The ask an MOT tester thread

[Athlon]

If fitted to a car first registered on or after March 2018. So not testable just yet but it is set up ready.

[thebigmacmoomin]

zippyonline said:

Great thread - only just spotted it!

I have a crack on my windscreen caused by me being an idiot when trying to stop my rear view mirror wobbling....


064 (05-03-2019) by Chris Reeves, on Flickr

I can't really see that crack inside my car, it's certainly not in my way - would that be an advisory?

Why is that not a fail? I know its not in the visible section but its gone through the black edge of the screen. I had that on an Audi hire car I had for a few weeks and had to swap it for something else as when you pressed it (lightly), the windscreen flexed. This was on the bottom of the screen not the top.

[Athlon]

thebigmacmoomin said:

zippyonline said:

Great thread - only just spotted it!

I have a crack on my windscreen caused by me being an idiot when trying to stop my rear view mirror wobbling....


064 (05-03-2019) by Chris Reeves, on Flickr

I can't really see that crack inside my car, it's certainly not in my way - would that be an advisory?

Why is that not a fail? I know its not in the visible section but its gone through the black edge of the screen. I had that on an Audi hire car I had for a few weeks and had to swap it for something else as when you pressed it (lightly), the windscreen flexed. This was on the bottom of the screen not the top.

It's not in the drivers view of the road and very unlikely to disturb them so as far as the test goes it is ok. Should it e changed? Yes but that doesn't affect the test

[JakeT]

Happy to stand corrected but my thought was if it's over a certain size anywhere on the screen it's a fail?

[Athlon]

JakeT said:

Happy to stand corrected but my thought was if it's over a certain size anywhere on the screen it's a fail?

An area larger than 40mm in that area, it is a crack rather than a 'bulls eye' so very difficult to asses.

So we turn to the things we were taught , work to minimum standards, not your service standard. And more importantly, if in doubt pass and advise.

So going by all that, in my opinion it is advisable rather than fail.

Just my view though, and I think Pete agreed on here as well

[Mr Tidy]

xjay1337 said:

Mr Tidy said:

Athlon said:

Your 'OBC' has no idea how much is left on the pads, it knows how far it has travelled since the last time it was told it had new ones and for how long but that's it. The tester has eyes that can actually see the pads and make a decision from that. Pads on the rear will go a long way on very little wear but if they are less that 3mm or so thick they will get advised.

There are fixed fails along with an advise for it, if the advise has a number sequence after it you can look up exactly what the description is in the manual.

Advises are there to let you know there is a potential problem in the future, they are there to help you.

Thanks for your reply.

But I'm not quite sure about that, as since I bought my current car in April the "mileage left" for both front and rear pads have both increased - or does it calculate that based on how I drive the car like it does for condition based servicing maybe?

Most of my mileage is on dual-carriageways and motorways outside of rush hours and I'm not heavy on brakes - to the extent that my 123d got past 80K miles on it's original brakes all round!

For bmw most of the time there is a small insert in the brake pad that wears down over time through various materials to generate a signal.

This combined with how many miles you are doing it calculates a mileage the pads will last.

Thanks for the clarification.

I can't help thinking it is more about revenue generation.

[JakeT]

Athlon said:

An area larger than 40mm in that area, it is a crack rather than a 'bulls eye' so very difficult to asses.

So we turn to the things we were taught , work to minimum standards, not your service standard. And more importantly, if in doubt pass and advise.

So going by all that, in my opinion it is advisable rather than fail.

Just my view though, and I think Pete agreed on here as well

I asked my father in law, as he's also a tester and he said the same thing. Call me schooled. It's good you do work to pass and advise rather than fail it though, seems some testers prefer that.

[Spanglepants]

Minor one, been helping a lady friend find a first car for her daughter. After checking many the two of them have found a Corsa SXi . It has a full pass of mots with no advisories at all. Till now..
Apparently it had 7 months MOT left. They wanted a full 12 months . The dealer has had it mot'd and for the first time its failed - on low washer fluid. They've not taken this well and feel it was unnecessary and a petty blot on its unblemished mot history. The daughter had, before the mot, looked over the car and noticed the low washer fluid.
All of this has been relayed to me, i wasn't there with them for this car.
Could the MOT test been a bit more lenient or was it a definite no no, thanks

[Athlon]

Spanglepants said:

Minor one, been helping a lady friend find a first car for her daughter. After checking many the two of them have found a Corsa SXi . It has a full pass of mots with no advisories at all. Till now..
Apparently it had 7 months MOT left. They wanted a full 12 months . The dealer has had it mot'd and for the first time its failed - on low washer fluid. They've not taken this well and feel it was unnecessary and a petty blot on its unblemished mot history. The daughter had, before the mot, looked over the car and noticed the low washer fluid.
All of this has been relayed to me, i wasn't there with them for this car.
Could the MOT test been a bit more lenient or was it a definite no no, thanks

Low washer fluid or insufficient fluid to clear the windscreen effectively?

The former is harsh, the latter is a fail.

I have never advised screen fluid, it works or it doesn't in my opinion.

[stevemcs]

Spanglepants said:

Minor one, been helping a lady friend find a first car for her daughter. After checking many the two of them have found a Corsa SXi . It has a full pass of mots with no advisories at all. Till now..
Apparently it had 7 months MOT left. They wanted a full 12 months . The dealer has had it mot'd and for the first time its failed - on low washer fluid. They've not taken this well and feel it was unnecessary and a petty blot on its unblemished mot history. The daughter had, before the mot, looked over the car and noticed the low washer fluid.
All of this has been relayed to me, i wasn't there with them for this car.
Could the MOT test been a bit more lenient or was it a definite no no, thanks

It’s either pass or fail, at time of test it either works or it doesn’t.

