question new rules added to the current MOT

[XWDV8]

found this on line, note the part about 13-pin sockets will be subject to a full electrical connectivity check, is this the military type ?

 

On 1 January 2012, new rules were added to the current MOT by the Department for Transport (DfT) to comply with European testing procedures.

 

It's a pretty substantial list, but there's one which could mean big bills for thousands of drivers. If your car has any illuminated warning lamps, whether it is the airbag, seatbelt, ESP, SRS, ABS or others, it will soon fail the MOT.

 

It's not all bad news. If your car's MOT runs out before the 31 March 2012 and you have a warning light that needs addressing, the testers will treat it as an 'advisory', i.e. advice on what needs to be done for the next MOT.

 

However, if your MOT is due after 1 April 2012, you better get your skates on and get the warning light (or other faults in the list below) fixed, otherwise you'll receive the dreaded red fail sheet.

 

The AA has kindly published a summary of the new rules. If you think your car needs attention on any of the points below but still has a long MOT left, we recommend getting it seen to sooner rather than later.

 

The main changes from 2012

 

Electronic parking brake

 

Electronic parking brake controls are now included and must be present and not inappropriately repaired or modified - repair obviously likely to adversely affect the roadworthiness of the vehicle or modification that has seriously weakened the component.

 

(The 'inappropriately repaired or modified' check is to be applied to a wide range of systems and components throughout the vehicle.)

 

The car will fail if an Electronic Parking Brake warning lamp is illuminated to indicate a malfunction.

 

Electronic Stability Control

 

Checks of anti-lock brakes will be extended to include Electronic Stability Control if fitted. The tester will check for the presence and correct operation of the ESC malfunction warning light together with looking for obviously missing, excessively damaged or inappropriately repaired or modified components and electrical wiring, as well as an ESC switch missing, insecure or faulty.

 

Warning lights

 

As well as electronic parking brake and electronic stability control warning lights (where fitted) the MOT test will also include checks for the correct function of the following, where fitted;

 

Headlight main beam warning light

Electronic power steering warning light

Brake fluid level warning light

Tyre pressure monitoring system warning light

Airbag warning light

Seat belt pre-tensioner warning light

Steering & suspension

 

The new test includes a check on the presence and correct function of the steering lock where fitted as standard.

 

Missing, or split/damaged dust covers on steering and suspension ball-joints will result in failure if they will allow dirt to enter the joint.

 

Power steering fluid level must be above the minimum level indicated on the reservoir.

 

Lighting

 

Products on the lens or light source that obviously reduce the light's intensity or change its colour will become a reason for failure – applies to front/rear position lamps, registration plate lamps, stop lamps, rear fog and direction indicators,

 

Headlight requirements are updated to take account of the particular characteristics of High Intensity Discharge (HID) lamps.

 

HID headlights can cause dazzle if they are dirty or aimed too high so car manufacturers must fit headlamp cleaning and levelling systems. A car will fail if a mandatory headlamp cleaning or levelling system is missing, doesn't work or is obviously defective.

 

Vehicles fitted with aftermarket HID systems must also be fitted with properly working washer and levelling systems.

 

If a headlamp bulb is not seated correctly the resulting beam pattern will be indistinct and this will result in a test fail.

 

Electrical wiring and battery

 

An insecure battery will be a reason for failure as will a battery that is leaking electrolyte.

 

Visible wiring that is insecure, inadequately supported or likely to cause a short will also result in a failure as will wires bared by damaged insulation.

 

Trailer/caravan electrical socket

 

There will be a basic security/damage check of 7-pin sockets,

 

13-pin sockets will be subject to a full electrical connectivity check and incorrectly connected or inoperative circuits will result in failure.

 

Tyres

 

Tyre pressure monitoring systems fitted to vehicles first registered after 1 January 2012 must be working correctly and not indicating a malfunction.

 

Supplementary restraints

 

The vehicle will fail the test if any airbag fitted as original equipment is obviously missing or defective.

 

A seatbelt pre-tensioner fitted as original equipment but missing or that has obviously deployed will be a reason for failure.

 

Seatbelt load limiters that are missing where fitted as standard or folding webbing type limiters that have obviously deployed are also reasons for failure.

 

The vehicle will also fail if an SRS malfunction light is missing, not working or indicating a fault.

 

Speedometer

 

The car will fail if a speedometer is not fitted, is incomplete, inoperative, has a dial glass broken/missing or cannot be illuminated.

 

Seats

 

It must be possible to secure the driver's seat fore and aft adjustment mechanism in two or three different positions. On electric seats the motors must move the seat fore and aft.

 

Doors

 

A rear door that cannot be opened from the outside using the relevant control is a new reason for failure.

 

Doors must be easy to open and close – hinges, catches and pillars will be inspected.

 

Towbars

 

Inappropriate repair or modification to the towbar assembly will be a reason for failure if judged likely to affect the roadworthiness of the vehicle/trailer.

