2 'identical' MOTs - one pass, one failure

[Neil VR6 0]

I took my car for its MOT last week to a local VW specialist, who I found out actually farm their MOTs out to another garage. The car failed on lots of things, one for a headlamp beam pattern, one for a headlamp pointing too high, 2 for the front suspension being ‘too low’ stating “insufficient clearance between suspension and bodywork” and one for a brake pipe rubbing against something and 2 for both rear wheel bearings having too much play. I know the car passed in its current state last year because the car is fundamentally unchanged and it’s only done a few thousand miles. So £50 down. I ended up paying another MOT station and it passed straight through with 2 advisories for the wheel bearings (which can be adjusted anyway). So what the heck is up with that? 2 ‘identical’ tests, one stating my car is basically unroadworthy and one passing through without a hitch. I spoke to the first garage about complaining to the relevant body but if the car was found to be at fault I’d have to get it rectified and pay for the bloke to come out and assess it. What a complete waste of my time and money! :bad-words:

[Yandards 0]

Suprised the other garage didn't fail it for the same stuff, especially as all the failure points are logged on the central computer these days.

 

An MOT test is an examination within guidelines but is still subject to opinion, they are supposed to be standardised but its difficult when you are not working with some exact numbers. All of the things you have mentioned are very much opinion based fails and the rear wheel bearing thing is not uncommon on VW's given the vagueness of the tightening procedure.

 

To be honest I would rather take my car to a picky tester than one who doesn't notice something critical.

[scrubbadubdub 0]

im in the trade and alot of it depends on the person who does it i find if they dont like it they will pick it apart. also i think they have to fail so many so may be to get numbers up its a joke but how it goes

[Neil VR6 0]

Having to fill up a quota for 'failures' is incredible and makes a complete mockery of the system! :eek: Especially when you see the state of some of the cars on the road at the moment! :roll:

 

I got the feeling that the first tester saw it was 'modified' and picked it apart

[swiftkid 1]

it really is a joke, i hate MOT testers round where i am. Pretty much everyone i know has had trouble with testers, one of my mates put a 1.8 16v engine into his old cabby (pre cat) and spent an hour arguing with the tester he didn't need one because his car is pre-cat.

 

I spent an hour arguing with a tester that my tie rod was bent before my first test, yet it was a failure on my second test (which subsiquently cost me another full MOT test). oh and for anyone that lives round hull/beverley NEVER EVER use MILL LANE AUTO, i will name and shame because they were utter cockerals about everything.

 

Strangely enough though, another mate of mine has just took his car for test with the loudest exhaust around and got a pass with bent sills (ultra low mk3) as well.

[dr_mat 0]

Congratulations, you found a guy who didn't look very closely for your 2nd MOT.

[dr_mat 0]

it really is a joke, i hate MOT testers round where i am. Pretty much everyone i know has had trouble with testers, one of my mates put a 1.8 16v engine into his old cabby (pre cat) and spent an hour arguing with the tester he didn't need one because his car is pre-cat.

 

Actually the emissions test SHOULD be based on the age of the engine, not the age of the car. So if the car that the engine came FROM would have required a CAT, then the test should be a catalyst test.

 

Also note that in most cases the MOT doesn't require the car to actually have a CAT. It will be tested as if it has one though, and without one it is highly unlikely that it will meet the emissions target so it will probably fail.

[swiftkid 1]

the engine was pre cat as well :wink:

[dr_mat 0]

the engine was pre cat as well :wink:

 

I thought that was probably the case, but wanted to clarify the point..

[DanVW 0]

The MOT will always come down to the indvidual guy doing the testing at the end of the day if the guy is a cnut or just having a bad day its going to cost ya, if on the other hand if you have a friendly tester that offers to stuff his emmissions pipe up another cars exhaust to get you through the test then its happy days! It sucks but then the only way your getting around it is to move away and register your car in another country :lol:

[Neil VR6 0]

I know my car's in very very good condition because I'm meticulous with its maintenance so I know most of the stuff the MOT throws up is complete nonsense. I understand it's a fixed set of rules designed to be interpreted by individuals but there's way too much leeway in judgement.

 

And there's always the high chance that the MOT test station are in cohorts with the actual garage who would end up getting the work to rectify the 'faults'.

 

I'm safe for another year - might have to get one of those special 'mail order' ones next time

[Yandards 0]

It's a classic symptom in engineering, if it looks right from the offset people don't tend to dig too deeply.

 

If it looks a bit off then people will look at the rest of it a bit more than they would normally.

[gogsboy 0]

Suprised the other garage didn't fail it for the same stuff, especially as all the failure points are logged on the central computer these days.

 

What is the definition of the central computer, is this accessed by the test station?

 

I recently had a situation where had a fail from one garage and to cut a long story short they pissed me off so I never went back and got another test once failure points were fixed and I asked him is he could see what it failed on and he said he couldn't.

 

And for the record the original fail included a couple of parts needing welded which were done and the other tester added another to that list....however there was a big difference on the two advisory sheets

[Yandards 0]

Suprised the other garage didn't fail it for the same stuff, especially as all the failure points are logged on the central computer these days.

 

What is the definition of the central computer, is this accessed by the test station?

 

I recently had a situation where had a fail from one garage and to cut a long story short they pissed me off so I never went back and got another test once failure points were fixed and I asked him is he could see what it failed on and he said he couldn't.

 

And for the record the original fail included a couple of parts needing welded which were done and the other tester added another to that list....however there was a big difference on the two advisory sheets

 

 

The MOT test results and advisories are now logged on a central computer at DVLA. Other garages don't get visibility of a cars failures so that they feel obliged to test to the standard. However, I am sure DVLA keep an eye on certain garages using this information.

