NCT fair?

ccbetor

I am new to Ireland, and need advice from seasoned car owners. Do you find the NCT inspection fair, or have you experienced it as requiring uneccesary repairs to keep your car "road worthy?"

I recently moved from Switzerland and found their inspection system unfair (had to get the engine steam cleaned before the appointment, and BMW dealer told me repairs requested were in no way affecting the safety of the vehicle). This equated to 3000 chf of repairs on a car worth 5000 chf.

Your insights will help me decide between getting a new versus used vehicle. I typically never get a new vehicle, but I got financially burned with my last 2 year assignment and don't want the same thing to happen again.

Thanks for your advice!

Anan1

It's fair and straightforward - you can have a look at their online manual to see exactly what is tested, and what will fail. Buy the right car privately, find a decent local mechanic to service it for you and you'll be fine.

biko

The manual is here so you can see for yourself what they will inspect.
http://www.ncts.ie/NCT%20Manual%20Revise%20May%202012.pdf

The "fairness" of NCT is a wildly debated topic here but in my mind they do a pretty good job overall.

The Main failure items for 2012 were:
1 Front Suspension
2 Tyre Condition
3 Headlamp Aim
4 Brake Line / Hoses
5 Stop Lamps
http://www.ncts.ie/test_stats.html

mikeoneil1000

what percentage of cars fail test?

CiniO

ccbetor wrote: »

I am new to Ireland, and need advice from seasoned car owners. Do you find the NCT inspection fair, or have you experienced it as requiring uneccesary repairs to keep your car "road worthy?"

NCT test is fair.
Obviously it's not perfect - so there might appear some differences.
F.e. tester might miss something on one car, while other tester won't miss it on other.
Equipment calibration might also be an issue some times.

But generally - it is really fair and straightforward.
Manual showing what is a fail is available from their website, so there should be no doubts.

Only drawback of NCT system is their booking system - but that's another story.

MadYaker

I find most people who complain about its unfairness are much like the guy who started this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82041172

One of my favorites in the motors forum.

hi5

It is fair.
I do my own work, so I go out of my way to prove them wrong.... they're usually right

JohnBoy26

ccbetor wrote: »

I am new to Ireland, and need advice from seasoned car owners. Do you find the NCT inspection fair, or have you experienced it as requiring uneccesary repairs to keep your car "road worthy?"

I recently moved from Switzerland and found their inspection system unfair (had to get the engine steam cleaned before the appointment, and BMW dealer told me repairs requested were in no way affecting the safety of the vehicle). This equated to 3000 chf of repairs on a car worth 5000 chf.

Your insights will help me decide between getting a new versus used vehicle. I typically never get a new vehicle, but I got financially burned with my last 2 year assignment and don't want the same thing to happen again.

Thanks for your advice!

An engine steam clean is unnecessary unless your engine was caked in muck or oil.

HurtLocker

My last car failed on emissions. €10 on diptaine and it passed. Yet the car had to go a week of being NCTless. Bloody bollocks. Once the car is safe it should pass. It would probable fail now on emissions again 4 months later. Pointless failure.

Voodoomelon

^^ You could argue that all you did was temporarily swizz the system, and your exhaust etc still needs attention.

HurtLocker

Not going to argue that. I blame diesel with short city driving as I was studying alot before the NCT and didnt have time or a reason to take it for a long spin. Hardly a reason to say its a hazard to other road users or my self and making it illegal and void my insurance to drive for a week was a bit over the top. It was mechanical sound and safe. Mechanic said it just needed "a hard drive". I added diptaine to be 100% safe.

BNMC

I agree with the NCT but the cost of it is a disgrace.

unkel

BNMC wrote: »

I agree with the NCT but the cost of it is a disgrace.

€55 for a comprehensive safety, emissions and compliance check?

Honestly, that is very good value for money. The only reason they can do it as cheap is because of the economies of scale and the conveyor belt type standardised setup

Ronnie Beck

BNMC wrote: »

I agree with the NCT but the cost of it is a disgrace.

You should try DOE'in a van lad. They even charge you 6 quid for the cert.

Only once had an issue with an unfair fail on headlight allignment but everything else needed done.

downonthefarm

another scam set up by a complete and utter corrupt shower of ****e.

but it keeps bangers off the road and drivers safe

unkel

downonthefarm wrote: »

another scam set up by a complete and utter corrupt shower of ****e.

Car testing is EU regulation. Ireland was the last country in the EU to adopt it. The government had no choice in the matter. And how is it a scam? We've just argued it is actually good value for money

And maybe you don't remember the terrible state of many cars in Ireland before the NCT was brought in. I do. It was a disgrace

There's probably no other country in the EU that benefited as much from bringing in the NCT (in terms of road safety) as Ireland

CiniO

downonthefarm wrote: »

but it keeps bangers off the road and drivers safe

Maybe it does in the cities.
But in rural countryside, where half of vehicles drive without NCT anyway, it makes no difference really.

If there was any enforcement -then yes - it would make a difference.

unkel

The lack of enforcement in some parts of the country is disgraceful. I see you are in Mayo. When killing a few minutes waiting for other people I did a hotel car park check in Mayo 2 years ago. 90% of Mayo reg cars did not have tax :rolleyes:

I really don't know why I have to pay the car tax for these Mayo slackers. I don't have the money for it :mad:

And in fairness, I do not blame the Mayo people, I would probably be tempted myself not to pay motor tax if my car was never checked by the Guards....

downonthefarm

CiniO wrote: »

Maybe it does in the cities.
But in rural countryside, where half of vehicles drive without NCT anyway, it makes no difference really.

If there was any enforcement -then yes - it would make a difference.

never bother wit nct myself,guards never seemed bothered about it either so thats good enough for me

carzony

Gardai really do need to start taking the nct seriously. My mate has been driving 7 months without an nct and has went through a good few checkpoints.

snaps

unkel wrote: »

The lack of enforcement in some parts of the country is disgraceful. I see you are in Mayo. When killing a few minutes waiting for other people I did a hotel car park check in Mayo 2 years ago. 90% of Mayo reg cars did not have tax :rolleyes:

I really don't know why I have to pay the car tax for these Mayo slackers. I don't have the money for it :mad:

And in fairness, I do not blame the Mayo people, I would probably be tempted myself not to pay motor tax if my car was never checked by the Guards....

I recently checked cars on my estate (In mayo) whilst walking by them and I would agree, about 70% had out of date tax of more than 3 months. One had tax 3 years out of date and is used everyday.

snaps

unkel wrote: »

There's probably no other country in the EU that benefited as much from bringing in the NCT (in terms of road safety) as Ireland

Just wondering, what are the official stats/facts on this? As far as I can see there is just as many accidents and road deaths than ever at the moment?

SuperGrover

OP, I get my car serviced regularly, get any work done recommended by my mechanic and recently changed my tyres as they were close to the minimum tread depth. Funny enough, it passed first time.

corktina

snaps wrote: »

I recently checked cars on my estate (In mayo) whilst walking by them and I would agree, about 70% had out of date tax of more than 3 months. One had tax 3 years out of date and is used everyday.

i'd say , with the new system, those people may have a shock coming....hopefully

Del2005

HurtLocker wrote: »

Not going to argue that. I blame diesel with short city driving as I was studying alot before the NCT and didnt have time or a reason to take it for a long spin. Hardly a reason to say its a hazard to other road users or my self and making it illegal and void my insurance to drive for a week was a bit over the top. It was mechanical sound and safe. Mechanic said it just needed "a hard drive". I added diptaine to be 100% safe.

Your car was a hazard to the environment. NCT is to make sure the car is as safe to the environment as well as the vehicle safety. There where a lot more cars running with bad emissions before this came in and if you're producing more emissions then your more than likely burning more fuel.

