oh man... big service bill!

cyclonebri1

goldspanners wrote: »

so if the shocker has a slight leak,or weeping or sweating and you can prove with out doubt the fluid has come from the shocker its a fail,if your not sure then its a pass with possible advisory.

am i right in thinking this then?

another thing,in a roundabout way i was pulled over by the police a few weeks ago,i got a speeding ticket,and one of the officers noticed my number plate,not a private plate just original.
i had to get new plates made up last year,he said they were not spaced correctly,no post code of supplier or name of supplier or british standard number. i was aware of this being a recent requirement by the dvla but thought like most of you will have,they wont bother with it.but they do,i had to get new plates made up get a ticket issued by the police stamped by an MOT inspector.i done this tonight at a local garage,the guy said they started to fail almost every car coming through the door because of this,as so many cars were failing the DVLA told them not to put it down as a fail anymore just an advisory.
do you think they have realised how stupid the new rule is?[/quote]

I can only hope so, to everyone, go to a realistic common sense place for your MOTtest (oooheer missus)

Wig

goldspanners wrote: »

so if the shocker has a slight leak,or weeping or sweating and you can prove with out doubt the fluid has come from the shocker its a fail,if your not sure then its a pass with possible advisory.

am i right in thinking this then?

Nope, the way it is written is saying if there is fluid in the area, to be sure it is coming from the shock. A slight weeping (from the shock) causing thin film of fluid on the shock is not a fail. For the shock to fail the leak has to be serious, which shows undoubtedly that the seal has perished.

started to fail almost every car coming through the door because of this,as so many cars were failing the DVLA told them not to put it down as a fail anymore just an advisory.
do you think they have realised how stupid the new rule is?

It was VOSA who told them to stop failing on numberplates. I'm not up to date on the reason why. It could be as you say due to the number of complaints coming in from the public. It was a rediculous thing to include in a "road safety" test.

cyclonebri1

Time to call it a day chaps, no ones going to agree here. The only one thing that is certain is the ambiguity(sp) of the mot manual.
Next topic please;)

Quote;
"It was a rediculous thing to include in a "road safety" test."

Now that, I couldn't agree with more.:T

goldspanners

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Time to call it a day chaps, no ones going to agree here. The only one thing that is certain is the ambiguity(sp) of the mot manual.
Next topic please;)

i'll agree here.

Wig

morg_monster wrote: »

OK then, advisory note says:

Nearside inner front brake disc slightly pitted
Offside " " " " " "

Nearside front shock absorber has a slightly reduced damping effect
Offside " " " " " " " "

Nearside front shock absorber has a light misting of oil (haha)
Offside " " " " "

Those advisories are fine IMHO, and I wouldn't be bothered, I would look at the disc to see how bad it is, and just remember to do it before the next MOT - thus getting another year out of the discs/pads. I've had advisories for rusty discs, they could fail them if they wanted to, but equally they can advise on them, so in your case there is probably an element of truth to what he said.

You can bounce the front of your car on each corner to see if there is any difference between the two sides, according to the advisory the passenger side will be a bit more bouncey than the driver side. Also you can look at the passenger side shock strut to see this oil leak.mist for yourself << depending on the severity of the leak (and bounce factor) it should or should not have failed, you'll have to use your judgement on this. You should get the passenger side shock changed before next MOT.

What happened to the rear brake cylinder? Was that a misunderstanding? So did he change the rear brake cylinder or not?

morg_monster

what he told me on the phone re the rear brake cylinder was that there was some brake fluid leaking and it had gone onto the rear wheel or axle [can't remember which].
It isn't on the advisory but he did replace it according to the itemised bill.
I can't honestly remember whether he mentioned it in the list of advisory things or in the list of "other" things like the alternator belt.

As i said before i have almost zero knowledge about this so I'm really reluctant to take judgements on things myself!! I just need one of my girl friends to marry a mechanic or something...

jeannieblue

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Time to call it a day chaps, no ones going to agree here. The only one thing that is certain is the ambiguity(sp) of the mot manual.
Next topic please;)

Quote;
"It was a rediculous thing to include in a "road safety" test."

Now that, I couldn't agree with more.:T

Sadly, alot of personalised plates are a fail due to spacing or size. Although car may be roadworthy - speed cameras can't read them or something, so I've heard.... All the more reason for getting one I would've thought...:D

zappahey

Wig wrote: »

If Conor's past behaviour is anything to go by, he will never return to this thread. :rolleyes:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=741299

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=731441&page=2

You'll find that Conor is too busy, being wrong on a whole range of topics, to come back here.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/02/15/blu_ray_disc_sales_in_europe/comments/#c_156265

cyclonebri1

zappahey wrote: »

You'll find that Conor is too busy, being wrong on a whole range of topics, to come back here.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/02/15/blu_ray_disc_sales_in_europe/comments/#c_156265

I wish he'd come back, he always makes my day:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: I've lost track of the names he's called me, called him a few too. Mind you everyone out smarts him sooner or later.;)