Should I repair, or get rid of it?

[SiC]

Couple of things on that MOT. Firstly there is a lot of manual entries on it. Testing stations are not supposed to be doing that nowadays. E.g. "Various Oil Leaks" is not and should not be an advisory on an MOT. MOTs are not a Car Service and DVSA don't want them to be treated like that b

Secondly rust should be marked with the testers Yellow crayon. So should be possible to see where the areas needing work. It could well be small areas.

Thirdly none of it looks that bad. Carbs tuning, some rust covers, spring, flexi and bush. Mechanicals probably only take a weekend or two. Welding need pictures but likely a mobile welder could do it in a day. Get a few pictures of those rust areas uploaded.

I'd also be searching out for a more classic friendly tester. Looks to be bit of a jobsworth one going how that has been written up.

[colinwoods_uk]

Hi all,

Pictures as promised...

Essentially there are three sections that need welding (yellow crayon):
1. Offside rear (seat belt anchorage) - this is two finger sized holes... quite far down the wheel arch, so not sure what this is to do with seatbelts
2. Jacking point area... ok, this looks bad.
3. suspension mounting, at the offside front (subframe mount) inside the wheel arch.

Whats your thoughts?

Thanks

[soe8m]

I would have it checked at another station. In NL this isn't even an issue or advisory.

Jeroen

[James467]

On the face of it, it doesn't look bad. I'd need a visual inspection but seriously I've restored far far far worse!

That jacking point could be hiding some internal corrosion, they normally do but looks like it just needs the inner wheel arch knocked on and seam welding. I recon the join has been broken by the incorrect use of a two post lift.

The front rust is on the inner Valence, a usual rust spot and certainly not structural, in fact the subframe mount is fine. That is not a failure point and can be repaired without wing removal.

That isn't an official seatbelt mounting, they are all under the rear seats, not in the inner wheel arch, the hole is repairable but could hide some rust behind, metal looks ok so may be able to just plate it.

Where are you located?

[colinwoods_uk]

Thanks TDC Spares Officer...

I'm located near maidstone, Kent. ME7 3ND

[James467]

Righto, I am in Fleet just off of the M3 so about 1:20 away.

Problem is, I'm not really a mobile welder and my welder isn't really mobile!

I'll send you a pm!

[Carledo]

Ok, So from a testers POV

1) the front subframe mount, the mount is fine the bit which is corroded is just an extension of the lower inner valance, a non structural afterthought. A repair section is available from the club for this frequently rusty bit. But it's no big deal!

2)Seat belt anchorage, now i'd have called this jacking point, or maybe inner sill end, both of which are pretty marginal as regards fails.
The point here is that there IS a rear seatbelt anchorage here, clearly visible, and it IS being used (there is a bolt in it) so, because the rot is within 30cms of it, it's a legit fail. But again, not difficult or expensive to fix.

3) the jacking point, again a marginal fail, the only real justification is the proximity to the front mount for the trailing arm, which will manage perfectly without this bit of tin! Once again, a good clout and a couple of short seams and it'll be good to go. But I might be inclined to investigate this bit a little further and make good if need be, after all, it is useful to be able to jack the car up safely!

In summary, you have been a victim of a tester who knows the RULES, but has no understanding of how a car is put together and which parts ARE actually structurally significant or load bearing. And very little common sense! In each case, the RULE he is so religeously observing is the one that says any corrosion within 30cms (12") of a point of structural significance is a fail. What is NOT written down but is assumed the tester will understand, is that the rotten bit also needs to be in a load bearing part!

As we've all said, find a more classic friendly tester next time!

Steve

[alangraham]

I wish the 1500HL I bought when I went looking for one was in the condition yours is now!
It took me 13 years to put it all right and get it back to how it should . And £13k.
Now you'll be thinking why on earth would anyone spend so much on a car that will never realise what's been spent on it.
But if you never intend selling it, not a pound is wasted. I rescued mine from the dead but it had so much more wrong with it, I have to say it probably should have been scrapped.
Alan

[soe8m]

There's a lot of different rules then as in NL the APK (MOT) isn't that hard on rust. The lower pic was the floor in front of the backseat of one of my Volvo's and I tested this ok as per the rules. Randomly APK testers in NL are checked by the RDW (DVSA??) and this one got a retest to see the APK tester did his job but no comments on that hole.

Jeroen

[matt of the vivas]

Couple of things on that MOT. Firstly there is a lot of manual entries on it. Testing stations are not supposed to be doing that nowadays. E.g. "Various Oil Leaks" is not and should not be an advisory on an MOT. MOTs are not a Car Service and DVSA don't want them to be treated like that b

With respect, what a load of old bull. You can advise whatever you want.... and theres an entire section dedicated to leaks these days. You can fail for a bad leak or get an advise on a smaller one. Nothing wrong there..

[matt of the vivas]

There's a lot of different rules then as in NL the APK (MOT) isn't that hard on rust. The lower pic was the floor in front of the backseat of one of my Volvo's and I tested this ok as per the rules. Randomly APK testers in NL are checked by the RDW (DVSA??) and this one got a retest to see the APK tester did his job but no comments on that hole.

Jeroen

How on earth is a huge hole like this in the floor not a safety issue?

[Carledo]

Couple of things on that MOT. Firstly there is a lot of manual entries on it. Testing stations are not supposed to be doing that nowadays. E.g. "Various Oil Leaks" is not and should not be an advisory on an MOT. MOTs are not a Car Service and DVSA don't want them to be treated like that b

With respect, what a load of old bull. You can advise whatever you want.... and theres an entire section dedicated to leaks these days. You can fail for a bad leak or get an advise on a smaller one. Nothing wrong there..

There are some humorous advisories doing the rounds like "still got the Christmas CD in, it's May FFS" and "wheels look shite" (must've been 3 spokes on something other than a Saab!) I've seen a few handwritten addenda to fail tickets, mainly because the tester forgot to put it in and couldn't be ars*d to do it over!

A page full of silly advisories like that is a sure sign of a new or nervous tester, keen to keep their backside covered.

Steve

[soe8m]

There's a lot of different rules then as in NL the APK (MOT) isn't that hard on rust. The lower pic was the floor in front of the backseat of one of my Volvo's and I tested this ok as per the rules. Randomly APK testers in NL are checked by the RDW (DVSA??) and this one got a retest to see the APK tester did his job but no comments on that hole.

Jeroen

How on earth is a huge hole like this in the floor not a safety issue?

Because i had a thick rubber mat over it so no one could fall through? Suspension, seats and belt anchor point must be sound 10cm around these. This floorsection can have 25% rot around the edges or 25% of the surface/panel may have gone. You can have a lot of rust before something is a fail in NL aldough a lot of testing centres will fail little holes to sell some welding to unknowing customers.

Jeroen

A few years later I did some extensive welding and still have the car. The repairpanels in the pic and 2m2 sheet went into that car.

Jeroen

[SiC]

Couple of things on that MOT. Firstly there is a lot of manual entries on it. Testing stations are not supposed to be doing that nowadays. E.g. "Various Oil Leaks" is not and should not be an advisory on an MOT. MOTs are not a Car Service and DVSA don't want them to be treated like that b

With respect, what a load of old bull. You can advise whatever you want.... and theres an entire section dedicated to leaks these days. You can fail for a bad leak or get an advise on a smaller one. Nothing wrong there..

You are missing the crux of my point.

The tester has entered the phrase "Various Oil Leaks" into the free text field. What purpose has this woolly text achieved? Certainly no use to anyone reading that advisory. Customer/another mechanic/future tester will be none the wiser on that observation and where to look to see if that area has detoriated further.
Covering the testers arse? Well the DVSA inspector will be none the wiser either on where it was referring to and wouldn't be any of use if one got subsequently involved in the future.
Hence questioning the motive and reasoning of the tester when such things are seen on a test.

This is also why the portal has a list of items to select. If there was a "Various Oil Leaks" item, that should have been selected. Of course there isn't as DVSA want testers to be more specific on noting down these items! This should have been done on this test on those items. If the tester noticed there was leaks but not quite sufficient to cause a fail at the present time possibly could do in the future, the areas should be noted down as such.

As I'm sure you are aware, DVSA is trying to actively discourage testers to use the free text field and have warned a couple of times that they wish to remove it entirely. It's woolly and unuseful text, such as the above, they are trying to stop.

Incidentally after a number of instances where Testers have entered "funny" free text advisories, there is a certain amount of effort back checking the db for these... As you probably can imagine, the DVSA "are not amused" with them!

[matt of the vivas]

I beg to disagree entirely.
I test 40 - 50 cars a week. If something deserves an advisory it gets one. The "free text" as you put it is entirely discretionary and you can put what you like. The only communication ive had through the "special notices" procedure is a reminder that the MOT is an official document and any silly or offensive remarks may result in disciplinary action. "Various oil leaks" is fine. Its not going to be possible to determine where they are coming from in a 40 minute MOT. You are merely advising that you have seen them. What happens if, for example, a week down the line the power steering fails due to a fluid leak that was not noted on the MOT and was masked by general oil leaks from the engine? You will have no defence as a tester if you have not advised that its generally oily and harder to examine fully. Sadly, its all arse covering because thats what you have to do.