|
I took it in early cause the brakes felt a bit spongey yesterday, but then I have been driving a few newer cars lately. It's had new discs and pads on the front earlier this year.
|
The thing with old cars at MOT time is this - if the car is useful and this is all thats wrong with it
( frankly not alot for an old car ) then shop around and get it fixed because it could cost alot more than £300 to get an MOT'd car that will for certain be in the same condition.
Ask yourself if you can get a car as good for £300 with a new MOT.
If you dont need the car then ditch it.
|
|
|
|
|
You can have an MOT done anytime you like,but you can have it done a month before the expiry date and then have 13 months MOT-if it passes.......£300 sounds like a lot,£10 worth of brake pipe and unions,same for a balljoint,3-4 hours work,try another garage,seems a shame to scrap for the sake of fairly minor faults.As to the legality of driving it,would you want to now you know it has brake and suspension/steering problems?
|
|
I'm not a garage man but I think Sierra's right. If it runs OK those repairs are quite minor. The garage you have tried is asking too much.
|
|
|
|
I do all my own work like servicing and brakes and pads and stuff normally - how easy are brake pipes to do as a diy job? any special tools needed? If I change the balljoint will I need the traking done after?
|
I do all my own work like servicing and brakes and pads and stuff normally - how easy are brake pipes to do as a diy job? any special tools needed? If I change the balljoint will I need the traking done after?
You sound as if you can manage it. See oldman's informative post below. Get the tracking checked afterwards.
|
|
|
|
current MOT runs out at the end of Dec
Oh no it doesn't. You car is now a MOT failure. Drive it, and risk prosecution.
The old MOT is still valid.
|
current MOT runs out at the end of Dec Oh no it doesn't. You car is now a MOT failure. Drive it, and risk prosecution. The old MOT is still valid.
AFAIK the car will still have an MOT, but is unroadworthy, the two are not the same thing.
|
|
|
current MOT runs out at the end of Dec Oh no it doesn't. You car is now a MOT failure. Drive it, and risk prosecution. The old MOT is still valid.
Yes of course it is, however you now know of the faults so could be prosecuted for unroadworthy vehicle.
|
|
Yeah ok, I won't be driving it don't worry. Got another car to use and a week off work so gonna have a go at fixing it myself. Can anyone recommend a cheap brake pipe kit making thing? I probably won't be needing it again afterwards.
|
if you can carefully measure the length of the pipes (important as ive got loads at work an inch too short) then any local? small garage will run you up some pipes reckon on £10 a piece and everybodies happy (make sure you know what ends they have )
Had a flyer off europarts today your full arm is £15 there ,if your car is indeed the 'classic' as this model doesnt have power steering.
Be prepared to replace cylinders and shoes when you get the hubs off (left hand thread on n/s hub nut)
Buy a new ball joint nut and bolt at the same time as the arm £1
Personally if a garage can get away with quoting £300 for simple work like this i must be doing something wrong somewhere
good luck
|
|
|
|
Must admit that I thought that the failure invalidates the previous mot. Never used to matter, but now its all computerised you will be picked up by anpr stuff or any random check.
Plus you know its not roadworthy etc...
|
A brake pipe flaring kit, a reel of brake pipe and some brass nuts would look after the corroded brake pipes.
I did this a number of years ago. All the pipes on the Renault 11 were condemned. I removed all the pipes one by one and used string to measure the length of the pipe, cut the new one to the measures length,flared the ends, formed the new as I fitted it, then connected it all together. This meant that I had exactly the right length each time.
|
|
Also something like a gunsons Eezi-bleed will be required to bleed the brakes.
|
Also something like a gunsons Eezi-bleed will be required to bleed the brakes.
Or another person with a working foot... cheaper than a patent device and more likely to work properly. Start with the ns rear wheel, then os rear, ns front, os front in that order. The helper needs to pump the pedal hard for the first two wheels at least. When foam stops coming out with the fluid that wheel is all right.
|
Best not to pump too hard, quite easy to flip seals in master cylinders etc.
Open bleed nipple at cylinder and pump smoothly until fluid runs out and then fit nipple. Then bleed as conventional.
To op, if you fancy doing it yourself and want help in stages; let us know? But remember it is brakes and is a critical safety feature; needs to be done correctly.
I have often wondered why any person of any calibre is allowed to repair (or meddle) with a car but is banned from household electrical work and gas etc. seperate subject though I think.
|
|
Same subject. Laws or 'regulations' of that sort are made to be ignored.
|
Same subject. Laws or 'regulations' of that sort are made to be ignored.
in one............now wheres me self propelled rocket..........
|
They sound like routine minor DIY jobs to me. If you want/need to live in the world of £300 cars (welcome, btw!) then you need to build up an expertise in this kind of thing.
I'm just a bit anxious that you seem to have used the early MOT as a way of checking the suspect brakes - a bit spongy? - but then when it failed you cheerfully intended going on driving the car on the strength of the old MOT. They didn't fix the fault, and in fact told you about other faults you didn't know about.
|
This thread raises the interesting point about whether MoT test failure of an an individual item makes the car unroadworthy.
