Vehicle owners who don’t have someone to "arrange" their MOT inspection may end up like this client, who was personally rejected from the MOT with a four-year-old 2019 Honda CR-V (RW). The inspection report clearly states that the vehicle failed due to a serious defect.
However, after re-measuring emissions in the FCD garage under all the manufacturer-prescribed conditioning conditions, it was found that the car met the required emission limits without any issues— with a 50% reserve.
The MOT technician even advised the customer to buy a new catalytic converter and return for another test, claiming that the current one had stopped functioning properly and that the vehicle would not pass the emissions test without replacing it.
Every new car needs to go for its first technical inspection after four years. This Honda was unlucky because, during its emissions test at a high-throughput MOT station, a technician likely rushed through the process due to seasonal workload and failed to follow the manufacturer’s instructions, thus not adhering to the proper methodology. It’s no surprise that a practically new Honda didn’t pass. What’s surprising, however, is that the emissions technician didn’t find it odd that such a new car—being tested for the first time, four years after entering into service—failed. Instead, they advised the customer to buy a new catalytic converter. That’s not a cheap fix, as this Honda has a catalytic converter combined with a particulate filter (DPF). And ironically, DPF systems aren’t even checked during emissions tests yet—because the MOT stations don’t have the equipment to do so.
If a vehicle isn’t presented by a VIP person (a technician’s acquaintance), it sometimes gets rejected to maintain "credible" percentages of failed inspections in the Ministry of Transports ISTP database. This helps the MOT to avoid audits. However, in this case, they made a mistake. The additional data on the second page of the report clearly reveals what led to the failed emissions test.
Failing to meet the emissions limit is classified as a serious defect. The technician misled the customer, and if he had followed his advice, he would have unnecessarily purchased a new catalytic converter. *Faul description from the protocol: The gaseous emissions of the spark-ignition engine exceed the values specified by the manufacturer.
The test technician had a negative impact on the emission test and declared the car to be non-compliant with emission standards. The second page of the protocol provides clear proof that the emission test was not carried out in accordance with the manufacturer's methodology. The customer was seriously harmed, whether it was intentional, out of ignorance, or due to rush (because of the long queues at the inspection station during this period).
The idle emissions of the same Honda, when tested according to the guidelines, show that all harmful components are nearly zero. We believe that the car would have passed even if the emissions technician at the inspection station had measured it correctly 14 days ago.
The FCD garage testing did not confirm the claim that the catalytic converter is defective at higher RPM, as stated in the protocol from the Emission Station. These are the emission test results taken without any modifications to the vehicle, 14 days later, when the owner requested that we repair the Honda (catalytic converter replacement costing CZK 30,000). There was nothing to repair! There is nothing wrong with the Honda's emission system. An error made by the inspection technician could have resulted in the customer paying excessive amounts of money.
Every new car needs to go for its first technical inspection after four years. This Honda was unlucky because, during its emissions test at a high-throughput MOT station, a technician likely rushed through the process due to seasonal workload and failed to follow the manufacturer’s instructions, thus not adhering to the proper methodology. It’s no surprise that a practically new Honda didn’t pass. What’s surprising, however, is that the emissions technician didn’t find it odd that such a new car—being tested for the first time, four years after entering into service—failed. Instead, they advised the customer to buy a new catalytic converter. That’s not a cheap fix, as this Honda has a catalytic converter combined with a particulate filter (DPF). And ironically, DPF systems aren’t even checked during emissions tests yet—because the MOT stations don’t have the equipment to do so.
If a vehicle isn’t presented by a VIP person (a technician’s acquaintance), it sometimes gets rejected to maintain "credible" percentages of failed inspections in the Ministry of Transports ISTP database. This helps the MOT to avoid audits. However, in this case, they made a mistake. The additional data on the second page of the report clearly reveals what led to the failed emissions test.
Failing to meet the emissions limit is classified as a serious defect. The technician misled the customer, and if he had followed his advice, he would have unnecessarily purchased a new catalytic converter. *Faul description from the protocol: The gaseous emissions of the spark-ignition engine exceed the values specified by the manufacturer.
The test technician had a negative impact on the emission test and declared the car to be non-compliant with emission standards. The second page of the protocol provides clear proof that the emission test was not carried out in accordance with the manufacturer's methodology. The customer was seriously harmed, whether it was intentional, out of ignorance, or due to rush (because of the long queues at the inspection station during this period).
The idle emissions of the same Honda, when tested according to the guidelines, show that all harmful components are nearly zero. We believe that the car would have passed even if the emissions technician at the inspection station had measured it correctly 14 days ago.
The FCD garage testing did not confirm the claim that the catalytic converter is defective at higher RPM, as stated in the protocol from the Emission Station. These are the emission test results taken without any modifications to the vehicle, 14 days later, when the owner requested that we repair the Honda (catalytic converter replacement costing CZK 30,000). There was nothing to repair! There is nothing wrong with the Honda's emission system. An error made by the inspection technician could have resulted in the customer paying excessive amounts of money.
Komentáře (0)
Vložit soubor