How come they never fail on what you worry about?

[Mike_Pollock]

Took A9 for its MOT today, rather concerned about all the new points (no cat etc - not sure if a 2.7 had one as standard in the UK or not) and the emissions (I seem to have an AFM where the spindle seems to slowly rotate under the force of the spring, so I've no idea whats right of wrong, I just keep the plugs looking the correct colour!), however all these things ok!

2 fails - No plate light! - Was ok last night when I checked it! - Easily sorted.

- Petrol leak! - Appears when playing with gear change linkage last weekend, I noticed the fuel filter was a little loose, so I put a nice big tie wrap on it and pulled it up nicely against the crossmember.
This how ever put a little extra stress on the pipe and union on the pump, pulling it round a little on the banjo joint allowing the leak!
Stripped out pump (and one way valve), how it had moved I dont know, it was all very tight! Cleaned all seal faces and reassembled with new copper washers.

Total cost £45.50, including test, (I had the washers) and 2 hours of my time, not bad for 22+ years and 250 000+ miles.

Did a few other little bit around town and had 3 conversation about how good they are!

 

[Lowtimer]

No catalytic converter worries ever with a car of 944 age - even though some of them had them fitted, they were never required to have them, so you can't be required to have one now either.

 

[GlennS]

Ah well... cool that it has a new MOT and is good for another year, though!

My one is due for its MOT before the 25th of this month...

 

[andy watson]

Hi Mike

£45.50 inc test you got to be pleased with that? mine failed on No. plate light last year as well!!

 

[jonk]

Good luck with no plate bulb renewal. I did mine a week or so back, posted here about it.... Was an absolute swine to do, but got there in the end with some decent bodging and assistance from a genius neighbour!

 

[Mike_Pollock]

Lowtimer - As it was described to me, if a particular car had a cat fitted when new, as an option or standard, whether or not it was required at that time, it must now be tested with one.

Andy - Yes, very pleased, just annoyed I didn't have a spare 50p bulb!

Jonk - Changing the bulb was easy - had to go to 3 places to get one!

 

[GlennS]

ORIGINAL: A9XXC

Lowtimer - As it was described to me, if a particular car had a cat fitted when new, as an option or standard, whether or not it was required at that time, it must now be tested with one.

There's a lot of misinformation going around about that. However, the rules are quite clear. They only apply to "vehicles which qualify for a full cat emissions test". Only spark-ignition passenger cars first used after 31st Jul 1992 qualify for a "full cat emissions test" so this legislation won't apply to most 944s

For reference, the 2012 MOT Inspection Manual http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m4s07000101.htm under section 7.1 point 3.

quote:
[blockquote]Method of Inspection
"On vehicles that qualify for a full cat emissions test, check the presence of the catalytic converter."

Reason for Rejection
"A catalytic converter missing where one was fitted as standard"[/blockquote]

 

[Mike_Pollock]

Thanks Glenn - thats the first direct quote I've seen on the subject!

 

[colin944]

I took my 924 for an MOT once,I had a mate who was a tester and asked him to give it a really good look over and report back any problems or potential problems.I took it in on a saturday morning when he said he would have extra time to spend having a really good look.As soon as I left the garage a government mot inspector walked in the door and asked to do the next test with him.My car was next and they went over it with a fine tooth comb.The inspector was determined to find something wrong and indeed he did a intermitant sidelight bulb.

 

[peanut]

weird what they fail on isn't it.!?

I had lots of advisories last year about wishbone bushes fuel pipes brake discs etc .
What did it fail on a year later ? a side light bulb, the horn and a brake pad []

The side light was broken last year as well and when I took it back for a retest I promised the examiner I would go and fix it straightaway.........[] yeah right....

so its hardly surprising that it was still not working a year later at the next MOT really [][][]

Do you know what...that bluddy 12v 4w bulb took 4x hours work to replace

 

[dave364634]

I work as a MOT tester, and I interprerate the rules as; the cat requirement is that cars originally fitted with them have to have them, if they are N reg onwards.

The way VOSA have made the changes is terrible imo.

 

[zcacogp]

ORIGINAL: peanut
I had lots of advisories last year about wishbone bushes fuel pipes brake discs etc .
What did it fail on a year later ?   a side light bulb, the horn and a brake pad []

Common theme, I think. My S2 always goes to the same place and has yet to fail an MOT. However it does occasionally get advisories, and sometimes I'm a bit doubtful as to whether they are warranted or not. Three years ago I was told that the rear shock absorbers were 'close to failing'. I didn't change them, and they haven't been mentioned in the subsequent two years (and - I hasten to add - are utterly fine.) Similarly, I was warned about 'unusual gearbox noise' a couple of years back. I couldn't hear anything, did nothing about it, and it wasn't mentioned at all last year ...

I don't think the place is trying to generate extra work for themselves. I just think that the tester is sometimes a bit ... imaginative!


Oli.

 

[peanut]

maybe they are just trying to cover themselves on older cars in case these items fail soon after the MOT test and owners question why it wasn't picked up on the test