What MOT fails/advisories put you right off

[sierraman]

Looking, not for now but just to gauge the market at Mk2 Focuses, fancied one someday. At the 1000-1200 mark there's loads of stuff that's had fails/advisories on stuff like EML light on and repeated emissions fails or bald tyres etc. Loads of stuff that's had advisories ignored year in year out. The stuff at £7-800 was in far better nick...

 

It got me round to thinking, what MOT fails/advisories really put you off?

[Tamworthbay]

Rust obviously but electronic issues on moderns, but it all comes to price and what I want to do with it. My Capri has plenty of new metal since I got it but for a daily I would have walked straight past it.

[beko1987]

Ones that have been there for several years on the trot make me close a tab... Things like bushes, exhaust leaks, rusty springs etc. Stuff that's easily and cheaply fixed when it crops up...

[Bobthebeard]

Anything related to rear suspension corrosion on Rover 75/MG ZT variants.

[bramz7]

Perpetual oil leaks.

I don't mind rust related advisories that much as they can often be quite mild, for example my 405 had front subframe mounts mentioned last year but it's just where the under seal has come away.

Tyres and pads every two years suggests a car used heavily/abused.

[timolloyd]

I'd agree with constant tyres and pads advisories as a bit of a red flag.

 

Also, things like wipers, blown bulbs and warning lamps that I kind of think should be dealt with or noticed before an MOT.

[rantingYoof]

As I deal in the 2005 onward end of the market, anything with EML light on = walk quickly away.

 

I know it's probably an over-reaction, but I couldn't live in the perpetual paranoid state knowing such an fault light could indicate anything from probably a fuse change to total engine gubbery imminent.

[sierraman]

The EML light comes on the Focus from time to time, however I know it's due to the cat underperforming. I do knock the lamp out prior to the test and chuck some cataclean through, which seems to work.

[Sir Snipes]

Rust. I don't really mind mechanical advisories.

[bigstraight6]

Rust, and cars that have already had major weldage.......

[Shep Shepherd]

Rust, rust, rust!

[twosmoke300]

The words prescribed area !

[Guest Hooli]

Rust, and cars that have already had major weldage.......

 

You mean you wouldn't buy the Sommercoates Cortina?

[tommytwo]

MoT advisories are just that, somebodies opinion. Have had my Rover MoT'd by the same garage for ten years or more. Used to mention "slight play in steering rack"  for 3 years, then nothing after that. First time I thought "HTF I will reokace the steering rack."?  I left it alone and has not been mentioned since.Then lower arm for 2 years, not mentioned since. Then CV boot advisories, for 3 years, then nothing.  No repairs done in all this time. Major rust would put me off.

[SiC]

Rust. Especially when mentioned near places like suspension, seat belt mountings or similar.

 

Warning lights I like and prefer. Electrical faults generally mean you don't need to get utterly filthy to fix them and everyone runs away from them, so better bargains.

[steveo3002]

repeated fails /advisorys for brakes /tyres = careless owner  

[Hendry]

Cars where they've failed on stuff but got a load of advisories too every year, and the bare minimum is done to get a pass with all the advisories not touched until the next year they are now the fails, screams out at me either cheapskate, clueless mechanically unsympathetic owner, or this car could be a death trap with and owner who can't tell when there's things wrong that are clearly wrong so it only gets flagged up at mot time. It makes me wonder what else could be wrong with the car that it's not testable, i.e. Does it run and drive like a bag of shit, do all the windows, central locking, ventilation system and so on all work, all things Itd matter to me if they worked or not.

 

But again you need to judge advisories on their own merits, I really dislike when advisories are manually entered, usually not spelled correctly and have absolutely nothing to do with the mot or a cars roadworthiness, like "oil leak" "car needs wheel alignment/tracking done" "slight damage to near side rear quarter pannel" and yes the last one was incorrectly spelled.

 

I also preferred when the old online not history checker could tell you who carried out the test so you had an idea, if it was a main dealer, or kwik fit, or one of those garages who run loss leading £20 MOTs to get you in the door you knew it was overly biased or harsh or even partly fabricated.

 

My dads car went for a service on Friday, somehow due to the DPF needing sorted on my car we found an absolutely brilliant independent VAG specialist one man band, master tech with main dealer experience coming out his ears, has probably forgot more than the current VAG dealer techs know, keen prices, good work and a genuine nice guy, he said "rear pads are a bit low, you should get another 5000 miles from them though, have a check of them round about then and get them changed" he didn't push for the work, didn't lie they needed done now, but I'm in no doubt if the car had gone for an mot at kwik fit or a main dealer like that they would've failed it to get the work when its not a fail.

 

I get annoyed when testers fail stuff for stickers on the windscreen encroaching on the drivers view, petty stuff like that, ffs I know they aren't meant to, but have a bit of common sense and remove it then you don't need to fail it for something daft and retest.

[clayts450]

Most bizarre advisory I've seen of late was this on a Micra :

 

"due to condition of under body ie corrosion it is deemed to be un roadworthy/dangerous"

 

I think the tester put it in the wrong section.....

[Junkman]

 

What MOT fails/advisories put you right off

 

 

All of them.

 

Any car used on a public road should be in a condition that it can pass this laughable MoT test without advisories at any given moment.

[colino]

All advisories should be dropped (as they have been hinting at for the past couple of years).  For stupid owners the advisories, when they fix them, represent a fully serviced car fit for the road until next MOT.  For the initiated, they will wonder why they constantly get a warning about undertrays that may or may not exist, or why the tester failed to mention other things that should have been spotted.

Good testers will put in all or nothing.  The Governments advisers have pointed out the liability that will go throughout the MOT system if a catastrophe happens and notes based on the wooliness of the guidance on advisories.  Vehicles are thousands of parts trying to vibrate, wear and oxidise themselves apart.  The tester has no idea how the vehicle is stored or operated.

An MOT pass is black and white, no passes with flying colours or scraping past.  Anything else is a bonfire for lawyers waiting to happen.

[danthecapriman]

Electrical faults. Car electrics are the work of the devil imho and it's a nightmare trying to trace and fix them, the newer the car the worse it gets too.

Rust doesn't worry me tbh, the cars I like it comes with the territory but I'd gladly buy a rusty car over one with complex mechanical or electrical issues. Rust might be a pain but it's easy to fix if you know how.

[solid61]

Ive found advisorys mostly to be a matter of opinion on the day of the test,a list of stupid advisories from underqualified mot testers ( plenty of em) can make a cars history look poor when theres really not much to worry about,some of the advisorys ive seen are nothing but comedy.

[Split_Pin]

"Emits blue smoke under acceleration".

[Felly Magic]

Tyres/brakes and exhaust leaks, failures for very simple stuff as well. Windscreen chips are now a bit of a bugbear for me too, as they can turn to cracks fairly often

[Hendry]

What is it with this advisory I see quite often "engine covers obscuring some components in the engine bay"?

 

Surely an MOT tester doesnt look at engine components? These engine covers are fitted by manufacturers so totally fine to be fitted, and MOT advisories surely are there to indicate to the owner these things havent caused an MOT fail but will require attention shortly, an engine cover isnt going to fail, cause the car to fail its MOT, need attention soon, so I cannot think of any reason why its listed. 

 

Manual entry of advisories shouldnt be allowed either, if you think its serious enough to go to the bother of manually inputting it, find an official advisory for it, or fail the test if you believe whatever it is, is a serious enough issue to warrant a mention. 

 

Itll never happen but I think cars should have to be serviced at least annually by law as well, its the only way a lot of people are going to mention it. The amount of 3 year old low mileage, good bodily and interior condition cars on sale at main dealers with no service history because theyve never seen the inside of a garage since they were PDI'd is massive, we need to get rid of this "MOT pass means my car is absolutely perfect and will continue to be for the next year" these people who think like that usually cant afford to maintain a car and as such shouldnt own a car, they dont realise an mot failure has just happened the day of the test, its been like that for weeks or even months, or the "i know its needing fixed, ill get it done when it goes for its mot in 4 months time because I know itll fail for that anyway, ill just get it done at the one time" or else anything thats an advisory goes down as a fail as well to force people to fix it, if they are hellbent on not maintaining their car all year round, the safest way is to ensure anything thats an advisory and going to need attended to very soon just gets done then, to curb the amount of unroadworthy cars on the road, people arent long in getting their household gadgets repaired when they fail, but they dont bother replacing racing slick tyres or brake pads with no meat left on them, the amount of cars I see with damaged tyre side walls from mounting or shaving kerbs, or tyres balder than a coot is extremely worrying. It wouldnt matter the legal limit, it could be 4mm and itd make no difference, they still wouldnt check. People driving company/fleet cars are especially bad for bald tyres, it only gets picked up when the company tells them to take the car to kwik fit for a tyre check or the mobile guy comes in to check the tyres on everyones car. Its a shrug of the shoulders not my car not my problem stance, but itd be a different story if their child got ran over by a car with bald tyres and worn brake pads which couldnt stop in time, then theyd be taking the moral high ground, if you use a car on a public road with other road users and members of the public, it doesnt matter whos car it is, if you use it, check the tyres and brake pads. 

[andy18s]

Company director by any chance?

[bramz7]

Noticed this fail item on a car earlier;

'Exhaust emissions carbon monoxide content after 2nd fast idle excessive test stopped car overheated co failing Cooling fan not cutting in (7.3'

Plus about 8 years worth of fan related advisories, no thanks

[timolloyd]

My favourite advisory of all time...

[Alusilber]

My 924 went for its MoT last week, and among several advisories was "Offside front wiper does not clear windscreen fully (small wiper)."

 

The wipers on it are 18" ones, which AFAIK was the standard factory spec!

[rantingYoof]

My Rover 45 diesel had a historic advisory 'engine gutless!', written by someone disgruntled at the reliable L-Series lump evidently.