Mot and HIDs

Birchall said:
Is that a proposed change to the MOT test then? Currently it is not a fail.

Steve B
Click to expand...
According to the draft manual, yes. As of May, the EML must come on and then go off when the engine starts. That's when the HID bulb check is introduced too.

Interestingly, only HID bulbs are specified as a failure. So just replace your HIDs with LEDs and that s not a fail.
 
It is only a draft though. Things may change/be dropped.

Edit. To add yet another downer. Section 8.2.1.1 says that if any emission control device is obviously missing or modified, that is a fail. EGR valves, cats and oxygen sensors are mentioned.
 
Last edited:
sciroccorrado said:
Not certain to be honest Steve, I just saw this on the BriSkoda forum... Ominous if true.
Click to expand...

Currently a car will not fail if the EML light stays on, it is an optional advisory only (all advisories are optional and the MOT tester doesn’t have to list them at all if he/she diesn’t want to.)
Who knows when or if that will change but if it does then it is a bit of a silly check.
Because a car with the EML light on could still pass the emissions test (depending on what the issue is) so surely the emission test is the important one.

What effect does the EML light coming on have on the ability to drive the car anyway.

I can't believe that an EML light on a car that is performing normally, or well enough for the owner not to worry about driving it, would stop any pollution. So it is a pretty naff reason for a fail. in my view.

Steve B
 
Last edited:
Birchall said:
Currently a car will not fail if the EML light stays on, it is an optional advisory only (all advisories are optional and the MOT tester doesn’t have to list them at all if he/she diesn’t want to.)
Who knows when or if that will change but if it does then it is a bit of a silly check.
Because a car with the EML light could still pass the emissions test (depending on what the issue is) so surely the emission test is the important one.

What effect does the EML light coming on have on the ability to drive the car anyway.

I can't believe that an EML light on a car that is performing normally, or well enough for the owner not to worry about driving it, would stop any pollution. So it is a pretty naff reason for a fail. in my view.

Steve B
Click to expand...

I totally agree Steve, it would seem a ludicrous decision imho. Often the EML is just an advisory that a sensor is misbehaving.
 
Some cynics might say that it is a cheap way of forcing older cars off the roads, without having to offer any incentives to owners that are happy with what they have.
 
I can see what you mean.

To me the MOT is firstly and most importantly about SAFETY. They have "Piggy-backed" pollution checks and that is fair enough.

Anything else is just making the process unnecessarily more complex and making people spend lots of money on repairs and scrapping usable, safe cars.

It is not the MOT tester's fault, it is the ministry that needs to remember what the MOT is meant to do and that is to keep unsafe or excessively polluting cars off the road.

Steve B
 
Mine has failed on the HIDs on the last 2 years, even though they are professionally fitted numerous years ago. I have just swapped them over to standard bulbs on each occasion to get it passed, but I got fed up of doing this and now use OSRAM Nightbreakers instead which are poor in comparison to HIDS but the best of a bad bunch.

As others have said why should I be penalised for making my car safer
 
Yes, the Osram Nightbreakers seem the best of the bunch if you are staying 100% legal.

I have had to resort to 100w bulbs to get decent illumination and since they are standard design and perfectly aligned I am just left with usable light levels and no glare.

However they are illegal, not because they are 100w, but only because they are not "E" marked.

The fact that no MOT tester or police officer is likely to even think of looking at them (because they give out the same light as a normal headlight bulb on other cars and don't blind other drivers) But they are ILLEGAL and so I cannot recommend them!!

I wouldn't have to do this if the standard A2 headlamps were not so dim (and it is VERY rare of me to criticise an A2!!!)

Steve B
 
damadgeruk said:
I am more often dazzled by badly adjusted or poorly fitted OE headlights than modified headlights. Yes, badly fitted HID dazzle more though their numbers are insignificant in my experience compared to faulty OE.
Until the police clamp down (never going to happen due to budget constraints) I don't see things getting better as people seem increasingly incapable of maintaining their vehicles.
Click to expand...
Check ...the lights I find the most dazzling are the latest manufacturers super bright leds .. they do not react quick enough & are far more dangerous.. next up are badly adjusted halogen lights .. invariably on sheds ...!!!
 
Mine have just failed as they struggled to get the beam alignment optimised. I have been told that the above regulation is firm and coming into play. They will be an instant fail as a retrospective fitment once they become legally part of the test.
 
A retest Tuesday. I have a spare set of headlamps that I will load with stock bulbs. There is some crazing on the headlamps I have in at the moment which won't have helped. Osram nightbreakers going forward.
 
I can live with swapping HIDs for normal bulbs and back once a year. If the police start enforcing it then that would be a different matter.
 
An easy swap Steve. With the crazing I have I will revert permanently and to the other units for an easy life. Also, I don't do enough night time driving to warrant them per se
 
A2Steve said:
I can live with swapping HIDs for normal bulbs and back once a year. If the police start enforcing it then that would be a different matter.
Click to expand...
Much as I like to see police out policing this seems highly unlikely. So long as I get a good cut off I'll keep using my HID's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top