MOT query for T25

[CovKid]

Gaiters are yes

[jason k]

hey - you only have one rear fog light.....think its drivers side. Although the bulb holder is there on the passenger side, there is no electric to it.

Em
x

true but thats a lhd van which dont have fogs fitted as standard believe it or not. most german import vans have to have an additional fog lamp fitted along with an illuminated switch in the cab.

[jason k]

oh, hella lamp on ebay too

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Mk1-Golf-Cabrio-r ... 3a55970e3d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SyncroSwede]

1. O/S rear fog lamp not working
2. N/S & O/S front indicator's wrong colour (What the blithering heck!!!) Those lenses and bulbs are effin new!!!so what they going on about....ANYONE??
3. O/S front dipped beam not working
4. O/S front headlamp aim not tested.
5. Emmisions not checked due to oil leak.
6. N/S & O/S front anti-roll bar bushes split causing excessive movement.

Advice notes:

1. O/S front brake compensator corroded but ok as doing its job.
2. Both front coil springs corroded.
3. Oil leak (caused by right rocker cover gasket).
4. N/S rear drive shaft outer CV boot split.
5. O/S front hella fog lamp lense cracked ( can't find a new one anywhere)....


Hi Drew64, I'm not a motter but I do have a relatively recent MOT tester's manual in front of me, which says...

1. You must have a rear fog lamp working on the centre or offside (does not need to be linked to the light system but must have a tell tale light in the cab).
2. Indicators must emit amber light. (Colour of the lens is not shown as a reason for failure here?)
3 & 4. Fix headlamp!
5. As said previously, if they doubt the integrity of the engine, they won't rev it. My manual states a 4 stroke spark ignition engine needs to be checked at idle but revved to 2500 rpm as a part of the purging etc. Sounds like it's only a gasket or two to solve that one though.
6. Bushes: I did my 16" Syncro with Brickwerks Powerflex jobbies which were a doddle to get on. Mine were 21mm on a 1989 van and I think the 19mm ones are for earlier vehicles but it was easy enough to measure the anti-roll bar accurately enough to see a 2mm difference.

As for the advice notes, I wouldn't worry about the cracked lamp, corroded brake compensator and springs for now but sort the oil leak and my manual states a split outer CV boot is a fail .

My tuppence worth on testing stations; I know some people recommend testers who don't repair so they cannot 'create' work but I think the best bet is just finding a quality local garage/tester who likes or appreciates older vehicles. At my test a week ago on a Saturday morning there was just me and the tester in the whole (large) building. We chatted about the van and things all went smoothly. He has previous advised me of stuff I'm sure would have been failures for other people as he knows I'll fix anything he spots sooner rather than later. I've even heard of people travelling for 2 hours to go to the tester they like in the town they used to live in!

Good luck with test two!

[CovKid]

The main thing is not to use testers that may have a reputation (founded or not) of being lax. Neither do you want a pedantic fool that is just trying to drum up work and sniggering to his mate. Its much better (and concur with above) to find one that can help you pinpoint not only failure points but any future ones. Thorough but appreciative, which means he/she should fail what isn't up to the mark and hopefully you can build a rapport that negates future failures. Like dentists, finding the right one is worthwhile.

In an ideal world all testers would be like that and paid accordingly but there are still too many drivers that don't give a fig as long as it passes an MOT which ruins it really. During the summer I spent a great deal of time on my back, underneath, working from one side to the other. I pressure washed it first and wore goggles to avoid muck ending up in my eyes, but its well worth keeping on top of the running gear as the rest is largely cosmetic and easier to deal with really.

[billy739]

drive shaft gaitors are NOT a fail!

only steered axel outer gaitors are a fail!

rears can only be advised!

[kevtherev]

My manual states a 4 stroke spark ignition engine needs to be checked at idle but revved to 2500 rpm as a part of the purging etc.

yes, on average thats about what it would take to move the vehicle and it be driven to the testing station.

if they doubt the integrity of the engine, they won't rev it.

One may test the integrity of a value system scientifically by using the values, methods and measures of the system to formulate a hypothesis of an expected cause-and-effect relationship. When multiple unbiased testers observe that a given cause consistently leads to an expected effect, one can say that the value system "has integrity"... or do you just guess that an oil leak will result in a catastrophic engine failure

[happy camper]

I was of the understanding that gaiters were an advisory only as not all cars have them some old vintage stuff etc

[CovKid]

Whether fail or advisory, they do check them and to be honest if they're split or detached, they should be done anyway. I've also seen them on fail sheets

[fullsunian]

drive shaft gaitors are NOT a fail!

only steered axel outer gaitors are a fail!

rears can only be advised!

