www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/car-servicing-repair/mot-changes-2012.html
Quite a list.
Re Warning lights
I thought my Mondeo was doomed as I have a low brake pads light on but I have escaped.
( It is a main loom problem and I guess a splice and new wire is required so I am not fixing it)
|
'Exhaust
A catalytic convertor fitted as original equipment but missing will be a reason for failure.'
That might cause a problem for some people - I beleive ripping the cat out has been seen as a performance mod in some circles
|
>> A catalytic convertor fitted as original equipment but missing will be a reason for failure.'
>>
>> That might cause a problem for some people - I beleive ripping the cat out
>> has been seen as a performance mod in some circles
>>
>>
>>
More likely a ££s saving solution - a piece of exhaust pipe @ £10 replacing a £300-£500 catalytic converter
|
quite possibly, FB.
It's going to cost them now, or are these marginal cars that will just be scrapped, I wonder ?
|
|
I always thought cat removal or replacement with a de-cat pipe was an MOT fail! The car would fail on emissions I would have thought anyway...and if it doesn't fail on emissions it seems to me that cats are rather redundant.
Last edited by: teabelly on Tue 29 Nov 11 at 10:26
|
Teabelly I think many cars can pass the MOT emissions without the cat, some can't of course.
Are cats £500 now? The last time we needed one for the Escort (I think it was) it was around £100.
|
3rd party cats might be £100
A real Honda part 5 years ago was £500+VAT - my cat was whole on the outside the insides collapsed. 3rd party one, cheap, would not work with the sensors - gave error conditions.
|
|
Am I alone in thinking that some of these new items are merely a money-making scheme? I mean, how on earth can a steering lock affect the roadworthiness of a car?
|
A faulty steering lock that engages whilst moving can have a catasphric effect!
However if properly removed it has no safety implications!
|
|
There will almost certainly have been a consultation with the trade and other stakeholders. It may be over prescriptive but I don't think the DfT would approve additions without there being a clear technical rationale.
|
The items on the list are mostly safety-related, so reasonable to include in an MoT.
Although I might be on here bleating about something after the CC3 has its first test in March.
|
A bigger threat to safety, IMHO, is the move from annual MoT to one every 2 years.
For some, the annual MoT, is the only incentive to get the car checked with the aim of passing the annual hurdle of the MoT.
Many cars currently fail on simple / more obvious things such as wipers, lights, tyres and brakes just now - what will happen when there is no incentive until 24 months? More accidents due to failure of brakes, corrosion of bearings, bushes on suspension / steering etc
|
|
Ah but think of the revenue from fines stopping cars with MOTs:> 1 year old!
|
Nothing there to worry about IMO, the CAT thing will be just the same for the deCatters, they'll simply put it on for the MOT and remove it after.
Doesn't specifically say so but i wonder if removed DPF's will fail, unless the tester has the correct equipment he won't know if the DPF is empty...some remappers will remove the DPF, remove the carp and refit.
|
...but i wonder if removed DPF's will fail, unless the tester has the correct equipment he won't know if the DPF is empty...
Doesn't the tester simply check what comes out of the exhaust pipe?
The emissions either pass or fail, the tester couldn't care less how the exhaust gas is produced.
|
|
So I'll finally have to get the false "tyres deflated" warning on the C8 investigated. Let's hope it's not terminal.
|
My mate had a Fiesta MK3.5 and the steering lock sometimes used to jam on that. Cost him £500 to get it through the last MOT. I almost cried when he told me how much he had spent. He scrapped it a few months later when he got his Panda on scrappage.
Quite clad my car is simple now, although the fuel system is as complex as any modern Petrol as its a Euro 4 so I do wonder if a third party cat would work on mine.
The only other new item which may car may fail on is the ABS, but again probably not that hard to fix if it was to ever go wrong. Still another 18 months to go for my MOT though :).
|
>> Quite clad my car is simple now, although the fuel system is as complex as
>> any modern Petrol as its a Euro 4 so I do wonder if a third
>> party cat would work on mine.
>>
A '3rd party' cat will get a car through an MOT. *
A genuine cat will get a car through many MOT's.
