corsa d bottom arn snapped

AdrianC

jam_jar123 said:

Say you go your optician and they advise you that you have high eye pressure but it's not high enough to cause glaucoma - you'd expect them to do their routine checks and then, once it reached levels where it could potentially damage your eyes, it would be their duty to do something about it. They would be held responsible if you had highish pressure eg, 2017, 2018 but they didn't check it in 2019 and then in 2020 - you were told you had glaucoma. Whereas, had they done the checks in 2019 and put you on eg, medication, which controlled the eye pressure, your eye or eyes would not have been damaged by the effects of glaucoma.

But this may be a case of having been told you had high pressure in 2017 and 18, but then getting not glaucoma but a detached retina in 2020.

We do not know if the component that's failed is the same one that you were advised was corroding in 2017 and 2018.
We do not know if the failure was corrosion-related.
We just know that something in the same vague direction as those previous MOT advisories has now failed.

I may be wrong but I still feel they should have checked it in 2019 and I would have gone by their advice - 'it's now time to do this repair'

They did. It's just that the tester didn't think it worthy of mention in 2019.

That's all an advisory is - something that's a pass, but the individual tester feels you should know about.

So what would have been different about an MOT advisory in 2019 to the two you ignored in 2017 and 18?
If the corrosion was so bad as to present a risk of failure at the time of any of those three tests, it would have failed.

custardy

Goudy said:

This isn't uncommon. They go with a right bang!
The part is a hangover from the older Corsa C (as is most of the car) and I've seen quite a few  C's and D's go over the years.

The mount for the bush at the front of the wishbone (the horizontal one) is quite thin and weak.
A bit of rust and bumping it up and down kerbs tends to see them snap.
I'm guessing it's the near side, they tend to be the one's to snap first.

With the oil leak it sounds like Adrian is right, the drive shaft has popped out and gear oil has leaked out, gear oil does tend to smell a bit strong, hopefully there's no other damage but you will probably find it's bent or broken the track rod or track rod end and perhaps bent the anti roll bar link.

Should be a simple enough fix, though it might add up if there's other damage.
I would replace the other side's wishbone at the same time, if it's knackered a track rod/track rod end, replace both and get it tracked after, plus the gearbox will need topping up.

I doubt you'll get any joy with the warranty, they'll put it down to wear and tear and if you press them they hint you've abused it on kerbs, but the good thing is it's a Corsa and the parts are pretty cheap and readily available.

I had one snap on a Mk 2 Cavalier. I bet its the same basic design flowing through

jam_jar123

AdrianC said:

jam_jar123 said:

Say you go your optician and they advise you that you have high eye pressure but it's not high enough to cause glaucoma - you'd expect them to do their routine checks and then, once it reached levels where it could potentially damage your eyes, it would be their duty to do something about it. They would be held responsible if you had highish pressure eg, 2017, 2018 but they didn't check it in 2019 and then in 2020 - you were told you had glaucoma. Whereas, had they done the checks in 2019 and put you on eg, medication, which controlled the eye pressure, your eye or eyes would not have been damaged by the effects of glaucoma.

But this may be a case of having been told you had high pressure in 2017 and 18, but then getting not glaucoma but a detached retina in 2020.

We do not know if the component that's failed is the same one that you were advised was corroding in 2017 and 2018.
We do not know if the failure was corrosion-related.
We just know that something in the same vague direction as those previous MOT advisories has now failed.

I may be wrong but I still feel they should have checked it in 2019 and I would have gone by their advice - 'it's now time to do this repair'

They did. It's just that the tester didn't think it worthy of mention in 2019.

That's all an advisory is - something that's a pass, but the individual tester feels you should know about.

So what would have been different about an MOT advisory in 2019 to the two you ignored in 2017 and 18?
If the corrosion was so bad as to present a risk of failure at the time of any of those three tests, it would have failed.

