In most respects I agree with the view that little harm comes from adopting this approach to maintenance. I have two cars: one does 20,000 plus miles a year, so obviously lots of routine service items and replacements come up regularly during the year, long before they would be spotted at the MOT. The other does 5000 miles, and it is true most things would get picked up by the MOT even if I didn't take the trouble to check.
But I don't think it is safe, nor in the car's/your purse's interest, to assume the same with brakes. The MOT only tests whether they work to the required standard, and whether the disks are worn. I don't think they can check the thickness of the pads, so I don't see how these are ever going to be spotted until they reach the point when either the brakes don't work properly, or the MOT highlights scored disks.
|
Our local MOT station checks pad thicknesses and warns yiou if nearly at limit.. but that's on cars where it IS easy to see how thick the pads are ((106/Fiesta) w/o removing wheels
madf
|
|
|
|
If you were involved in an accident and it was evident that the car had not been serviced for years then I think you could find yourself in difficulty!
What sort of difficulty exactly? As long as your car is in a roadworthy condition and you have a valid MOT certificate, you shouldn't run into any difficulty.
|
I take on board concerns over brake safety but surely 9999/10000 you will get sufficient warning of an current/impending problem, e.g grinding noises, gradual loss of performance? Also most cars have a visual warning light for pad wear/fluid level.
Incidently I believe if you are gentle with your car's brakes you should'nt have to change its pads more than twice during its lifetime..(subject to car model of course.)
|
"Incidently I believe if you are gentle with your car's brakes you should'nt have to change its pads more than twice during its lifetime..(subject to car model of course.)"
I beg your pudding? hows long is your car going to last then? 60 - 80k miles?
|
Front pads on the Omega (Green Stuff, not Vx) every 20 - 25k, rears less so. Front discs changed at 75k. (All mileages approximate!)
And I AM gentle with it, can't afford not to be...
Also changed brake fluid every two years, along with rad fluid.
|
I have to laugh or I would cry...
Went to pick up my car (98 Mondeo) from afformentioned oil-change about two hours ago. Being a Ford Rapid-Fit place you get a "Visual Healthcheck" sheet which is filled in by the fitter informing you of any urgent or future repairs they feel are needed.
Result- Looks like I will need to spend £200 in the very near future and possibly £600 plus within the next few months :-(
I won't bore you with the details but alot of the things picked out would have failed an MOT yet my car passed its last one without fault barely 1k miles ago...
Anyone experienced Rapid-Fit outfits trying to quote for/do unecessary work or do I have to swallow what little pride I have left and stump the cash...xmas is cancelled by the way lol!
|
If you don't mind me asking Miller, can you bore us with the details?
--
Adam
|
|
|
In my experience someone-elseFit have often *suggested* that things other than the job in hand need doing, and oddly they are things that they couldn't do.
But when I've had my friendly mech check them out he has never agreed with their judgement.
Get a second opinion from someone you trust...
|
Ok then, faults picked up and my comments (in no particular order):
Excessive handbrake travel - fair enough
Clutch "Poor" - ?? Car has only done 52k miles and it seems fine to me, does not slip, looking at £500+ job for replacement!
Timing belt due replacement - I hold my hands up to this one but had a mechanic check it at last MOT and was told it was fine. Was planning on getting it done next Summer.
Condensation in one headlight/wipers smear - both items seem fine to me!
Cam cover gasket leaking oil - again cannot see any problem plus uses no oil.
Brake discs in poor condition :-o - don't say a word! Some scarring but no brake judder etc, not commented on at last MOT 1k miles ago.
Brake pipes above fuel tank corroded - Fair enough. Seems a common Mondeo problem that I will have to sort ASAP.
NSF coil spring broken - If he says so but have not noticed any funny noises or problems from this area.
Both Lower arm bushes starting to split - another Mondeo weak spot apparently, but not urgent.
So with hindsight I admit my original post was rather flawed, but I did know that they would be giving the car a once over after changing the oil so in effect my car was getting a safety check of sorts...
So now i will get a second opinion from a good local independent garage and will report back with the details.....
|
I'am guessing here, but going by experience i'am guessing that the only potential problems are:
Exessive hanbrake - adjustment should only take about 10 mins.
Possible brake pipes corroded.
Thats it. Oh and the lower arms may need replacing soon - but probably not urgent.
Fast fit garages - normally equal fast check up followed by: replace all braking system, suspension / steering.
|
|
|
|
Tend to agree with smokie.Though I check out other peoples cars.
cannot say I have agreed with any report so far..In fact I found points that should have been picked up.were not
--
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
>most cars have a visual warning light for pad wear<. - And by the time the warning is needed, quite a few wire connections will have got broken, so the warning light will never illuminate.
|
|
They have an audible warning as well - its sort of a grinding noise.
|
I did 80,000 miles over 10 years in a Belmont SRI after buying it at 4 years old. I took it in for a service ONCE after the first year only to have the garage try and fleece me.
Over the years...I changed the oil,filter,fuel filter,air filter,plugs,brake pads,....never changed the discs!!!!rear shoes,CV boots, three pairs over the decade,loads of other little things inc radiator X2 and I only had a basic tool kit,with minimal knowledge and a Haynes manual
the only thing i couldnt do was the cambelt.. needless to say they didnt ask if the service record was stamped up...but who cares......part ex with 140,000 miles and 14 years old...and bless my soul some bloke up the road bought it from the local auction........and got another couple of years out of it..
|
|
|
|
|
>> If you were involved in an accident and it was evident >> that the car had not been serviced for years then I think >> you could find yourself in difficulty! What sort of difficulty exactly? As long as your car is in a roadworthy condition and you have a valid MOT certificate, you shouldn't run into any difficulty.
Having a valid MoT doesn't make it roadworthy - that was the point I was trying to make.
|
Having a valid MOT *does* make the car legally roadworthy at the time the MOT was done. Obviously any subsequent deterioration could make it unroadworthy, but MOT testers are trained to look for potential problems that could cause grief in the time before the next inspection. Apart from obvious things like brake pads worn out or bald tyres, I don't think there could be any legal comeback on the owner in the event of an incident. There isn't (and shouldn't) be any onus on the owner to complete a strict regimen of inspections and maintenance, apart from the MOT.
That system is what is operated in the aviation industry, with good cause, as it's a bit hard to pull to the side of the road at thirty thousand feet.
Here in New Zealand, cars under 3 years old have annual inspections (Warrants of Fitness), all others are 6 monthly. The inspection is perhaps not as strict as MOT standard and there is (as yet) no emissions check, but conditions, especially in winter, are not as harsh here. Taxis, Coaches, HGVs etc have a much more comprehensive inspection, called a Certificate of Fitness.
Perhaps the UK needs a 6 monthly cycle of inspections, given the overall corrosive and harsh environmental conditions.
|
Yes Mot is only valid on day it took place
>>There isn't (and shouldn't) be any onus on the owner to complete a strict regimen of inspections and maintenance, apart from the MOT.
I dont know where you got that from..It is owners of any vehicle.To keep vehicle in a road worthy condition.Would state no trained person can see what will go wrong in the future.
--
Steve
|
|
|
Having a valid MOT *does* make the car legally roadworthy at the time the MOT was done.
I disagree on this point. See;
www.motuk.co.uk/mot_testing.htm
If an aspect of a vehicle is not, or cannot be tested during an MOT, then you cannot claim that a vehicle is roadworthy. You can claim that you have inspected particular aspects of the vehicle and report on your findings. I suspect that the onus is always on the driver and/or operator of a vehicle to ensure the vehicle is safe.
Obvious examples;
Corrosion in an inacessible structural member
Any fault which cannot be detected without removing covers, carpet, trim, etc.
Potentially dangerous faults in parts which aren't within the scope of the test - as the MOT gets tightened up potentially dangerous faults in this category are in the decline.
number_cruncher
|
It's all very well taking the mick out of those who do check/clean/maintain their cars on a regular basis and accusing them of "Far too much paranoia and analism around about car maintenance" but what of those who like fluid levels to be correct, like a clean car etc. Do you apply the same principles to your clothes - wait til you have a hole in your pants before buying new ones, only wash your underpants when they get too crisp for comfort, only change your socks, when customers turn up their nose at you? Do you wait til the wallpaper in your house has peeled off the wall before redecorating?
As for the brakes "They have an audible warning as well - its sort of a grinding noise" I would suggest that by the time the grinding noise is heard you will be braking using a metal on metal and that this might seriously impair braking performance. Maybe you don't care but would you send your wife and children out in a car with dangerous brakes?
Or is Mark trolling and I have taken the bait?
Just going to make sure I have clean underpants, socks and shirt for tomorrow, oh and I hear it is going to rain tomorrow, might check the washer fluid as well.
Yours anally
Phil
|
Phil,
With respect to safety critical items and faults, there is no room for debate - they have to be right.
How far you go in tackling less important faults is largely a personal matter.
