Mot changes 2018
Discussion
M4cruiser said:
Ah, thank you. So, how does the tester know if there isn't an EML or whether it's been disabled? Not all cars have EMLs. Not even all cars with cats, or injection, etc etc.
Anything mainstream built since around 2001 will have a MIL indicator, and they illuminate when the ignition is switched on to test the bulb.Mr2Mike said:
Fox- said:
To be fair it's fairly annoying looking up a car on a lookup site only to find orange everywhere because like every other car built in the last decade it has an undertray fitted.
If every car in the last decade has an under-tray fitted, why would the MOT record be any different to those? It's not like your car will suddenly stand out due to the under-tray advisories, which is there for perfectly sensible reasons.nutsytvr said:
They do not flicker, and the beam pattern is not altered from the original halogens.
When I say flicker I don't mean the flickering on and off, I am talking about the refresh rate - when you see footage of LED lights on screen they flicker slightly because of the way the camera is only taking a certain number of frames per second - in essence an LED is turning off and on hundreds or thousands of times a second. It's mostly not perceivable with the naked eye but some people myself included are sensitive to it - I can't use LED lights as a main light source in the house either - they give me a headache. M4cruiser said:
This may well be part of the reason the "advisories" system is being changed. Some odd things have been turning up, after all it was only "the opinion of the tester". I guess they were supposed to highlight approaching safety faults, but on my car(s) I've had advisories about engine covers fitted, side skirts fitted, and 4 hub caps!!!!!!!!!!! Then the following year these things magically disappear, even when still on the car.
Testers should always advise about being unable to inspect components due to covers that they aren't permitted to remove. The reasons for this should be staggeringly obvious.njw1 said:
Bit of a bugger if you own a VW..........
vsonix said:
When I say flicker I don't mean the flickering on and off, I am talking about the refresh rate - when you see footage of LED lights on screen they flicker slightly because of the way the camera is only taking a certain number of frames per second - in essence an LED is turning off and on hundreds or thousands of times a second. It's mostly not perceivable with the naked eye but some people myself included are sensitive to it - I can't use LED lights as a main light source in the house either - they give me a headache.
VsonixThat must be really difficult for you, given the number of cars that now have LEDS, particularly rear and brake lights.
kev1974 said:
Talking about irritating lights, those Audi "animated" or "chasing" LED indicators should be an instant fail. So distracting, when a simple conventional flashing indicator would be fine.
When you say "distracting" you could mean that they are in fact serving the purpose of indicating to you that the vehicle in question is proposing to change its direction, and that might require you to take some action as well, or proceed with caution... nutsytvr said:
njw1 said:
Bit of a bugger if you own a VW..........
2.1 Overview
On 20 May 2018 the new roadworthiness directive will introduce new MOT emission limits for some diesel vehicles.
This includes the introduction of testing vehicles to the manufacturer’s plate value, when present along with a new lower default limit for newer vehicles.
2.2 What you need to know
The amended limits to be applied from 20 May 2018 are:
1. First used before July 2008 None turbo 2.5m-1 or plate value if lower
Turbo 3.0m-1 or plate value if lower
2. First used on or after 1 July 2008 All diesels 1.5m-1 or plate value if lower
3. First used on or after 1 January 2014 All diesels 0.7m-1 or plate value if lower
Note: Plate value is the emission limit specified by the vehicle manufacturer and can be found on the vehicle manufacturer’s plate. If there’s no emission value on the manufacturer’s plate or it can’t be located, then the alternative default values must be used.
Edited by loose cannon on Thursday 25th January 16:18
loose cannon said:
2. Diesel smoke tester limits
2.1 Overview
On 20 May 2018 the new roadworthiness directive will introduce new MOT emission limits for some diesel vehicles.
This includes the introduction of testing vehicles to the manufacturer’s plate value, when present along with a new lower default limit for newer vehicles.
2.2 What you need to know
The amended limits to be applied from 20 May 2018 are:
1. First used before July 2008 None turbo 2.5m-1 or plate value if lower
Turbo 3.0m-1 or plate value if lower
2. First used on or after 1 July 2008 All diesels 1.5m-1 or plate value if lower
3. First used on or after 1 January 2014 All diesels 0.7m-1 or plate value if lower
Note: Plate value is the emission limit specified by the vehicle manufacturer and can be found on the vehicle manufacturer’s plate. If there’s no emission value on the manufacturer’s plate or it can’t be located, then the alternative default values must be used.
2.1 Overview
On 20 May 2018 the new roadworthiness directive will introduce new MOT emission limits for some diesel vehicles.
