M.O.T. fail on -

Dedicated to owners of Citroen GS and GSA models.

Moderator: RichardW

User avatar
Stonehopper
Posts: 234
Joined: 24 Feb 2012, 17:10

Re: M.O.T. fail on -

Post by Stonehopper » 22 May 2015, 15:44

Well, it's turned over - and I'm gobsmacked and relieved.

"Stupid boy!" :oops:

Hell Razor5543
NOT Alistair or Simon
Posts: 8259
Joined: 01 Apr 2012, 09:47

Re: M.O.T. fail on -

Post by Hell Razor5543 » 22 May 2015, 15:58

I have several sayings, one of which goes "There are no such things as stupid questions, but dumb mistakes do exist". If you don't know the answer, ask the question.

User avatar
macplaxton
Posts: 168
Joined: 08 Jun 2011, 18:09

Re: M.O.T. fail on -

Post by macplaxton » 22 May 2015, 21:51

Stonehopper wrote:I'm gobsmacked and relieved.


My flabber has been gasted. =D>

User avatar
Stonehopper
Posts: 234
Joined: 24 Feb 2012, 17:10

Re: M.O.T. fail on -

Post by Stonehopper » 28 May 2015, 10:20

Back for the test - passed straight through. Happy face. I didn't mention it before, but it also failed on CO emissions registering 4.664 (max limit 4.500) This was found to be a loose connection to the coil. A squeeze of the female tab saw the new reading at 3.262.

Little things etc.

Here's a thing: Just had notice that a white pilot bulb within the same shell as a yellow headlamp bulb is a no-no according to DVSA. Never heard that one before, and it doesn't affect separated side lights as on G's, but my MOT man checked out the legality while I was there, and he came back with a confirmation that this is so - BUT, he also stated that the wording was ambiguous, and could be misread. It seems the pilot bulb in such an instance needs to be the same colour as the headlight bulb.

citronut
Posts: 10974
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 00:46

Re: M.O.T. fail on -

Post by citronut » 28 May 2015, 13:45

Stonehopper wrote:Back for the test - passed straight through. Happy face. I didn't mention it before, but it also failed on CO emissions registering 4.664 (max limit 4.500) This was found to be a loose connection to the coil. A squeeze of the female tab saw the new reading at 3.262.


glad she got a pass,

seems strange the loose coil connection should bring the Co up, what were the HC's at,

usually ignition problems will affect the HC more so than the Co, although if the Co come down with the revs held up a bit, this does normally suggest an ignition fault


Stonehopper wrote:BUT, he also stated that the wording was ambiguous,


doesnt that apply to the hole MOT rule book :roll: :shock: #-o :-D :wink:

Stonehopper wrote:the pilot bulb in such an instance needs to be the same colour as the headlight bulb.


thats just racist in'it

User avatar
Stonehopper
Posts: 234
Joined: 24 Feb 2012, 17:10

Re: M.O.T. fail on -

Post by Stonehopper » 28 May 2015, 15:27

Yes, previously I did experience a cough and splutter just once on the way to the station, but it seemed to run OK other than that. Matey stated that it seemed to be misfiring a bit on that occasion. It ran sweet on the way home though.

This time he reckoned it had no such misfire, and I had checked the dwell and timing which were within the desired ranges after I got back first time expecting something to have changed from a year ago - but nothing. Without a gas analyser at home I was restricted to tuning by ear - but had left the carb strictly alone between the two tests, anticipating needing to tweak the pilot jet screw a tad if need be. But this was not needed at all as he said it sailed through emissions without even a decent warm up, and the only thing I had done was squeeze the female terminal on tighter.

I've binned the first set of readings now, but can remember the CO was exactly 4.664, and the HC from memory was in the 300's (limit 1200 of course).
This time the CO was 3.262 and HC 237. A misfire would lead to unburnt fuel, and I guess tipping the readings.

Edit to add: I do remember the tester saying he ran the engine at fast idle to see if it improved on the first test, but it didn't.

Got a result on the second test - which was well over the 10 days free period - £25. Normal price £39.95 which is what I had expected to pay. Five years ago in Hertfordshire I was paying £54 for an MOT!

citronut
Posts: 10974
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 00:46

Re: M.O.T. fail on -

Post by citronut » 28 May 2015, 18:33

i would still bring the Co down a tad more if you get a chance to stick it back on a gas analyser, as citroen state 1.5 to 2.5,

the MOT station might only charge about a fiver to bung it back on, if you do get it nice and hot first though, as that is how it is mean to be set up, at normal running temperature

User avatar
macplaxton
Posts: 168
Joined: 08 Jun 2011, 18:09

Re: M.O.T. fail on -

Post by macplaxton » 28 May 2015, 22:14

Good to hear the car has now passed.

With regards to the Testers' manual wording...

[Information]...Two front position lamps must be fitted, one on each side and show a steady white light to the front (or yellow if incorporated in a yellow headlamp)

[Method of Inspection]...3. Check that the lamps: (e.) show light of the correct colour. Note: Some front position lamps have a blue tinge to the light. This is acceptable provided the light is predominantly white.

[Reason for Rejection]... 3. An obligatory lamp: (e.) shows a light other than red to the rear and white to the front (or yellow if a front position lamp is incorporated in a yellow headlamp)


I'm not sure how that could be misread :?

Separate position lamp must be white. Separate headlamps can be white or yellow.
If position lamp is part of headlamp, can be white position lamp/white headlamp or yellow position lamp/yellow headlamp, but not mixed.

(If you have a US-spec car with amber front position lamps, add a pair of white front position lamps and then the existing amber ones become non-obligatory and not testable)

Or just disconnect the lot, or paint over the lot, or mask the lot and go for a "daytime" MOT :lol: