Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,314
Did it have the customary blacked out windows and amg badge
.Biennial MOT tests
- Thread starter JonRGV250
- Start date
.
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.
Soldato
I go around my car once a week. Fluids, tyres, lamps etc. Takes no more than 10mins.
I also do vehicle checks DAILY when I'm at work on my company vehicles.
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.
Increasingly common these days. The state of the roads + people who don't look after the car and smash into potholes.
On topic Biennial MOTs are a massive mistake. Too many drivers leave it till the MOT to find out and fix problems. My MOT guy had a car in for it's first MOT. Owner from new and he failed it on several simple things like bulbs and screenwash. He asked the owner why she'd not bothered to fix them before bringing it and she said "that's what the MOT is for, I've never opened the bonnet so I even don't know where the screenwash goes.
I've said it before, I believe there should be a fine system for drivers who fail to apply basic maintainence to vehicles and present them for an MOT beyond the failed sheet. Bulbs, tyres, wipers and fluids are all BASIC maintainence
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
With the Lamps, Reflectors and electrical, is that mostly lights?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.
Surprised the tyre percentage is so low. Is that down to people noticing before or having them done during?
Soldato
Let's play devils advocate a bit here, all those saying every 2 years is dangerous etc.
So what if it was proposed or even mandatory every 6 months?
So what if it was proposed or even mandatory every 6 months?
Man of Honour
I mean, obviously it would be a benefit to road safety, but since the aim is reducing costs, where does doubling the effective MOT costs come into it?
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.
Preferable to every 2 years.
Moving it to once every 2 years does what? save you the cost of half a tank of fuel every year? A pittance of a saving to the average driver in exchange for even more wrecks on the road, it's a saving of less than 80 pence a week.
If it results in more accident's it'll only increase insurance premiums anyway.
Last edited:
Cars do seem to be more reliable these days. Emphasis on seem - I'm sure you know far better than I. What do you think of having the second test at 5 years and annual tests thereafter?
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
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
Soldato
Over here, the biking fraternity is opposing the introduction of mandatory testing for motorcycles every 2 years. At the moment, the owner/operator is responsible for maintaining their bikes in a roadworthy condition without any 3rd party inspection.
Man of Honour
What a load of swash. German manufacturers are regularly in the bottom tiers for reliability.
Soldato
The only way anyone would save any meaningful amount of money by moving to an mot every 2 years would be if you didn't undertake repairs. The cost of the mot itself isn't significant.
These topics always remind me of this: https://youtu.be/05OJqKGOiP8?t=142
The MOT history of the Peugeot is eye-watering - it is likely the condition of the tyres, brakes, suspension components, etc. meant they never even had a chance of avoiding or recovering that incident even if they could have done - just one example:
Not sure what goes on behind the scenes but I think there is a point where an MOT tester should be able to escalate the situation when a vehicle repeatedly has a history like that - from the history they've obviously managed to get it put through via various means including likely "backstreet testers" and bodge jobs, etc. etc. rather than properly rectify many of the issues.
The MOT history of the Peugeot is eye-watering - it is likely the condition of the tyres, brakes, suspension components, etc. meant they never even had a chance of avoiding or recovering that incident even if they could have done - just one example:
Not sure what goes on behind the scenes but I think there is a point where an MOT tester should be able to escalate the situation when a vehicle repeatedly has a history like that - from the history they've obviously managed to get it put through via various means including likely "backstreet testers" and bodge jobs, etc. etc. rather than properly rectify many of the issues.
I beg to differ.
When mine snapped (at low speed) it took the tyre with it. Fortunately this was the last speed bump before a NSL winding country lane.
Can't say how the car would have handled but you only need to be too far over the white line to hit oncoming traffic. If it were to fall in such a way to stop you being able to turn the wheel one way then that's self explanatory.
