Failed MOT
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: M Peters on 24 Dec 2008 04:33 "Corporal Jones" <corporaljones(a)thentlworld.com> wrote in message news:Xr94l.28508$Zz2.13047(a)newsfe30.ams2... > > > current MOT does not run out till the 4th of Jan You have answered your own question.
From: Corporal Jones on 24 Dec 2008 04:52 Conor wrote: > In article <z9a4l.28524$Zz2.27238(a)newsfe30.ams2>, Corporal Jones > says... > >> So brake pipes that have the potential of failing in the future ditto >> the ball joint, not threatening to me, just glad to have the warning. >> > The brake pipes could go pop at the first time you need to pull up > hard. The balljoint could let go on the first serious pothole you hit. > Don't use the brakes much, not had the pads replaced for 4 years (front 35% wear / rear 25% wear) that will be in the region of 50k miles. Have had a closer look at the mechanics report (not the test station) and it assumes that the corrosion is where the pipes pass over the fuel tank, do testers use cameras on little poles nowadays? Will feel more than a little bit pissed if after paying to drop the tank out there is no problem. Funnily enough my first job when I left school was manufacturing and assembling ball joints so yes I do know how they work and it would have to have excessive corrosion to pop out rather than a little play. I suppose nowadays testers have to cover their arses as they will be held responsible for their failings -- Corporal Jones "I don't like it up me"
From: Adrian on 24 Dec 2008 05:02 Corporal Jones <corporaljones(a)thentlworld.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Have had a closer look at the mechanics report (not the test station) > and it assumes that the corrosion is where the pipes pass over the fuel > tank Thought you said front brake pipes?
From: Corporal Jones on 24 Dec 2008 05:24 Adrian wrote: > Corporal Jones <corporaljones(a)thentlworld.com> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: > >> Have had a closer look at the mechanics report (not the test station) >> and it assumes that the corrosion is where the pipes pass over the fuel >> tank > > Thought you said front brake pipes? To quote the testers report: "Nearside (front 2 rear )Brake pipe excessively corroded (3.6.B.2c)" "Offside (front 2 rear) brake pipes excessively corroded(3.6.B.2c)" I assume "front 2 rear" is chav speak for front TO rear. The mechanics report states over the tank -- Corporal Jones "I don't like it up me"
From: Adrian on 24 Dec 2008 05:42
Corporal Jones <corporaljones(a)thentlworld.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Have had a closer look at the mechanics report (not the test station) >>> and it assumes that the corrosion is where the pipes pass over the >>> fuel tank >> Thought you said front brake pipes? > To quote the testers report: > "Nearside (front 2 rear )Brake pipe excessively corroded (3.6.B.2c)" > "Offside (front 2 rear) brake pipes excessively corroded(3.6.B.2c)" > > I assume "front 2 rear" is chav speak for front TO rear. The mechanics > report states over the tank Ah. <checks back> Yep, you said front originally - hence the assumption we were talking about flexis. Corrosion makes more sense on the front-rear pipes. |