Certainly in this case the failure of the brakes to reach a satisfactory numerically measured degree of efficiency would presumably make the car 'unroadworthy' under construction and use regulations.
The garage have the option of marking the test result as 'a dangerous defect and the car should not be driven'. I cannot recall the exact terminology but there has been discussuion in the past where a garage has prevented removal (by driving) from their premises after this sort of failure. However this has not been made in this case! Does it leave the garage liable if a driver removes his car and is immediately involved in an accident? Remember not all drivers can comprehend the full meaning given on the advisory sheet relating to the failure.
The other items listed are much more subjective items and whilst a MoT strictly relates to the condition at the time of test an experienced tester will presumably will make a value judgement on how bad the wear/corrosion is and the likely hood of failure over a period of time.
A classic example of this is the splitting of a rubber boot on a CV joint. This does not make the car immediately dangerous to drive, although continued use will result in the ingress of moisture and consequent wear and failure of a joint. This is a regular cause of failure in older cars.
With the old system of no centralised record keeping a 6 monthly MoT cycle of testing could allow considered use and disposal of a vehicle. Under the new system does the failure or list of advisory items become available to the police on a straight ANPR check or is it only availalble to other MoT testing stations, or a subsequent police investigation? Is there case for the advisory items to be available to the public at large in the event of the sale of the vehicle?
Discuss!
--
pmh (was peter)
|
With the old system of no centralised record keeping a 6 monthly MoT cycle of testing could allow considered use and disposal of a vehicle. Under the new system does the failure or list of advisory items become available to the police on a straight ANPR check or is it only availalble to other MoT testing stations, or a subsequent police investigation?
There are always ways and means around the system anyway.
It's a very common ruse among banger owners to get cars pre-tested at 6-8 months into an MOT. This way if the owner knows something is going to fail expensively at the next MOT he can get shot and retain some of the value of the car. If not, he just gets the car tested there and then. All highly dubious, but it's not a loophole that has been closed with the new system since any back-street garage will happily do a non-recorded pre-test for you if you bung them £30, if you know them well enough. It's up to the seller's conscience whether or not to sell a car with anything seriously wrong (vs something which is relatively benign but very costly to put right, like say a problem with emissions).
|
Buying with 12 months MOT and selling with 6 months is an integral part of one version of bangernomics. It simply makes sense.
I get a pre-MOT done about a month ( although I keep ontop of issues as the year goes on anyway so I have a check at 6 months to MOT standard anyway as part of the servicing ritual ) before the test at a backstreet non-MOT garage because usually you get trapped into having the remedial work done at the test station ( its easier once its there ) whereas my guy sorts things out far cheaper and then the test is a mere formality and not lottery. Its just being prepared.
|
|
Update for those that may be interested, got myself some brake pipe (25 foot should be enough?) some unions and a pipe flaring kit and a litre of brake fluid all for £36 from the factors, they're gonna order me a ball joint in for monday. Got the week off so will do the lot on monday hopefully, then get the tracking done and get it retested. Will that be a full retest or a partial free retest do you think? Thanks for your help and advice previously, and for beleiving in me that I'm competant enough to do the job!
|
> Will that be a full retest or a partial freeretest do you think? Thanks for your help and advice previously, and for beleiving in me that I'm competant enough to do the job!
Full retest, I fear, £44ish. The other change they made was that there's now very little remedial work that you can get done without requiring a full retest.
The cost goes up to £50 ish at the end of this month.
got myself some brake pipe (25 foot should be enough?) some unions and a pipe flaring kit and a litre of brake fluid all for £36
My old Renault failed on the FNS brake hose rubbing on the drive shaft at full lock; fair enough, a significant part of the hose had been rubbed away & I wasn't aware of it. I wrecked the brake pipe nut trying to undo it. My factors made me up a new pipe for about £6, which saved buying all the brake pipe making bits. I might have bought the kit if it had been a rear pipe.
|
With the old system of no centralised record keeping a 6 monthly MoT cycle of testing could allow considered use and disposal of a vehicle. Under the new system does the failure or list of advisory items become available to the police on a straight ANPR check or is it only availalble to other MoT testing stations, or a subsequent police investigation? Is there case for the advisory items to be available to the public at large in the event of the sale of the vehicle?
Anyone who knows the registration number and V5 document or test cert number.
www.motinfo.gov.uk/internet/jsp/ECHID-Internet-His...p
Edited out ID info
You asked for test history information for vehicle registration XYZ123, You provided Registration Certificate document reference number 123456789 to confirm that you had a legitimate interest in the vehicle. If you do not have a legitimate interest in the vehicle you must destroy the document. This information is correct at 28/10/2006.
There are no later tests for this Vehicle.
Most Recent Vehicle Details and Test Summary applicable to this Registration Certificate document reference number.