[Jonny777 0]

Make friends with the MOT testers.

 

That way you can get told what its gonna fail on first and sort it. Way i've always done it.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Having to fill up a quota for 'failures' is incredible and makes a complete mockery of the system!

 

I got the feeling that the first tester saw it was 'modified' and picked it apart

 

Yep, it's the same with all British "Systems". Personal feelings get in the way of doing their job properly and they should be struck off in the same way Doctors should be struck off for treating a thin patient better than an obese one, or a smoker.

So long as the vehicle meets the required standards set out by the MOT, they can shove their personal thoughts about modifications up their back sides.

And a lot MOT testers fail Corrado rear wheel bearings because they're clueless about how taper bearings work :roll: Every year I have to tell them that's how they're supposed to be and to ring VW's technical department if they want confirmation!!

 

Make friends with the MOT testers.

 

Yep, it's always down to who you know, rather than what you know.

 

Also note that in most cases the MOT doesn't require the car to actually have a CAT. It will be tested as if it has one though, and without one it is highly unlikely that it will meet the emissions target so it will probably fail.

 

Not necessarily, depends what classification your engine is tested under! My car had no cat on it last year and was put on an "Unclassified" emissions test because VW never made a VR6 Turbo, therefore there is no data on it on the "central computer".

 

You get a leniant 3.5% idle CO to pass and 1200ppm Hydro carbons.

 

My engine did 1.1% CO and 85ppm Hyrdo carbons, so it passed with flying colours :D

 

I've since added a cat converter and I'm aiming to get those numbers down to 0.5% CO and 0 Hydrocarbons on the next MOT :D

 

Be warned with aftermarket and replacement cats though. The MOT are clamping down on them and soon you won't be able to get your car tested without a "Type Approved" cat converter fitted and guess what, currently, hardly any replacement / aftermarket cats are type approved.

[colinstubbs 0]

Be warned ........soon you won't be able to get your car tested without a "Type Approved" cat converter fitted and guess what, currently, hardly any replacement / aftermarket cats are type approved.

 

 

I think that really sucks and my C doesn't even have a cat.

[dgtvr6 0]

Be warned ........soon you won't be able to get your car tested without a "Type Approved" cat converter fitted and guess what, currently, hardly any replacement / aftermarket cats are type approved.

 

 

I think that really sucks and my C doesn't even have a cat.

 

 

Mmm, will this actually apply to an older car such as the C? It does seem that the government occasionally show a modicom of common sense and set up new regulations with a breakwater point where it doesn't apply to cars older than x for example... Or at least some dispensation. See MOT test on exhaust gases for example...

[Neutech 0]

Come over here and book an MOT test if you want hassle :cuckoo:

 

I've had a ton of fun over the years with aircooled VW's and mk2 gti's

 

All done in GOV run test centres not a garage

 

Brake rollers oooofffffff .... try and not lose your rag as the tester starts rollers and pulls handbrake up until vehicle nearly shoots off the roller.....or in case my dads car did shoot off roller and took out the lcd display :lol:

 

few my local mot station are VW fans but still as thorough as anything

 

or try gong in with commercial van T4 Panel with 98 load rated tyres 18" and getting failed as the old duffer said they didnt have C stamped on them...Kumho tyres properly over rated for my T4 as well...after an hour of head cratching,looking at books they retested it again and passed it :sleeping:

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Be warned ........soon you won't be able to get your car tested without a "Type Approved" cat converter fitted and guess what, currently, hardly any replacement / aftermarket cats are type approved.

 

 

I think that really sucks and my C doesn't even have a cat.

 

Sorry, bad wording!

 

What I meant was if your car is supposed to have a cat fitted (i.e. Post 93) then it must be a "type approved" one. A lot of cheap chinese copies, euro carparts / GSF crap and some 'sport' cats aren't type approved and the Ministry Of Transport are thinking of clamping down on them.

 

I can see their point as some cats are completely schitt and don't do what they're supposed to (convert hydrocarbons and Carbon monoxide to water and carbon dioxide) and it's mainly users of cheap and ineffective 'sport' cats that they are targetting I suspect.

 

Don't worry, cars that don't require a car (

[EskimoFriend 0]

This thread worries me, my C lew through the first MOT of my ownership last year and now its in again and I. Am. Bricking. It.

 

Although its had some repairs done in the same garage today and when I went in to have a bit of chat with how it was going today, he said what a "solid car" it was so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. :lol:

[colinstubbs 0]

Be warned ........soon you won't be able to get your car tested without a "Type Approved" cat converter fitted and guess what, currently, hardly any replacement / aftermarket cats are type approved.

 

 

I think that really sucks and my C doesn't even have a cat.

 

Sorry, bad wording!

 

What I meant was if your car is supposed to have a cat fitted (i.e. Post 93) then it must be a "type approved" one. A lot of cheap chinese copies, euro carparts / GSF crap and some 'sport' cats aren't type approved and the Ministry Of Transport are thinking of clamping down on them.

 

I can see their point as some cats are completely schitt and don't do what they're supposed to (convert hydrocarbons and Carbon monoxide to water and carbon dioxide) and it's mainly users of cheap and ineffective 'sport' cats that they are targetting I suspect.

 

Don't worry, cars that don't require a car (

 

No I got what you meant first time Kev :lol: . I just meant that even though it won't affect me at all it could be a bit harsh if they get really anal about it for the rest of you chaps! What's the chances of that happening :gag: :shrug:

[KipVR 1]

I shouldn't worry about it, in a few years time the government will outlaw older cars to be driven on the roads anyway... those that haven't been scrapped...