![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I dont think there is much wrong with the current MOT structure though I would support the introduction of a compulsory £10 'mini MOT' half way between proper MOT's where people have lights, tyres etc checked. It astounds me the number of bald tyres you see with owners who never check them, ever, because they think an MOT is all they ever need.
MOT system review
- Thread starter thepharcyde
- Start date
It'd probably scare most of you if you realised just how relaxed the MOT rules are. I mean you could drive out with a nice green ticket dispite having all 4 tyres on your car with only 1.6mm of tread left, only 1.5mm of brake pads left all round, brake discs that are corroded and pitted, top suspension bearings seized, engine badly leaking oil, oil level itself low, coolant low, need i go on? An MOT is just a minimum standard, and anyone that thinks a car that is just tested is good enough to run maintenance free for a whole year is sadly mistaken. Very few cars will go from MOT to MOT without having any work done, or requiring work done for the next MOT.
Oh and going by the op's mileage point, on friday I mot'd an 07 plate 530D with 121k on the clock - passed no problem, but an old man's corsa that was 9 years old with only 11k on the clock needed the sills welding, tyres that were badly cracked replaced, wishbone bushes etc. I'd rather have a high mileage new car than a low mileage old one.
Oh and going by the op's mileage point, on friday I mot'd an 07 plate 530D with 121k on the clock - passed no problem, but an old man's corsa that was 9 years old with only 11k on the clock needed the sills welding, tyres that were badly cracked replaced, wishbone bushes etc. I'd rather have a high mileage new car than a low mileage old one.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
You're thinking of a service, an MOT doesn't prove the car is safe.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 11,434
- Location
- Derbyshire
I think the standard MOT is a good idea and is pretty much fine.
I would change is the emissions test as quite simply I don't care about them.
I would also increase the level of tread required, as in my oppinion under 2mm isn't very safe.
Indy garages pass MOT's when the car really shouldn't and should be subjected to police checks - In a similar way that the Police try to get underagers to buy booze around town.
I would change is the emissions test as quite simply I don't care about them.
I would also increase the level of tread required, as in my oppinion under 2mm isn't very safe.
Indy garages pass MOT's when the car really shouldn't and should be subjected to police checks - In a similar way that the Police try to get underagers to buy booze around town.
What, no he's not. Many services dont include any safety checks at all, some are simply basic oil and filter changes!
You know exactly what he means - the MOT is a safety test. We all know its flaws, but to claim a 'service' is more of a safety check than an MOT is ridiculous.
Quite - I have now taken my ever increasingly miley 530i through 3 seperate MOT tests and it's never even picked up an advisory.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 17,616
- Location
- Bristol
I heard about this yesterday and as the guy that said about it, it's an idiotic idea, so many cars can fall apart 6 months after an MOT let alone 2 years!
Also, the price will be bumped up to account for the time extension. One positive point though is that they want to have more things checked with the test, but I can't see it being all that good anyway.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
[TW]Fox;16879022 said:
You know exactly what I mean. A car is much safer following a scheduled service than it is likely to be following an MOT. You're only being a pedant and deciding I meant "back street garage in a shed service" because I said it, it's getting boring now.
I know he didn't mean to say the MOT is a good measure of a cars safety, but every one of my car's services includes checks that an MOT doesn't carry out. Do BMW do simple oil an filter changes, or do they also check safety items at the same time?
Take the pedant hat off and look at the real world for a second, we've just had someone suffer a blow out on the motorway a month after the MOT. Yes the tester should have given the guy a better advisory sheet, but the car was an MOT pass. I want to stop people from saying "an MOT proves your car is safe", you complain enough about the un-educated public.
How is my car safer after I've had an Oil Service at my local franchised dealer than it is after I've had an MOT test?
The MOT test looks at more things than the oil service. Also, if there is anything found to be wrong, the MOT test makes it mandatory that I repair it, whereas I can simply drive away nodding my head after a service.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
[TW]Fox;16879150 said:
Safety re-calls and campaigns (reliability changes and re-maps), checked every service. Not part of your MOT.
I maintain; if you want a safe car, follow the manufacturer's service schedule, do not think the MOT is good enough (not saying you're guilty Fox, this is for the un-educated masses).
Particular points where the MOT is bad is suspension, there are a lot of ways a lot of modern setups can fail yet pass an MOT, then they scrub the tyres off and cause an accident. Wheel alignment (just toe-in) should be included, as should a number of joint failures which currently pass. All this should be picked up in a well carried out dealer service as things stand today. A half decent mechanic can pick up on some of this just driving the car into the workshop.
I think a lot of people now realise that an MOT does not prove a car is safe.
That has been drummed in a lot in the last 10 years.
