New MOT rules are due to come into force this spring, but there is already concern that they could put the safety of vehicles at risk. Under the new system, a new set of failure and defect categories will be introduced labelling problems as ‘dangerous’, ‘major’ or ‘minor’. The RAC is concerned that while any dangerous faults will lead to failure, vehicles with minor problems will pass the test.
EU roadworthiness package
The new measures are part of the EU Roadworthiness Package that is being introduced in May 2018. There are concerns that the classification will leave the seriousness of defects open to the interpretation of the tester, and this could lead to confusion.
RAC Spokesman Simon Williams said that while the new changes might seem sensible, they are concerned that many motorists could become confused by the system when indicating how serious a fault is with their car.
Rather than creating a straightforward black and white system of pass or fail, the new system leaves the status of the vehicle open to interpretations and could vary from one test centre to another. There are also other changes coming in that could further confuse matters.
Changing status
For example, under the new guidelines, there will be new criteria for steering mechanisms. A steering box leaking oil would be a minor fault, but there is room for interpretation on the part of the tester. So, while some might see it as trivial, others might see it as dangerous and fail the car.
The RAC went on to say that while they acknowledged that the government had little choice in the new regulations, they believe that the current MOT system works fine and doesn’t need to be amended.
Emissions again
Another area to see a change is emission testing for vehicles, following the scandal in recent years with the diesel cars. Any car that has a diesel particulate filter or DPF will be issued with a ‘major’ fault if there is any visible smoke from the vehicle, regardless of the colour.
There will also be checks to see if the DPF has been ‘tampered’ with or ‘removed’ and if the tester finds it has, then the owner must prove ‘legitimate reasons’ for this action such as cleaning. But any car without one can be failed without any further reason.
This highlights the ongoing anti-diesel movement from the authorities with new measures being harsher on diesel vehicles than on petrol. Garages have been required to check the DPF as part of the MOT since 2014, but the new standards will see an instant fail if the vehicle is producing smoke of any kind and the filter is missing or altered.
Maintaining a DPF
The DPF is designed to capture and store those harmful exhaust particles that cause so many problems when they escape into the air. The issue is they only have a finite lifespan and need to be emptied or burned off to regenerate and continue to function correctly.
In most cases, a good run down the motorway is the solution for removing the excess emissions soot in the DPF. It ensures that the car doesn’t emit smoke of any colour, especially the tell-tale black smoke associated with diesel engines.
Euro 5 regulations introduced in 2009 made them compulsory. If you have one on your vehicle and you haven’t had a good run down the motorway, you might be best to have a garage check the DPF before your MOT comes around.
Get your new MOT
So, under the new test, if your vehicle has any dangerous or significant faults it will be an automatic failure. These new measures with the DPF could condemn diesel cars to a retest. But for minor problems, your car could still pass – but be wary as it could need some more work doing to keep it running in top condition.
How do you feel about the new MOT? Do you think that it is safe? Let us know in the comments below
more people will start driving without a MOT me included
Do you really think that is responsible. You have a duty of care to others road users. The extension of that is using it without road fund licence. And if you won’t get it MOTd will you insure it?
Don’t be a moron. Plus, with the abundance of ANPR cameras these days, it wouldn’t be long before you’re either stopped by the plod, or get a nice brown envelope through your door with a fine.
That would also mean you are not covered by your insurance as your car has been classed as unroadworthy.
I do not condone driving an unroadworthy car, or a car with no MOT, but your comment is false. Having no MOT does not remove the obligations of the insurer, and it will still be covered.
If it transpires that the accident is caused by something that would not have passed an MOT, then the insurer could file to recoup their losses by having the policyholder pay them back.
Why do people state these misconceptions as fact? It is so easy to fact check what you are spouting before you spout it, thus not presenting false statements as fact.
So try taxing your car without an MOT. Can’t be done. No tax = no insurance
That’s not true – you can get insurance without having tax. Insurance is always the first step – get insured so you can drive to the test centre and get an MoT. If the vehicle MoT certificate has expired AND the tax has expired, you can still legally drive, but specifically only to a test centre (and to a garage for mandated repairs after a test failure). Beyond that point you must then have a valid MoT test pass and pay the due VED.
Why can we opt out. We have done with many other legislation so why not this, in the view of brexit?
I think it’s a disgrace that all this time we have been told diesel is good then all of a sudden it’s bad and we, the motorist, end up paying for the misinformation
Strangely enough, the same thing happened with smoking cigarettes!
The same thing happened with our membership of the EU!
It is the membership of the eu that caused all these problems,as they dictated to our useless government what to do.SdV1Y
Dumbest s*** I ever did read.
Diesel comes from same oil as petrol. It’s just a different distillate. Also all the Volvo hybrids are diesel. There has been a lot of effort into “lean burn” petrol but diesel is better for distance motorway cruising due to higher torque meaning lower RPM leading to better MPG and less emissions. It’s not so good for short runs though.
The political influence has always been there. I was working in engine development at Rover in the early 90s and we were looking at lean burn technology, which all the indications said would be the best way forward, but we were prevented by government legislation from introducing it, as we ended up having to go down the route of closed loop catalyst systems that increased fuel consumption.
that’s EU regs – as prescribed by german auto co’s. And I’m a remainer.
Volvo hybrids are all petrol with the exception of the V60 D6 which is a plug in diesel hybrid.
Not all the Volvo Hybrids are diesel, the V60 is the only one in fact that is (D5 and D6 versions).
The new XC60/XC90/S90/V90 hybrids are Petrol Hybrids.
Real MPG on a V60 when not using electric mode is 44MPG at best. The V60 D4 can get well into the 60’s. For work and back every day though, well you can’t really count it. My V60 Hybrid at 18 months has an average of 68MPG, includes two long trips to Germany.
Another hidden feature of some hybrids, mine included, is the inability to heat the vehicle without fuel usage. Plugged in it can, but on the road it either uses the engine, or the onboard fuel driven heater to heat the cabin. My daily commute of 18 miles definitely sees the fuel being used as I opted to let the onboard heater function. Sure I don’t use fuel to drive the car, but I am still using fuel and I am not so sure this is reflected on the onboard computer as fuel usage. I’m now considering a Petrol engined vehicle for long distance cruising and a pure electric for the commute. I’d love to combine the two but am not confident enough in the charging infrastructure yet.