As an example, some customers are happy to pay dealer labour rates to have the dashboard light behind the heated rear window changed. Some customers will make do without the extra illumination. I haven't noticed a correlation between the less fussy customers and their personal odours and plumage, but then, perhaps I wasn't looking for one. :-)
number_cruncher
|
|
|
|
Having a valid MOT *does* make the car legally roadworthy at the time the MOT was done. Obviously any subsequent deterioration could make it unroadworthy, but MOT testers are trained to look for potential problems that could cause grief in the time before the next inspection. Apart from obvious things like brake pads worn out or bald tyres, I don't think there could be any legal comeback on the owner in the event of an incident. There isn't (and shouldn't) be any onus on the owner to complete a strict regimen of inspections and maintenance, apart from the MOT.
Sorry, but you are wrong.
I never did MoT's but my father was an MoT inspector and we had literally thousands of cars through for MoT. Obviously the rules have changed a bit over the years, but not that much.
The car is indeed deemed roadworthy if issued with a certificate, however it can become unroadworthy as soon as it is driven away from the workshop (bulb can blow, for example).
Most MoT inspectors will give advisory information if an item is showing deterioration, but remember that they are not allowed to do dismantling and so on many cars they cannot judge the amount of brake lining left. They can only check the braking efficiency. Indeed it is possible to pass the MoT brake test with lining thickness below the manufacturers minimum and so the brakes could become ineffective in a short time. To imagine that a tester can identify potential problems up to 12 months into the future is very wishful thinking indeed.
It *is* the responsibility of the owner to keep their vehicle roadworthy and properly maintain it. Having an MoT certificate is not a 'get out of jail free' card.
There was recently a case of guy with a Rover 800 who was involved in a fatal accident. His brakes were down to the backing and I believe he was jailed.
It astonishes me that people advocate skimping of servicing. A car is a potentially lethal weapon. People get used to odd noises and slow deterioration of braking/handling and don't pick up on the warning signs.
When I was in the garage trade it was common for some automotive half-wit to drive in and utter, 'It's meckin' a foony noise...'. You'd then find pad backings that had scraped a channel into the discs! We had cracked discs, half-corroded discs, track rod ends ready to drop off etc etc. The worst of it was that these numpties would then complain you were ripping them off when you told them they need new pads AND discs. Invariably the rest of car was in a poor state with oil like treacle and an air filter bunged up.
It never ceased to amaze me how some people would continue driving when the car was on its last legs (e.g. car pulls in with tyre in shreds having driven 10 miles on a flat with kids in the back; car pulls in with smell of boiled antifeeze, engine nearly siezed and hose ends melting - owner "I think its running too hot...").
If my father was around he would try to sort them out. I always used to tell them we were too busy to do the job and sent them to another independent down the road from us, they were always bad news.
|
Like any dangerous piece of equipment the car should be checked over by a competent person on a regular basis. It's basically common sense health and safety practise.
You wouldn't expect the coach company bussing your kids to school every day to just make do with oil changes every few thousand miles.
Leaving the MOT inspector to point out on an annual basis what needs doing with the car is not enough. The MOT is a basic minimum that was introduced thanks to the many thousands of people took the stance that minimal servicing needs doing to cars.
On the other hand, some of the fast fit emporiums have earned themselves bad reputation by seeming to fleece drivers every time they go in for a new tyre. This happened to my Mother in a previous car - an escort 1.3 Mk4. She asked to keep what they removed and her independent garage mechanic looked at the pads, shoes, disks etc and said "they would have lasted much longer".
In addition they messed it up and ended up paying the independent to sort it out.
A car should be serviced at intervals recommended in the book. These service intervals are designed to make sure the vehicle is checked for both age and mileage related wear and tear.
If you can do the work yourself then that's fine, but for the sake of full services starting from around £80, why postpone it?
If you're to busy earning money, the chances are you can afford it. If you have the time spare and can do it yourself then that is also an option.
Hugo
|
> A car should be serviced at intervals recommended in the book. These service intervals are designed
> to make sure the vehicle is checked for both age and mileage related wear and tear.
> If you can do the work yourself then that's fine, but for the sake of full services starting from
> around £80, why postpone it?
Because the £80 service will not be to manufacturer's specification, so the idea that you're getting things checked at the specified intervals is not true.
Have a look at what they really do in these £80 "full services" - it's pretty disappointing. The ones I've seen are basically oil, oil filter, air filter, levels of the rest, and a bit of a look round (and not specified exactly what they look at, so it's down to luck whether you get the boss who knows his onions, or the kid who doesn't).
My opinion is that it's fine to maintain it yourself (using bangernomics) if you have a bit of an idea what you're doing. Not just changing the oil and forgetting the rest - also having a look over it. I wouldn't recommend my girlfriend did it, for example, because she is of the "noise? what noise? oh it always does that" camp.
