Can you ever get the horses back? As for the much aligned Rover, I think most of its horses are now ponies but they are still pretty quick ponies. Back to thread, do you think as mentioned early cats like on my Rover will need upgrading?
Technical To Cat Or Not To Cat......
- Thread starter Palio
- Start date
Currently reading:
Technical To Cat Or Not To Cat......
If I'm reading it right, a 1991 car will still be eligible for the non-cat test? August seems to be the changeover.
At least I hope so - the 900 has never had a cat fitted and that was built in 1991 (although the current engine is from 89). My reading of the info is that pre-August 1992 will have the 1200ppm / 3.5% test?
At least I hope so - the 900 has never had a cat fitted and that was built in 1991 (although the current engine is from 89). My reading of the info is that pre-August 1992 will have the 1200ppm / 3.5% test?
OP
OP
I got confused for a minute - why did your 1000 Panda have a 900 Panda engine fitted! :doh: Please rename the Saab 900 range, to avoid Panda confusion......
If it's never had a cat it won't have a cat test, so you'll be fine.
OP
OP
That's an interesting question - I don't know, as I don't know what causes them to go - anyone? I suppose a good tune up helps?
An early cat working correctly will keep passing the test, as the test is moulded to their capabilities. They do stop working sometimes and need replacing, but apparently nothing like the original scare stories (about 5/6 years they said at one stage!).
I wonder this myself, a 750 surely can't loose too many of its original 34 or it wouldn't really be an engine anymore...
Top Gear kind of proved this at some point I recall when they were trying to make a Renault Avantime as fast as... something else, around their track. I seem to recall they put it on the rolling road and obviously it wasn't still producing the BHP it did when new but after a simple service and a slight tune up it was back up to roughly the manufacturer specs.
I think I could manage the same level of mechanical excellence as Jeremy (where's my hammer)
Agree
That's an interesting question - I don't know, as I don't know what causes them to go - anyone? I suppose a good tune up helps?
An early cat working correctly will keep passing the test, as the test is moulded to their capabilities. They do stop working sometimes and need replacing, but apparently nothing like the original scare stories (about 5/6 years they said at one stage!).
At least I've sold the 9000 - you'd be having nightmares of Pandas with big-block V8s in them!
My original reply was supposed to say it never had one in my ownership, but I would have had one back in the day. Guess one of the 12 previous owners saw fit to chuck it...
Nevertheless, I think a pre Aug-92 car can be put through the non-cat test, regardless of what was originally fitted.
Last edited:
And what would I gain or lose by taking the cat off?
OP
OP
POWWEEERRRR!!!!!
Oops sorry, a bit Clarkson there.
Officially the catalyst saves all the lickle bunny wabbits.
Unofficially it strangles the engine, doesn't allow it to breathe properly & saps power. Iirc that was the main reason fuel injection had to be fitted to cars like the Panda. Back in the mists of time, there was actually a small premium on a non-cat used car!
We've got used to them now, but lean burn was a better way to go, until it was killed off by governments with another agenda. :bang:
Correct, unburnt fuel in CAT's kills them by causing them to overheat.
TBH I'm all for them, they have made a positive difference in air quality since the late 90's when most cars now have them (Ie older cars without are being scrap etc).
I've recently started to take up walking, training for my sponsored walk of Hadrian's wall in May, in the city centre routes around ring roads the worst thing is the crap from Diesel cars, you can physically feel it clogging your nose and lungs etc. When DPFs become a lot more common, in time, they along with CATs will make a huge difference to inner city air quality imo.
OP
OP
True, although my 127 would actually pass an early CAT test apparently :worship:
I don't like diesel, sorry I know it's advantages for high mileage drivers, but still...... I'd happily ban it completely, especially in buses which seem to chuck out an unbelievable amount of smoke! :devil:
Hi mileage user myself I see the benefit from my side, but I think they should be banned from central London, as with diesel busses like you say, I can't see why they don't petrol LPG them. So much cleaner!
Diesel tech is moving on and getting better but I hate with a passion those who have or buy them and only use them in city centres or do stupidly low mileage in them.
Well re-test today and..... [drum roll]
The tester read the flow chart info and followed the non-cat test. Which means a nice shiny pass. Looks like one more example to add weight to the argument.
Thanks Gavin Palio for your help with this - the Trials Panda is now road legal (or it will be when I tax it!).
David
The tester read the flow chart info and followed the non-cat test. Which means a nice shiny pass. Looks like one more example to add weight to the argument.
Thanks Gavin Palio for your help with this - the Trials Panda is now road legal (or it will be when I tax it!).
David
Ok I lost the thread where I suggested my reading of the MOT tester's manual meant that a 16V Panda didn't need a Cat to pass the MOT.
Having taken a 127 for its MOT yesterday (pass, of course!
Initially he said a 1998 16V engine in a 1993 Panda meant it needed a Cat test based on the older of the 2 (ie the 1993 bit). I pointed out my reading of the flow charts and we then followed them carefully.......
1993 car gets tested as though Cat fitted - fails emissions. Falls into the interim category as its 1992-1995 then go to find EXACT match in the appendix. It presumably won't be there because the Panda with that engine never existed. Flowchart then says carry out non-cat test. Result should be a pass without a cat needed. Mot tester agreed with my view but only after looking at the flowcharts carefully - may be useful for anyone else with a similar car - certainly it means I will not have a cat on the project Panda looking Panda to see how we get on
I would be really interested in someone else checking this with their MOT tester, to make sure we're not missing something. :worship:
I can't believe this is actually working. Effectively, any 1992-1995 registered car doesn't need a cat if it has a non-standard engine and crucially the stricter emissions test either.
I'll be presenting mine next time round without a cat then.
I'll be presenting mine next time round without a cat then.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Well re-test today and..... [drum roll]
The tester read the flow chart info and followed the non-cat test. Which means a nice shiny pass. Looks like one more example to add weight to the argument.
Thanks Gavin Palio for your help with this - the Trials Panda is now road legal (or it will be when I tax it!).
David
Brilliant, thanks for the update David.
I'm pleased this seems to be accepted by the testers when they're asked to consider it. Clearly it's not how the rules were intended to work, but hey, a loophole's still a loophole! There's enough doubt in the way it's written to support this interpretation - there will be very few cars in the right age bracket with different engines (we just happen to have most of them in this section!).
I don't suppose every mot tester will accept this easily, but 3 different ones in a row is a good start.
lewey I'm really sorry you'd already changed your engine when this came to light. I'm feeling quite bad that our good news is the opposite for you
lewey I'm really sorry you'd already changed your engine when this came to light. I'm feeling quite bad that our good news is the opposite for you
Don't worry about that! It's still good news. Always good to have a new engine and I've still got the car, so that is the main thing.
Similar threads
