MOT Advisories before collecting the new used car

CogitoBcn

Following your past advice about a new car I discarded the diesel engines (due to my very low mileage), increased the search range and looked for alternatives.

So, last week I found a KIA Sportage 2005, 58.000 miles and 1 single lady owner. I like the car very much, the price was good enough and it looked in quite a good state. The past MOTs didn't show any big issue, just small repairments that have been fixed.

So, I drove for 2 hours, checked the car and drive tested it. All was perfect, he even offered me a good price for the part exchange. I accepted for a total of £2200, made a deposit of £200, and we agree to collect it next week, after it passed the MOT.

I haven't had news from the dealer yet, but I checked online the MOT results and although it passed they look a lot worse that I expected, with a lot of advisories:

• Central Rear Sub-frame corroded but not seriously weakened (5.3.3 (b) (i))
• Nearside Rear Fuel tank slightly loose corrosion on tank strap (6.1.3 (a) (i))
• Offside Rear Fuel tank slightly loose corrosion on tank strap (6.1.3 (a) (i))
• Offside Front Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
• Nearside Front Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
• Offside Front Upper Shock absorbers light misting of oil or has limited damping effect (5.3.2 (b))
• Nearside Rear Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material (1.1.11 (c))
• Offside Rear Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material (1.1.11 (c))

I checked its MOT history to discard this kind of issues, and I wonder how so many advisories can appear *magically* in just one year... Probably, as advisories, they are not included in the 2 month guarantee, and I should pay to my local garage to check and fix them (at least the brake pipes, they look dangerous).

In short: are these advisories big issues? are life-risking issues? or they will cost me much money to fix them?

I can accept to pay £500 more to repair it (I like the car and it was not easy to find it), but if I will be paying £500 more annually... maybe I should assume to cancel the purchase..

EssexExile

CogitoBcn wrote: »

In short: are these advisories big issues? are life-risking issues? or they will cost me much money to fix them?(

Obviously not or it would've failed. I haven't bought an old car for many years but nothing there would worry me, my last van had advisories for corroded brake pipes for most of its 17 year life, likewise leaks from a damper.

AdrianC

It's a 14yo car. It's passed the MOT. It's got some age-related deterioration. That's all. Nothing serious. If you want to be really picky, then spend some time underneath with some spray-on rustproofing wax, and sort the front suspension bushes. No more than that...

Advisories are just things that the car's passed the test on, but the tester thinks the owner should be aware of. No more than that. Different testers advise different things.

Since last May, the test changed, and there are now "minor" fails - which are just another term for advisories, but ones which the tester has to tell you about with pre-specified wording. "Minor fails" don't mean it's failed. If you don't have "major" fails, previously just called fails, then it's still a pass.

The brake pipe advisory says they're corroded (but not badly enough to be a fail) or covered in grease (which would protect it). The test standard for a fail is that the steel pipe is reduced in thickness by a third - about a quarter of a millimetre), so it'll fail with about two-thirds of the steel still there.
https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/manuals/class3457/Section-1-Brakes.html#section_1.1.11
Changing brake pipes isn't a massive job, anyway - get it done when the fluid's next changed.

mollycat

Hello OP.

Those advisories wouldn't put me off, but the price would...i feel it's a bit steep.

Don't pay a premium for unusually low mileage; 58K on a 14 year old car is only just over 4K a year.

For context, I bought a similar aged Honda CRV a few months back, private sale, 90K miles and impeccable history for £900. Lady needed a quick sale.

Is that from a dealer? Looks a few hundred too much, good luck anyway.

Scrapit

mollycat wrote: »

Hello OP.

Those advisories wouldn't put me off, but the price would...i feel it's a bit steep.

Don't pay a premium for unusually low mileage; 58K on a 14 year old car is only just over 4K a year.

For context, I bought a similar aged Honda CRV a few months back, private sale, 90K miles and impeccable history for £900. Lady needed a quick sale.

Is that from a dealer? Looks a few hundred too much, good luck anyway.

But it was owned by a single lady. That adds 20% extral value and nearly 20 extra bhp!:rotfl:

CogitoBcn

Thanks very much for your answers, you have given me some peace of mind, I was a bit worried about being messed it up.

AdrianC wrote: »

If you want to be really picky, then spend some time underneath with some spray-on rustproofing wax, and sort the front suspension bushes. No more than that...

Yes, the chassis rust doesn't look good, but after watching some videos it seems that (once I get below the car) it's not very different that restoring any other rusted metal, and if it's not weakened yet it can help to last a few more years.

I thought that the suspension bushes affected only to the "confort" driving, I will check them.

AdrianC wrote: »

Changing brake pipes isn't a massive job, anyway - get it done when the fluid's next changed.

Ah, every day I learn someone, I didn't think that to change the brake pipes the circuit must be flushed and refill, so your advice has a lot of sense, thanks.

mollycat wrote: »

Those advisories wouldn't put me off, but the price would...i feel it's a bit steep.
Don't pay a premium for unusually low mileage; 58K on a 14 year old car is only just over 4K a year.

The price doesn't worry me too much, it fits my budget, I got a better car and if it just lasts 4 more years it has been worth it.

mollycat wrote: »

For context, I bought a similar aged Honda CRV a few months back, private sale, 90K miles and impeccable history for £900. Lady needed a quick sale.

I'm sure that if I weren't living in Wales, or if I was extroverted enough to haggling, or just if I could speak English fluently, I should have got a better price, but that's not the case, and I'm ok with it ...

mollycat wrote: »

Is that from a dealer? Looks a few hundred too much, good luck anyway.

Yes, it's from a dealer. I found a similar Sportage but from 2008, 110K miles and 4 owners for £1800, from a private seller, but I don't know about cars/mechanics and, at the end, I thought that a dealer seemed more trustworthy (is "trustworthy dealer" an oxymoron?)

Scrapit wrote: »

But it was owned by a single lady. That adds 20% extral value and nearly 20 extra bhp!:rotfl:

Don't be mean , probably I'm too gullible, but from the last thread I asked advice I was told that the age/mileage was not the only important variables, that the amount and type of past owners were also important. So I assumed that just "one lady owner" was a lot better than "4 5 young male owners"... :P


Thanks a lot, I will make my local garage to check the car, but although probably it's not an optimum price, at least it's not a totally rusted cr*p, so I feel a lot happier, thanks.

Scrapit

[QUOTE=CogitoBcn;75766460



Don't be mean , probably I'm too gullible, but from the last thread I asked advice I was told that the age/mileage was not the only important variables, that the amount and type of past owners were also important. So I assumed that just "one lady owner" was a lot better than "4 5 young male owners"... :P


[/QUOTE]
I have heard people believe that sort of nonsense hence why people still put it in their ads. Is it a sliding scale of added value: lady owner-doctor-vicar-pope John Paul the 33rd?