Used car purchase - corrosion on MOT advisories

Noree

It!!!8217;s impossible to say as corrosion failure is often subjective. It!!!8217;s not !!!8216;black and white!!!8217;.

It could be at the point of fail, or a overreaction or just !!!! covering as !!!8216;some!!!8217; was spotted, though not an issue.

Svein_Forkbeard

Tarambor wrote: »

What utter codswallop, talk about over-reacting. So you'll not be buying or owning any car 5/6/7 years old then?

My Jeep is now 11 years old and there has never been any mention of corrosion.

So once they start mention corrosion (apart from brake lines etc) I'll be looking elsewhere. Perhaps it was an over zealous tester but life really is too short and it is much easier to say..........NEXT!

Begsey

ozaz wrote: »

• Nearside Front Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
• Offside Front Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
• Rear of under chassis corroded
• Front Sub-frame corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
• Rear Sub-frame corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
• All rear suspension components corroded
• Offside Front Macpherson strut corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)

I'd have a look underneath myself and judge if it was just surface rust or something a bit more serious.
Any concerns, I'd just leave it alone.

adonis

Perhaps the op could post the make and model of the car so those in the know could say if it is a seriously bad buy.

ozaz

Many thanks for the replies on this thread. It!!!8217;s been very helpful.

Tarambor wrote: »

I'd ignore all of them. It is a 10 year old car, its going to get surface rust on all of those components in the UK unless it has been stored in an air conditioned garage and never been used on a rainy day.

That lot is a MOT tester backside covering.

I don!!!8217;t have any corrosion-related advisories on my current 16 year old car, which I always leave outside and which has been tested at 3 different test centres in the past 5 years.

I reckon at least 50% of the 10 year old cars I!!!8216;ve been browsing online don!!!8217;t have any corrosion related advisories in their MOT histories (ignoring anything to do with corrosion on brakes).

However take the point that there must be variation between testers in what!!!8217;s considered significant enough to flag up.

caprikid1 wrote: »

I was half expecting a KA, but non of it is structural or needs welding.

Agreed though this looks like an MOT backside Covering exercise. Easiest way to solve is get an second opinion. Is that the last MOT ?

Incidentally I suspect a covering with Waxoyl or wire brush and hammerite would see that fine for another 3 years.

Incidentally I would expect that on any 10 year old car. Probably even a 5 year old car.

Yes, last MOT. Most of the advisories were present the year before as well and at least two go back 4 years.

adonis wrote: »

Perhaps the op could post the make and model of the car so those in the know could say if it is a seriously bad buy.

Hyundai Coupe SIII

redux

A bit of surface corrosion isn't inevitably the start of terminal decline.

The advice is there to be useful. Usually clean things up a bit and use some paint.

GunJack

Tarambor wrote: »

Stick to buying new.

Hardly moneysaving, is it?? The Fusion that I've just had the brakepipes done on was £10 nett after selling the old Rover for £280

n217970

If you are only looking at one particular make/model of car and a large amount are showing corrosion on the MOT perhaps you might want to consider a differerent model?

I can find you some rust on both my 7 and 13 year old cars but neither have any mention of it on the MOT. You might get the odd overzealos tester but if you have looked at 10 cars and five are showing corrosion then its probably not a coincidence.

benten69

Walk away from a car with corrosion advisories IMHO. My current car is 12 years old and hasn't had any mention of corrosion on it's MOT's. Having worked on the car a lot myself I can see that the chassis is in good shape with little corrosion.

Corrosion / rust is like cancer, it's nearly impossible to stop / get rid of. So once it starts to get hold of a car and get advisories for it I walk away. Not worth the cost, especially on an older car.

In your shoes I would wait for a cleaner car to come up that will give you less issues long term.

lisah69x

Wondering if anyone can give me some advice please
My car has been written off - 54 Mazda 3 TS  60'000 miles, never failed an MOT or had any issues other than rust on 
wheel arches, that is common on Mazda's, the interior looked brand new still, The alloys needed work too. 
I am looking for  something similar size or bigger but I don't have much money to play with and prices seem to have jumped massively over last month or so.  

Everything I am seeing is either way older than I want, has lots of advisories/no MOT, write off, accident damage not declared etc. I
have seen a Mazda 3 1.6 sport 59 reg for £2695 but will take £2500, It will be serviced and had full service history.
 It has 109'000 miles so higher than average but I only do about 5000 a year myself.  MOT till April 2021 but for an extra £100 he will MOT it now. These are the advisories (see image). It will have 3 month warranty.  Body work looks great, 2 tiny chips to front bumper, inside looks ok, wear and tear to drivers seat but not as bad as other cars I have looked at, the alloys are starting to show signs of wear and tear but not as bad as mine were. 
Is it worth it? Some valuation sites are bigger some lower, most around the same.
Should I bother getting the MOT or will it likely not have the work fixed and still be an advisory? Should I avoid it altogether? 
I need a car quickly as I work in the next town, its not far away but not on a bus route and taxi's are more expensive because it's classed as a different town and too far to walk or bike it in the time I have.