MOT not for me.

[cros]

Theres bin lots of grousing from people about the dropping of MOT's for pre '59 cars. I'm in favour of the exemption myself, and became even more so this morning. My wife was about to set out for Kent in our Wolseley 1500. I gave it a look over as its not often used, don't much like it myself. First thing I saw was that the offside tie rod is no longer tying anything, so at the first bit of heavy braking the wheel would probably have come to join her in the footwell. She's gone in the P4 instead. 

 Though this 1500 is from '57, it came to me this year with a new MOT, carried out by a proper garage. Everything looked in good nick, but neither me nor the MOT man was likely to spot the problem- the threaded bit that had rotted away lives under a rubber bush. A seasoned Morris Minor person (which I'm not) would probably be more aware of this issue. What other nasties can get past the MOT?

[Tamworthbay]

A lot less than get through a bodger owner and no mot.........

[Asimo]

 What other nasties can get past the MOT?

Anything lurking behind / above an undertray.

 

*The Riley 1.5 I drove whilst a learner suffered the same failure as your Wolsely. Very common failure with Minis as well. 

 

Rot inside rubber bushes is really common, like that Civic driveshaft that was mentioned on here a few days ago, but like many areas of potential failure, cannot be evaluated without causing damage or taking much time on dismantling for inspection, aircraft-check style.

[Craig the Princess]

MoT misses some things so scrap the MoT?

 

No thanks.

[sierraman]

I'd say 90% of classic car owners are on top of things like this. However there's always going to be some idiot that will just bodge stuff or ignore safety related stuff like this.

[mercrocker]

I'm with Cros on this....The wailing from the classic* press was worthy of the Daily Fail and Daily Excuse when the exemption started but the truth is many MOTs are not worth the paper they used to be written on.   That isn't  a reflection on testers or test practice merely that many component failures have been pre-empted by continually being on top of (or underneath) old cars.   I put the Cowley in every year or so to a local (second generation of family ownership) garage who carries out an unofficial test but that's just for my peace of mind and involves a couple of things that are hard to test without a pit or ramp and spare pair of hands.  I can choose when this is done rather than work to a strict calendar.   Relying on an annual check on a 60 year old car is not enough.

[danthecapriman]

Plastic sill covers on many cars from the last 20 odd years. You can't remove them to to test the metal sills underneath so for all the tester knows there could be nothing left of the sills but since it can't be seen it's a pass.

 

 

None of my cars are old enough (yet?) to be MOT exempt but I'd certainly rather have someone else give my cars a check over of the essentials just to be safe. I'm pretty confident about my abilities to check and repair my cars but a second set of eyes and a ramp could catch something I've missed.

If I did have an exempt car I think I'd happily pay a good reputable person or company to do a quick once over type check once a year like mercrocker does. The trick I suppose is finding someone/where good and trustworthy enough to do it.

[dollywobbler]

I'd say 90% of classic car owners are on top of things like this. However there's always going to be some idiot that will just bodge stuff or ignore safety related stuff like this.

 

That's always the assumption, but is it justified? How many of us have carried out work specifically to make sure the car passes the MOT? You know, that stuff that's always on the To Do list. The stuff we were going to do, but shit, it's the MOT tomorrow so I'd better do it now. Like my XM's parking brake. 

[sierraman]

As you say it's different for everybody. For me if there is any doubt as to the safety of something it's done or checked out to prove conclusively that it's safe. I had a knocking on the Focus recent from the steering, had a second opinion from a qualified mechanic, replaced any parts that were marginal, so I was sure it wasn't anything that could fail. As it goes it was a dry joint on the column, after inspecting it there wasn't any sign of failure. But a lot of people wouldn't bother, they'd keep going right up until something broke.

[Dick Cheeseburger]

I have two schools of thought on car maintenance. My OH does 30 miles minimum daily and if there's ever anything that's a question mark on her car, I make sure it gets done as I'd prefer her in one piece. My own vehicles however...

[scaryoldcortina]

It's the peace of mind you get from knowing your numberplates are legally spaced.