 

Exhaust

 

A catalytic convertor fitted as original equipment but missing will be a reason for failure.

 

Fuel system

 

Damaged or chafed fuel pipes will result in failure.

[N.O.S.]

I wonder if now might be a good time to perhaps re-invent the motor car? You know, something basic and easily to work on / repair. Perhaps a Ford Cortina or Austin Mini? No fancy gizmos or sneaky things like starter motors which have to be coded by the dealer to the computer in order to get to work, you get the genral drift.

 

I really think we're in danger of outsmarting ourselves before long - in fact I think we're already there! :whistle:

[XWDV8]

with you on this one, for me S1 landrover would fit the bill

[Ivor Ramsden]

with you on this one, for me S1 landrover would fit the bill

It certainly will. I can see a lot of 1990s and 2000s Range Rovers falling foul of the operative electric seat mechanism requirement!

 

However, here in the IOM we don't have an MOT, which is NOT good. Some of the things that my son and I work on are a bit frightening. This was in regular use until we condemned it:

[XWDV8]

we live in a would of rust, dont make em like they used to :embarrassed:

[Ivor Ramsden]

we live in a would of rust, dont make em like they used to :embarrassed:

 

I hope they never make Land-Rovers like they used to in 92-94. They keep us busy doing re-chassis jobs, though.

[trustmeimamechanic]

I can't see a problem with the changes....... all they do is make sure the vehicle is functioning as it should and is safe at the time of the MOT , most of the changes are just taking into account the more modern systems fitted to cars.

Put it this way...... would you be happy for a car with some of the faults listed above being driven towards your wife and children coming the other way in your car ?

The other night as I drove the 10 miles or so home in driving rain and wind I must have passed half a dozen cars with defective headlights (either not working on one side or badly adjusted )

We are all in the minority as we have an interest in vehicles and know where the dipstick is.... a good 70% of drivers are now the dipstick :laugh: behind the wheel of a vehicle.

[Essex5]

The answer to XWDV8's original question is no, it's not the NATO socket they're referring to, it's the 13-pin Euro-caravan/trailer socket on new vehicles that replaces the 7-pin British jobby.

From my reading of trade magazines, they have to have a plug-in tester for the 13-pin unit, but 7-pin ones just have a visual inspection for damage.

 

John

[paulob1]

I think that its a load of traditional good old twaddle, jobs for the boys to prove they are actually doing something useful...if its fitted then lets test it, twaddle.......real problem lies with the driver behind the wheel and his level of skill, in the awful state of british and other roads and the complete and utter lack of proper training for the everyday road user....its not the wheels he is using that is to blame for accidents or the dangers on the road...

[cosrec]

I remember years ago a typical piece of red tape took Leyland Martian for MOT got advisory on windscreen wiper blades As it had lift up windscreen so didn't even have to have wipers . Got fail on no wind screen washers even though could drive about with windscreen open same time it was a fail for having no low air pressure warning buzzer until some one pointed out profoundly deaf could drive. So that don,t mean a fail any more

Also i don,t know how how modern ex mod vehicles pass the MOT in civilian stations when fitted with the emergency brake release switch fitted which allow you to drive away with no brakes what,s so ever

Edited January 6, 2012 by cosrec

[paulob1]

and the rules will only be applied by the UK, the rest of Europe will ignore it with glee...

[LoggyDriver]

It has everything to do with making money. I haven't got a problem with vehicle safety, but come on, how much extra is the MOT going to cost now they have added all these extra items in the test? Considering most old vehicles have none of this stuff fitted, are they going to reduce the cost of the MOT for them? Of course they aren't.

 

If a country like Canada can function perfectly normally with NO MOT, then I'm sure we can. Makes me laugh. Oh and by the way the NATO socket is 12 pin, so that wont be tested.

[Rangie]

Grand!

 

The Landie will fly through the next MOT again then!! :-D

 

The XJ40 on the other hand, uh oh, abs, randomised lamp failure modules and iffy 8-way adjustable seats..... :banghead:

I love British Leyland, I love British Leyland, I love British Leyland, oh wait, its a Ford, I have a fighting chance (just) then..... :cool2:

 

Alec.

[mike65]

Not sure it can be jobd for the boys are making more money.

Some garages are doing MOTs for less than they have to pay the powers that be. So how does that work?

 

Changes are/were needed as vehicles become more advanced/complex. Drove a Passat with an electronic hand brake last year and it was bloody useless.

They have still not done what should be done. All cars should have an MOT every year and not this 3 year exemption from registration as new. Just because a car is under 3 years old dows not mean it is well maintained and roadworthy on one day of the year.

 

Mike

[N.O.S.]

Fair comment, Mike. In my experience the most unreliable part of a car and trailer is the trailer plug / socket - even soldering up wires to terminals doesn't make it that much better. I guess from that angle it should be one of the most imortant lighting safety tests in an MOT, but at the same time it would probably be one of the most pointless tests in an MOT as within minutes it could well be malfunctionoing again!!!

