|
|
Post by RichardF on Jun 24, 2005 19:43:44 GMT
Just had my P5b MoT tested. The biggest obstacle for the garage, and me, was that the PC programme they have to use will not close off until the vehicle weight is entered (car too old to be in any of the vehicle data sheets). The programme seemingly calculates the brake efficiency naturally using the weight data. Additionally, whilst all are phoning around for this weight, no other MoTs can be carried out. Good eh! So, be advised, take note of the weight of your car and keep it with your current MoT certificate. The book says the Rover P5b is 1587 kgs. I believe the P5 is about 40 kgs heavier.
RichardF
Sothampton
|
|
|
|
Post by dorsetflyer on Jun 28, 2005 15:37:52 GMT
Thanks for passing on that interesting information Richard.
I wonder how many more owners of any type of Classic car will be caught out by that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy - SE London on Jun 28, 2005 17:34:59 GMT
Just had my Rover MOT'ed today, took it to the garage left it there, collected tonight (passed) no mention of this weight thing though?
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Jun 28, 2005 18:39:03 GMT
>:(This rule amongst many others,only applies those selected garages trialling the new computer based MOT system put forward to reduce fraud and ensure consistency at all garages. The sort of problem as above is causing endless delay and computer crashes etc which has resulted in the nationwide introduction being postponed several times. My garage says it will have to end free retests unless its really trivial and can be fixed on site such as worn wiper blades, bolcked windscreen washer jets and blown bulbs. The latter item can never apply to a P5 as replacement always seems to result in renewing/ rebuilding corroded indicator, sidelight and rearlight bulbholders etc. Methinks its another nail in the coffin to make sure the plebs have to buy new Euroboxes which have finite ever shortening lives but are recycleable at great environmental cost. Once the great unwashed are finally reduced to only suffering 2nd rate public transport or walking, the ruling eilte can regain their position and have personal extravagent transport which we pay for in deep gratitude for looking after every aspect of our personal lives so well Mark my words its coming faster than you think - unless you are on the winning side of course  Well someone voted for for them  |
|
|
|
Post by Smallfry on Jun 28, 2005 22:51:53 GMT
 Once the great unwashed are finally reduced to only suffering 2nd rate public transport Well someone voted for for them I'll have you know I have a bath once a month whether I need it or not ! 2nd rate public transport Has there been a notable improvement then ? I though it was more like 3rd rate ! How can there be any sort of consistant standard ? All the time a human is doing the test there can be different interpretations of the rules. Its all pants anyway......a couple of days ago I found an old aluminium number plate incorporated into one of my Rovers' crossmembers. I had to smile 'cos it took me right back to when I did the same thing to a Mini when I was seventeen. Fixed in with pop rivets and covered with a couple of generous coats of underseal.......marvellous ! Back then you could pass the MOT with this as long as it wasn't obvious. Most older cars had such bodges. I can't help wondering how many tests it had passed like this and being missed by the tester ! Did you ever hear of a car falling to pieces because of it ? No..... me neither. And I didn't vote for them, or the other lot, and not for them either ! |
|
|
|
Post by Smallfry on Jun 28, 2005 23:00:20 GMT
Just had my Rover MOT'ed today, took it to the garage left it there, collected tonight (passed) no mention of this weight thing though? I would be wary of this Andy. We followed my bosses Audi down the M25 at 90 mph when it was in a south London main dealers for some warranty work back in November last year. When challenged, the service manager said it was out being road tested. My boss listened to this, then asked why road testing was necessary for a faulty electric window ? Touche ! He is still in correspondance with Audi UK about it ! |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Jun 29, 2005 16:27:22 GMT
:-/I always watch them - they never can work out all the switches anyway. Once when my wife took it they failed it on inoperative headlights because they did not notice the column switch was in the fog light position.
Another idea behind the new computers is to cut-out one garage failing something and another passing it as all failings/advise notes are recorded and this is available to the Tester and a history will thus build up on every car. This is a good idea I think as it will raise standards
I hav eheard of cars falling to pieces and just after passing the test!!
|
|
|
|
Post by RichardF on Jun 30, 2005 7:51:15 GMT
Just one or two other things with this new test. Unless you have the car back at the tester within 24 hours, then there is no free test, just a test on the failed items (so I am informed); after that it's full price. Also, the tester informed me that the first part of the actual test is to check the fuel filler cap seal. If this fails, the test terminates. Now who thought up that one???
RichardF
Southampton.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Mueller on Jun 30, 2005 9:59:35 GMT
Living in the sticks has it's definite advantages (apart from peace and quiet, wildlife, etc.). In automotive terms it means that one can occasionally find garages where people still know how to use a screwdriver without having to resort to computer diagnostics. As we have one close by who is not only happy to work on an 'old car' but actually welcomes it and uses common sense instead of electronics, MOTs have been pretty painless so far.
I am, therefore, getting rather nervous about these stories about MOT testing left to electronic rather than human brains now. Does that mean this system is being introduced compulsively all over the country?
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by RichardF on Jun 30, 2005 18:02:33 GMT
As Phil says above, not all garages are in the new scheme yet and that it's still getting trialled. So, in theory, all should be okay to go global once the glitches are ironed out.
RichardF
Southampton
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Jun 30, 2005 18:29:32 GMT
The filler cap seal requirement has been in at least six years and in fact my P2 was failed on this, + others in 1999!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Jul 6, 2005 11:01:01 GMT
My fuel filler cap has never been checked at my local MOT station, who have tested the car for the past 10 years.
Nice friendly place, car has NEVER failed in my ownership, I'm proud to say.
Cheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2005 21:48:00 GMT
Good for you but else have they missed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Jul 7, 2005 14:53:19 GMT
Don't think they missed anything - I watch from inside the car for some of the test since they can't figure out how the switches work, then I get out and watch them check suspension, brakes etc. If there was a problem, they would discuss it with me. Am I lucky or what!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2005 17:24:21 GMT
I do the same as you and you are probably lucky as these things will have to checked off on the new computerised version
|
|
|
|
Post by richard eglinton on Jul 7, 2005 18:41:36 GMT
The checking of the petrol filler cap seal does have a serious purpose as it is supposed to stop petrol spillage in the event of an accident. If the seal is worn enough to allow petrol to spill when cornering etc then it is not effective and there is the risk of fire  I think the MOT simply requires that the tester makes sure a seal is present as he has no way of testing its effectiveness. richard |
|
|
|
Post by RichardF on Jul 8, 2005 9:09:53 GMT
Trying to look at the logic of this, I can understand the check for sealed systems where the system, and hence tank, is pressurized somewhat. However, if my P5 turned over with a perfect seal at the cap, the fuel would just find its way out through the breather tube. Perhaps there should be a cut-off date for such a strict remit; like there is for seat belts, hazard warning, etc.
RichardF
Southampton
|
|