2 years to go on the hybrid lease, will see if the Tesla model 3 impresses me at that point, or if other manufacturers have managed to produce something as good or better.
You are wrong diesel comes from the same crude oil as petrol so get your facts right.Becausd governments change their minds it is the motorist that finishes up by paying.What has been missed is by adding an adblue injection system to diesel vehicles the only exhaust emission becomes nitrogen and water and you cant have a more non poluting ehaust than that
You’re wrong Stephen and get your facts right. Both diesel and petrol come from the same oil. However, diesel is a low destilation fraction of crude oil and hence containes a lot of pollutants eg. low mass hydrocarbons and other harmful more organics. Petrol, on the other hand is a high, the purest fraction of crude oil destilation product. Adblue is good theory but as seen with VW guite a big lie.
AdBlue is a liquid solution of urea, and when it meets a hot exhaust system it releases ammonia which is a catalyst to a chemical reaction that converts dangerous Nitrogen Oxides into two harmless products – water vapour and Nitrogen. Both products occur naturally, and so can be pumped out of an AdBlue equipped car without any ill effects.
Good explanation! But how efficient is the ammonia catalyst, and over time for undoing the oxidation of nitrogen passing through the engine?
No need to be rude to people here
Michael, for gods sake get over your self
except for the micro particulates that DPFs don’t catch. or so I hear.
Wrong. diesels burn way more efficiently. sadly, this produces NOx, which is worse than we thought. Petrol engineers are adopting diesel tech to up their efficiency. Its Petrol for hydrids because of the Power-to-weight ratio; necessary when you’re lumbered with half a tonne of battery pack.
Bangham-up: If you had half a tonne of batteries, you wouldn’t need an engine!
I wish everyone would stop calling them electric cars or hybrids, they are coal cars, nothing more because it is coal fired power stations that are producing the electricity to charge them.
Under certain circumstances petrol engine also produce Nitrous Oxides (NOx)
Burning plant based materials releases Nitrous Oxides as all plants contain Nitrogen.
Chemical and Industrial processes which use Nitric Acid, Nitrates or Nitrites will release NOx gasses.
Absolutely Craig. I bought a new diesel car in 2014 after all the hype about how it was the best choice – and now this 🙁
There is a law against that kind of thing, it’s called the Misrepresentation Act, so if the government claimed diesel was good and now its bad, they misrepresented their claims..!!
well, you will get good mileage if you’re doing longer journeys and you are producing a lot less CO2.
Sorry Paul, but you clearly are very mis-informed. Diesel made from crude oil, the same that is used for petrol. Petrol comes off further up the distillation chain, diesel is an ‘oil’ so it is much ‘thicker’ or ‘heavier’.
Engineers have come up with more efficient petrol engines, using diesel technologies such as piezo injection and turbocharging that how you can get more power per liter than 20 years ago. Where have you been looking for your information?!?!
There is such a thing as a diesel hybrid, very few as if you understand torque, you would find that it is much more suited to HGV applications than cars. If a car had a diesel hybrid, it would have so much torque on electric only mode, and then only a little less at a higher rpm, resulting in a vehicle that is difficult to drive. Manufacturers could have designed them to be diesel generator hybrids where the engine runs a generator and not the wheels, but that’s to this anti-diesel anarchy we see in this article, sadly this will never see this as a reality, even though it makes the most sense. It’s a shame that poor understanding by the government such as the comments you made is what hits the motorist in the pocket the most and makes Automotive Engineers such as myself whom spend their lives making it more viable for the motorist such a waste of time.
Been talking about diesel generator cars for years, but everyone dismisses me. Well said Shah. I’m not an engineer btw
@craig yes it was a disgrace, lesson learned, move on
diesel is good for low CO2 – far far better than petrol. trouble is the manufacturers didn’t put in the tech to deal with NOX which they promised to do until the credit crunch came along.
Petrol gives a big CO2 problem. Trouble is this kind of explanation is considered too complicated for the average Joe so they don’t explain it.
Basically, this is the Governments’ way of removing diesel cars from the roads, at the owners’ expense, rather than have to foot the bill for a diesel scrappage scheme.
Should just leave it the old way as it’s just a money making system for the government
Nothing to do with the government, its legislation being forced through by the EU, the government had no say in the matter.
Well actually, at the moment the Government does have a say in the regulations coming from the EU and it doesn’t have to implement them, as France and Germany have done in the past. If we leave the EU we will have no say but will be forced to implement the regulations if we want to keep trading with the EU. So in effect we are better off staying in the EU.
Mark if we refuse to trade with the EU they will soon stop trying to force us to implement these reg’s in the uk
Mark
you are overlooking the fact that EU laws are made by unelected commissioners and individual countrys do not have the chance to veto them.
” Government does have a say in the regulations coming from the EU ….” Really ? Another Government lie – like Global Warming.
all members HAVE to implement EU laws, regulations are different. The EU puppet parliament can’t make any laws but must obey the diktat of their unelected masters
No but they will reap the Benefit, Higher cost to us means more VAT for them.
It has nothing to do with the UK Government, it is more EU crap being forced down out throat. The sooner we are out from under their control the better.
Read Special Notice 01-18
It looks like a cash cow, why, if the current system works, change it. As I said, it’s a cash cow.
It’s being forced in by the EU. Blame them, not the government.
I voted to leave, as did the majority of people who believe that Britain should rule Britain. Our forefathers fought two world wars to ensure that we did, and now look what we have let ourselves into. The way things are looking I could be dead before this government gets us (ACTUALLY) out. We will be theoretically out in a couple of years, BUT still paying IN, and still accepting their laws ruling US.
The Government was already onto the DPF removal issue without EU intefrrence. Sorry that is a good thing. Trouble was people buying DPF equipped diesels were not made aware of the rigours of managing them – especially in the early days when I was frequently involved in serious and major customer haggles over the issue of blocked DPF’s and frequent engine oil changes (due to urban stop start driving requiring constant – and often ineffective – Regen).
Once again the EU is sticking it’s nose in and making legislation without consultation. It’s no wonder we voted for Brexit. The sooner we are out the better.
