MOT Changes 2018

[Eddie Honda]

"threatened"

 

"unfortunately"

 

"fundamentally a bad idea"

 

YAWN!

 

There's an MOT exemption thread for that sort of talk or away and join BRAKE.

 

Let's get back to MOT changes that affect cars that HAVE to be tested.

[SiC]

Loss of/low tyre pressure isn't an MOT failure. In post 2012 cars, a fault in the TPMS system or it disabled is a fail.

[Captain Furious]

I can't really see any reason for any cars to be exempt from requiring an MOT.  I know their supposed reasoning behind it, because ALL old car drivers are enthusiasts who maintain their cars to fastidious standards...but I think its a pretty stupid rule that flies in the face of common sense.

 

I mean, whats the benefit of not having them on cars over 40 years old, other than to the owners of cars over 40 years old?

[SiC]

I mean, whats the benefit of not having them on cars over 40 years old, other than to the owners of cars over 40 years old?

Thats exactly one of the reasons why they're doing it. Reducing burden and red tape for car owners. Same for 4yr before the first MOT on new cars - which keeps being suggested but outed as unpopular.

[dave21478]

 

 

I mean, whats the benefit of not having them on cars over 40 years old, other than to the owners of cars over 40 years old?

 

 

Tinfoil hat firmly on.....

 

The first time some ruined old shitheap breaks apart at 60mph and kills a bunch of people there will be government inquiries costing millions and the result will say "old cars are unsafe" and they will introduce some scheme or other to get more old cars off the road. Which is the ultimate goal.

[dave21478]

That's fine, like I say I'm happy to offer the £150 and sort it myself. Happy days.

 

The garage really ought to say, we'll knock the lamp out for £40 to get it through the test, then don't worry about it until next year. Whether they do that or not is another matter.

 

Aye, well, as long as you are making a profit eh?

 

i mean to hell  those other people... people on low incomes who rely on old low value cars can just get fucked, I suppose? Their own fault for not being mechanics?

[Captain Furious]

Tinfoil hat firmly on.....

 

The first time some ruined old shitheap breaks apart at 60mph and kills a bunch of people there will be government inquiries costing millions and the result will say "old cars are unsafe" and they will introduce some scheme or other to get more old cars off the road. Which is the ultimate goal.

 

I certainly find that more believable than the Government wanting to reduce the burden for the poor old motorist, but I don't see why they would go about it in this way - This just makes them culpable.  What's wrong with good old fashioned taxing them out of existence?

 

Of all the rules and regulations imposed on us the Gubbermint, an annual MOT test to use a car on the road is one of the sensible ones.

[PiperCub]

Strikes me as the ultimate aim too, if not quite abolishing them or taxing them to death, then as I said earlier, restricting there usage to certain times and places. This will be easier once road pricing gets into full swing.

 

As above - I don't object to the MoT as such, it's a good idea and keeps the stock up to at least a basic standard, OK it costs and its a PITA sometimes but what doesn't and isn't?,

 

If you disagree, go talk to someone from the republic of Ireland who remembers the time (was it pre-1999 or 2000? Can't remember) before roadworthiness tests, I daresay they'll have a few stories for you. 

[Asimo]

Get Rich Quick idea..... Cobblers or SiC or somebody else that knows one end of a soldering iron from another should knock up a load of wee cheater modules - A circuit board that takes an ignition live feed and outputs a bulb or LED lighting up for 5 seconds each time the ignition comes on. Launch the original EML bulb and hot glue the new bulb in its place in the binnacle for infinite MOT passes.

 

Id buy that for a dollar. Or about a fiver.

Easier to fix the fault than get inside the dash to fiddle the

bulbs on many cars.

[twosmoke300]

Bulbs ? You will be lucky . Surface mount teeny weenie leds

[wuvvum]

 

4) What's the problem with getting an MoT anyway? FFS it's not that difficult to pass one, if the vehicle is so shit it can't meet the standard then either fix/renovate it or move it on or scrap it. Nothing's for free in this life, you have to work at it, if you CBA to get your old car to standard then here's an idea - buy a newer one and stop fucking up the old car hobby for the rest of us. 

