Your MG and the ULEZ

[Rob Bell]

I don't know how many of you chaps are like me, living within the perimeter of the extended London ULEZ (encompassed within the north and south circular roads) - but many more will likely be effected by it as other city councils will doubtless copy London's lead

I've got a couple of years to fully work out my adaptive strategy to this extra tax - part of which will mean that one of my MGs will be reluctantly sold - our lovely MG ZTT. It's a CDTi of '03 Vintage - so no chance. The '27 M-type is vintage, so no problem. The two '96 MGFs are right in the cross hairs of our beloved mayor's emission's gun sight

The 2004 ZR105 I have got to rebuild for my daughter to learn to drive in might, as it turns out, be in a grey zone...

The key is the NOx levels the cars were homologated with. The K-series is a remarkably clean engine - and it would seem that it tends to emit rather less than the 0.08g/km EU4 petrol/ EU6 diesel requirement

All the literature states that unless your car was homologated to pass the EU4 petrol emissions target, you will be charged every time you drive your car, 24/7. BUT if your EU3 emissions certified petrol car emits less than that "magic" 0.08g/km (and many do, as it turns out), you will not be subject to the ULEZ charge.

I haven't been able to check all MGFs/TFs NOx levels (not easy to find on line), but there is a decent chance it'll be fine for the ULEZ.

Can you folks help? Check your V5: section V.3 will have the NOx levels. The 2003 TF 135 will pass according to the one V5 I have access to. This can then be verified by entering your registration number in the ULEZ registration checker website - https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra- ... ecker-ulez

Would be good to check the lists - and hopefully prevent more MGs being senselessly scrapped for no reason!

[colintf]

Checked online using your link Rob. 2004 TF 160 seems ok even the V8 seems ok

[Reckless Rat]

No problems for me at the moment, but the availability (or lack of it) of non E10 95 unleaded for the F is becoming a worry. Is there any feedback on how much E10 can be used in a 97 F before it starts causing problems?

Further afield, my son and his family live in Stuttgart and there they have introduced a City wide ban on all Euro 4 diesels (and older) so my trips up there in the Uber Barge are looking dodgy. It's a 2001 E220 CDi. Nice clean car and I'm buggered if I'm going to sell or scrap it. I've had it from new.

[Rob Bell]

This is our beloved ZTT on hols in Spain last year - again way too good to send to the crushers - owned since 18 months old (formerly of the MG Rover management fleet):

[Rob Bell]

Needed a bit of a clean after driving 2,000 miles

[Rob Bell]

Turns out the ZR105 is clean enough...

[Green Squirrel]

Living in Woolwich puts us outside the zone by about 200 metres! And both cars are liable --- That is our 1996 MGF and 2011 Discovery 4

[quick_spider]

I was surprised when I check that my TF is okay (135, MY2005)
My two diesel VW’s aren’t (no surprise there really)

[Mike H]

For interest, I put in the Reg numbers of my previous cars, all of which I know are still on the road.
The '98 plate MGF VVC does not comply
The '03 plate TF160 complies
The '10 plate NAC TF complies

[mowog73]

No problems for me at the moment, but the availability (or lack of it) of non E10 95 unleaded for the F is becoming a worry. Is there any feedback on how much E10 can be used in a 97 F before it starts causing problems?

I've driven my '95 F over 30,000 miles, using nothing but E10, and I have seen no ill effects; it has caused no problems that I am aware of.

[flyingbanana]

So my 32 year old Audi coupe and my evo 5 will get hammered because there is no data for them, therefore guilty.

[Rob Bell]

Thanks for the data chaps

I wonder whether all K16 engines manufactured after Jan 2001 will be ULEZ compliant? No MG Rover diesel will be compliant though, sadly

Annoying that pre-2001 MGFs will be penalized; it would not be too difficult to change them to a later homologation specification. I wonder whether we could get cars through that way?

[Rob Bell]

I wonder whether E10 fuel deserves another thread? Ethanol has a habit of eating through plastics and especially rubber. There is not a huge amount of rubber in the MGF/TF fuel system - mostly metal, a couple of semi-rigid plastic pipes but there is a rubber hose to the fuel rail from the fuel filter. If there is going to be trouble, it will be there...

IIRC K-series in London taxis were E85 certified?

[Tipper]

.... There is not a huge amount of rubber in the MGF/TF fuel system - mostly metal, a couple of semi-rigid plastic pipes but there is a rubber hose to the fuel rail from the fuel filter....

I bet there are o-rings in the fuel system too!

I had a massive fuel leak over the top of my engine on my recently acquired ZS 180 caused by rotted o-rings. I suspect too they may have been changed to the wrong material anyway as many suppliers I talked too didn't seem to know the difference and certainly didn't know what correct material, Viton, was!

[Rob Bell]

That's very true! I am trying to recall the whole fuel system when I had it all apart for Project Shed. My guess is that there are O-rings at the releasable fuel connectors. There are also O-rings on the fuel pressure regulator and on the input side of the fuel rail. The electronic parts catalogue is always a good place to start for this - although the EPC is generally not so good at providing the critical dimensions!

From Dieter's website:


Note that there are more sections of rubber hose than I remembered! D'oh!