Can’t come too soon for me Peter,I would like to see the p..y EU get rid of all diesel vehicles in Europe,especially countries such as Poland,Ukraine or Romania,there would be total anarchy,I can’t wait.
Don’t blame the EU, in most of the EEC Diesel is cheaper than petrol. Who will the politicians blame when we leave?
We’ve already had to swallow the scandal of being ripped off and hoodwinked by VW over diesel engine emissions (without any compensation for being missold, unlike US customers) and the resulting questionable ‘fix’, and now we have to deal with this too. All this after being encouraged to buy a diesel!!!
lt is now the plan by the current government to remove the far more economical diesel for the fuel hungry petrol vehicles, to ‘recover’ the massive loss in Fuel Duty revenue that came about when a previous government deemed diesels a good thing. However, this changeover to petrol has seen a 14% increase in CO2 levels (according to this website) in the last year, so now we have government backed global warming !
Global warming is a myth. It’s just natural cycles the Earth goes through.
Lol. Extinction is a myth….it’s also a natural thing.
Forgetting global warming (for now) the whole pointis cars pollute. Stand on a hill near a busy road and breathe the clean air, then walk down to beside the road and breathe. Notice any difference?
Diesel, Petrol, Gas they are all finite resources and are going to run out at some point, so we should be focusing on making better cleaner fuels. We should reinvest in public transport to make it easier to get the bus than jump in your car.
My old bus company is still using S anT regs so how old are they, 20 years old and its a big company, where i live now has up to date buses, I haven’t seen a 54 plate yet
It is the same company
New Electric cars are no greener than any other car because of all the carbon used to produce the batteries etc.
How many power stations will be needed to power vehicles when we go all electric? How many countries will be exploited to harvest lithium? How much will it cost the vehicle owner when they need to have a battery change? And lastly would you buy a second hand electric vehicle when, in the back of you mind, you are worried how long before you will need to renew the battery.
i look at it another way these electric vehicles like BMW i8 and the Tesla type which cost £100k plus ……..all the man hours and materials that are used , WELL THATS NOT ECO
We are told that parts of Siberia used to be tropical forests. Maybe it was due to the number of Diesel busses on the 2,000 year old bus routes?
I agreed natural planet cycle. What I’m sure st school they told us about the ice age and ice covering two thirds of the planet. I guess the dinasoiurs were driving in cars. Car only emit a very small portion of co2. Volcanoes erupting for 1hrs lit more co2 into the atmosphere the all the car in Britain over 1 year. What about house hold boilers at 14%. Let’s out a tax on that too!! All smoke and mirrors to justify all the tax!! Gav P
Gavin,
Think you are probably right, particularly when the government would not promote a “hydrogen on demand” system that was proved by one of their own test station to be cleaner than a catalytic converter installed on a van.
Test was carried out with a catalytic converter and passed, vehicle was taken away had the CAT removed and a “hydrogen on demand” system fitted and Re-tested at the same testing station and passed a similar test resulting in far lower emission.
May well be right about it all being about tax rather than cleaner emissions.
Tax the volcanoes.
Obviously as we are now finding animals in the melting perma-frost. We need global warming to bring these northern climes into food production to feed the extra 2 billion humans by 2050.
What planet are you living on. Clearly got your head in the sand
well said I agree the earth is going through its natural cycles
And you are?
In your opinion.
Don’t worry, whether gobal warming is a myth or not the earth will look after itself. It will be here long after humankind has blasted (or driven) itself to kingdom come.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, it might dilute the anti-freeze.
I agree with the bulk of what you say, but the part about global warming is a misnomer. If you think that us, puny little man can change the climate of an entire planet, you are hard of thinking.
Manmade(up) global warming does not exist, not even a little bit. The sooner it is seen by those that think it is true as the money making scam that it is, the better.
It is no more real than any magical sky fairy, unicorns, and an honest government.
Whilst I agree with you Neil, I would add that “global warming” has been used by governments as a form of control, the extension of this to attack diesel being just a further extension of this politicians’ control freakery. As has been noted elsewhere, they are also doing it to try and make up for revenues lost by the switch to diesel.
I do in part agree, What I find amazing is that the size of the UK compared with the rest of the world is going to effect anything for the better and we are Taxing ourselves out of any competing with any other countries..Stop putting the failers of Goverment to solve all problems on diesel drivers!
Neil, A grain of sand can’t sink a ship, but putting enough grains in there over a period of time, and down she goes. So, enough people emitting enough crap into the atmosphere over a period of time,can (and will!) destroy our planet.
…its not grains of sand or cars for that matter – just look at
https://planefinder.net/
at the time of writing this there are 10,848 planes in the sky. As they land others will take-off, an average of 102,465 flights per day.
It’s estimated that a plane produces a little over 53 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile.
When Governments address cars and not aircraft pollution then we know they are being hypocritical.
I’ve been saying this for years, and even if it was true, what on earth can this pinprick of an island do to heal the world .
7 billion of us are having a massive effect on the climate. Go and join Donald Trump, Nigel Lawson and the rest of the 1% of climate scientists who do not follow the real science.
Jon, 1% who do not beleive in the fanatical claims of those whose exsistance relys on funding to make claims that we are heading for Armagedon!!!!!
Your claim at such a low figure is no different to the 99% of those you beleive who tell the truth about climate change.
Would you like to join the likes of Professor Ian Plimer?
Humankind is a virus on the face of the planet.
We may be puny, but with our exponential birth rate and voracious appetite for fuel we will bring about our own demise. Yes the earth has been warming naturally since before the industrial revolution, but us clearing the green spaces burning their content and replacing them with cities is not helping the situation. The rate of which is most alarming. There are rules preventing a farmer from putting a thousand cattle on an acre of land and we should be looking to limit the human species in the same way. Simply by limiting children to two per couple would begin a fall in numbers. In this country that would be a waste of time if we have open borders and other countries are allowed ship their excess to us.
It would be reasonable to limit our population to ‘that which we can produce sufficient food to sustain them.’ Our generation has used so much of the worlds energy, what would we do now if we had been left in the position that we will leave future generations? Build more solar farms, of course!
