Go Back   The 75 and ZT Owners Club Forums > Club Classifieds > Traders Shops & Members Spares For-Sale > MG Rover Custom Car Parts (Rick-Sta's) Shop
Register FAQ Image Gallery Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 20th November 2020, 21:47   #11
Mickyboy
THE SPARE PARTS GUY
 
Mickyboy's Avatar
 
MG ZT CDTI 135 + & MGZT CDTI AUTO 160 & ROVER 75 TOURER CDTI 160 TROPHY YELLOW

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Hernebay
Posts: 4,227
Thanks: 756
Thanked 2,209 Times in 1,091 Posts
Default

Sounds good mate canít wait to catch up again.
Mick
__________________

T4 Owner
Jobs done : new UBP, Spy hole mod, Rear hub(wheel bearing),plenum cleaned and emptied, Inline thermostat fitted,Full service, In car Digital tv/DVD Bluetooth Satnav etc, Replaced UBP, Restored headlights,Fixed airbag connection.replaced HP pump,replaced rear light seals,changed intercooler O rings.

Jobs to do: ,replace drivers lock,.
[/SIZE]
Mickyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mickyboy For This Useful Post:
Old 21st November 2020, 10:01   #12
sworks
This is my second home
 
sworks's Avatar
 
Rover 75 Tourer Contemporary SE, classic mini cooper S works and a Hyundai Ioniq

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 12,775
Thanks: 852
Thanked 1,515 Times in 948 Posts
Default

Having a quick look at the manual and section 4.1.4 it may come under defect b

(b) Product on the lens or light source which obviously reduces light intensity or changes emitted colour to other than white or yellow

I don’t want to be negative or cause upset but some MOT testers could have the opinion that you must prove that light intensity hasn’t been reduced by the etching? You can gauge this to some extent via the headlamp tester but looking and making a judgement I think will be different from one tester to another. There won’t be the luxury of comparing with another car. I think this modification looks absolutely fab but in my opinion there’s some potential doubt to how the manual is interpreted. It’s difficult to make an accurate mot decision via a photo or video so it may not be an issue but mot testers can be difficult to please if there’s some ambiguity
__________________
.................................................

'Marmite' Possibly one of the most famous 75 tourers produced! left the production line as the last of only Three Rover 75 tourers produced in Trophy Yellow. 48 hours later Longbridge closed. The last sold ordered 75 Tourer. Paid for by the Phoenix Four and handed over by John Towers to the Warwickshire Northampton Air ambulance service as a Rapid Response vehicle

Last edited by sworks; 21st November 2020 at 10:21..
sworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2020, 10:58   #13
The Rovering Member
I really should get out more.......
 
The Rovering Member's Avatar
 
Rover 75 saloon

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: London
Posts: 2,374
Thanks: 227
Thanked 420 Times in 348 Posts
Default

Good quality work that, they look grand with the Rover one particularly elegant.
Not for my daily car though as they do get quite chipped in regular use.
__________________
Reducing the size of my Rover fleet by adding a 75 to it.

The Rovering Member is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to The Rovering Member For This Useful Post:
Old 21st November 2020, 11:00   #14
Mickyboy
THE SPARE PARTS GUY
 
Mickyboy's Avatar
 
MG ZT CDTI 135 + & MGZT CDTI AUTO 160 & ROVER 75 TOURER CDTI 160 TROPHY YELLOW

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Hernebay
Posts: 4,227
Thanks: 756
Thanked 2,209 Times in 1,091 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sworks View Post
Having a quick look at the manual and section 4.1.4 it may come under defect b

(b) Product on the lens or light source which obviously reduces light intensity or changes emitted colour to other than white or yellow

I don’t want to be negative or cause upset but some MOT testers could have the opinion that you must prove that light intensity hasn’t been reduced by the etching? You can gauge this to some extent via the headlamp tester but looking and making a judgement I think will be different from one tester to another. There won’t be the luxury of comparing with another car. I think this modification looks absolutely fab but in my opinion there’s some potential doubt to how the manual is interpreted. It’s difficult to make an accurate mot decision via a photo or video so it may not be an issue but mot testers can be difficult to please if there’s some ambiguity
That’s exactly what our MOT tester said and why he said “curious” because he couldn’t say if he would pass or fail it based on the video, he did however tell me he has failed some headlight tints before due to reduced light,
From memory I thought you was also a approved tester mark?

