 | Home > Technical > Recent MOT |
 
|
|
|
| spudfan Member Since: 10 Sep 2007 Location: Co Donegal Posts: 4662  
|
The Puma went in for it's first MOT test today since the new engine was installed recently. All went. The emissions reading came in at .060. Contrast this with a reading of .750 on the old engine at the last test in 2012. It was this high reading in the emissions that first started me thinking I had a problem with the engine. The whole saga is documented in these pages. Anyway feeling good today
 1982 88" 2.25 diesel
1992 110 200tdi csw -Zikali 2008 110 2.4 tdci csw-Zulu 2011 110 2.4 tdci csw-Masai |
||
7th Jun 2014 2:26pm |
|
| Caterham Member Since: 06 Nov 2008 Location: Birmingham Posts: 6298  
|
Spudfan - great news.
and in for my second MOT today which it flew through. emissions were apparently so low they had to be written out ? - don't really know what means but apparently my emissions were good enough to breath
so low emissions, low fuel consumption and high power |
||
|
10th Oct 2014 11:53am |
|
| X4SKP Member Since: 29 Nov 2013 Location: Berkshire Posts: 2295  
|
Hello Caterham,
Ditto…well almost. Mine also had its second MOT today, and passed with an overall Smoke Test Result (fast pass) of 0.22, (Max allowed 1.5) Smoke Reading Peak was 0.25 Zero Drift 0.03 (Max allowed 0.1) Average was 0.22 Does anyone on here know for a Class IV / 2.4 tdci what all this means 
(scoring 0.22 from a maximum allowed of 1.5 looks to OK, but is it )
Anyway I got a print out today Caterham, so no ‘hand written record’ here because the machine couldn’t believe the results…unlike yours mines not good enough to breathe 
Putting a Defender through an MOT I’m a reasonable mechanic, but don’t turn my hand to everything, generally if it needs replacing more often than not, I’ll give it a go, learning on the job so to speak. Today’s MOT pass has a little to do with this approach, but mainly, despite some annoying shortfalls with the Defender, which don’t constitute an MOT failure, fit and finish, water ingress, corrosion prevention, or rather the lack of it, (reference water ingress) the Defender is basically a tough package and today’s pass, I think, has more to do with this fact than anything else. For me this marks my 25th Pass (with no failures) even factoring in some of my efforts to look after the Defenders I've owned, and ignoring those passes on younger vehicles, facing there early MOT’s… this success rate must be because the Defender is tougher than we think. Have others generally had a good result with their Defenders at the MOT Station
(I'm assuming the days of ‘well your breaks work, you stopped here, here’s your ticket' have long gone for everyone) So on a forum that naturally has many threads exploring numerous problems with Defenders (really useful when you’re looking for a fix... thanks) I just thought I’d give a thumbs up to the vehicle we've chosen...
Series III 1988 – 1993 6 Passes 300tdi New 1994 (1997-2013) 17 Passes 2.4 tdci New 2010 (2013-2014) 2 Passes SKIP https://www.defender2.net/forum/topic83242.html |
||
|
10th Oct 2014 2:09pm |
|
| X4SKP Member Since: 29 Nov 2013 Location: Berkshire Posts: 2295
|
Thanks martinfiattech
Sorry if i'm playing catch up here but I take it this is what you do. And not a bad explanation too...
