Biennial MOT tests

[JonRGV250]

Biennial MOT tests.

Last week this ridiculous suggestion reared it's ugly head again, and I'm 100% certain it won't be implimented, just like the many times it's been suggested before.

Proposal to scrap annual MoT comes under fire

The annual MOT could be replaced by a biennial test if government plans to ease the cost of living get the go ahead. It is widely reported that Transport S

www.motortrader.com

From my own point of view, I've been a tester for longer than I care to remember and absolutely nothing shocks me anymore with the state of some of the cars I test.
For example, these are some pics from cars I tested today..




Fairly obvious the problems above.



CV boot not secure, and it's been like that for a while.
You really don't want to lose all the grease from that.



Steering rack gaitor completely split and welcoming in road grime and god knows what else.



Lower suspension arm bush almost completely seperated from the arm, and the other side was the same.
Also one of the bottom ball joints had excessive play, as well as both CV boots on the O/S being split and spewing grease, and rear pads about to go metal to metal.

Now bear in mind, that was just me testing 8 cars today.

Some (but not all) people think a fresh MOT is a clean bill of health for 12 months and ignore any advisories and just carry on driving.
It's not hard to imagine the sheer amount of unroadworthy cars sharing the same road space as the rest of us, and it's suggested that we only test every 24 months!

Is saving £54.85 due to the cost of living crisis really worth it?

 

[JonRGV250]

I don't think split gaiters and snapped springs are going to cause a huge accident as such, car might drive weird but overall catastrophic failure would be very unlucky.

Really?
As Andy-mk3 said, that spring could easily drop off the cup and stab the tyre (I've seen it plenty of times).

Here's one I failed today showing exactly how easily it can happen..



That spring is barely holding on before it slips, and imagine doing 70mph when it does.
I did try to explain to the customer how serious it was, but she said she'd book it in next week for repair and re-test.
Maybe she'd read on a forum that it was unlikely to be catastrophic

 

[JonRGV250]

And for no reason other than to remind people to check their cars in between service's and MOT's, here's a few from todays tests..

Impact damage to tyre sidewall..



Cords visible..



Yet another broken coil spring..



And front brake pads metal to metal with the disc.
What never ceases to amaze me is that (in this case) the owner completely ignored the initial noise from the metal brake wear indicator (which is loud as hell) and continued to drive it, and then presented it for todays MOT and was surprised when it failed.



I could, but won't, post this stuff daily as it'll get tedious.
But, I will say that the above pics are why we need an MOT yearly.

 

[JonRGV250]

The tyre with the exposed cords was on an old E Class which had lowering springs fitted, and also had excessive play in the track rod end and bottom suspension arm ball joint.
So, yes, it was an alignment issue in every way possible.

 

[JonRGV250]

Do broken coil springs happen a lot?

Yes, and primarily due to corrosion.
Pretty much every coil spring I see that's fractured has done so where the powder coating has flaked off (see the pics I've posted in this thread).

This may (or may not) be of interest to some.
These are my failure stats for the last 3 months against national average.
The suspension category covers more than just coil springs, but it's mainly the reason why it's so high.
Also the average age of cars I test is 11 years, and if went back a year to when I was at a Mercedes dealer those figures would be way less than half, as the average age of car tested was 5 years.

 

[JonRGV250]

My local MOT place charges £30. On one occasion I paid him £20 tip because he passed my car when it should have failed. Broken shock but he knew it was booked in with him later that day for that to be replaced so he saw no point in failing it for a retest fee.

Whut?
First of all, what he did was idiotic by passing it when it should have failed, and 2nd, all he had to do was fit the shock and re-test it after (it takes minutes).
If you left the car with him for repair, then why would he charge you? (BTW he can't).
If the DVSA turned up to do an inspection (I had one 3 weeks ago and they retested the car I'd just MOT'd) then your MOT guy would be in serious trouble for passing a car with a failure item.
Please tell me you didn't take the car away and bring it back later for repair?
It almost seems like you're saying you bribed an MOT tester

 

[JonRGV250]

With the Lamps, Reflectors and electrical, is that mostly lights?

Surprised the tyre percentage is so low. Is that down to people noticing before or having them done during?

Yes, plus tow bar wiring, general wiring and battery/batteries.
I'm guessing that tyres are the one thing that "should" be obvious to most drivers as to when they need changing.

 

[JonRGV250]

I think the current system is about right as it stands, but some cars do 2K miles per year and some do 50K, and some do all motorway miles and some just drive in traffic, so it's pretty impossible to get it right to suit all
If all cars were built to the same standard, it'd be an easier decision, but they aren't.
Take any Japanese/German (for example) cars and compare them to say a cheapy built French or *Italian car and the gulf in the quality of components is beyond comprehension.
*especially Fiat 500's

 

[JonRGV250]

I’m taking about components ie, bushings, exhausts, steering items etc etc
I fail way way more Fords, Citroen’s, Fiats than I do anything German or Japanese.
There’s a reason an A class cost more than a Focus.

 

[JonRGV250]

Possibly.
All testing stations and testers got this message today, so it would seem they're seriously considering it..



