GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: Dannyd on 21 February 2005, 19:08
-
When did the 3 year rule come into effect for MOT'ing your new car?
-
dont know but i wish they would get rid of it. there are too many drivers who see badly adjusted lights, faulty brakes, no brake lights, bald tyres and all manner of other things as "thats what the mot is for"
-
true but i need if they brought in this rule before 1990?
-
Why, either way your ganna have to have an mot!
-
to my knowledge this rule has always been in existence
-
iirc it was 1973 that rule came into existence :smiley:
-
it's a stupid rule as it's mainly the new cars that have the faults. look how many are recalled to to things that would make driving unsafe!
-
it's a stupid rule as it's mainly the new cars that have the faults. look how many are recalled to to things that would make driving unsafe!
dont be daft.
firstly, a recal is not nessacarily an MOT failure.
secondly, if you look after your car in the first three years then it should fly through its mot and the vast majority do.
comparing a 3year old car to an older car is no comparison. older cars are exactly that - OLD.
if you take a new car and rag the mother to death then yes, it'll probably fail its first mot.
having said all that, what is worrying is the amount of friends i have with 3 year old Mk4 Golfs which have failed their mots on fairly serious things. i find it very odd that a "quality" car can fail on things so badly when my "cheap" Fiat Bravo had twice the mileage and passed without batting an eyelid. Me think VWs quality control leaves something to be desired.
-
What have mk4's failed on then?
-
i know the v6 4motion needed ?2.5k to get through its MOT with ?3.5k of advisories - that is all being taken up with VW. something to do with subframes falling apart from bad welding, and i know the tdi has had niggling issues all through its first 3 years and had suspension problems when it got to the MOT (worn bushes, knackered struts and a few other horrid problems) all from a car that is only 33k old. the state of the front suspension was likend to a 15 year old car. its problems didnt stop there - i just cant remember them.
-
Sounds strange, were the MOT places legit?, if you know what i mean :laugh:
-
it was strange. these were legit MOT Centres linked to VW dealerships.
-
Oh i see.
I only ask as a few years back my dad put his Audi in the dealership for service and MOT.
The MOT place that the main dealer used basically made up loads of failure points, which were a load of rubbish.
I checked the car over personally myself, then took the car to the MOT place i always use, it passed first time.
-
sounds like another case of VW dealerships fishing for work thats not necessary.. thats why me and my friends have stopped using them.
-
I'm not saying they all like it, but in the case of the Audi, they were definately fishing for work.
-
tin i think you made a case for not having the three year rule there though.
dont forget when the rule came out 12k was average, but with company cars now so common 30k a year is reasonably common with some reaching 40+ a year. rezulting in cars with 120k or more miles on it before an mot, meaning without good service it could have shot wheel bearings suspension etc.
-
both the owners are the sort of people who say "show me" rather than blankly accept it.
talking of dodgy MOT centres that reminds me.
we took a Nissan Bluebird on S2N2003 - the car had sat in a garden for two years before we got it. sorted out its brakes, and took it for the MOT. the test centre said it was the best car of its age they've seen for a long time it passed first time. drove it 3000 miles in a week and sold it to a friend on our return for ?300.
it went for its MOT with him several months later - and failed with ?350 of repairs needed! apparently it need ?120 of welding to its floorpan. it needed new brakes and had play in the steering.
all of which is bollox. especially the floorpan bit. we remember the floorpan in detail due to an accident with a jack while doing the brakes and it was spotless - how it went from zero rust to failing for rust in 1 year we'll never know.
the crime is that my friend didn't call me about the car, but had it scrapped. everyone who went out in the car mentioned about it being a good car - and some sod of a mechanic killed it so he could get some more work.
there are some cars that don't deserve the treatment they get meated out to them.
-
tin i think you made a case for not having the three year rule there though.
dont forget when the rule came out 12k was average, but with company cars now so common 30k a year is reasonably common with some reaching 40+ a year. rezulting in cars with 120k or more miles on it before an mot, meaning without good service it could have shot wheel bearings suspension etc.
i think i made a point about the reliability of mk4s actually ;-)
-
it's a stupid rule as it's mainly the new cars that have the faults. look how many are recalled to to things that would make driving unsafe!
dont be daft.
firstly, a recal is not nessacarily an MOT failure.
secondly, if you look after your car in the first three years then it should fly through its mot and the vast majority do.
comparing a 3year old car to an older car is no comparison. older cars are exactly that - OLD.
if you take a new car and rag the mother to death then yes, it'll probably fail its first mot.
having said all that, what is worrying is the amount of friends i have with 3 year old Mk4 Golfs which have failed their mots on fairly serious things. i find it very odd that a "quality" car can fail on things so badly when my "cheap" Fiat Bravo had twice the mileage and passed without batting an eyelid. Me think VWs quality control leaves something to be desired.
not what this seems to say though
-
tin i think you made a case for not having the three year rule there though.
dont forget when the rule came out 12k was average, but with company cars now so common 30k a year is reasonably common with some reaching 40+ a year. rezulting in cars with 120k or more miles on it before an mot, meaning without good service it could have shot wheel bearings suspension etc.
I think ya got a point there ?:laugh:
-
Shouldn't the first MOT come after either 3 years or 50k on the clock?? wouldnt that stop didgy cars that are three years old!
-
if they were to make a rule change it should be that a 3yo car must be able to pass its first MOT first time (sans brake pads/discs/consumables).
if a manufacturer has too many strikes against them then their 3 year rule is lowered to 1 or 2 until they can show that their cars are safe during their initial period on the road. i'd also make it mandatory that the dealership cannot be linked to the first MOT inspection.
as for high mileage cars needing to be tested - i totally disagree. the high mileage cars are the ones that are probably okay as their high maileage has simply been gained going up and down the motorways. so there is very little wear on their brakes, clutches tend to be okay, steering and everything to do with steering are okay, emissions are okay because the car has been used regulary and so forth. they also tend to of been maintained very highly as the owner puts a premium on reliability.
the cars that need MOTing after a year are the ones that are truly thrashed from the start and lets face it - we all have a firend who cannot drive to save their life and take it out on the car. (eg change up at 4k, sharp braking, unprogressive steering, holding high revs for no reason whatsoever, kerbing the car, etc.)
-
tin i.e. company car drivers 'dont care its not my car' mainenace is one thing but thats assuming it has been done properly, and seing as how vw managed to miss points on my car which maywell of failed an mot this highlights maintenance is not always what it seems and the need for mot inspections.
i think mot stations should not have a repair shop attached to them and make it a condition of their licence that they cannot recommend a garage either or they lose their licence. this would stop the rogues who bump up the failures to get work.
-
Where did my post go? :cry:
-
not sure the site seems slow maybe to do with that?
-
Maybe :sad:
It does keep coming up with time out.
Anyway i was just saying that cars that have covered high miles and are less than 3 years old, and that have NOT been serviced properly. are far more likely to be unroadworthy, whether motorway miles or not.
So i think you had a point that a car less than 3 years old could be just as unroadworthy as an older car.
The whole business is a scam :laugh:
-
i had a friend who was road traffic and he reconed he could probably do most new cars for something