As for a corsa with a clean history ..... never, they usually fail on emissions, springs, exhaust, drop links, ball joints, lower arms ....

[Wooda80]

Spanglepants said:

The dealer has had it mot'd and for the first time its failed - on low washer fluid. They've not taken this well and feel it was unnecessary and a petty blot on its unblemished mot history.

Rather emotional language. Why do people look upon the MOT history as some kind commendation or condemnation of how the car has been look after?

If the car has been run for the last 12 months with 4 bald tyres, wonky headlight alignment, emissions above permissible limits and worn suspension bushes then how does fixing all that the day before the MOT make it a better car than fixing all that once the MOT has been carried out?

[Andy665]

Took my car in for its MOT last Thursday.

Passed easily, as I expected it to do but had an advisory - Valve stem slightly damaged (both rear) (5.2.3)

Checked all 4 tyre valve stems and all are in absolutely and unmarked condition.

Slightly miffed as I don't like seeing anything as an advisory, especially as I can see absolutely zero evidence of the potential fault they are highlighting

If I go back and query what can realistically be done - I do not see why an advisory should be noted when its clearly incorrect

[Accelebrate]

Wooda80 said:

Spanglepants said:

The dealer has had it mot'd and for the first time its failed - on low washer fluid. They've not taken this well and feel it was unnecessary and a petty blot on its unblemished mot history.

Rather emotional language. Why do people look upon the MOT history as some kind commendation or condemnation of how the car has been look after?

If the car has been run for the last 12 months with 4 bald tyres, wonky headlight alignment, emissions above permissible limits and worn suspension bushes then how does fixing all that the day before the MOT make it a better car than fixing all that once the MOT has been carried out?

You can get an impression of how a car has been cared for, and what you can maybe expect to find that has been advised on but not fixed. But a compulsive fixation on a blemish-free history when buying a car seems to increasingly common since the MOT history site went live. A car that was once low on washer fluid should not be in any way blemished to any reasonable person.

[Lazadude]

Wooda80 said:

If the car has been run for the last 12 months with 4 bald tyres, wonky headlight alignment, emissions above permissible limits and worn suspension bushes then how does fixing all that the day before the MOT make it a better car than fixing all that once the MOT has been carried out?

Its more they let the car get into that state. My clean record is because I look after the car and it gets things fixed as they need it. It doesnt get thrown into the MOT and seeing what comes back. I'm the type of owner I try to find and the MOT history helps.

(But then I also have a walkaway policy based on the tyres being semi decent aka not ditch finders and matching all round...)

[Athlon]

Andy665 said:

Took my car in for its MOT last Thursday.

Passed easily, as I expected it to do but had an advisory - Valve stem slightly damaged (both rear) (5.2.3)

Checked all 4 tyre valve stems and all are in absolutely and unmarked condition.

Slightly miffed as I don't like seeing anything as an advisory, especially as I can see absolutely zero evidence of the potential fault they are highlighting

If I go back and query what can realistically be done - I do not see why an advisory should be noted when its clearly incorrect

Nothing. It is there now unfortunately.

[Chris32345]

Andy665 said:

Took my car in for its MOT last Thursday.

Passed easily, as I expected it to do but had an advisory - Valve stem slightly damaged (both rear) (5.2.3)

Checked all 4 tyre valve stems and all are in absolutely and unmarked condition.

Slightly miffed as I don't like seeing anything as an advisory, especially as I can see absolutely zero evidence of the potential fault they are highlighting

If I go back and query what can realistically be done - I do not see why an advisory should be noted when its clearly incorrect

Get your head out of where ever it is and get back to the real world
No normal person is going to be concerned about an odd advisory like that on the history of the car

[yeager2004]

Hi OP - hopefully not been asked before, but could you advise if the MOT for taxis differs from that of the normal class 4 test? I believe taxis are tested more frequently, but wondered if the test was any stricter.

if so, has this always been the case? Seem to recall on the 90s taxis drivers having really old and ropy Escorts/Cavaliers/Astras etc. with intergalatic mileages . Amazed if they would have stood up to more thorough testing.

Thanks!

[scott_evo]

Mr Tidy said:

I used one of them for a couple of years with no issues until one time I got a string of silly advisories - like low oil level (but the car had a warning light for that which wasn't on), rear indicators not orange enough, undertrays fitted, etc.

I just want to pick up on this. Dependant on what car you have, a low oil light can be a 'no oil in the sump' light and although the light's not on, the oil could not be registering on the dipstick which is considered low, even though there's probably still a few litres there. If it's a fandangled low oil level on the dipstick light that's different but generally the red low oil warning light means you've got no oil left.

[silentbrown]

xjay1337 said:

For bmw most of the time there is a small insert in the brake pad that wears down over time through various materials to generate a signal.

This combined with how many miles you are doing it calculates a mileage the pads will last.

Two-stage sensors: https://www.eltaeurope.com/techassist-brake-pad-we...

Thanks, I've learnt something new

If I understand correctly, they measure how long the new pads take to trigger the first stage of the sensor, and then extrapolate from that, mainly based on driving style. Computer knows speed and deceleration, pedal pressure etc so can calculate how much energy you're dissipating through the braking system.

[steveo3002]

what do you check for on rubber brake flexi's ?