Some of them early Kodiaqs should be having their 1st MOT about now

Did they pass?

If they failed then what did they fail on?

Anything we need to be looking out for?

 

Have a look around your vehicle about a week before the MoT, that should give you enough time to sort out anything obvious . Then a check the day before putting it through.

 

 

My own vehicle (not a Kodiaq) failed two of its 6 MoT's on things the dealer stated they had or should have sorted; I mentioned during the service the week before the MoT about the NSF indicator bulb not always working, guess what it failed on!

 

The second was a fractured suspension component that was mentioned as a 'keep an eye on' during the service the week before. The dealer did replace it as a warranty issue.

 

 

 

 

Motoreasy.com let you pick a make and model and see a summaryof MoT failings: https://www.motoreasy.com/magazine/107/Check-MOT-Failure-Rate-Using-Our-MOT-Index

 

For the Kodiaq, it says:

 

MOT failure rate:  39.36%

Figures are based on national MOT data and Pass Guarantee claims from real test bills.

Light Signal fail rate:  19.06% 

Suspension fail rate:  15.91% with typical repair costs up to £322 

Brakes fail rate:  12.81% 

Tyre and wheels fail rate:  7.34% with typical repair costs up to £264 

Seat belts fail rate:  0.46% 

Body structure fail rate:  1.93% 

Fuel and emissions fail rate:  6.68% 

View of the road fail rate:  6.76%

 

 

That seems pretty dreadful to me!

Fuel and emissions failure at more than 2.5% (6.68% of the 39.36% that fail) on such new cars is shocking!

 

I must be looking wrongly as a Nissan Leaf, Renault Zoe or Tesla has similar failure rates for Fuel / Emissions....

As with all makes and models, its the lights and suspension being the most common failure rates.

 

Anyone who doesn't take two minutes before driving to the MOT test centre to check all exterior lights and the wiper blades is asking for trouble. The funny thing is, a lot of modern cars tell you when a light isn't working, so these owners are putting their cars in with a warning illuminated on the dash!

 

As for suspension faults, given the state of our roads it's hardly surprising to expect a three year old car to have snapped springs, bent suspension arms or bushes with excess play in them.

Cars leave the production line, travel to a dealers, get a PDI, maybe a service or 3 and then fail the Headlight Check.

Over 3 years since built and then 3 on the roads in the UK with misaligned lights.

 

That is loads of cars that are tested for the first MOT.

Put Karoq into it and it comes up with a disappointing 39.36% MOT failure rate. Considering the Karoq isn't old enough to be tested yet, that's quite a poor prediction. Pity it can't predict winning lottery numbers...

I wish I hadn’t posted that link now ...

 

It seems fairly clear that the Motoreasy site gives rubbish when you ask about very new vehicles - typically, a choice that doesn’t give you the ability to specify the year will give remarkably (and suspiciously ...) similar results to those I quoted above.

 

if you ask about, for example, the Octavia of 2012, you get different figures, with a much lower overall failure rate.

Similar failure rate for the Skoda Rapid. Guess what? Mine passed because:

 

 

Its serviced on time

 

I check it over a few times a week

 

I check the tyres and bulbs

 

I ensure its spotless when it goes for its MOT.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Beachy said:

Similar failure rate for the Skoda Rapid. Guess what? Mine passed because:

 

I ensure its spotless when it goes for its MOT.

 

 

Is a dirty car an MOT fail?  Damn..... so thats where I'm doing it wrong!  🙄

Ask me on the 24th.

 

Booked in to supplying dealer. £39 I think.

 

Need to get a dash message cleared before turning car in on 3 April.

 

Expecting car to walk MOT at almost exactly 30K.

Our local independent garage has an interesting observation, shared with me a few years ago when my car was being MoT'd. He reckons that he sees a **lot** of wheels and suspension issues because (a) the roads here are abysmal and the council is bankrupt, so there is virtually no maintenance (b) loads of company and ex-company cars in this relatively wealthy locale, which have been driven "like they stole them" and (c) the drivers had a very lax attitude to doing basic checks, when the cars were company-owned

 

Although he did add that "Toyotas and Hondas seem to be built to survive a small-scale thermonuclear war."

If they weren't so boring I'd probably be driving a Toyota or Honda!

3 hours ago, silver1011 said:

If they weren't so boring I'd probably be driving a Toyota or Honda!

I've just traded in my Octy Scout for a Honda HR-V.

 

I'll quite happily exchange poor dealership experience and manufacturer after care for boring reliability.

 

The only difference between my 2016 SE model and a current one  (apart from about £8k!) Is they have gained LED headlamps and DRL's, rear view camera, Android Auto/Apple Car Play (I have Mirror Link so can still use my Sygic satnav) and Garmin satnav. 

 

 

As per a previous thread, imagine a manufacturer that adds kit, not removes it!

 

Not something Skoda's Simply Clever marketing can gloss over.

 

 

PS not sure what happened with the second copy of that video being added  but enjoy it anyway!

I've been watching used prices on the CR-V since the latest model was released last year. I too would accept a bit of blandness for extra reliability, but I know I'd quickly get board driving a car that I don't turn round to catch a look of when walking away. Alas they've barely dropped.

 

The SR and EX models are relatively rare (needed for the xenon headlights), the SE and SE Plus are ten-a-penny but so Zzzzzzz.

 

The H-RV is probably the most interesting Honda to look at, but it has to be said I prefer the look of the Toyota C-HR.