Like he ^^^^ says...

[Red Westie]

O/S/R fog lamp should have failed (needs a bulb DIY job to get power to bulb)
White indicators shouldn't fail...as long as the lens is EU approved and showing orange light at the correct intervals when operating.
O/S dip beam needs fixing obviously and aim needs checking
Emmisions check not done due to oil leak....a bit severe unless a very bad leak.
N/S & O/S front antiroll bar bushes split...possibly severe but justified I suppose and need changing
Brake compensator corroded...THEY ALL ARE! lol, really and it doesn't make them unsafe and certainly doesn't warrant replacement.
Both front coil springs corroded....so? and I wore a blue shirt to work yesterday...totally irrelivant.
Oil leak (advisory) why? thank for telling me anyway...needs doing
N/S rear driveshaft boot outter boot, yeah! needs the CV joint re-packing and boot replacing.
O/S front fog lamp lens cracked, advisory just because it is fitted....don't worry about it.

Martin

[..lee..]

ok lots of comments and assumptions here. these are the facts. the mot test was intended to ensure the vehicle was safe to use on the road but as with most things these days especially government run stuff the plot gets lost somewhere amongst the bullshit.

failures are just that. laid out in black and white but in most cases can be interpreted more than one way. thats where the benefit of the doubt comes in. as a tester if you have any doubt then you should pass and use the advisory form to show that you haven`t simply missed the component from the inspection.

now some testers just shoudn`t be doing their jobs as they are only interested in going home. some testers have just not kept up with the rule changes and innocently enough think they are doing the right thing, some testers are just out to take as much money off you as they can and some testers try and do their best by both the customer and vosa who by the way are generally quite happy to throw their wirght about and take your licence off you for next to bugger all.

admittidly corroded springs for example are not a fail and yes a lot of cars run around with corroded springs without any problems, but if tester 1 advises that they are corroded and it snapps soon after test he`s proven that he inspected them closely enough to note the rust and would probally be in the clear. where as tester 2 who didn`t advise on them would be presumed guilty of not inspecting them at all and probally given a load of grief off vosa with possibly a risk of loosing his licence.

i personally over advise, it serves many purposes, it shows everyone that you have carried out a thorough examination " both vosa and the customer ", if used properly the customer can prepare for any future motoring costs that they may not be aware of and thirdly it can bring work in to the workshop which is scheduled and not because of a breakdown. the latter tends to be more of a pain for us and normally results in a stressed customer who is desperate for their car back. not good.


so if you get a big advisory dont look at it as a bad thing. it`ll be obvious if they are trying to hard sell the work, but if its just mentioned to you in passing and an explanation offered then they are just probally trying to cover their arses as their vosa ve is probally a "idiot".

if you think it shouldn`t have failed on a particular item then query it at the time and look at the book with the tester, you may both end up learning something and if more people did it the testers that shouldn`t be testing may just wake up and smell the coffee.

sorry to bore you all lee.

[Red Westie]

As an MOT tester myself, we were encouraged to give the benefit of the doubt and 'advise' everything we felt was border line...as you say lee.
This MOT looks pretty fair apart from failing white lenses with orange bulbs and perhaps refusing to carry out the emmisions check (but then we really don't know how serious the leak was/is)
Lee, with respect....I'm not sure I would have written 'these are the facts' as you didn't quote anything official and sounded like your opinion which looked pretty sound to me.
Martin

[CovKid]

This comes up quite a lot. The MOT concentrates largely on the areas that could cause sudden loss of control, pose a danger to other road users or pedestrians, or contribute to pollution. However, just because something doesn't fit within the 'fail' areas doesn't mean it wouldn't cause loss of control or pose a danger. Wear in one component invariably leads to wear in another and that too can lead to sudden collapse of an item. There are also areas that can deteriorate that aren't even part of the MOT that could cause premature failure of a part that is.

In short, too many assume that an MOT means a vehicle is totally safe. At best, an MOT means the vehicle was 'relatively safe at the time of the test'.

A cynic could argue for instance that a split gaiter on the rear could, in some circumstances lead to loss of drive leaving you slowing down rapidly without warning and a vehicle behind running into the back of you. Its not beyond the realms of possibility so the MOT is to all intents and purposes, merely a rough guide and just means that a vehicle is 'less likely' to be a danger to driver, passengers or other road users than one that had not been tested. That would be the definative answer.

[..lee..]

red westy. point taken about the fact thing