* 3rd party parts are of a vary variable quality, ranging from as good as OE, to garbage.
Basically, you get what you pay for - many aftermarket cats, will fail a 2nd MOT, due to substandard quality....
|
>> Doesn't the tester simply check what comes out of the exhaust pipe?
>>
There was loads of talk about the tester plugging in and interrogating the ECU for remaps/deDPF's etc, which i thought might not really be feasable, as main dealers are probably the only places equipped for such specialist daignoses....could be a whole can of worms when the inevitable 'it was running OK till you plugged your machine in' arguments start.
Maybe i'm behind the times here but i thought Diesels still had a standard smoke test instead of emissions testing?
EDIT, following Rattie post, i've tried to avoid cars with too much electronic garbage, used they could well be an increasing liability with all their control systems.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Tue 29 Nov 11 at 13:23
|
|
hey rattles a fiesta mk 3.5...its a different world up t'north ...crikey
|
>> There was loads of talk about the tester plugging in and interrogating the ECU for
>> remaps/deDPF's etc, which i thought might not really be feasable,
I for one don't think they *could* do it. But my question is, why would they want to check for a remap? It's not like it's illegal, is it?
|
>> I for one don't think they *could* do it. But my question is, why would
>> they want to check for a remap? It's not like it's illegal, is it?
>>
I suppose it's possible that someone running a £30 VED car could have the CO2 emissions (that they based the VED on) of a £75 VED car, so spending £80 million to recoup the VED losses from 550 motorists x £50 each would make sense to a British govt dept..:-)
|
True, but remapping doesn't necessarily affect emissions. e.g. As I'm sure you know, many/most manufacturers remap from the factory, that is they offer the same engine with two (or more) maps, one with more power than the other. Frequently with such a set-up the higher powered version has exactly the same economy, if it has the same gearing etc. Not always, but often.
The only difference (usually) is in the amount of power the ECU lets you have. Remapping such a car on the lower version of the map to a higher version seems perfectly reasonable to me. Can't see why they would have a problem with it, so I'm glad it's not on the new MOT.
Last edited by: oilburner on Tue 29 Nov 11 at 14:06
|
>> million to recoup the VED losses from 550 motorists x £50 each would make sense
>> to a British govt dept..:-)
>>
Or even 550 x £45 if i could read me own post..;)
To be fair OB, it's probably not normal remaps that make cars run properly that are the problem, its the few that try to take things to extremes and lay a soot layer on the road when they boot the things, and we've all seen Mundano's and other cars doing that.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Tue 29 Nov 11 at 14:10
|
>> >> I suppose it's possible that someone running a £30 VED car could have the CO2
>> >> emissions (that they based the VED on) of a £75 VED car
>> >> million to recoup the VED losses from 550 motorists x £50 each would make
>> sense
>> >> to a British govt dept..:-)
>> >>
>>
>> Or even 550 x £45 if i could read me own post..;)
>>
Don't they already have that covered through duties and taxes applied to fuel at the point of purchase ? The more you burn the more you pay.
|
>> Don't they already have that covered through duties and taxes applied to fuel at the
>> point of purchase ? The more you burn the more you pay.
>>
You'd think so, but in the effort to appear green we now have all sorts of strange VED classes and penalties, and dates of registration we have to avoid, and the will they won't they question that still hangs over high CO2 cars regd between 01 and 06.
|
...why would they want to check for a remap?...
The guy who did mine reckon it's more or less undetectable electronically.
I suppose he would say that, but to do it someone would have to download a copy of the remap and compares it to an original - which is no longer on the car.
|
|
The swedish MOT involves plugging in a code reader. I guess it's only OBD, but it's to make sure the engine light isn't on, and has had the bulb removed.
|
>> I suppose he would say that, but to do it someone would have to download
>> a copy of the remap and compares it to an original - which is no
>> longer on the car.
>>
No they don't. When interrogated, the engine management module will report a checksum error as the original map has been changed.
|
"Are cats £500 now?"
And the rest! Platinum prices are sky-high and I heard a news item recently where 4x4 owners were at particular risk of having theirs removed by scroats, because they were easier to get under and rip out. Stop smirking at the back...