The NCT didn't make you drive without a valid cert you choose to and your insurance would only be void if it can be proven that the fail item contributed to the crash, pretty much the same as if you have a valid NCT but crash due to bald tires.

Old diesel

ccbetor wrote: »

I am new to Ireland, and need advice from seasoned car owners. Do you find the NCT inspection fair, or have you experienced it as requiring uneccesary repairs to keep your car "road worthy?"

I recently moved from Switzerland and found their inspection system unfair (had to get the engine steam cleaned before the appointment, and BMW dealer told me repairs requested were in no way affecting the safety of the vehicle). This equated to 3000 chf of repairs on a car worth 5000 chf.

Your insights will help me decide between getting a new versus used vehicle. I typically never get a new vehicle, but I got financially burned with my last 2 year assignment and don't want the same thing to happen again.

Thanks for your advice!

I don't consider the NCT test to be particularly unfair generally - although you will hear people complain otherwise.

We put a 180,000 mile 1999 car in pretty average condition through its NCT a few months ago and it passed without issue.

The other thing to remember is that when you buy new and change every 3 to 4 years you will incour a lot of depreciation - that is that your new car purchased this year will be worth a lot less in 2016/17.

So if you were to buy a new car in 2016 - you will have to finance yourself the gap in value between old and new. This would pay for a lot of repair work and servicing on an older car.

Also - and I know this is very much open to debate - but it could be argued that the complexity and extra technology on a lot of newer cars leads to extra maintenance costs down the road.

So a good 2nd hand can in some instances be better for reliability then some newer cars. Choose your 2nd hand car wisely - have it checked out prior to purchase by a trusted expert if your not knowledgable yourself - do your research into the model your thinking of buying (common faults, general reliability of the type of car, cost of maintenance etc) and you should be fine buying 2nd hand.

Even if you get caught with a lemon of a 2nd hand car - the cost saved over buying new will very easily finance a better 2nd hand car.

And theres no guarantee imo of avoiding a lemon when buying new - and if your thinking of buying new to avail of "manufacturer backup under warranty etc" - id not bother personally.

Yes faults can be fixed under warranty - but manufacturers imo aren't always as good as they should be in dealing with constantly recourring faults.

Take a look at the bangernomics tread on here - to get a flavour of what can be bought for less then 2 grand with NCT etc.

Buy a car at 1500 with lots of test left - stick it in for another test on expiry (don't bother with those "pre NCT tests" - id rather horse it in for the test itself and see what happens) and see what happens.

Yes you can get caught out with a troublesome car - hence why buying cheap cars isn't for everyone.

But the point im trying to make is that buying new "to avoid NCT test issues" is a very expensive business and not always necessary.

Your already ahead of the game financially when you buy 2nd hand - so can afford to take the hit from time to time on NCT test repairs.

That's my outlook anyway

Keeping

Old diesel

unkel wrote: »

Car testing is EU regulation. Ireland was the last country in the EU to adopt it. The government had no choice in the matter. And how is it a scam? We've just argued it is actually good value for money

And maybe you don't remember the terrible state of many cars in Ireland before the NCT was brought in. I do. It was a disgrace

There's probably no other country in the EU that benefited as much from bringing in the NCT (in terms of road safety) as Ireland

Yes I remember the way cars were maintained (or not) pre NCT - some right crocks on the road.

Irish people frequently aren't great at maintaining cars as it is - id hate to think what sort of stuff would be on the roads if you had no NCT - when you consider that for many people - the NCT is probably the only time the car got checked over during the whole year :eek:.

unkel

snaps wrote: »

Just wondering, what are the official stats/facts on this? As far as I can see there is just as many accidents and road deaths than ever at the moment?

Nope, road deaths in Ireland:

2000: 415
2012: 162

Massive, massive difference. Of course there are more reasons than just the introduction of the NCT (i.e. penalty points), but I've no doubt it played a major part in this reduction

aujopimur

mikeoneil1000 wrote: »

what percentage of cars fail test?

It's about 50% across the board for 1st time pass/fail, it rises dramatically as they retest, the exact details are available on the NCT website.

mb1725

unkel wrote: »

Nope, road deaths in Ireland:

2000: 415
2012: 162

Didn't realise the massive drop, whatever the reason it's good to see it.

kirving

Although the number of collisions per vehicle km travelled has reduced quit a bit, I believe that a large chunk of the reduction in road deaths is down to safer cars. Even your average ten year old car these days has at least 2 air bags, ABS, and is far far stronger than a car from 1990.

MadYaker

NCT has helped but id say most of the drop in road death figures is to do with newer cars being safer and better built. Also the scrappage scheme did away with a lot of the old bangers and got people to buy newer safer cars.

Guy:Incognito

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Although the number of collisions per vehicle km travelled has reduced quit a bit, I believe that a large chunk of the reduction in road deaths is down to safer cars. Even your average ten year old car these days has at least 2 air bags, ABS, and is far far stronger than a car from 1990.

All the airbags in the world wont save you if they dont work. How many people come on here and start threads about the airbag light being on on their car and how to get rid of it before the nct? Its always "theres no problem, its just the light on " . If there was no nct theyd just take the bulb out and fprget about it till their head is embedded in the windscreen.

unkel

MadYaker wrote: »

id say most of the drop in road death figures is to do with newer cars being safer and better built. Also the scrappage scheme did away with a lot of the old bangers and got people to buy newer safer cars.

The scrappage scheme had finished well before 2000, the earlier year I quoted with the high death rates. But indeed, it did take away many a banger. The main reason the government introduced it was it would be internationally embarrassed by failure rate statistics of the incoming NCT

I presume you didn't mean the 2011 scrappage scheme? Few cars sold through it and they were mainly small. Very few dangerous bangers were taken off the road because of it (cars were NCTd all or most of their life)

CiniO

corktina wrote: »

i'd say , with the new system, those people may have a shock coming....hopefully

New system won't change a thing.

What do you think - why those people drive without tax?

Answer is simple - because they know they won't encounter road check.

With new system amount of road checks is not going to change, so people will still drive without tax.

JohnBoy26

unkel wrote: »

Nope, road deaths in Ireland:

2000: 415
2012: 162

Massive, massive difference. Of course there are more reasons than just the introduction of the NCT (i.e. penalty points), but I've no doubt it played a major part in this reduction

The reduction in road deaths could also be down to less cars being on the road now due to the recession.

HurtLocker

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

The reduction in road deaths could also be down to less cars being on the road now due to the recession.

I always presumed it was because so much of the 21-30 age group have emigrated and taken a lot of the boy racers with them. I expect it will go up when the next generation grow old enough to drive

Dord

I think it's fine, although as mentioned they need to get their scheduling sorted. I had to ring up at least 5 times to get a booking.

Without the NCT there'd be a lot more bangers on the road... and many more people driving around with broken indicators, headlights, taillights and other pieces of their cars. This is just basic stuff that you can see, not even going into the mechanical issues!

Another thing with NCT though, and I think it needs to be addressed, is enforcement. I've seen quite a few cars around in use that have expired NCT's.

unkel

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

The reduction in road deaths could also be down to less cars being on the road now due to the recession.

Yes the recession for sure is one of the factors. People use their cars less, especially people who have lost their jobs and don't commute any more.

Car ownership was still going up in the early 00s though, all the way to '07 so I wouldn't think there are less cars on the road now than there were in 2000

downonthefarm

down the country they are a law unto themselves

carzony

unkel wrote: »

Yes the recession for sure is one of the factors. People use their cars less, especially people who have lost their jobs and don't commute any more.

Car ownership was still going up in the early 00s though, all the way to '07 so I wouldn't think there are less cars on the road now than there were in 2000

People might have bought them but doesn't mean they are driving them. One of my neighbours bought a brand new golf this year, I think he has used the car twice.