[Tamworthbay]

Judging by the cars I have viewed over the years I would say probably a 80-20 split towards people who neglect the car, usually due to lack of knowledge. I have to admit I am usually at the bottom end of the market and 100k e types may well be a different case.

[Tamworthbay]

It's the peace of mind you get from knowing your numberplates are legally spaced.

not checked on an mot

[scaryoldcortina]

not checked on an mot

 

you better tell junkman that then.

 

PS, MoT manual section 6.3 subsection 4.....

[mercrocker]

Exactly....The MOT seems nothing more than an arbitrary set of checks of things that have been increasingly about pollution and whatever constitutes the environment these days.   Its just not possible within the scope of the standard test to find things like hidden corrosion or imminent stress failure.  Stuff that still needs greasing is much more likely to get looked at critically than a bounce up and down or wheel waggle.  I am lucky to have a local garage where the owner drives nothing but old gear, like I imagine Cros does and who instinctively knows where wear and damage is more likely to occur.  People have begun to think of the MOT as a comprehensive guarantee that their car is, and will remain, safe for another 12 months (sometimes 20,000 miles or more) and its nothing of the sort.

[fordperv]

not checked on an mot

Look at reason for rejection 4a

http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_630.htm

 

A useful thing the testers manual is, in my opinion it would be a bad thing to get rid of the yearly check,I keep on top of my cars and there's sometimes things I miss and find when checking my car ready for the m.o.t

[Junkman]

Exactly....The MOT seems nothing more than an arbitrary set of checks of things that have been increasingly about pollution and whatever constitutes the environment these days.

 

Looks like they did a sterling job on testing VAG diesels the past five years.

 

I said it before and I know I'm right - this stupid Punch and Judy show called MoT is complete bollox and the sooner it's relegated to history, the better for all involved.

For the sake of peace, I'd agree to replacing it with something useful, although I personally don't need a fucking government telling me how to live my life and what to do.

[Tamworthbay]

Look at reason for rejection 4a http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_630.htm

A useful thing the testers manual is, in my opinion it would be a bad thing to get rid of the yearly check,I keep on top of my cars and there's sometimes things I miss and find when checking my car ready for the m.o.t

in the notes at the bottom:

 

Testers are not requred to physically measure the characters or their spacing and the following information is provided for guidance only.

[scaryoldcortina]

Play fair and quote all of it!

 

Registration plates should only be rejected for character dimensions or spacing if they are clearly incorrect

 

Meaning  you should fail mis-spaced and distorted "personal" plates but not measure the gap between characters on a pug 405...

 

 

 

TBH, most of the failures I deal with are due to neglect or ignorance. Brakes, tyres, lights and suspension. Things you would like to be checked on everyone else's car, even if it is only once a year with limited scope.

[Tamworthbay]

But the inference in your first post was to make fun of the mot suggesting that the mot man is more interested in checking the plate is precise, hence the quote, than safety issues. That is clearly not the case and whilst I have many issues with the MOT I am glad we have it overall. It certainly needs reform to be fit for purpose into a new generation of cars whilst not being impossible to pass for older motors but that doesn't mean we would be better off without it. If anyone remembers the sorts of cars that were on the road in Eire before they introduced MOT type tests will understand where I am coming from.

[Felly Magic]

I think every vehicle on the road should have some form of yearly inspection, and our MOT needs to be a lot tougher than it is, and cars/LCV's shouldn't have the brand new to 3 y/o exemption, as I've seen loads of 3 year olds fail MOT's on stuff that could have been picked up if checked yearly. A tougher test would be more expensive, BUT, think about it, you are at the hands of a potential lethal weapon. Exemption is foolish really, especially when there are a lot of large vehicles out there running this rule, owned by people who haven't really got the foggiest what they are doing, and don't even have a proper licence to drive them either

[scaryoldcortina]

But the inference in your first post was to make fun of the mot suggesting that the mot man is more interested in checking the plate is precise, hence the quote, than safety issues. That is clearly not the case and whilst I have many issues with the MOT I am glad we have it overall. It certainly needs reform to be fit for purpose into a new generation of cars whilst not being impossible to pass for older motors but that doesn't mean we would be better off without it. If anyone remembers the sorts of cars that were on the road in Eire before they introduced MOT type tests will understand where I am coming from.

