MOT changes

[Timmo]

Most of those that do it use Cheap hids which would be doubtful that they would last long enough for them to worry come mot time!
Belgium used fo have a law that your car must be mechanically and visually how it lect the factory for the annual test! Not sure if it is still in rule? Pretty sure engine mods were illegal also? A lot of the euro scene guys who started the Oem+ style ran std Deisel lumps.

[Bick]

Interesting the handbrake one, citroen specify a minimum of 7 clicks on my berlingo any less and the rear auto adjusters will not work - and from my experience they are right. Since mine has been set to 8 clicks and the rear shoes adjust perfect.

[Bick]

I do agree with the environmental factors coming in but i also do feel for people who have a great car and then circumstances change and for whatever reason they are not doing many miles. The only option open are sell the car and probably lose a fortune. Or those people who did not realise the vehicle they had just purchased was not suitable for city work alone. A friend of my who has his own little garage says he loves DPF's because hes made a lot on money out of cleaning them and replacing them.

[Stickyfinger]

it has hardly been a secret has it ? A few very very basic checks and people could have found out. Money and Stupid are easy to separate.

[GiveMeABreak]

I foresee an increase of people bridging the engine warning light to the ABS warning light in future if they insist on failing a car due to it. I'm pretty sure that light can come on for all sorts of reasons!

Also will they be inspecting everyone’s EGR setup to look for blanking plates or clamped vacuum hoses as well as for removed DPFs?

The Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) can't be bridged as it is is designed to come on with ignition and go off again - and will now be tested as such. With a fault, it will generally come on either on its own or with another warning lamp and is controlled independently by the BSI.

As for the DPF - I'm glad they are undertaking the visual checks for those who have had them removed, drilled out or whatever. I posted last year about the new tests coming in to check for their removal - along the lines of using the existing smoke test, so this will be interesting to see the fallout.

There are still garages offering DPF removal and ECU deletes and I think these people should be taken to book as it is Joe public that loses out in the end if they are not aware of the illegality of doing so on a car being used on a public road. They have been clamping down on sites offering 'HID conversions kits' already.

[van ordinaire]

How can main beam warning lights be testable when they're not mandatory? nor are indicator warning lights - that's why UK spec 2CV's don't have them! Or is that caught by the "if fitted it has to work" provision.

Why should low brake fluid light be a fail - when the most likely cause of it, i.e. low brake fluid, isn't? Nor do I agree with Jim that it should be, simply because the level drops in normal use & will have triggered the warning light long before the low pad light comes on.

I've only had one car that had a CEL come on on its own, it was entirely random, might just flash on, might stay on for the rest of the journey - but meant absolutely nothing! The corresponding warning on a lot of yanks simply advises the driver to "service engine soon" - why should that be a fail?

[GiveMeABreak]

I think you must be referring to some quite older vehicles - in which case certain aspects of testing will only apply from a certain year no doubt.

Example being that on many vehicles post 2000 (and many prior to this) the brake wear indicator warning has a separate lamp as does the brake pressure warning and these are entirely separate systems. Surely even on older cars the brake fluid level warning lamp will only ever come on when the fluid is below the minimum level and not through normal use.

Even some models of the C5 X7 don't have the brake pad wear warning light, yet mine does - so there won't be a warning light or message for that on vehicles where it is not fitted.

The rule will always have to be where fitted - so if there are no warning lights on as a result of a fault then nothing to worry about, except of course that many warning lamps come on with the ignition and should extinguish shortly afterwards - like the airbag system.

I activated my factory DRLs as they were deactivated by default at factory as they were not a UK requirement in 2009 - they may not be tested due to the year - so nothing to worry about there. I can always turn them off if required anyway via the car menu.

Like most of these things they can't introduce checks for equipment or warning lamps that were not included on cars at new, so that has to be factored in to the changes. I won't be loosing any sleep over it. Much of this applies to newer cars and the emissions thresholds - but as long as your car meets the Euro standard (where applicable) that is was categorised for there shouldn't be a problem.