It does raise a question about scrappies, who apparently still like to trade in cash, no questions asked, guv'nor. They'll be next on HMG's hit-list, no doubt.
|
...where 4x4 owners were at particular risk of having theirs removed by scroats, because they were easier to get under and rip out...
Supermarket car parks are often chosen as the venue for the job.
One of the gang follows the owner into the store, so the rest know for how long they can work undisturbed.
|
because they were easier to get under and rip out...
I knew that a quick to sink Citroen BX had some advantages! :)
|
|
Gosh, Peter - I didn't know BX's had catalysts.. :-)
|
Gosh, Peter - I didn't know BX's had catalysts.. :-)
This may surprise you!
XU9 J4/Z / DFW (Mi16) 148 PS (145 hp/108 kW) FI 16-valve DOHC catalyst Citroën BX 1.9 16V with Cat
see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_XU
But mine only runs on cooking oil :)
|
|
Thanks for the link, Peter. We had a 305 estate GT (allegedly) with the XU5 engine and it served us very well, carting my daughter and her wardrobe to and from Uni on numerous occasions. No cat though (too old).
|
>> It does raise a question about scrappies, who apparently still like to trade in cash,
>> no questions asked, guv'nor. They'll be next on HMG's hit-list, no doubt.
And so they should be. Theft of copper cable on the railway is causing daily disruption.
|
|
You're quite right, of course. I wasn't really expressing sympathy for them, just rolling my eyes metaphorically at the thought of more legislation. It's astonishing that you can turn up with a pile of cable/catalysts/lead-off-the-church-roof and still get paid cash!
|
|
Having been stranded on trains and trams a few times due to metal thefts (once in Manchester, once in Euston) I really cannot wait till the scrap yard industry is cleaned up and it becomes harder for the scroats to rob metal to sell on.
|
"The aim of the revised directive (2009/40/EC) is to harmonise minimum test requirements across Europe"
It would be, wouldn't it? That'll pay for another floor full of eurocrats...
|
|
Or to look at it another way, we have free movement of vehicles within the EU, so it's reasonable to have uniform safety standards for those vehicles. Isn't it?
|
Do we really need the EU to help us with vehicle safety standards?
A more rigorous MoT and binning the EU would be the best of both worlds.
|
>> Do we really need the EU to help us with vehicle safety standards?
>>
>> A more rigorous MoT and binning the EU would be the best of both worlds.
>>
Do you really mean that Iffy ?
Get rid of EuroNCAP and you could import some dirt cheap Chinese models and get rid before the first MOT is due. Would you really want that ?
|
...and you could import some dirt cheap Chinese models...
We have construction and use regulations.
If the Chinese models of whatever age are not safe for use on our roads, they don't get registered to do so.
Nothing to stop someone importing one to look at, or drive around a field.
|
>Vehicles fitted with aftermarket HID systems must also be fitted with properly working washer and levelling systems.
That's going to hurt a few people I know. Levelling I can understand, but mandatory headlamp washers on HIDs?
Is there a British Association of Headlamp Washer Manufacturers with a particularly healthy political donations budget somewhere?
Also the requirement that the drivers seat must be securable in at least 3 fore-and-aft positions is going to be a pig for the kit-car and track day boys. I know of a few cars where the seat is just bolted directly to the floor where the driver wants it(!)
Question: Anyone know what the most recent practical car is that has the minimum of Electronic stability control, Airbags, seatbelt tensioners, TPMS and all the other useless cruft mentioned in there? Might be worth buying one as it'll probably have rather decent residual value in a few years' time.....
|
"the drivers seat must be securable in at least 3 fore-and-aft positions"
Three sets of bolt holes, then... :-)
The trouble with EU regs is that we seem to be the only country that takes any notice of them.
For a glimpse into the mindset of those who would control the curvature of fruit and veg, look no further than here:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html
Can't really answer your question, TC, but I guess you want something nice that also has a poverty-spec version. That or a van...
|
|
Count on the Telegraph for an impartial account of a European story, JBJ. The water story is as misreported as your other two examples, but google 'eu water dehydration' and the usual suspects - Mail, Telegraph, Fox News - pop up to ignore the truth and feed the hysteria.
|
...The water story is as misreported...
The story is backed up by quotes from those involved and makes reference to the EU directive.
Looks fine to me.
Unlike the usual 'shoot the messenger' comment from WDB, which isn't backed up by anything.
Other than the same tired old prejudice.
|
Unlike the usual 'shoot the messenger' comment from WDB, which isn't backed up by anything....
You want to make something personal out of this, Iffy?
Before you accuse me of prejudice, consider
- This case hinges on the two academics' test assertion that drinking water reduced the risk of dehydration.
- Dehydration is a medically defined condition, defined as insufficient water in the tissues. You'll remember from your O-level biology that water uptake by cells depends on a number of factors, only one of which is the amount of water available outside.
- By referencing a medical condition - rather than something vaguer, like 'thirst' - the statement becomes subject to rules concerning claims to control diseases. (The same ones that keep homeopaths and herbalists from making claims that their witchcraft cures cancer.)
- Because (see above) there's more to dehydration than water, the statement couldn't satisfy those rules, so the academics, and the drinks company they were working for, were told not to use it.
- The ruling was made in January and no-one noticed. Months later, someone in the rightwing, anti-Europe press scents an opportunity and suddenly they're all over it.
- As for messengers, the Mail and the Telegraph were in the vanguard of the MMR hysteria that led to deaths from measles after more than a decade without. They've shown they can't be trusted to report science accurately even when there's no political angle. What would you do to a messenger who presented you with a message he'd fished out of a dustbin, then rewritten to further his own ends?
|
Your lengthy post fails to challenge the accuracy of the Telegraph story, other than a clever-clever definition of dehydration in which only you and idiots in Brussels is interested.
You want science, go to a science journal.
...You want to make something personal out of this, Iffy?...
Make of it what you want.
|
That's uncharacteristically crass and evasive for you, Iffy. Now that we can get mere news as soon as it happens, what is the use of a newspaper if not to present specialized information accurately for a general readership? I expect my paper to keep me broadly informed about developments in politics, economics, sport and the arts without having to read specialist journals in those, so why is science somehow excluded as being 'too hard'?
Science matters to all of us: scientific illiteracy sets us on the path to religious extremism of both the Bush and Bin Laden varieties (if they are, indeed, different.) Sloppy reporting of science stories is part of that, and this is an example.
I concede that the Telegraph article isn't the worst of its kind, but it has clearly set out to write another 'those silly Eurocrats' story. It quotes two eurosceptic politicians before it gets to quoting the (Tory-run) Department of Health and, finally, an academic who does understand the scientific technicality on which the case hinges but whose words, unlike the others' and the fatuous reader poll at the end, are given no context or editorial amplification.
|
...and evasive for you...
What I object to is your concentration on the messenger, rather than the message.
Leave aside the slovenly hacks at the Telegraph for a moment.
Do we need an in-depth medical assessment of the impact of drinking a bottle of water?
I would say no, but if we do, we have perfectly able doctors in this country to do it.
Further up the thread it was suggested to me we need the EU to provide the regulations for vehicle safety.
Once again, we do not, we have motor engineers in this country who can do it.
And in both cases, we have an army of public servants to administer such regulations as we may come up with.
It is clearly a waste of money to pay people in Europe to do something we can do ourselves.
Given that we don't currently have money to waste, the conclusion is obvious.
|
WDB
OT, I know, but the only recent 'deaths from measles' in the UK that I know about were in babies too young to have been vaccinated. One of the benefits of the disease (as opposed to the vaccination) is that it generates antibodies that can be passed from mother to child and which confer some immunity when they most need it.
No-one has yet explained the 20-fold increase in autism rates over the last 30 years, either, so the jury is still out on that, but I do know someone whose child acquired it immediately after an MMR jab, although no-one (of course) will admit any connection, so therefore it doesn't exist...
WRT dehydration, as I recall, the claim made for the water was not that it was a cure for the condition, but simply that it reduces the risk, which doesn't sound too hyperbolic. What is shocking to me it that it was felt to be a big enough issue to call 21 medics together to pronounce upon. I wonder how many rounds of golf were involved?
