MOT in US

I'm sure all the cars on pimp my ride are doctored anyway. Most of them were so obviously half decent cars which have been deliberately trashed for the program. The UK ones are even more obvious.

One of the US ones had a battered old scooby yet you could see a much newer shiny one in the background of some of the shots at this guys house. Was obvious he'd bought a second one cheap and smashed it up a bit for the show.
 
jas72 said:
some of the tests in the MOT are stupid though.
Click to expand...

What bugs me is the things the MOT doesn't cover.

Last year I dragged my scruffy Mazda 323 Astina in for an MOT. She had a cracked left hand side wing mirror, a broken rear demister, and a driver's window (electric) that wouldn't move up or down.

The MOT guy picked out several things that needed doing. None of the above were mentioned. When I questioned this, he said that only the driver's wing mirror was important, the demister wasn't a problem (what, not even in winter, when it's all fogged up?) and there was no rule which said that the driver's window had to work.

:confused:
 
Evangelion said:
The MOT guy picked out several things that needed doing. None of the above were mentioned. When I questioned this, he said that only the driver's wing mirror was important, the demister wasn't a problem (what, not even in winter, when it's all fogged up?) and there was no rule which said that the driver's window had to work.

:confused:
Click to expand...

Why would any of those be important, there not needed and therefore aren't tested.
 
dirtydog said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

Such as the fact that if, one day, my Catalyser fails then I will need to replace it, at a cost of nearly £1000, even though:

a) I dont want it
b) It reduces my fuel economy
c) It reduces my engines power output

Or I'll fail the MOT.

That annoys me, personally, especially as you can quite easily pop down to the MOT centre in a 1991 banger which pumps out more nastyness than my car ever would without its CAT..
 
AcidHell2 said:
Only if the place that MOTed it says it's safe to do so. If for example the brakes don't work they will not let you drive it away.
Click to expand...

Yup, I believe if the MOT believe it's unsafe to drive (as opposed to just an MOT failure because of a currently minor problem) it might even have to taken by trailer - you can't even legally tow cars with certain faults ;)


Re the mirrors as Lopez says some cars don't have demisters so they aren't covered and the law (from memory) only requires two mirrors (any combination of wing or rear) as many old cars only had two, and many vans, trucks and the like only have two that are physically possible...

Most of the MOT requirements are fairly common sense, or to prevent problems for other people, and take into account that a car might not have had such an item fitted (rear demister is really a convenience rather than vital).
 
Werewolf said:
Re the mirrors as Lopez says some cars don't have demisters so they aren't covered and the law (from memory) only requires two mirrors (any combination of wing or rear) as many old cars only had two, and many vans, trucks and the like only have two that are physically possible...
Click to expand...

Apparently a car has to have a rear view mirror. Mine failed on it along with 2 other things. Never mind a bit of evo stick worked long enough for the mot.

What I hate is there stand on rust. A little hole even in a sill will not make the car unsafe. As well as things like cats.
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
Why would any of those be important, there not needed and therefore aren't tested.
Click to expand...

A left hand rear view mirror isn't needed?

Surely a properly working window is also needed - if only for reasons of safety (eg. emergency exist from vehicle)?

And in winter, a rear demister is essential.
 
Evangelion said:
A left hand rear view mirror isn't needed?

Surely a properly working window is also needed - if only for reasons of safety (eg. emergency exist from vehicle)?

And in winter, a rear demister is essential.
Click to expand...

Why do you need a working mirror, there's nothing unsafe about a non working window. Some cars dont have windows that move, few and far between though.
A rear demister certainly isn't needed I would say the majority of cars don't even have one.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Why do you need a working mirror, there's nothing unsafe about a non working window. Some cars dont have windows that move, few and far between though.
Click to expand...

Given that the MOT is supposed to focus on safety issues, I would have thought that a working window would fall into that category due to its use as an emergency exit.

A rear demister certainly isn't needed I would say the majority of cars don't even have one.
Click to expand...

So when the rear window is completely fogged up and your central rear vision mirror is rendered useless, what do you do?
 
A window isn't as important as a door, and side windows can be broken relatively easily in an emergency...

Start the car a few minutes earlier to give it a chance to clear...the same as you do if your windscreen is misted up, or there is ice/snow on the vehicle.
 
[TW]Fox;11793523 said:
The same thing that anyone driving a panel van does?
Click to expand...

You mean resign yourself to the fact that you have no way of seeing directly behind you.

Yeah, I guess that works. Clumsy though it is.
 
Buses, artics, panel vans, Luton vans, box vans, 7.5 tonners etc all have no rear window. Many vehicles do not have a rear demister of any sort.

You cannot test for safety something which is not fitted. Otherwise thousands of cars would fail for not having airbags or ABS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom