Freelander new m o t exhaust emissions

Hello everyone, I have a 1999 Freelander TD4 with the bullet proof B M W Diesel engine which has done a mear 253000 miles, yep over a quarter of a million miles ! doesn’t drink, doesn’t smoke ( unless you hammer it ) starts instantly any weather ! drives absolutely fine never had any bother with the M O T but I am now concerned about the New M O T and the new emissions rules and am wandering if this is just the governments back door way of making us scrap perfectly good vehicles.
Jet aircraft which are far greater polluters than our little diesels just go on polluting unchecked, just wandered if any of our clever members have any thoughts on this issue and of course any advice as to what we can do to make sure our diesels get over this hurdle.
You know it’s amazing this pollution lark, weren’t we all conned into a little item called a Caterlitic Converter some years ago, the greatest thing since the sliced loaf, all your emissions taken care of, so what happened to that little item ? Doesn’t it work anymore ?
Your thoughts gents please, cheers Harry Morris.

Harry Morris said:

Freelander TD4 with the bullet proof B M W Diesel engine

Click to expand...

Very funny. The M47R is the worst part of the Freelander IMO.
The Freelander got a cheaped out version of the M47 used in BMW vehicles. It sufferers loads of problems from minor electrical issues to serious issues like crank failure!

As for the emissions. Just keep it serviced and use good quality fuel.

Not much modern legislation relating to motor vehicles makes much sense or relate to the descriptions applied.

Nodge68 said:

Very funny. The M47R is the worst part of the Freelander IMO.

Click to expand...

But is it really a TD4? Thought they didn't hit the streets until 2000.

Is this not like the Discoveries with the awesome BMW TD5 engines?

Harry Morris said:

Jet aircraft which are far greater polluters than our little diesels just go on polluting unchecked, just wandered if any of our clever members have any thoughts on this issue and of course any advice as to what we can do to make sure our diesels get over this hurdle.

Click to expand...

It has little to do with pollution and lots to do with money.
While aeroplanes produce huge amounts of pollution, completely unconverted, they also generate huge revenues for the various governments around the world.

Harry Morris said:

You know it’s amazing this pollution lark, weren’t we all conned into a little item called a Caterlitic Converter some years ago, the greatest thing since the sliced loaf, all your emissions taken care of, so what happened to that little item ? Doesn’t it work anymore ?

Click to expand...

The CAT was lobbied for by the Green party back in the late 60s. I believe the idea was sold to the Greens by the petrol companies as a way of increasing fuel sales, under the guise of being "green". An engine suddenly becomes 10 to 30% less efficient, the moment a cat is installed in to the exhaust. So instantly the fuel consumption is higher, compared to the same vehicle without the CAT. This increased CO2 emissions by the same percentage as it's directly related to fuel burned. Also because the CO in the exhaust gas is converted to CO2 and water, even more CO2 is produced.
Just imagine how many extra tonnes of CO2 have been pumped into the atmosphere, over the last 40 years, all because of the CAT.

Just had my TD5 defender tested today, it's getting a bit nerve wracking,
Our poor old engines were not expected to get through these new tests, I agree the government is just looking to get rid of diesels now without standing up and banning them, just using stealth tactics.
I took the air filter out to give it maximum air flow, I know that with MAF sensors the engine will adjust itself to suit but I felt that I had to do something, gave it a good run out the other day with injector cleaner in the tank and gave it a bit of a run up some local hills on the way to the testing station,.
Think I'm going to have to look at the injectors in the next 12 months.

my L.series was w reg thought the td4 came after that may be wrong ,lol.

I recon this government legislation killing off diesels is going to turn out to be like Sadam's weapons of mass destruction - after the event it will be shown to be wrong - ie when all the pollutants are taken into account, diesels are no worse than petrol engines. Surely a diesel running on bio fuel is zero emissions?

GrumpyGel said:

I recon this government legislation killing off diesels is going to turn out to be like Sadam's weapons of mass destruction

Click to expand...

Very lickly. We've just ordered a new diesel family car, which will be ready to pick up at the end of the January. It's got a modern 1.5 L 4 cylinder engine that has a DPF and uses DEF(Adblue) to minimise the UFP emissions. It's also supposed to do almost 70 Mpg, which isn't bad for a large family vehicle that weights in at 1700 Kgs.
It's a fact that diesels are more fuel efficient, and so produce less CO2 as a result, by comparison to an equivalent petrol engine vehicle.

GrumpyGel said:

after the event it will be shown to be wrong - ie when all the pollutants are taken into account, diesels are no worse than petrol engines.