Last edited by: J Bonington Jagworth on Wed 30 Nov 11 at 19:08
|
Iffy
Leave aside the slovenly hacks at the Telegraph for a moment.
But they are the point. There's not much story here, and the papers have dragged it up, months after what event there was, when someone sensed there was political mischief to be made.
Do we need an in-depth medical assessment of the impact of drinking a bottle of water?...
Probably not. But the question was asked of a body that exists to protect consumers from misleading medical or quasi-medical claims. That put it in their domain, because a bottled water company wanted to make a medical-sounding claim on its labels, and under the same rules that apply to all such claims. Would you have those rules abolished?
...I would say no, but if we do, we have perfectly able doctors in this country to do it.
The question was asked in Germany.
Further up the thread it was suggested to me we need the EU to provide the regulations for vehicle safety.
If you're attributing that to me, read again - carefully this time. All I said was that it makes sense to have matching standards, to avoid the situation where (with apologies for gratuitous national stereotyping) Romanian cars are roaming Europe with three wheels and no windscreen, or otherwise roadworthy vehicles are turned back at the German border because of a worn rear wiper rubber.
What the EU can do is to broker an agreement across Europe on the standards to apply.
JBJ
Herd immunity. Where vaccination is the norm, even the tiny unvaccinated minority don't get the disease because there is no pool of infected individuals to harbour it. Until 2006, no-one died in the UK from measles caught in the post-vaccination era. It doesn't matter that the deaths were of individuals with compromised immunity; they shouldn't have got it in the first place. Figures are here:
www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814
...MMR jab, although no-one (of course) will admit any connection, so therefore it doesn't exist.
Perhaps you're confused by the usual scientific expression 'no evidence' of a connection. It doesn't mean 'we don't know'; it means that we have no reason to suppose that there is one, whatever the superficial appearance from isolated, anecdotal cases like the one you mention. That's why we do science - to distinguish what really happens - like the earth orbiting the sun - from how things look.
My first child got his MMR in 2002, the other in 2004. Believe me, I've read this stuff and I'm sure of my ground. The jury, if there ever was one, has long since been thanked by the judge and sent home.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Wed 30 Nov 11 at 21:10
|
WDB
"I've read this stuff and I'm sure of my ground"
These things are never certain. Look how long it took the medical profession to admit that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium - the doctor (Barry Marshall) who discovered it was vilified for years, but picked up a Nobel Prize for it eventually.
Did you know that the mortality rate from measles declined by over 97% in the first 50 years of last century, before any vaccinations, simply because of improvements in sanitation and the general standard of living? Measles is dangerous in places like Afghanistan, but not here. When I was young, children were encouraged to catch it.
|
...But they are the point...
You seem to think it noteworthy to point to a Euro-sceptic story in a newspaper whose readership is generally Euro-sceptic.
What do you expect to find - 10,000 words on the benefits of federalism?
Open a beehive and the most likely thing you'll see inside is bees.
Startling, but there it is.
And you still cannot point to any real inaccuracy in the story.
...the question was asked in Germany...
Which is where it should have stayed.
|
Curiouser and curiouser. The exact text is "it must be possible to secure the driver's seat fore and aft adjustment mechanism in two or three different positions...."
I guess the missing bit here is similar to that in the HID discussion triggered. Is it actually mandatory to *have* an adjustment mechanism? i.e. is just having the things bolted to the floor a failure?
I'm still trying to work out why they think it's necessary to be able to secure the seat in more than *one* position, i.e. where the driver using the car needs it?
Maybe it's an equal opportunity initiative to ensure that the altitude-challenged can work as car thieves?
|
There is a foot and a bit in height between myself and Ian, and I certainly couldn't drive the car with the seat in his position.
The car may only have one driver but what proof of that is there?
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Thu 1 Dec 11 at 11:40
|
"The exact text is "it must be possible to secure the driver's seat fore and aft adjustment mechanism in two or three different positions....""
Not quite...
Information:
Original Design characteristics and specialised modifications (e.g. to enable wheelchair access) are to be accepted.
When checking the driver’s seat adjustment it is not necessary to check that the seat can be secured in all possible positions.
