Whilst I agree it is a grey area with land rovers, I feel I need to fight the corner of my tester here. AFAIK 110s are fitted with arbs, 90s optional.
The latest revision of the mot testing manual basically states if it was originally fitted, removal is a reason for rejection (failure):
It appears on an mot forum here:
DEFENDER ANTI-ROLL BARS
I was wondering whether you could help with the following, or put me in touch with someone who can give advice? Some Land Rover Defender drivers remove or disconnect their rear anti-roll bars to help improve rear wheel articulation (indeed, a lot of Defenders don't have them fitted). But we've heard from a reader that the MOT rules are due to change and this would result in a failure. Is this correct? John Pearson, Editor-in-Chief, Land Rover Owner International magazine.
Removing an anti-roll bar which was originally fitted to the vehicle is now a reason for rejection (ie a failure) in the MOT (at 19/10/10) – MOTT.
It is in the mot inspection manual January 2017 revision:
Method of Inspection Reason for Rejection
G. Suspension Arms and Linkages, Sub-
Frames, etc
1. Check the following components and any
attachment brackets or linkages, for presence,
cracks, fractures, distortion, corrosion, wear
and insecurity:
a. suspension arms (wishbone etc)
b. trailing arms
c. radius arms
d. tie bars/rods
e. panhard rods
f. torque/reaction arms
g. anti-roll bars
h. MacPherson struts
i. sub-frames.
1. A suspension component or its attachment
bracket or linkage:
• missing where one is fitted as standard
• cracked, fractured or insecure
• weld cracked
• severely distorted
• damaged, corroded or worn to such an
extent that its strength is seriously reduced
• retaining nut, bolt or rivet missing
• which is adjustable and is loose in its
adjustment threads, or its locking device
insecure or missing.
Note: It is not always possible to determine the
presence and effectiveness of certain types of
locking devices e.g. locking fluid or ‘nyloc’ nuts.