On a personal note I actually think they look fantastic
__________________

T4 Owner
Jobs done : new UBP, Spy hole mod, Rear hub(wheel bearing),plenum cleaned and emptied, Inline thermostat fitted,Full service, In car Digital tv/DVD Bluetooth Satnav etc, Replaced UBP, Restored headlights,Fixed airbag connection.replaced HP pump,replaced rear light seals,changed intercooler O rings.

Jobs to do: ,replace drivers lock,.
[/SIZE]
Mickyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mickyboy For This Useful Post:
Old 21st November 2020, 16:51   #15
Ched
Posted a thing or two
 
Ched's Avatar
 
MG ZT 135 derv MG ZT 190+ MG TF 135

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Romsey
Posts: 1,887
Thanks: 349
Thanked 393 Times in 275 Posts
Default

Tut tut Rick, no thanks to punch deck for the soundtrack.........
Ched is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2020, 00:14   #16
Rick-sta
MG Rover Custom Car Parts
 
Rick-sta's Avatar
 
MG ZT 2.0 CDTI+ in Typhoon, MG TF 135 in Typhoon & Rover 75 Connoisseur CDTI SE in Pearl Black

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Thurrock
Posts: 6,810
Thanks: 2,505
Thanked 2,445 Times in 1,294 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sworks View Post
Having a quick look at the manual and section 4.1.4 it may come under defect b

(b) Product on the lens or light source which obviously reduces light intensity or changes emitted colour to other than white or yellow

I don’t want to be negative or cause upset but some MOT testers could have the opinion that you must prove that light intensity hasn’t been reduced by the etching? You can gauge this to some extent via the headlamp tester but looking and making a judgement I think will be different from one tester to another. There won’t be the luxury of comparing with another car. I think this modification looks absolutely fab but in my opinion there’s some potential doubt to how the manual is interpreted. It’s difficult to make an accurate mot decision via a photo or video so it may not be an issue but mot testers can be difficult to please if there’s some ambiguity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickyboy View Post
That’s exactly what our MOT tester said and why he said “curious” because he couldn’t say if he would pass or fail it based on the video, he did however tell me he has failed some headlight tints before due to reduced light,
From memory I thought you was also a approved tester mark?

On a personal note I actually think they look fantastic

Key word there is being "Obviously". If the lights are emitting a satisfactory bright enough light with no issue with the beam pattern then there's no reason to fail it. It's common sense. If the MOT tester believes the light output is reduced due to the etching then it would be up to the tester to prove that point. The tester can't just fail it on a hunch, just because he/she "thinks" it affects the brightness. Same principle applies to decatting/gutting cat converts. The MOT tester can only fail it if he/she is 100% sure the car has been decatted. If the factory cat has been gutted i.e. internals knocked out but there's no obvious signs to prove it (i.e. can't see that the cat has been cut open and then welded back shut) then the MOT tester can't fail it.

If the light output matches the brightness you'd expect to see from that type of headlight ( i.e. halogen/xenon/LED) then there's no reason to fail it on brightness.

Applying a tint film over the lenses reduces the light output and can reduce it quite significantly depending on the tint % and yet so many vehicles I know of with tinted headlight lenses pass the MOT every time no issues. Etching the lenses doesn't affect the brightness of the lights.

In fact I can now confirm lens etching doesn't reduce the light output from the projectors what so ever or alter the beam pattern after completing the first running set now fitted to our Kuga. Have taken it out for some night runs over the last 2 nights including on unlit roads and there is zero change in light output, which is what I expected anyway from the research I'd done into this before hand.

