Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • ozaz
    • By ozaz 15th Apr 18, 10:14 PM
    • 188Posts
    • 63Thanks
    ozaz
    Used car purchase - corrosion on MOT advisories
    • #1
    • 15th Apr 18, 10:14 PM
    Used car purchase - corrosion on MOT advisories 15th Apr 18 at 10:14 PM
    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)?
    • 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.
Page 1
    • forgotmyname
    • By forgotmyname 15th Apr 18, 11:17 PM
    • 28,184 Posts
    • 11,456 Thanks
    forgotmyname
    • #2
    • 15th Apr 18, 11:17 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Apr 18, 11:17 PM
    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.
    Last edited by forgotmyname; 16-04-2018 at 12:53 AM.
    Punctuation, Spelling and Grammar will be used sparingly. Due to rising costs of inflation.

    My contribution to MSE. Other contributions will only be used if they cost me nothing.

    Due to me being a tight git.
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 15th Apr 18, 11:32 PM
    • 4,534 Posts
    • 4,017 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    • #3
    • 15th Apr 18, 11:32 PM
    • #3
    • 15th Apr 18, 11:32 PM
    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.
    • Tarambor
    • By Tarambor 16th Apr 18, 3:39 AM
    • 3,940 Posts
    • 2,980 Thanks
    Tarambor
    • #4
    • 16th Apr 18, 3:39 AM
    • #4
    • 16th Apr 18, 3:39 AM
    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)
    Originally posted by ozaz
    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.
    • Tarambor
    • By Tarambor 16th Apr 18, 3:41 AM
    • 3,940 Posts
    • 2,980 Thanks
    Tarambor
    • #5
    • 16th Apr 18, 3:41 AM
    • #5
    • 16th Apr 18, 3:41 AM
    I wouldnt bother with any car that mentions rust. Unless your a skilled welder/mechanic and its very very cheap.
    Originally posted by forgotmyname
    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.
    • angrycrow
    • By angrycrow 16th Apr 18, 6:09 AM
    • 611 Posts
    • 434 Thanks
    angrycrow
    • #6
    • 16th Apr 18, 6:09 AM
    • #6
    • 16th Apr 18, 6:09 AM
    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.
    • caprikid1
    • By caprikid1 16th Apr 18, 8:35 AM
    • 693 Posts
    • 674 Thanks
    caprikid1
    • #7
    • 16th Apr 18, 8:35 AM
    • #7
    • 16th Apr 18, 8:35 AM
    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.
    • arcon5
    • By arcon5 16th Apr 18, 9:23 AM
    • 13,631 Posts
    • 8,641 Thanks
    arcon5
    • #8
    • 16th Apr 18, 9:23 AM
    • #8
    • 16th Apr 18, 9:23 AM
    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 fix
    • GunJack
    • By GunJack 16th Apr 18, 3:07 PM
    • 10,465 Posts
    • 7,827 Thanks
    GunJack
    • #9
    • 16th Apr 18, 3:07 PM
    • #9
    • 16th Apr 18, 3:07 PM
    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......
    • Tarambor
    • By Tarambor 16th Apr 18, 3:52 PM
    • 3,940 Posts
    • 2,980 Thanks
    Tarambor
    As to the rest, I'd not buy that car - a few brake lines fair enough, but not the rest...
    Originally posted by GunJack
    Stick to buying new.
    • George Michael
    • By George Michael 16th Apr 18, 4:47 PM
    • 3,231 Posts
    • 4,339 Thanks
    George Michael
    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.
    Originally posted by Tarambor
    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)
    Originally posted by ozaz
    Last edited by George Michael; 16-04-2018 at 5:06 PM.
    • Noree
    • By Noree 16th Apr 18, 7:15 PM
    • 132 Posts
    • 62 Thanks
    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
    • By Svein Forkbeard 16th Apr 18, 7:28 PM
    • 565 Posts
    • 1,301 Thanks
    Svein Forkbeard
    What utter codswallop, talk about over-reacting. So you'll not be buying or owning any car 5/6/7 years old then?
    Originally posted by Tarambor
    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
    • By Begsey 16th Apr 18, 7:39 PM
    • 75 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Begsey
    • 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)
    Originally posted by ozaz
    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
    • By adonis 16th Apr 18, 7:53 PM
    • 810 Posts
    • 761 Thanks
    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
    • By ozaz 16th Apr 18, 11:04 PM
    • 188 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    ozaz
    Many thanks for the replies on this thread. It!!!8217;s been very helpful.

    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.
    Originally posted by Tarambor
    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.

    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.
    Originally posted by caprikid1
    Yes, last MOT. Most of the advisories were present the year before as well and at least two go back 4 years.

    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.
    Originally posted by adonis
    Hyundai Coupe SIII
    Last edited by ozaz; 16-04-2018 at 11:09 PM.
    • redux
    • By redux 16th Apr 18, 11:28 PM
    • 18,707 Posts
    • 25,024 Thanks
    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
    • By GunJack 17th Apr 18, 7:59 AM
    • 10,465 Posts
    • 7,827 Thanks
    GunJack
    Stick to buying new.
    Originally posted by Tarambor
    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
    ......Gettin' There, Wherever There is......
    • n217970
    • By n217970 17th Apr 18, 8:08 AM
    • 333 Posts
    • 275 Thanks
    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
    • By benten69 17th Apr 18, 9:16 AM
    • 329 Posts
    • 1,326 Thanks
    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.
    Emergency Fund - 100% Complete | Motorcycle Fund - 2.2% Complete
    New Kit Fund - 0% Complete | Touring Fund - 0% Complete
    Mortgage Sept '15: -161,250 | Mar '18: -151,288.12

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

235Posts Today

1,357Users online

Martin's Twitter