|
General Volvo and Motoring Discussions This forum is for messages of a general nature about Volvos that are not covered by other forums and other motoring related matters of interest. Users will need to register to post/reply. |
Information |
|
Major changes to the MOT test on 20th of May 2018Views : 2815 Replies : 32Users Viewing This Thread : |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Jan 21st, 2018, 18:02 | #11 |
Premier Member
Last Online: Nov 16th, 2019 18:20
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Yorkshire
|
I agree. A car registered in 2014 is not old. But I think the definition of 'old' is changing. There are so many cars on the road now that are pretty much brand new. A car over 10 now is increasingly considered to be ancient. We're entering a new era of motoring. Us owner drivers are in decline. More and more people are getting throw away cars on lease. Perhaps this will stimulate the economy, I don't know. But as an aside, I sometimes worry about the small independent garages that keep very good mechanics in work looking after our older cars, as more and more folks lease their disposable cars and have any maintenance done by the main dealer. I sometimes think maybe after the lease is up, someone will drive around in a cheap ex lease for a couple of years before scrapping it as uneconomical to repair (and probably too uninspiring to get passion about enough to want to save it).
|
Jan 21st, 2018, 18:15 | #12 |
Aka MadBabs
Last Online: Nov 11th, 2022 15:29
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: London
|
And yet theres one more thing that just popped into my head..
any car registered after 1/01/14 they said. so technically nothing older than 4 years. as a matter of fact- anything between 2 days and 4 years old so still under guarantee? me thinks they arent trying to slap common road user they want to pierce companies that claimed this and this emissions level for their new at the time cars, and now will be expected to make it happen. or replace car-still under guarantee, yes? failed MOT, yes? then fix or replace, please
__________________
`03 V70 Mk2 Auto 2.4 B5244 NA, 170Bhp, 295K miles (Now parts donor) '05 XC70 MK2 Geartronic, 2.5 B5254T2, 210bhp, 129k miles |
Jan 21st, 2018, 18:24 | #13 |
Senior Member
Last Online: Dec 21st, 2023 18:14
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: DURHAM
|
The blog of fails for MOTs is astounding.
https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk...orror-stories/ |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fellwalker For This Useful Post: |
Jan 21st, 2018, 18:32 | #14 | |
Premier Member
Last Online: Nov 16th, 2019 18:20
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Yorkshire
|
Quote:
I do wonder though, the government for a while strongly encouraged folk to choose diesel. Them later when they got done by the EU for persistently failing to meet air quality targets, they suddenly declared diesel cars to be the spawn of satan. Trouble is, lots of people might have gone out and bought themselves a lovely big expensive luxury diesel car. Diesel was great. The days of diesel engines being noisy, smelly and slow tractor engines is long gone. Diesel gave the economy of a small car with the comfort and performance of a large car. And the official stance was that it's great, go for it, you're helping the environment. Then someone mentioned NOx and particulates. And around the same time VW got caught cheating, and not long after, other manufacturers found themselves in the spotlight. So it's great that diesel cars will be properly tested. But why not allowance at all for normal wear? But perhaps more importantly, who are the winners and losers? Even if a car has to be put right under warranty, the owner of that car will still be massively inconvenienced, especially if it's their only car and they use it for their daily commute, and now they have to get into a massive debate with the dealer about who is responsible, all while the car is not legally roadworthy. And with massively increased liability, I can't see the manufacturers absorbing all the cost. I think whatever the actual motives are, I think it's likely to be those relatively few folks that bought a brand new or nearly new car that will lose out. The lease folks will be immune, as will those of us that can't afford nearly new so have to drive older cars. I do like the bits that will target the chavs though. Illegal HID kits blinding us all, and better checks for exhaust mods. That kind of thing is all good in my opinion. |
|
Jan 21st, 2018, 20:21 | #15 |
Grumpy Old Sod
Last Online: Dec 14th, 2021 15:39
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hampshire, nee Scotland
|
That refers to vehicle made after that date therefore newer vehicles, it has no impact upon older vehicles and is not forcing anyone to buy a newer car as you stated.
__________________
Currently XC60 Previously XC60, V70, S40, ... |
Jan 21st, 2018, 20:48 | #16 | |
Premier Member
Last Online: Nov 16th, 2019 18:20
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Yorkshire
|
Quote:
That is a different point to the 'older cars' reference that was a bit of a throwaway remark in response to information about making the test stricter for all cars regardless of age. But ok, I get that most folks disagree. That's fine. I might be wrong. |
|
Jan 22nd, 2018, 07:07 | #17 |
Premier Member
Last Online: Apr 11th, 2024 09:21
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ffos y Ffin
|
Both my cars, 8 year old Volvo and 24 year old landrover pass the emission test on the fast test. Landrover which has a limit of 3.5 passed with 0.5 at first press of the pedal. It did pick up 2 advisory's, 1 underside covered in underseal unable to inspect fully, 2 brake pipes covered in grease unable to inspect fully. Both of which I can live with as I know what's underneath, if anyone is really bothered they can scrape it off to look provided the replace it.