This isn't something new, custom lens etching has been around for years now, it's just something I've only just got round to trying out myself. There's custom headlight building companies in the UK that have been offering this for a good few years now, and UK members on custom headlighting groups and forums I'm on who have had etched lenses on their cars for a few years with no MOT issues what so ever.

Here's some pics of the set I've done on the Kuga











and here's the beam pattern and brightness they emit, no change from before the lens etching.



__________________

How to retrofit Cruise Control on a diesel with no OEM wiring in place: Link
How to retrofit heated electric memory seats with no OEM wiring in place: Link
How to operate FBH and ATC via text Link
How to restore cloudy projector headlights Link

Last edited by Rick-sta; 23rd November 2020 at 00:41..
Rick-sta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2020, 00:39   #17
Rick-sta
MG Rover Custom Car Parts
 
Rick-sta's Avatar
 
MG ZT 2.0 CDTI+ in Typhoon, MG TF 135 in Typhoon & Rover 75 Connoisseur CDTI SE in Pearl Black

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Thurrock
Posts: 6,810
Thanks: 2,505
Thanked 2,445 Times in 1,294 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sworks View Post
Having a quick look at the manual and section 4.1.4 it may come under defect b

(b) Product on the lens or light source which obviously reduces light intensity or changes emitted colour to other than white or yellow

I donít want to be negative or cause upset but some MOT testers could have the opinion that you must prove that light intensity hasnít been reduced by the etching? You can gauge this to some extent via the headlamp tester but looking and making a judgement I think will be different from one tester to another. There wonít be the luxury of comparing with another car. I think this modification looks absolutely fab but in my opinion thereís some potential doubt to how the manual is interpreted. Itís difficult to make an accurate mot decision via a photo or video so it may not be an issue but mot testers can be difficult to please if thereís some ambiguity
If the MOT tester were to interpret 4.1.4 the way you're suggesting, then he/she should fail every single 75/ZT on that basis that goes though that MOT test garage. Reason why? Because no 75/ZT projector headlight performs as good as it should do and would have done when it was new.

This is because the projector lens over time collects dirt/grime and dust which over time makes the lens go a milky colour and cloud over time and reduces the light output.

See below, here's a projector lens removed from a facelift headlight, and you can see the layer of dust and dirt which coats both sides of the glass lens.



And after a clean here's how it should look:



Again here's a before pic with the projector switched on:



Same projector after a clean:



for a better comparison here's half the lens cleaned



Now here's a comparison of light output with a lux meter at 50cm from the lens, measurement taken from the center of the beam:

Light output prior to cleaning the lens:



Light output after cleaning the lens:



and as a further test, here's the projector with one of my etched lenses fitted with the xpower design:



And here's the light output test. Only the tiniest drop in the reading.



So this dirt built up causing clouding on the projector lens reduces the light output which is noticeable. If you took your headlights apart, cleaned up the projector lenses, reassembled and tested the lights at night you would notice a difference as I have.

Therefore if you wanted to interpret 4.1.4 in that way, i.e. fail the headlights because there is a product on the lens which reduces the light output (even if the light output is still at a satisfactory brightness) then every older car with projector headlights should fail under this rule. As this cloudiness is visible when you switch the projectors on.

This cloudiness paired with headlight lenses that need a refurb significantly reduces your light output, and yet very rarely does a 75/ZT fail on reduced light output due to badly frosted lenses. And I've had some very had ones well overdue a refurb here over the last few years, so bad that you couldn't see into the headlights at all.
__________________

How to retrofit Cruise Control on a diesel with no OEM wiring in place: Link
How to retrofit heated electric memory seats with no OEM wiring in place: Link
How to operate FBH and ATC via text Link
How to restore cloudy projector headlights Link
Rick-sta is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2006-2020, The Rover 75 & MG ZT Owners Club Ltd