Thanks for that.
I remain bitter, cynical and twisted - but in this case I'll concede defeat on the "right". Still seems an awful lot, guess I'll be hanging on to the spanners and ramps a few years longer yet!
|
The sumps for the 'Fire' engines are £38.
www.shopcreator.com/mall/productpage.cfm/Fueltanks...0
|
The only clause I can think of for failing it is:
"excessive corrosion not in a 'prescribed area', but which is likely to adversely affect the vehicle's brakes or steering. 'Excessive corrosion' can mean a hole or a significantly weakened structure.
Cost me £200 a few years ago to have the corroded sump on my Astra replaced
Baz
|
he cant fail the car for a leaking sump, he could advise it.
As said a sump is £38 a reasonable time would be 1.25 hours to fit therefore a figure would be more likely of £150 all in.
|
|
Not on a Punto you won't.They are a swine to do
|
Andy
Without going into step by step instructions, why are they 'a swine'?
Chris M
|
|
|
|
"but which is likely to adversely affect the vehicle's brakes or steering."
Yer I think the contents of your sump being dropped under your front wheels probably counts.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
And certainly would to other motorists, particularly those on two wheels.
Horrible messy job doing a sump, did one on a Polo some years back. Not too bad if you can get the car up on a lift or work in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depends whereabouts on the sump the leak is. On my XR2 (CVH engine) I had the same issue. My leaks were on the vertical wall of the sump pressing. I drained the sump, thoroughly cleaned the external surface, then screwed in an appropriate sized self-tapping screw. The head of this was then covered with silicone rubber - no further problems.
|
|
|
|
|
I have colleagues at the pub, the dyslexia support group, sports club, choir etc! There is a lot more to life than work and the people one meets there!
|
The sump on my N reg Fiesta had rotted clean through by 2001 (that would make it about 6 or 7 years old). Had to fit a new one that cost about £70 IIRC.
If I had MOT'd that car I would have expected it to fail, if the hole had suddenly got bigger then the enigne could stop and leave you stuck in the outer lane of a motorway, not very safe!
Blue
|
|
The sump isn't a testable item. The only way a tester could refuse to issue a cert. because of the sump condition, is if the corrosion is so advanced that a sump failure it is likely to cause damage to the car or MOT test equipment during the test. This means that the test is discontinued. In my days as a tester a car deemed to be unsafe to test was also deemed unroadworthy, and the dreaded 'red ticket' was issued. It's also worth bearing in mind - given the winter weather forecast - that a tester can refuse to test a vehicle if the underside is caked in snow, mud etc. HGV's are always steam cleaned underneath so that the tester can see the bits he's interested in. A dirty vehicle fails.
|
>>The sump isn't a testable item.
Yes, that was my understanding too - I was surprised to hear that a car had failed its MOT because of a corroded sump.
Number_Cruncher
|
|
|
|
The sump on my N reg Fiesta had rotted clean through by 2001 (that would make it about 6 or 7 years old). Had to fit a new one that cost about £70 IIRC.
Ditto - these N reg Fiestas are so predictable - our sump went in 2002, the symptom being a slow oil leak which we thought was from an oil seal but which turned out to be from the increasingly porous sump. Again, I think the cost would have been about £70, though this was buried amongst a pile of other things that needed sorting at the time.
|
Was that a fiesta as well?
|
|
Yes, Oldman, if it's my last post you're referring to, that was a N reg Fiesta also. There have been a number of posts on this site about common Fiesta problems e.g. ignition lock, stalling (mayo build-up) - you can almost set your calendar by them.
|
|
|
|
I think the sump maybe as it could,or rust could be in vicinity of suspension bushes.
excessive corrosion in a 'prescribed area' ? within 30 cms of certain safety related components, e.g. brakes, steering, suspension, seat belt mountings etc.
Never measured the distance between sump and suspension bushes,but it must be pretty close on one side
--
Steve
|
I think the sump maybe as it could,or rust could be in vicinity of suspension bushes. excessive corrosion in a 'prescribed area' ? within 30 cms of certain safety related components, e.g. brakes, steering, suspension, seat belt mountings etc. Never measured the distance between sump and suspension bushes,but it must be pretty close on one side -- Steve
The 30cm rule is one of the more stupidly worded rules in the MOT IMO.
So, if I put some very rusty part into a box, and then put the box right by the seat belt mounting, the car suddenly becomes unrodworthy!
If you want to take the rule to extremes, you could say that wheel arches are within 30cm of the suspension. I agree that rusty wheel arches may form a hazard to passing pedestrians, and should be repaired by making the surface smooth (gaffer tape or filler being acceptable), but I don't agree that wheel arches should be considered as structural.
IMO, the sump isn't in any structural loadpath, and isn't testable as such. I think that the sump would be unlikely to fail in a sudden catastrophic way - I would imagine oil loss would either become too great a nuisance for the owner, or the engine would fail due to lack of oil.
Although the MOT is (only just) a sensible testing regime, the testers have no *real* structural knowledge - they have never designed, analysed or technically assessed a structure; asking them to judge the structural integrity of a car is like asking a builder to assess the structural condition of a building.
Having said that, I wouldn't change a thing - the MOT is fine, it doesn't need any more rules, regs and cost building in to it. It suceeds in keeping the worst bangers off the road, while causing only minimal inconvenience for most. A more stringent TUV type of test would only cause more hassle for most, and at best only provide a small, incremental, safety gain.
The MOT manual used to contain a great piece of common sense - it asked the tester to think if he would be happy for himself and his family to be travelling in the car at speed.
Number_Cruncher
|
The MOT manual used to contain a great piece of common sense - it asked the tester to think if he would be happy for himself and his family to be travelling in the car at speed.
spot on number eater its all pass and advise now, ie pass the buck.
Going back again to the original post as i said earlier,
the sump will not cause an mot failure on class 4 whatever anyone says.
|
|
|
|
Steve, when I did the testers course, this measuring thing was mentioned a couple of times. The main thing to remember is that the measurement must be along or include part of a load bearing area. Any corrosion must reduce the effectiveness of the load bearing area.
Apart from some motorbikes, I can't think of a single vehicle where the sump forms part of the vehicle structure / load bearing area.
|
I do realise this none,and agree with all thats been said.But have to admit,I have only come across this once before,never found out the outcome of appeal
--
Steve
|
|
what about if there was corrosion round a rear shocker?you would assume a fail yes?i would ,but according to vosa "pass and advise".in certain circumstances,what a joke, the new vehicle operator services agency is,i actually phoned them again this week and they answered,the funny thing was it was on the same day that was it 20% of calls to government agencies dont even get answered?another thread called for maybe?
|
oldman, For at least 25yrs Vosa's view has been 'pass and advise' when unsure about something. As long as the customer is made aware of the uncertainty there's no comeback on the tester, and the customer may or may not be pleased with his new knowledge and responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have colleagues at the pub, the dyslexia support group, sports club, choir etc! There is a lot more to life than work and the people one meets there!
Do you work with them then?The definition of 'colleague'being 'someone you work with'.
|
|
|
|
|
