........ or have I just wasted an afternoon?
My philosophy is that if a car is clean inside and out (including full polish and interior detailing), it could give the impression that it is well cared for and maintained, meaning that the examiner may be more forgiving in it's inspection; i.e. signing it off even if there is still a minor fix required.
However, logic dictates that they still have their fixed checks to make, immaterial of whether it's gleaming, or a rolling, filthy mobile dustbin.
So does it make any difference, to the overall result?
BTW - I haven't paid for a garage check, but have checked the basics myself, and believe it to be mechanically sound and safe (2006 Kangoo 4x4).
I have had it it serviced and an electrical problem diagnosed and repaired in the past year - in both cases my friendly garagist reported no other problems.
...... and why has every MFK that I've ever had, always been scheduled for early in the morning?
Well, I don’t know if it makes them more accommodating of minor problems, but cleanliness of the car is part of the test. Engine and underside should both be cleaned as you can get told off if they don’t think they’re clean enough. It was pointed out to us on one test that the garage had overfilled the oil and it had overflowed a bit.
If it's not clean they may refuse to do the test, in any case the MFK is a doodle to pass, in many ways easier than a UK MOT as minor faults get marked & you sign to say you will fix them!
I just bought a second hand BMW 330ix & one of the headlights was slightly dimmer than the other, garage signed paper & I left with the car 5 minutes later with my new car, not giving a monkeys!
I don't think the interior of the car is important. It is the engine and the chasis they are more concerned with. In any case, they have an objective checklist, so I don't think they can really make any problems up. I suppose they can choose to ignore things, but I don't see why they would.
The testers aren't keen on getting their hands dirty.
Theoretically a clean chassis means they can more easily spot oil leaks.
A dirty chassis usually means you have an oil leak you don't want them to see
I generally find you can hide oil leaks by jet washing around the leak 10 mins before the test & wiping a cloth around the little dribble whilst waiting your turn
Only the krauts give a rat's ass about cleanliness, here it's a question of function.
Tom
Maybe buy yourself a newer car with your vast fortune
It's like this - I cleaned and polished it last week, after the Easter snow, because of any salt, but it did the best part of 500 kliks on wet CH and DE autobahns at the start of the week and showed the usual surface muck and dirty rain splats - plus the missus parked under a tree full of chirping birds, this morning.
Just needed to hose it off (didn't even need to get the Karcher out). But then in a moment of madness, I decided to give it another polish, which included inside of doors and chassis where doors close. The interior was fine from the last clean - vacuum and wiping away 1mm dust from dash/facia.
But, if it's still sluicing it down, in the morning, as it is now, then it won't look it's best, after the journey, there. So is the nice clean and ordered interior, going to have a subliminal effect on the mood of the examiner?
I did last week , however I believe a car is a disposable commodity & not an asset which should cost less than than 5 weeks net pay. I would expect to get over 100k from my 5 weeks net pay.
Warren Buffet drives & old VW beetle and remarked he is not prepared to spend $10k on an asset that will be worth 0 in 10 years. That 10k will turn into more than $1,000,000 of lost investment over 40 years.......
You could also put on some cologne, maybe get a haircut, and bring him some flowers. Maybe he'll let you get to second base on the first exam.
Ironic, really, that they will fail a car if there's a dirty patch from some old oil under the engine area, even though it's clearly not fresh, but pass the same car if it's just been steam cleaned to remove any evidence. That's exactly what happened to me the first time I got a car tested here.
Mine dew, it also failed on the UK-spec headlights which I needed to change.
I should have ...... in a bit of Lou Reed role reversal, he was a she.
Hmm, either you're paid vastly more than the rest of us, if you get 100k in five weeks, or you're a rotten cheapskate. Which is it?
Anyway, such 'rules' are meaningless for people in other circumstances. It's not important how many weeks of income it costs, but how much you need that money for other things. I certainly agree that a car isn't an 'asset', but over a longer period total cost of ownership for a newer car, while clearly higher than an old banger, isn't always as much more as some people might imagine.
I took my car to TCS for it's MFK. I booked it in for a pre-MFK, which is a bit cheaper, in order to find any faults as the car was due for a service the week after. They said a run through the car wash is sufficient.
After the pre-MFK, they said the car was fine and gave me the actual MFK certificate, for the price of the pre-MFK.
On the contrary, many years ago, I took a car for an MFK and one failing point, amongst many others, was the missing ashtray..
he will be dead within 40 years.
if you are old and super rich, then better spend it - you can't transfer it to your next life
Does it cost to retake the MFK test? Did you pay TCS for it?
Over 190,000km's of ownership / 40,000 km year with my Old 1995 BMW 328 total running costs worked out at 29 rap / KM v the 70 rap / KM allowed as a deduction against tax
Reading TCS reports a new cars running costs would be nearer 1.25 CHF / KM roughly 4 times what I pay.
He can give the money to one of his charities so why not?
At his annual compound growth rate of 19.7% $10,000 became $24,800,094 over 40 years.
So it's a simple choice to buy a 10k car at 25 or have a retirement fund of 25 million aged 65.
Well, they are Swiss after all