|
Failing with an engine management light on will wipe a few cars out
|
|
|
He was discussing higher end diesel cars.
The example he game me was if an Audi A4 fails it’s emissions check and it’s already 5 years old and on a heavy mileage, will the owner really want to spend close to 4 figures to put it right?
And it’s not just an engine/omissions issue, now the brake discs, bumper condition, reverse lights, even headlamp washers will all be tested not to mention the new environmental leak definitions that could see many vehicles pick up minors. I also read today that contamination of brake fluid is a major fail? (Please correct me if that’s wrong).
|
I also read today that contamination of brake fluid is a major fail? (Please correct me if that’s wrong).
This will be a major fail - and so it should be. Brake fluid is hygroscopic (absorbs water) and if not frequently changed can cause major issues especially on a car with ABS or dual circuit/&front/rear compensator valves
I've worked on / re-built many a car in the past and some of the fluid I've bled out of some cars has been dreadful (be it dark, rusty or milky). My father lost a friend when an old Mini's brake pipes failed due to internal rust!
|
|
Agree with Richard W.
The big one potentially is failure for removal of DPF or other emmissions control kit and any visible smoke from DPF equipped vehicles. AIUI smoke test for diesels pre-dating DPF requirement is unchanged. The other changes to testable items are sort of thing that's always gone on - essentially the test tracking things that have become mandatory (eg DRL) or commonplace (headlamp washers).
DAngerous/major/minor is really a matter of terminology; it clarifies point at which it is illegal to leave test centre.
|
DAngerous/major/minor is really a matter of terminology; it clarifies point at which it is illegal to leave test centre.
...assuming the outfit is not a dodgy one, wanting their palm greased to ensure a pass. Sounds to me like lots more excuses to 'fail' cars that are ok, deliberately cause sufficient damage to ensure its classed as 'dangerous' (so they have to choose between having it fixed there or [at great expense] transported to another garage for repair and the new MOT), or a greater degree of farud to pass genuinely unsafe vehicles.
Personally, whilst I agree that the rules should be updated to take into account advances in technology, etc, its pointless without sufficient policing by the authorities, whether traffic Police and/or whoever oversees the quality of MOT testing outfits.
Its the same reason why, despite the government 'cracking down' (just gotta love that phrase) on dangerous mobile phone use in cars, after an inital spike when Police did something for a few weeks, nothing has changed, because they are too busy going after dead politicians, YouTube commedians, people 'giving offence', etc.
Will this result in many more (geneuinely) unsafe vehicles being off the road - possibly, though not to the degree that the virtue-signalling politicians and Police chiefs would like. Will it be a money-spinner for MOT testers and dealerships (especially independent ones) to get more repair work, possibly via fraudulent behaviour, or get more back-handers for letting stuff go - I believe so.
|
|
|
|
|
Any idea how the brake fluid will be checked for contamination in the new MOT test?
|
Any idea how the brake fluid will be checked for contamination in the new MOT test?
I think the police dip the brake master cylinder reservoir, not sure how it will be done for the MOT
|
|
As usual the press coverage is very inaccurate.There are lots of new checks and regs for the new updated test,but a lot of it only applies to new or newer vehicles.For example,Drls and front fogs only tested on vehicles used from March 2018.So will not be applicable until2021. I haven't worked out how the brake fluid will be tested. The Mot examiner is not allowed to remove the fluid reservoir cap! I think the press need to RTFM. check here;assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upload...f
|
|
MOT should be logical. So why in UK after 3 years and then every year and in France after 4 years and then every 2 years?
Buy a GLX with headlight washers that no longer work and a fail: buy an LX without and it passes. But neither effectively have headlight washers and most cars don’t.
A lot of dashboard lights are poor c***nections.
|
MOT should be logical. So why in UK after 3 years and then every year and in France after 4 years and then every 2 years?
Buy a GLX with headlight washers that no longer work and a fail: buy an LX without and it passes. But neither effectively have headlight washers and most cars don’t.
A lot of dashboard lights are poor c***nections.
A very valid point - its not as though people deliberately drive through muddy pools and don't wash their car so they can use their headlight washer for the fun of it. As far as I know, there's no law saying that owners of cars with headlamp washers must use them - its just having them makes keeping them clean easier.
That's why the Police already have laws at their disposal about cars not being kept in good running order, including having all lights, windows and the registration plates clean so they can be used as intended.
|
|
|
MOT should be logical. So why in UK after 3 years and then every year and in France after 4 years and then every 2 years?
Either position is logical. One government has chosen annual tests another biennial.
Perhaps the nations of Europe could form some sort of Community or Union and harmonise these sort of rules..........
|
|
|
|
"MOT should be logical. So why in UK after 3 years and then every year and in France after 4 years and then every 2 years?"
True for cars in France, don't forget that the French MOT is not carried out by garages, it's carried out by privately run testing stations who are not allowed by law to do any repairs or adjustments at all.
And any vehicle classed as a commercial, like our L200 truck, has to have an intermediate emissions test in between the main tests that are every 2 years.
But motorcycles don't have to have any test at all at the moment!
|
|
|
|
|
|
He was discussing higher end diesel cars. The example he game me was if an Audi A4 fails it’s emissions check and it’s already 5 years old and on a heavy mileage, will the owner really want to spend close to 4 figures to put it right?
Is he going to apply the same 'discretion' to Electric Vehicles he is presented with too?. I read a reply recently from HJ recently which stated "batteries for the Mitsubishi i-Miev, Peugeot iOn and Citroen C-Zeros are failing and owners are being asked €18,000 for replacements, which is writing off a lot of 6 - 8 year-old cars".
18k - Wow that buys a lot of DPF's I suspect these three cars will rapidly become even less attractive than diesel on a forecourt. I doubt they'll be the only ones requiring expensive battery packs in the future either as new EV's on the market today age, not everybody takes out a battery warranty on an EV, and do people really want to buy a second hand, five or six year old Electric Car that has a reduced range compared to when it was new, and may need £10k - £20k spending on a new battery pack, at some unknown point in the future?. I also assume that any second hand car dealer will be required to give some kind of warranty on the EV battery from when the car is sold, even if its only 30 - 90 days, which if course is going to leave them severely out of pocket if, three weeks later the customer comes back with battery issues and it costs the dealer 18k - more than the car was sold for. Yeah, I can see that working out well.
On the other side of the coin Do people want ot be paying £100+ a month on a battery warranty for a six, seven or eight year old car too?. I certainly wouldn't want to be paying £1200 a year in battery rental on a second hand car which may only be worth £3000 - £4000, second hand!.
Given Diesel DPF's are deemed by your friend as trouble, some Electric Cars are now heading the same way in relation to being prone to expensive battery failures at relatively early ages - writing them off, and DPF's are also now being fitted into a lot of petrol cars, which may eventually give the same problems in the future as their diesel counterparts, so with all of this in mind, perhaps your friend would be better to invest in opening a Bicycle shop!.
Edited by Chris James on 13/05/2018 at 01:40
|
|
"owners are being asked €18,000 for replacements, which is writing off a lot of 6 - 8 year-old cars"
I think you will find that there are already independent EV battery servicing, repair and rebuild specialists who can remove failed cells and replace them etc to extend the life of EV's.
|
|
|
|
|
There's really not much difference. An item which would have failed will now be marked as Major. An item which is really bad and would previously have warranted a 'Dangerous' marker is still the same. Advisories will now be listed as minor faults. On later cars, more things have to work, e.g. front fog lights. The only real difference to the diesel test is that DPF equipped cars have to emit 'no visible smoke' - which they wont if the system is working. Possibly a few de-DPFd cars will now fail and be taken off the road, but I can't see it being that many.
My Parents have a brand new Kadjar, it emits White smoke when its cold on damp mornings, despite being fitted with a DPF. My 16 plate X1 does exactly the same in the same conditions and it certainly hasn't had its DPF tampered with, and with 11k motorway miles I can't see either the X1 or the Kadjar both having faulty or blocked DPF's, if the MOT is going to fail cars which emit any visible smoke which, I assime will by default also include visible white smoke, then I can see a lot of 3 year old cars failing their first MOT. if the DPF is working correctly, then there is nothing to replace or fix and so for the owners its going to be impossible to rectify. They'll be failing and scrapping perfectly working, low mileage cars.
But lets be honest here, these new rules are just another step closer to getting older cars off the road and scrapped (especially diesels) at the owners' expense, in order to save the Government having to spend on a scrappage scheme.
Edited by Chris James on 13/05/2018 at 01:58
|
My Parents have a brand new Kadjar, it emits White smoke when its cold on damp mornings, despite being fitted with a DPF.
The 'white smoke' is almost certainly water vapour.
Whatever it is it's only there when cold and won't affect a test that requires engine to be at operating temperature.
But lets be honest here, these new rules are just another step closer to getting older cars off the road and scrapped (especially diesels) at the owners' expense, in order to save the Government having to spend on a scrappage scheme.
Do you seriously believe that?
|
|
|
|
|
