“Interesting” Kwik Fit MOT today

[Del]

Got my daily driver (not the Z3) MOTeed today and had some interesting advisories:-

1) Both front disc brakes worn, pitted or scored, but not seriously weakened (these are 3-years old and have covered only 21,000 miles).

But most bizarrely:-

2) Under-trays fitted obscuring some underside components.

3) Engine covers fitted obscuring some components in the engine bay.

The car passed its MOT but when I queried these advisories suggesting that they were perhaps a little picky and that all modern cars have various under-body and engine covers, the explanation was simply that the UK MOT is getting stricter as in Japan, France and Germany.

[billz]

So if its an advisory did they tell you what was needed to stop getting them. ? Maybe take it with the engine removed next time

[Pierrick]

I had the same on a clio in France a few years ago!

[TR4man]

2) Under-trays fitted obscuring some underside components.

3) Engine covers fitted obscuring some components in the engine bay.

It looks like some ar*e covering to me i.e. they should be checking something but are unable to do so because of the undertrays and covers.

Regards

Peter

[Trevsky]

But what does it matter as long as it's passed

[alec.m]

I had the same last year including

1) Sat nav obscuring windscreen
2) Under-trays fitted obscuring some underside components.
3) Engine covers fitted obscuring some components in the engine bay.

[Gazza]

We must remember that the MoT is mostly a 'visual' check.

Just like if the spare isn't in the car it cannot fail if it has a bald tyre on it or a car cannot fail a test for a cracked windscreen if the windsreen isn't fitted

[Badman gee]

The mot's can't be consistent then.

I took mine to a great indi and it went through without any issues at all.

[Gazza]

The mot's can't be consistent then.

I took mine to a great indi and it went through without any issues at all.

Exactly, there is a rulebook and it is how the tester interprets said rulebook

[Robert T]

I had brake discs flagged up at my last MOT - but mine have done 63k miles and were about ready to be changed. It does sound like they are saying "brakes show evidence of having been used", but it could imply that the discs are wearing more than they should or wearing unevenly - ask them how they measure this - do they get the callipers out or is it purely a visual check?

Having an undertray and covers in the engine bay is standard on pretty much every modern car and flagging it up at an MOT is pure BS. If there are components behind them that are supposed to be checked during the MOT, then they should tell you what they are and ask you to remove the cover, otherwise it is an absolute non-problem. If they were fitted to the car like that when new, then they should never be a problem with them.

One of the principles of our MOT has always been that if a car conformed to the rules when it was put on the road, it only has to conform to those rules throughout its life and not any rules that were added later - so called retrospective rules. This is why my frog did not have to pass anything more than a visual emissions test, or have side repeaters fitted for the indicators (it's now exempt). Of course if you modify the car from standard, then mods that previously passed can fail in subsequent years, but not factory fitted equipment. This not to say that some miserable bureaucrat won't come along and change all that, but that is my understanding of the current MOT rules.

I won't go into it now, but I can tell you quite a long story about the MOTs on my frog and inconsistencies between testers - how can you go from three successive clean passes to two pages of failures in less than 1000 miles? Having fixed all the problems listed by the evidently stricter tester that I used, the car felt transformed, as they were all steering and suspension related. I'd rather have a stricter tester that checks everything for safety that one that passes a car with obvious faults. I have to say that it does help taking the car to a tester who knows about the vehicles he is testing - the guy testing the frog tests a lot of classic cars and I use my local BMW garage for the zeds MOT - he is very good, especially as he was price matching another local garage when I got mine done.

Cheers R.

[Badman gee]

Excellent reply Robert ^

[Beemer Man]

Agreed-a very informative reply, as usual. We also enjoyed meeting you both at Newby Hall.

Beemer Man.

[Badman gee]

Agreed-a very informative reply, as usual. We also enjoyed meeting you both at Newby Hall.

Beemer Man.

As we did you and your wife sir!

[Mike Fishwick]

It would have helpful to have known the sections of the MoT Tester's Manual which it is claimed by Quick-Fit resulted in these advisories.

Perhaps they were meant as observations that the tester could not see the entire fuel system.

The manual requires only - in the case of the fuel system - to inspect those parts which are visible. There is no mention of giving an advisory if not all the system can be inspected.

[Brian4]

We had the opposite on my daughters Audi TT

'Large undertray missing'