Also worth pointing out that some MOT places are, shall I say, a little less thorough than others. Avoid them - I'd rather have the car fail and know they've done the test properly.
-Mark
|
|
|
|
Actually all of this reminds me of one particular customer we had. He was an oldish balding Indian guy (a doctor, I think). He was very very tight with money and would only come in when something was wrong, and then expect an almost free repair, however he was quite a likeable and amusing chap so we used to help as much as we could.
He drove a series 2 Cavalier (this is 15 years ago) and his wife drove a very old Morris in which she took the kids to school. We occasionally saw the Cav,. but never the Morris because he 'serviced it himself'.
Anyway, one day he asked us if he could bring the Morris in to have some welding done. He basically wanted it done for free, but I told him to bring it in and I would take a look at it.
When he turned up in it I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There were layers of old newspapers on the floor covering holes big enough to drop a football through. Every structural member was holed.
I made a start at repairs but couldn't find any good metal to weld to, it was all like blotting paper, so I had to give up on it.
The rest of the car was in an equally dreadful state and fitted with some Bulgarian tyres that were all at nearly flat.
When he came back I asked what an earth was going on, and did he realise it was a death trap? His response was that it had not long been given an MoT by a mate of his ("Roger") and anyway it was only used for short runs by his wife, taking the kids to school!
I never did find out who "Roger" was.....
|
Some 14 years ago I worked with a gent close to retirement. He was always complaining that his salary would never buy him a new car, so he made do with an Austin Maxi (V reg) and a mini of similar age for his wife.
He had had the maxi from new and done 125000 miles in it, which was increadable in its self. However, he had problems with holes in the petrol tanks in both cars.
When I assumed he had simply replaced one for a fiver from the local scrappy, he was astounded that anyone could waste money in this way. "oh no!" came the reply " I just used fibreglass and resin to repair them". When we questioned the possibility of petrol dissolving the resin his reply was "Well I never fill them up above the repair".
Now it just so happened that I had a decent fuel tank for a mini in my shed, I had bought an MOT failure and broken it up fpr spares and sold them. I offered it to him free of charge, but he declined saying "My repairs will hold up well enough".
I lost count of the number of times my jaw hit the desk.
H
|
Apologies for what follows - I used to be a data analyst.
When I ran a Mondeo (K reg) I used to keep a note of the number of miles I got out of tanks of fuel. Now, obviously, there were fluctuations, but when you looked at a graph, they looked like a saw tooth. The sharp rises coincided exactly with the services.
I worked out that nearly half the cost of servicing was being recovered in fuel bills, even assuming the fuel costs wouldn't have carried on increasing if left longer. That was the point when I became a convert.
Yes, you can be clever and deride me for being so anal as to have done the analysis, or you can accept that there may be something in what I say. Up to you. It's your cash.
V
|
When I buy 'new' car (and my budget is under #1,000), I:
0. have it MOTd - you don't know where the last one came from.
1. replace cambelt (no idea when it was last done, and I do value reliability in my car - catastrophic cambelt failure is probably the most likely cause of breakdown in an otherwise well-maintained, reliable car).
2. replace plugs (invariably starts better); ignition leads (likewise); rotor arm (likewise - and its only a few pence); timing checked as a part of cambelt change. All helps to improve fuel economy & takes no time at all to do & makes starting in the winter that much easier.
3. fluids (auto 'box; brake; coolant) & air & fuel filters; fanbelts
4. lubricate everything that needs it - bonnet cable, handbrake, hinges etc.
5. new front pads & discs if the braking is less than even
& then stick to the manufacturer's recommended servicing - i.e. pretty much changing the oil + visual inspection.
An MOT every 6 months means that in the event of spectacular failure you can sell the car with 7 months MOT remaining... I'd expect the garage I use to tell me if there were something wrong with the car at that time.
Anal? Possibly. But it's my life & my money & my probability of getting home! And touch wood I've only ever been let down by a broken fanbelt on a 'new' car on its first trip & a non-starting car on a filthy wet morning that was crying out for some new plugs.
|
Not anal at all. Just a very sensible and comprehensive approach to running a second hand car and very similar to how i do it.
No coincidence that i have not been left stranded either.
Plus i quite enjoy having a tinker under the bonnet at the weekend...
|
As someone who nearly had a very horrible accident as a result of neglected maintenance, I have always serviced (or had serviced in some cases) my cars and bikes to the manufacturers recommendations.
I had an old Y plate Sierra when I was 18 which I used to cane about without ever checking or replacing anything. Unbeknown to me, a leaking rear brake cylinder had progressively got worse and drained the master cylinder reservoir of fluid. The warning light hadn't come on, but I later discovered this was due to the float being stuck at the top of the little tube in the cap.
