My Rover 200 passed the MOT today but I'm interested in the emissions result.

Last year the Natural Idle test was run at 874rpm and returned a CO figure of
.30%, spot on the upper limit.

This year, using the same test equipment and tester, it's described as a 'manual
check' and returned a CO figure of just .08%.

I would say the engine was in a very similar state, with ignition components in
good condition. The only difference is that I gave it a right good thrashing for
about 40 miles last night, and about another 30 before delivering it to the Test
Station. Could this account for the apparent improvement ? 

If the test is this variable on a pretty similar engine, I wonder what it's
worth ?

The previous Fast Idle test was run at 2789 and returned a CO of .14%
This year again it was a 'manual check' and returned a figure of 0% !!

The other figures show an increase from 44 > 80 ppm HC
and a lamda increase from                  1.004  >  1.015

TIA
Andy C

Andy Cap  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> Last year the Natural Idle test was run at 874rpm and returned a CO
> figure of .30%, spot on the upper limit.

Damn near a fail, then - way too high.

> This year, using the same test equipment and tester, it's described as a
> 'manual check' and returned a CO figure of just .08%.

That's more like it.

> I would say the engine was in a very similar state, with ignition
> components in good condition. The only difference is that I gave it a
> right good thrashing for about 40 miles last night

That's irrelevant...

> and about another 30 before delivering it to the Test Station.

...but that's not.

> Could this account for the apparent improvement ?

Might just be that it wasn't up to temp fully last time.

> and a lamda increase from                  1.004  >  1.015

<shrug> It'll naturally move about a snidge, as it requires a move away 
from zero to tell it to adjust the mixture. Over 1 is slightly lean, 
under 1 is slightly rich. IIRC pass is 0.97 - 1.03

Don't sweat it.

On 26 Sep 2008 17:43:41 GMT, Adrian  wrote:

>Andy Cap  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying:
>
>> Last year the Natural Idle test was run at 874rpm and returned a CO
>> figure of .30%, spot on the upper limit.
>
>Damn near a fail, then - way too high.

Not necessarily, many MOT emission test equipment move onto the next
phase as soon as a pass figure is registered.

>> This year, using the same test equipment and tester, it's described as a
>> 'manual check' and returned a CO figure of just .08%.
>
>That's more like it.

But what is a "Manual Check" Normally a BET test, if that fails then a
full CAT test. Manual Check implies checking the emissions at fast
idle and natural idle but not following the preset procedure.
-- 
Jimmy

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:19:36 +0100, Jimmy  wrote:

>On 26 Sep 2008 17:43:41 GMT, Adrian  wrote:
>
>>Andy Cap  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>were saying:

>Not necessarily, many MOT emission test equipment move onto the next
>phase as soon as a pass figure is registered.

Well the form said     Limit  =<0.30      Actual  0.30  That looks like 'near a
fail' to me.

>But what is a "Manual Check" Normally a BET test, if that fails then a
>full CAT test. Manual Check implies checking the emissions at fast
>idle and natural idle but not following the preset procedure.

Yes, I'd like to know why a 'manual check' and no rpm figures.
He's a VERY experienced tester, plus with centralised computer monitoring, I
can't see anyone fiddling the test or perhaps they can ?

Jimmy  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>> Last year the Natural Idle test was run at 874rpm and returned a CO
>>> figure of .30%, spot on the upper limit.

>>Damn near a fail, then - way too high.

> Not necessarily, many MOT emission test equipment move onto the next
> phase as soon as a pass figure is registered.

It shouldn't be anywhere near that limit, though.

>>> This year, using the same test equipment and tester, it's described as
>>> a 'manual check' and returned a CO figure of just .08%.

>>That's more like it.

> But what is a "Manual Check" Normally a BET test, if that fails then a
> full CAT test. Manual Check implies checking the emissions at fast idle
> and natural idle but not following the preset procedure.

<shrug>

Problem with the equipment?

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:29:57 +0100, Andy Cap 
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:19:36 +0100, Jimmy  wrote:
>
>>On 26 Sep 2008 17:43:41 GMT, Adrian  wrote:
>>
>>>Andy Cap  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>were saying:
>
>>Not necessarily, many MOT emission test equipment move onto the next
>>phase as soon as a pass figure is registered.
>
>Well the form said     Limit  =<0.30      Actual  0.30  That looks like 'near a
>fail' to me.

