Emissions Validation

[Mgnoob]

Hi,

I'm in the market for a 260, I messaged a seller for emissions info as it?s not coming up ulez or caz compliant though apparently it should be.

The seller has provided NO 0.092 and HC 0.027 from his v5c and has double checked his numbers for me.


This would not meet Euro 4 regs but in a couple places online I?ve found the exact reverse numbers which would be so I?m wondering if either the seller or his v5c is mistaken (not unheard of).


https://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=2825386&postcount=24


http://www.emissionsfinder.com/mg-rover-group-mg-zt-260-47cc-2


Would anyone know how I might 1) go about checking what the original numbers should be, 2) Prove them to the dvla to get the v5c updated?


Thank you!

[jeff turbo]

Hi,

I'm in the market for a 260, I messaged a seller for emissions info as it?s not coming up ulez or caz compliant though apparently it should be.

The seller has provided NO 0.092 and HC 0.027 from his v5c and has double checked his numbers for me.


This would not meet Euro 4 regs but in a couple places online I?ve found the exact reverse numbers which would be so I?m wondering if either the seller or his v5c is mistaken (not unheard of).


https://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=2825386&postcount=24


http://www.emissionsfinder.com/mg-rover-group-mg-zt-260-47cc-2


Would anyone know how I might 1) go about checking what the original numbers should be, 2) Prove them to the dvla to get the v5c updated?


Thank you!

Have you put the registration number into the ulez website to confirm its not compliant, my 260 is. EDIT THAT, now it isn't on this website which has a lot of adverts on it so I'm guessing it's not an official site https://ulez.co.uk/ulez-checker/. I'm guessing Mr Khan has possibly changed the emissions criteria but
On saying that i checked again on the transport for London Ulez which is the official website and it's compliant on that https://tfl.gov.uk/ulez

[Mgnoob]

Have you put the registration number into the ulez website to confirm its not compliant, my 260 is. EDIT THAT, now it isn't on this website which has a lot of adverts on it so I'm guessing it's not an official site https://ulez.co.uk/ulez-checker/. I'm guessing Mr Khan has possibly changed the emissions criteria but
On saying that i checked again on the transport for London Ulez which is the official website and it's compliant on that https://tfl.gov.uk/ulez

Hi Jeff thanks for your reply.

Yep I checked multiple websites and this one comes back as not compliant, based on what's on the V5C that makes sense.

To be compliant (for now) NOx just needs to be below 0.08g/km.

I expect if your 260 is coming back compliant it probably has these numbers in the V5C under 'Exhaust Emissions':

CO: 0.723
HC: 0.092
NOx: 0.027

Is that something you'd be able to help confirm?

[jeff turbo]

Hi Jeff thanks for your reply.

Yep I checked multiple websites and this one comes back as not compliant, based on what's on the V5C that makes sense.

To be compliant (for now) NOx just needs to be below 0.08g/km.

I expect if your 260 is coming back compliant it probably has these numbers in the V5C under 'Exhaust Emissions':

CO: 0.723
HC: 0.092
NOx: 0.027

Is that something you'd be able to help confirm?
Yes that's correct and HC+NOx (g/km) 0.119
But in a few years Mr Khan will change those and lower the emissions know doubt. What's the reg? I have checked a couple of 260's and a Rover V8 on the cars for sale thread David puts up. The Rover passed but both 260's they didn't know on the transport for london website if they passed or not so no idea about those.

[Nich]

Just checked mine and it is ULEZ compliant.

16716

Nich.

[Nich]

From my V5 certificate:

16717

Nich.

[jeff turbo]

Just checked mine and it is ULEZ compliant.

16716

Nich.

As far as I aware Nich, all should pass?

[Nich]

As far as I aware Nich, all should pass?

Agreed. Think the numbers he has been supplied with have been transposed or a mistake on the V5 as he suggests.

Nich.

[Stu C]

Edit- I've seen Jeff repl;ied about using the official site.

Sadly khant doesn't allow testing of Nox emissions on cars, but will happily let you do it on bikes so we know the agenda there :rolleyes:

Not sure of a way of getting the emissions re checked, as A) MG-R obviously not around anymore and B) The engine wasn't used in anything officially here at the time. By that I mean K series Freelanders can ask for a certificate of conformity from LR and prove their emissions. Unless can get something from Ford, not sure on how to go about that :(

[SCP440]

I am sure I have read somewhere it depends on when it was registered, if you have one with the cheaper Road Fund licence they are theoretically not complant but the later ones are. No real differance but probably had to be fiddled to be able to sell them.
I know as mine is a 56 reg car is compliant and as Nich's is only a few chassis numbers away is obviously the same.

[Mgnoob]

Thank you everyone for your help, especially Jeff and Nich for confirming with their V5C?s, the photo is particularly helpful.

I did some digging and fired over an email to Lindsay at http://www.mgrccservices.com/ (http://www.mgrccservices.com/contact/) - it looks like they can be a little hit and miss but they ought to be the last word when it comes to MG technical records.

Doesn?t look cheap but with a bit of luck perhaps they can help to verify the mistake and issue a CoC to evidence a correction request to the DVLA.

[Dashnine]

I know a 'cheaper' RFL car and a more 'expensive' RFL car (sadly mine although if it were registered when it was made instead of 2 and a half years later it'd be in the 'cheaper' category!), and both are ULEZ compliant on the TFL website.

I don't know how the emissions are added for the V5 but it does seem they're the wrong way round. DVLA seemed to have issues with the descriptions of various cars, and as you can see from 'HowManyLeft' the model descriptions vary for the 260: ZT V8 260 (as per mine on the V5) and ZT 260 V8.

