New cars wont need an MOT till 4 years

jonbeeza

jonbeeza

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,388
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
New cars wont need an MOT till they are four years old, might think about getting a new car now :)

Or at least when the new law comes in..
 
Last edited:
Wonder if this will make some of the manufacturers that offer 3 year warranty up it to 4 years ???
 
andyred said:
Wonder if this will make some of the manufacturers that offer 3 year warranty up it to 4 years ???
Click to expand...
I have bought three brand new cars, only low end cars but never bothered to keep up with warranty. You need to keep car serviced regular something I never did. Plus I did all my servicing and repairs myself, saving myself a fortune .
 
Makes me chuckle because an MOT isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
If you're pulled over and they say your car's not roadworthy, the MOT means nothing.

Obviously with 3 -4 -5 etc aged cars it's unlikely.
But there comes a point where it's no more than a laughable necessity.
 
viv1969 said:
Makes me chuckle because an MOT isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
If you're pulled over and they say your car's not roadworthy, the MOT means nothing.

Obviously with 3 -4 -5 etc aged cars it's unlikely.
But there comes a point where it's no more than a laughable necessity.
Click to expand...
I bought a brand new car, and on the first day I drove it home a tyre went flat. I had been driving it while under inflated, so my brand new car was technically not roadworthy. Could not believe I had to buy a brand new tyre on the day I picked the car up !
 
Some years back, one of the motoring organisations took a load of brand new cars to an MOT station straight after their PDIs. A surprisingly high percentage failed despite having very few miles on their clocks and having been inspected by the dealers' workshops.
 
viv1969 said:
Makes me chuckle because an MOT isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
If you're pulled over and they say your car's not roadworthy, the MOT means nothing.

Obviously with 3 -4 -5 etc aged cars it's unlikely.
But there comes a point where it's no more than a laughable necessity.
Click to expand...

Yes, the MOT is only valid at the time of the test. It is a nice little earner for some garages.
 
Nod said:
Some years back, one of the motoring organisations took a load of brand new cars to an MOT station straight after their PDIs. A surprisingly high percentage failed despite having very few miles on their clocks and having been inspected by the dealers' workshops.
Click to expand...
Maybe they were all Friday afternoon cars, I once bought one were the driving seat runners failed. The driving seat would fly back, leaving me unable to reach the pedals. Must admit garage was good, they fixed it under warranty immediately.
 
viv1969 said:
Makes me chuckle because an MOT isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
If you're pulled over and they say your car's not roadworthy, the MOT means nothing.
Click to expand...
The test is a statement of a testers opinion at the time of the test, it makes no guarantees about the condition of the car once it has left the forecourt of the testing station.

When I can I watch my cars' MOTs being carried out and have found every tester I've encountered in the 27 years I've owned cars to be entirely reasonable and fair.
 
If cars did not need an NOT there would be loads more unsafe cars on the roads. Well there would be no standard to keep too.
 
Seems reasonable. What I don't agree with is vintage vehicles now not requiring an MOT test.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Seems reasonable. What I don't agree with is vintage vehicles now not requiring an MOT test.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Probably be a little difficult, as most wont have any option to fit things like seat belts. Braking system would probably not even pass an MOT. When you think about it, nothing on a vintage car would probably pass an MOT.

Just allowed on roads, through Granddad rights.
 
I will be taking my car in for an MOT in August, it's now eight years old. What annoys me, is the way the tester revs the B*****ks off my car :( I don't even rev my car so bloody harshly !
 
Don't know why they're doing that. New cars don't last half as well as older built ones. They are not built to last anymore, just built on the cheap.
 
jonbeeza said:
I will be taking my car in for an MOT in August, it's now eight years old. What annoys me, is the way the tester revs the B*****ks off my car :( I don't even rev my car so bloody harshly !
Click to expand...

Guessing that it's a Diesel? Revving them up against the limiter will help blow out some cobwebs and improve the emissions readings and shouldn't cause any damage to a "well" engine.
 
jonbeeza said:
Probably be a little difficult, as most wont have any option to fit things like seat belts. Braking system would probably not even pass an MOT. When you think about it, nothing on a vintage car would probably pass an MOT.

Just allowed on roads, through Granddad rights.
Click to expand...

Well, you can still put them through an MOT if you want to. Most responsible owners do. It's just that there is no longer a requirement which I think is daft.

Things which were not fitted as standard do not need to be tested.


Steve.
 
Nod said:
Guessing that it's a Diesel? Revving them up against the limiter will help blow out some cobwebs and improve the emissions readings and shouldn't cause any damage to a "well" engine.
Click to expand...
:agree: Giving a healthy diesel a good thrashing now and again helps clear everything out. They can get full of gunk and carbon build up which can kill engines and components if allowed to build up. I've just had to replce a turbo on my mates car due to carbon build up because he drives "like a granny". His car has only covered 40k miles and it was worse than mine which I've covered 100k with.
 
