1st MOT recorded mileage 60

[reckless]

A vehicle, not ours, has a history showing 60 recorded miles at the 1st MOT so 3 yrs old. We know from other documents that it had done at least 7-8000 mls previously.

Apart from clocking, and surely you'd use something less suspicious, what could explain this, legitimate or otherwise.

Answers on a postcard..........btw we don't know the answer!

 

[TheBig1]

with modern electronic odometers, the mileage is recorded in a memory bank in the ECU so if it's not been tampered with, suspect an ECU fault

 

[Jake vE]

As its the first MOT it could have been entered incorrectly maybe? Since there hasn't been a previous one it wouldn't flag as a mistake?

Complete guess though....

 

[DBK]

How old is it now? It is possible a vehicle might only have done 60 miles in its first three years. Unusual, but not impossible. The subsequent mileage might have happened in later years.

 

[reckless]

How old is it now? It is possible a vehicle might only have done 60 miles in its first three years. Unusual, but not impossible. The subsequent mileage might have happened in later years.

It's now 16. The other docs evidence at least 7,500mls before that MOT.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Lanerboy]

Could it have had new clocks fitted due to another issue

 

[reckless]

Could it have had new clocks fitted due to another issue

That's a possibility we're considering. Believe that should be recorded in the service book so need to check that.

 

[DBK]

It's now 16. The other docs evidence at least 7,500mls before that MOT.

Sorry, don't understand, you said it was 60 miles at its first MOT - but I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[pappajohn]

Could it have had new clocks fitted due to another issue

I believe new clocks have to be legally documented and matched to the ECU or they don't work.
Different again to the old cable driven clocks where you could fit anything that would fit.

 

[reckless]

Sorry, don't understand, you said it was 60 miles at its first MOT - but I wouldn't worry about it.

I'm clearly not explaining it properly

At, say, 2yrs it had done 7500. At 3yrs it's apparently done 60.

Then for several years the MOT mileage remains well below 7500.

So the *current* recorded mileage (MOT/odometer) must be short at least 7440. Casts doubt on its history.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Eggs]

I'd take little notice of MOT history, my old merc odo is in km, the amount of times it's recorded as miles on MOT Certs over the years is staggering.

 

[Otter Spotter]

New engine ?

 

[SuperMike]

The ATM on our motorhome, which controls the gearchange and strangely where the mileage is stored, went phutttt. It’s American, but to replace it and to program the replacement to the correct mileage, I had to send a photo of the speedo, showing the mileage reading when it stopped working. All this was done and the replacement received within the week.

 

[pappajohn]

New engine ?

Can't see that calling for a new clock.... Its still the same vehicle.
If you were selling then producing a dated receipt for the engine work would be enough.

 

[The Wino]

I think it's definitely dodgy depending on what the owner is saying after all the odometer is only a gauge. If the vehicle you are talking about is being sold and the seller is open about it's history and says that the indicated mileage is incorrect with an estimate of the true figure it's fine. If they are claiming its the true mileage its fraud. If they are attempting fraud they're a bit stupid to reduce it that much a mileage that low would put quite a few people off and now it's in the mot history it's permanently recorded.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[chatteris]

possibly entered wrong at mot, we had a van in that had failed a test at 260,000 and had passed test next day at 290,000 so would not worry about it and go on service history and was still only showing 275,000 tester possibly wrote down trip mileage.

 

[reckless]

Year 4 the MOT shows 500mls, after that it becomes more reasonable

 

[Wh05apk]

It's now 16. The other docs evidence at least 7,500mls before that MOT.

If the vehicle is 16 years old, the mileage is pretty much irrelevant, whatever the mileage it is highly unlikely the engine will give problems, the condition is far more important.

 

[Boris7]

My 7 had 6,800 miles on the clock at its first month (3 years old) and 520 miles on its 2nd mot (4 years old)

Fairly easily explained

 

[denisejoe]

I bought a Volvo 940 estate at 15 year old mileage was 7500 annual services till first mot were 110 -230- 300 was registered handicapped and the owners only went shopping in it, interior was like new

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[chaser]

Year 4 the MOT shows 500mls, after that it becomes more reasonable

If you are looking at buying this motor, what does it really matter what happened 13 years ago, what matters is the condition it's in now, and it's quite possible the present owner has only done a thousand miles a year, plenty of them about.

 

[Nasher]

I reckon the MOT tester read the trip meter mileage.......

 

[2657]

My 7 had 6,800 miles on the clock at its first month (3 years old) and 520 miles on its 2nd mot (4 years old)

Fairly easily explained

View attachment 429486

That doesn't explain anything to me!

 

[chaser]

That doesn't explain anything to me!

Nor me I'm afraid

 

[Boris7]

There are many reasons for the drop in mileage, the most likely being a new speedo

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[reckless]

If you are looking at buying this motor, what does it really matter what happened 13 years ago, what matters is the condition it's in now, and it's quite possible the present owner has only done a thousand miles a year, plenty of them about.

Aware and agree. Was asking for potential explanations and have received some interesting comments.

Thanks all.