MOT test: Is there a reference list for specific problems on specific vehicles ?

Discussion in 'Car and Van Talk' started by sorethumb, Jul 15, 2016.

  1. sorethumb

    sorethumb Member

    I know there is a general reference manual for MOT testing procedure / tolerances - but is there also a reference - or alert list - for testers to check specific problems to look out for on specific vehicles ?
    Thank you for any responses.
     
  2. I doubt that very much.

    Experienced mechanics will likely have learnt to look for things like corrosion forming at a certain part of the suspension system of a certain make of car, but the MOT spec sheet won't highlight that for a particular car.

    VOSA (what's they called these days?) are the ones who build up a record of 'serious' faults and issues, ones that have serious safety implications. But they are handled by 'recalls' if reckoned to be widespread enough or of real danger.

    I'm not sure if they circulate to garages to look out for these particular cars to check for these sorts of things? I dunno.
     
  3. KIAB

    KIAB Super Member

  4. Sparkielev

    Sparkielev Screwfix Select

    I always thought mechanics rubbed chin and sucked in there breath and said oohhh common fault that guvnor
     
  5. Sorethumb, what's this all about?
     
  6. sorethumb

    sorethumb Member

    Hi Devil's Advocate - thanks for your interest, I knew there was a general MOT inspectors ref manual but just wondered if there was guidance for specific peculiarities of certain vehicles. The MG RV8 uses bump stops as a 'suspension assistance' device and the clearance between the bump stop and the contact plate is only around 15mm - which is the design clearance. Some testers fail the vehicle because I imagine they're used to seeing bump stops which only contact after considerable compression of the spring. I hadn't studied the 'general' ref manual (link posted by 'KIAB') but it does refer to this distinction at the start of section 2.4 (Suspension General) :
    Reason for rejection : "Inadequate clearance of the axle or suspension with the bump stop or chassis"

    - but also makes the distinction :

    "A suspension bump stop must not be confused with rubber/synthetic suspension spring assistors".
     
  7. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select

    How can they fail it for something they think is wrong, that can only be an advisory, as they is no evidence that it is in fact wrong.

    Is it front or rear???
     
  8. Thanks Sorethumb.

    A pedantic tester :) I have little doubt that a different station would give a different result.

    You seem to have the info required - that (a) this 'stop' is a 'suspension assistance device' and (b) the existing 15mm clearance is correct. Armed with that info - on an official printout - surely the tester isn't trying to stick to his guns?!

    Interesting question, tho' - should each station have access to this sort of individual and specific info? Actually, when you consider the whole process these days is internet-based, it should also be the easiest thing in t'world to confirm what you're saying is correct!

    What's the car like - a wolf in sheep's clothing? :) A bit of a handful if pushed?

    Gorgeous classic looks :)

    And I bet the sound is sheer moooooooosseek :D
     
    KIAB likes this.
  9. KIAB

    KIAB Super Member

    If your bump stop rubbers are not fitted, then it can't be failed for a MOT for not having them.
    But, you can be failed if they were removed to give more clearance due to weak suppension unit, causing any part of the vehicle to rub a wheel when vehicle is loaded.
     
  10. sorethumb

    sorethumb Member

    - but here's more 'bump stop' confusion from the MOT bible (Section 2.4 Suspension General) :

    Note: a missing bump stop rubber is not a reason for rejection.

    (Devil's Advocate: RV8's are pretty awful to drive - Un-powered low geared steering / scuttle shake / rattles / awful handling with a live rear axle - but they seem like a motoring version of a WW2 fighter and there's something about the burble - or snarl - of a V8 engine !)
     
    KIAB likes this.
  11. "Un-powered low geared steering, scuttle shake, rattles, awful handling with a live rear axle - they seem like a motoring version of a WW2 fighter..."

    Coooool - so they got something right :)

    Who wants a pansie MX5 anyways :rolleyes:

    Poor MG - that was just about their last effort at trying to get in to the 21st century. They didn't have the resources to redesign the car as it required, so they just threw in their largest engine.

    Are you still having problems with this MOT station? Can't you present them with the info you've given us above? They're chust not listening?
     
  12. sorethumb

    sorethumb Member

    Actually I haven't had any trouble - yet. I've only owned the car for a few weeks but happened to notice in its earlier MOT history that it had failed on 'Bump stop clearance' and someone remarked that some MOT testers don't get the small clearance and the 'suspension assist' definition with respect to RV8's so I was just anticipating trouble - which made me wonder in the original post whether there was specific info regarding certain vehicles.
     
  13. FatHands

    FatHands Well-Known Member

    Sorethumb, why not drop VOSA an email - they set the standards for testing. Let us know how you get on.
     
  14. I suspect there isn't such specific info, at least not any more detailed form than such-and-such an age of car cannot be expected to have brakes more powerful than 'x', just like emission test expectations also vary according to vehicle age.

    A similar situation will exist with many other classic cars too. The 2CV, for example, can be 'expected' to have a tiny amount of front king pin play in it, but unknowing MOT stations have failed some on that issue since - as far as they are concerned - there shouldn't be any detectable play in the front hubs at all.

    People who own classic cars often go out of their way to find an 'old school' garage with long-serving mechanics - those who know more than plugging in a diagnostic tester (a bit unfair, but you know what I mean).

    Anyhoo, Sorethumb, happy motoring. I'm very much drawn to the classics myself, having owned a number of kit cars over the years (and currently an Eagle RV (Jeep-copy)) and two 2CVs (neither of which are running... :oops:)

    I can imagine the RV8 is terrific to drive :)
     
  15. KIAB

    KIAB Super Member

    Old school' garage, very hard to find them today, but I'm lucky, there is a excellentone close to me, sister has used them for years.:)

    Sad that firm that did the Eagle went to the wall.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2016
  16. When I first bought my already-MOT'd Eagle, I did find a like-minded garage MOT station near by when it came to renewal - they had a half-built racing kit outside alongside a restored Lotus Europa and a few other classics around the back. These guys were the danglies...

    Although the Eagle had only done a couple of hundred miles since the last 'no advisory' MOT, they failed it on a good half-dozen issues, all things that had existed from when it was built - not enough securing ties on brake pipes, loose section of wiring harness, inadequate straps securing the petrol tank, loose filler pipe etc etc. :(

    I was shocked at first, but realised what a favour they'd one me in the long run.

    Bar stewards... :rolleyes:
     
  17. malkie129

    malkie129 Screwfix Select

    We used to get away with lots DA. In my yoof,I had a "hydrospastic" mini cooper. I Fitted exta Spax shockers & progressive rear bump-stops. Hitting a cats eye gave you a real jolt, but it never failed the MoT on suspension faults. :D:D:D
     
    Deleted member 33931 likes this.
  18. KIAB

    KIAB Super Member

    :):):)
     
  19. philthespark

    philthespark Active Member

    Some mot testers can be a real pain,I had 3 major run in's over the years.One was back in the days when you could braze or weld a repair,I'd done a repair on an inner wing and as there was no way to hold the plate while I brazed it,I'd held it with 2 pop rivets and brazed all the way around.The guy at the garage took a prybar and hammered at it until he was able to tear it off,he didn't break the brazing but tore away fresh metal,that didn't end well for him.
    The second was I had a car fail on a rear axle problem,the main problem was it didn't have a rear axle so it couldn't have had the problem he said it had,A trip to another testing station and after showing the tester the other guy's fail sheet he said the guy was talking carp and the car passed the test.
    The most annoying one ever was an Austin Allegro,I'd not had it more than a couple of weeks and decided to get the test done as it only had a couple of months left and I was going to be busy.
    It went to the local garage and passed first time,2 days later the wife opened the passenger door and it dropped 2 inches,I looked under the wing and it had a large area of rot that had been filled with fibreglass!Obviously the mechanic hadn't checked that car properly.
     
  20. Sparkielev

    Sparkielev Screwfix Select

    Seen some eicrs done like that
     

Share This Page