Lobby group Pro-MOTe, which wants the MoT test to remain annual, has produced a report which claims bi-annual tests would cost motorists more.
It said Government claims that reducing MoT frequency will reduce the financial burden on motorists are undermined.
The report by Pro-MOTe – “A cost too far” – includes research that estimates that the average motorist would be more than £57 worse off under a less frequent MoT system than he or she is today.
It also shows that the overall cost to the UK in increased costs of road deaths, injuries and damage, as well as 40,000 lost jobs and reduced tax revenues, would be £1.44bn
The research compares costs of the existing 3-1-1 MoT system (where cars over three years are tested every year) with the 4-2-2 system more commonly used elsewhere in Europe (where cars over four years old are tested every two years). It estimates that under 4-2-2, the average motorist would incur annual savings of £24.44 a year.
But the average motorist would incur annual increases of £81.81 under 4-2-2, made up of £30.59 in additional repair costs, £46.05 in additional insurance premiums and £5.17 in additional fuel costs.
The research was carried out using data from the DfT and the Treasury, and motor industry sources.
Pro-MOTe is supported by the RAC, AA, road safety campaigners, industry groups and insurance companies to campaign against plans to reduce MoT frequency.
Commenting on the report, Pro-MOTe co-ordinator, Bill Duffy, said: “This research shows that scrapping annual MoT testing would not only be dangerous but prove very expensive too, to both drivers and taxpayers alike.
“The Government has suggested that reducing the number of safety tests would reduce the financial burden on motorists. Yet the truth is exactly the opposite. Moving to two-yearly tests would mean extra repair costs, extra insurance premiums and extra fuel costs for already hard-pressed motorists.
“And the cost to the UK economy in lost jobs and higher costs arising from the additional accidents that we would see due to less frequent testing would be significant.
“Reducing the frequency of MoTs is a cost too far. It is time for the Government to scrap this dangerous, expensive and unwanted plan.”