hi all, I have a 1985 280ce , imported from Japan 9 years ago...It has a CAT...so my question is whether it is a complex job to remove CAT regarding electronic inputs, etc...I'm guessing removing the CAT would make for a smoother/swifter car...I'm in the UK so from my understanding we didn't have to have CAT's until 1992....Thanks for any advice in advance...Mark.
280 ce Cat removal?
- Thread starter Wakaba
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 19,911
- Car
- Lexus RX450h F-Sport with Takumi Pack 2020
I don't believe removing the CAT on an otherwise sound engine will not make it 'smoother/swifter"
Regarding compliance with MoT the fail is "Emission control equipment fitted by the manufacturer: missing, obviously modified or obviously defective"
There is also a section regarding personal imports you might want to look at..
www.gov.uk
Regarding compliance with MoT the fail is "Emission control equipment fitted by the manufacturer: missing, obviously modified or obviously defective"
There is also a section regarding personal imports you might want to look at..
MOT inspection manual: cars and passenger vehicles - 8. Nuisance - Guidance - GOV.UK
Noise, exhaust emissions, engine malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) (sometimes called an engine management light or 'EML'), and fluid leak rules and inspection for car and passenger vehicle MOT tests.
Bellow
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
It also says ''This inspection is only for vehicles that must have a full catalyst emissions test ''I don't believe removing the CAT on an otherwise sound engine will not make it 'smoother/swifter"
Regarding compliance with MoT the fail is "Emission control equipment fitted by the manufacturer: missing, obviously modified or obviously defective"
There is also a section regarding personal imports you might want to look at..
MOT inspection manual: cars and passenger vehicles - 8. Nuisance - Guidance - GOV.UK
Noise, exhaust emissions, engine malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) (sometimes called an engine management light or 'EML'), and fluid leak rules and inspection for car and passenger vehicle MOT tests.
A vehicle first registered in 1985 does not have to have a full catalyst emissions test AFAIK. But it wasn't registered in the UK in 1985 - that appears to have occurred in 2013. Given the doubts the choice is between drilling down on the legal detail or just leaving the cat. The latter being considerably easier with no downside I can see.
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 19,911
- Car
- Lexus RX450h F-Sport with Takumi Pack 2020
Further down the page?
"Emissions testing
You must inspect vehicles with spark ignition engines first used on or after 1 August 1975."
Bellow
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
Within that section:
''Personal imports
A personal import must be tested according to its date of first use. ''Presumably OP's car qualifies as a personal import and as first used in 1985 a non-cat test is appropriate.
That's for the emissions test though - not removing emissions equipment. Moot point whether something that didn't have to be fitted is removed. Can't see why a tester would look for removal of something they didn't expect to be there.
Anyway, OP is leaving it be.
Its a bit of a grey area though. What is the definition of modified or missing? If someone fits an aftermarket exhaust is that modified so a fail? Some MB cars have more than one CAT for example so if one is removed does that also constitute an MOT failure? I'm no MOT expert so would be interested in anyones thoughts on this.I don't believe removing the CAT on an otherwise sound engine will not make it 'smoother/swifter"
Regarding compliance with MoT the fail is "Emission control equipment fitted by the manufacturer: missing, obviously modified or obviously defective"
There is also a section regarding personal imports you might want to look at..
MOT inspection manual: cars and passenger vehicles - 8. Nuisance - Guidance - GOV.UK
Noise, exhaust emissions, engine malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) (sometimes called an engine management light or 'EML'), and fluid leak rules and inspection for car and passenger vehicle MOT tests.
Bellow
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
It refers to emission control equipment. An exhaust isn't emission control equipment. An exhaust just happens to house some of the emission control equipment. Retain emission control equipment and you can modify (within noise limits) the exhaust however you want.
Emission control equipment has been removed so a fail. It's overlooked because the car passes the emissions out test.
An aftermarket exhaust even with CATs is not manufacturer fitted so according to the quoted passage that's an MOT failure.
Bellow
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
That's because it is poorly worded. If it had said specified by the manufacturer then it would more accurately represent the reality of failed components being replaced with new functioning ones (or alternatives as in the case of a different exhaust system) and maintaining the specification of the vehicle as the manufacturer homologated it.
By your line of argument the retention of an original cat would be required to fulfil the requirement as it is written - even if the cat had failed and the vehicle was failing the emissions out test. No replacement exhaust system - even a standard system from a dealer - can be said to be 'manufacturer fitted'. That's a lot of cars that would fail MOTs on that criterion if it were applied.
Exactly
Like I said, its a bit of a grey area.
In theory it will produce a few more horses however the Jap market got the same emissions controls as the US market and there will be other emissions controls built in which will reduce the output quite a bit, personally I would get rid and have the emissions stuff removed with a remap, however you often find the cams are different in US models to compensate for all this equipment as well.