MoT failures on engine mounting/oil leaks?

The only point above that is an MOT fail, is the leaky shock.

Should be refused a test if tester considers it dangerous to continue the test. Not a testable item otherwise.

Nope, can't fail on that one, engine mounts are not testable, neither is security of engine.

Pass and advise!

So the fact brake fluid should be replaced every couple of years due to the fact it soacks up water like a sponge isn't an issue?

I knew of a car that failed on an engine mount...

OK, so it was a mk1 Fiesta with a very poor driver for an owner, and deserved to be off the road for as long as possible, but I never knew it wasn't actaully a fail...

Conor (conor snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Not for the MOT, which is the question.

Of course not, because the tester cannot tell how long the stuff's been in there. What's he s'posed to do? Ask the owner? And then trust the answer.

If the brakes are tested as poor, there are steps to take - the obvious being linings / pads worn to excess. Somewhat marginal brakes can be improved by new fluid / bleeding. Unfortunately, most folk can't be arsed.

-- Ken Davidson

snipped-for-privacy@removehotmail.com remove remove to email

Cars sometimes do 'fail' mot's on items that are non testable, that what happens when the tester uses common sense rather than just going by the manual.

That is not an issue at all for a MOT test.

If the system was filled with water instead of brake fluid, it wouldn't cause a fail.

Yes it would. Thanks for displaying your complete lack of knowledge in this subject.

I'll leave you to dig yourself a deeper hole by asking why.

Go on then, I'm baffled as to how you'd detect that on an MOT

Actually it doesn't soak up water "like a sponge", it absorbs water slightly. And this water absorption only becomes a problem in the short term when braking conditions are severe, like racing or a car with heavy trailer going down a steep hill with the brakes on for mile after mile in hot summer temperatures etc. It's when the brake fluid reaches such temp. as to cause the water in the brake fluid to vapourize and become compressible, resulting in a loss of braking efficiency. For practical purposes however, it's a non-event.

That does not of course stop kwik fit places etc claiming all sorts of dire results if you don't change your fluid. It's a profit thing. In practical terms, When the cylinders fail, and a brake shoe/cylinder replacement is carried out, the new fluid and bleeding that goes with it is all that's necessary.

What's he s'posed to do? Ask the owner? And then trust the answer.

No, what he's supposed to do is test the brakes. If they pass, they pass. He[1] also has to inspect the system for serviceability, i.e. rusty brake pipes etc. He doesn't remove the reservoir cap or check quality of brake fluid.

And as has been remarked, if the system was filled with water instead of brake fluid, this would not of itself result in a fail, (let's assume that the master cyl is the old non-translucent type) although rust would very soon cause problems in cylinders.

[1] Or she, mustn't be sexist. I haven't personally come across a female tester, but I'm sure there must be some.

Steve

Would you like a shovel?

Why?

That's fairly dangerous advice. Brake fluid is very hygroscopic, it will continually absorb moisture from the atmosphere. After a couple of years, it will have absorbed enough to give 2-3% moisture content. 3% is the generally accepted 'wet boiling point', which for DOT3 is 140 degrees C against 205 degrees C for new dry fluid. Once the water content gets beyond

4%, the boiling point gets close to 100 degrees, so you may as well be using water.

If you leave old fluid in, the moisture content will cause deterioration of the seals and corrosion of metal components. Then you will have to change all the bits that don't work - it's a lot easier to change the fluid periodically. BTW, my insurance policy states that I must keep my car maintained in 'an efficient and roadworthy condition' - as the manufacturer's service schedule requires fluid changes every 24 months, I feel somewhat obliged to follow that direction. As an aside, my old Polo needed fluid changes every six months. They were never particularly inspiring, but after a few months they became downright scary - a quick bleed of the brakes always sorted them.

Simply due to the fact they'd barely work.

Why not exactly?

Brake fluid is an incompressible liquid, so is water, they would both have exactly the same effect in a braking system.

I'll not bother lending you a shovel, you seem to be doing perfectly well without it!

You seem to have gone very quiet on this subject, maybe it wasn't me who was 'displaying a complete lack of knowledge' after all.

If you want to go round insulting people, try to make sure you have a clue what you are talking about first.

I haven't gone quiet at all. Still here. Still waiting.

Well, I'm waiting for you. Last I saw was you saying brakes with water as the fluid wouldn't work. You omitted to say why they wouldn't work in an MOT situation - if it's leaking past seals, then that would be a problem, but the MOT doesn't heat the brakes, so you won't get the water boiling, so it will work just as well as normal brake fluid.

cheers, clive

(my car doesn't have hygroscopic brake fluid, nyerr!)