MOT resulted in grands worth of work????

anewman

Although I personally would not like to see an engine taken to the rev limiter while not under load.

amcluesent

Another crazy scam to fleece to motorist. WHY is there a need to rev the b*llocks off the engine to 'test' it? I'm sure the engine ECU disgnostic would produce more than enough info about the state of the engine. But of course, thinking is never a big feature of the numpties in the public sector who dream up these daft schemes.

jeannieblue

You are allowed to sit and watch your car being MOT tested. It may be a good idea for some to do this at least once to understand exactly what checks and tests your vehicle has to undergo to make sure it is roadworthy.

Its old hat for me now, but I used to find it very interesting and informative - makes you feel secure knowing your car has passed. (Unless of course, it doesn't)

My heart goes out to the OP but sh*t happens to us all at some point in life.
Hope she gets a good deal and a reasonably priced repair.

Wig

Good thing about having an LPG car is they don't rev the b0llocks off it for the MOT.

Jamp

If I remember correctly the speed required for the fast idle emissions test is 2500-3500rpm. Hardly excessive, and pretty typical of day-to-day driving, hence it is wholly appropriate for the test.

vikingaero

Jamp wrote: »

If I remember correctly the speed required for the fast idle emissions test is 2500-3500rpm. Hardly excessive, and pretty typical of day-to-day driving, hence it is wholly appropriate for the test.

Depends if the OP's car is a diesel. With a diesel I believe the test involves revving the engine (whilst properly warmed up) to the rev limiter.

Wig

It's only appropriate under load, with no load it's IMO totally inappropriate, and they can do it for quite a long time, especially if they are not getting the emmissions to pass then they will do it again.

And FYI, when I drive my revs don't go as far as 2500 rpm, I generally stay below 2,300.

And diesel tests are worse still.

I think they should only be allowed to do it with the driven wheels on the rolling road, with the car in gear, but no doubt there is some health ansd safety reason why they don't do this, and no one can be bothered to come with a suitable solution to the problem, like for example anchoring the car via the undriven wheels so that it cannot jump off the rolling road.

goldspanners

vikingaero wrote: »

Depends if the OP's car is a diesel. With a diesel I believe the test involves revving the engine (whilst properly warmed up) to the rev limiter.

diesels generally rev lower than petrol engines anyway.generally a petrol car engine will rev to 6000 rpm and a diesel 4500 rpm when in gear and being driven,but most modern diesel cars are restricted when in nuetral and will only do 3000 rpm.
so as it sounds loud and as if it is being revved stupid it isnt really. (these are general terms)
if the car is capable of reving to this on the road then it should be capable of doing it in a test environment.
lucky it happened here and not miles away from home in this weather i say.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

anewman wrote: »

Although I personally would not like to see an engine taken to the rev limiter while not under load.

Provided the engine is warm and airflow is sufficient it does no harm whatsoever.

cyclonebri1

Jamp wrote: »

If I remember correctly the speed required for the fast idle emissions test is 2500-3500rpm. Hardly excessive, and pretty typical of day-to-day driving, hence it is wholly appropriate for the test.

Agree even if it was a diesel it probably wouldnt rev past 4500 anyway.

The sad thing is that this could have happened at anytime, this is why all the manuals recomend reducing the mileage to belt change to reduce the possibility of this mishap, and also why garages post the disclaimer as previously mentioned.

I've fixed a fair few cars when this has happened and I'd probably mention a couple of things here;

In my experience most of these failures have happened on start up rather than under heavy load or high revs, so it is unfair to jump to conclusions.

It could be more economical to buy a 2nd hand engine as the damage is not a finite issue, you start work and the damage can either be minimal or start to build. Needs the head whipping off for a check first IMHO.
Best of luck,:money: it's unfortunate for you, but the only good thing is here is that this may serve as a warning to others to check the maintenance of cam belts carefully.