?44.12 worse off

[amalgamated users from prior forum]

Message originally posted by: Lee
Well it passed, thank god I have been taking the car to the same garage for year's so the car is well known to the garage owner. When I turned up the ownwer said that the whole MOT computer was down and he could do the test, but I would need to return for the certificate when the computer was up and running. He carried out all the same check's as normal including testing the emission's within half an hour. Is it me or are we all getting ripped off by the (government) trying to force old car's off the road or is there a plot from the motor firm's to try to make us by new car's ? every 3 year's........

[amalgamated users from prior forum]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

Message originally posted by: Sue Roedel (Editor, MOC)
Hi Lee

Congratulations on passing. It's always a bit nailbiting isn't it? Mine's in August.

And it's not you, we are all getting ripped off by the (government) trying to force old car's off the road and there is a plot from the motor firm's to try to make us buy new car's ? every 3 year's........I think.

[b_caswell]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

A kit car emission test is a visual only but the computer still gives a report, pass or fail. We have two kits and a 66 Vitesse all pass no probs.. Why do we think the goverment is trying to force old cars off the road?
When they first introduced the MOT they found some horrific bodges like a table leg nailed to the bottom of a broken coil spring and fuel pipe used as hydraulic brake hose.I have seen a road smash where a mini was a cut and shut . But the join across the middle of the car was pop riveted together. It was on the road with a stolen MOT supplied by the dealer who sold the car.The only thing holding the two halves together after the crash was the cable to the battery in the back

[macdonald.dm]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

I'm inclined to agree with Ben; since the UK barely has an automotive industry left, why bother to try and make us buy more often? (Cynical, huh?!).

Oh, didn't this Government also introduce the 'Historic Vehicle' tax rate?

I can, however, imagine that emissions are a concern since new cars tend to have better technology in this area, but put that against the environmental damage caused by all the scrapped cars...

On the emissions test, don't they check against the results you'd expect from the donor (eg: '75 Cortina)? If it's purely visual, then we're getting off lightly!

[b_caswell]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

I think there is actualy a cut of point where the engine age comes in but not sure.

[amalgamated users from prior forum]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

Message originally posted by: Stefan Carlton
1998 is the cutoff. Anything considered to be used before this point is a visual check only, anything post 98 is checked against year of first usage, regardless of engine age.

[amalgamated users from prior forum]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

Message originally posted by: Jim Mountain (MOT Tester)
The cut off date for a visual smoke check for class 4 vehicles (cars) is 1st August 1975, kit cars and amateur built cars are considered to be built before this date for the purpose of the MOT test, UNLESS your car has been through an SVA test, in this case the car is tested to the standard that the donor vehicle engine would be expected to pass if it was still in the original car (i.e. if your running a 2001 BMW engine then this is the test it will recive), so you will need to take the V5 registration document to the MOT testing station with you to prove what test is required.

The reason for an MOT test is to inforce a MINIMUM (and VERY VERY VERY LOW) standard for cars to achive once a year, AT THE TIME OF TEST, it shouldn't be "nailbiting" in any way. If your car does not pass an MOT for anything other than a bulb or something as minor then maybe you need to reivaluate the way you service and repair it.

If your child was killed by a hit and run driver, in a car that was running bald tyres, leaking brake fluid from the rear wheel cylinders, had the front brakes running metal to metal, and noone got it's reg number cos the rear numberplate was unreadable I think you would be among the first to complane !!!!.

THE MOT IS A MINIUM STANDARD, I WOULD EXPECT ANYBODY WHO HAS BUILT THERE OWN CAR TO MAINTAIN IT TO A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD.

[amalgamated users from prior forum]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

Message originally posted by: Lee
I totally agree with all the points mentioned and yes saftey of motor vehicles should be number one. However the point I was trying make was the price we all pay for an MOT tester to carry out the minimum of check's to our vehicle's. Unfortunally for those vehicle's who fail they may end up paying for a retest if they cannot meet the 24 hour deadline.

[Dane_Rescueman]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

I'm pleased, each year, to gain a thorough MoT from my local tester. He has always insisted on an emission test for my old Pinto. I look upon it as a chance to see how my Carbs and general engine tuning are faring. Well worth the money for safety and efficiency of my vehicle.
As Jim shouts, it is only a minimum standard. We should be making the cut easily with our building and tuning skills.

[tony.branson76]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

All in all I agree that having the car checked is a good thing. The man who tests mine seems extremely sensible and on the occasions when it has failed I have been glad to have the faults brought to my attention so that I can correct them. The reason I find it nail biting is that my car always seem to sense when it's going for the MOT and develop new and bizarre faults. Mind you it alays seems to run much better with a new certificate. Having said that there have been occasions when I have felt that the thing has been 'by the motor industry and for the motor industry' Certain items such as screen chips were only introduced after lobbying by the replacement firms who had lost huge amounts of revenue when toughened screens were replaced by laminated

[macdonald.dm]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

Hi Jim Mountain.

Are you a Marlin owner, or just a helpful MOT tester?! (Or both!)

Do you know the answer to the 'seatbelt' question on the Berlinetta forum? The Berlinetta was designed from the off as a 2+2, but did NOT have rear belts designed into, or fitted, as standard. Is it the case that the car car remain without having rear belts fitted (tho' desirable)?

Thanks.

[b_caswell]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

MY roadsters MOT is today at 11.00 and I am really worried about it. I know what you mean Tony about them developing strange noises and faults just before the MOT is due! MOT's become more and more of a worry as parts for these old roadsters are getting less and less easy to find. Its only a matter of time before it's something that goes that I really cant find a replacement for....Lets hope it passes. Fingers crossed!

[amalgamated users from prior forum]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

Message originally posted by: Sue Roedel (Editor, MOC)
Can I uncross my fingers now, they are beginning to hurt! Did you pass, Ben?

[b_caswell]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

It did pass yes thanks. It had absolutley nothing wrong with it which was a huge relief!

[amalgamated users from prior forum]

Re: ?44.12 worse off

Message originally posted by: Julian Haines
Mine passed yesterday with no problems, best 40 odd quid I ever spent because it concentrated my efforts in getting all those little jobs done beforehand that I had been putting off for so long.