https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mot-inspection-manual-for-class-3-4-5-and-7-vehicles

 

(the third one down the list)

Who’s gonna be the first one to mention what’s missing in the tyre section then? Lol. 

yeah, its virtually no different, the big one is prohibiting cars from leaving the garage if its dangerous. 

I'm in two minds on this one, whilst it makes sense from a "the car is dangerous" point of view but it also forces the owner to use that garage to fix it which, if I'm honest, could easily be abused.

theres some lowering of smoke levels in there for diesels with DPFs as well, which is going to do precisely nothing to combat DPF removal

Who’s gonna be the first one to mention what’s missing in the tyre section then? Lol. 

me or you? as we have already discussed this draft version a few ago. lol

 

Page 9 of section 8 towards the bottom relates to gutting of dpf.  to be honest I cant remember what old one said about it and have not checked

Does anyone know if there is a summary of what has actually changed as I don't want to print new and old and put them next to eachother to try to see the differences (I know it's not neccessarily final version)

any changes are identified by a vertical line to the left, makes looking for changes quick.

"the big one is prohibiting cars from leaving the garage if its dangerous. "

"I'm in two minds on this one, whilst it makes sense from a "the car is dangerous" point of view but it also forces the owner to use that garage to fix it which, if I'm honest, could easily be abused."

apart from them possibly having an incentive to say it is dangerous to persuade you to pay them to repair it (as opposed to doing it yourself or taking elsewhere)  if you say you haven't got the money or want to think about what to do, will they then say they are going to charge you £100 per day storage fees?    I don't like the sound of this one 

They can’t hold your car they can only advise you don’t drive it. I use the council testing station so they cannot do repairs. 

1 hour ago, Dee_82 said:

yeah, its virtually no different, the big one is prohibiting cars from leaving the garage if its dangerous. 

I'm in two minds on this one, whilst it makes sense from a "the car is dangerous" point of view but it also forces the owner to use that garage to fix it which, if I'm honest, could easily be abused.

theres some lowering of smoke levels in there for diesels with DPFs as well, which is going to do precisely nothing to combat DPF remo

1 hour ago, Dee_82 said:

yeah, its virtually no different, the big one is prohibiting cars from leaving the garage if its dangerous. 

I'm in two minds on this one, whilst it makes sense from a "the car is dangerous" point of view but it also forces the owner to use that garage to fix it which, if I'm honest, could easily be abused.

theres some lowering of smoke levels in there for diesels with DPFs as well, which is going to do precisely nothing to combat DPF removal

Is there a number specified for the mk2 DV6s or will it just be the standard 1.5 for them?

Also they are supposed to fail any dpf can that has been welded unless you can show a cleaning receipt...

Must admit, I do like the addition of reverse lights, makes walking through car parks safer!  But I don't see why it's only 09 onwards!

 

6 minutes ago, TomsFocus said:

Is there a number specified for the mk2 DV6s or will it just be the standard 1.5 for them?

Also they are supposed to fail any dpf can that has been welded unless you can show a cleaning receipt...

Its not clear, but I think its 1.5, which should be ok regardless of having a DPF or not. No visible smoke of any colour is the other part, which again should be fine.

Cant check a welded DPF if they cant see it, so again, another pointless change, even if they could remove the splash shield, whats to stop someone wrapping it in very high temp exhaust tape

54 minutes ago, stef123 said:

They can’t hold your car they can only advise you don’t drive it. I use the council testing station so they cannot do repairs. 

that's a good point, but isn't the point of that to make them aware that the car is not legal to drive in its current state? even though the MOT cert might not have expired?

So if you do an inspection, fail it and the car is deemed dangerous to drive and they drive away, how do you avoid responsibility for allowing them to break the law? if they then crash and kill someone and turn about and say, well he let me drive away ...

I dunno mate, I can see that turning in to a legal nightmare.

 

 

Tbf, of the ones I've seen  you can sometimes see the welds without removing the undertray or heat shields.  It depends who's welded it I guess.

Oddly, mine passes MOT with a much lower smoke density reading this year than last...and was below 1.5 lol.

a well maintained car, is a clean car. :) 

I suspect some liberal use of tape would prevent anyone seeing it, that or an angle grinder and buffer 

2 hours ago, Dee_82 said:

that's a good point, but isn't the point of that to make them aware that the car is not legal to drive in its current state? even though the MOT cert might not have expired?

So if you do an inspection, fail it and the car is deemed dangerous to drive and they drive away, how do you avoid responsibility for allowing them to break the law? if they then crash and kill someone and turn about and say, well he let me drive away ...

I dunno mate, I can see that turning in to a legal nightmare.

 

 

I don’t things have really changed in that respect. I’ve had cars in to fix with fail sheets for brake hoses burst and all sorts, stating DANGEROUS next to it. 

i guess the garage has done their bit really, it’s on paper saying so. It would be up to the owner of the car if they get the car recovered or decide to take it on the road. 

 

To elaborate on my first comment regarding the tyres and how they are tested.

On the current system you will fail on a tyre not fitted in accordance with sidewall instructions - it’s not on the new draft testing criteria! So if that is the case and not a mistake, is it really all about safety? Clearly not in my opinion. 

 

When I took the fiesta for its first MOT of owning it, it failed because the brake pedal would creep in and then be able to be fully depressed. When it was left on the driveway I noticed there was a wet patch from the rear driver side. Found out that one of the mot workers accidentally broke the brake fluid hose which goes to the drum. Got it changed along with the other side for piece of mind. Really if a car fails an MOT the owner should decide whether to get it repaired in the centre or repair it themselves. 

Are you sure it didn’t just burst due to corrosion? I’ve done a few brake lines now where they have burst whilst being tested. Wouldn’t say it was the testers fault, just be thankful it’s happened then and not in an emergency at 70mph lol. And for the record,  brake lines are still up there in my top 5 most hated jobs  

1 minute ago, stef123 said:

Are you sure it didn’t just burst due to corrosion? I’ve done a few brake lines now where they have burst whilst being tested. Wouldn’t say it was the testers fault, just be thankful it’s happened then and not in an emergency at 70mph lol. And for the record,  brake lines are still up there in my top 5 most hated jobs  

Most likely was the case. The right hose was the one which had a leak and you can see how much dirt is on it compared to the left one. Was worried it was the brake master cylinder but was happy after the mot guys told me. 

11 minutes ago, zain611 said:

Most likely was the case. The right hose was the one which had a leak and you can see how much dirt is on it compared to the left one. Was worried it was the brake master cylinder but was happy after the mot guys told me. 

How old was the car at the time? 

I don’t things have really changed in that respect. I’ve had cars in to fix with fail sheets for brake hoses burst and all sorts, stating DANGEROUS next to it. 
i guess the garage has done their bit really, it’s on paper saying so. It would be up to the owner of the car if they get the car recovered or decide to take it on the road. 
 
 

With the way this change is being peddled in the media and with the blame culture we now live in, if I were a manager of an MOT station, I'd be getting them to sign something, one thing in life will not have, if they can shift the blame they will. Just a thought.

34 minutes ago, Dee_82 said:

With the way this change is being peddled in the media and with the blame culture we now live in, if I were a manager of an MOT station, I'd be getting them to sign something, one thing in life will not have, if they can shift the blame they will. Just a thought.

 

Indeed, it is turning into a sad world really. 

customers are already asked to sign a disclaimer when a vehicle leaves garage in a dangerous state when in for service. for instance we find bald tyres on service and customer doesnt want them at the price we offer. he/she drives off down the road at there own risk.

and as for brake pipes, ive burst a few on mot. the pipe can look corroded without looking excessive, then come roller brake test they can leak. like stef says , better it goes at mot station than emergency braking.

12 hours ago, Dee_82 said:

a well maintained car, is a clean car. :) 

I suspect some liberal use of tape would prevent anyone seeing it, that or an angle grinder and buffer 

I think basting along the empty dual carraigeway at 'some'mph beforehand might have helped.  But I was still surprised as it was a freezing cold January day!

Once you've ground back the welds and buffed it clean, why not go the whole way and have it chromed as well?  

8 hours ago, zain611 said:

Most likely was the case. The right hose was the one which had a leak and you can see how much dirt is on it compared to the left one. Was worried it was the brake master cylinder but was happy after the mot guys told me. 

The MK6 brake hoses seem to be prone to rust and early failure.  On the ST150 I had the brake hoses were in a shocking state (and did fail the MOT after 2 years of advisories) at just 8 years old...my Focus was a bit older but the pipes still look perfect.  Looking at the Fiesta facebook groups showed it was quite common.  Fortunately I had some copper pipe left over from doing a mates brake lines (but his car was twice as old lol!) so it didn't cost me anything.