The ask an MOT tester thread

[IanA2]

Athlon said:

IanA2 said:

Athlon said:

Athlon said:

VSC/ESP has to be working correctly if fitted.

That's precisely and incorrectly what a main dealer tester told me last year when it failed me on the EML.

They were obviously wrong which is why I would like to see the regs as they apply to pre 2003 vehicles.

It probably is a failure, I'd just like to see the law as last year I spent a fortune on unneeded work.

Well, I am a tester and I am telling you it is a fail, there are no pre 2003 regs for that. There are various dates for the first testing of certain items but for many more there are no introduction dates.
Don't believe me? Then look it up yourself:
MOT guide

I wasn't disbelieving you, I was merely stating what happened last year (at considerable cost) when a main dealer tester got it very wrong.

Thanks anyway. I have found the law I wanted.

[mk2 24v]

IanA2 said:

I wasn't disbelieving you, I was merely stating what happened last year (at considerable cost) when a main dealer tester got it very wrong.

Thanks anyway. I have found the law I wanted.

Which is what?

As said by several MOT testers on here, suspension, traction control and ABS systems have no start date for the MOT test.
Light on indicating a fault equals a fail for those systems

[Evanivitch]

Cascade360 said:

Night before the test...neither is working couldn't make it up.

Time to rush to try and fit the replacement pcb...

I had an Alfa throw a sidelight bulb the morning of the test. Grrr.

[Cascade360]

Evanivitch said:

I had an Alfa throw a sidelight bulb the morning of the test. Grrr.

So it failed on the most annoying thing ... missing exhaust heat shield (between fuel tank and exhaust). MOT tester said he was a bit miffed to fail it on only that, and spent some time trying to work out whether it even had one OEM (he noticed the mounting points but no heat shield). According to the 75 FB page, they corrode and people rip them off and it seems the majority of testers don't notice ... clearly my tester was extra vigilant!

£74 for a new part and fingers crossed the mounting points are not so corroded that it cannot be attached ...

[Little Pete]

Cascade360 said:

So it failed on the most annoying thing ... missing exhaust heat shield (between fuel tank and exhaust). MOT tester said he was a bit miffed to fail it on only that, and spent some time trying to work out whether it even had one OEM (he noticed the mounting points but no heat shield). According to the 75 FB page, they corrode and people rip them off and it seems the majority of testers don't notice ... clearly my tester was extra vigilant!

£74 for a new part and fingers crossed the mounting points are not so corroded that it cannot be attached ...

Yeah it's a difficult one this because the actual reason for failure is if there is a fire risk due to the missing heat shield , unlikely on a vehicle which is otherwise mechanically sound.
Fair play to them for spotting it though.

[dhutch]

I guess the heat shield isn't designed and fitted for fun, and a hot exhaust by a plastic fuel tank isn't the thing of dreams.

Often then are aluminium, and corrode preferentially to the steel fasteners, around the mounting holes. Large penny washers can get another five years if caught soon enough.

[stevemcs]

Cascade360 said:

So it failed on the most annoying thing ... missing exhaust heat shield (between fuel tank and exhaust). MOT tester said he was a bit miffed to fail it on only that, and spent some time trying to work out whether it even had one OEM (he noticed the mounting points but no heat shield). According to the 75 FB page, they corrode and people rip them off and it seems the majority of testers don't notice ... clearly my tester was extra vigilant!

£74 for a new part and fingers crossed the mounting points are not so corroded that it cannot be attached ...

Is it a fiesta by any chance ?

[Cascade360]

stevemcs said:

Is it a fiesta by any chance ?

Rover 75. Obviously the MOT tester doesn't see many of them, so really wasn't sure whether it had one OEM (and is presumably why lots of cars apparently pass without one).

[stevemcs]

Ah, its common on the Fiestas for the center heat shield to fall off. I think they changed the rules, a few years ago it was an advise, then it changed to fail. It only applies to the one that protects the fuel tank.

[Cascade360]

stevemcs said:

Ah, its common on the Fiestas for the center heat shield to fall off. I think they changed the rules, a few years ago it was an advise, then it changed to fail. It only applies to the one that protects the fuel tank.

It's apparently common on the 75s as well. And you are right, the MOT tester told me it wouldn't have been a fail a few years ago.