Err, but that would use up much of our food producing land. So once again.., we have to begin to limit our population. We have to accept that people cause pollution, it’s no good taxing it, we need to limit the cause.
Into every discussion comes a zealot. Remind us again what this has to do with new MOT rules in the UK?
What planet do you come from, your surname wouldn’t be Trump by any chance?.
It’s people that think like you that will end all life on this planet as we know it.
Agreed 100%. Its a scam to control tax revenues.
What relationship does the gas emitted into the air have with the roads?
None, but the weight of a vehicle directly affects the wear and tear on the roads.
So the vast majority of independent scientists are hard of thinking? I think I will trust them rather than someone on the net. It is true that you can find the odd scientific study funded by big energy companies and oil that says otherwise, but just like with smoking was all the way back from the 1950s the independent scientist are in total agreement and fighting against a campaign from companies that are employing shills, maybe even yourself, to spread proper gander and lies. Maybe it is someone who listens to crack pots and folks on the net that is hard up in the brain cell department? Or maybe you are being paid? Who knows.
Just remind me what the “experts” were saying about the climate back in the 70’s? I seem to remember it was that there would be a return to ice age conditions and there would be no oil left by the year 2000, probably why many people don’t trust what they say now? Any idea what the question all the climate experts agreed on? Anyway at least they have their useful followers now who chant the same old stuff.
and don’t forget the furore of acid rain, never hear about that now!
That’s because they removed sulphur from fuel?
In a nutshell, that is exactly the truth of the matter
You would be nuts to try that with a modern diesel!!
Diesel engines are significantly more advanced and complex than petrol engines. Now petrol engines are in the lime light we’re seeing high pressure direct fuel injection, turbo charged engines – cleaner, quicker and more economical than the predecessors. The same thing happened to diesels in the late 90’s and it didn’t take long for them to become very efficient.
Diesels were easy candidates for high pressure injection due to their fuel not being explosive! They were also easily and cheaply turbo charged because the exhaust gas temperature is much lower (which means much simpler more cost effective bearings can be used). The also achieve a very high combustion efficiency due to compression ignition. Interestingly, this is one technology that is only just beginning to be controlled successfully by researchers and developers around the globe, I don’t expect to see it anytime soon in a petrol engine near me, and it is probably the most difficult and vital component of achieving cheap and easy combustion efficiency.
Petrol engines just need a bit of modernising, that’s all.
As for the governments that come and go, they struggle to manage to day to day activities of the country – I think it’s unreasonable to expect them to predict the future, or act in the interest of the people over devising new and elaborate ways of lining the pockets of their nearest and dearest.
Well said, the very 1st Deisel Engine ran on Peanut oil. Not many people know this, so why can’t we try peanut oil n go bk In time?….
They don’t have time to care about that Graham, they’re too busy working out how to tax electric cars when they become the only option. Stand by for everyone’s electricity costs to double, whether you drive or not! Does anyone really think that the fossil fuel tax won’t be replaced?
There’s is not enough metal deposits mined or otherwise to fulfill the trend for battery cars. Never mind the capacity to charge them. Tesla is struggling to meet demand because of this.
Explain why battery cost is reducing and why in Germany last year they actually paid customers to use electricity and at the same time exported more electricity than ever… this is while electric car usage there grew faster than everywhere else. Tesla has never had a battery supply problem.
Hasn’t Germany switched to burning coal/lignite for electricity production since the fears of nuclear problems?
No, I looked it up, there really is a huge amount of Lithium on the planet, and it’s recyclable. still a stupid idea carrying tons of batteries around tho’
Cobalt will be a bigger supply problem than Litium. DRC is a major source if you don’t mind use of child labour and endemic corruption so you can show how eco and pure you are. Invest in Copper Miners as Cobalt is an offshoot of that activity. The LAWS of unintended consequences will come about in fairly short time – wars over battery material resources perhaps being one of them.
I’m in favour of that. Plug in electric cars well to wheel are less efficient than petrol or diesel, but you “refuel” them pretty much for free, which is (a) an imbalance and (b) tax free use of the road. Why shouldn’t all road users contribute to the roads they use?
currently I have a Mercedes C220 Diesel which uses more fuel than my previous Merc C200 Petrol ever did.
My biggest mistake was switching from petrol to diesel
Yet my 1.6 diesel Ford Focus does 10mpg better than my partners 1.0 petrol Fiesta….so in this case the diesel is better since the petrol is 20% less efficient.
Funnily enough, I had a brand new fuel efficient 2015 Citroen C1 1.2 petrol on lease for 2yrs until recently. The wife averaged 38mpg in the 10k miles she covered, yet my knackered old Audi A4 1.9tdi (with a mere 326000 miles covered) still returns 53mpg average. A steady long drive adds another 10mpg to that too. So that’s only a 40% saving on fuel used per trip.
Its nice to see fuel hungry diesels are being demonised as they are for political gain.
That’s great! There’s probably no DPF in the Audi though if it’s that old?
If you can get 63 mpg on a long drive from a 1.9 TDI, you’re very lucky. My 1.6 Peugeot HDI has averaged 53 over the 172,000 miles it’s done so far, but I’ve never averaged more than about 58 on a long motorway run at steady 70.
But this is still a *lot* better than the 35 I averaged in my petrol 1.8 Golfs that I had before.
I actually *prefer* driving a diesel to a petrol: more torque at low engine speed means you can take roundabouts in third and still accelerate away without having to change gear half way through accelerating.
Shame that the anti-pollution mechanism on the Pug has become so temperamental as the car has got older. Let’s hope it passes its stricter MOT in June…
My 1998 1.9 TDI VW Passat (90 BHP) manages around 60MPG on a good run at no more than 70mph. It usually averages around 50mpg on a tank full unless there have been a lot of local runs. It rarely does less than 10 miles per litre when I fill up. By the way it’s now coming up for 139,000 miles and so it is run in. No major engine work done and original clutch and exhaust.
Would’nt pull the skin off a rice pudding.So slow it dangerous pull out.
