RX400H doesn't need catalytic converter?

[Glyn Radcliffe-Brine]

A year ago I bought a 2008 RX400H with a brand new MOT from (I believed) a reputable dealer. Yesterday I had it serviced at a Lexus dealer.  The new MOT had one advisory on it: "The car doesn't have a catalytic converter"! 

So at some time in its life it would appear that the cat had been stolen.  It certainly wasn't stolen during my ownership, so what happened?

According to Lexus, the cat had been removed and replaced with  plain tubing.  So how come it passed two MOT's?  

I was told that the emissions can't be tested on a hybrid because, when the vehicle is being tested, the engine isn't running.  So as the emissions can't be tested, it is perfectly legal to drive the vehicle without a cat.

I confess that I am amazed, and am now trying to decide whether to try to find out which previous owner made the replacement, or whether to just accept that I am lucky because no-one is going to steal my cat.

I'd be interested to hear the views and experiences of other hybrid owners

[royoftherovers]

My understanding that an M.O.T. failure will result if a Catalytic Converter has been removed.

Your point about emissions testing on a Hybrid not required is true, so in theory at least a failure will not/cannot occur if the emissions test does not take place.

The problem occurs when and if the Tester notices that it has been removed.

BETTER TAKE THIS THREAD WITH YOU NEXT TIME ???????????????????

[NemesisUK]

Taken form the MoT Tester's manual (my highlighting) - As hybrids don not need the full catalyst test the inspector does not need to check for the presence of a factory fitted CAT.

8.2.1.1. Exhaust emission control equipment
This inspection is only for vehicles that must have a full catalyst emissions test (disregarding the basic emissions test). You only need to check components that are visible and identifiable, such as catalytic converters, oxygen sensors, and exhaust gas recirculation valves.

Defect    Category
(a) Emission control equipment fitted by the manufacturer: missing, obviously modified or obviously defective    Major
(b) An induction or exhaust leak that could affect emissions levels    Major

8.2.1.2. Gaseous emissions
You must inspect vehicles with spark ignition engines first used on or after 1 August 1975.

You do not need to check:

L category vehicles
hybrid vehicles - with electric and combustion engines
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
two-stroke engines - unless they are subject to a catalyst test

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/8-nuisance#section-8-2

 

Basic exhaust security and condition is checked in a different section but doesn't mention emission control equipment

6.1.2. Exhaust system
You must check the exhaust system of all vehicles with an internal combustion engine, including hybrid vehicles. You need to assess the overall security of the exhaust system. One or more missing or defective exhaust mountings does not necessarily make the exhaust insecure.

For exhaust noise assessment, see Section 8.1.1.

For assessment of catalytic converters and diesel particulate filters, see Section 8.2.

Defect    Category
(a) Exhaust system has a major leak or is insecure    Major
(b) Exhaust fumes:

(i) entering cabin
(ii) causing a danger to health of persons on board    

Major
Dangerous

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/6-body-structure-and-attachments

 

[royoftherovers]

Thanks Peter. 

Now,if only ALL M.O.T. testers can read, understand and implement...........no problem.

[NemesisUK]

If one were to fall foul of a, let's say, ignorant tester, one could simply point him to the relevant sections of his (obviously pristine) copy of the manual? 

[royoftherovers]

Just now, NemesisUK said:

If one were to fall foul of a, let's say, ignorant tester, one could simply point him to the relevant sections of his (obviously pristine) copy of the manual? 

or better still, take a copy of this Thread !!

Game over, Word Association beckons

[NemesisUK]

Reading further on this subject it may not be as black and white as perhaps first thought.. From the DfT guidance notes on "Modifying your vehicle’s emissions: the legal, safety and health implications"

"Under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulations 61(7) and 61A(3)) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Section 42) it is an offence to use on a road a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet.

The potential penalties are £1,000 for a car and £2,500 for a van, lorry or bus.

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Section 75) it is an offence to alter a vehicle in such a way that the use of the vehicle on a road would be unlawful. A person altering the vehicle (if they knew or believed that the vehicle would be used on the road) could be found guilty of an offence under the Act.

Potential penalties are unlimited fines."

The fact a hybrid doesn't require an emissions test doesn't mean it still complies with it's design standards? 

Does removing the CAT also render the vehicle non-compliant with it's Type Approval and so technically illegal for road use?

What implication does the removal have on the vehicle's insurance status? The vehicle having been modified should be declared to one's insurer?

[Spacewagon52]

5 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

Reading further on this subject it may not be as black and white as perhaps first thought.. From the DfT guidance notes on "Modifying your vehicle’s emissions: the legal, safety and health implications"

"Under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (Regulations 61(7) and 61A(3)) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Section 42) it is an offence to use on a road a vehicle which has been modified in such a way that it no longer complies with the air pollutant emissions standards it was designed to meet.

