Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:53:25 GMT From: "James Sweet" <jamessweetnospamail.com> Subject: Re: Passed emissions!
"MeatballTurbo" <carl.robsonnospamcing-czechs.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1ace37e4a71f7a9898a00cnospam.individual.net... > In article <MPG.1ace2f1e3eca0d74989bf2nospam.individual.de>, > djtaylornospamoot.com says... > > > Now doesn't that just prove to a lot of the "Environmental" politicians > > > that we have in power, that just because a car is old, doesn't mean it > > > should legislated off the road, by stricter and more stringent testing > > > > It's not even as simple as that. Consider a new 4x4 doing the school > > run. It might well have a cat but until that has warmed up to full > > heat, it's not going to be very efficient and you may well find that > > running long distances in old cars is no more of a problem than mums > > doing the school run in brand new cars. > > > > Of course all things being equal, lower emissions are good. > > > oh yeah, quite agree. > When my T16 passed the MOT last week the readings where. > CO 0.3 (can have upto 3.5 for my pre CAT 85) > HC 450PPM (can be 1200ppm for older cars). > Wow, 450 PPM? Do they have different cams over there or is it just the lack of a cat? I think when we had my gf's '88 900s tested it was 16 PPM or so, I know the limit to pass for any car less than 25 years old is 220 PPM.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |