| Author | Post |
|---|
castrolrob
Trade Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 313 |
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 03:27 pm |
|
take it up with vosa,have queried all the below items with them before and the answers youve got are what they tell me to do.mot is minimum requirement at time of test.all you are allowed to do is pass and advise.....
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2008 09:42 am |
|
Hi castrolrob
I think one may need to look a little deeper with respect to security of outer CV boots?
It is always a final opinion of the tester whether a CV boot passes or fails, or even P&A, but, a CV boot insecurely mounted must be considered that, yes it is mounted, but is it safely mounted, is it held firm therefore not likely to become insecure?
Welding repairs.
If I may I would like to draw your attention to Appendix C - Structural Integrity and Corrosion.
Method of Repair.
It is essential that repairs to corrded areas are "properlycarried out" Only welding is acceptable for prescribed areas, and the repairer must use suitable materials of the appropriate gauge thickness, so that any plating or welding extends to a sound part of the load bearing component, and "the repair must be virtually as strong as the original structure"
So with this in mind, if a repairer does a poor quality weld which is considered to be by the experience of the tester, a poor weld, then how can that repair be virtually as strong as the original structure?
David
|
castrolrob
Trade Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 313 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 10:07 pm |
|
the foldaway seats in the back are not a failure if either side facing or FOLDED AWAY.second,poor welding is not neccesarily a failure,have had to pass some complete garbage in my time as long as its seam welded.third,c/v gaiters that are actually attached at time of test we also have to pass-anyone out there NOT seen a corsa with one or both hanging on by a prayer?washers at a guess cud have been noshed together enough to work but pipe since dropped off?as an aside some landrovers didnt need them due to folding screen.take a look at your pass certificate,is there an advisory issued y/n?its not unknown for you not to receive all the relevant paperwork due to the dealer not wanting you to know any stuff that the tester was warning/not happy about.on the other hand it could just be a s**te test...
|
keithd
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 26th, 2008 09:05 pm |
|
I think the more we read the manual the more confused we get I take it to be that the outriggers in photos deffo fail - outriggers soley for body mounts would have to be several corroded/broken away enough to allow body to move aboout on chassis. Thats how I read it but not saying I'm right 
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Jun 26th, 2008 06:25 pm |
|
Hi Keithd
Your right I was thinking about the old land rover style riggers, this is because I don't do a lot of modern TDI's, however in relation to your corrosion issue, I have had the experience of corroded body mountings on these new TDI models, the nearsside and offside front and both the rear mountings behind the bumper area, but what does the manual say;
(6.2.3) Slightly shortened wording. Any excessive corrosion of a load bearing body or chassis member which seriously affects the strength within 30cm of the body mounting.
That's interesting then, seriously affecting the strength, they must be thinking along the lines of corrosion being so bad that the mounting points are likely to allow the body to become displaced, as in reason for rejection (6.1.2a)
What do you think
Cheers
David
|
keithd
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 26th, 2008 12:20 pm |
|
Another pic.
Ok you could chop most of that outrigger off and it wouldn't make a lot of differance since there's still a strong bracket there BUT what about the "30cm ruling and supporting panel?"
Attachment: Image006 [640x480].jpg (Downloaded 19 times) Last edited on Thu Jun 26th, 2008 12:23 pm by keithd
|
keithd
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 26th, 2008 12:18 pm |
|
I think David may be thinking of the old land rover chassis/outriggers where only the body mounting bolts went through the rigger and allso fuel tank was bolted to them. One corroded rigger wouldn't have made the body that insecure to justfy a fail since theres 10 mounting points at least in total.
Newer models TDi TD5 & discovery had a different set up, have one in today so took a couple pics on my phone.
Attachment: Image008 [640x480].jpg (Downloaded 20 times) Last edited on Thu Jun 26th, 2008 12:30 pm by keithd
|
J-Disco2 TD5
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
| Good advice, many thanks. Let's hope the dealer lives up to his "family run specialist for 20Years+" assurances! I will post a reply to let you know how I get on !
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 08:53 pm |
|
Hi
The reason for rejection (2.4A.2) to the offside front outrigger "excessively corroded", it may be, but I think VOSA once advised that an outrigger is not load bearing to the chassis and therefore would not justify a VT30 when excessively corroded.
I don't think your feet going through the floor would justify load bearing either,as these outriggers sit under the floor pans I think.
Cheers
David
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 08:48 pm |
|
Some AE's, Bosses don't understand, or don't want to understand that when a MOT Tester is presented with a vehicle for retest, that the vehicle has to be retested and any advisory items also.
My AE tries the same, sometimes the paperwork does not reapeer and he says something like, it just a bulb it failed on, so I say well I have three options here;
1/ I do the job wrong
2/ I dig out the VT40
3/ I print off the duplicate documents and do it properly.
If VOSA were to ask why I had printed so many duplicates, the answers really simple, tell them customers don't bring the documents back at retest.
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 07:37 pm |
|
I agree, take it back to the dealer, Suggest that unless they fix it and have it MOTd at a station of your choice,you are considering an appeal.
They will get it sorted ASAP then.
Kev
|
Johnboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 05:41 pm |
|
It's strange that a MOT tester would fail some items, then retest them incorrectly.
If it was my car, I would talk to the dealer, explain your concerns, if he is a decent chap, he will get it sorted. If the dealer does not play ball, have a chat with the MOT tester, there may be good reasons why there are still faults on the car e.g. dealer swapping parts before/after the test, or maybe the retest was not performed properly.
If the tester knows the dealer, I'm sure he would prefer to sort things out for you, rather than getting VOSA involved.
|
J-Disco2 TD5
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 04:58 pm |
|
Hi, some advice please : Ive just bought a Discovery TD5 (x-reg) from an independent dealer. He sold me the car with a new MOT. I immediately took the car to my local 4x4 specialist for a "check-over" and have found that some of the faults listed on the MOT failure sheet have not been rectified, although the car has been subsequently issued with a "pass" the next day. Details as follows ;
1) The washer reservoir was empty. I filled it and it ran straight out onto the floor. Also there is no hose between engine bay and bonnet, so there is now way the washers could have worked! This isnt mentioned on the MOT fail sheet. Im sure washers are tested, or have I got that wrong?
2) The o/s fold away seat (in the rear) failed as it couldnt be secured in the upright position. The seat mechanism has not been fixed as the seat back still cannot be put into the upright position.
3) There was a fail on "excessive corrosion" (2.4 A.2) to the o/s/f outrigger. Im am advised that this has been treated with a temporary patch repair with very poor quality welding. Where do I stand here?, it was obviously just ok to pass the mot
4) The near side front constant velocity joint gaiter was insecurely mounted to it's housing (2.5.c.1a) which was an initial fail. I am advised that this is still insecurely mounted, therefore it doesnt appear to have been repaired.
I'd be grateful for any advice, I want to give the dealer the opportunity to put things right and to a satisfactory standard as he advertises as a family owned business specialising in landrovers for 20years+ and he may well be a genuine guy. However, it would be very useful to know where I stand and how best to approach this situation rather than go in feet first by contacting VOSA etc.
Many thanks, I think this forum is a great idea.
|
Current time is 08:49 am | |
|
