Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,005 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A brief report in the Daily Telegraph says that more than 7.5 million vehicles failed the annual MoT test last year. 34% of cars and vans initially failed according to a report from DVSA. Vehicles that failed had an average of three faults.
Lighting and signalling were the biggest issues causing 30% of defects. Followed by suspension (20%), brakes (17%) and tyres (10%)


Do most drivers rely on the MoT test to check the car? Surely it is not beyond the capability of most drivers to check lights and signals and get a garage to fix them before the test.

To an extent I can accept suspension and maybe brakes but with the depth marks in the tread surely a simple visual check would tell you the tyres are not going to pass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,941 Posts
Sadly most people do exactly that, unless they have a bulb warning system, or someone tells them it's out, they assume all lights are working, and the amount of people whose cars I park alongside, and notice the tyres are almost slicks is incredible.

That said, not everyone is as anal about their vectras and focus's as we are about our cars, I personally have a pretty good track record of MOTs, even my 22yr old Volvo V70 regularly flies through it's MOT with no advisories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fruity

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,005 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
Our little IQ has an mot claim to fame;
https://blog.toyota.co.uk/toyota-iq-is-a-pass-master
“Of the 1.2 million cars tested, the diminutive Toyota iQ city car outclassed the competition with a pass rate of 91.82 per cent based on 2,835 tests. The average mileage accumulated by each of these vehicles during this three-year period was 20,235.”
Edited having read the article. This is comparing chalk and cheese since Toyota are only talking about 3 year old cars and the test as it was six years ago. The article is dated September 2013

However it is still impressive that only 232 cars failed at three years old
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,151 Posts
The pass rate mentioned was for first tests, of cars three years old , when the IQ had been on the U.K. market three years.
It’s a relatively simple car and it was actually a Japanese Toyota.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,005 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
You beat me to it. My apologies for misunderstanding.
 

·
AO Detailing COTY Winner 2018
Joined
·
537 Posts
My 40 year old Alfetta saloon has passed every MOT (first time) for at least a decade. The MOT is actually a pretty basic set of safety checks and there's no need for any well-maintained car to fail it.

But - as others here have said - it seems that very many owners take little or no interest in the maintenance and safety of their cars...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starkers

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,685 Posts
Do most drivers rely on the MoT test to check the car? Surely it is not beyond the capability of most drivers to check lights and signals and get a garage to fix them before the test.

To an extent I can accept suspension and maybe brakes but with the depth marks in the tread surely a simple visual check would tell you the tyres are not going to pass.
Yes I do, mostly. I check the obvious things like washers, lights & tyres etc but the MOT I use to gauge if my car is sound. I rely on systems on board for oil and tyre pressure where applicable. Mechanicals, suspension and such I leave to professionals to tell me. :thumbs: (except as below).

Of course on the Alfas I owned, I used my ears. The suspension knocking and creaking like an old boat is a dead give-a-way and they did that a lot :lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: keithyboy

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,002 Posts
I have to admit that I don't check anything before they go in but if I do notice blown bulbs, I obviously replace them. If it happens to fail on one, the MoT man just changes them and rounds the test fee up to £40.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MalcQV

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,809 Posts
Most people don't care or at least don't take responsibility for ensuring things are right.

Maybe I'll offer a new example to define humans;
People who think they are intelligent, informed and wise consumers who buy cars based on N-Cap ratings and then don't bother to check tyre depth or pressure, fluids, wiper blades, lights or headlamp aim.
(or use indicators or check mirrors):rant:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,233 Posts
A brief report in the Daily Telegraph says that more than 7.5 million vehicles failed the annual MoT test last year. 34% of cars and vans initially failed according to a report from DVSA. Vehicles that failed had an average of three faults.
Lighting and signalling were the biggest issues causing 30% of defects. Followed by suspension (20%), brakes (17%) and tyres (10%)


Do most drivers rely on the MoT test to check the car? Surely it is not beyond the capability of most drivers to check lights and signals and get a garage to fix them before the test.

To an extent I can accept suspension and maybe brakes but with the depth marks in the tread surely a simple visual check would tell you the tyres are not going to pass.
On the other hand... Titch, the Younger Mrs S.' Cinquecento failed the last MOT because the NSF indicator was "not orange enough".

Fair enough, it was a faint orangey yellow colour, rather than pukka Jaffa-spec' Orange... but WTFF? It's a flashy orangey-yellow light, coming on and off at the same rate as the very orange side (and rear) repeaters... What does the MOT tester think another motorist might assume it means? "Hmm... that car looks like it's indicating left... but it can't be; that's RGB 255:192:000, not RGB 255:153:000 .. My brain hurts!"



Ralf S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,692 Posts
[Every frikkin' year]



**Arrives at garage**



"Give it a check-over and a service then MoT it please"


**Leaves**


**Returns**


"We did the MoT first to see what needed doing and it failed on all the things we have subsequently fixed"






:rolleyes: *Sigh*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
Most people don't care or at least don't take responsibility for ensuring things are right.

Maybe I'll offer a new example to define humans;
People who think they are intelligent, informed and wise consumers who buy cars based on N-Cap ratings and then don't bother to check tyre depth or pressure, fluids, wiper blades, lights or headlamp aim.
(or use indicators or check mirrors):rant:
Maybe they should introduce a bi-annual 'safety' MOT for humans too, including checking people remember how to verify their car is safe to drive, checking they haven't forgotten how to use their indicators, checking what minimum stopping distance means and what the horn is for, remembering chatting on your phone is illegal, etc.

I just hope they don't introduce a bodywork integrity test or I'd start to get worried about failing on serious structural deterioration :lol:
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top