MoT - Fact and fiction

[scaryoldcortina]

To avoid further hijack of the news24 thread, it's new topic time.

 

There are some funny rules to be applied during a MoT, and some even funnier ideas of what should (or shouldn't) nbe checked. VOSA also regularly piss about with it so stuff you thought was checked now isn't, or vice versa, it's a bit of a minefield even if you read the manual.

 

So here are a few examples....

Anything covered up can't be tested - true, as long as the covering is fixed down. You could velcro down your boot liner to hide that huge hole in the top of the chassis rail, tester isn't allowed to lift it up to look. Similarly, snapped wheelstuds/missing nuts can be hidden with wheeltrims etc.

 

All doors and boot/bonnet must open - if they don't it's refuse to test time, even if the door handle is removed and there is no seat behind it it must open. Front doors have to open from inside and outside, rear doors only from outside. If you want to "remove" a door, you actually have to fill in the gap around it or it's still testable.

 

Lights are tapped to ensure they don't flicker - not any more... it's been removed from the test to prevent possible damage.

 

A transit van (class IV/VII) needs a minimum of 1.6mm of tread on the tyres, A transit Minibus (class V light) needs 1mm.

 

Feel free to add/ask questions...

[warren t claim]

What year were seatbelts made a compulsory fitment in commercial vehicles under 3.5t?

[mk1_4dr]

Just a quick one, Is the volume of the exhaust a testable item?

[MrDuke]

All doors and boot/bonnet must open - if they don't it's refuse to test time

 

Well, my boot will only open with the aid of a very long screwdriver, applied at exactly the right place & angle I don't imagine my tester bothered with that.

 

Also, when & why did they stop checking spare wheels? I understand that the lack of one wouldn't necessarily make a car unroadworthy, it just seems a weird thing to stop considering altogether?

[Inspector Morose]

Better idea Scary! Best one I can think of off the top of my head is Kingpin play. On a PCV there should be a maximum of 1.6 of Lift (vertical) but side play allowance was so great that we took the kingpin bushes out of a hub once and still had to ream the holes out to achieve the maximum allowed side play.

Now subject the same bus to a class V test and side play should be 'minimal'. So the rule is; if it carries passengers the hub can wobble around like a dick in a shirt sleeve but if you want to use the bus as a private plaything, it can't!

 

I'll have to think of some others

[scaryoldcortina]

warren - 1st april 1967 to 1st april 1981 requires at least a 2 point diagonal belt for driver and specified front passenger, 1/4/81 - 1/4/87 needs a 3 point belt (same fitment) after '87 needs minimum of a lap belt in the centre seat too (if there is one)

 

mk1 - no, it just says "not unreasonably loud compared to a standard exhaust of similar type" which could mean anything.

 

Mr Duke - I can't remember when they stopped checking spares, it's a while ago for sure. I suspect that because it isn't actually in use it isn't testable. Imagine failing because there is a wheel with a bald tyre on in the boot (on it's way to the tip) and the boot carpet held down with poppers covering the real spare.

[Waderider]

A wealth of shite concerning the MOT:

 

http://www.ukmot.com/index.asp

[warren t claim]

Here's a question.

 

Will you please do me a test over the phone? There's £50 in it for you.

[Waderider]

http://www.dvtani.gov.uk/News/newsdetails.asp?id=800

 

Were is my £50? (I know it's not exactly what you meant....... )

[scaryoldcortina]

Emissions is another good one, for example, de-catting a 91 onwards car isn't an automatic fail. If the car passes the emission test it is a pass, cat or not. (It is unlikely however that a de-catted car could meet the cat test limits)

 

Also, which test is applied depends on both the age of the car, and the age of the engine, you test according to which is older. This means that a 1968 car with a 1998 engine gets a visual check only where the same engine in its original car would need a cat test. It also means that you could fit a 1500 bmc diesel smoke machine to a 2005 bmw and get visual check only emissions, as long as you have proof of the engine's age to show the tester.

