside the exhaust - but it may equally be excessive emissions due to 
>>>>> an
>>>>> injection fault. Are you suggesting that diesels shouldn't be subject 
>>>>> to
>>>>> any emissions test? Or do you have a constructive proposal for an
>>>>> alternative test?
>>>> I've always considered the test flawed. I'm old enough to remember old 
>>>> Fodens, Seddons Atkinsons and the like trundling up hills emitting 
>>>> clouds of black smoke, so I wouldn't want to go back to no testing, but 
>>>> the smoke always comes when the engine is working hard under load. 
>>>> Revving the bollocks off an engine at no load is a  nonsense IMHO. No 
>>>> wonder when they started they knackered loads of engines. I'm sure a 
>>>> better way could be found.
>>> Banning diesels would be my suggestion. Horrible things.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Pete M - OMF#9
>>>
>>> BMW 325i SE Touring
>>> Range Rover V8 Turbo
>>
>> Given the global warming issue and the obvious frugality of a Diesel then 
>> you should be in prison running that antiquated V8 Range Rover!
>>
>> Psss, I've got a 500cid Jensen :-)
>
> Bastard, the Jensen I play with is only a 440, but it's a convertible :-p

So was mine, I then hammered a bigger crankshaft into it! [1]

[1] Actually all that is standard now is the block, but I'm tempted by one 
of those alloy megablocks for this winter's project - take it up to almost 
10 litres :-)

Julian.

pjlusenet@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> Following some of the advice given I ran my Tranny until it
> was nearly empty then put in a few gallons of BP Ultimate.
> I then proceeded to drive like a maniac in 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc..
> and put my foot down on the motorway for a few miles.
> 
> I'm pleased to say it passed! So thanks again.
> 
> During the retest I was surprised they didn't rev the engine like mad.
> I thought they'd done that in the past but apparently that was to try
> and shake the soot out of the exhaust. Obviously I'd done that part
> this time.
> 
> Why do they have warnings on display saying diesels must have cam
> belts that are within the recommended mileage, i.e not old and
> knackered, if they don't need to rev them like mad?

They do (or should!)

http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_740.htm

Chris

-- 
Remove prejudice to reply.

"Chris Whelan"  wrote in message 
news:VyXvk.187223$Ft5.66262@newsfe29.ams2...
> pjlusenet@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Following some of the advice given I ran my Tranny until it
>> was nearly empty then put in a few gallons of BP Ultimate.
>> I then proceeded to drive like a maniac in 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc..
>> and put my foot down on the motorway for a few miles.
>>
>> I'm pleased to say it passed! So thanks again.
>>
>> During the retest I was surprised they didn't rev the engine like mad.
>> I thought they'd done that in the past but apparently that was to try
>> and shake the soot out of the exhaust. Obviously I'd done that part
>> this time.
>>
>> Why do they have warnings on display saying diesels must have cam
>> belts that are within the recommended mileage, i.e not old and
>> knackered, if they don't need to rev them like mad?

because you wouldn't be happy if we blew your engine up would you now, its 
called CYA cover your arse or in our case cover our arse's, I refused to 
test one last week as the cambelt was well over its sell by date, the 
customer wasn't happy, oh well never mind, next !!!

On Sep 3, 5:56 pm, pjluse...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Hi all, my diesel Transit (N reg 160k miles 2.5 litre) just failed the
> MOT on its emissions.
>
> I've been told that the 30% cooking oil in the fuel may have been the
> problem. Other than using this up and filling with fresh diesel, is
> there anything else I can do to try and get it through the MOT?

might be worth changing the engine oil too if you have not done it, I
was told this can impact emissions testing, along with blocked air
filters. good luck !