Proposed changes to the MOT Test.

[Doodle]

Holy thread revival, Batman.

You might want to check the MoT Inspection Manual, Section 7.4B - for cars used after 1979, specifically the "Fast Pass" inspection.

They're available here - MOT testing manuals and guides

I think it can be universally agreed they constitute the definitive resource?

 

[voy2age]

Holy thread revival, Batman.

You might want to check the MoT Inspection Manual, Section 7.4B - for cars used after 1979, specifically the "Fast Pass" inspection.

They're available here - MOT testing manuals and guides

I think it can be universally agreed they constitute the definitive resource?

so the guy was wrong then??

or maybe he is a real mechanic who knows that it is pointless to rev the balls out of a car to get a reading and wrong to follow the govenment, Vosa and deiselman who know sod all about how a engine works.. just a thought..

 

[Doodle]

Because of course, the amassed knowledge of VOSA and the various engineering groups that are consulted on these matters are totally wrong and know nothing at all, and he is the sole shining beacon of light and fount of all knowledge.

Meanwhile, in the real world...he's just a MoT tester that cannot follow the instructions properly.

I'd like to think you are joking when I read what you've written, but it's fairly clear you firmly believe what you're preaching (considering you've revived a thread from over a year ago just to try and prove yourself right). I'll leave you to it.

 

[voy2age]

Because of course, the amassed knowledge of VOSA and the various engineering groups that are consulted on these matters are totally wrong and know nothing at all, and he is the sole shining beacon of light and fount of all knowledge.

Meanwhile, in the real world...he's just a MoT tester that cannot follow the instructions properly.

I'd like to think you are joking when I read what you've written, but it's fairly clear you firmly believe what you're preaching (considering you've revived a thread from over a year ago just to try and prove yourself right). I'll leave you to it.

thanks..

 

[Dieselman]

watch this and learn...Gilders - MOT testing - YouTube

listen at the end when it says only rev the engine on a deisel to 2500 to 3000 rpm

I've got an idea. Why not forward that link to VOSA and let Gilders know who you are so they can thank you for them getting a warning from VOSA.

The low rev test is only for vehicles registered before August 1979, all vehicles after then need a full acceleration to the governor test.

Gilders - MOT testing - YouTube

There is a good reason for this, but I'll let you work it out.

 

[voy2age]

I've got an idea. Why not forward that link to VOSA and let Gilders know who you are so they can thank you for them getting a warning from VOSA.

The low rev test is only for vehicles registered before August 1979, all vehicles after then need a full acceleration to the governor test.

Gilders - MOT testing - YouTube

There is a good reason for this, but I'll let you work it out.

Is it doing as you are told.. maybe...

 

[Dieselman]

Is it doing as you are told.. maybe...

Nope.

Try again...

 

[voy2age]

Nope.

Try again...

to perform a proper smoke test, the engine has to be under load. It was deemed to be far too expensive and impractical to equip every test house with a rolling road dynamometer (and engine cooling support) to perform this test.
so this crazy but cheaper option (for the MOT testing stations) was thought up!!.

thay all know its not the way to test a deisel engine. but its better that the poor person who's engine may blow at a later date will have lots of legal red tape to prove his point..

try thing for your self some times and dont beleave everything you are told..

 

[Dieselman]

Due to the diesel engine running un-throttled and without mixture control, the only way to test smoke output is to perform full acceleration.
A healthy engine won't be damaged by revving to the governor, that's what the governor is for.

 

[sinewave]

awwr-white Guvn'r!

 

[voy2age]

Due to the diesel engine running un-throttled and without mixture control, the only way to test smoke output is to perform full acceleration.
A healthy engine won't be damaged by revving to the governor, that's what the governor is for.

that is were the problem lies, over time no engine run to 100%.
at best most run around 90% older cars around 60% (parts wear).
revving an engine can in some cases damage an engine, thats why they test cars before 1979 in a deferent way.

i suggest that date should be a rolling time frame, so that every car that reaches the 25 year old point, should have the test done, how it should be done safely( 2000 to 3000 rpm)

how many old cars would last the present test?

not many!!

are they fit to be on the road?.. of course they are..

 

[voy2age]

Due to the diesel engine running un-throttled and without mixture control, the only way to test smoke output is to perform full acceleration.
A healthy engine won't be damaged by revving to the governor, that's what the governor is for.

Consequences for hitting the rev limiter typically include increased engine wear and oil burning. Worse cases, though, can include engine overheating and ceasing. When this happens, rods can be bent and head gaskets can be blown, which will most likely permanently damage the engine.

funny i have a 1995 toyota, that after the last MOT, had to have a new head gasket a few weeks after the MOT.

i have now dropped the limit on the pump by 500 rpm, so some dumb (do as i'm told mot tester) can not red line it...wrong i know.

but why should i have to spend my time off work and money fixing what i believe they helped to caused.

on a lighter note, i think "dieselman" should be renamed "Dvlaman"...

"i'm just following orders" its not my fault your engine is knackered sir.

sound familiar Dvlaman??

 

[219]

that is were the problem lies, over time no engine run to 100%.
at best most run around 90% older cars around 60% (parts wear).
revving an engine can in some cases damage an engine, thats why they test cars before 1979 in a deferent way.

i suggest that date should be a rolling time frame, so that every car that reaches the 25 year old point, should have the test done, how it should be done safely( 2000 to 3000 rpm)

how many old cars would last the present test?

not many!!

are they fit to be on the road?.. of course they are..

I will be the first to admit that I don't know much about the workings of Diesel engines , having only recently bought my first Diesel car and just had it MOT'd yesterday - incidentally no mention of the metal under tray below the sump nor the plastic one which extends to the rear of the gearbox - and I wasn't there to witness the test .

