David I was thinking of the emissions for road fund taxation. For later Mk I Roadsters it is punitive.
Brian of SpotMog On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:49 PM, David Ashworth < [email protected]> wrote: > Interestingly it doesn't always have the same as the donor. The CVH Efi > donor is the XR2i - and the upper for that is higher than the 1.05 for the > equivalent Morgan - different cat? > > Give me a Weber (or several Webers) any day. > > David > > > > David Ashworth > Director > Klarus Consulting Limited > Email: [email protected] > Tel: +44 (0) 7810 155714 > This email transmission is confidential and intended solely for the > person or organisation to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not copy, distribute or disseminate the information, or > take any action in reliance of it. Any views expressed in this message are > those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states > them to be the views of Klarus Consulting Limited. If you have received > this message in error, please do not open any attachment, but notify the > sender, then delete this message from your system. Please rely on your own > virus checking systems as the sender takes no responsibility for any damage > rising out of any bug or virus infection.**** > ** ** > > On 30 May 2012, at 14:39, Brian Cowell wrote: > > Thanks for that Dave. > > I agree with you. > > No engineers in the House of Commons, suspect the same in the EU. > > I looked for the Ford Mondeo V6 in the list but couldn't find it. > > Do not understand why a Morgan is deemed to have the same CO2 emissions > as the donor car. > > Cheers, Brian > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Dave Wellings < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> **** >> >> Brian**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Look on Pager 97 & 98 – the official manufacturers figs. All Mogs are >> 1.05.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/Emissions%2017th%20Edition.pdf**** >> >> ** ** >> >> What I really don’t understand, is why the upper Lambda matters, when >> it’s the weak measure, and if the CO and HC is OK, a fail on this measure >> seems bizarre.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Dave**** >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Brian Cowell [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* 29 May 2012 16:52 >> *To:* mogtalk2 >> *Subject:* Re: [mogtalk2] Sweating at the MOT**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Dave, Jon**** >> >> **** >> >> I've come late to this.**** >> >> I think that you both and I have Mk I Roadsters.**** >> >> **** >> >> lambda readings are (all at speeds of about 2700 rpm):**** >> >> **** >> >> Nov 2009 & Nov 2010: 1.01, the bounds being 0.97 and 1.03.**** >> >> All figures given to 2 decimal places.**** >> >> **** >> >> Nov 2011: 1.003, the bounds being given as 0.970 and 1.030.**** >> >> **** >> >> I take the car to the Factory (who use Malvern Motor Services) for its >> MOT.**** >> >> **** >> >> Petrol used is Shell V Power, although used Shell Premium for some of the >> time.**** >> >> **** >> >> Cheers**** >> >> **** >> >> Brian of SpotMog**** >> >> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Martyn J Culling < >> [email protected]> wrote:**** >> >> Jon**** >> >> Perhaps not a good idea to ask the tester, as you got pass figures, but I >> wonder what the experimental error is here. Your figure this year is less >> than 0.5% different to last year which to a lot of measuring methods is the >> same thing! **** >> >> ****Woodstock**** of course is much pre-catalyst and just does not have >> to emit “excessive” smoke. Likewise the three wheeler.**** >> >> rgds Martyn**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* Jon Mark [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* 22 May 2012 20:59 >> *To:* mogtalk2 >> *Subject:* RE: [mogtalk2] Sweating at the MOT**** >> >> **** >> >> Dave, interesting info**** >> >> **** >> >> My Roadster passed it’s test today & I was just comparing last year >> emissions whilst I file the test cert (which is a recipe for forgeries, >> there’s no special text, or watermark & it’s just printed on white >> photocopier paper – bonkers)**** >> >> **** >> >> Lambda this year 1.03**** >> >> Last year 1.025**** >> >> 2010 1.024**** >> >> 2009 1.018 **** >> >> Do they ‘wear’ out ? or is it just with price watching on petrol, I put >> more supermarket stuff in than I used to ?**** >> >> Although it’s the first test since being ‘chipped’**** >> >> **** >> >> Regards,**** >> >> Jon **** >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Dave Wellings >> [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] >> >> *Sent:* 22 May 2012 20:29 >> *To:* mogtalk2 >> *Subject:* [mogtalk2] Sweating at the MOT**** >> >> **** >> >> Some of you will no doubt know all about this, but here is my story from >> yesterday, just posted on Talkmorgan.**** >> >> **** >> >> MOT today. The form has now been dumbed down. Instead of the green hard >> to forge certificate, it's a simple white page print out, with any >> advisories on the right hand side. >> >> What's more interesting, and worrying is the Lambda requirement. This >> measures the fuel/air ratio at the tailpipe, and is between two parameters, >> which for my Morgan is (allegedly) 0.9 to 1.03. This is a very narrow band. >> On the screen, this displays as a red band with a narrow green pass band. >> The measure is shown as a white bar, and is taken at a prescribed 'fast >> idle' - just under 3000rpm. It was a struggle to get below 1.03. After a >> couple of attempts the tester managed 1.025. A high reading indicates a >> leak in the exhaust system, but both tailpipes produced the same effect. >> There is no obvious leak, but the Lambda shows a weak mixture. >> On checking last years result, it was 1.024, so that was right at the top >> end. The machine can't be conned, so exceed the limit and you will fail.* >> *** >> > ------------------------------------------- View posts on The Mail Archive http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ [http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/] Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22459785&id_secret=22459785-4a39ddf8 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