The potential penalties are £1,000 for a car and £2,500 for a van, lorry or bus.

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Section 75) it is an offence to alter a vehicle in such a way that the use of the vehicle on a road would be unlawful. A person altering the vehicle (if they knew or believed that the vehicle would be used on the road) could be found guilty of an offence under the Act.

Potential penalties are unlimited fines."

The fact a hybrid doesn't require an emissions test doesn't mean it still complies with it's design standards? 

Does removing the CAT also render the vehicle non-compliant with it's Type Approval and so technically illegal for road use?

What implication does the removal have on the vehicle's insurance status? The vehicle having been modified should be declared to one's insurer?

Very interesting - another can of worms!

 

I am not keen on worms - only in the garden!

[royoftherovers]

We must be grateful to young Peter for muddying the waters, so that we can now all see what we should have seen from the outset!

The vehicle must not be modified with regards to altering emissions.Period.Full Stop.

M.O.T. testing passes or not testings are wholly irrelevant. A catalytic converter if incorporated from manufacture is required.

Time for coffee.

[Glyn Radcliffe-Brine]

Hmm.  This is exactly what it says on the MOT test certificate:

Pass

Monitor and repair if necessary(advisories)

(rear cat removed)

As this MOT certificate was issued by Inchcape Toyota, I imagine that they must be pretty certain as to the requirements - But it still seems very odd (not that I am complaining) 

🙂

 

[NemesisUK]

I think, as far as the MoT is concerned, it would be no problem. As you say this isn't a little 'back street garage' issuing the pass certificate, they must be sure of their position.

It's the potential 'knock-on' issues, regarding the technical legalities that an insurer might use against you, should the unfortunate happen.

Driving about no one is going to challenge you. You have an MoT pass in the 'eyes' of the ANPR cameras and there's no excessive noise or smoke.

[Barry14UK]

Although the OP'car may not be affected in this respect, I wonder what implications there might be be as regards extended warranty if car had been modified in this way and a claim was made for anything remotely connected to exhaust. 

[Glyn Radcliffe-Brine]

Car is well out of warranty, and it has passed its Lexus Hybrid Battery Healthcheck.  So I guess there shouldn't be any problems on that front

[Herbie]

The extended warranty would be void on anything to do with the exhaust system but still valid for all other things it covers.

For instance, work on the exhaust can't affect the brakes, so the brakes section of the warranty would still stand but the exhaust wouldn't.

[brendangeorge]

Very interesting thread - I think it was pointed out by John the Cat needs to be on the car if it was designed with one.  Also note that an MoT certificate does not mean the car is legal to drive only that it passed an MoT test.

About to get an MoT done - it still has Cats :).

Bren

[Delphius1]

I also gets a bit murky when you factor in London's ULEZ. Because of the high rate of Cat thefts in Greater London, I just wonder how many people are running around inside the ULEZ without the secondary cat?

I also wonder that if you're missing the cat and technically not meeting whatever Euro emissions standard, if VOSA ever stopped you in London you'd be liable for multiple breaches of the rules. Not only construction and use regs, but the ULEZ rules as well. Could get a bit expensive!

[Spottedlaurel]

It'd be nice if there could be a bit of common sense about this issue. I know some people remove cats for performance, but in this case it's being done because of criminal actions by others. The victim has to struggle with a whole load of issues not of their making.

[Barry14UK]

I  don't know whether omitting the vulnerable cat might enhance power in the same way, but perhaps to a lesser extent than say swapping the standard silencer for a performance designed one.  If so, some insurers could use this as a 'get out' clause if not informed and a claim was made for any reason.  We do know that some insurers try to wriggle out of paying up in the event of a claim if they can find even a small  reason for doing so.

[Illogan]

As there is a common clause in most vehicle insurance policies (that I've read) that any modifications to the vehicle require the insurer to be notified, would the removal of a cat be sufficient for them to raise and awkward eyebrow?

[royoftherovers]

4 minutes ago, Illogan said:

As there is a common clause in most vehicle insurance policies (that I've read) that any modifications to the vehicle require the insurer to be notified, would the removal of a cat be sufficient for them to raise and awkward eyebrow?

That is a question for the appropriate Insurance Company, I think Dave.

The best advice might be to consult one`s Insurance Company immediately upon any theft of the Cat. They will quickly form a view upon being told the relative cost of the two options.

[Illogan]

17 hours ago, royoftherovers said:

That is a question for the appropriate Insurance Company, I think Dave.

<<>>  They will quickly form a view upon being told the relative cost of the two options.

I think you may well be right, John!