If the Fiesta was a 1.6 model, there would be a different result, as with a bigger engine it could well be more economical.
you have a problem with your diesel then… far better on fuel that a petrol. driven one for years
Have the engine coolant sensor checked. we had a 2009(peugot engine) & 2010(BMW engine) mini from new The BMW engine never achieved the 62.5mpg of the Peugot engine mini only around 48mpg, It has been serviced by BMW over its life to date with the advice that the car occasionally goes into limp mode then clears since new with no engine fault light. I recently got hacked of with another vehicle (Volvo) within warranty and obtained a Fault code reader with live data transmission. I tried it on the mini and low and behold on the live data watched the engine coolant sensor read 36F from cold to when car was by all accounts at operating temperature. The time constraints on checking ECT’s would seem to mean they are not and as long as the sensor has a resistance and not open circuit all is well as far as the service agents are concerned. Best of luck.
I am only layman and awaiting a replacement sensor but if my diagnosis is correct we are in the 8th year with a car that has given 23% less MPG.due to the engine management system receiving the wrong operating temperature for fuel metering etc . Service/cost wise abominable.
altho mercs invented the diesel all I can say is, they’ve obviously gone downhill & you should have bought a decent car! only joking 🙂
Might be your driving
Hi Graham,
Your choice, cancer from diesel particulates or global warming and breathing problems.
I think it’s a case of heads I loose tails you win or lets change the rules and see if we can sell more cars and boost the economy. I think, no I know, it is commercial diesels that cause the problem like buses. Have you followed a “belcher” lately?
or building sites or local trains or boats. The list goes on.
Talking about boats, in 2009 it was reported that 15 of the world’s biggest ships pollute as much as all the world’s cars. Fuel consumption is in tons/hour. Do we ever get the full pollution picture?
Laury, just goes to show how much you know about diesel, London buses are much cleaner than they ever used to be & on an MOT test our Diesel 2L X reg Vectra est that alas we aint got anymore used to come up with an output of less than most petrol cars in the 1.6 range. we only sold it cos the clutch went & the tax rate was too high cos it was too old, so we bought a Diesel 2L Mondeo est whose emissions are even lower & the faster we go the better fuel consumption we get, 70mpg at 85mph! if that dont smell sweet to you I suggest you see a doctor. So many peeps think they know about diesels & know nothing, all they they think of is 50 yr old black London cabs & lorries that you used to have to make a fire underneath the tank to thaw the frozen diesel! Lorries that come into this country don’t get looked after like ours do so of course they’ll smoke but then so do their petrol cars, the same as the foreigners that live in GB, they don’t look after their motors so they smoke!
70mpg at 85mph, I suggest you see a doctor with those claims. I have owned both the Mk3 (Euro6) and the mark 4 Mondeo Diesels and they both got 55-60 mpg at motorway speeds at best and 35-45mpg urban.
The point is, the government lied and now are punishing the people who followed their advice, typical tory u-turn.
It was Gormless Gordon Brown who made us all change to Diesels.
Correct and of course he can’t drive.
London Taxis still the worst diesels on offer today, I never saw a London bus or train that didnt belch black smoke, Amazingly,, The Tube is worst of all fpr breathing particulates!
As speed builds so does air resistance, and the amount of energy (and therefore fuel) required to travel increases. The most economical cruising speed varies from car to car and depends principally on the engine, gearbox and how aerodynamic the body is. However, the amount of energy required to overcome air resistance about doubles from 60kph to 85kph, and has quadrupled by the time you get from 60 to 120kph. No matter how clever the engine and gearbox, it won’t overcome that without burning more fuel.
I agree but the figures are worse than you think. Actually, air resistance, or drag, varies with the cube of the speed, so doubling the speed multiplies the resistance by 8. As an example, if a car at 40mph requires 10hp to overcome drag, the same car at 50mph would need approx. 19.5hp, at 60mph approx. 33.75hp, at 70mph approx. 53.6hp and at 80mph approx. 80hp
It’s nowhere as simple as that as weight contributes most to fuel consumption up to around 50 mph & then drag becomes more dominant,
Engine efficiency is greatest at the maximum torque point & maximum inlet vacuum. Choose your petrol engine, with very peaky torque curve, for the highest torque point at the speed you usually travel. Diesels however have a very flat torque curve so are better at a variety of speeds than petrol. The very high compression of Diesels is a reason for the efficiency. Years ago when I tuned engines mine needed 101 octane due to the high compression ratio then the gov. in its wisdom declared we should have a ‘star’ system so my engine blew a hole through its piston as companies started using only 99 octane the lowest (cheapest) 5 star.. Modern petrol engines use even lower octane therefore lowered efficiency due to non-leaded petrol which causes cancer.
Laury, according to several sources, Petrol cars are no better and in fact some new petrol cars create more of the damaging particulates than older diesels. Not to mention producing another extremely toxic substance called Benzo(a)pyrene – which given its referred to as “The smokers killer” should not be endearing you to petrol cars either!. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523144338.htm – Have you followed a “Smokers’ Killer” recently?. Given that levels of Benzo(a)pyrene are already well above safe levels in many Towns and Cities you really need to be banging you drum about petrol cars too, at least if you don’t want your opinion to appear selectively hypercritical. No smoke and mirrors – no pack drill.
As Craig said we were told diesel was better so on the back of that I bought a diesel VW Tiguan great for fuel consumption so now I maybe penalised for owning a diesel vehicle
I never accepted it was “better” from a pollution point of view, I still can’t stand behind a diesel running without feeling an asthma attack coming on. I too brought diesel, but only because the engines go on forever and I get 40% better MPG.
At the end of the day we are not being penalised if a part of the car (the DPF) is faulty and it fails, that would be like saying we are penalised when a car is failed because the brakes are right,
I suffer a similar problem with diesels, I have an allergy to the exhaust. Back in 1958 I knew they were an issue, why has it taken so long to be recognised?
It probably was Keith but the facts are that a diesel engine is 50% more fuel efficient than a petrol and produces much higher torque so it’s better at pulling heavy loads. That’s why it was adopted for use in Trucks and other large vehicles. Now that its effects on the environment has been recognised, the manufacturers have got on and done something about it. Now they’re making some of the cleanest engines ever made. Trouble is it it’s still (unfairly) seen as the dirty option.
I have Asthma have had since 1970, the air is better now than back then, even remember the smog days, and I have 2 dirty dirty diesel cars, I must be such a rebel.