What would you say are the main reasons for a Diesel (Defender) to test poorly on a Smoke Test Poor Maintenance, Hard Engine use, too many Miles ? I would be interested to know. My old 300dti (1994 / 100K Miles) tested better, when warm, and when it had recently been 'cleared out' by either running it at a high speed, or 'held' for longer than normal in a few of its lower gears. The improvements in its readings were only marginal but were there... (a morning spent at my local MOT station). CAT or Non CAT is another question... If you should have one but don't are your readings higher
DPF also,..if removed the readings will be higher i guess
Oh and standard Diesel Vs Super Diesel + all those additives... I need to go and lie down SKIP
https://www.defender2.net/forum/topic83242.html |
||
|
15th Oct 2014 9:52pm |
|
| munch90 Member Since: 26 Oct 2013 Location: guildford Posts: 3558
|
dpf reduces soot/carbon , the black stuff in your smoke ( also a dpf has a cat in it too , to reduce NOx also )
cat reduces NOxin diesel smoke , so having no cat will not give higher readings on smoke test as smoke test is only for soot/carbon not what the smoke is made up of ( ok some will say having no cat has reduced emissions as engine runs better etc , but not enough to worry about I think ) |
||
|
15th Oct 2014 10:10pm |
|
| Cupboard Member Since: 21 Mar 2014 Location: Suffolk Posts: 2971 
|
I would expect that M-1 should read as M with the -1 as a superscript, as in "to the power of -1". Often written as M^-1.
It just means the inverse, in this case "1/M". If it was M-2 then that would be "One over M squared", M-3 "One over M cubed". The other thing you might see is something like 5*10^-3. 10^-3 being 1/(10^3) that means 5/1000. If you saw something like 5m^3h^-1 that would be 5 metres cubed over hours, i.e. 5 meters cubed per hour. End of maths lesson  |
||
|
16th Oct 2014 7:55am |
|
| martinfiattech Member Since: 13 Nov 2013 Location: leicester Posts: 422
|
All of what you have said is right. x4 skp
As long as the engine is well serviced, including valve clearances on older engines (easily overlooked) induction circuit free of excessive carbon / oily deposits. The fuel injectors have a good spray pattern ( this gives correct spray pattern to fully atomise the fuel within the combustion chamber). This coupled with the above will induce the correct air to fuel ratio allowing the fuel air mix to be correctly ignited. Older engines with mechanical injection pumps may need what`s called there spill timming adjusting to correct the fuel delivery, ( this is the fine adjustment ) as people like to adjust this to get more power, only problem is it will smoke due to over fuelling. But if you want more power from a 200 TDI it`s what you do !! A cat or dpf as said won`t really reduce the soot emitted. They only reduce gases, of which we can not see let alone test for at this time. So right know you can remove your cat or dpf and it won`t make any difference to your emissions. But if you do remove it PUT or make something that looks like a cat or dpf in it`s place so it will pass it`s mot, as right now it`s a visual check on it`s presence. Oh yea forgot to add if I understood maths like you cupboard I would`ent be doing this for a living !! Excuse the spelling I`am better with spanners and wires. |
||
|
19th Oct 2014 4:09pm |
|
| spudfan Member Since: 10 Sep 2007 Location: Co Donegal Posts: 4662
|
2011 2.4 Puma came in with a reading of 0.1 today. 1982 88" 2.25 diesel
1992 110 200tdi csw -Zikali 2008 110 2.4 tdci csw-Zulu 2011 110 2.4 tdci csw-Masai |
||
|
10th Dec 2015 5:02pm |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018 
|
For 2010 Defender 110s: 75.7% pass rate from 1,225 tests between August 2012 and July 2013 (33% worse than other 2010 cars) and for all 110s: 59.2% pass rate from 37,068 tests between August 2012 and July 2013 http://good-garage-guide.honestjohn.co.uk/...r-110/2010 |
||
|
13th Dec 2015 6:18pm |
|
| X4SKP Member Since: 29 Nov 2013 Location: Berkshire Posts: 2295
|
Hello Supacat
Interesting... so overall and from a reasonably large sample (1,225) to a large sample (37,068) Defenders have a 25-40% failure rate... The 60:40 split... Pass / Fail on such a large sample is a good indication on the probable result. I guess on reflection a higher than average (normal car) failure rate reflects that some Defenders out there are have a harder than normal life, if we accept that they are tough enough to cope with normal everyday use. I'm clearly not using mine in anger...  SKIP
https://www.defender2.net/forum/topic83242.html |
||
|
14th Dec 2015 11:29am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
