95N Micra 80k miles.
Had a front shunt last year, I replaced the appropriate panels and kept
on driving. It chugs along OK, brakes and steering seem OK.

It has just failed its MOT and requires quite a lot of work:

1) Nearside rear brake pipe corroded
2) Offside rear brake pipe corroded
3) Front to rear brake pipe corroded
4) Brakes imbalanced
5) Front chassis box section damaged -- requires welding.

6) Advice -- bowed door; door lock not fully engaging.

Total repair cost: £450  £40 MOT cost.

I have used this garage before; they are pretty honest IMHO.

A few questions:

* Is it worth repairing? I suspect not. I'm thinking about advertising
in Auto Trader Accident Damage section. How much might this get me? Any
other places to advertise it?

* Item 5) -- the garage reckoned the brakes needed stripping down. Is
this a big job?

Its a shame because the engine and gearbox are fine. But it may just
prove uneconomical to repair the car.

Bruce

wrote:


> 95N Micra 80k miles.
> Had a front shunt last year, I replaced the appropriate panels and kept
> on driving. It chugs along OK, brakes and steering seem OK.
> 
> It has just failed its MOT and requires quite a lot of work:
> 
> 1) Nearside rear brake pipe corroded
> 2) Offside rear brake pipe corroded
> 3) Front to rear brake pipe corroded
> 4) Brakes imbalanced
> 5) Front chassis box section damaged -- requires welding.
> 
> 6) Advice -- bowed door; door lock not fully engaging.
> 
> Total repair cost: 450 + 40 MOT cost.


How much?

I'd find another garage if I were you.

That lot should be do-able, including MOT for around 200 quid.
-- 
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

You reckon? The welding bit sounds expensive...
Maybe I should try another place.

Bruce

wrote:


> You reckon? The welding bit sounds expensive...
> Maybe I should try another place.


I've never been charged more than 40 quid for a bit of structural
welding.
-- 
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Interesting.

What's my bext method of approach? Just book another MOT test at a
different garage and see what they say?

Or be "up front" and show my MOT fail sheet to them, ask for an
estimated repair cost. Then put it through its MOT.

Bruce

wrote:


> Interesting.
> 
> What's my bext method of approach? Just book another MOT test at a
> different garage and see what they say?
> 
> Or be "up front" and show my MOT fail sheet to them, ask for an
> estimated repair cost. Then put it through its MOT.


The second one. Try another garage to have the work done, return to
original place for an MOT.

I tend to keep my MOT garage and the one working on my car separate.

-- 
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

>Try another garage to have the work done<

That makes sense.  I could get a couple of estimates for the work.


>Return to original place for an MOT. <

Would I be charged another £40? Looking at the small print on the fail
sheet it looks like I will.

Bruce

>> 95N Micra 80k miles.
>> Had a front shunt last year, I replaced the appropriate panels and kept
>> on driving. It chugs along OK, brakes and steering seem OK.
>>
>> It has just failed its MOT and requires quite a lot of work:
>>
>> 1) Nearside rear brake pipe corroded
>> 2) Offside rear brake pipe corroded
>> 3) Front to rear brake pipe corroded
>> 4) Brakes imbalanced
>> 5) Front chassis box section damaged -- requires welding.
>>
>> 6) Advice -- bowed door; door lock not fully engaging.
>>
>> Total repair cost: 450 + 40 MOT cost.
>
> How much?
>
> I'd find another garage if I were you.
>
> That lot should be do-able, including MOT for around 200 quid.


What exactly is a front chassis box?

The rest though, like Steve says, is fairly straightforward - a few brake 
pipes, and basically cleaning up caliper sliders/replacing seals - not 
something I'd personally do, but not that time consuming for someone who 
knows how.  Don't know what on earth a front chassis box is though.

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've had your big end bearings go."

AstraVanMan  wrote:


> >> 5) Front chassis box section damaged -- requires welding.
> >>
> >> 6) Advice -- bowed door; door lock not fully engaging.
> >>
> >> Total repair cost: 450 + 40 MOT cost.
> >
> > How much?
> >
> > I'd find another garage if I were you.
> >
> > That lot should be do-able, including MOT for around 200 quid.
> 
> What exactly is a front chassis box?
> 
> The rest though, like Steve says, is fairly straightforward - a few brake
> pipes, and basically cleaning up caliper sliders/replacing seals - not
> something I'd personally do, but not that time consuming for someone who
> knows how.  Don't know what on earth a front chassis box is though.


I'm assuming it's a box-section crossmember running across the front of
the car - effectively holding the front inner arches together.