Inspection:
Check that the driver’s seat position can be adjusted forwards and backwards and secured in the selected positions.
Reason for rejection:
The driver’s seat fore and aft adjustment mechanism not functioning as intended.
This is not as clear as the HID discussion! If the original design didn't have adjustment then it should be accepted. But the inspection requires seat to be moved. Reason for rejection is only that mech is not functioning as intended - if there is no mech then it is functioning as intended, so not reason for fail!
|
"if there is no mech then it is functioning as intended, so not reason for fail!"
That's how I read it. It's talking about the mechanism, not the seat, so if there isn't one...
|
>> >Vehicles fitted with aftermarket HID systems must also be fitted with properly working washer and levelling systems.
>>
>> That's going to hurt a few people I know.
I've got aftermarket HIDs fitted and am just going to see how this pans out over the next few months. From what I understand, from Jan 2012 to 31 March 2012, you'll just get an advisory if something is wrong but still get a pass, but from the 1st April 2012 it will fail.
However there is still a grey area, Re: HIDs. From my understanding, that AA report isn't 100% correct.
"A car will fail if a mandatory headlamp cleaning or levelling system is missing"
Well I haven't got a mandatory headlamp cleaning or levelling system fitted, so my car can't fail on that.
"Vehicles fitted with aftermarket HID systems must also be fitted with properly working washer and levelling systems"
Now this is the grey area bit. I've read so many conflicting articles on this recently.
The thing is, my headlights are designed for HIDs / Xenons. They're projector lenses, and it's been mentioned on a Vectra forum that there is an approval mark stamped on them somewhere.
I've had them fitted for just over 2 years now and have been flashed at by oncoming motorists a lot less than when I had the 55 watt halogens fitted.
The thing with projector lenses is that they focus the bulb correctly to prevent beam scatter. something a normal lens doesn't.
What VOSA and the law should be doing is targetting the boy racers and chavs who fit HIDs to their Corsas and Saxos and blind everyone.
I've fitted them to my Vectra-C for safety reasons as it's a well known fact among Vectra drivers that the standard headlights on the facelift model are rubbish.
All MOT testers I've spoken to so far have said providing the beam is correctly set then they'll still pass it. If all else fails, I'll just temp fit the halogen bulbs again for the MOT and wire back in the HIDs afterwards.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 30 Nov 11 at 12:55
|
Not a grey area, if HID, they must have self levelling and washers. For OE HID, they fit the lot and most later added ones don't have the self leveling, so are not legal - even now.
Not enforced at present, and not part of current MOT test so will currently pass.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Wed 30 Nov 11 at 13:18
|
>> Not a grey area
As I said, there are so many conflicting articles that make a mockery of the new MOT test. Depending on how things are interpreted, and by who, then it's anyone's guess.
Until the new test is up and running, no one will know for sure. A lot of it is just hearsay at the moment and people rumour mongering.
|
The full new regs are here: www.vosa.gov.uk/vosa/repository/MOT%20Inspection%20Manual.pdf
They are relatively clear:
Vehicles equipped with High Intensity Discharge (HID) or LED dipped beam headlamps may be fitted with headlamp washers and a suspension or headlamp self levelling system.
Where such systems are fitted, they must work; however, it is accepted that it may not be possible to readily determine the functioning of self levelling systems. In such cases, the benefit of the doubt must be given.
Headlamp washers may work in conjunction with the windscreen washers (when the dipped beam headlamps are switched on) or by a separate switch.
Inspection method:
Where HID or LED dipped beam headlamps are fitted, switch on the headlamps and check the operation of any headlamp levelling and cleaning devices fitted.
Reason for rejection:
A headlamp levelling or cleaning device inoperative or otherwise obviously defective.
|
That's interesting Richard.
The old adage "if fitted it must work" has been applied, and the offence of doing an illegal fitment of HID is still not an MOT failure.
It is however still illegal.
|
>> It is however still illegal.
Hence what I was saying earlier about conflicting data.
|
That does not conflict! There are all sorts of things that are legal requirements, but not all of them form MOT testable items.
|
New mandatory MoT test items from 2012 - borasport
