Post Number: 1409
|Posted on Thursday, 29 June, 2017 - 05:41: |
Had a Ministry Of Transport test slot free so I booked in the shadow 2.
It passed with a couple of advisories.
Vehicle make: ROLLS ROYCE
Vehicle model: SALOON
Date first used: 31 December 1977
Fuel type: Petrol
MOT history of this vehicle
Test date: 26 June 2017
Expiry date: 25 June 2018
Test Result: Pass
Odometer reading: 45,982 miles
MOT test number: 9142 4478 3631
Advisory notice item(s):
Offside Front tyre perishing slightly
both rear brakes grabbing slightly
Exhaust has a minor leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)
The front tyre was last replaced in 1988 so it has done its time.
Have ordered two new ones, a bit of a rare breed me thinks for the money.
The exhaust is always a prob on the balance pipe.
Now the rear brakes. I carried out a brake calliper overhaul on the fronts, all ok.
The rears seemed free in every respect at the time, I remember Paul saying about the rear callipers sticking if that what it is.
I will recheck when time permits but it could be some air in the system maybe.
Post Number: 75
|Posted on Thursday, 29 June, 2017 - 07:35: |
1988! that is one old boot!
In my area most of the old/unusual or knackered cars go to their MOT at a garage run by 'Blind Ken'....
Post Number: 1411
|Posted on Thursday, 29 June, 2017 - 08:18: |
Yes have heard of some but not Southampton area yet.
This is one from a few years ago when it was Vosa.
Post Number: 473
|Posted on Thursday, 29 June, 2017 - 08:56: |
The USA version of an MOT varies by state. I live in one of the more stringent and even here an inspection of a pre 1996 car is basically, horn, lights, ball joints. And cracked glass.
The less stringent areas well, you can imagine.
Post Number: 159
|Posted on Thursday, 29 June, 2017 - 19:30: |
The MOT test is a bit of a faff; the tester is expected to 'fail' a certain amount and give 'advisories' for all sorts of stupid stuff or, the Ministry get 'heavy/interested' as the station falls outside the norm.
When my car was done last year it failed and I was mortified! After the multiple thousands of pounds spent on the oily bits, the bugger was expected to sail through... Strangely, my other two cars DID sail through with zero preparation and about 10% of the care and attention lavished upon them.
I also got advisories for perished tyres and play in the wheel bearings. The other two got 'clean sheets'.
Due again soon... time to start worrying!
Post Number: 76
|Posted on Friday, 30 June, 2017 - 07:36: |
In Ireland, where I live, we have an NCT (National Car Test). The test centres come under the Department of Transport are very stringent and have the latest test equipment. They do not offer a repair service or sell parts and they do not fix anything that is broken or out of place so there's no benefit for them if the car fails. The more particular an Inspector is the more I like it because it's reassuring to know that the car is safe to drive. I often hear people moaning when their car fails on a minor issue but personally I prefer a strict, no nonsense, test and a fail rather than a cautious pass. I bought a 1959 Rover P4 in the UK a few years ago, it had sailed through the MOT test a few days beforehand but when I drove it away it had virtually no brakes and there was engine oil blowing from the oil filter housing gasket. I gingerly coasted home with it, topping up the engine oil every few miles and discovered on inspection that all the brake pads were brand new but the front callipers were completely seized. "Blind Ken" must have been the tester in that instance. I also bought a Mk11 Jaguar from a classic car dealer in the UK whose premises was right next door to the MOT test centre and the guys at the dealership seemed to be very friendly with the test centre employees, they even had their tea break together, that made me wonder about the reliability of the MOT certificate and when I checked the car out there were badly worn ball joints and serious corrosion on the fuel lines to the extent that they were weeping in places. In my opinion a good, honest, strict test by a test centre that has no affiliation to anybody in the motor trade is the way to go. Better safe than sorry afterwards.
Post Number: 137
|Posted on Friday, 30 June, 2017 - 20:48: |
What Larry describes for the Irelamd NCT meets more or less the situation in Switzerland. The test centers are run by the state authorities and perform no repairs except may be a quick adjustment of the dipping beam height. They are especially stringent with rust, worn suspension bushes, uneven pulling brakes, seized hand brakes and oil drips. But they also will not pass a cracked or scratched (by worn wiper blades) windshield. A fail could also result from a non functioning screen washer, frayed seat belts, blind headlamp reflectors and plastic lenses or water in a headlamp. They do not pass uneven coloured or cracked taillamp lenses and will check the chassis number against the car papers. They have a rattle machine to test shock absorbers, sway plates to check for steering looseness and at the end of the test the tester takes the car for a drive around the block to get a general feeling of the condition of your car.
Post Number: 474
|Posted on Saturday, 01 July, 2017 - 02:09: |
With all that, a "blind Fredrick" would have to be pretty blind to let one's rusty neglected 70 High Speed through.
Post Number: 477
|Posted on Saturday, 01 July, 2017 - 13:31: |
Just borrowed a car that is licensed and legal which I just drove 50 miles. It has at least the following wrong with it,
1.rusted out and leaking rear differential cover
2.totally severed exhaust pipe under car
3.leaking front steering rack
4.non functional power steering pump
5.broken rear transmission mount
6.out of balance drive shaft
7.rusted off anti sway bar
8.non functional 4wd system
10. leaking front main seal.
11. check engine light illuminated
12. leaking upper radiator hose.
13. completely corroded brake, transmission, and fuel lines.
14. spare tire flat and rusted in place.
15. hot spot on the carpet you must pour water on every 30 minutes of driving.
I am being loaned this car so I can say nothing but thanks, but it drives pretty badly.
Christian S. Hansen
Post Number: 609
|Posted on Saturday, 01 July, 2017 - 13:49: |
You forgot to mention the nut holding the steering wheel! LOL!
Robert Noel Reddington
Post Number: 1468
|Posted on Saturday, 01 July, 2017 - 23:30: |
Post Number: 480
|Posted on Tuesday, 04 July, 2017 - 03:30: |
I'm not sure I've driven worse.
Last night I was driving in to the city at 60mph so as not to start the cars floor mats on fire. Traffic was bad and a Lamborghini Gilardo convertible was next to me for a while. Traffic opened up, I looked over at Gilardo guy dropped a gear an stood on it.
The 4Runner made some noise and shook. Gilardo guy was laughing so hard that for a second I thought I had a chance. He then put his foot down as a thank you, drove by full spin at easy triple digits giving a thumbs up sign despite his driving companion obviously not appreciating the joke.
Maybe next time.
Post Number: 2600
|Posted on Tuesday, 04 July, 2017 - 08:49: |
As a 4runner diesel owner I understand completely ....
At least the diesel can be driven in such a way that leaves a smoke screen to hide the embarrassment when needed .
One consolation is the lads at Top Gear proved the Hilux [and by association the 4runner(Surf in the USA) as Hilux derivatives] to be indestructible:
This is a multi-part series and the above link leads to the first episode - the final episode says it all and my 4runner also proves the veracity of this outcome......
Post Number: 481
|Posted on Tuesday, 04 July, 2017 - 22:21: |
That vehicle probably still runs better than this one. I know those episodes, epic.
They did another on the honda cub with similar results.
A couple honda cubs in the back of a hilux is a lifetime supply of vehicles.