Regardless of where or what it is, it's obviously dented and / or
corroded, but will only need cutting back and a section welding in.
-- 
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Here is what is on the MOT failure form:
"Front chassis box section body is damaged, seriously affecting its
strength within 30cm of the body mountings. [6.1.3]"

I ran into the back of someone. So it is probably dented.

bruce

The message <Yc1Ne.9238$bf6.3584@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>
from "AstraVanMan"  contains
these words:


> What exactly is a front chassis box?


At a guess it's the hollow section under/behind the radiator. Not that
hard to do in most cases. Doesn't have to be pretty, just welded all
round and underseal slapped over it.

-- 
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

Right on, Guy.
I've just taken the car to a local lad who works from his
house/workshop. Its the cross plate at the bottom immediately behind
the radiator. Going rusty in a couple of places. It doesn't look to be
very thick metal.

The lad quoted me about £150 for welding this part, replacing brake
pipes and stripping down front brakes.
More palatable than £450. Especially when the car is only worth
£500-600.

Bruce

wrote:


> Right on, Guy.
> I've just taken the car to a local lad who works from his
> house/workshop. Its the cross plate at the bottom immediately behind
> the radiator. Going rusty in a couple of places. It doesn't look to be
> very thick metal.
> 
> The lad quoted me about ?150 for welding this part, replacing brake
> pipes and stripping down front brakes.
> More palatable than ?450. Especially when the car is only worth
> ?500-600.


That's more like it.

I think you may want to find another garage.
-- 
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

In article ,  
says...

> 95N Micra 80k miles.
> Had a front shunt last year, I replaced the appropriate panels and kept
> on driving. It chugs along OK, brakes and steering seem OK.
> 
> It has just failed its MOT and requires quite a lot of work:
> 
> 1) Nearside rear brake pipe corroded

30-ish.

> 2) Offside rear brake pipe corroded

30-ish

> 3) Front to rear brake pipe corroded

40-50-ish

> 4) Brakes imbalanced

20-30.

> 5) Front chassis box section damaged -- requires welding.
> 

50 tops.


-- 
Conor

If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened 
rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic 
music.

In article ,  
says...

> >Try another garage to have the work done<
> That makes sense.  I could get a couple of estimates for the work.
> 
> >Return to original place for an MOT. <
> Would I be charged another 40? Looking at the small print on the fail
> sheet it looks like I will.
> 

Probably but even then, the work you've got should only be a couple of 
hundred quid so you'll still save over 200.


-- 
Conor

If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened 
rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic 
music.

The message 
from bruce_phipps@my-deja.com contains these words:


> The lad quoted me about 150 for welding this part, replacing brake
> pipes and stripping down front brakes.


That sounds a lot more reasonable.

-- 
Skipweasel.
Ivor Cutler - "Never knowingly understood."

> Here is what is on the MOT failure form:
> "Front chassis box section body is damaged, seriously affecting its
> strength within 30cm of the body mountings. [6.1.3]"
>

Body mountings????????????????
The micra doesn't have a separate chassis and body, so therefore no body
mountings.
WTF is he on about?


reason for rejection 6.1.3 is in the section "body security" and is headed
<quote> This part of the examination applies to vehicles with separate
bodies.</quote>

That does not apply to a micra.

SimonJ (me@mine.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : 


>> Here is what is on the MOT failure form:
>> "Front chassis box section body is damaged, seriously affecting its
>> strength within 30cm of the body mountings. [6.1.3]"

> Body mountings????????????????
> The micra doesn't have a separate chassis and body, so therefore no
> body mountings.


Subframe and/or suspension mount?


> WTF is he on about?


With the computerised MOTs, the tester doesn't get a choice or a chance. He 
just has to pick one of a handful of stock phrases - which ever's nearest. 
They *hate* it. This is why.

> >> Here is what is on the MOT failure form:
> >> "Front chassis box section body is damaged, seriously affecting its
> >> strength within 30cm of the body mountings. [6.1.3]"
>
> > Body mountings????????????????
> > The micra doesn't have a separate chassis and body, so therefore no
> > body mountings.
>
> Subframe and/or suspension mount?
>

so he should have said that, if that's what he meant.
The simple fact remains, that RFR 6.1.3 cannot be applied to a micra.


> > WTF is he on about?
>
> With the computerised MOTs, the tester doesn't get a choice or a chance.
He
> just has to pick one of a handful of stock phrases - which ever's nearest.
>

That's always been the case, but before computerisation, the tester had to
remember all the reasons for rejection. Now he simply has to pick whichever
rfr is appropriate for the damage, its not a case of picking the nearest, if
there is not a specific, exact, rfr, then he cannot fail the vehicle on that
point.

