Bought a car with a false MOT?!

bigjl

Strider590 wrote: »

It is true that a dealer MOT isn't worth the paper it's printed on, if they're trying to sell a car, it won't fail the MOT.

That is just blatant BS.

Your constant anti Dealer/trader rhetoric is getting a little bit monotonous.

Funny thing is when people blame a car dealer for a hidden flaw with a used vehicle.

It is extremely unlikely that the previous owner admitted to the fault, especially if the fault is the kind of intermittent issue that is unlikely to show us unless you drive the car for a few days or weeks.

So who is the more dishonest?

Dealer or previous owner?

z1a

"Carry a lot of weight in the back so the rear brakes can work harder?"

How does that work then?

mrmot

Sounds like someone is mistaking the MOT for a vehicle condition report.

It passed a MOT 6000 miles/12 months ago and now the pads are worn to below the 1.5mm limit, this suggests to me that the tester came up with the correct result 12 months ago.

bigadaj

z1a wrote: »

"Carry a lot of weight in the back so the rear brakes can work harder?"

How does that work then?

Maybe they mean an anchor?

[Deleted User]

My car has 'Fred Flintstone' brakes and stops just fine

bigjl

z1a wrote: »

"Carry a lot of weight in the back so the rear brakes can work harder?"

How does that work then?

It doesn't!

Lol

Rear brakes pretty much just stop the rear end from overtaking the front.

z1a

I know it doesn't, I was hoping poster who stated it would try to explain.

Richard53

Strider590 wrote: »

It is true that a dealer MOT isn't worth the paper it's printed on, if they're trying to sell a car, it won't fail the MOT.

When I bought my old Merc the dealer promised a fresh MoT. I checked after I bought it, and it had failed on a broken road spring and passed two days later, all within the period between agreeing to purchase and collecting. This was never mentioned by the dealer, so I took it as evidence that the MoT was genuinely carried out.

Richard53

z1a wrote: »

I know it doesn't, I was hoping poster who stated it would try to explain.

Isn't this what the brake proportioning valve does? If it stops the rears locking up under a light load, doesn't it work the opposite way too, and increase brake pressure when the rear of the car is loaded down? I'll admit I don't fully understand this, mind.

facade

z1a wrote: »

"Carry a lot of weight in the back so the rear brakes can work harder?"

How does that work then?

With nothing in the back, the rear rises under braking more, as the weight transfers to the front.
Unless the car has ABS or a load compensation valve at the back, the rears can easily lock, and the back overtake the front.
The job of the load compensation valve is to reduce the rear braking effort as the rear rises and prevent rear wheel lock up under heavy braking.
It isn't needed with ABS as the rears are prevented from locking.

With more weight in the back to start with you can get more braking effort at the rear without lock-up, so the brakes can work harder, and wear more.

:cool: