MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

You can RANT and RAVE to your hearts content here instead of clogging up the Q&A Technical Forum!
Report any offensive posts to [email protected]
Post Reply
User avatar
Andrew 2.8i
Donator
Donator
Posts: 14725
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:38 pm
Car(s): '83 2.8 Injection (sunny days only)
'04 Toyota MR2 (owned from new)
Location: Ceredigion
Contact:

MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by Andrew 2.8i »

These were noted as an advisory on the MOT that was performed on the 25th January, the comment states "Nearside Rear Shock absorbers has slight external damage to the casing (5.3.2 (b))".
One of the absorbers doesn't rebound, as can be seen in the photo, but this was not mentioned.
The external casing couldn't have deteriorated that quickly, could it? If I'd known they were like this, I wouldn't have left it so long before taking a look at them.

Image

They're not off my car, by the way !!

Andrew.
Image
User avatar
stevemarl
Donator
Donator
Posts: 4906
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:31 pm
Car(s): Capri 1.6 laser

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by stevemarl »

Not quite sure what you`re asking Andrew? Are these original or do you know when they were fitted? TBH the paint covering on the inside of the `shroud` upper part is usually minimal, if at all, so they can actually deteriorate quite badly and once perforation starts they can crumble very quickly. `Slight damage` possibly as they are only dust covers so I suppose not THAT important?
I changed my rear dampers probably 8-10 years ago as one had seized as yours has: Only found out after removal for something unrelated: strangely never seemed to affect drive and was never picked up at MOT either. Possibly worked within the narrow range of normal usage?

Edit: after writing that, just saw `not off my car...` Doh!
User avatar
Andrew 2.8i
Donator
Donator
Posts: 14725
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:38 pm
Car(s): '83 2.8 Injection (sunny days only)
'04 Toyota MR2 (owned from new)
Location: Ceredigion
Contact:

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by Andrew 2.8i »

stevemarl wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:40 am Not quite sure what you`re asking?
Just thinking out loud whether the tester should have highlighted the condition more. I suppose the condition could have deteriorated quickly with the salt and water on the roads since the test in January.

They're off my Dad's 62 plate Suzuki Alto and are definitely original.

Andrew.
Image
User avatar
stevemarl
Donator
Donator
Posts: 4906
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:31 pm
Car(s): Capri 1.6 laser

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by stevemarl »

That is surprisingly rapid, but I suppose it depends, as you say on how much exposure to salt etc. Once the rust has come through from the back it`ll deteriorate very quickly. Maybe the MOT man was just a very optimistic soul? A `damper 1/2 unrotted` sort of guy?
User avatar
Andrew 2.8i
Donator
Donator
Posts: 14725
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:38 pm
Car(s): '83 2.8 Injection (sunny days only)
'04 Toyota MR2 (owned from new)
Location: Ceredigion
Contact:

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by Andrew 2.8i »

stevemarl wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 2:49 pm Maybe the MOT man was just a very optimistic soul? A `damper 1/2 unrotted` sort of guy?
Haha, it looks like he was !
At least changing them was a nice quick job and they were only £45 a pair.

Andrew.
Image
User avatar
Major_Tom
Posts: 9095
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:21 am
Car(s): 2.0S

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by Major_Tom »

No doubt the casing immediately disintegrated on leaving the testing station as the test only examines the roadworthiness of parts during the test 😊
I'm the one who leaves all those shoes in the carriageway.
User avatar
Jasonmarie
Donator
Donator
Posts: 4707
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:30 am
Car(s): Ford Capri 2.0 Laser Mercury Grey 1987 hobby .
Mercedes Vito tourer 2.1 Big Bus Daily Driver
Location: Kent

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by Jasonmarie »

They have failed quick ? Still got the originals on the Capri . Saying that my dads fiesta that’s a 12 plate had one with a slight leak on the mot last year so will see what they say soon we has it done again .
Ford Capri 2.0 Laser 1987 Mercury Grey ....... :beer:
User avatar
Andrew 2.8i
Donator
Donator
Posts: 14725
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:38 pm
Car(s): '83 2.8 Injection (sunny days only)
'04 Toyota MR2 (owned from new)
Location: Ceredigion
Contact:

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by Andrew 2.8i »

Jasonmarie wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 11:30 pm They have failed quick ? Still got the originals on the Capri
Still got the originals? Wow, that's good going!

Andrew.
Image
mjcapri
Donator
Donator
Posts: 1893
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:23 pm
Car(s): Diamond White Granada 24v

Caspian Blue Sierra XR4i

Stealth Grey Focus RS

Storm Grey Fiesta ST200 (actually belongs to the missus!)