 

I'm not sure I agree with this section of your rant.  My Volvo 164 would not pass an MOT because it has a crack in the windscreen and the handbrake is pants.  Neither of those things affects its safety - I can still see where I'm going and it's an auto so I can just stick it in park when I stop.  They'd still fail an MOT though.  I'd agree with you more if so many MOT failures weren't bollocks.

[twosmoke300]

Handbrake is your secondary brake if the main brake fails so it is safety related if it’s shit

[Eddie Honda]

If only we had a 10 page/291 post thread for all this "40 year-old mot exemption" thread derailment.

 

http://autoshite.com/topic/29491-40-years-rolling-mot-exemption-is-go/

[BeEP]

"threatened"

 

"unfortunately"

 

"fundamentally a bad idea"

 

YAWN!

 

There's an MOT exemption thread for that sort of talk or away and join BRAKE.

 

Let's get back to MOT changes that affect cars that HAVE to be tested.

 

Apologies if I (and it would seem others) have an opinion which differs to yours, but I'll politely decline your invitation to leave Autoshite because of it.  Ta anyway.

 

Not disagreeing re the existing MOT exemption thread though.

[hennabm]

Handbrake is your secondary brake if the main brake fails so it is safety related if it’s shit

 

In terms of the regulations and MOT, the handbrake is only the secondary brake IF the vehicle does not have a split system on the footbrake.

 

Since around 1968 all cars have had to have dual line brakes on the foot brake. That is why the parking brake on a post 68 vehicle only needs 16% rather than the 25% if it were classed as a secondary brake.

[SiC]

Since around 1968 all cars have had to have dual line brakes on the foot brake. That is why the parking brake on a post 68 vehicle only needs 16% rather than the 25% if it were classed as a secondary brake.

Do they? My 1974 MGB doesn't and didn't out of the factory.

[BeEP]

Most BL stuff (Allegros etc) went to split brake systems around 1977 - 1978

[sierraman]

Aye, well, as long as you are making a profit eh?

 

i mean to hell those other people... people on low incomes who rely on old low value cars can just get fucked, I suppose? Their own fault for not being mechanics?

So if you were in that position what would you choose? A potentially expensive round of replacing parts or if it runs otherwise well a couple of quid to turn the lamp off for the MOT?

 

Its alright going on about low incomes etc but if I was on a low income would the plumber or the electrician mend the boiler or rewire the house for free? A garage is no different he's got to cover his costs.

[hennabm]

IIRC it was for all new models from 68ish and the MG certainly wasn't.

 

Similarly I had a 69 Herald with a single line.

[SiC]

I suspect a lot of garages will fail an EML on a MOT. Then clear the codes. If it stays out, retest it as a pass?

[BeEP]

IIRC it was for all new models from 68ish and the MG certainly wasn't.

 

Similarly I had a 69 Herald with a single line.

 

Allegro launched in 1973 on single line brakes; went to dual circuit in 78.

[SiC]

Maybe you were thinking of the USA? I seem to think they did required it earlier.

 

The later rubber bumper MGBs gained dual circuits.

[hennabm]

Could be - looking at the C&U regs it talks about January 68 but nothing as specific. It seems to be more like 83 when the big changes were made.

 

This is the legislation to be read

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/part/II/chapter/B/made

 

followed by the schedule which relates to each of the numbers in the legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/schedule/3/made

[twosmoke300]

I do love all the google experts on here !

[Eddie Honda]

Apologies if I (and it would seem others) have an opinion which differs to yours,

 

No need to apologise. There's just a better place to gripe about it, which I've pointed out - otherwise they'll be another ten pages of the same arguments being put forward by both sides in this thread.

[wuvvum]

Do they? My 1974 MGB doesn't and didn't out of the factory.

The 164 is a Volvo, so it does.  In fact I think they're even a triangular split.  The chances of total brake failure on a dual-circuit system are low enough that I'm not going to fret too much about it.

[Hendry]

My 2p worth is stuff like cv joint gaiters being split but preventing the ingress of dirt, and other such advisories should now be fails rather than fail cars for EMLs and so on, because they aren’t safety issues, it also doesn’t mean your car can’t pass an emissions test, just means it may not be running at optimum performance, so rather than make these fails, make stuff that’s safety related like brakes, suspension and so on fails because they could cause accidents and injury to the driver, other road users be it pedestrians or people in other vehicles.

 

I hate to see a car with the same advisory on an mot for 3 years running and the owner hasn’t done anything about it, and I don’t mean advisories for oil leaks, I mean ones for brake pipes, steering, suspension and other brake components. This do the bare minimum to scrape a pass should be done away with as should advisories completely, it’s either a pass and that’s it, or it’s a fail and a list of the failures.

 

Brake pads wearing thin, tyres worn close to the legal limit are still not failures so don’t include them on a test as an advisory, get the garage to give them a warning, other stuff if it’s bad enough to get an advisory just fail it, because in my experience people don’t fix advisories until they fail a test and could’ve been of a poor condition for months upon months between tests. Infact there should even be a minimum thickness for brake pads, not just advise unless they are down to the metal and fail them.

 

Some people need taken by the hand and will only fix stuff if they have to, improve safety by failing more advisory stuff that actually matters.

 

I fucking hate stupid ones like ‘undertrays and engine covers obscuring some components in the engine bay’ as well. Either have the mot require their removal to check the testable components OR scrap the advisory.

 

Same with shit like failing for 2 different tyre sizes on the same axle, but yet you can legally run about with a space saver or smaller diameter spare wheel on your car as part of the factory spec, yet it’s not a fail to be running about with 2 fucked tyres on 2mm because they are the same size. So Mr Cheapskate with his 2x 2mm Linglongs passes and I fail despite having 2x 6mm Michelin’s because ones a 225/45/17 and ones a 225/50/17.

[Tamworthbay]

Strikes me as the ultimate aim too, if not quite abolishing them or taxing them to death, then as I said earlier, restricting there usage to certain times and places. This will be easier once road pricing gets into full swing.

 

As above - I don't object to the MoT as such, it's a good idea and keeps the stock up to at least a basic standard, OK it costs and its a PITA sometimes but what doesn't and isn't?,

 

If you disagree, go talk to someone from the republic of Ireland who remembers the time (was it pre-1999 or 2000? Can't remember) before roadworthiness tests, I daresay they'll have a few stories for you.

 

My mate did his PhD in Dublin from 92 to 95, he had an old beetle that had floors made of plywood held in with wood screws.

[fraser.innes.3]

I'm response to oil leaks being a failure, just do what my grandad used to do with his Anglia. He kept his old engine oil, then sprayed the underside of the car with it every autumn. MOT tested will find it difficult to find an oil leaks with the whole underside dripping with the stuff!

 

 

Sent from my HUAWEI M2-A01W using Tapatalk

[vaughant]

I'm with SiC above in that that will most likely test and fail work an EML then reset and pass, will work most of the time. Always take your car to a trusted/recommended MOT place anyway but if you're not sure go to an MOT only place not a garage that offers one for £20 but will hit you with £100's of repairs.

 

Funnyish depending upon your disposition sorry but a guy I knew used to run an MOT centre (gone years ago) and they used to play on people by telling them the car had just* failed the MOT on emissions and would need either a new cat or lambda to pass, £300 to you MUSH or we offer this stuff you put in the tank that MIGHT just past it then, only £15 a pop. Jonny cum lightly DESPERATE to get his cavalier GLS back on the road will always take a gamble. £15 later and it miraculously passed!!!! Happy days, £300 SAVED. The magic ingredient? Altered settings on the emissions computer as it was working and 1/2 a litre of good old super unleaded.

 

Dodgy fuckers !!!!

 

In fairness though they did with cars that really did have fucked lambdas and cats, just using a subject vehicle !!!