S80
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 350
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- North Lincolnshire
- Your Mercedes
- None at the monent, but there's an OM642 in the Jeep Grand Cherokee!
It's been MoT (or is that VOSA?) time, and the W124 managed to fail only on an ineffective parking brake A new set of shoes/pads/discs duly sorted that out - the old shoes had cracked badly, even though of very adequate thickness :-? Much swearing was forthcoming removing and refitting the shoe hold-down springs, BTW!!
Anyway, I had a look at the emissions test result and noticed the lines: 'MOT Exhaust Emissions Test Results: Non-catalyst equipped vehicle (metered check)' at the top of the sheet.
It was my understanding that all M104 2.8 litre engines were catalyst-equipped.... am I mistaken? I notice that the power output is variously quoted as either 193 or 197 PS - is this the clue? The car is a late 'amber indicator' model fitted with the M104 2.8 engine.
The emissions results were: CO 1.344% (limit 3.5%), HC 196 ppm (limit 1200).
Anyway, I had a look at the emissions test result and noticed the lines: 'MOT Exhaust Emissions Test Results: Non-catalyst equipped vehicle (metered check)' at the top of the sheet.
It was my understanding that all M104 2.8 litre engines were catalyst-equipped.... am I mistaken? I notice that the power output is variously quoted as either 193 or 197 PS - is this the clue? The car is a late 'amber indicator' model fitted with the M104 2.8 engine.
The emissions results were: CO 1.344% (limit 3.5%), HC 196 ppm (limit 1200).