Keith W said:
Tell them not to then
Click to expand...
I did ask the garage boss about not revving my car so hard. He just said, he can't tell the tester what to do. Been to other places, and others seem to do it also..


CaveDweller said:
Don't know why they're doing that. New cars don't last half as well as older built ones. They are not built to last anymore, just built on the cheap.
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that, years ago cars I have had are, Cortina mk3 it was only seven years old. The doors were rusty, the wings were also rotten right through. I had an Escort mk1 it was ten years old, it had holes in the floor, the wings were rotten, the boot was rotten through. I also had a Capri that was about seven years old, the doors the bonnet and wings were blistering and rusty. I had an Avenger that was under ten years old and that ended up in the scrap yard, through corrosion.

I have had many many other cars, Austins Renaults etc, going back to the 70 and 80s. The cars I had were all under ten years old. The average age of the cars I had, was about five years old. But all the cars were crap, and just did not last.

My car now is the Citroen C1, it's eight years old. The bodywork is still superb, with NO rust and still drives just as good as it did from the first day I bought it. Cars that are about seven years old today, are usually still in good condition. But cars back in the 70s and 80s that were about five years old, were rust buckets..
 
Nod said:
Guessing that it's a Diesel? Revving them up against the limiter will help blow out some cobwebs and improve the emissions readings and shouldn't cause any damage to a "well" engine.
Click to expand...
No its a little Citroen C1 Petrol, so he should not be revving it then? :mad:
 
Even a petrol engine (healthy!) should come to no harm having its cobwebs blown out. The limiter is there to prevent over revving.
 
jonbeeza said:
Probably be a little difficult, as most wont have any option to fit things like seat belts. Braking system would probably not even pass an MOT. When you think about it, nothing on a vintage car would probably pass an MOT.

Just allowed on roads, through Granddad rights.
Click to expand...
It's any cars built pre 1960. Brakes should be fine and pass an MOT just because they won't stop a car as well as modern disc brakes, it doesn't mean they won't pass an MOT.
 
jonbeeza said:
I will be taking my car in for an MOT in August, it's now eight years old. What annoys me, is the way the tester revs the B*****ks off my car :( I don't even rev my car so bloody harshly !
Click to expand...
The engine has to be a certain temperature for the emissions test and the engine is left running whilst other checks are done. The engine (petrol or diesel) is then revved to clear any carbon deposits which will have built up in the exhaust and give a bad emissions reading. He's probably doing your engine more of a favour by revving it than you not revving it.
The engine I'm testing at work on a dyno has done the equivalent of over 100k miles since January, it's been held at 6000rpm at full load for 1/2 an hour at a time and it does the engine no harm at all.
 
The thinking with vintage cars and MOTs is that the owners are meticulous at looking after the vehicles.
Its a bit like most bikers would be very disappointed if their bike failed an MOT.
 
Classic & vintage cars do not legally have to have seatbelts retrofitted.
 
jonbeeza said:
I did ask the garage boss about not revving my car so hard. He just said, he can't tell the tester what to do. Been to other places, and others seem to do it also..




Not so sure about that, years ago cars I have had are, Cortina mk3 it was only seven years old. The doors were rusty, the wings were also rotten right through. I had an Escort mk1 it was ten years old, it had holes in the floor, the wings were rotten, the boot was rotten through. I also had a Capri that was about seven years old, the doors the bonnet and wings were blistering and rusty. I had an Avenger that was under ten years old and that ended up in the scrap yard, through corrosion.

I have had many many other cars, Austins Renaults etc, going back to the 70 and 80s. The cars I had were all under ten years old. The average age of the cars I had, was about five years old. But all the cars were crap, and just did not last.

My car now is the Citroen C1, it's eight years old. The bodywork is still superb, with NO rust and still drives just as good as it did from the first day I bought it. Cars that are about seven years old today, are usually still in good condition. But cars back in the 70s and 80s that were about five years old, were rust buckets..
Click to expand...
Older cars suffered from water traps, modern cars have splash guards to prevent water getting into some areas as well as better drainage. Rust treatment has moved on along way. Panels that have a higher probability of corrosion are pressed from pre treated metal and receive further treatment along with the rest of the car during the painting process.
 
I was thinking of
Steve Smith said:
Seems reasonable. What I don't agree with is vintage vehicles now not requiring an MOT test.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Do classic cars need an MOT ? I assume vintage cars are older than classic cars :thinking:
 
Vintage, classic, antique, neolithic, pre big-bang, whatever. I just meant old enough not to require an MOT.


