Inaccuracies in LRM
Having published several of my letters in LRM I hope you and your colleagues will not take offence at this letter, as, despite my admiration of LRM, there have been two inaccuracies printed about the new MOT. Frankly, if your vehicle is maintained properly, you have nothing to fear.
The MOT is still age-related and there is nothing retroactive about it, but it does have to have all the original emissions equipment fitted, like the EGR valve.
The first inaccuracy was about any oil leak the vehicle may have. In the June issue, it was stated (Norfolk Garage, page 42) “you can safely assume that if your Land Rover drips hot oil onto the tester’s head while he is underneath it, that will constitute a fail”.
No, it won’t necessarily. The amount of oil it drips over a certain period of time is how the MOT tester is supposed to assess it, and if you look at the new manual, you will see that if your vehicle leaks that amount of oil you will want to fix it.
Under 8.4 of the manual, the test, carried out with the engine idling, says, “fluid leaks should only be considered excessive if they deposit greater than a 75 mm diameter pool in five minutes, or if there are a number of leaks which collectively deposit fluid at the same rate”.
An extremely rough experiment would probably put this at about 1 cc or a bit less. Viscosity testing is not my forte and is typically done at 100 degrees centigrade. But a rough test in my kitchen showed that at 24 degrees centigrade 1.25 ccs of corn oil spread to about 75 mm with a bit of persuasion. Engine oil at 100 degrees centigrade (the temperature at which it is tested in the lab) would be thinner and probably spread much further. At 2000 revs it would be leaking at about three times that rate, roughly 1.25 litres every 30 hours of driving. Who would put up with putting a litre of oil in their vehicle every 24 hours of driving? Once a month or so for someone with a half-hour journey to work every day? I certainly wouldn’t, I’d fix it.
Richard Hall’s articles are absolutely fabulous, possibly my favourite articles in each month’s mag. I am not knocking him
at all, but this type of tongue-in-cheek remark puts the fear of God into the average punter worried about their MOT. Which is most of us.
The rest of the article about how to cure leaks was brilliant by the way.
More serious though, and what prompted this letter, was the item in “News Bites” on page 9 of the August edition. Under “Don’t fail the new MOT smoke test” it states categorically “the fact is, if visible smoke is observed from the exhaust of any diesel car it will fail”. This is not the case. Again, the manual goes on about all sorts of permitted smoke levels, how to test for them, etc.
The only section that states anything like what is printed in LRM is: “on vehicles fitted with a diesel particulate filter, also check that no visible smoke is emitted from the exhaust during the metered check”. So, if your vehicle does not have a DPF, you are allowed a permitted amount of smoke, and again, it is reasonable and if the car is properly maintained should not be a problem.
I look forward to reading LRM so much and I’m sorry to complain but I could let this pass with no comment. John Hammond
Thank you for your comments John – all noted and taken on board. Perhaps we should use this opportunity to shame ourselves some more. In our August 2018 cover feature we said that the interior of the Defender 130 demountable camper was upgraded by Ruskin Interiors, when in fact it’s Ruskin Design (see ruskindesign.com for more).
In the same issue we featured the new ARB Jack and Tread Pro recovery tracks – please note they will not be available until later this summer.
And finally the contact details we gave for Italy’s Mr Land Rover in the July 2018 issue was wrong. His number should in fact be 0039 335 142 0925 – Ed.