Registration mark: XYZ123
Make/Model: MAZDA / MX5
Colour: RED
VIN/Chassis No: JMZNA18B12345678
Approximate date of first use: 07/08/1990
Type of fuel: Petrol
Date of test: 21/04/2006
Certificate issued (Pass)
Odometer reading: 111,806 Miles
Test number: 592371811111
Test expiry date: 01/05/2007
Full Test History, starting with first recorded vehicle and test results
Registration mark: XYZ123
Make/Model: MAZDA / MX5
Colour: RED
VIN/Chassis No: JMZNA18B12345678
Approximate date of first use: 07/08/1990
Type of fuel: Petrol
Date of test: 19/04/2006
Certificate issue refused (Fail)
Odometer reading: 111,744 Miles
Test number: 333109201111
Test station name: CONISTON BILL'S GARAGE
Test station number: 2028BW
Test station telephone number: 01482814060
Test class: IV
Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate
Nearside Rear brake pipe excessively corroded (3.6.B.2c) **DANGEROUS**
No Advisory Notice issued
Date of test: 21/04/2006
Certificate issued (Pass)
Odometer reading: 111,806 Miles
Test number: 592371816170
Test station name: CONISTON BILL'S GARAGE
Test station number: 2028BW
Test station telephone number: 01482814060
Test class: IV
Test expiry date: 01/05/2007
No Advisory Notice issued
This completes the test history for the above vehicle as recorded on VOSA's MOT Computerisation Database
p.s. The brake pipe had slight surface corrosion and I was tempted to appeal the fail, but by the time I had taken it off to check it, I'd read that you're not supposed to touch anything before appealing.
|
Where does the DANGEROUS flag come from?
I assume that that reference to No Advisory Notice issued refers to a prohibition notice?????
So even if the garage considers it dangerous they still allow you to drive away!
Did the Fail certificate actually contain the word DANGEROUS?
--
pmh (was peter)
|
|
Thanks for that website Martin, could come in handy in the future.
|
Thanks for that website Martin, could come in handy in the future.
>>
OOOOH! I bet some in the trade will not like this look u capability.
|
|
thought that link was common knowledge.
|
Where does the DANGEROUS flag come from?
I assume that that reference to No Advisory Notice issued refers to a prohibition notice?????
So even if the garage considers it dangerous they still allow you to drive away!
Did the Fail certificate actually contain the word DANGEROUS?
From what I can remember, the 'advisory' and 'dangerous' category comes from the box on the form that the tester fills in. i.e. the space for advisories had nothing written in it.
I have the old brake pipe if anyone wants to look at it - there was slight surface corrosion form where it passed through a clip. A wipe with an oily ray and it looks like new. Although it is a friendly garage and I use it three times a year for car + two bikes, I won't be using them any more.
Martin
|
I have the old brake pipe if anyone wants to look at it - there was slight surface corrosion form where it passed through a clip. A wipe with an oily ray and it looks like new. Although it is a friendly garage and I use it three times a year for car two bikes, I won't be using them any more. Martin
many a pipe has been taken out of clips like this and as you do they break in your hands,i think on this occasion the mot place were probably over zelous in keeping you your dog and all the family safe as you traversed the alps on holiday this winter (or that car pulled out in front of you)
to say you are not going to use that garage again is in my opinion short sighted as the next garage you go to may be more interested in disc and pad sales and miss truly dangerous things for quick profit...
think on carefully.........
no members were hurt in the writing of this post i hope?
|
no members were hurt in the writing of this post i hope?
I can't think of a good reason for being hurt om, except by your advice to think carefully... surely that's insulting to people who can't think carefully? It's a minefield...
What I wonder though is why quality cars, or just all cars, why not, don't have copper brake pipes and brass union nuts and bleed nipples. Might put another 20 quid on the cost of the thing, but would then eliminate all this carp. It takes no time at all for signs of rust to appear on mild steel brake pipes, and that is 'corrosion' so perfectly good components, as in the case just above, are condemned.
|
It's probably possible to build a car that will require no replacement parts at all for the first 20 years, at very little extra cost vs what they're doing now. Not in the best interests of the manufacturers though is it -- they want people to replace every few years.
If cars lasted an average of 25 years there would be far fewer manufacturers about than they are now.
|
keeps the motor trade in business though lud
at one time (might still be true) you would get a fail on a commercial for fitting copper pipes as they had a tendancy to have a low harmonic frequency thingimagig and fracture.
|
keeps the motor trade in business though lud at one time (might still be true) you would get a fail on a commercial for fitting copper pipes as they had a tendancy to have a low harmonic frequency thingimagig and fracture.
Yeah... with two people saying it I suppose it is so, but there's something strangely dispiriting about something being made carp on purpose, not just to save money now but basically to make sure the thing won't last too long.
Went to an exhaust place - Midas Muffler - in Trenton, NJ in the 70s. They were stripping whole systems, often with new boxes and lengths of pipe still in them, and renewing them wholesale at high speed. But round the back, a boy was immediately cutting holes in all the new silencer boxes to render them useless - depraved consumer capitalism in practice I thought, and I was rather shocked.
|
to say you are not going to use that garage again is in my opinion short sighted as the next garage you go to may be more interested in disc and pad sales and miss truly dangerous things for quick profit...
think on carefully.........
I'll be paying full wack and taking it to the Beverly council MOT place. As all garages seem to be charging full price now, somewhere with no profut motive can have my business.
|
|
|
|
|