Great.. so what? Will they check the suspension bushes? Will they check for rot and whether it requires welding? No, of course not. It's a service not a safety inspection. Some services DO include limited safety checks but very few are as 'comprehensive' (I use that word carefully as we all know the MOT is flawed) as the MOT.
And LOL at 'remaps'. Yea, thats totally related to safety.
I cant think of a single scheduled service that would pick up bad wheel allignment any more efficiently than the MOT would (ie an advisory for tyre wear on outside edge etc).
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
Re-maps I'll grant you are not safety related. But sometime there's campaigns for stuff that is possibly safety related, such as covers being removed from over-heating engine components.[TW]Fox;16879238 said:
The point is an MOT doesn't include wheel alignment. You'll get an advisory if the tyre is close to worn on the edge, but not if your tracking is stupidly out and you have just fitted tyres. Unless the tester is very good, advisories can be anything the tester wants to include.
You can have an inch of play in your track rod inner end/s, that's a pass because - unlike the outer - they usually can't fall out. You could have more playif it's possible to have more play without a broken rack. That sort of misalignment could over-heat a nice new tyre, forget wearing through to the chords. Yet the mechanic - unless he is a complete spastic - will notice this the 1st time he turns the wheel in the car, I'd be irate to get through any service without that being mentioned, I'd expect to pass the MOT in that condition.
The MOT "Pass" is not an adequate measure of safety, the mechanic's discretion in the advisories and letting customers know their car has a fault at service is required for real safety. The solution, get every mechanic through ATA certification and make sure they're aware of the code of ethics.
Last edited:
Nonsense, no way a car would pass with play in the steering, it's checked for numerous times during the test.
Hardly ever.
And how many services include a wheel allignment check! None! I have NEVER had a service performed on a car that has included a wheel allignment check. Heck the local main dealers wheel allignment machinery is at a different site to the service department anyway!
You are talking rubbish I am afraid. A scheduled service is less of a 'safety check' than an MOT.
And this would be picked up in routine servicing? I rather think not.
13mm of play allowed for normal rack and pinion.
I was talking to my MOT tester last year after he'd just come back from one of those MOT refresher courses. They handed out a brake disc and asked if it was a fail. As the disc was heavily corroded and pitted all the testers said they would fail it. The instructors told them this was incorrect, and that if it's performance on the brake rollers was adequate it was a case of (as is becoming more common these days) "pass and advise"
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
[TW]Fox;16879441 said:
All of the mechanics I know who I'd call "good" would ask the foreman to make the customer aware of play in the steering. There's plenty more the MOT doesn't cover, such as anything you can't see, there's been campaigns to check troublesome hidden areas of brake pipe. There is often more to a service than written in the book, and it usually won't turn up on your invoice.
My point remains, the MOT doesn't make a car "safe" and correct servicing is an essential part of keeping your car safe.
Instead of pinning the blame on MOT testers or lousy service mechanics etc, why not blame the drivers/owners for driving around in poorly maintained cars?
Simple things i see day to day, low fluid levels, badly corroded filters all because the owner won't spend the money to get their car serviced. People that drive a whole year without fixing last years advisorys. People that drive a car that makes a knocking or a rattle or even a grinding noise for months till said part fails and leaves them ditched at the side of the road.
Most of the unsafe cars on the roads have their owners to blame, not an MOT that isn't up to standards, or a poorly serviced car.
I'd also like to point out to whoever commented about doing away with the emissions test, its actually a good thing to have, if your emissions are too high it usually means your cars fuel mixture is wrong, and less often its about the cat or the engine itself. Without an emissions test you could be driving around for years in a car thats running too rich and burning more fuel than it should, hurting your wallet. The engine management light doesn't always come on with all faults.
Simple things i see day to day, low fluid levels, badly corroded filters all because the owner won't spend the money to get their car serviced. People that drive a whole year without fixing last years advisorys. People that drive a car that makes a knocking or a rattle or even a grinding noise for months till said part fails and leaves them ditched at the side of the road.
Most of the unsafe cars on the roads have their owners to blame, not an MOT that isn't up to standards, or a poorly serviced car.
I'd also like to point out to whoever commented about doing away with the emissions test, its actually a good thing to have, if your emissions are too high it usually means your cars fuel mixture is wrong, and less often its about the cat or the engine itself. Without an emissions test you could be driving around for years in a car thats running too rich and burning more fuel than it should, hurting your wallet. The engine management light doesn't always come on with all faults.
Totally agree with RealScots post.
MOT does not "make" the car safe, it just checks a vehicle to be road worthy in a manner that can be expected without dismantling the whole thing.
It is not part of the maintenance of the vehicle, but it can show up flaws in the maintenance.
MOT does not "make" the car safe, it just checks a vehicle to be road worthy in a manner that can be expected without dismantling the whole thing.
It is not part of the maintenance of the vehicle, but it can show up flaws in the maintenance.