 

All Q plated cars are tested as though their year of manufacture was 1971. This means that a stolen recovered 98 vectra diesel doesn't need rear seat belts, or hazard lights, fog lights. side repeaters, can have a multi tone horn and white on black numberplates and will only get a visual emission check.

[autofive]

All Q plated cars are tested as though their year of manufacture was 1971. This means that a stolen recovered 98 vectra diesel doesn't need rear seat belts, or hazard lights, fog lights. side repeaters, can have a multi tone horn and white on black numberplates and will only get a visual emission check

 

that is interesting

 

good excuse for having a Q plater

[Alexg]

Also, which test is applied depends on both the age of the car, and the age of the engine, you test according to which is older. This means that a 1968 car with a 1998 engine gets a visual check only where the same engine in its original car would need a cat test. It also means that you could fit a 1500 bmc diesel smoke machine to a 2005 bmw and get visual check only emissions, as long as you have proof of the engine's age to show the tester.

 

All Q plated cars are tested as though their year of manufacture was 1971. This means that a stolen recovered 98 vectra diesel doesn't need rear seat belts, or hazard lights, fog lights. side repeaters, can have a multi tone horn and white on black numberplates and will only get a visual emission check.

 

So what you're saying Scary' is that the MOT rules are flaming ridiculous

[Lankytim]

Emissions is another good one, for example, de-catting a 91 onwards car isn't an automatic fail. If the car passes the emission test it is a pass, cat or not. (It is unlikely however that a de-catted car could meet the cat test limits)

 

Would a de-catted car running on LPG easily pass? I'm told that LPG is much cleaner than petrol emissions wise.

[Tayne]

.

[scaryoldcortina]

possibly, yes. You need a very lean burn to meet the 0.3/0.5% CO limits, and LPG has a conversion factor (about 0.48) for Hydrocarbons to help with the 200ppm limit. Lambda needs to be in the range 0.97 - 1.03.

 

 

Edit - also, just noticed the rangie is a '93... on '92 to '95 cars if they don't pass at the cat test limits, you retest with the pre-cat levels applied (ie 3.5% CO at idle, max 1200ppm HC) which is much easier to meet.

[Negative Creep]

Is it true that in days gone by if the tester couldn't open the bonnet he couldn't check anything underneath?

[scaryoldcortina]

Is it true that in days gone by if the tester couldn't open the bonnet he couldn't check anything underneath?

 

As far as I know, no, it has always been a requirement that the bonnet opens. I could be wrong on that though, the MoT goes back further than I do....

[Richard]

I can remember Car mechanics magazine boasting that they had closed the "bonnet won't open" loophole in the last 10-15 years.

[scaryoldcortina]

I had to fix a broken bonnet cable on a cortina over 20 years ago so it was testable.. then I had to weld both inner wings

 

I wonder what would happen if you removed the shut lines? Some 70's lotuses have almost everything except lights seats and tyres hidden...

[catsinthewelder]

Mr Duke - I can't remember when they stopped checking spares, it's a while ago for sure. I suspect that because it isn't actually in use it isn't testable. Imagine failing because there is a wheel with a bald tyre on in the boot (on it's way to the tip) and the boot carpet held down with poppers covering the real spare.

 

Fail on 'unsecured spare wheel' my local testers failed my VW on that after I left the spare in the back. To be fair they might have let it slide but with 22 other fails it wasn't going to make much difference to the result

[scaryoldcortina]

Unless that was a long time ago (pre computer) I can't see how that could be a fail - You need a reason for refusal (RFR) on the computer to input a failure item and unsecured spare wheel on the back seat isn't one of them! It is possible to do a manual advisory though, you can put any text you like (so I could put "Vehicle presenter is unreasonably argumentative" if I wanted) and on a car with a bad fail it's always worth advising everything you can find just to cover your back in case the car makes it all the way to VOSA

[catsinthewelder]

I've just dug out the certificate from 3/7/07. It lists "Front spare wheel insecure[6.4.2]". I'd removed the camping interior so the back was bare except for the spare wheel rattling round. At the retest some months later I ratchet strapped it to the side of the van (inside). Once I'd got an MOT on her I spent an afternoon swearing at captive nut type things and re-mounted it on the front. I know its not the ideal place for them but mine was built with a bulkhead interior and later converted to a walkthrough which means that there's nowhere else to put it.