However , with reference to the above : I don't think age has sod all to do with the condition of an engine ; rather it will be the amount of use it has seen ( which can be recorded as hours run on static engines and some others , or mileage covered on vehicular ones ; the maintenance regime ( or lack of it will also be a factor ) . You could have a 25 year old engine with zero miles on it , a rebuilt engine for , say , the original 1936 MB 260D which was the worlds first Diesel car which would effectively be 'new' and not even run in - but there may be a few things fundamentally different about the design and construction of these engines compared to newer ones which make them unsuitable for the later test .

On the other hand , you could have a three year old taxi ( or police motorway patrol car , for example ) which has been driven round the clock by a series of drivers and could have done lunar miles , yet still OK .

I'm no Diesel mechanic , but I can guess that something changed in the design of engines after the 1980's ( proliferation of engine management systems , common rail injection systems , higher permissable rev limits , multi valve technology , turbocharging ....... ) and I can see that cars with simple engines from an earlier era might need to be tested in a different way from newer ones .

 

[219]

I will also bring to this thread , back to the original topic , the recent announcement to exempt pre 1960 vehicles from the MOT .

I'm happy about this because I have such a car , and it does not mean I will take an unroadworthy vehicle out on the road - I most likely will have a voluntary test done but appreciate the simplification of paperwork now required .

 

[Dieselman]

I can guess that something changed in the design of engines after the 1980's ( proliferation of engine management systems , common rail injection systems , higher permissable rev limits , multi valve technology , turbocharging ....... )

Turbocharging was very rare pre 1980 and was introduced more generally around then. This means that the fuelling is adjusted not just as a matter of the accelerator spindle, but also as a result of the boost pressure.
Cars prior to 1980 are allowed a visual test only and will pass as long as the smoke isn't dense enough to cause obscured vision for following vehicles, which is a pretty lax test, but allowed because the number in daily use are so small and it was before manufacturers were required to adopt emission limits.

As the rev limit for a diesel engine is relatively low anyway being revved to the governor shouldn't cause any stress for a healthy engine because it is still low load and for a short duration, obviously if one has a faulty engine, it MAY cause that fault to be detected.

With the Fast-Pass system now in place a healthy engine only needs one rev anyway, whereas it used to be a minimum of three.

I have no issue with my 20+ year old cars being smoke tested as I am confident it won't cause any issue.

 

[voy2age]

As a lover of all things machnical and diesel engines, merc's too, it just makes me sad that we seem to follow the Dvla's rules for this type of test, i never thought i would see the day that guy's on this site,who obviously have a enjoyment for all things motoring, would not cringe when they hear thier engines been revved (freewheeling without any load) to the limit.. sign of the throw away, follow the rules world we live in today i guess...

on a lighter note, thanks for the input

 

[voy2age]

Consequences for hitting the rev limiter typically include increased engine wear and oil burning. Worse cases, though, can include engine overheating and ceasing. When this happens, rods can be bent and head gaskets can be blown, which will most likely permanently damage the engine.

funny i have a 1995 toyota, that after the last MOT, had to have a new head gasket a few weeks after the MOT.

i have now dropped the limit on the pump by 500 rpm, so some dumb (do as i'm told mot tester) can not red line it...wrong i know.

but why should i have to spend my time off work and money fixing what i believe they helped to caused.

on a lighter note, i think "dieselman" should be renamed "Dvlaman"...

"i'm just following orders" its not my fault your engine is knackered sir.

sound familiar Dvlaman??

well just put the toyota in for its mot and it failed on emissions (3.61 average) and the top steering wheel bearing.


so i made a bracket to restrict the throttle to 50% (thats all you need for the test as it is free wheeling) the engine still reached max revs btw.

as for the steering wheel bearing, totally wrong diagnosis by the mot guy.

it was the steering wheel adjustment rachet, very easy to spot and not a failure btw,

anyway that was an easy fix.


i then took it to another mot test station.


would you believe it, pass.


the smoke test was 0.80 fast pass.


and the wheel bearing, perfect.. funny how bearings fix them selves..


oh yes i have kept the bracket on the throttle.. got to save the environment..


just sorry for the guys at the mot station, who lost the work for jobs that did not exist and for proving you do not have to rev the car to braking point to get a result on the smoke machine..


seems there is a way they can fiddle the results so they can do service work eh.. just a thought...


shame on you mot guys..

 

[GordonTarling]

If you think an MOT station is not behaving properly, the right thing is to appeal and/or report it to VOSA. Now you've paid twice for an MOT certificate!

 

[voy2age]

If you think an MOT station is not behaving properly, the right thing is to appeal and/or report it to VOSA. Now you've paid twice for an MOT certificate!

the first mot was free with my insurance btw. the second was only £35..

if you think that the appeal system is a good way to put things right, you are fooling yourself..

what do i do why it takes weeks if not months (my car would have run out in on its mot in 10 days) to investigate who was at blame. and do i really want to fight the system, the same system that thinks up this silly way to check cars...get into the real world mate.

i have done a good service by keeping a good car on the road.

and have proved what an **** the MOT is, and how easy it is to rip people off.

don't believe everything you are told..

 

[voy2age]

If you think an MOT station is not behaving properly, the right thing is to appeal and/or report it to VOSA. Now you've paid twice for an MOT certificate!

As for paying for the mot when i did not need too. it was worth every penny.

what do you think Vosa and the dvla do?..

maybe if you can not bring yourself to agree with me.

you would if i was working for the dvla or vosa, same result really.

the point has been proved..