Click to expand...

The only bad thing about a diesel is the UFP emissions. Those can be controlled with a DPF in combination with DEF injection.
This current demonization of diesels is wrong and is confusing an uninformed general public.

GrumpyGel said:

Surely a diesel running on bio fuel is zero emissions?

Click to expand...

It's carbon neutral, but far from zero emissions. Sadly bio diesel doesn't burn as cleanly as normal diesel, which increases particulates in the exhaust. This is what the current diesel demonizing is all about.

Out of interest, what are you buying?? Sounds impressive.

andyfreelandy said:

Out of interest, what are you buying?? Sounds impressive.

Click to expand...

We're not buying it.
It'll be on a 3 year lease, but it's nothing exciting I'm afraid. I it's reasonably mundane Vauxhall Grandland X, which is like an oversized Astra. It just does all we need for a family car, with a few luxuries thrown in. And most importantly these days, it's very good on fuel due to its modern 1.5L PSA diesel engine.

I thought MOT emissions tests related to the age of the vehicle so a 1999 vehicle had to comply to the standard set for that period and not the more rigorous standards of later years.

Col

Colthebrummie said:

I thought MOT emissions tests related to the age of the vehicle so a 1999 vehicle had to comply to the standard set for that period and not the more rigorous standards of later years.

Col

Click to expand...

Partially correct I think. I'm sure I read that the smoke limit has been reduced, but is still very easy for a correctly running TD4 to pass.
My TD4 showed 0.25 on the particulates test in September, but to pass it needs to be under 3.5, so it's not going to be an issue.

Colthebrummie said:

I thought MOT emissions tests related to the age of the vehicle so a 1999 vehicle had to comply to the standard set for that period and not the more rigorous standards of later years.

Col

Click to expand...

This is my understanding as well - I presuming this is essentially "grandfathers rights" .... whilst I am sure the governbent would love to reduce the limits to force all to use pedal "power" .... thankfully they can't do this .... yet.

The limits are very tight for modern "cars" after 2013 IIRC.... not that I give a stuff about such things.... if anything happens to our D1's we'll be going older, not newer

Nodge68 said:

My TD4 showed 0.25 on the particulates test in September, but to pass it needs to be under 3.5, so it's not going to be an issue.

Click to expand...

I think the smoke limit for our 300Tdi's is 3.00 .... which is, as you say is easy to keep inside ...

I'd actually go so far as to say that if it isn't within this limit, then it really does want a good fettling, cos 3 is lot of smoke

Well Gents, a great response to my winge, its just that i love this old tub and I do look after it, but am always a bit apprehensive when I go for the M O T ! Also a bit of a clanger here in my last post, she is in fact year 2000 not 1999 as I said, notably registered in December of that year, an odd time to register a vehicle just before Christmas.
Only paid a couple of hundred for her but when I tried to drive it...... Strewth it wouldnt pull you out of bed ! So straight to the LANDYZONE and boom, our fantastic members soon put me straight and she has run like a dream ever since.
I only use the ( normal ) diesel ie I don’t buy the super stuff and give her a drink of caterclean at least twice a year noteably just before the dreaded M O T, I removed all the four wheel drive gubbins not long after I got her as I would have no use for it the mileage I do, and I know the purists among you will frown on such butchery but she’s quite economical for such a large vehicle without the FWD.
Also on my list was the air conditioning ! I noted no drive belt to the pump ? I found the pump itself was seized solid, so off came the pump and the pipes blocked off,
Well that’s me lot for now gents thank you very much for all your vast knowledge and information, cheers Harry.

it really is a myth about doing better fuel consumption without the prop in fact it would become an insurance issue if you had a serious accident as for the ozone lay well the latest is that well it is healing and scientist say it will be completely healed by 2060 I will not be here by then but when you do look at jets and so on they create more pollution than all the vehicles in the world and then nearly every week a rocket is going up , so relax everybody it is really up to the examiner if the car is putting out a lot of smoke or not so take a box of chocolates with you LOL.
I for got to say I feel sorry for GrumpyGel as where he is the ozone is at its weakest point that beautiful NZ

teddywood1 said:

it really is a myth about doing better fuel consumption without the prop

Click to expand...

I suspect it would make as much difference as putting freewheel hubs on a series. i.e. none at all that I have ever noticed.

how about following all the greenhouse gas emission taxes. Get a rich country to counter your emissions by buying. Remember that con still going around the globe to offset greenhouse effect.