|
Hi guys ,
just wanted to ask about my MOT results as I'm not sure if this is significant, this was filed as failed, I believe this is because I have a dash cam or a / mobile phone holder
Report FAIL
Repair immediately (major defects):
- Front Driver's view of the road through the swept area of the windscreen significantly affected by an obstruction (3.1 (a) (ii))
Repair as soon as possible (minor defects):
- Nearside Front Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover severely deteriorated (5.3.4 (b) (i))
Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):
- Vehicles internal headlight adjuster altered to recheck lights set to 0
- Offside Rear Tyre slightly damaged/cracking or perishing (5.2.3 (d) (ii))
- Nearside Rear Tyre slightly damaged/cracking or perishing (5.2.3 (d) (ii))
- Nearside Rear Service brake fluctuating, but not excessively (1.2.1 (e))
then the next report PASS
Repair as soon as possible (minor defects):
- Nearside Front Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover severely deteriorated (5.3.4 (b) (i))
Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):
- Vehicles internal headlight adjuster altered to recheck lights set to 0
- Offside Rear Tyre slightly damaged/cracking or perishing (5.2.3 (d) (ii))
- Nearside Rear Tyre slightly damaged/cracking or perishing (5.2.3 (d) (ii))
- Nearside Rear Service brake fluctuating, but not excessively (1.2.1 (e))
questions
is this
- Nearside Front Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover severely deteriorated (5.3.4 (b) (i))
something I should fix sooner
Edited by Honda jazzer on 03/04/2023 at 13:18
|
|
Well, the only change from the Fail to the Pass is the obstructed windscreen view - so I guess the tester removed it to his satisfaction and then passed the car.
Regarding the second question, 'sooner' than what ? The report says the car is roadworthy as it stands, but the implication is that it may not be 12 months later. It's not an expensive fix, so maybe best to get it done before it slips your mind ?
|
|
Anti roll bar linkage around £12 and approximately 1/2 hour to fit .
|
Anti roll bar linkage around £12 and approximately 1/2 hour to fit .
Problem is that means it's a bill of about £50 - £65 if the OP is lucky and their garage charges per half hour, but £85 - £115 if they always round to a full hour's 'labour'.
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing of concern there, but I’d take a good look at the tyres. If they’re perishing and cracking it’s time to replace in my opinion. I never scrimp on tyres.
|
|
Yes, replace the dust cover. It's there for a reason, which is to stop stuff getting in and abrading the joints faster than friction. A few quid spent now will save you quite a few more in a couple of years' time.
|
Yes, replace the dust cover. It's there for a reason, which is to stop stuff getting in and abrading the joints faster than friction. A few quid spent now will save you quite a few more in a couple of years' time.
Immediate first aid with tape and/ or Clingfilm is probably an option, if you are prepared to lower yourself to get at it.
Don't leave it on for the NEXT MOT though. You have to humour them if possible.
Edited by edlithgow on 04/04/2023 at 02:51
|
|
<< Don't leave it on for the NEXT MOT though. You have to humour them if possible. >>
... which raises a question : should a MoT tester start a test 'blind' (as it were) or would he/she check the record first, to see what happened last time ?
|
|
|
|
Hi guys ,
questions
is this
- Nearside Front Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover severely deteriorated (5.3.4 (b) (i))
something I should fix sooner
No. Of virtually no significance. This 'dust cover deteriorated' observation is used to generate loads of unnecessary work in the garage trade. Unless the actual ball joint has deteriorated so much it has developed an annoying rattle, I would just clean it up, apply a bit of rubber grease, wrap some duct tape around it and remember to remove it before the next MoT.
|
Hi guys ,
questions
is this
- Nearside Front Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover severely deteriorated (5.3.4 (b) (i))
something I should fix sooner
No. Of virtually no significance. This 'dust cover deteriorated' observation is used to generate loads of unnecessary work in the garage trade. Unless the actual ball joint has deteriorated so much it has developed an annoying rattle, I would just clean it up, apply a bit of rubber grease, wrap some duct tape around it and remember to remove it before the next MoT.
