Well, I'm stumped then.

Any decent mechanic should have noticed the rotor discoloration irrespective of it not being a 'safety' item or part of an MoT, and addressed the root cause.

There again, we've not seen any photos of the issue.

 

It's odd. The various mechanics who've done MoTs on my cars use a torch with car in the air to peer at both faces of every disc (they're testing/inspecting suspension etc as well). I don't really see how they would miss this. (Though I don't have the same S-Type model so maybe visibility is worse?)

The whole MoT manual is online and I've found it handy to use as a DIY guide to the things that ought as a minimum be checked / maintained.

 

Not to belabor this, but What is MoT? It sounds like some kind of inspection group, but I may not have that right.

 

It's the Ministry of Transport safety test carried out annually on all cars over three years old in the U.K.
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...cked-at-an-mot

 

Thanks Norri.

 

MOT testers are not perfect Mikey they do a shabby job, make mistakes and get things wrong. Crazy concept hu?

 

Or, the guy saw the discoloration, knew it was not a safety issue and let it go.

 

Well he didn't spot the over all thinness of the discs or the additional dishing on the inside edge of the inner disc face. Its quite easy to run your fingers between the pressed metal dust shroud and the disc to feel the surface exactly as I did.

Having replaced a fair few discs over the years I know when they need replacing and when a disc will not last much longer.

If the MOT tester thought it was just about passable, they have the option to add what is called an "Advisory note" or several to the certificate.
The "advisory note" is so they can basically say the item will need replacing or fixing fairly soon or certainly before the next MOT.
So they had that option too, but didn't use it.
By simply feeling the discs surfaces when the car was up in the air on the car lift the tester would have found this disc problem.

The MOT is of course no guarantee as to the safety of a vehicle as any traffic police officer will tell you. The responsibility lies purely with the owner to maintain the vehicle and make sure it is safe. That's how its stands here in England.

I don't trust mechanics or dealer technicians, I trust me. End of.

 

MOT testers do make mistakes.

The MOT Professional - MOT Health Checks, Risk Assessments, Advice and Guidance


But I would rather stay on thread with how to change the front hubs and discs.
The MOT testers failure to spot these items is incidental to being safe on my own car.

 

Sounds and reads like a Looney Tune with Elmer Fudd. Inspecting (sort of) every vehicle over three years old is ridiculous. What a waste of time. Here in Alabama, we don't have the vehicle inspection. Just not necessary. MOT reads and looks like the inspections in Georgia...nothing but a jobs program and a lot of government busy bodies saving the world. ( choke choke).

 

The British government meddles in everything they can and this is why there is very little that actually works in this country.
Boundless bureaucracy and with an over complex layer of ill fitting EU heavy handed bureaucracy.
Orwell's Britain.
Thankfully there are still a few of us who can see through the c**p.

 

If a difference in accident rate could be demonstrated between Mot countries and non-Mot, I'd support the idea. But there is no difference, all other things considered.

 

I think you've failed to look at the statistics. Britain has one of the lowest death on the roads figures. USA, by way of example....

As we're a very crowded island with many narrow roads you'd expect a lot worse rate than other places.

 

That's a very valid point.
In the UK most accidents with serious injuries or fatalities are attributed to excess speed.

 

Speed is the work of Satan.

 

I confess, I have greatly sinned with the depraved art of excess speed, burn outs and of hoisting the front wheel...

 

None of this difference is attributed to mechanical failure of the vehicle.

 

I doubt that's true but how would anyone know?

I suppose the alternative is that Brits are just better drivers despite crowded roads and vast numbers of vehicles (and higher speed limits than many places) - which strikes me as implausible.

Things that can be expected to reduce fatalities here include:
1. brakes thoroughly tested annually (including actual braking and soundness of pipes, hoses, etc)
2. cars which are structurally sound (tested annually)
3. fuel systems that don't leak (tested annually)
4. suspension that is tested annually
5. tyres tested annually (so no damage, no nails, etc)

the list goes on (the MoT manual is lengthy)...

Just the ability to brake and stop in a controlled manner (and normally in a straight line) is a good start.

 

Typically the authorities collect statistics on the cause of accidents they investigate, as do insurance companies. In a heavily (overly) litigious and regulated country like the US, you can bet that OEMs have great desire to prove that it was owner neglect at fault, not the vehicle.


ABS, TPMS, back up cameras, DSC etc. didn't invent themselves for no reason. I've seen the numbers for myself and will attempt to track them down again.

 

I mentioned fatalities. UK has far less than USA (less than a third, per capita). You argue it's nothing to do with out MoT (which makes sure vehicles are in good, safe, condition).

I say you're wrong , but OK how do you account for the far lower fatalities?