4 2 2 for Mot's coming?

Mottie

Mottie

Joined
27 Feb 2017
Messages
40,339
Reaction score
6,033
Location
Essexshire
Country
United Kingdom
MOT's. They've been talking about it for years and it looks like it's getting closer! Proposals are for the first test at 4 years old instead of 3 and every other year instead of annually. VOSA used to tell us to log even the slightest fault, especially on the first test including bulbs, washers, wipers etc to give them good figures to stop the 4 year first test. I don’t care, it’s not my living anymore - I’m now a consumer nowdays and not a supplier. :ROFLMAO:

www.bbc.co.uk

First MoT could be delayed to cut costs for drivers

Testing cars after four years - rather than three - would not affect road safety, the government says.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
foxhole said:
Bi annual in France and over a third of French cars fail their first MOT.
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt it but the figures aren't giving the full picture unless you know what they failed on. It could simply be on low windscreen washer fluid or a headlamp out of alignment for example. We were told NOT to fix trivial things like during the test so that it passes that but to fail them first and then sort it out purely to get the failure rates up. Basically looking after themselves.
 
Most EU countries only have them every other year. We could have done that too, but never did. However, some of their MOT tests are tougher than our - especially on emissions.
I've just had the consultation document through, but haven't read it yet. Given that a vehicle worked hard as a taxi can rack-up 50,000 miles a year, I'm not sure a first MOT at 200,000 miles is a particularly good idea, but most taxi licensing authorities have their own "council MOT" anyway, without which, the cabby doesn't get his taxi licence, so maybe that covers taxis. Some even have them twice a year.
What I DO think we desperately need, is a better MOT emissions test!
 
Most test equipment can’t read a modern diesel emission, it’s that low.
 
Mottie said:
Most test equipment can’t read a modern diesel emission, it’s that low.
Click to expand...
That's because the equipment is crap! (Well, that's a bit cruel. It's just not up to the job of measuring emissions on modern cars).

The MOT emissions test is done with the engine hot and under no load. Frankly, those are "best case" scenarios for the engine. In addition, it can only detect unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and visible smoke. It can't detect NOx, at all - which is why people can blank off their EGR valves and still pass the test, and it can't detect particulates (in any meaningful sense).

My feeling, is that the lack of significant improvement in air quality, is largely down to modified and poorly-maintained vehicles - which is driving ever more ridiculously tight type approval requirements for new cars, adding cost and complexity.

Now, in order to do a better emissions test, the time taken is going to increase, and so will the cost, so as an exchange, I'd support moving to a test every other year - at least for cars up to (say) 12 years old.
 
As a for example, in Spain (if I have interpreted the regs correctly) the first IVA occurs at four years, and subsequently every two years until the car reaches 10 years, after which the testing is annually. For vans, even car-derived vans like the Berlingo (and also estate cars derived from vans) after the first IVA they are tested annually.
 
Why fix something that ain't broke?
Everyone knows you get an MOT annually so why change it to every 2 years? If there is something wrong with the care between 12 monthly testing, and, (lets be honest, there usually is something wrong even if it's only 'minor'), then it's only going to get worse if left for another 12 months!
As for new cars not being tested for the first 3 years, I disagree with this as well. Mention was made about taxis racking up 50k a year. Theres nothing to say a 'normal' motorist can't clock a similar figure if he tried/wanted to. Admittedly his re-sale value would drop, but if he can afford to drive that far each year it's probably no concern to him.
And what if the 'new' car has an accident within those 3 years? Surely they should be MOT tested before being given back to the owner if it is not a write off? I would not be surprised if there are quite a few 'young' cars being driven around after an 'accident' which were repaired outside insurance claims. Youngster/petrol head runs his car into a ditch, no other vehicles involved, gets it towed to a garage and pays out of his own/parents pocket to keep it off the insurance record. Without an MOT that car could have undetected serious flaws.
I'm all for keeping things as they are.
 
Fair points, but bodyshops generally work to a pretty strict code of practice. If the MOT fee goes up to help finance better test equipment and a more thorough test, I think it's probably only fair to increase the interval between successive MOTs to help spread that cost. There's nothing to stop it going to annual MOTs once a car hits 10 years old or 100,000 miles.
 
Mottie said:
There’s nothing to stop you having an Mot every day from new either.
Click to expand...
I think, (human nature being what it is), the fee might do that job quite effectively - especially if it goes up to £70-odd quid!

Here's the consultation document. The questions are very wide-ranging.

Changes to the date of the first MOT test and research into other MOT enhancements

Seeks views on whether we should change the timeframe for the first date a vehicle should be MOT tested and evidence and views on other changes to MOT testing.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Anyone can put in a response (including members of the public).
 
First test at 4 years. Most defects at three years are the sort of things that could happen at ant time - wipers, washers, bulbs etc. Any high mileage 50,000 miles a year rep cars would, I assume, be serviced more frequently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top