Bit of a silly statement, the dust cover is there to protect the joint as you well know, for the cost involved why would you spend time on a bodge?
|
Hi guys ,
questions
is this
- Nearside Front Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover severely deteriorated (5.3.4 (b) (i))
something I should fix sooner
No. Of virtually no significance. This 'dust cover deteriorated' observation is used to generate loads of unnecessary work in the garage trade. Unless the actual ball joint has deteriorated so much it has developed an annoying rattle, I would just clean it up, apply a bit of rubber grease, wrap some duct tape around it and remember to remove it before the next MoT.
Bit of a silly statement, the dust cover is there to protect the joint as you well know, for the cost involved why would you spend time on a bodge?
For the probably minimal difference in functionality, why would you spend the money getting a garage to do it?
I had a clingfilm and tape "first aid" CV boot bodge in place for about 6 months until I could get a split CV boot kit from the UK (no chance of getting anything like that in Taiwan).
I drove in some pretty dusty conditions, including some beach driving, and there was no sign of dirt ingress to the CV joint when I took it off to fit the split kit, so I think such first aid can work pretty well.
I would still regard it as first aid, (I wasn't obliged by inspection to fit the split boot) but then I wouldn't be spending north of a ton on getting a "proper" repair done either.
|
|
|
|
|
<< I would just clean it up, apply a bit of rubber grease, wrap some duct tape around it and remember to remove it before the next MoT. >>
That's the tricky bit !
|
|
Anyone who bodges any ball joint has a reckless disregard for safety,
I put zero trust in their expertise or judgement.
|
Anyone who bodges any ball joint has a reckless disregard for safety,I put zero trust in their expertise or judgement.
It's an Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint.
I had an annoying rattle on a Focus and took it to a main dealer, who told me it was one and added: " I don't know why they fit them, as they're not necessary". Millions spent on development that could've been saved by listening to him!!
Not a safety item, unless you're hooning it around a circuit, where body roll may affect your lap time!
|
Anyone who bodges any ball joint has a reckless disregard for safety,I put zero trust in their expertise or judgement.
It's an Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint.
I had an annoying rattle on a Focus and took it to a main dealer, who told me it was one and added: " I don't know why they fit them, as they're not necessary". Millions spent on development that could've been saved by listening to him!!
Not a safety item, unless you're hooning it around a circuit, where body roll may affect your lap time!
They're necessary for ride comfort. As for safety, their contribution to, well, not rolling is probably not huge but you don't want one dropping off whilst driving.
As I said, the point is surely that the dust cover isn't going to magically get better so it makes sense to fix it rather than wait until both it and the ball joint come up on an MOT.
|
They're necessary for ride comfort. As for safety, their contribution to, well, not rolling is probably not huge but you don't want one dropping off whilst driving.
Never followed a 2CV round a corner?
The trials community will remove any anti-roll to give maximum articulation,
|
|
I would hardly hold the 2CV up as the pinnacle of ride comfort!
|
|
The 2CV was designed to be able to drive over ploughed fiewlds without breaking eggs - the ride confort is very high - it's the handling that's poor.
|
|
|
|
Anyone who bodges any ball joint has a reckless disregard for safety,
I put zero trust in their expertise or judgement.
Totally agree Sir..
|
|
Hi guys,
thanks for sharing your opinion so man of them its super helpful, just to update everyone I had the item replaced it cost £70 including a new / replacement part.
Dont' forget guys that these defects show on the MOT certificate so when it comes time to sell....
But yeah as mentioned I think it will only show up on the following MOT's and eventual fail an MOT or cause further damage.
Thanks for your help once again and I'm open to any questions.
re the the tyres probably going to run them for a few more years I only do maybe 4k to 5k a year on the road and short trips eg 30 to 45 mins max , but lets see how they get on, if it get too exciting they'll get replaced
|
re the tyres probably going to run them for a few more years I only do maybe 4k to 5k a year on the road and short trips eg 30 to 45 mins max , but lets see how they get on, if it get too exciting they'll get replaced
Your tyres will steadily deteriorate whether you do high or low mileage - that's not the same as wearing out with use. Especially if the car is kept outdoors, and more especially if the tyres see much sunlight. They are already starting to crack, so that process is well under way. All you can do is keep the correct pressures, and keep them in the shade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