I also have shares in drilling companies too, I don’t go abroad on holiday so that’s one tick up point for me, oh and can anyone tell me what the armed forces use to power their vehicles and I mean all the forces together?
The armed forces vehicles won’t be allowed into London to protect it without paying a clean air fine as they have some very old vehicles, unless they’ve been fitted with new compliant engines. -)
It just re-enforces the reasons to leave the EU. Messing with a system that works fine already. There are enough people driving around with out the proper paperwork already, and this just encourages more to go against the system. All adds up to more bills for the rest of us.
Good way for testers to get more income. Rate a vehicle as ‘Fail’ /’Dangerous’ and then do repair. This could lead to a lot more expense for owner whether needed or not
Dib, the word “fiddle” comes to mind, something this government is fantastically good at, but what is Gove, Kahn and their cohorts have to say about the tonnes of particulates that jet aircraft dump on us? as jet fuel has the same exhaust properties as diesel and I’ve yet to see how they can fit a DPF on a jet engine lol, I think dieselgate is the latest hanger for them to hang their coats on and make a name for themselves.
Aviation Fuel in jets isn’t the same as Kerosene, Diesel or gasoline, albeit they derive from Oil, the thermal efficiency of jet engines are superior than Diesel engines, they burn differently and emit different emissions via the air fuel ratio controlled by computers at temperatures and oxygen lean air, completely different when in full flight mode.
Until Hydrogen Electrical vehicles are available, we are in a situation driving vehicles that burn oil, until it’s costs are reduced and basic safety elements are within certain factors we are all stuck, but what we can do is when purchasing newer vehicles try buying something a little more friendly to us, like many I wish I could do more, even 1% more would be a start..
What ever aviation fuel is, it is still a fossil fuel and like all fossil fuels it gives off emmisions which are harmful and at a greater rate than a car per mile but I don’t hear the EU telling the airlines to reduce these emmisions or else they will ground their planes. Total Hypocrites
Sorry, but aviation fuel IS essentially kerosene and jet engines produce more emissions per mile… albeit a different spectrum. Hydrogen is no answer. We have no natural hydrogen to speak of. It has to be PRODUCED… what by??? Electricity! And electricity needs…………. I rest my case.
There ia an answer to this – take your car to a dedicated MoT test centre that has no interest in garnering profit from spurious test fails. You are much more likely to get a true and proper test result from such a place.
The major problem is, that if you take your vehicle to a dedicated tester and it fails badly and is considered dangerous, under the new regulations, you will not be allowed to drive it away from the station. It will have to be recovered and taken to a place where it can be fixed.
If it fails the MOT I’m glad you cannot drive it. However if you take your vehicle before the existing MOT runs out, it will still have a current MOT.
Once its failed its failed
i use a local small independant garage who has just got his MOT equipment replaced to the tune of £14000. He motto is : If ain’t broke don’t fix. Not like Kwickfit.
I just sold my diesel Ford Focus which had a DPF issue and also other issues due to that and spent 100’s of pounds.
I’m just happy using my petrol vehicle giving me 45-50mpg. I’m even considering an Electric vehicle with longer driving range. I’d sell the diesel cars asap before it crashes in second-hand value – as DIEsel is now DEAD! It’s got death written all over it!
So if you have an older diesel without an DPF you can still pass the MOT. What we need is the true facts about the real benefits of using diesel. We have countries stating no more combustion vehicles after 2040 but I do not see a mad rush to build electric charging points plus the manufacture of electric vehicles cause more environmental damage. What happened to fuel cell technology that I was involve with in 2005 and the GM EV1 & EV2 cars of 1997. I know the later two were withdrawn by GM but what was the real reasons behind that when the technology worked.
Government ministers had LOADS of their money tied up in shares of fossil fuelled technology so they didnt want electric cars until they had chance to move their millions around.
Might be some truth in that, Colin. But I think you are crediting ministers with far too much intelligence!
Some pretty selfish opinions on here. Viewed from the perspective of asthma sufferers, children, etc more stringent testing must be a good thing surely. Yes I too bought a diesel for fuel economy, and the gov made a mistake in over promoting diesel versus petrol. But we have to acknowledge today’s reality, not keep wishing we could re-write the past. If the solution is to reduce the pollution from the cars we already have (better DPF’s perhaps) rather than the awful prospect of scrapping them, I would pay for that.
Great post Kevin. Now lets all have a nice cup of tea and worry about the impending nuclear holocaust….another thing we have no control over 😉
DPFs are both the solution and the problem. They capture particulates (hence less of a problem for poor asthmatics) but if the vehicle is never given a decent run (20+ miles at steady 50+mph, once a week, is a good rule of thumb) then the DPF cannot go through ‘regeneration’ phase. It then clogs up and needs replacement. A clogged DPF may also cause damage to the engine because modern diesels are so finely tuned and sensitive to the need for good breathing.This is a problem of owners ignorance (too much slow urban motoring) rather than the DPF itself.
here we go again been lead like sheep by goverment
how much polution dose it make to produce 40 batteries per car for the electric cars ???
no one is interested
also evry 5-10 years you will need new ones or sooner ???
why is britain so gullible we used to lead the world now we cower in the shadows of europe
we do as they ask pay billions a day we fight the wars we build the coutrys back up
we send aid and support and we get walked on every day
its about time some one grew a pair of balls and said NO
i agree with environment issues but are sick of been walked on
sorry i run a diesel i service it look after it and owned it 12 years its never failed a MOT its never smoked or let me down
we all changed to small eco cars i did too the SUZUKI ALTO its brilliant on fuel road tax is zero
and now goverment charge £140 across the board road tax and more for newer cars
short lived these money makeing scams from goverment they keep changeing goal posts
happy motering people and enjoy it while you can
now go burn some fossil fuel
What fantastic grammar, punctuation and spelling you have. Yes, I am a Grammar Nazi, and it is painful posts like yours that make sure I have my work cut out. Take pride man. You are posting in a public forum, and your lack of writing skill detracts from what you have to say. I only read the first 3 or 4 lines because it was so painful to read.
Based on your post, I think the concern should be with our obviously failing education system, not MOTs.