Mean Green Fiesta ST-3

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by mjcapri »

Andrew 2.8i wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:21 am These were noted as an advisory on the MOT that was performed on the 25th January, the comment states "Nearside Rear Shock absorbers has slight external damage to the casing (5.3.2 (b))".
One of the absorbers doesn't rebound, as can be seen in the photo, but this was not mentioned.
The external casing couldn't have deteriorated that quickly, could it? If I'd known they were like this, I wouldn't have left it so long before taking a look at them.

Image

They're not off my car, by the way !!

Andrew.
They shouldn’t have passed like that (if indeed they were in that condition at the time). On HGVs and vans I used to trim off the corroded section which was fine as long as there was enough left to cover the piston. Obviously that was a cost saving measure on a commercial vehicle, I wouldn’t do it on my own car! They probably won’t have noticed the one that doesn’t rebound as they no longer perform the “bounce test” so as long as it wasn’t visibly leaking etc. it’s a pass.
User avatar
Andrew 2.8i
Donator
Donator
Posts: 14725
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:38 pm
Car(s): '83 2.8 Injection (sunny days only)
'04 Toyota MR2 (owned from new)
Location: Ceredigion
Contact:

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by Andrew 2.8i »

mjcapri wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 8:48 am They shouldn’t have passed like that (if indeed they were in that condition at the time). On HGVs and vans I used to trim off the corroded section which was fine as long as there was enough left to cover the piston. Obviously that was a cost saving measure on a commercial vehicle, I wouldn’t do it on my own car! They probably won’t have noticed the one that doesn’t rebound as they no longer perform the “bounce test” so as long as it wasn’t visibly leaking etc. it’s a pass.
That's great info, thanks. I didn't realise that the bounce test wasn't part of the MOT anymore, but as Steve said, maybe that's because it's really difficult to tell if one damper is weak as the one on the opposite side will still dampen the axle movement. I tried the bounce test after I'd taken both dampers off and before I'd fitted the new ones. It's amazing how much the car bounces with a very light push !

Andrew.
Image
Mc Tool
Donator
Donator
Posts: 2362
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 8:34 pm
Car(s): 1980 mk3 capri 2l ohc T9 , Toyota Blade Master 3.5l V6, Paso , 850T,rd400, 900ss
Location: Invercargill New Zealand

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by Mc Tool »

Down ere our warrant of fitness test if something like that showed up they may well pass it if it still worked ,but there would be a note "in the system" ( and on the actual test sheet )advising of the fault and that it had to be repaired before the next test ,either 6 or 12 months depending on age of car .......same with tires that scape thru .🙂
Sometimes I talk to myself ... and we both have a good laugh
User avatar
stevemarl
Donator
Donator
Posts: 4906
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:31 pm
Car(s): Capri 1.6 laser

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by stevemarl »

Andrew 2.8i wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:50 pm I didn't realise that the bounce test wasn't part of the MOT anymore
Neither did I, although I hadn`t actually seen them do one for a few years. Could this be because modern cars have so much stiffer springs that it`s not that easy to actually get it to bounce?
Mc Tool
Donator
Donator
Posts: 2362
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 8:34 pm
Car(s): 1980 mk3 capri 2l ohc T9 , Toyota Blade Master 3.5l V6, Paso , 850T,rd400, 900ss
Location: Invercargill New Zealand

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by Mc Tool »

Mine get bounced , nothing sophisticated , mechanic does his best to dint my boot lid and bonnet ,and the rear shocks on my caldina wagon feel great when cold ,but hot they pogo real bad , especially with 150kg of coal on board ( no , not a variation of the concrete slab or bag or cement ....I actually burn the coal to keep warm 😁). Good job I live real close to the garage aye 😉
Sometimes I talk to myself ... and we both have a good laugh
mjcapri
Donator
Donator
Posts: 1893
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:23 pm
Car(s): Diamond White Granada 24v

Caspian Blue Sierra XR4i

Stealth Grey Focus RS

Storm Grey Fiesta ST200 (actually belongs to the missus!)

Mean Green Fiesta ST-3

Re: MOT Passworthy or Failworthy?

Post by mjcapri »

stevemarl wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:14 pm
Andrew 2.8i wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:50 pm I didn't realise that the bounce test wasn't part of the MOT anymore
Neither did I, although I hadn`t actually seen them do one for a few years. Could this be because modern cars have so much stiffer springs that it`s not that easy to actually get it to bounce?
I believe the reason is that vehicles were getting damaged in the process, and on heavy vehicles such as 4x4s it’s not physically possible to perform the test. You may be on to something re spring stiffness as well though, the suspension on my Focus doesn’t give at all it’s as stiff as a honeymooner’s hampton!
Post Reply