I can't believe emission figures are individually entered for each car, I assume when a car is registered they pick the car from a list and if one set are figures are wrong we end up where the OP is, although I'd have expected to have seen it before with the number of cars still out there (assuming possibly that 'ZT 260 V8' have the wrong emissions, there are 12 non-SE ZT cars on the road according to HowManyLeft's dubious figures).

[Dashnine]

I know a 'cheaper' RFL car and a more 'expensive' RFL car (sadly mine although if it were registered when it was made instead of 2 and a half years later it'd be in the 'cheaper' category!), and both are ULEZ compliant on the TFL website.

I don't know how the emissions are added for the V5 but it does seem they're the wrong way round. DVLA seemed to have issues with the descriptions of various cars, and as you can see from 'HowManyLeft' the model descriptions vary for the 260: ZT V8 260 (as per mine on the V5) and ZT 260 V8.

I can't believe emission figures are individually entered for each car, I assume when a car is registered they pick the car from a list and if one set are figures are wrong we end up where the OP is, although I'd have expected to have seen it before with the number of cars still out there (assuming possibly that 'ZT 260 V8' have the wrong emissions, there are 12 non-SE ZT cars on the road according to HowManyLeft's dubious figures).
However I maybe talking nonsense (again) as the figures on HowManyLeft may show that models listed as ZT 260 V8 are Mk1 / Pre-facelift (start 2003 and tail off 2004) and ZT V8 260 are Mk2 / Facelift (start 2004).

So anyone got a Mk1 260 that shows as ULEZ compliant, and what's yours Mgnoob?

ETA: Jeffs 260 is a Mk1 and compliant, so another theory shot down!

[David]

Looking at DVLA nomenclature it initially indeed looked like the MK1 and Mk2 were different DVLA 'Models', 260 V8 and V8 260:

200 ZT SE 260 V8
201 ZT 260 V8
202 ZT SE 260 V8
203 ZT 260 V8
204 ZT 260 V8
205 ZT 260 V8
206 ZT-T V8 260
207 ZT (???)
208 ZT 260 V8
209 ZT SE 260 V8
210 ZT-T SE V8 260
211 ZT-T SE 260 V8
213 ZT-T SE 260 V8
214 ZT SE 260 V8
216 ZT SE 260 V8
217 ZT V8 260
218 Not Found
219 ZT V8 260
220 ZT V8 260

... but then browsing through the higher and lower VINs I found some more cars just with model ZT
and random '260 V8' showing up like in this group of Mk2 cars made within hours of each other:

258 ZT SE 260 V8
259 ZT SE V8 260
260 ZT V8 260

The model designation 'V8 260' for Mk2 as against '260 V8' for Mk1 is an indication but not truly indicative as far as I can see. What about the whole bunch of 'ZT' only models??

If it's any use to know, ZT 260 Mk1 to Mk2 changeover occurred early in 2004 in a 2 week break in production from 02/02/2004 to 17/02/2004. The last true Mk1 #216 was completed on the 4th, the other 7 Mk1 cars which also in a part completed state were mostly converted to Mk2. as far as possible (#210 to #218), at least outwardly, and many became publicity or show cars, including #215 which was converted into the first Rover 75 V8 for the Geneva show. The first true production ZT 260 Mk2 was #219, built on the 17/02/2004.

Purely academic interest for me of course over in Holland, but what about the Rover 75 V8s ??
As a matter of fact 'Olive' and I visited he UK for 4 or 5 years regularly using the Dartford crossing after the toll booth's vanished. Me blithely thinking "that's good it's all paid for at long last, so free now". Those with long memories will recall that was said when the Dartford Tunnel and the Severn Crossing were granted Toll status when built. Never heard a dicky bird about it. ULEZ solution? :D

David

[Dashnine]

So if one of those lines used at the DVLA had the wrong emissions data entered against it, and was used sparingly - that could explain how Mgnoob has the wrong figures on his V5? Or have I missed the point?

- 201, 203, 204, 205, 208 have the same designation (ZT 260 V8).
- 217, 218, 220 have the alternate ZT V8 260.

[David]

I only have individual DVLA 'lookup' rights which would mean 711 hand queries to prove or disprove that theory for all UK MG ZT 260s.
OK, I have done it twice to see how many V8's were still actually registered, taxed and MOT'd, SORN'd or officially exported or scrapped.
A long boring job, which I don't plan to do again soon!

As far as I can see from the tiny samples I have taken now of about 40 cars, I found only 3 MG ZT model descriptions of our cars, as I show above, ZT V8 260, ZT 260 V8 and just ZT, each with their SE and Tourer variants, and a "large number" of the first two, roughly but only very roughly corresponding with Mk1/Mk2. Further fishing could discover more of course, but this is more 'rod and line' than 'trawling'!

David

[Nich]

Thought I would look at the possible variations that DVLA might have used for our cars. I haven't included the Rover 75 V8 because I am losing the will to live. I might get round to doing that sometime in the future but the ZT's seem to be the ones in focus at the moment.
As you can see the DVLA don't seem to have used all of the possible variant names..............yet.

16730

Nich.

[David]

Thought I would look at the possible variations that DVLA might have used for our cars. I haven't included the Rover 75 V8 because I am losing the will to live. I might get round to doing that sometime in the future but the ZT's seem to be the ones in focus at the moment.
As you can see the DVLA don't seem to have used all of the possible variant names..............yet.
...

You forgot just 'ZT' and 'Unspecified' :)

David

[SCP440]

Mine seems to be just MG ZTT no gaps or mention of a V8 in the title.

[David]

Mine seems to be just MG ZTT no gaps or mention of a V8 in the title.
According to DVLA data for #480

16734

David