The fault is 'offside' front steering arm 'slight corrosion' - as on MOT cert advisory. A vague description however the only corrosion noted over the last few days has been at the wishbone so it's logical that the MOT cert of 2017 and 2018 refers to this. As it's corrosion, it will not be under the lifetime warranty. If corrosion was noted in 2017 and 2018, it's not going to get 'better'. I take my car to a mechanic as I don't know anything about cars and heed their advice. 
If an optician notes raised pressure and doesn't check it in subsequent years, he/she would most probably be struck off. Raised pressure results as a fault in the mechanics at the front of the eye and a detached retina at the back. It's a bit like assuming a corroded front offside wishbone caused a fault in the muffler.
All I'm saying is that if an advisory is noted in previous years, it should be checked and documented in writing, in subsequent years.

AdrianC

jam_jar123 said:

The fault is 'offside' front steering arm 'slight corrosion' - as on MOT cert advisory. A vague description however the only corrosion noted over the last few days has been at the wishbone so it's logical that the MOT cert of 2017 and 2018 refers to this.

That may be a reasonable interpretation. It may not be. I can't think of any MOT tester who would refer to a bottom arm as a "steering arm".

All I'm saying is that if an advisory is noted in previous years, it should be checked and documented in writing, in subsequent years.

No, it doesn't work like that.
The tester doesn't see the results of previous tests.
He tests the car as it's presented to him. That's all that's relevant. If somebody else thought one component was corroded enough to be worth mentioning in a previous year makes no difference to whether this tester thinks it's corroded enough to be worth mentioning today.
Maybe it's been changed. Maybe it's been cleaned and painted. Maybe it's wet and doesn't show the corrosion as much. Maybe this tester simply has a different opinion to the previous one.

Either way, an advisory in 2019 would have made zero difference to preventing the failure, given that advisories in 2017 and 2018 were ignored.

jam_jar123

AdrianC said:

jam_jar123 said:

The fault is 'offside' front steering arm 'slight corrosion' - as on MOT cert advisory. A vague description however the only corrosion noted over the last few days has been at the wishbone so it's logical that the MOT cert of 2017 and 2018 refers to this.

That may be a reasonable interpretation. It may not be. I can't think of any MOT tester who would refer to a bottom arm as a "steering arm".

All I'm saying is that if an advisory is noted in previous years, it should be checked and documented in writing, in subsequent years.

No, it doesn't work like that.
The tester doesn't see the results of previous tests.
He tests the car as it's presented to him. That's all that's relevant. If somebody else thought one component was corroded enough to be worth mentioning in a previous year makes no difference to whether this tester thinks it's corroded enough to be worth mentioning today.
Maybe it's been changed. Maybe it's been cleaned and painted. Maybe it's wet and doesn't show the corrosion as much. Maybe this tester simply has a different opinion to the previous one.

Either way, an advisory in 2019 would have made zero difference to preventing the failure, given that advisories in 2017 and 2018 were ignored.

The advisory stated '...corroded but serviceable...'
When I asked what this meant, they said '....it's ok for now but may need repaired at some point....'
Car went into the same garage/ same team. What's the point in taking a car into a mechanic if they don't pick up on potentially dangerous defects? If my son had been on the motorway when it snapped, he'd not be here now. Perhaps there needs to be an overhaul of the servicing guidelines (for mechanics).
I'm sure the vast majority of the public would agree if they faced the above scenario.

jam_jar123

Update - the manufacturer agreed with me and they covered the charge......thankfully.
But - initially the garage said that the underside was 'rotten' and that the repair bill would be more than the car's worth. When I complained to both them and the manufacturer, they said that it was just the wishbone that was corroded and the drop-link had snapped. I'm just glad to get my car back.

barbiedoll

Personally, I’d start by finding a new garage. And why would you think that an advisory issue from last year AND the year before, had suddenly fixed itself? I’m certainly not “car literate” but even I know that anything that mentions “corrosion”, isn’t going to get better over time, and will definitely need attention sooner rather than later. I’d be dead suspicious if any previous advisory items weren’t on a new MOT. 

AdrianC

barbiedoll said:

I’d be dead suspicious if any previous advisory items weren’t on a new MOT. 

Perhaps last year's tester was just a bit paranoid?
Perhaps the part's been replaced?

Remember - an advisory is something that's passed the test, but the tester thinks he ought to bring to your attention.