I cannot see the changes adversely affecting me at this time. A well maintained vehicle should pass the MOT at any time, not just once a year. Paul. |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to green van man For This Useful Post: |
Jan 22nd, 2018, 08:34 | #18 |
Premier Member
Last Online: Oct 28th, 2023 12:30
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dereham
|
Our MOT system is possibly the best in the world, certainly up near the top.
Many of the recent changes are due to, you guessed it, the EU, wanting to harmonise transport across the EU. Don't fix what ain't broke would be a good reply. This is just a draft document, nothing to be scared of in it really at this stage. Most Diesels we test pass easily, even those devious VWs and Audis that won't rev! |
Jan 22nd, 2018, 10:49 | #19 | |
Non Fragile
Last Online: Oct 13th, 2023 05:46
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chadderton, Oldham
|
Quote:
When I worked at my last garage, I noticed the difference between cars today and the older cars I trained on, in that the headlamp matches the bodywork exactly. This didn't used to be the case, where a lamp was positioned in a recess or whatever, it could be adusted to shine directionally without affecting the appearance of the car. So I was adjusting headlamps to point correctly, and being told to make them match the panel instead. Cars warp over time, they don't stay millimeter perfect throughout their lives, and plastic panels like bumpers are prone to strain and warpage too. Any thermosetting plastic will change over time if it's held in a position against it's "will" and natural weather changes will supply the thermodynamic motivation. It's why the tongue holding the batteries in your remote control no longer grips properly. So the headlamps need to match the bodywork - vanity again. The car's appearance is more important to the owner than it's function, and they want the lamps to look right externally, and if that means the aim is off, they don't care. For example: Take a look at this picture of a Hillman Avenger. Now, these headlamps could be aimed without affecting the car's appearance in any way. The aim is entirely adjustable, either by moving the parabolic reflecter on adjustment screws, or by physically moving the "sealed beam units" (weren't they awful!) on their brackets which were designed to allow for adjustment deliberately. Compare a modern car like ... whatever this ugly thing is: Notice the design of the headlamps is part of the overall shape of the car. If the panels aren't perfectly aligned, maybe because of a slight bump or whatever, the aim will be off. And it only takes a degree or two. One millimeter misalignment in this lamp, and the beam pattern will be adversely affected. It might not affect the car's overall appearance (let's face it, it's but-ugly as it is) but it could well affect the headlight pattern. I think this is another case of one manufacturer trying something, and then all the others jumping on the bandwagon. Is there any reason the lamp needs to sweep halfway through the wing like that? Does it look good? That vulgar block of plastic chrome with puny lights in it - there are undoubtedly a dozen different ways a designer could have approached the issue of installing headlamps into a car, yet instead they chose this f_ugly horrible method, with all the drawbacks of headlamp aim explained above. So in the case of a minor bump while parking, or even while parked and somebody nearby was parking, would require not a competant panel beater with a good eye, but actually a ****ing jig to make sure the panels are so perfectly aligned - invisible to the eye, but impacting upon headlamp aim. All in the name of vanity, on a car that doesn't even look very nice! Is anybody actually wowed by these headlamps? No, really, are these shiny lumps of shiny plastic something to lust after? Now I realise that (obviously) personal taste comes into play. But these images aren't trying to represent some sort of nostalgic want for a bygone era. What I am trying to describe is an overall style that has become a de-facto normality to the detriment of ordinary maintainance such as alignment of headlight beam pattern. The Suzuki above isn't necesarilly an "ugly" car per se, and I doubt anybody could claim the Avenger was ever particularly beautiful, I could just have easily have chosen a dozen other images to make the point. What I am talking about, is a designer addressing the problem of putting a lamp into a panel and making it point the right way. And this modern style isn't particularly successful to that end. But... y'know, the world makes funny decisions sometimes. EDIT: Last edited by canis; Jan 22nd, 2018 at 11:10. |
|
Jan 22nd, 2018, 10:52 | #20 |
Aged Volvo Lover
Last Online: Sep 16th, 2021 10:19
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: A place in mendip-land famous for its cheese - and its gorge
|
Back when I was a 'yoof', I had a part-time job in a garage and I remember quite vividly two 'milestones'. One was the Mini being launched and the other was the introduction of the first vehicle testing (vehicles over 10 years old).
I 'sort of helped' on some of those '10 o'clock tests' and was sometimes completely amazed at some of the 'problems' we found - particularly in braking systems many of which relied on a plethora of frayed cables and badly worn clevis pins. I was particularly glad when I got to the point where I could afford to buy a car of my own in that it gave me some skills in knowing what to look for. So; the 'new' test is going to be tougher? Good! I'm not scared of it (well, not too much) and am pleased that it is being introduced as it means most cars out there are going to be even safer. Perhaps my wallet might have second thoughts if something were to found wrong (mine's due early May - before the 15th - so I had better make sure I'm booked in in good time as I have a feeling some places might get busy with people trying to beat the deadline?); but I don't anticipate any problems? Anyway, I'd be happy to know that my car is even safer under the new regime. And, re-assuringly, so a lot of other cars should be as well.
__________________
Our children don't inherit the world from us. We are borrowing it from them. |
The Following User Says Thank You to christheancient For This Useful Post: |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|