Thousands of cars face being scrapped as a result of tougher MoT rules that have just come into force to include safety checks on a raft of electronics that have been introduced in recent years.
In many cases the cost of repairing an expensive electrical problem on an older vehicle will be more than the car's value, leaving the owner with little choice but to take it to the scrapyard.
The Department for Transport added the mandatory tests to the existing MoT on New Year's Day to comply with a revised European testing directive (2009/40/EC). The is to harmonise minimum requirements across Europe and make sure the test reflects the electrical/electronic complexity of modern car safety features.
Until now, for example, those with airbag lights that remain on while driving have passed because it's an issue that hasn't formed part of the safety inspection. Now drivers will no longer be able to simply remove the bulb, as it will have to be shown working when you turn on the ignition, and go out once it is started. It is a similar story for non-working speedometers and other electronic features such as stability control systems.
There is a breathing space, however. Vosa, the government agency responsible for the MoT, has indicated that up to "late spring" – probably May, although the exact date hasn't been set yet – "failures" relating to the new tests will first be treated as "advisories". This means that if you are tested now and have a warning light that's faulty you will have until the next MOT renewal date to get it fixed.
The move will mostly affect the owners of older cars, typically those dating back to the late 90s and onwards which feature airbags and the like but are only worth three figures. Owners of some newer cars will face big bills to get their vehicle through the new MoT.
Included in the new check list are:
• Electronic stability controls and antilock brakes.
• Electronic parking brakes.
• Headlight main beam warning light.
• Electronic power steering warning light.
• Brake fluid level warning light.
• Seat belt pre-tensioner warning light.
• That the steering lock functions.
• Power steering fluid level must be above the minimum level indicated on the reservoir.
• The tow bar's electrical socket. There will be a basic security/damage check of seven-pin sockets; 13-pin sockets will be subject to a full electrical connectivity check and incorrectly connected or inoperative circuits will result in failure.
• Visible wiring that is insecure, or likely to cause a short circuit.
• A speedometer is not fitted, is incomplete, inoperative, has a dial glass broken/missing, or cannot be illuminated.
• Testers will check that the driver's seat can be moved.
• A rear door that cannot be opened from the outside will fail.
• The removal of catalytic convertor that was fitted as original equipment.
Vosa chief executive Alastair Peoples says: "The MoT test is designed to make sure that a vehicle is fit to be on the road and so it needs to be updated to reflect new technology.
"We have worked with the industry to prepare them for these changes to make sure that the measures are introduced in the least burdensome way possible. Although these electronics are new to the MoT, it has always been a legal requirement to keep your car serviceable and safe."
A spokeswoman for the AA says the need to have airbag warning lights going out correctly will probably have the biggest impact. "Undoubtedly, these measures will lead to some cars being scrapped where the cost of repairs will outweigh its value."
At present, all cars over three years old have to be tested each year. The AA also says it is "very concerned" about a government proposal to move to two-year testing as many people only get their car checked for an MoT.
If you run a car that is likely to fail the new test later in the year, there is nothing to stop you getting a new MoT now when you will be issued with the advisory rather than failed.
That would allow you to run a car that, say, had a faulty speedo for a further year. But it is not advisable to run a car with a potentially faulty airbag. It should be checked to make sure there is no risk of it going off unexpectedly.
What's the most fuel-efficient ever?
Consumer group Which? has just tested its most fuel-efficient car ever. The new Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid, which has a conventional petrol engine, and electric motor combined, managed a remarkable 235.4mpg in a test of stop-start city driving.
It even managed to break the elusive 100mpg barrier on its extra urban cycle. Overall it recorded a combined fuel consumption of 83.1mpg.
Which? said the car was let down by a "less remarkable" 46.3mpg at motorway speeds. The new Prius beats the previous fuel economy record set by he VW Polo 1.2TDi Bluemotion, which averaged 74.3mpg in Which? Car tests.
Unlike the existing Prius Hybrid, whose electric motor is recharged by the onboard petrol engine, the plug-in hybrid's battery can be fully recharged from a domestic electricity socket in 90 minutes costing around 64p at current rates.
This gives it a much longer range using electric power only (up to around 14 miles.)
The Prius Plug-In Hybrid is due to go on sale in the UK in the summer of 2012, for £31,000. But it qualifies for the government's electric car grant scheme, so that's reduced to £26,000.
Which? says the "retail" version that arrives next year will have a lighter, more compact battery pack and this raises the prospect of enjoying even better fuel economy.
Comments
7 January 2012 1:19AM
Car Industry - 1, Planet Earth - 0.
7 January 2012 1:38AM
There is $200 Trillion in Oil/Gas/coal reserves
that we 'need' to use first before we can move to the next step.
7 January 2012 5:56AM
I've been a passenger when the airbag warning light was on and the seat belt pretensioners fired for both driver and passenger - you definitely don't want this to happen when your driving and not having a crash.
7 January 2012 8:14AM
What a pity tinted windows are not within the MoT. I do see cars with the front windows of much lighter tint than the rear, but some people have heavy front tint. It means you cannot see the driver at junctions and whether they have seen you. They are probably on their mobile.
7 January 2012 9:16AM
Now would be a good time to buy a mid/late 1990s car that benefited from modern manufacturing standards, but wasn't packed full of complex electronics - then keep it for the rest of your life! Yes, it might need a new clutch or engine rebuild - but any competent mechanic can do it.
Electronic problems tend to be the domain of main dealers that also sell new cars - they will have a strong incentive to charge you as much as possible, and offer a deal on a new car. Its win win for them. If you get it repaired, they make a huge profit; if you trade in, then they sell a new car. And you wont be able to sell the car privately if it has an expensive MOT fail problem hanging over it - not if you are honest anyway.
