[borris1954]

About this time last year I took my 1997 SLK 230 in for it annual MOT during which the following advisories were noted:

• Offside Rear Upper Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement
• Nearside Rear Upper Sub-frame pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement
• Front Coil spring corroded O/S/F and N/S/F
• Rear Coil spring corroded O/S/R and N/S/R

Post that MOT I looked at carefully at each of these and decided to take no action until after the next MOT unless there was any significant issue I could trace to any the above. Today the car went in for its next MOT and again received a couple of advisories:

• Under vehicle covered.
• Slight play in both front wheel bearings.

You may or may not be surprised to note that all of the previous advisories have now vanished without any action from me. All I have done to the car this year is:

• Fix a leaking vario roof cylinder
• change all fluids
• fit a new K40
• retrofit an auxillary coolant pump
• clean and lubricate both side window regulators
• a shed load of cleaning and polishing...

I think this highlights just how much of the MOT is subjective and depends upon the skill/experience of the tester (and doubly so with advisories). I would urge seeking a second opinion on any advisories before spending a lot of cash on what may be unnecessary repairs at the current time.

As for this years advisories I do find it strange to get an advisory noting that the car was designed and built with several removeable under shields. To be honest the play in the front wheel bearing is fair comment. I had noticed that and had fully intended to put the dial gauge on and check the end float but it slipped off my stack of jobs. So I have to agree with that one.

 

[LeonardoDaBenz]

As we don't have to undergo those types of yearly inspections ever, just what does

• Under vehicle covered.

supposed to mean (in general and as an "advisory"?

 

[borris1954]

I just asked our friends at Google at the top reply I think hits the nail right on the head;

"Ultimately it's simply a case of an MOT tester covering their back. Imagine if your vehicle's under trays were to fall off or become damaged. This may expose a hidden defect, perhaps brake line or chassis corrosion, that was invisible under the trays that your vehicle would then subsequently fail an MOT"​

Also a bit surprised where I posted this! I fully meant to put it in the the "SLK R170 General Discussion" section. No idea how that happened.

 

[jbanks15]

You did--we moved it to uk as
usa and others do not have a mot....

 

[borris1954]

That makes perfect sense. I did wonder how I could have struck so lucky as to mis-post into a more appropriate place!

Sent from my SM-J530F using Tapatalk

 

[Avel Du]

The 'hidden by cover' is common, but does not always get mentioned.

However, whilst in days of old you could go elsewhere and pass a car that had actually failed.
Different testers concentrating on a particular part that year.
Now, the first thing that I would do would be to check if it had been looked at recently and what was listed.
Again, not all may do that, but with the info being online and taking barely a minute....

 

[JasonH1969]

About this time last year I took my 1997 SLK 230 in for it annual MOT during which the following advisories were noted:

• Offside Rear Upper Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement
• Nearside Rear Upper Sub-frame pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement
• Front Coil spring corroded O/S/F and N/S/F
• Rear Coil spring corroded O/S/R and N/S/R

Post that MOT I looked at carefully at each of these and decided to take no action until after the next MOT unless there was any significant issue I could trace to any the above. Today the car went in for its next MOT and again received a couple of advisories:

• Under vehicle covered.
• Slight play in both front wheel bearings.

You may or may not be surprised to note that all of the previous advisories have now vanished without any action from me. All I have done to the car this year is:

• Fix a leaking vario roof cylinder
• change all fluids
• fit a new K40
• retrofit an auxillary coolant pump
• clean and lubricate both side window regulators
• a shed load of cleaning and polishing...

I think this highlights just how much of the MOT is subjective and depends upon the skill/experience of the tester (and doubly so with advisories). I would urge seeking a second opinion on any advisories before spending a lot of cash on what may be unnecessary repairs at the current time.

As for this years advisories I do find it strange to get an advisory noting that the car was designed and built with several removeable under shields. To be honest the play in the front wheel bearing is fair comment. I had noticed that and had fully intended to put the dial gauge on and check the end float but it slipped off my stack of jobs. So I have to agree with that one.

I bought a 2001 SLK230 with 180k miles back in August as a bit of a project car but when I dropped it into my local Indie for a pre-MOT check he found the rear subframe was badly rotted, every suspension mount needed replacing, the engine and gearbox mounts were shot, front crossmember was rotten, rear brake pipes needed replacing etc....I sold it on for spares as it really was beyond economic repair.......or so I thought...... the chap who bought it from me phoned me about 2 weeks after buying it and told me he'd done a few of the minor jobs then thought he'd put it in for a test just to check and it sailed straight through .

It just shows that standards of inspectors varies or the inspection is subjective, was my Indie over zealous or was the second tester negligent? I personally would not have wanted to keep the car without rectifying all of those faults properly but he has now got a perfectly legal potential death trap that theoretically is good for another 12 months.

 

[Avel Du]

It is why I like to know my testers (I use two garages, depending on car).
Both know that I'd rather know about an issue, than have something fail at the wrong time.

 

[Slik hot]

Mot certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on!
M.o.t testers are all or nothing,some look for work others can't be bothered..its always been like that,I prefer to check my vehicles personally..that way I know if the m.o.t tester is full of💩

 

[Nobby]

I usually have my SLK MOT'd at a Mercedes main dealership however due to Covid I thought I would take it to a very local MOT station.....I passed but I received an advisory that made me smile...has anyone else had one of these ??

Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):

• under trays and engine covers fitted obscuring components

 

[Tomato]

I usually ask my local garage when it gets services to do a visual inspection checking bits, including taking off the covers underneath to look for rust etc. I do that myself but still a novice when it comes to general repair.

Sadly, MOTs often are not worth the paper they are written on and do not mean your car what snap in half or blow up, yeah I know I am bring a little dramatic but did have one mates who car was on fire 2 days after an inspection!

MOT's don't remove any parts of your car as already mentioned, need to look there for rust on these babies.

 

[Petri68]

Swedish MOT is not much better.
This happened to my sons car 2 weeks after it had passed the yearly MOT.
Luckily it happened on my driveway instead of him driving on the highway.

 

[Slik hot]

H

Swedish MOT is not much better.
This happened to my sons car 2 weeks after it had passed the yearly MOT.
Luckily it happened on my driveway instead of him driving on the highway.

Is that a snapped wishbone or sheared bolt?
Either way your son was very lucky!

 

[Petri68]

H

Is that a snapped wishbone or sheared bolt?
Either way your son was very lucky!

The lower linkage arm broke because of rust..