[EthanSmale]

Evanivitch said:

I had an Alfa throw a sidelight bulb the morning of the test. Grrr.

My Boxster did it on the way to the test. I checked all lights again before setting off but the bulb was blown when they tested it

[EthanSmale]

Cascade360 said:

Rover 75. Obviously the MOT tester doesn't see many of them, so really wasn't sure whether it had one OEM (and is presumably why lots of cars apparently pass without one).

As you were replying to a post about an Alfa, I assumed Alfa 75! I was thinking, "makes sense, I bet most testers have never looked at one of those"

[Chris32345]

dhutch said:

I guess the heat shield isn't designed and fitted for fun, and a hot exhaust by a plastic fuel tank isn't the thing of dreams.

Often then are aluminium, and corrode preferentially to the steel fasteners, around the mounting holes. Large penny washers can get another five years if caught soon enough.

Milk bottle top often work as well

[Pica-Pica]

EthanSmale said:

My Boxster did it on the way to the test. I checked all lights again before setting off but the bulb was blown when they tested it

Similar. My F30 was going for a service and MOT, noticed the side-repeater on the LH door mirror was not working. A LED strip of course. Checked the prices on line, and then by phone to the dealer for buy and fit. Not worth the effort of me doing it. Of course ‘extended warranty does not cover bulbs’ (and it was below the excess anyway).

[Cascade360]

Quick follow-up question. The Rover went in for its re-test today, after the garage fitted the heat shield. You'll recall it had an advisory for corrosion front o/s. Over the weekend, I had wire brushed off the crust and spray painted it with some hammerite, to stop it getting worse quite as quickly rather than as a fix. It is basically crusty round the jacking point, with a very small hole. It also got an advisory for slight play in ball joint. On retest, it passed and the advisory for rust mysteriously disappeared.

So on a retest do testers recheck all advisory points; and surely a quick wire wool and some spray paint shouldn't be sufficient to sort a rust advisory. . .

[Taita]

Just curious as to what the best course of action for this is.

Rear brake pipes are a bit corroded so I wirebrushed / sandpapered them until they were much smoother, seems no pipe integrity issues. I've put kurust on, left it a few hours then thinly greased them to provide a bit of a shield against further rust.

This be OK for an MOT or do I need to hammerite them? There doesn't seem to be much 'pitting' after the scrub / sandpaper so be OK?

Dust cover on a front ARB link is split - assume that is a fail so I've got one on order.

[Slow]

If you smear grease over them they pass in my experience. Not a tester but a trick I have used on similar sounding brakes.

[Taita]

Are we talking wipe some grease on then smear it so it is the thinnest possible layer (eg could only tell if you watched water run off it) or a few more 'obvious smears' so they can see you have checked and maintained them?

[Little Pete]

Cascade360 said:

Quick follow-up question. The Rover went in for its re-test today, after the garage fitted the heat shield. You'll recall it had an advisory for corrosion front o/s. Over the weekend, I had wire brushed off the crust and spray painted it with some hammerite, to stop it getting worse quite as quickly rather than as a fix. It is basically crusty round the jacking point, with a very small hole. It also got an advisory for slight play in ball joint. On retest, it passed and the advisory for rust mysteriously disappeared.

So on a retest do testers recheck all advisory points; and surely a quick wire wool and some spray paint shouldn't be sufficient to sort a rust advisory. . .

Thanks for posting an update.
The tester is supposed to inspect the advised item to check if they have been rectified or, more importantly, they have not gotten any worse since the original test. When the tester logs on a retest, the list of fails and advisories are still there and have to be selected as repaired to remove them, so he must have looked at it and decided what you had done was acceptable.

[Little Pete]

Taita said:

Just curious as to what the best course of action for this is.

Rear brake pipes are a bit corroded so I wirebrushed / sandpapered them until they were much smoother, seems no pipe integrity issues. I've put kurust on, left it a few hours then thinly greased them to provide a bit of a shield against further rust.

This be OK for an MOT or do I need to hammerite them? There doesn't seem to be much 'pitting' after the scrub / sandpaper so be OK?

Dust cover on a front ARB link is split - assume that is a fail so I've got one on order.

Don't put too much grease or hammerite on them, you will just make the tester think you are trying to hide something! You may still get an advisory saying the pipes have grease on them though.
Yes, the split dust cover is a fail.