MOT fail thread

[JonRGV250]

As per your recent post about the snapped driveshaft and coil springs you can't always see what is going on internally with metal - it might have been corroding away behind/inside until it finally came apart.

I agree, It 100% was, and that hole wasn't there before I put my finger through it, but it was so obvious (or should be) to any tester the previous year that it was, or was about to be a problem.

Anyway, we all know it wasn't his "mechanic mate".....

Ha, I should imagine you're right!
There's always an excuse.
This is the new knuckle/hub with actual threads that we fitted to hold on the caliper & carrier, not cheap!

 

[JonRGV250]

Slight corrosion & pitting on the inner face of a rear brake disc, It still passed the efficiency test, but failed on condition and it was rather warped..

 

[bainbridge]

Slight corrosion & pitting on the inner face of a rear brake disc, It still passed the efficiency test, but failed on condition and it was rather warped..

That looks bad to even my untrained eye.

I wouldn't have put the car in for MOT with discs like that.

 

[Diddums]

Nice kwak tho

 

[JonRGV250]

I was actually trying to get an “arty” pic of my bike before I noticed the brake disc.
I wasn’t.

 

[Akagi]

And god only knows how this wasn't picked up as an advisory/failure on the previous MOT (different car)..

Quite rare to see a subframe in this condition (that's directly where the steering rack is bolted on to).
It's a Corsa in case anyone was wondering.

One of my MK7 Celicas flew through its MOT and then when I was underneath it a couple of weeks later fitting a new backbox I discovered that the rear subframe had rotted through in a place that effectively meant one of the three points that stops the offside rear wheel assembly falling off wasn't there anymore.

I have had severely reduced faith in the MOT system since then.

 

[JonRGV250]

It’s not the system as such, it’s some of the testers that are the problem.
There’s a great deal of people that shouldn’t be let loose around a car, let alone have the ability to test them.

 

[Akagi]

It’s not the system as such, it’s some of the testers that are the problem.
There’s a great deal of people that shouldn’t be let loose around a car, let alone have the ability to test them.

True in that case for sure, although there are also plenty of ways to fudge a car through an MOT because testers aren't allowed to remove things.

I may or may not have got a MK2 MX5 through one last MOT by covering the rotted through chassis rails with plastic covers many years ago...

 

[JonRGV250]

We’re allowed to remove things as long as tools aren’t required, although that’s changing now for some EV’s ie Merc EQE/EQS where a cover needs removing to access bonnet release, then more to access master cylinder, battery etc.
We’re still not allowed to remove wheel trims though

 

[Akagi]

We’re allowed to remove things as long as tools aren’t required, although that’s changing now for some EV’s ie Merc EQE/EQS where a cover needs removing to access bonnet release, then more to access master cylinder, battery etc.
We’re still not allowed to remove wheel trims though

They might have been self tappered directly into the rail.

Don't worry I'm a new person now, wouldn't do stuff like that. Honest.

Theres also the kind of tester I've encountered once or twice who feels the need to add an advisory item for each individual area of the underbody and each individual suspension component which is surface rusted. On a 90's Japanese car...
I mean sure, its a fair cop I suppose, but is it really needed? It makes it look like a right ****ter on the MOT history!

 

[JonRGV250]

No, it’s not needed and is quite ridiculous that some do it.
You only have to look at some of the posts in here and elsewhere in “motors” to see people worried about corrosion advisories that are just surface rust and present no safety issue at all.