[EDC5]

I foresee an increase of people bridging the engine warning light to the ABS warning light in future if they insist on failing a car due to it. I'm pretty sure that light can come on for all sorts of reasons!

Also will they be inspecting everyone’s EGR setup to look for blanking plates or clamped vacuum hoses as well as for removed DPFs?

The Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) can't be bridged as it is is designed to come on with ignition and go off again - and will now be tested as such. With a fault, it will generally come on either on its own or with another warning lamp and is controlled independently by the BSI.

As for the DPF - I'm glad they are undertaking the visual checks for those who have had them removed, drilled out or whatever. I posted last year about the new tests coming in to check for their removal - along the lines of using the existing smoke test, so this will be interesting to see the fallout.

There are still garages offering DPF removal and ECU deletes and I think these people should be taken to book as it is Joe public that loses out in the end if they are not aware of the illegality of doing so on a car being used on a public road. They have been clamping down on sites offering 'HID conversions kits' already.

I meant the physical LED in the cluster for the MIL could be linked to the ABS LED for example, disconnecting it from the BSI. This would give the MIL the correct characteristics even if a fault was present. I heard of this being done on 306's when the airbag ecu gave trouble.

However it would probably be a lot easier to fix the actual problem than get to the instrument cluster these days

[Mandrake]

Why should low brake fluid light be a fail - when the most likely cause of it, i.e. low brake fluid, isn't? Nor do I agree with Jim that it should be, simply because the level drops in normal use & will have triggered the warning light long before the low pad light comes on.

Why have a brake fluid level warning light at all if you're just going to ignore it ? Nobody should be driving around with a low brake fluid warning light lit and I completely agree with the MOT failing on this. Who would knowingly go into an MOT with a brake fluid warning light lit anyway ? Top up the fluid first, it's not that hard! Not doing so would be akin to knowingly going to the test with faulty indicator lights and being annoyed about getting a fail.

In all the cars I've owned I've never had a low brake fluid light as a result of pad wear so I'm skeptical that this is a real problem. (In fact I've never had to top up the level on any dot4 car I've owned, period)

Yes the level will drop slightly as the pistons move out to follow up worn pads but I'm sure this will be accounted for in the minimum/maximum levels in the reservoir. Also, if the brake fluid is being changed on a 2 yearly schedule as it should be, the level will be reset to the correct level with the current level of pad wear, so you would need an awful lot of pad wear in 2 years to reduce the level enough to light the warning. (If it is even possible at all) And if the fluid isn't being changed every 2 years, why not ?

So I just can't agree that its "normal" for the brake fluid level light to come on due to pad wear and that it should be ignored to the extent of passing an MOT.

I've only had one car that had a CEL come on on its own, it was entirely random, might just flash on, might stay on for the rest of the journey - but meant absolutely nothing! The corresponding warning on a lot of yanks simply advises the driver to "service engine soon" - why should that be a fail?

I agree about the generic "check engine" light - this shouldn't be an automatic fail because there are 101 reasons why it might be lit and the majority of them are not safety or emissions related! The only way it should be a fail would be if they connected a diagnostic tool to find out what the fault was and it was one of an approved list of faults that could be cause for failure, such as a misfire fault code etc. (Although an emissions test should already pick up that kind of fault)

They don't do that in the UK (right ?) but interestingly they do exactly this in the US, especially California. In fact the whole reason standardised OBD-II exists on cars is because California made it mandatory for vehicles after the mid 90's to have it - and the purpose of it was to allow the emissions performance of the car to be tested in their MOT by directly querying the on-board ECU for any signs of emissions related faults - if the car is reporting things like misfires, catalytic converter faults etc, it's a fail! They also do a tailpipe test on top of this, but fault codes alone are enough cause for failure.

Only later did OBD-II grow to be more than a tool for the California testing body to test the emissions of vehicles...

[GiveMeABreak]

Yes fixing the fault is always better than trying to circumvent the safety / warning system which is not what we want to go into in any practical detail on the Forum.

[bobins]

Rather alarmingly, there have been mutterings about moving the MOT to a two yearly test with the car's first examnination at 4 years

[GiveMeABreak]

I also note the changes from May 2018 to comply with the EU road-worthiness directive (2014/45). Another thing we can thank them for no doubt.