Steve.
 
jonbeeza said:
No its a little Citroen C1 Petrol, so he should not be revving it then? :mad:
Click to expand...

A quick blast to clear any build up before the emissions test is reasonable, might save you getting a failure slip.

Car engines are designed to be used up to the rev limiter. Using all the revs is only bad when the engine is cold, or is new and hasn't been run in (I'm guessing new cars tend to come with the running in time done on the bench now, since it's not something you hear about nowadays).

Never understood why people are scared of using all the revs, it's not like 30 years ago when the only rev limiter on most cars was when the valve springs bounced. What can do damage is repeated under-revving, so changing up too early so the revs drop so much that the whole engine shakes as it's operating outside its design range and can't get the fuel / air / ignition sorted out properly.
 
jonbeeza said:
Probably be a little difficult, as most wont have any option to fit things like seat belts. Braking system would probably not even pass an MOT. When you think about it, nothing on a vintage car would probably pass an MOT.

Just allowed on roads, through Granddad rights.
Click to expand...
C&U regulations are not generally retrospective, so older cars usually have to meet the standards applicable at time of manufacture.
 
jonbeeza said:
Not so sure about that, years ago cars I have had are, Cortina mk3 it was only seven years old. The doors were rusty, the wings were also rotten right through. I had an Escort mk1 it was ten years old, it had holes in the floor, the wings were rotten, the boot was rotten through. I also had a Capri that was about seven years old, the doors the bonnet and wings were blistering and rusty. I had an Avenger that was under ten years old and that ended up in the scrap yard, through corrosion.
Click to expand...
"Old" fords and Hillmans were a nightmare, still most others of that era were too TBH.
Look at the early FIAT's and Citroens and who could forget the Datsun colander? :D

nilagin said:
Older cars suffered from water traps, modern cars have splash guards to prevent water getting into some areas as well as better drainage. Rust treatment has moved on along way.
Click to expand...
Thats good to know :thumbs:

onomatopoeia said:
so older cars usually have to meet the standards applicable at time of manufacture.
Click to expand...
I could have sworn that cars had to be fitted with seat belts when the "compulsory wearing" law came out?
A Google confirms that you are indeed correct though.
 
I remember not so long ago, you could push the car into the MOT station, and it still could pass. Yes I know, why would anyone push a car to the MOT station ? Just saying the engine was not even part of the MOT test years ago..
 
jonbeeza said:
you could push the car into the MOT station, and it still could pass.
Click to expand...
Yeah we had a few places like that around here at one time, it'd cost you a little "extra" though :D
 
nilagin said:
It's any cars built pre 1960. Brakes should be fine and pass an MOT just because they won't stop a car as well as modern disc brakes, it doesn't mean they won't pass an MOT.
Click to expand...

A few years back my car had faulty brakes at the time (replaced later that day elsewhere). Guess what - it totally passed. MOT is a bit of a joke and cash cow to the garages. It should actually do the job of getting s*** cars sorted out to MODERN day standards, not good enough for 1962 where nothing worked.
 
jonbeeza said:
I remember not so long ago, you could push the car into the MOT station, and it still could pass. Yes I know, why would anyone push a car to the MOT station ? Just saying the engine was not even part of the MOT test years ago..
Click to expand...
I had one run out of fuel during the test. Still passed. This was before emissions were tested, so the engine didn't need to work (had a little discussions about brake servos with the tester, but once I pointed out that my car didn't have one, he was happy to continue the test).
 
Was at a talk by VOSA once and the MOT system is more sophisticated than it appears. The test is now done online with VOSA and the first thing is that the test station must be in date with the equipment calibration, or else it won't let you start the test. The results such as braking and emissions are also checked online to ensure accuracy, and no pass certificate can legitimately be issued without this. Clearly there are the "opinion" issues such as rust on brake pipes and other items which may be advisories, but there really is no incentive for any tester to issue a false pass if they can make money from a repair. The opposite to that is that the system can pick up any tester who has a high failure rate for certain items, including one who failed every car with an air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror as he considered this to be an obstruction in the driver's line of vision. :rolleyes:
 
daugirdas said:
A few years back my car had faulty brakes at the time (replaced later that day elsewhere). Guess what - it totally passed. MOT is a bit of a joke and cash cow to the garages. It should actually do the job of getting s*** cars sorted out to MODERN day standards, not good enough for 1962 where nothing worked.
Click to expand...

"faulty" could mean all sorts of things. A non-functioning servo would be a brake fault, but it would not mean the vehicle could not meet the efficiency standard on the rollers. Pads or discs worn below the minimum level can still meet the MOT standard, even though they need replacing as they don't stop working due to approaching end of life - it's not like a tyre where performance in standing water is severely affected when the tread is near the legal minimum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top