 

My initial and somewhat cynical stance in this thread - that that it is all getting too complicated - still stands. If all these gizmos will need testing then ultimately it becomes for some unaffordable. We are already at the stage, according to a recently distgruntled neighbour, where a perfectly sound Toyata Aygo might as well be be scrapped instead of paying out over £800 because the alternator needed replacement, or in my case a diesel engine with 100,000 miles needed a set of injectors.

 

This is not a serious issue for those who can afford it, but what about the ever-increasing group of those who can't? No, it's all becoming complete b**ll*cks as far as I'm concerned.

 

Who me? Grumpy?

[scruffyHerrbert]

seconded

maybe horse-drawn transport wasn't so bad after all

 

the cat failure, simply for not being there?

[TooTallMike]

Missing catalytic converters is an interesting one: many 300tdi Discovery's and Land Rovers are running about with after-market front exhaust pipes that do away with the catalytic converter. Apparently the cat was only required for homologation when new. I've read that removing it actually makes no difference to the emissions on an older vehicle but the free-flowing exhaust improves performance and therefore probably economy too. Will this be a fail...?

 

On the subject of electronic seat adjustment: my tester mentined this to me when my Disco was in a few weeks ago as he noticed the drivers' seat electric seat switch unit was missing. He said as far as he was concerned if there was no switch it wasn't an adjustable seat and therefore not testable .

 

- MG

[paulob1]

utter twaddle, my merc is now in its fourth year, it went through its first mot without a tickle, pointless and needless. we will start doing MOt's on anything that moves soon, I have been known to make 35mph on the straight on my push bike, when will it be before some twit thinks these need an mot....all cods wallop. If you want to introuduce ever more rules and regulations go ahead. I dont want them, anyone who seriosuly thinks it helps society has his (asexual term for all humans male or female) head in the sand...or some other undescribable place..

[utt61]

I remember years ago a typical piece of red tape took Leyland Martian for MOT got advisory on windscreen wiper blades As it had lift up windscreen so didn't even have to have wipers . Got fail on no wind screen washers even though could drive about with windscreen open same time it was a fail for having no low air pressure warning buzzer until some one pointed out profoundly deaf could drive. So that don,t mean a fail any more

Also i don,t know how how modern ex mod vehicles pass the MOT in civilian stations when fitted with the emergency brake release switch fitted which allow you to drive away with no brakes what,s so ever

 

If the driver can get "an adequate view" to the front without looking through the windscreen wipers are not required and should not be tested. However what is meant by an "adequate view" is a bit vague, and then there is the issue of how much needs to be done to allow this "adequate view". I took a Series 1 80" ragtop in for an MOT some years ago and was talking to the examiner about this, and he said that his take then was that if the top was off and the hoodsticks to the windscreen were not fitted he would not test the wipers. If they were, then he would. His interpretation may of course not be strictly correct, but I could see where he was coming from.

 

I have also always been a bit surprised that the same Series 1 80" used regularly to pass with just a single wiper on the driver's side, and I don't know what would happen in this situation now.

 

Back to the Martian, though... Although the law has always said that you don't need a wiper if you can get the adequate view, since washers were made mandatory in the 60s (and this was an restrospective requirement so affects vehicles of all ages) the law has stated that if a wiper is required then washers must also be fitted. So if the Martian did need wipers (which I don't myself think it actually did) then it did need washers too.

 

Some non-mandatory things must be tested if they are fitted, even though they don't have to be fitted. Seat belts are an example; if they are fitted to a vehicle which doesn't have to have them, they must be tested and must be OK. If defective the vehicle will fail even though they are not required, and I think that rear fog lights are the same. Wipers however do not, as far as I know, come into this category. All very confusing!

 

Missing catalytic converters is an interesting one: many 300tdi Discovery's and Land Rovers are running about with after-market front exhaust pipes that do away with the catalytic converter. Apparently the cat was only required for homologation when new. I've read that removing it actually makes no difference to the emissions on an older vehicle but the free-flowing exhaust improves performance and therefore probably economy too. Will this be a fail...?

 

No, it won't. The summary on the AA website quoted above omits to mention that the requirement for the cat only applies to spark-ignition engines (at least at the moment), and not compression-ignition engines. This is however explicitly stated in the primary source material.

[utt61]

Another interesting point re exhausts, is that there is no mention of EGR valve removal/inhibition becoming a reason for failure. Many people were predicting that this would also be introduced.

 

So, we Landrover owners can still quite happily drive around in our de-catted, EGR-removed motors for the time being! :-D

[TooTallMike]

Back to the Martian, though... Although the law has always said that you don't need a wiper if you can get the adequate view, since washers were made mandatory in the 60s (and this was an restrospective requirement so affects vehicles of all ages) the law has stated that if a wiper is required then washers must also be fitted. So if the Martian did need wipers (which I don't myself think it actually did) then it did need washers too.

Just for completeness to this thread, I do not believe washers are required for vehicles with non-fixed windscreens.

- MG