I concur, I thought the poster had an approved definition of a dose of pollution, much as we have scientifically proven doses for radiation exposure ( I refer you to the ICRP’s publication, Reference Man, which I would expect to have been regularly up-dated since its publication about 30 years ago)
As it happens, I very recently castigated an English motorcycle reviewer on YouTube for uttering the word ‘snuck’ in place of sneaked. I remarked that any further usage of the word by fellow Brits would result in them being sent to Coventry, closely followed by the Luftwaffe.
Very supprised you used the word Grammer in your post, maybe it should have been “Never Wrong”
what a load of old nonsense, all vehicles petrol/diesel even brand new ones give off a tiny bit of smoke normaly grey on start up espeacialy if very cold anyway, even hybrids, so what are this loonatic goverment going to propose to fail every car thats owned, wake up get a life, sooner these ministers are changed and the goverment the better, people are just going to see a back street mot tester an pay another few quid for a pass certiticate anyway
The thing is that the minute you drive out of an MOT test centre you could be stopped by the police & told for one reason or another your car is unroad worthy & as such must be removed off the road untill repaired.
That will be the mounted police officer riding a unicorn to their beat, before they start a foot patrol.
As a young constable, I asked a retiring colleague how many officers used to patrol the area of outer London which the two of us were to patrol that day, when he joined? The answer 16! The numbers on the street fell by a similar level once again before I retired. The area is still the same size, the population, well it hasn’t got smaller.
You really think Corbyn of Islington (charge diesels £130 if used at certain times in Islington) will be more favourable? Get a grip!
Should be tested at normal operating temp
That’s steam, the product of any combustion, about a gallon & a quarter of water per gallon of fuel
So how will this affect commercial vehicles as I don’t think you will see many that don’t put out a little smoke if you take them all off the road as mot failures then you will have no vechiles to do deliveries so where do we go from there
Folk shouldnot be driving deisel cars anyway. Only people who had no real knowledge took notice of the government’s encouragement to buy them.
Another way to make money for the Government from the easily targeted motorist ! I agree with “flilot” It’s all down to the Earths natural cycles.
I don’t run a diesel but the method for cleaning the filter puzzles me. A fast run is said to clean it. How? Does that run not cause smoke to be emitted as the “muck”is cleaned off the filter.
It all sounds cockeyed to me.
When the DPF needs ‘regenerating’, if you take the car for a brisk run (20+ miles at a steady 50+mph at least once a week, so a motorway jaunt is best), the engine injects extra fuel into the exhaust gas which then burns in the DPF, raising the temperature inside the DPF to the point where the soot inside the DPF gets burnt out. Theoretically, there shouldn’t be any smoke because the DPF is being heated sufficiently to completely burn the soot to CO2 gas. The only side-effect is increased fuel consumption during this phase (and more diesel smell). All the trouble with DPF failures is due to people not allowing their car to regenerate the DPF – too much low-speed urban driving.
Me neither. I guess it’s all just a fiddle just to get it through the emissions test. Then when you’re actually motoring all the shit comes out anyway.
It is called Regeneration Keith and basically – VERY basically – it uses extra fuel injected to leave through the exhaust to burn in the DPF thus burning the particles restricting it. Also a late injection of fuel has the same effect. The motorway* use of constant speed driving also allows the DPF time to de-restrict…because with short stop start runs the DPF cannot maintain working temperature (I THINK about 500 celcius). Manufacturers normally cite about 20-25 mins of constant* speed (but NOT with pedal to the metal), and this on the cars I dealt with normally cleared the DPF to the point the Dash MIL light extinguished. On the cars I was involved with that I recall was about 20-30% cleared so I tended to advise 45–50 mins to allow the Stop Start usage type driver a bit more miles grace before the MIL light came on again. All this Regen. activity degrades the engine oil with fuel as well so more frequent oil changes can be expected….it all costs £.
Do what I do, find a really trusted small firm mechanic, who will thoroughly check the vehicle before the test, then gives it you back with an MOT. I have done this for years, and not going to a main line dealer, you are not paying over the odds, but at the same time, you get a safe motor, as he will not risk your life as he wants your business. For interest, mine also has an MOT examiners certificate, so takes part in the process to ensure fairness.
The MOT station I use have been asked to let me know of ANY possible faults or other problems which are likely to require attention in the near future so I can repair them before they become a problem even if it is a MOT pass at the moment.
There is another approach – use a dedicated MoT test centre that has no interest in making money out of spurious failures. It all comes down to trust and I don’t trust any garage that offers MoT tests and repairs simultaneously.
No good as we know that we have got lot’s of gareges theses days ripping us off
The cost of a mot is going up again, any excuse to put it up because this is going to take more time and time is money.
No it’s not, no garage charges the government maximum threshold of an MOT.
Even Halfords and most large retail chains offer free MOTs when servicing, MOT stations run between £25 and £35 per MOT, the garage are allowed to charge whatever they want as long as it doesn’t exceed the maximum threshold as stated by government.
Town garages are usually competitive with one another and the ones out in the boonies will charge an average of £40 because distance between the next testing station, as an VE myself we only ever charge £35 retail..
Once again EU are dictating to Great Britain , we may not be OUT yet ! But we must stop accepting their rules and regulations ! When you see some of the Vehicles that come over from the other side of the Chanel you wonder how they passed any sort of TEST .
Get a bicycle. Lose the fat. You know who you are.
It’s just another Government Scam to get Money out of the Motorist, They said Diesel car’s were better than Petrol, Now saying to many Emissions from Diesel ! Although Diesel Cars use less Fuel than Petrol more miles for your Litre, If they are to Change MOT testing it should have a Set Standard Regulation not Just left to the Tester , Who if the MOT Station isn’t Busy will Fail a Vehicle just to get some work in ( Yes I have had this Happen to Me but I do know a Little about Car Engines & went elsewhere & got a Pass )
The Biggest Problem is the Government is Loosing Money from scraping the Paper Tax Disc ! Some People are NOT Paying there Car Tax,so No Revenue coming in But They Wont Admit to the Biggest Cock Up !!!!!! As for this so called Scrap-age scheme £2,000 Yes Wonderful ! Where’s the rest of the Money coming from to put to it ???? To-sers !!
This new regulation is a charter for unscrupulous testers!
