MOTs

[ProfJohnL]

I think Prof, the MOT today, is no more than a very basic safety check. It's true,modern cars are not prone to rot in anything like cars of old. You do still see rotten sections but even then,subject to the application of correct test procedures, they will still pass. Cars will still pass with light bulbs not working, mirrors missing,windscreens cracked from side to side. It just the way there tested.

In all walks of life there are some people who will not be competent, or who will on occasions bend the rules a little, or genuinely make a mistake, I'm sure that applies to MOT testers just as much, But are you seriously telling us that the test (not the testers) allows those items to pass or are you referring to the poor practices of some testers?

 

[chrisbee1]

I think Prof, the MOT today, is no more than a very basic safety check. It's true,modern cars are not prone to rot in anything like cars of old. You do still see rotten sections but even then,subject to the application of correct test procedures, they will still pass. Cars will still pass with light bulbs not working, mirrors missing,windscreens cracked from side to side. It just the way there tested.

Sounds like half our company's delivery vans, over 150000 miles before the first MOT. Madness!

 

[tonybur]

I think Prof, the MOT today, is no more than a very basic safety check. It's true,modern cars are not prone to rot in anything like cars of old. You do still see rotten sections but even then,subject to the application of correct test procedures, they will still pass. Cars will still pass with light bulbs not working, mirrors missing,windscreens cracked from side to side. It just the way there tested.

In all walks of life there are some people who will not be competent, or who will on occasions bend the rules a little, or genuinely make a mistake, I'm sure that applies to MOT testers just as much, But are you seriously telling us that the test (not the testers) allows those items to pass or are you referring to the poor practices of some testers?

No Prof,the items I have listed can legitimately pass an MOT.
You see, as a tester of many years myself,who trains and advises other tester,I understand your statement, Poor Testers. But they are not. They follow the letter of the Law. Common sense cannot be applied. If a car has a centre brake light not working,it is a pass. If a portion of it is working this MAY be a fail.
Strange but true.

 

[chrisbee1]

They follow the letter of the Law. Common sense cannot be applied. If a car has a centre brake light not working,it is a pass. If a portion of it is working this MAY be a fail.
Strange but true.

There has been a similar rule with regard to RSLs on HGV's for years. If it cuts in more than 3kph over the limit it's a fail. If it doesn't work at all it's a pass. There is however a logical reason for this.

 

[DrZhivago]

Raywood wrote :

The time taken to replace a bulb or wiper is not going to ... ring alarm bells and frankly I doubt the government are interested in that. They are looking for rogue garages who pass unfit cars.

And how would they ever find them, unless the car is stopped and inspected by police on the road shortly after the test?

A wider problem is rogue garages failing fit cars. As most people do not have a clue about their car tech, it is easy for a garage to pull wool over customers' eyes and give a fail in order to get easy work .

I once was failed for a worn steering column joint. To the garage's suprise and disappointment I took the car away, and to their consternation came back the next day and put the steering column on their desk (I'd cleaned it) and asked what exactly was worn. They had to admit there was nothing wrong with it.

Similarly, I took a rather rusty (but safe - believe me I am a structural engineer) Austin 1100 for test and they said it would pass but for adjusting a rear wheel bearing (for £20). Rather than take it to another place that might fail it on the rust, I forked out the £20. Now : I knew, and they must have known (but they did not know that I knew), that you could not adjust an 1100 rear wheel bearing, but nothing was said by either of us. In other words it was a bribe.

The test should be done by Government testing stations (like in Northern Ireland I believe) but of course that is against the culture of outsourcing everything. At least it should be done by garages that are not permitted to do repairs. The system is corrupt, and a joke like Tonybur said. But the Prof said it is not a joke : OK, a bitter joke.

 

[Hutch]

So where are the worst areas for MOT's.

http://dailym.ai/1U8iYhj

 

[DrZhivago]

So where are the worst areas for MOT's.

]http://dailym.ai/1U8iYhj

http://dailym.ai/1U8iYhj[/quote
That article assumes that the areas with more MoT failures have the less roadworthy cars; but then you cannot expect journalists to know much about car tech. A far more likely reason is different degrees of fussiness among testers. There are huge differences, I've found.

I have had an MoT failure because the tester had poked the floorpan for rust and happened to push out a rubber grommet beneath the underseal and thought it was a rust hole. OTOH, there was a car in my works car park with holes in the wings big enough to put your hand through, and the car was like it for several years (as recently as 2012).

Given that a main reason for failures is that the garage is seeking easy work, I have discovered that the best way to pass an MoT is to submit it to an up-market main dealer of a different make from your own. They are usually working on nearly new cars of their own make and the last thing they want is to face a learning curve of repairing an older car they have never worked on before.

I once worked as the deputy foreman at a Rover dealers and we could service and repair Rovers almost with our eyes closed. When we occasionally got a Ford or a Vauxhall it was a PITA and the same job took 4 times as long.

 

[chrisbee1]

I took daughter #4 's car for MOT this morning at a national chain. I knew one cv boot was split around half the circumference and the other side was badly perished. Really, it was an exercise to see what it failed on to see if it was worth repairing. It cost her £600 3 years ago and has no money spent on it. Yes, you've guessed it, it passed with advises for the cv boots. Not everyone is after extra work.

 

[Gafferbill]

.....my tow car is 15 years old and was bought from new.
It has never been in a garage for any repairs as they are all done by DIY.
My MOT tester has always passed it as it is subject to preventative maintenance.
Every year he asks me if he can buy it!

 

[DrZhivago]

.....my tow car is 15 years old and was bought from new.

So it's still nearly new then B)

Mine until last year was 21 years old (bought when 3 years old - a good price point) and had done 280,000 miles. Like yours it had never been in a garage, except for its MoTs (which it never failed) and a main dealer recall to replace the front brake disks. In that recall the idiots in the garage did the front wheel nuts up so tight that they stripped the thread on three of them and I had to replace some nuts and studs, the latter involving getting the hub and drive shafts out. Idiots.

I wonder how many people drive around confident in the work done by their garage not knowing that a lot of that work is not at all competently done. I once deputised for the foreman in a main dealer and some of the mechanics had been at school only 6 months earlier; you had to keep an eye on them.

I shared cars to work at one time, and one Monday morning I conversationally mentioned to my colleague that I'd had the steering rack in pieces the previous day. We were in the fast lane of a motorway at the time and he suddenly looked distinctly uneasy despite knowing that I was a qualified engineer and our jobs were overseeing the safety of power stations. But if I had said that the car had been repaired at the dealers the previous day I don't supose he would have turned a hair. Funny thing, human nature.