[Guest]

In the early 90’s I was told to remove the under-tray from my (now sold) Matra Bagheera which in turn removed about a metre of box section. Older and wiser I would now be able to politely quote paragraph 47 subsection 5.1 of the motor vehicles act to the tester where it clearly states if it aint broke don’t fix it!

 

[Mike D]

My 928 has cats fitted as standard, it's a 1985... If i lob them so i have more noisyness will it fail?

[Pete-M]

My 928 has cats fitted as standard, it's a 1985... If i lob them so i have more noisyness will it fail?

 

It shouldn't fail on lack of cats, but may do if it's obscenely loud.

 

However, most of the testers I know love the sound of a good V8 so it's a rare failure.

[oldford]

The vehicle must be tested as presented, so if it's switched to LPG, it should be tested on LPG. The emissions section of the manual mentions that if an electric cooling fan cuts in whilst testing, the tester should wait until it stops before carrying out the emissions test, so what do you do with a car where it is wired to run continuously?

 

The spare wheel fail above is wrong in my opinion, the fail relates to an externally mounted spare wheel carrier, so unless the carrier itself was about to fall off, it shouldn't have failed for having the spare wheel inside the car.

 

(I am a recently qualified MOT tester).

[scaryoldcortina]

Yup, 6.4.2 says

An externally fitted spare wheel or carrier insecure to the extent that it is likely to fall off.

so I reckon that was a mistake too.

 

Electric cooling fans cutting in can effect the load (and hence the idle speed) on non-cat emission tests, I'd guess that a constantly running fan is less of a problem and can be ignored. It's irrelevent on cat tests anyway (or so says the manual)

[Angrydicky]

Is it true that in days gone by if the tester couldn't open the bonnet he couldn't check anything underneath?

 

I remember my dad put his Austin Somerset in for an MOT a few years ago - an hour or so later the phone rang, it was the MOT place and they couldn't open the bonnet! Somersets have a little lock (hidden under a flap) which locks the flying A on the bonnet shut so it can't be opened. He had to explain how to open the bonnet over the phone.

 

At my Cambridge's MOT in September it picked up six advisories, which may or may not be bollocks...

 

1. Offside outer track rod end ball joint has slight play

2. Some poor welding and insufficient repair (when quizzed about this one he claimed to have found an area that wasn't continuous welded, however my dad spent a whole month cutting out all the rotten crappy MOT welding that was there already and welded it up properly, I still haven't found the bit he was talking about).

3. Excess corrosion to nearside rear floorpan by sill (a small hole about an inch square)

4. Nearside trackrod is bent

5. Offside rear door does not open from the outside

6. REVERSE GEAR WILL NOT ENGAGE

 

The last one was definitely bollocks, I explained to him you have to pull out the knob on the end of the Cambridge's column gear lever to engage reverse, apparantly the tester "couldn't be expected to know that".

 

It also failed on headlight aim too low, five minutes with a screwdriver meant a pass, result!

[mattblack]

Have they changed the rules on 'doors must open from the outside'? I thought that there was an exemption if the handle had been 'shaved'? (and isn't there an Alfa 4-door of some sort with no rear handles?)

 

On the hypothetical 'Q' plated Vectra, wouldn't it still fail under the 'If it's fitted, it must work' rule re. hazards, rear belts ect? I once took a Landcrab for MOT that had been fitted with rear belts, failed as one didn't lock up. Took them out completly = pass.

 

It's a minefield, for sure.

[M'coli]

(and isn't there an Alfa 4-door of some sort with no rear handles?)

I think they're in the window frame - I like them.