I don't know bout the boy racer theory either. I know many would have left but there's still a huge amount of young people driving about.

unkel

carzony wrote: »

I don't know bout the boy racer theory either. I know many would have left but there's still a huge amount of young people driving about.

There's another one. Young Irish males (who featured very badly in the typically single car death statistics) now emigrated. Nobody knows what impact any of these factors had on the reduction of road deaths, but I'm sure all of these played a part.

Mo60

I think the NCT is the best thing that ever happened in regard to getting unsafe vehicles off the road in this country.

Many years ago, when I came here on holiday, I borrowed a relative's car and found out that the brakes did not work.
Another time I hired a car and when I put the headlights on the back lights did not work.

yosserhughes

Its just a money making racket! I would like to know 1...why did a car over 10 years used to get a pass cert for 2 years but now its only for 1 year?What has changed? 2....Why is this rule not based on mileage rather than age..eg my car is 11 years and my sons in 6 years ..my mileage is 62000 and my sons is 125000 yet his car only has to go every 2 years...does not make sense to me...

Cerco

yosserhughes wrote: »

Its just a money making racket! I would like to know 1...why did a car over 10 years used to get a pass cert for 2 years but now its only for 1 year?What has changed? 2....Why is this rule not based on mileage rather than age..eg my car is 11 years and my sons in 6 years ..my mileage is 62000 and my sons is 125000 yet his car only has to go every 2 years...does not make sense to me...

1. Because a 10 yr. old car is more likely to become faulty. There has to be some cut off point.

2. This is a very good point but it would be a nightmare to administer. At the moment there is a definite point in time when a car is due but if it were based on mileage, only the driver would be aware of the driven miles etc. etc.

bazz26

yosserhughes wrote: »

Its just a money making racket! I would like to know 1...why did a car over 10 years used to get a pass cert for 2 years but now its only for 1 year?What has changed? 2....Why is this rule not based on mileage rather than age..eg my car is 11 years and my sons in 6 years ..my mileage is 62000 and my sons is 125000 yet his car only has to go every 2 years...does not make sense to me...

What has mileage on a car got to do with whether it is roadworthy or not? I could show you a bucket of crap car with only 50k miles on it that shouldn't be left in a field not to mind on a road.

Cerco

bazz26 wrote: »

What has mileage on a car got to do with whether it is roadworthy or not? I could show you a bucket of crap car with only 50k miles on it that shouldn't be left in a field not to mind on a road.

All things being equal a car with higher mileage is on average more likely to fail than one with lower mileage. More wear and tear etc.

Chris_Heilong

Cerco wrote: »

All things being equal a car with higher mileage is on average more likely to fail than one with lower mileage. More wear and tear etc.

But some older cars were better built, a lot of cars nowadays are made with very cheap parts in cost cutting measures by manufactures, old cars were built to last new cars seem to have one problem or another every 6 months or so from people I talk to.

Cerco

Cerco wrote: »

All things being equal a car with higher mileage is on average more likely to fail than one with lower mileage. More wear and tear etc.

There'd be a massive increase in cars being clocked if it was based on mileage. Years is a simpler system.

bazz26

Cerco wrote: »

All things being equal a car with higher mileage is on average more likely to fail than one with lower mileage. More wear and tear etc.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I could drive car A on 30 miles of crap roads everyday for a year, I could then drive car B on 60 miles of motorway everyday for a year. Which car do you think has less wear and tear on it? The Irish seem to be of the mind set that the numbers on a car's odometer is a true reflection of wear and tear, this is one of the reasons clocking is such big business here.

Cerco

bazz26 wrote: »

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I could drive car A on 30 miles of crap roads everyday for a year, I could then drive car B on 60 miles of motorway everyday for a year. Which car do you think has less wear and tear on it? The Irish seem to be of the mind set that the numbers on a car's odometer is a true reflection of wear and tear, this is one of the reasons clocking is such big business here.

Which is why I said "All things being equal"