This includes the introduction of testing vehicles to the manufacturer’s plate value, when present along with a new lower default limit for newer vehicles.
2.2 What you need to know
The amended limits to be applied from 20 May 2018 are:
1. First used before July 2008 None turbo 2.5m-1 or plate value if lower
Turbo 3.0m-1 or plate value if lower
2. First used on or after 1 July 2008 All diesels 1.5m-1 or plate value if lower
3. First used on or after 1 January 2014 All diesels 0.7m-1 or plate value if lower
Note: Plate value is the emission limit specified by the vehicle manufacturer and can be found on the vehicle manufacturer’s plate. If there’s no emission value on the manufacturer’s plate or it can’t be located, then the alternative default values must be used.
Edited by loose cannon on Thursday 25th January 16:18
^^^I wonder if a few will use this to their advantage.......
loose cannon said:
2. Diesel smoke tester limits
2.1 Overview
On 20 May 2018 the new roadworthiness directive will introduce new MOT emission limits for some diesel vehicles.
This includes the introduction of testing vehicles to the manufacturer’s plate value, when present along with a new lower default limit for newer vehicles.
2.2 What you need to know
The amended limits to be applied from 20 May 2018 are:
1. First used before July 2008 None turbo 2.5m-1 or plate value if lower
Turbo 3.0m-1 or plate value if lower
2. First used on or after 1 July 2008 All diesels 1.5m-1 or plate value if lower
3. First used on or after 1 January 2014 All diesels 0.7m-1 or plate value if lower
Note: Plate value is the emission limit specified by the vehicle manufacturer and can be found on the vehicle manufacturer’s plate. If there’s no emission value on the manufacturer’s plate or it can’t be located, then the alternative default values must be used.
And this is where ambiguity creeps in. You are quoting the smoke test regs. I am quoting the emissions test. 2 different sections of the regs. 2.1 Overview
On 20 May 2018 the new roadworthiness directive will introduce new MOT emission limits for some diesel vehicles.
This includes the introduction of testing vehicles to the manufacturer’s plate value, when present along with a new lower default limit for newer vehicles.
2.2 What you need to know
The amended limits to be applied from 20 May 2018 are:
1. First used before July 2008 None turbo 2.5m-1 or plate value if lower
Turbo 3.0m-1 or plate value if lower
2. First used on or after 1 July 2008 All diesels 1.5m-1 or plate value if lower
3. First used on or after 1 January 2014 All diesels 0.7m-1 or plate value if lower
Note: Plate value is the emission limit specified by the vehicle manufacturer and can be found on the vehicle manufacturer’s plate. If there’s no emission value on the manufacturer’s plate or it can’t be located, then the alternative default values must be used.
Edited by loose cannon on Thursday 25th January 16:18
nutsytvr said:
Vsonix
That must be really difficult for you, given the number of cars that now have LEDS, particularly rear and brake lights.
It's not so bad when it's a brief on/off thing but constant light sources can be really bad. LED household lighting for example. Incandescent, halogen, metal halide, sodium lights are fine, but LED as a sole light source really grates and with many old style fluorescent strip lights I can often perceive a kind of strobing or 'barbers pole' effect from what I presume is 60hz mains hum. That must be really difficult for you, given the number of cars that now have LEDS, particularly rear and brake lights.
vsonix said:
nutsytvr said:
Vsonix
That must be really difficult for you, given the number of cars that now have LEDS, particularly rear and brake lights.
It's not so bad when it's a brief on/off thing but constant light sources can be really bad. LED household lighting for example. Incandescent, halogen, metal halide, sodium lights are fine, but LED as a sole light source really grates and with many old style fluorescent strip lights I can often perceive a kind of strobing or 'barbers pole' effect from what I presume is 60hz mains hum. That must be really difficult for you, given the number of cars that now have LEDS, particularly rear and brake lights.
lord trumpton said:
vsonix said:
nutsytvr said:
Vsonix
That must be really difficult for you, given the number of cars that now have LEDS, particularly rear and brake lights.
It's not so bad when it's a brief on/off thing but constant light sources can be really bad. LED household lighting for example. Incandescent, halogen, metal halide, sodium lights are fine, but LED as a sole light source really grates and with many old style fluorescent strip lights I can often perceive a kind of strobing or 'barbers pole' effect from what I presume is 60hz mains hum. That must be really difficult for you, given the number of cars that now have LEDS, particularly rear and brake lights.
It's a minor annoyance, it hasn't got to the point where I need to wrap my head in moist towels or whatever yet.
As newbie to forums, not allowed to raise new topic for 14 days, so, make my comment in this thread
While I support greater car use safety, I see the changes at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mot-changes-20-... ill considered and thought out. It will victimise the 100's of thousands of people in motorsport and car enthusiasts who have well equipped repair facilities at home and/or own workshops, with many, if not most, being far more experienced and skilled than many of the plodding mechanics working in MOT stations. I have seen bad work done on cars by MOT stations.
There is no real definition on what is a dangerous or major fault leaving it open to the MOT station to exploit so that they carry out the repair (and in case anyone says that I don't understand the position, I used to own and operate an MOT station and garage workshop/petrol station).
If customers are to be held trapped by an MOT station saying fail, cant drive, then there must be full definition of what a dangerous or major fault is and a set tariff for repair costs giving a guide for each repair type. There is no course to dispute an MOT station fail decision, even if there was, the car owner will at first be left without being able to drive home to repair. Car owners in the countryside some distance from a place for MOT will suffer.
Thousands of small garages depend on their local customers bringing their cars into their preferred garage for repair after MoT. Now all this work will be forced into the MOT station.
I can see gross exploitation by unscrupulous MOT station operators - of course there are many that give a good solid service. But, any service where a customer is forced into buying a (expensive) service without any choice of where, will be subject to exploitation.
The ability to drive after a fail to the nearest preferred place of repair (within a set distance from the place failing it) should be re-instated, unless of course the car is so dangerous that it will **realistically** cause an accident if driven further. Realistically should be defined.
Is there support to petition for this change ????
Yes, there are many who do bodge/dangerous home repairs, but, most of these are done prior to MOT to disguise the fault. The MOT changes won't change that, probably increase it.
As examples of what I say.
My current car, an well used Mk IV Fiesta (that I bought while I rebuild the 187k mile engine & gbox of my Rover 220 Turbo Coupe I've had since new) was failed at MOT last month for front brakes pads under 2mm. I could not dispute that with the MOT place. When I took them off to replace, they measured marginally under 3mm thickness. Under new regs that is a major fault "repair immediately" forcing me to agree to have them replaced there and then - with pads far more expensive than I get at trade price and a labour cost for work I have done for 45+ years.
When I MOT'd this car after purchasing last year, I checked the rear structure around the rear suspension mountings and inner wheel arch, a common point of corrosion on these. I was shocked at the standard of welding that had been done, the last MOT cert showed the MOT station had done this. I had to re-plate it all to ensure the repair plates were enlarged to join to non-corroded metal, and re-build the suspension mounting area.
For many, if a repair is done properly, as I did, the cost will be in excess of the car value leaving the owner forced to scrap the car, although otherwise it was a sound good little car. It is the cost of labour that creates that situation. A skilled home mechanic can keep a perfectly serviceable and safe car going for many years by carrying out home repairs. This option is now removed.
Also note, that when you take a car over 4 or 5 years old, it will be advisable to flush the brake fluid out with new before MOT. Otherwise you can end up with a fail for residue/water contaminated fluid. I am told cars will be tested by samples taken from bleed nipples and resevoir. Is interpretation of contamination down to each MOT station's decision, or is there a set test process or testing meter used.
Jonathan
While I support greater car use safety, I see the changes at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mot-changes-20-... ill considered and thought out. It will victimise the 100's of thousands of people in motorsport and car enthusiasts who have well equipped repair facilities at home and/or own workshops, with many, if not most, being far more experienced and skilled than many of the plodding mechanics working in MOT stations. I have seen bad work done on cars by MOT stations.
There is no real definition on what is a dangerous or major fault leaving it open to the MOT station to exploit so that they carry out the repair (and in case anyone says that I don't understand the position, I used to own and operate an MOT station and garage workshop/petrol station).
If customers are to be held trapped by an MOT station saying fail, cant drive, then there must be full definition of what a dangerous or major fault is and a set tariff for repair costs giving a guide for each repair type. There is no course to dispute an MOT station fail decision, even if there was, the car owner will at first be left without being able to drive home to repair. Car owners in the countryside some distance from a place for MOT will suffer.
Thousands of small garages depend on their local customers bringing their cars into their preferred garage for repair after MoT. Now all this work will be forced into the MOT station.
I can see gross exploitation by unscrupulous MOT station operators - of course there are many that give a good solid service. But, any service where a customer is forced into buying a (expensive) service without any choice of where, will be subject to exploitation.
The ability to drive after a fail to the nearest preferred place of repair (within a set distance from the place failing it) should be re-instated, unless of course the car is so dangerous that it will **realistically** cause an accident if driven further. Realistically should be defined.
