packingstrips
Member Since: 24 Mar 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 435
|
| Vosa....WTF are they doing. |
|
Just seen the latest list of new testable items coming in Jan 12, been out a few weeks now but havent read all of it. So now a totally fine ball joint will fail an mot because of a split boot/cover BUT a coil spring with a broken off end isnt now a reason for rejection....Barmy barstewards!!
Anyone make sense of this??????
|
 5th Dec 2011 6:21 pm |
|
|
shawn
Member Since: 23 Aug 2005
Location: At the top of the hill
Posts: 574
  
|
just been reading the same list of items unreal these people are we are not allowed to fail a car on discs if they are badly corroded or pitted but a rubber ball joint cover will now fail next year its mad there were some other things that raised my eybrows aswell but cant remember what they are bali blue disco 4 with rear dvd's, privacy glass, pre heat system, heated steering wheel, full size spare, piano black trim, ipod cable, 20 inch wheels and i love it loads more than my TDV8 RRS, KTM 250 EXC 2 Stroke for the real off road stuff
|
| 5th Dec 2011 8:14 pm |
|
|
packingstrips
Member Since: 24 Mar 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 435
|
There appears to be a whole host of madness. Tyre pressure monitoring fault for instance....you can see if a tyres flat....so what if the lights on......wheres the problem if the tyres looks ok?
|
| 5th Dec 2011 9:51 pm |
|
|
Gareth
Site Moderator
Member Since: 07 Dec 2004
Location: Bramhall
Posts: 26774
|
Will the airbag warning light become part of the test?
|
| 5th Dec 2011 9:53 pm |
|
|
packingstrips
Member Since: 24 Mar 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 435
|
Yeh as far as i can make out. I can understand that but some of the new stuff is utter crap. Why only makec 13 pin tow sockets testable??? Cant 7 pin not work then......joke
|
| 5th Dec 2011 9:56 pm |
|
|
Navigator
Member Since: 17 Mar 2010
Location: Stay at Home. One of the lives you save could be your own.
Posts: 5113
 
|
packingstrips wrote: only makec 13 pin tow sockets testable?
and does that testing extend to checking if the tow electrtics have been enabled on the appropriate file? Think I'llconfuse them somewhat with my NATO socket then. A vaccine does not stop you catching a virus, or passing it on, or getting ill from it, really ill. It does reduce the likelyhood of you dying when really, really ill. Stay Alive - KEEP AWAY FROM PEOPLE.
|
| 5th Dec 2011 10:00 pm |
|
|
packingstrips
Member Since: 24 Mar 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 435
|
Tbh not 100% sure....i believe its a quick plug in and check....so really shouldnt make afby difference.....theres no mention of tell tale lights for the electrics
|
| 5th Dec 2011 10:05 pm |
|
|
JDS
Member Since: 27 Oct 2011
Location: Sunderland
Posts: 50
|
To be fair and sit firmly on the fence, I don't this is all VOSA's fault this time (although I'm sure someone will prove me incorrect) - the changes to the test have been mandated by the Eurocrats in the Soviet of Brussels in the directive 2009/40/EC and then again modified by 2010/48/EU which was ratified in July.
One of the more 'interesting' parts of this is that the MOT is supposed to check for (and fail?) a vehicle for "Control unit illegally modified" - one can only presume this means 'chipping' of the ECU - surely
a) this is pretty difficult for an MOT station to check for, how can they be expected to have exact maps for every vehicle, especially as some dealers re-flash the ECU with updated versions at service intervals anyhow and
b) this must be driven by the manufacturers - there is nothing 'safety' related about re-calibrating an engine to run more efficiently or fuel effectively.
Another great example of the application of one-size-fits-all legislation over the application of intelligence if you ask me ....
|
| 6th Dec 2011 7:01 am |
|
|
packingstrips
Member Since: 24 Mar 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 435
|
I havent read any criteria that states checking ecm software is a now a part of the test, only that the MIL light will now be a reason for rejection. Whilst there appears to be some improvements to the test ( making all cv boots now testable ) being one of them, it appears theyve made the test longer and probably more confusing for the man signing the certificate.
As far as im aware the test was always about items that didnt meet criteria at the time of test, how they can now change that after all these years is puzzling. A very small cut in a joint boot poses no danger at time of test assuming there is no excessive play in the joint, that joint could stay ok for years....they are assuming that the joint will fail before the next mot test which, correct me if im wrong, wasnt how it used to be. The mot has always been about fact and not about maybes and might be.
My worry is that they will apply this rational to all itmes such as brake pipes, fuel lines, soon no car will pass an mot.
|
| 6th Dec 2011 1:39 pm |
|
|
bambi
Member Since: 10 Apr 2009
Location: south yorkshire
Posts: 2059
|
I read or think i read that cats/ particulate filters are to be covered ie if there not there and they should be its a fail.
|
| 6th Dec 2011 4:05 pm |
|
|
packingstrips
Member Since: 24 Mar 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 435
|
Yep but i think is just cats and not dpf's.....i could be wrong though
|
| 6th Dec 2011 4:57 pm |
|
|
Phil1644
Member Since: 14 Nov 2009
Location: Probably still in work!
Posts: 303
 
|
I have taken many many cars for MOT's over the years and my "strategy" has always been the same......
I present it fully cleaned & valeted inside and out, with good meaty tyres, sound exhaust, all bulbs & horn working, new wiper blades etc. Basically make sure it looks cared for and the obvious things work properly.
The car always seems to be in and out of the test bay very quickly and I am left with the impression that the tester gives it "the once over", writes out the certificate and collects his fee before moving on quickly to the next!.....
|
| 6th Dec 2011 6:56 pm |
|
|
The Transformer
Member Since: 22 Jan 2010
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 1791
|
Again, are testers going to be removing the underbody protection to see if the cat is present?
|
| 6th Dec 2011 7:05 pm |
|
|
packingstrips
Member Since: 24 Mar 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 435
|
Again, are testers going to be removing the underbody protection to see if the cat is present?
I dont think anything has changed there. Covers can be removed for an mot if they were designed to be easily removeable like the covers over the battery and brake servo.....if engine covers pop off like they do on the D3 then that can also be removed to check fuel lines etc. You are not supposed to remove fixed covers that are held on with nuts and bolts or requires tools to remove fixings.
|
| 6th Dec 2011 7:31 pm |
|
|
nobbyclark
Member Since: 03 May 2005
Location: Perth, Scotland
Posts: 1268
|
Quote:Will the airbag warning light become part of the test
That's my Mini effed then. The airbag warning light's been on for nearly 8 years. Despite the fact the system works fine (according to BMW - although I haven't field tested it). Even when the warning is reset, it comes back on as soon as someone sits on the passenger seat.
Think I'll put a little sticker over the light.
Thank the EU and our spineless MEPs for allowing all these changes to come about. There are rules in there about changing the engine management system too i.e. chipping. No longer a D3 owner but still subscribed to multiple threads!
|
| 7th Dec 2011 12:00 pm |
|
|