But if the Actual was 0.30 that is =<0.30 so the machine just moves
on. Probably the CO was falling and had it of delayed a little longer
on the idle check it would have reached a lower figure.

>>But what is a "Manual Check" Normally a BET test, if that fails then a
>>full CAT test. Manual Check implies checking the emissions at fast
>>idle and natural idle but not following the preset procedure.
>
>Yes, I'd like to know why a 'manual check' and no rpm figures.
>He's a VERY experienced tester, plus with centralised computer monitoring, I
>can't see anyone fiddling the test or perhaps they can ?

No emission figures are entered into the MOT computer but a printout
should be given to the customer and a copy retained by the station for
3 months.
-- 
Jimmy

On 26 Sep 2008 19:10:04 GMT, Adrian  wrote:

>Jimmy  gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying:

>> But what is a "Manual Check" Normally a BET test, if that fails then a
>> full CAT test. Manual Check implies checking the emissions at fast idle
>> and natural idle but not following the preset procedure.
>
><shrug>
>
>Problem with the equipment?

Then the station should cease testing until its fixed.
-- 
Jimmy

"Jimmy"  wrote in message 
news:l7jqd4943u5ggvej9hconl7hp5d6s4ncvi@4ax.com...
> On 26 Sep 2008 19:10:04 GMT, Adrian  wrote:
>
>>Jimmy  gurgled happily, sounding much like
>>they were saying:
>
>>> But what is a "Manual Check" Normally a BET test, if that fails then a
>>> full CAT test. Manual Check implies checking the emissions at fast idle
>>> and natural idle but not following the preset procedure.
>>
>><shrug>
>>
>>Problem with the equipment?
>
> Then the station should cease testing until its fixed.
>

Nah, the tester's just *that* experienced that he just sticks his nose into 
the exhaust and breathes deep, then he knows the result - hence manual check 
:-)

-- 
Dan B
Clio R27

"Andy Cap"  wrote in message
> Yes, I'd like to know why a 'manual check' and no rpm figures.
> He's a VERY experienced tester, plus with centralised computer monitoring, 
> I
> can't see anyone fiddling the test or perhaps they can ?

The manual check still uses the probe up the exhaust to check emissions but 
they havn't connected the RPM probe.  Some cars don't have easy access to 
the ht leads without removing various engine covers so the RPM has to be 
manually checked.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:10:22 +0100, "Redwood"  wrote:

>"Andy Cap"  wrote in message
>> Yes, I'd like to know why a 'manual check' and no rpm figures.
>> He's a VERY experienced tester, plus with centralised computer monitoring, 
>> I
>> can't see anyone fiddling the test or perhaps they can ?
>
>The manual check still uses the probe up the exhaust to check emissions but 
>they havn't connected the RPM probe.  Some cars don't have easy access to 
>the ht leads without removing various engine covers so the RPM has to be 
>manually checked. 
>

Thanks for that. Funny that he took the trouble last year then. Must have been
feeling lazy ! 

I'm still surprised that pre-warming the engine  - I used to book the first
appointment of the day and it's just across the road - but this time
deliberately took it for bomb up the main road, made such a difference, because
I don't believe there was much else different with the engine.

Rather renders the test a bit of a lottery, or did I miss an ealier point, that
should this test fail, then they move on to a stiffer standard that it may well
pass ?  Just a bit puzzled really.

Andy C

"Redwood"  wrote in message 
news:6k9hjaF6oddgU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Andy Cap"  wrote in message
>> Yes, I'd like to know why a 'manual check' and no rpm figures.
>> He's a VERY experienced tester, plus with centralised computer 
>> monitoring, I
>> can't see anyone fiddling the test or perhaps they can ?
>
> The manual check still uses the probe up the exhaust to check emissions 
> but they havn't connected the RPM probe.  Some cars don't have easy access 
> to the ht leads without removing various engine covers so the RPM has to 
> be manually checked.

ours & most of the new spec machines out there use the battery to detect the 
rpm, just hook it up to the positive & neg, so no need to use the HT leads, 
but as some batteries are in the boot of certain vehicles the leads wont 
reach or you have to dismantle half the car to gain access, then you do a 
manual check with the rpm from the rev counter.