Is there support to petition for this change ????
Yes, there are many who do bodge/dangerous home repairs, but, most of these are done prior to MOT to disguise the fault. The MOT changes won't change that, probably increase it.
As examples of what I say.
My current car, an well used Mk IV Fiesta (that I bought while I rebuild the 187k mile engine & gbox of my Rover 220 Turbo Coupe I've had since new) was failed at MOT last month for front brakes pads under 2mm. I could not dispute that with the MOT place. When I took them off to replace, they measured marginally under 3mm thickness. Under new regs that is a major fault "repair immediately" forcing me to agree to have them replaced there and then - with pads far more expensive than I get at trade price and a labour cost for work I have done for 45+ years.
When I MOT'd this car after purchasing last year, I checked the rear structure around the rear suspension mountings and inner wheel arch, a common point of corrosion on these. I was shocked at the standard of welding that had been done, the last MOT cert showed the MOT station had done this. I had to re-plate it all to ensure the repair plates were enlarged to join to non-corroded metal, and re-build the suspension mounting area.
For many, if a repair is done properly, as I did, the cost will be in excess of the car value leaving the owner forced to scrap the car, although otherwise it was a sound good little car. It is the cost of labour that creates that situation. A skilled home mechanic can keep a perfectly serviceable and safe car going for many years by carrying out home repairs. This option is now removed.
Also note, that when you take a car over 4 or 5 years old, it will be advisable to flush the brake fluid out with new before MOT. Otherwise you can end up with a fail for residue/water contaminated fluid. I am told cars will be tested by samples taken from bleed nipples and resevoir. Is interpretation of contamination down to each MOT station's decision, or is there a set test process or testing meter used.
Jonathan
nextenso said:
As newbie to forums, not allowed to raise new topic for 14 days, so, make my comment in this thread
While I support greater car use safety, I see the changes at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mot-changes-20-... ill considered and thought out. It will victimise the 100's of thousands of people in motorsport and car enthusiasts who have well equipped repair facilities at home and/or own workshops, with many, if not most, being far more experienced and skilled than many of the plodding mechanics working in MOT stations. I have seen bad work done on cars by MOT stations.
There is no real definition on what is a dangerous or major fault leaving it open to the MOT station to exploit so that they carry out the repair (and in case anyone says that I don't understand the position, I used to own and operate an MOT station and garage workshop/petrol station).
If customers are to be held trapped by an MOT station saying fail, cant drive, then there must be full definition of what a dangerous or major fault is and a set tariff for repair costs giving a guide for each repair type. There is no course to dispute an MOT station fail decision, even if there was, the car owner will at first be left without being able to drive home to repair. Car owners in the countryside some distance from a place for MOT will suffer.
Thousands of small garages depend on their local customers bringing their cars into their preferred garage for repair after MoT. Now all this work will be forced into the MOT station.
I can see gross exploitation by unscrupulous MOT station operators - of course there are many that give a good solid service. But, any service where a customer is forced into buying a (expensive) service without any choice of where, will be subject to exploitation.
The ability to drive after a fail to the nearest preferred place of repair (within a set distance from the place failing it) should be re-instated, unless of course the car is so dangerous that it will **realistically** cause an accident if driven further. Realistically should be defined.
Is there support to petition for this change ????
Yes, there are many who do bodge/dangerous home repairs, but, most of these are done prior to MOT to disguise the fault. The MOT changes won't change that, probably increase it.
As examples of what I say.
My current car, an well used Mk IV Fiesta (that I bought while I rebuild the 187k mile engine & gbox of my Rover 220 Turbo Coupe I've had since new) was failed at MOT last month for front brakes pads under 2mm. I could not dispute that with the MOT place. When I took them off to replace, they measured marginally under 3mm thickness. Under new regs that is a major fault "repair immediately" forcing me to agree to have them replaced there and then - with pads far more expensive than I get at trade price and a labour cost for work I have done for 45+ years.
When I MOT'd this car after purchasing last year, I checked the rear structure around the rear suspension mountings and inner wheel arch, a common point of corrosion on these. I was shocked at the standard of welding that had been done, the last MOT cert showed the MOT station had done this. I had to re-plate it all to ensure the repair plates were enlarged to join to non-corroded metal, and re-build the suspension mounting area.
For many, if a repair is done properly, as I did, the cost will be in excess of the car value leaving the owner forced to scrap the car, although otherwise it was a sound good little car. It is the cost of labour that creates that situation. A skilled home mechanic can keep a perfectly serviceable and safe car going for many years by carrying out home repairs. This option is now removed.
Also note, that when you take a car over 4 or 5 years old, it will be advisable to flush the brake fluid out with new before MOT. Otherwise you can end up with a fail for residue/water contaminated fluid. I am told cars will be tested by samples taken from bleed nipples and resevoir. Is interpretation of contamination down to each MOT station's decision, or is there a set test process or testing meter used.
Jonathan
Interesting. I would certainly support a petition. Not having delved into the regs in detail, it used to be the case that I would get an MOT done 'early' so that if there were problems I could naff off home and fix things before trying again. Is it now the case that a failure means an instant 'sorry car is stuck here'? Very badly thought out and as you say highly open to abuse by bad garages.While I support greater car use safety, I see the changes at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mot-changes-20-... ill considered and thought out. It will victimise the 100's of thousands of people in motorsport and car enthusiasts who have well equipped repair facilities at home and/or own workshops, with many, if not most, being far more experienced and skilled than many of the plodding mechanics working in MOT stations. I have seen bad work done on cars by MOT stations.
There is no real definition on what is a dangerous or major fault leaving it open to the MOT station to exploit so that they carry out the repair (and in case anyone says that I don't understand the position, I used to own and operate an MOT station and garage workshop/petrol station).
If customers are to be held trapped by an MOT station saying fail, cant drive, then there must be full definition of what a dangerous or major fault is and a set tariff for repair costs giving a guide for each repair type. There is no course to dispute an MOT station fail decision, even if there was, the car owner will at first be left without being able to drive home to repair. Car owners in the countryside some distance from a place for MOT will suffer.
Thousands of small garages depend on their local customers bringing their cars into their preferred garage for repair after MoT. Now all this work will be forced into the MOT station.
I can see gross exploitation by unscrupulous MOT station operators - of course there are many that give a good solid service. But, any service where a customer is forced into buying a (expensive) service without any choice of where, will be subject to exploitation.
The ability to drive after a fail to the nearest preferred place of repair (within a set distance from the place failing it) should be re-instated, unless of course the car is so dangerous that it will **realistically** cause an accident if driven further. Realistically should be defined.
Is there support to petition for this change ????
Yes, there are many who do bodge/dangerous home repairs, but, most of these are done prior to MOT to disguise the fault. The MOT changes won't change that, probably increase it.
As examples of what I say.
My current car, an well used Mk IV Fiesta (that I bought while I rebuild the 187k mile engine & gbox of my Rover 220 Turbo Coupe I've had since new) was failed at MOT last month for front brakes pads under 2mm. I could not dispute that with the MOT place. When I took them off to replace, they measured marginally under 3mm thickness. Under new regs that is a major fault "repair immediately" forcing me to agree to have them replaced there and then - with pads far more expensive than I get at trade price and a labour cost for work I have done for 45+ years.
When I MOT'd this car after purchasing last year, I checked the rear structure around the rear suspension mountings and inner wheel arch, a common point of corrosion on these. I was shocked at the standard of welding that had been done, the last MOT cert showed the MOT station had done this. I had to re-plate it all to ensure the repair plates were enlarged to join to non-corroded metal, and re-build the suspension mounting area.
For many, if a repair is done properly, as I did, the cost will be in excess of the car value leaving the owner forced to scrap the car, although otherwise it was a sound good little car. It is the cost of labour that creates that situation. A skilled home mechanic can keep a perfectly serviceable and safe car going for many years by carrying out home repairs. This option is now removed.
Also note, that when you take a car over 4 or 5 years old, it will be advisable to flush the brake fluid out with new before MOT. Otherwise you can end up with a fail for residue/water contaminated fluid. I am told cars will be tested by samples taken from bleed nipples and resevoir. Is interpretation of contamination down to each MOT station's decision, or is there a set test process or testing meter used.
Jonathan
I would suggest there is no way a garage can hold a car ransom - presumably if you get a fail and then rock up with a trailer or tow the car home, there's very little that can be done to stop you...
I'm also somewhat confused as to the reasoning behind the 'CEL is an auto fail' bit of the regs mentioned in this thread.
Engine light can come on for 100's of reasons - very, very few are actually a legitimate issue or problem with the car. I've had such a light come on many times in the past, and it's never been anything other than 'the sensor that is supposed to detect problems has a problem'. Indeed, on an old Alfa I did nearly 50k miles with the CEL on, mainly because neither I nor the garage ever figured out why it was on and the ECU readings suggested no faults. It passed emissions well under limits for 4 years.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff