A little bit of advice?..

[BachelorDays]

Post No. 5

There is no debate.

The EML is not a MOT test fail. Even under the new March 2013 requirements.

End of.

Here we go again..

 

[BachelorDays]

Re: EML, I've been told on several occasions now that the new rules say that if the EML is illuminated the car is an instant fail. My friends Volvo is off the road for this very reason, despite being perfectly drivable. We suspect some minor electrical gremlin. Congrats to OP for sorting it though, amazed seller wasn't willing to spend on new MAF if the indeed knew what it was, it would have put me off.

Scoob.

From a few minutes browsing of the VOSA and AA sites, I think Corned has the correct view on this. However, as Scoob, there are many out there, including some MOT testers, who are of the view that an EML is a fail. I think that's probably because of various mentions of 'warning lights' in the new rules in force since March 2013. Of course, warning lights are mentioned specifically by function in the detail, and EML isn't one of them.

 

[Scoob]

Yeah, there's certainly a lot of confusion, even more so since they delayed these new rules from the originally intended date.

Problem is, if the MOT tester thinks it's a fail, rightly or wrongly, you will be issued with a fail notification. Sure, you could fight this if you disagree, but how long might that take & your car would not be legally road-worthy in the interim. Total. Nightmare.

Basically, to protect yourself, it's likely best to address the issue.

Cheers,

Scoob.

 

[Corned]

This has been done to death on many an internet forum - including this one.

The only people who still doubt whether or not the EML being on is an MOT fail are the ones who have, for some reason or other, not yet read the actual VOSA guidelines for themselves.

 

[Scoob]

The thing is, why would someone read the VOSA guidelines for themselves when their authorised MOT centre has told them it's a fail?

I agree, if I personally were concerned about one of my cars I'd be checking the rules in detail. As they're fine however I've not. I've only heard from people who've been told their vehicle will/has failed due to CEL/EML or other warning lights being illuminated.

Emmission control has been a big thing for a while now, and on many models the CEL/EML is illuminated if there is an issue here. So, any MAF or Lambda fault = illumintated, sticky EGR = illuminated etc. I've had these things fail on cars, get the CEL/EML illuminated, traced the issue with my laptop and fixed it. Easy enough for me to do, as I have such diagnostic kit, but many would ignore it, if the car was running ok.

I actually download the latest VOSA manual, I skimmed through but I didn't see anything clear regarding the CEL/EML or warning light in general. However, if you just google, there are lots of articles on it, with much contradictory information. I can see why it's confusing.

Personally, I know a friend whose car is currently SORN'd and off the road due to an illuminated CEL. We suspect (as I think I mentioned) it's due to an electrical gremlin as well as a potentially intermittant Lambda fault. However, the car IS a failure, as far as the testing centre is concerned. Despite it driving ok, being perfectly sound etc.

While this should be clear-cut, it evidently is not.

Scoob.

 

[Corned]

The thing is, why would someone read the VOSA guidelines for themselves when their authorised MOT centre has told them it's a fail?

To check for themselves that there was a valid reason to fail it.

I actually download the latest VOSA manual, I skimmed through but I didn't see anything clear regarding the CEL/EML or warning light in general.

Hence why it's not a fail. The ones that are a fail are clearly distinguished.

Personally, I know a friend whose car is currently SORN'd and off the road due to an illuminated CEL. We suspect (as I think I mentioned) it's due to an electrical gremlin as well as a potentially intermittant Lambda fault. However, the car IS a failure, as far as the testing centre is concerned. Despite it driving ok, being perfectly sound etc.

How did its emissions test results look? Sounds like there could be other reasons for the fail rather than the EML. But if it was just the EML then your mate has excellent grounds to contest the result.

Look - I'm not trying to pick an argument with you. Just pointing out that the VOSA guidelines themselves are clear. How the rest of the internet interprets that information is neither here nor there, even if it appears to be mostly 'there'.

If you wanted to get to the source of a particular problem - with anything in life - would you ask a few internet forum members (me included) or use google? Or would you seek the advice of an authority on the subject (not me)?

 

[Scoob]

Hey Corned,

No this is cool, just discussing things. I actually agree with you and would want to know exactly what I'd failed on. I do my homework on such issues, have fixed numerous minor faults and many not so minor myself. I have diagnostic equipment here, have experience with engine mapping etc.

I'd never really thought about it before, until my friend told me of his experiences. So, when the thread popped up on here, I wanted to try to contribute - though I may have caused some confusion, which was not intended.

My car would never go into an MOT with any warning light (other than service required) illuminated because I'd have gotten to the bottom of it beforehand. The thing is, many people go away from a garage or MOT test assuming what they've been told is right, so they don't presume to query it. As we know, garages and MOT testers sometimes get things wrong. I mean, Ford insisted to me once that I needed £1,500 worth of repairs to one of my cars. My own research suggested that just a £20 solenoid had failed and needed replacing. I was right, but many others would have paid the £1,500 and not have had the fault fixed.

I have read about cases where there has been a CEL and they've traced it either to a proper reason for the fail, i.e. Lambda / MAF when emissions are within limits, but higher than expected for a given car, the car knows somethings wrong - you just had to read and interpret the code to see what - but the emissions may be a pass.

I think if people are googling this, get some hits on an anonymous forum where people say A is true, yet the qualified technician actually says A is false, then who are they to believe? Going to the VOSA source is this case is the answer, but many, myself included until this thread, hadn't thought to do so.

I'll be helping my friend get to the bottom of this issue. I fixed a CEL illuminated issue for him before that proved to be the MAF. Interestingly he was warned last time that "next time that'll be a fail", so the garage evidently still beleive it. I suspect the Lambda is triggering something this time, despite emissions being acceptable.

Anyway, no argument here, just trying to show how confusing things might be for the average punter so to speak, when their garage gives them information they assume is accurate.

Cheers,

Scoob.

 

[Corned]

No worries!

The reason I am confident that I know what I'm talking about in this instance is that my EML is on permanently. :Oops: And because of that I've done some research.

It has been on for a few months after I fudged an EGR shunt wiring job. I have since corrected it (and the car runs perfectly) but the mis-wire caused limp mode and EML. Correcting the situation stopped the limp mode, but left the EML on. Doh!

Having just passed an MOT (EML was an advisory - correctly), I am happy that the guys got it right.