I said earlier in the thread that nothing surprises me anymore, but today something did.
I was inspecting the drivers seat belt today on a Golf and found it was covered in Duct tape, so I removed some of it, and...



I mean obviously the Duct tape brought the seat belt back to original safety specs as it was hiding the damage, but I had to fail it.
The above isn't true, don't use tape to hide damage (not that I should have to say that, but obviously someone thought it was ok).

 

[JonRGV250]

I thought you couldn't remove anything during the MOT or is that just for things actually fixed to the car like under trays

If it requires tools to remove something, then a tester can't, anything else is fair game.
Most engine covers etc just clip off so it's ok to remove those.
The same goes for sat nav's, phone cradles etc (that are obstructing the drivers view) but we need the customers permission first before removing them.

 

[JonRGV250]

I forgot to mention, and getting back to why biennial MOT's don't work..

This was a tyre fitted to the (seatbelt fail) Golf I tested today..



The date stamp on the tyre was 2001, which was older than the car, so whether the owner has bought a part worn tyre at some point or what ever, but it's fair to say that it's well past it's sell by date.
Just my opinion, but a tyre has a shelf life of approx 6 years before it degrades and becomes a liability.
That tyre failed as it's cords were visible.
If such a tyre was an advisory rather than a fail, then another 2 years on the road with god knows how many miles on it would be not ideal.

 

[JonRGV250]

And just for fun, we have another Duct tape connoisseur (see #87), who obviously believes that the power of said magic tape will restore his rust bucket of a van back to factory fresh..




Both outer and (to some extent) inner sills were practically non existent, bar the structurally enhancing magic tape.
He was not a happy bunny when it failed and explained (I kid you not) that the only reason the tape was on there was to stop his dogs getting hurt when they crawled under the van, which brings up the question that he obviously knew how bad they were, and why continue to drive the thing.
I mean to fair, he had done an excellent job of colour matching the tape, so it was almost invisible to the naked eye.

 

[JonRGV250]

So, after speaking to a DVSA inspector, it seems very likely that MOT's will be every two years for some cars.
What I could gather is that the failure rate is taken from main dealers and they're making a case that those cars do not need MOT'ing every year.
Now, I've spent most of my working life in main dealer workshops, and what happens there is that many of the cars are serviced first, then go for MOT.
If faults are found on the service that'll fail the MOT, then the customer is informed and the faults are corrected, hence the very low failure rate.
Where I work now, we always MOT the car first and then (if the repairs aren't too expensive) service it.

The whole thing is still apparently going to public consultation, so no idea what will actually happen.
My guess is that it'll be something like..
First MOT after 3 years, then every two years until the car is 7 years old, then back to every year, or something similar.

Anyhoo, that aside..
A customer brought a car in today that they'd just bought from auction and was complaining of it pulling to one side and also grinding when on right hand lock.
It had brand new pads and discs fitted and it's almost unbelievable that who fitted them didn't notice a certain problem.
I'll let you guys figure it out..





Some people really shouldn't be allowed near a tool kit!

 

[JonRGV250]

The disc is correct as are the suspension arm and bottom ball joint.
The problem is that someone has removed at some point the BBJ and has only used one of the 3 bolts to connect it again.
2 of the bolts are fitted to the arm but not to the ball joint, so its gone well out of alignment and is rubbing on the disc when on right hand lock.
Not all dangerous then.
Sadly I see stuff like this all too often.

 

[JonRGV250]

It wasn't even pivoting as that single bolt was done up so tight.
There was no movement, even when the disc was grinding on it

 

[JonRGV250]

I do, but I'm still amazed that anyone could be that stupid, despite seeing such poor workmanship more times than I care to remember.
Don't most people learn to do stuff right when Building Lego or Meccano? Surely common sense comes into play at some point?

 

[JonRGV250]

I’ve said it before on here, but the problem at main dealers is the bonus system they use.
For example, a tech will start earning bonus after completing say 8 hours of work, and after that will get £16 per every hour of work completed after that.
Whilst this was great for me working as a PDI tech/MOT tester, as I could easily get 5+ hours bonus a day, it’s not so easy for a service or diagnostic tech.
Those guys earn a higher salary, but rarely make good bonus.
The solution..
Rush through jobs or (I’ve seen it a million times) just don’t fit the awkward service items (diesel filters/plugs etc) and just lob them in the bin.
It’s very demotivating for the techs that like to do things right, but in doing so, don’t have chance of earning bonus.
What makes it worse is that all the dealers have the bonus charts up in the tea room, so everyone can see who’s earning the money.
Frustrating to see others earning £1500+ a month more than them because they’re doing the job right.
Horrid system.

 

[JonRGV250]

Yup, 8 hours book, then £16 per book hour after.
Over time was paid at time, but the book hours counted towards the £16 per hour.
Hopefully that makes sense?

 

[JonRGV250]

Just when I thought a portion of the general public couldn't get more (insert your words here).
This was presented for an MOT today, and have a wild guess what it failed on..



It beggars belief that some people can't even be botherd to check their tyres.