So what we are saying is the diesel engine is 50% more efficient, so to get the same power output to compare pollution, you would have to run 1 Focus 2.0 diesel against 2 Ford Focus petrol vehicles to get a comparative power output and fuel consumption.
Ford Focus Titanium 2.0 TDCi Torque 340Nm (DPF) 4dr = 148 g/km
VS
Ford Focus Titanium petrol 2.0 5dr Torque185 Nm 189 g/km x 2 = 378 g/km
To achieve the same power you have to run 2 cars on the road, no way can that be cleaner.
WHEN do these new standards come into play regards to the DPF ??
I am a little uncomfortable by all this demonizing Diesel engines, as the Government “Experts” seem to be continually wrong – Like everything else I’m sure some time soon Petrol engines will become the devil incarnate and we’ll return to chip fat engines !
Oh well – What do I know ! – Off to buy some RED-EX !!
Here we go again! Open to interpretation by a test centre, garage looking for work, you’ve failed!!
Leave the current MOT as it is
Leave diesel drivers alone they are good for the planet the planet has been warming up for millions of years now Scotland used to be tropical bring on more diesel cars to warm us up
It’s more same as same as moneyspinning at motorists expense those in power must think we are totally stupid their day will come
Just asking if there would be a legal case to support , if you based your purchase of a new or nearly new diesel car on the government’s recommendation when they said diesels would be “good”
Hi , I have recently changed my car from a noisy underpowered 2006 freelander and gone to a jaguar xf 2009. A lovely car that is diesel powered to pull my twin axle caravan to various parts of the country for breaks and holidays. How do the government expect me a pensioner to be able to purchase a hybrid car that is any where as powerful as the car i have . Absolutely idiotic. I tied on the idea of a petrol version but the co2 levels were higher, the insurance would have been higher and the car a hell of a lot more thirstier and a lot more expensive to run. No thanks, you lot should think on.
Don’t we currently have ‘Advisories’ on the MOT – some garages list them, some might not. There’s already discrepancies between individual testers and they have a tester’s manual to work to. Panic is being created over possibly nothing and, if you remove your DPF and fail, then whose fault is it?
I’m more p*ssed off about the change in direction over diesel engines, some proper scientific real-world testing of petrol v diesel and the damage that engines of different ages do would be useful.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_toxic_is_your_car_exhaust
Is it April 1st?
Amazing, the pure ignorance of said comments, everyone one is entitled to an opinion but it’s an opinion of non-factual status.
And if the planet is doing it’s cycles then prepare to die…
What ever the criteria it has to be pass or fail. Leaving this to individual interpretation is nonsense. It gives motorists little faith in the New system and opens up a can of worms whereby unscrupulous drivers and test stations can collude to beat the system.
governments are looking for another cows to milk!!!
Government encouraged us to buy diesels, we did, now we get shafted with new tests for diesels. I agree there’s some vile unserviced diesels out there, hammer them.
Cheap way for government to get diesels of road. Introduce a good scrapage scheme, the government owes us that.
Having driven all over Europe, I have seen the need for some sort of vehicle test being introduced in a lot of the old Eastern Block countries. Trouble is that the DPF thing will only apply to vehicles fitted with one. There are millions of old trucks spewing black fumes out all around Europe that won’t be affected. If they are, the delivery economies of half the EU will grind to a halt.
Before we joined the “Common Market” we had British Standards (BS) and our current MOT is probably the best in Europe. So with Brexit coming up why can’t we just leave it as it is?
Thank the good old EU again! Reason doesn’t come into it.
Interesting, we shall see who are the mot testers that are in it for the money and prepared to rip off the motorist, are they going to pass a major and minor and fail a dangerous or just pass the minor defects. we shall see.
As for the diesel, Trump has just come out of a climate syndicate so he can pump more emissions into the atmosphere and create more jobs!! our very little contribution will be negligible. There are more Co2 emission churned out from trucks, planes, ships and trains than our diesel cars. Utter waste of legislation.
Another rant about diesel car owners,the Government encouraged people to buy them now they backtrack.And even more EU regulations that some bureacrats think up The sooner we leave the European Union the better.Lets send all the European leaders a copy of the Darkest hour and remind them they owe their freedom to us
More EU diktats! Why are uk authorities abiding by all the new rules coming out of Brussels? Especially as we are leaving! Plus, I bought my diesel car because government encouraged the purchase of diesel vehicles, now they are being villified?
This is just another way of government trying to eradicate a problem caused by previous transport ministers when diesel was what they were trying to get motorists to move from petrol now it is electric cars that are in vogue, that is until transport ministry realise they have made another mistake
Major and minor fault classification at testers discretion is clearly an open book for unscrupulous MOT testers.
Any clamp down on harmful emissions is good for the health of us all. Smoke emission being a failure is therefore good for us all. It should apply whether or not the car is fitted with a particulate filter from new, it should also catch those who have a particulate filter bypass by removing the insides of the filter which otherwise is not easily detected.
I’m not too sure if its only cars with dpf that fail if smoke comes out of the exhaust. I have a 1999 ldv convoy diesal that failed emissions. On the fail sheet it says I failed on smoke from car fitted with dpf. I don’t have dpf
There is no excuse in saying “we have been told diesel is good then all of a sudden it’s bad”. It has been widely broadcast since 2007 that diesel vehicles are heavy polluters and their exhausts are killing tens of thousands in the UK alone. I had a diesel car then (cat 5) but moved back to petrol when I upgraded my car in 2012. Our towns and roads stink of diesel exhausts and anyone who is a responsible citizen should get rid of their diesel car as soon as possible so that vehicles that must use diesel, trucks for example, can continue to do so until a viable alternative is available. Modern petrol engines are pretty similar to diesel in consumption nowadays and Mazda claim they have a petrol engine that is more fuel efficient than diesel.
A good idea. To fail a car for some minor fault that does not affect safety i.e. A small crack in a headlight lens, is way over the to,
I’d be extremely worried if my car was emitting smoke, it’s not a steam engine, all internal combustion engines cars emit exhaust gassed not smoke.
Just another ploy to dig deeper into our pockits. The way you make your town city cleaner is to let the car run at there cleanest speed, not to drive around in 1st & second gear. Or as in Brighton the traffic lights stay ot red longer.