 

No, my first post was merely to reference Junkman's recent ire that on his last MoT the tester did exactly that. My own opinion of MoT tests doesn't come into it.

 

 

PS, IR TESTR

[Eddie Honda]

OMGMOTEXEMPTIONKAOS!

 

Yeah, so there are a few testing/licence/tax concessions. Where's the carnage?

 

There's other Euro countries with more lenient testing regimes. 2 Yearly TUV (DE)? 6 Monthly WoF (NZ). Ireland exempts pre-1980. Think Poland does too. They are free to circulate the member states. About half of the EU don't test motorcycles. (Probably will harmonise by 2022)

 

A single test to cover all vehicles isn't really practical anymore. Anything over 30 years old should get MOT-lite which should be what was in the manual back in 1990 before they lobbed in all the 'new' testable items.

[twosmoke300]

Once you have seen enough tyres with wires showing , ball joints popped out , wipers with no rubbers left etc etc you realise that people just don't maintain a car at all unless it's forced upon them .

Obviously us lot on here are a little different but the general public won't spend a penny on a car unless it doesn't start or the mot deems it unsafe .

[sierraman]

I've seen it with my eyes as well. A pal had a car, only 6 years old mind, never changed the oil as he'd had a service 4 years ago that cost him £200. So he decided it was a waste of money, right he was, until I had to give him the news the top end was on its way out a few week back.

[John F]

twosmoke300, on 13 Oct 2015 - 6:04 PM, said:

Once you have seen enough tyres with wires showing , ball joints popped out , wipers with no rubbers left etc etc you realise that people just don't maintain a car at all unless it's forced upon them .

Obviously us lot on here are a little different but the general public won't spend a penny on a car unless it doesn't start or the mot deems it unsafe .

 

^ This.

 

Also, lot of people have absolutely no idea of the condition of their car - or the likely consequences of its condition. One on my mates asked me to have a look at his Discovery 200 TDi a while ago, because it 'felt a bit funny'. I'm not surprised, it had absolutely zero damping in either of its front shocks - it could be set bouncing by gradually-increased pressure of one hand on the bonnet..

[Tamworthbay]

No, my first post was merely to reference Junkman's recent ire that on his last MoT the tester did exactly that. My own opinion of MoT tests doesn't come into it.

 

 

PS, IR TESTR

I was unaware of that so your post makes sense now. He must have had a real dick of a tester, sadly they do exist.

[Junkman]

No, my first post was merely to reference Junkman's recent ire that on his last MoT the tester did exactly that. My own opinion of MoT tests doesn't come into it.

 

 

PS, IR TESTR

 

That a MoT test can even potentially be based on someone's opinion is exactly why it should be replaced with something legitimate and reputable.

Would settle for either.

[MarvinsMom]

for my two penneth worth, i think we've about got the MOT currently as it stands about right, the issue will be making sure that unnecessary crap doesn't get added, such as say, the metro needing metric wheels cos that is what it was type approved with, that sort of thing.

 

i also realise that it is an inspection of the cars condition at that time, and not a guarantee that the car is road worthy at some later date.

 

i do try and maintain the cars to the very best of my ability, but sometimes stuff gets missed. recently the Metro had its test, and it failed with a missing exhaust rubber, broke exhaust bracket (both easily sorted) and kippered back brakes.

 

now i had no idea that the back brakes were an issue, the car drove fine so i'm glad that got picked up.

 

getting the brakes sorted, now that was another thing, they put new wheel cylinders on and it was no better. in the end it got a new master cylinder and adjusted up, the car reached an acceptable standard. FWTW i think it was the pressure limiter valve on the side of the master cylinder that was at fault, but what do i know....

 

when i was destroying driving the company cars there were a couple that needed all ruddy sorts doing to them to get through the MOT, but that was after 3 years and 100k plus very hard miles...

[sierraman]

I agree, it's at a sensible level. Unfortunately we live in a society where people who know nothing about something are allowed an opinion. No doubt some idiot in a Matalan suit somewhere will decree it's not safe at all to have a car on the road over 3 years in case it's unroadworthy.