7 January 2012 9:44AM
This is something I dreaded but had to accept when I bought my new car.
My 1992 Fiesta was completely mechanical apart from a small box just under the windscreen. Nothing much ever went wrong with it other than really basic things.
My Polo is fully electronic, power steering and ABS and AC I didn't even want but was standard.
Also an electric sunroof and windows. The roof has had 2 faults with it in 3 years, dropped for some reason and then shifted and then was rubbing on the seal.
In 16 years I had 0% problems with my manual sunroof.
Although being as I plan on keeping the car for 15+ years, the question when something has to be repaired is - will it cost less than buying a new car?
This is always yes, even when the replacement wheels are worth more than the car, but when it was £1k for rust repairs to get through an MOT I decided to use that towards the Polo.
That will apply again until a repair hits £1k+ and then I'll buy another car.
7 January 2012 3:13PM
um, what happens to cars like mine? 1961 morris minor, she generally fails first time then needs remedial work then passes 2nd time. the electrics stuff doesn't concern me, but what about features like the driver's seat, which is a screwdriver job to move anyway? surely they can't fail you for something that would never have ever been possible?!
7 January 2012 3:13PM
Two stories that are more linked than they appear:
Total energy efficiency (second story) is not about miles per gallon when it is newly delivered and in theoretical test conditions. It ignores the energy cost of manufacture and how the car is driven over time. The most energy efficient car is retained over the longest period, used least and only where there are efficient alternatives, i.e. not crawling for an hour each way every day in commuter traffic.
Requiring cars to be scrapped (first story) because there are a few electrical glitches massively increases the energy requirements if the car is scrapped and replaced.
Government departments appear to be celebrating contrived figures that encourage greenwash hype marketing while at the same time adding to consumption elsewhere. Greenest government ever. Yeah, right.
7 January 2012 3:59PM
strange that you mention that precise concept. the morris minor won an award based on that very premise, i quote it often! the green apple award for those interested.
7 January 2012 4:38PM
I think its long established that the MOT applies to the car's year of manufacturer - so if it was before seat belts were compulsory, it doesnt need them for an MOT. I imagine moving the front seat would be the same principle?
I think there is one exception to this - and that is the screen wash.
7 January 2012 5:18PM
ha. my car has screenwash and it NEVER works! i'm aware of the seat belt thing, the way that works is that if it's never had them you don't have to fit them but if they've already been fitted you're not allowed to remove them and they must work. hmm. might need to do some prep work before garage visit.
7 January 2012 7:42PM
Miles
This is nonsense.
When the cost of repairs is greater than the depreciation of any replacement car - then you might consider scrapping it.
I had a 1988 Golf until recently - negligible actual value for the past ten years, but apart from a couple of MOT's which cost £300+, the annual MOT cost was around £100. If I'd junked it the first time I had a £300 MOT bill, I would have missed out on nearly a decade of pretty cheap and enjoyable motoring, and no depreciation cost whatsoever.
7 January 2012 8:39PM
What happened to the EU idea of increaseing the time from 3 years to 4 years for the first MOT test .Is this another idea of that dick Humne to save the world from global warming by removing cars from the road.
8 January 2012 1:28AM
Tightening up the M.O.T. rules is a great idea. After the motor industry last was in trouble the government introduced a scrappage deal by which they encouraged people to buy cars by throwing lots of money at them. This way people still buy new cars they don't need, stimulating the economy and supporting deserving big businesses, but it doesn't cost the government a penny - car owners get to pay. Plus lots more business for the car repair industry, fixing all the new faults that aren't too expensive to justify scrapping the car. Work for mechanics. It seems everybody benefits (or have I forgotten some group?).
8 January 2012 1:41AM
These rules wouldn't be a problem if the new electronic systems fitted to cars were reliable and cheap to fix. They are neither. I can fix most things that go wrong on a car, the cars I currently drive is mainly made of bits I’ve salvaged from scrap yards. The one component I dread failing is the abs system. The only place that can read the fault code is the main dealer, which would cost a fortune. The manufacturers have deliberately kept as many of the diagnostic codes a secret to rip-off consumers.
Then there is the parts costs. The abs sensors should cost a couple of quid, they are simple components. Some cars you can be looking at £70 a corner. If the ABS controller fails, well that is £100s of pounds.
The car I drive switches back to normal brakes if the abs system fails, it doesn't become unsafe. In fact most models weren't fitted with abs in the first place, a regrettable optional extra. If the government wants to make the MOT more strict, fine. However it should also tackle the car manufacturers, to make fixing their unreliable electronic systems affordable.
8 January 2012 1:54AM
Sir, introducing all these extra test items for M.O.T. is going to give the green light to some garages to virtually charge what they want for repairs to electronic equipment, most electronic repairs can be diagnosed and repaired within a couple of hours, but some unscrupulous garages will charge a lot more because the customer really cannot challenge the bill, especially a woman.
8 January 2012 8:55PM
In one part of the EU - Germany - you only need an MOT
every two years (it's called TÜV) here.
Irrespective of mileage.
First TÜV after 3 years from new.
But that is silly - it should be 3 years or a max. 70,000 miles traveled?
8 January 2012 11:37PM
@Cyclist12
This is already illegal and from what I have seen on 'Cops with cams' and
'Fuzz cam action' they already stop cars in this condition. I suspect it is
because they want to know if the driver has a gun.
Motorway patrol cars carry a device that measures the light transmission
through the glass.
8 January 2012 11:41PM
@pol098
Pedestrians, Children, Cyclists, Hedgehogs .....