Coming off a dual carriageway at about 70, I approach the roundabout at the bottom of the slip road. I brake, and the master cylinder finally sucks air, and the pedal sinks to the floor. Nothing. How I miss the Golf with the family in it on the roundabout, I will never know. Had I T-boned it at 50 mph, someone would have died, no question about it. I somehow miss them, snatch second and switch off the ignition, coming to a stuttering halt on the centre of the roundabout. Golf man goes nuts (understandably) although is somewhat more calm when he realises I couldn't stop. I feel awful.
From that day on, every car and bike I've owned (or driven in the case of company cars) gets serviced on the dot, and a cursory check under the bonnet once a fortnight. Had I bothered on the Sierra, I would have noticed the brake fluid level dropping, and after a couple of top ups, would have worked out there was a fault. This neglect could have killed me, and an innocent family.
On the less dramatic side, regular maintenance keeps the car running sweetly and makes it better to drive. It also reduces fuel consumption (the Sierra did 10 mpg more after the full service I gave it once I got it home), and when components fail totally, they often "take out" others which you wouldn't normally need to replace. In this case, the shoes were ruined (soaked in fluid), but think about cambelts, or neglected ignition systems and catalysts. Think about the results of tyre failure at 70 mph because that split in the sidewall that's been there for months never got spotted.
It's just not worth it.
|
|
There is a difference between neglect and choosing to ignore regular service intervals. The two don't necessarily go together, which is assumed in a few posts above.
|
|
>>but when you looked at a graph, they looked like a saw tooth.
And what was the difference between the average of the low mpg figures in each of the trough as against the average of the high mpg figures at each of the peaks ?
My Landcruiser costs around £350 to get serviced. It needs a service every 9,000 miles. Mpg is around 20. Therefore 9,000 miles costs £840 assuming 85p per litre.
Half the costs of servicing would be £175 meaning that my fuel consumption would have to increase by around 20% to pay for half the cost of servicing.
20% is about 4mpg - assuming that is the range -2mpg to +2mpg on my 'normal' consumption.
Well, possible, I guess, but not likely would be my feeling - given that every bloomin thing is computerised, what would it be increasing the mileage that would be solved by a service ? Brakes/tyres are not handled as part of the servicing process.
And £350 on the Landcruiser is not an expensive service.
And all of that ignores any price or value I would place on my time.
All in all, I think I'll stick with my approach - service it when it breaks or when its been so long that I can't remember the last one.
My point is not that maintenance is not neccessary, but that we take it far too far.
M.
p.s. maths done in my head, so potential errors exist.
p.p.s. I might not be anal about servicing per se, but this sort of stuff is interesting.
|
Purely out of interest Mark, how old is your Landcruiser?
--
Adam
|
|
mmm, 92 I think. Possibly 93, but I think its 92.
|
Thanks. It was just so I could picture it in my head!
--
Adam
|
Oh damn it, I have no brain - I meant
"mmm, 2002, I think. Possibly 2003, but I think its 2002".
I lost 10 years !
|
You've got a new one?
What do you think of it? Personally, I'm more of a big saloon car fan but I actually quite like these. What's the difference between that one and the Amazon then? (If any)
--
Adam
|
I'd rather drive a landcruiser than something like an avensis - prefer the driving position and the view of the road.
An Amazon is like a landcruiser on steroids - even bigger with a 4.7 V8 petrol or a 4.2 TD and lots more toys.
The downside? best part of £50k when new and horrendous (13mpg) fuel economy - even the diesel will struggle to make 20mpg!
|
|
Mark he wanted the age not weight in tons.
|
Mark,
You were right about potential errors; 9,000 miles at 20mpg = 450 gal = 2045 l = £1738
So by your maths, range would be + or - 1mpg. Bit more possible/likely.
Also, the Mondeo was about £90 for a service, iirc. But then, fuel was about 55ppl as well. Still less of a % variance required.
I agree, though, about the "it's computerised, what could increase the mileage?" I did wonder what could be doing it. Air filters, perhaps? Oil less thick? New oil lubricating better? Who can tell?
Unfortunately, I can't remember the exact figures, but the graph was striking. I kept the data for a while, but decided it was just too sad to retain...
V
|
|
Quite amazed that seemingly intelligent people on this forum seem to believe that there will be no come back if their poorly maintained vehicle is involved in an accident. If the said accident is a fatal or near fatal then the one certainty is that the vehicle will be removed for a full examination and if it transpires that the vehicle was in dangerous condition and that the defect was a contributory factor then the owner can expect a very unpleasant court appearance. The courts tend not to favour the accused in such cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