Taking this car as an example, if there is a subframe or suspension mount
within 30cm of the damage on the front crossmember, then rfr 2.4.2 applies.
("Deliberate modification which significantly reduces the original strength,
excessive corrosion, severe distortion, a fracture or an Inadequate repair
of a load bearing member or its supporting structure or supporting panelling
within 30cm of any sub-frame, spring or a suspension component mounting,
that is, within a prescribed area")


> They *hate* it. This is why.
>

The only testers who would hate the system will be sloppy testers who aren't
doing the job properly, like in the above example where he correctly failed
the front crossmember, but for the wrong reason. Previous to the computer
system, he would probably just have written something like "excessive
corrosion, front crossmember", whereas he should have written "Excessive
corrosion within 30cm of a subframe mounting, on front crossmember" If the
tester is using the correct terminology and correct rfr's, then it is very
easy to move over to the computerised system.

Update from original poster:

Took the Micra back in today for a re-test.
I didn't have the MOT fail sheet with me; the guy who did the welding
lost it.
"We'll have to do a full MOT again. With the new computerised system,
we don't have a copy".

Strange. Surely, they have electronic copies on the computer?
So that was £40. It passed OK, though.

Bruce

(bruce_phipps@my-deja.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were 
saying :


> Took the Micra back in today for a re-test.
> I didn't have the MOT fail sheet with me; the guy who did the welding
> lost it.
> "We'll have to do a full MOT again. With the new computerised system,
> we don't have a copy".

> Strange. Surely, they have electronic copies on the computer?


DVLA have electronic copies. They're not - AFAIK - stored locally.

> Took the Micra back in today for a re-test.
> I didn't have the MOT fail sheet with me; the guy who did the welding
> lost it.
> "We'll have to do a full MOT again. With the new computerised system,
> we don't have a copy".

> Strange. Surely, they have electronic copies on the computer?
> So that was 40. It passed OK, though.
>

I think what he meant to say was that he didn't know how to get the copy out
of the computer!

If the garage relied entirely on the customers copy of the fail sheet, it
would be open to far too much abuse as the customer could modify the sheet,
or forge a new one to 'lose' fail points which were a pain to repair.

>I think what he meant to say was that he didn't know how to get the copy out

of the computer!<

Thats what I thought...
Surely they can print off copies of a previous test. Or even view them
on screen.
I'll have a look on the VOSA web site, see if it mentions fail sheets.

bruce

<<Took the Micra back in today for a re-test.
I didn't have the MOT fail sheet with me; the guy who did the welding
lost it.
"We'll have to do a full MOT again. With the new computerised system,
we don't have a copy".

Strange. Surely, they have electronic copies on the computer?
So that was 40. It passed OK, though.>>

Yep, that does seem bloody stupid.  Surely the whole point is to reduce the 
need for all these bits of paper.

Even so, surely the rust yours failed on isn't in the list that means it 
doesn't need a full retest anyway, is it?  In other words, it would have 
needed a full retest anyway.  Bit of a bugger if they did offer a free 
retest (though ISTR you mentioning they didn't), but hey, it'll teach you to 
lose things :-)

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've had your big end bearings go."

> If the garage relied entirely on the customers copy of the fail sheet, it
> would be open to far too much abuse as the customer could modify the 
> sheet,
> or forge a new one to 'lose' fail points which were a pain to repair.


Well, possibly, but unless said customer knew someone who worked in an MOT 
garage, then it'd be hard to make it convincing, as the original will have 
been handwritten by one of their guys, and it's dead easy to tell a bit of 
paper with handwriting on from a colour copy.

Besides which, they always used to write it in a duplicates book, and keep a 
copy in the book for themselves.  Which I'm surprised they don't still do, 
just to avoid the potential trouble of someone forging it like you suggest.

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've had your big end bearings go."

AstraVanMan wrote:


> Besides which, they always used to write it in a duplicates book, and keep a 
> copy in the book for themselves.  Which I'm surprised they don't still do, 


They do.

John

>> Besides which, they always used to write it in a duplicates book, and 
>> keep a copy in the book for themselves.  Which I'm surprised they don't 
>> still do,
>
> They do.


So, in all honesty, it was jusy plain lazy on their part to not just grab 
the book and look up the failure sheet in the duplicates book.

Mind you, unless they offered a free retest within 2 weeks or whatever, it 
wouldn't have made a difference anyway, as ISTR Bruce's car failed on items 
not in the "doesn't need a full retest" list, so he'd have had to pay for a 
full retest anyway.

-- 
Peter

"You're not a real UKRCMer until you've had your big end bearings go."