Concerning the MIL warning light - I note that for most sections in the draft manual, this is referred to specifically as the system warning lamp (SRS MIL (Airbags) , ESC MIL (ESP), EPB MIL etc.). The only other section I can see reference to the MIL is Section 8 (Nuisance) where the MIL is referred to in the Smoke, Catalyst and Emissions / Exhaust testing Tables.....

As we know, the service warning lamp on its own (on the X7 for example) can refer to:

• Incorrect closing of the doors, boot, rear screen and bonnet
• Flat remote control battery
• Insufficient tyre pressure
• The saturation of the particle emission filter (Diesel)

But most of the above are again accompanied by a specific message. Again, on the X7, the manual does state that if the SERVICE light comes on it indicates a problem in one of the systems which does not have a specific warning lamp.

In order to identify it, consult the message on the multifunction display.

Even my XM had that back in 1990 on the Dot Matrix Display.

[CitroJim]

However it would probably be a lot easier to fix the actual problem than get to the instrument cluster these days

Yes, and always the underlying problem should be solved and not the symptom...

Certainly on my Ka it was a lot easier to fix the airbag problem (duff clockspring) than it would have been to have tried to bodge or do a work-around...

[van ordinaire]

At one time Belgium had 2 test regimes (as France does) & I think it was the "historic" one that didn't permit mods. although that may have changed when some of the restrictions on "historic" use, e.g. couldn't be used after dark, unless returning from an event, were removed.

I have ALWAYS found that a flickering low fluid light is the 1st indication that pads will need changing soon BUT, I suppose, that might depend on the size of the reservoir. Consequently once I am satisfied that there is no other reason, I'll quite happilly ignore it. Otherwise, I'll have to draw off some fluid when I replace the pads, which, obviously, I'd do before an MoT anyway.

My Cadillac handbook suggests the most common causes of CEL coming on are fuel filler cap not being fully screwed down (despite it having its own warning lamp) & - having recently driven through a puddle! As I said, my only experience of one coming on (other than in tandem with, e.g. engine overheated, when it doubles with what on a Jeep is a "check guages" light) was for no apparent reason & signified nothing that anyone was able to identify. If it chose to do that at the critical point during an MoT it's just bad luck, as it can't be prevented.

There must be widespread panic in LandRover circles, where EGR blanking plates seem to be the norm.

At this point I really can't be bothered to re-write the last three paras, which have simply disappeared, perhaps becuse I'm getting bored with the subject, but I'll leave you with this last thought: my local MoT man is only concerned about the new emissions, because his analyser can't be upgraded - & a new one's £7,000 (that's a lot of MoT's!!!).

[Mandrake]

Just spotted this gem:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/1 ... iesel-cars

Other changes to the MoT test include the addition of a check for reverse lights, while brake discs will be inspected to see if they are “significantly or obviously worn”, as well as taking in current checks for oil contamination of the disc, and how securely they are attached to the wheel hubs.

Eh ?

Considering they're not allowed to remove the wheels how are they going to do either of these checks properly ? Brake discs have a minimum thickness allowed that is specific to every model of vehicle, and even differs for a given model depending on engine etc... the wording above seems to give them liberty to fail a disc just because it "looks worn" when looking through the wheel rim holes without even measuring it. And if they choose to fail it when it is still within thickness spec what then ? Are you then obliged to take the wheel off for them and put a caliper on it for them to prove them wrong ?

And as for checking "how securely the discs are attached to the wheel hubs" how the hell are they going to do that when they can't remove the wheel ? Complete nonsense. And even if they did remove the wheel, what then ? By this wording my Peugeot Ion would be a fail from the factory as there are no securing screws - when I take the wheel off the disc is free to flop around (as it hasn't rusted to the hub yet..) and is only retained by the wheel, and kept captive by the caliper mount assembly.

Can anyone think of a brake disc design where the disc could be insecure when the wheel is bolted on ? Smacks of someone in an office somewhere with a little but not enough knowledge writing these tests....