Author Topic: MOT RULE  (Read 3916 times)

Offline AudiA8Quattro

  • Forum addict
  • *
  • Posts: 4,776
Re: MOT RULE
« Reply #10 on: 22 February 2005, 10:38 »
Sounds strange, were the MOT places legit?, if you know what i mean  :laugh:
FOR DIY GUIDES GO TO <br>www.volkswagenaudi.co.uk<br/>BRAKES, SUSPENSION, CV JOINTS

Offline tinman

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,229
Re: MOT RULE
« Reply #11 on: 22 February 2005, 10:46 »
it was strange. these were legit MOT Centres linked to VW dealerships.

Offline AudiA8Quattro

  • Forum addict
  • *
  • Posts: 4,776
Re: MOT RULE
« Reply #12 on: 22 February 2005, 10:49 »
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.
FOR DIY GUIDES GO TO <br>www.volkswagenaudi.co.uk<br/>BRAKES, SUSPENSION, CV JOINTS

Offline Overseer

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,690
Re: MOT RULE
« Reply #13 on: 22 February 2005, 10:53 »

sounds like another case of VW dealerships fishing for work thats not necessary.. thats why me and my friends have stopped using them.

Used to have a '97 MK3 16v GTI 3dr in 'Black Magic'... now have a '55 Civic Type-S...

Offline AudiA8Quattro

  • Forum addict
  • *
  • Posts: 4,776
Re: MOT RULE
« Reply #14 on: 22 February 2005, 11:10 »
I'm not saying they all like it, but in the case of the Audi, they were definately fishing for work.
FOR DIY GUIDES GO TO <br>www.volkswagenaudi.co.uk<br/>BRAKES, SUSPENSION, CV JOINTS

Offline carrie

  • Here all the time
  • ****
  • Posts: 402
  • i can see into your soul and its not good
Re: MOT RULE
« Reply #15 on: 22 February 2005, 11:12 »
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.


SAY YOU LOVE SATIN?, NO SATAN, ITS SATAN

Offline tinman

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,229
Re: MOT RULE
« Reply #16 on: 22 February 2005, 11:15 »
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.


Offline tinman

  • I live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,229
Re: MOT RULE
« Reply #17 on: 22 February 2005, 11:16 »
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 ;-)

Offline carrie

  • Here all the time
  • ****
  • Posts: 402
  • i can see into your soul and its not good
Re: MOT RULE
« Reply #18 on: 22 February 2005, 11:18 »
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


SAY YOU LOVE SATIN?, NO SATAN, ITS SATAN

Offline AudiA8Quattro

  • Forum addict
  • *
  • Posts: 4,776
Re: MOT RULE
« Reply #19 on: 22 February 2005, 11:18 »
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:
FOR DIY GUIDES GO TO <br>www.volkswagenaudi.co.uk<br/>BRAKES, SUSPENSION, CV JOINTS