Quail By Mail
|
Anyone know what is a Green/Respectable MOT reading?Just had our 'bomb' of a car MOT'd and she passed yet again. These are her latest stats:
C02 emissions (limits are 3.5%) and our car is 0.12%
HC emissions (limits are 1200 parts per million) and our car is 97 parts per million
Does anyone know whether the numbers numbers look horrible as people trying to live as Green as possible? We use the car twice a week.
|
Behemoth
|
Re: Anyone know what is a Green/Respectable MOT reading? | Quail By Mail wrote: | | We use the car twice a week. |
I wouldn't worry about it. However I think the links in the Vehicle excise duty thread give information on emissions and comparisons between makes.
|
vegplot
|
I'd say they were very low. Good engine. These are % of the exhaust gases it doesn't tell you how much CO2 is being produced by volume (the MOT test doesn't care), for that you'd also need to volume of exhaust gas produced at the same time the reading were being taken.
|
Treacodactyl
|
I've thought about this as I've looked at my various old MOT printouts to see if there's a pattern emerging about the state of my car, mine seem quite variable.
I think the limits will depend on the type of engine and age of the car. It's actually CO not CO2 and there's a fast idle and natural idle test. For the fast idle my cars CO limits are < 0.2% and the HC <=200 ppm.
I've had a search but can't find any info about what's ideal, you would have thought if the government was serious about cutting emisssions the data would be available. 
One thing I've noticed, when I've given my car a really good run with some high revs the emissions have gone down. This matches up with the advice I've received that the more gentle you are with the car the more it seems to get bunged up and the less efficient it runs!
As a comparison, your car's emissions look similar to my 1.6l petrol car registered in '95 which has just recorded fast idle figures of 0.123% CO and HC of 87 ppm, last year after giving it a decent run with high revs before the MOT it recorded 0.083% CO and 38 ppm HC.
|
vegplot
|
A well tuned engine will be at it's most efficient at maximum torque.
|
Treacodactyl
|
| vegplot wrote: | | A well tuned engine will be at it's most efficient at maximum torque. |
Indeed. However one of the problems I've had with reducing my mileage in an older car is balancing the costs. I should replace the spark plugs to ensure a more efficient car but being a twin-cam engine I need to buy a special tool or get it done by a garage so that's about £100. Will I get that back, probably not. Should I feel guilty or should I take comfort in the fact I often only use my car once a week?
Could some of the tax taken from motorists be used to ensure cars are running as efficiently as possible in a subsidised MOT where they tune it rather than just make sure it passes?
|
vegplot
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | Could some of the tax taken from motorists be used to ensure cars are running as efficiently as possible in a subsidised MOT where they tune it rather than just make sure it passes? |
Probably not an option from a bureauocratic point of view. It'd be easier to reduce the pass limits on exhaust gas pollutants and leave it to the motorist to bear the cost.
|
Treacodactyl
|
| vegplot wrote: | | Treacodactyl wrote: | | Could some of the tax taken from motorists be used to ensure cars are running as efficiently as possible in a subsidised MOT where they tune it rather than just make sure it passes? |
Probably not an option from a bureauocratic point of view. It'd be easier to reduce the pass limits on exhaust gas pollutants and leave it to the motorist to bear the cost. |
For a moment I was hoping for a bit of carrot rather than a big stick, silly me.   I agree with what you say though.
|
vegplot
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | vegplot wrote: | | Treacodactyl wrote: | | Could some of the tax taken from motorists be used to ensure cars are running as efficiently as possible in a subsidised MOT where they tune it rather than just make sure it passes? |
Probably not an option from a bureauocratic point of view. It'd be easier to reduce the pass limits on exhaust gas pollutants and leave it to the motorist to bear the cost. |
For a moment I was hoping for a bit of carrot rather than a big stick, silly me. I agree with what you say though. |
Carrot! If a carrot was proffered it would have a few maggots in it.
You're idea has idealogical merit though.
|
Quail By Mail
|
| Treacodactyl wrote: | | you would have thought if the government was serious about cutting emisssions the data would be available. |
Exactly what I thought. I looked online before posting but unless you're some sort of scientist who can make something of the techy research available online, you're out of luck.
|
