MOT Failure: garage quoting unnessessary work?

colino

Working on suspension is easy on a lift, (this job can literally be 10 minutes if your lucky) but a PITA with a Lidl socket set and a wobbly scissor jack. Pay the labour once and change the arm.
All popular BMW bits are on the local factors shelf nowadays and aren't all that expensive. The 3 and 5 series though are big time suspension munchers and are worth keeping on top of.

Joe_Horner

Going to buck the trend here and say do the rubber boot.

That used to be an absolutely standard job on all cars until the manufacturers realised some time in the early / mid 80s that they could sell more joints if they didn't make the boots available as separate parts.

If the joint isn't worn now (no reason to think it is cos they didn't fail it for that) then undo the joint (one nut) and disconnect it from the hub (will be b*st*rd tight cos they're on a taper). You'll need a balljoint splitter to do this (ok, not strictly "need" but they make life a lot easier!). Pull off old rubber, clean all round the joint (wriggle it around through it's full range of movement as you do this), apply a fair dose of ordinary lithium grease around the ball, put on the new boot, and reassemble.

Please bear in mind that, from the garage's POV it's not "unnecessary" work to replace the whole joint / arm because they're the ones customers will be complaining to if they replace just the boot and the joint fails next year.



eta: It's also the more environmentally friendly, as well as the moneysaving (assuming you do the work yourself), approach to only replace what needs replacing rather than sending an entire arm for recycling for the sake of a bit of rubber

Jamie_Carter

alhermette wrote: »

The rubber boot thing is a new part of the MOT introduced this year. Last year a split boot wasn't even an advisory, now it's a failure. Way too much of a big brother attitude. Sure a split dust cover will cause the joint to wear and eventually it will fail - but not for a long time. Forcing people to change them as soon as there is a split is not reasonable in my opinion. What makes matters worse is that plenty of manufacturers now do not supply ball joints they will only supply the whole suspension arm assembly which just increases the cost further.
I want to be informed about items that need attention so that I can make a decision about when and how to repair it coupled with the advice of my mechanic. I only want to be forced to repair things if they pose an immediate safety risk.

They have been failing cars for split CV joint boots for years.

photome

alhermette wrote: »

The rubber boot thing is a new part of the MOT introduced this year. Last year a split boot wasn't even an advisory, now it's a failure. Way too much of a big brother attitude. Sure a split dust cover will cause the joint to wear and eventually it will fail - but not for a long time. Forcing people to change them as soon as there is a split is not reasonable in my opinion. What makes matters worse is that plenty of manufacturers now do not supply ball joints they will only supply the whole suspension arm assembly which just increases the cost further.
I want to be informed about items that need attention so that I can make a decision about when and how to repair it coupled with the advice of my mechanic. I only want to be forced to repair things if they pose an immediate safety risk.

Is that really the case? From memory i thought i had cars fail on "rubber boot things" in the 70s and 80s

Joe_Horner

photome wrote: »

Is that really the case? From memory i thought i had cars fail on "rubber boot things" in the 70s and 80s

Before computerisation testers could fail cars for a lot of things that weren't officially in the manual - insecure batteries, split balljoint covers, reversing lights and so on. Most were applying common sense (loose batteries are potentially dangerous / split dust covers do lead to joint failure if they're left and so on) but some took the proverbial.

Under computerisation it became impossible to fail for anything not specifically in the manual, even if it's obviously dangerous. Which is why it's possible (though very unlikely) to get a pass certificate and the "dangerous" box ticked for an advisory on a non-testable item in the same test.

An example might be presenting a car with the windscreen missing. Missing screen isn't a failure but, if you've ever tried it, you'll know how dangerous it can be trying to drive with everything blowing in your face!

mikey72

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Before computerisation testers could fail cars for a lot of things that weren't officially in the manual - insecure batteries, split balljoint covers, reversing lights and so on. Most were applying common sense (loose batteries are potentially dangerous / split dust covers do lead to joint failure if they're left and so on) but some took the proverbial.

Under computerisation it became impossible to fail for anything not specifically in the manual, even if it's obviously dangerous. Which is why it's possible (though very unlikely) to get a pass certificate and the "dangerous" box ticked for an advisory on a non-testable item in the same test.

An example might be presenting a car with the windscreen missing. Missing screen isn't a failure but, if you've ever tried it, you'll know how dangerous it can be trying to drive with everything blowing in your face!

Odd you should mention that. The linkage has gone on my kit car, and I'm tempted to take the screen out and the wipers off. It'll pass that way.

andygb

csh wrote: »

Its a word where I come from.

Its not even that I don't have the money for the damn thing its just been taxed, insured and 2 new tyres within the last 5 weeks so best part of 1k on it but the thought of another £80 for a £2 bit of rubber has pushed me over the edge!

Did you need any special tools to do your own repair? Himself would prob be able to do it to save the labour costs at least...

I am out of work at the moment, but if I get a job, then I need my car.
My car needs to be in good condition-safe!
BMs are pretty hard on front suspension parts - I have had 3 BMs so I know.
Maybe you should try a cheaper brand like Fords until you can afford to run an expensive car?

Joe_Horner

andygb wrote: »

I am out of work at the moment, but if I get a job, then I need my car.
My car needs to be in good condition-safe!
BMs are pretty hard on front suspension parts - I have had 3 BMs so I know.
Maybe you should try a cheaper brand like Fords until you can afford to run an expensive car?

But if the joint isn't worn (which would be a separate fail or advise on the test) then replacing the £2 boot IS safe!

Since when has "affording to run an expensive car" means throwing money away on parts that are NOT needed?????

in_the_Cotswolds

waynedance wrote: »

Oh yes they do, knowledge. Only type about what you know.

I do. They don't normally come separate.