Used car purchase - corrosion on MOT advisories
Options
Hello,
I am currently looking to purchase a 9-10 year old used car with about 65-90k miles on the clock for approx £2500-£3000. Because of the age of the cars I'm looking at, many have advisories on recent MOTs including mention of corrosion. I'm inclined not to worry about mention of corrosion to brake disks because these probably should be changed anyway if they have not yet been changed.
However, I'm clueless as to what extent I should be worried about advisories that mention corrosion to other components. In particular, would any individual items from the list below cause you to walk away from the purchase of a 10 year old car that is otherwise in good condition?
What if all these advisories were all present in the same car (this is actually the case in a car I looked at today)?
I'd be very grateful if someone could give me a very rough idea what each advisory might end up costing to rectify? I realize its impossible to be accurate without seeing the car but any estimate will be better than my own estimate (I have no idea which ones might only cost less than £100 and which might run to several hundred pounds). The car is likely to be a Hyundai so parts should be cheap and I would use a local independent garage for any work.
The dealer trying to sell me the above car told me I shouldn't worry about mentions of corrosion on MOT advisories as it's to be expected on 10-year old cars and they are only getting mentioned on MOTs because the test procedure has become very strict these days (compared to several years ago). But obviously he has a strong incentive to say something like this.
I am currently looking to purchase a 9-10 year old used car with about 65-90k miles on the clock for approx £2500-£3000. Because of the age of the cars I'm looking at, many have advisories on recent MOTs including mention of corrosion. I'm inclined not to worry about mention of corrosion to brake disks because these probably should be changed anyway if they have not yet been changed.
However, I'm clueless as to what extent I should be worried about advisories that mention corrosion to other components. In particular, would any individual items from the list below cause you to walk away from the purchase of a 10 year old car that is otherwise in good condition?
What if all these advisories were all present in the same car (this is actually the case in a car I looked at today)?
- 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 be very grateful if someone could give me a very rough idea what each advisory might end up costing to rectify? I realize its impossible to be accurate without seeing the car but any estimate will be better than my own estimate (I have no idea which ones might only cost less than £100 and which might run to several hundred pounds). The car is likely to be a Hyundai so parts should be cheap and I would use a local independent garage for any work.
The dealer trying to sell me the above car told me I shouldn't worry about mentions of corrosion on MOT advisories as it's to be expected on 10-year old cars and they are only getting mentioned on MOTs because the test procedure has become very strict these days (compared to several years ago). But obviously he has a strong incentive to say something like this.
0
Comments
-
Any of the items you mention could be many hundreds, rusty brake pipes
may sound trivial but on some cars they run through parts or above fuel tanks etc.
So the fuel tank needs to be drained and the tank removed and then the pipes replaced and then refit it all. Could be a couple of hours or the best part of a day.
I wouldnt bother with any car that mentions rust. Unless your a skilled welder/mechanic and its very very cheap.Censorship Reigns Supreme in Troll City...0 -
Without seeing it it's impossible to say. The dealer's right that (some) testers will advise on really insignificant corrosion, but the flip side is that (some) testers will advise on stuff that's a borderline fail already - in fact, where there's doubt the inspection procedure specifies that benefit of the doubt should be given and a pass / advise issued rather than a fail.
In terms of price, it's entirely possible that all any of it needs is a quick wire-brush off and some protective treatment applied, in which case as a DIY with spray wax you'd be looking at maybe £25 total.
But it's also entirely possible that by next year it'll need major welding, new subframes (many can't be welded) and a complete re-pipe of the brakes.
If you're seriously interested you really need to get someone who knows what they're looking at to have a look / poke around. If you don't know anyone you trust to do that, walk away is the only safe option.0 -
What if all these advisories were all present in the same car (this is actually the case in a car I looked at today)?
- 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 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.0 -
forgotmyname wrote: »I wouldnt bother with any car that mentions rust. Unless your a skilled welder/mechanic and its very very cheap.
What utter codswallop, talk about over-reacting. So you'll not be buying or owning any car 5/6/7 years old then? Its surface rust, its what you get on cars in the UK because we use salt on the roads during winter. It is normal, its not a problem, they all do it and you don't need to get the welder out.0 -
That lists sounds like a typical Mazda 3 or 6. Tried to purchase one 8 to 10 years old a few years ago but every single one I looked at was rotten by that age. Rear suspension and cills were the worst areas.0
-
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.0 -
There's no much mention of corrosion on that sheet that either you need to walk away and quick or the mot tester got a bit exited every time he saw some rust... which on a ten year old car is easy to find.
As for brake pipes...You just replace sections nowadays rather than whole lines to avoid the need to drop the tank etc so they will more than likely be a cheap and easy fix0 -
It's just cost me £230 to have both sides front and rear brake pipes replaced for excess corrosion (they were a bit sh0ite tbf) for the MoT.. they were advisories on the previous MoT. As to the rest, I'd not buy that car - a few brake lines fair enough, but not the rest.........Gettin' There, Wherever There is......
I have a dodgy "i" key, so ignore spelling errors due to "i" issues, ...I blame Apple
0 -
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.
Have you examined the car in question?
If not, how can you possibly know that it's all surface rust?
The chances are that the items stated to be "slightly corroded" are lightly rusted but what about the items where slightly" isn't mentioned?
As the examiner specifically stated that some items were only slightly corroded, why did he feel the need to omit "slightly" from the others?- 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)
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards