Mazda 6 advice MOT

[bigmike20vt]

imo this is where having a mechanic/garage you trust really comes in... that way if i have an idea a few bits and bobs need doing, i can have a chat before too much is done, and if they say the structure of the car is sound, its worth spending a few bob on it to keep it going another year you can...

OR they can warn you that there is a whole bunch of stuff which is close to happening and its time to get shut and get summat else.

I am no mechanic (far far from it) but the things the OP listed dont sound to me like anything i would ditch a car that i otherwise liked and didnt have any other known issues with.

 

[JonRGV250]

Advisories related to specific parts of the test will have the code quoted with them, for example:

I'm aware of that, I carry out around 2K tests a year and been testing for 20+ years.
I'll say it for the 10th time, what the OP posted are failures.
If anyone thinks these (what the OP posted) are advisories, then I really don't know what to say..

Offside Rear Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint excessively worn (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Nearside Rear Anti-roll bar linkage insecurely attached (5.3.3 (a) (i))
Headlamp aim too high both (4.1.2 (a))
Parking brake efficiency below requirements (1.4.2 (a) (i))

See my post above #35 for example.
I mean who in their right mind thinks that parking brake efficiency below requirements isn't a failure???

 

[JonRGV250]

imo this is where having a mechanic/garage you trust really comes in... that way if i have an idea a few bits and bobs need doing, i can have a chat before too much is done, and if they say the structure of the car is sound, its worth spending a few bob on it to keep it going another year you can...

OR they can warn you that there is a whole bunch of stuff which is close to happening and its time to get shut and get summat else.

I am no mechanic (far far from it) but the things the OP listed dont sound to me like anything i would ditch a car that i otherwise liked and didnt have any other known issues with.

We had a guy in earlier to get a quote for welding as it had failed the MOT on it elsewhere.
There was a small hole in the outer sill which wasn't even close to being structural and certainly wasn't a failure.
I'm MOTing his car next week and won't fail it on that, saving him £150 on the welding.

 

[bigmike20vt]

I guess the only thing there is whether it is better to get it patched up to stop water getting in and it deteriorating faster. but you are the expert there!

 

[Nabinium]

Advisories related to specific parts of the test will have the code quoted with them, for example:

Given that Jon posted a screenshot of that online MOT testing service earlier that the general public don't have access to, I think he knows better about the codes and stuff than all of us here.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Given that Jon posted a screenshot of that online MOT testing service earlier that the general public don't have access to, I think he knows better about the codes and stuff than all of us here.

that isn't how it works any more. people are tired of "experts" who actually work in the field and are much more trusting on what some random person says on social media

note if the smiley doesn't give it away... I am just joking.

 

[JonRGV250]

I guess the only thing there is whether it is better to get it patched up to stop water getting in and it deteriorating faster. but you are the expert there!

It was his sons 2007 Fiat Punto, and all he wanted was to get it passed.
No amount of welding in the world is going to stop one of those corroding.

 

[JonRGV250]

imo this is where having a mechanic/garage you trust really comes in... that way if i have an idea a few bits and bobs need doing, i can have a chat before too much is done, and if they say the structure of the car is sound, its worth spending a few bob on it to keep it going another year you can...

Just to add, but this is why we always (without fail) MOT the customers car first before we service it.
There's zero point in charging £300 for a service if the car is uneconomical to repair to get a ticket on it.
It's common sense and is imo fair for the customer.

 

[vvicks]

So now I'm confused with this story. OP said MOT failed in December, which was ages ago, so surely these should have been fixed? I don't know if I'm just misreading it.

Sorry yes, I should have stated in my OP, these advisories were fixed, however due to the heavy corrosion, the car will not pass the next MOT.

 

[vvicks]

I'm aware of that, I carry out around 2K tests a year and been testing for 20+ years.
I'll say it for the 10th time, what the OP posted are failures.
If anyone thinks these (what the OP posted) are advisories, then I really don't know what to say..

Offside Rear Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint excessively worn (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Nearside Rear Anti-roll bar linkage insecurely attached (5.3.3 (a) (i))
Headlamp aim too high both (4.1.2 (a))
Parking brake efficiency below requirements (1.4.2 (a) (i))

See my post above #35 for example.
I mean who in their right mind thinks that parking brake efficiency below requirements isn't a failure???

So these were fixed, however they did say the handbrake is worn, they repaired it enough to pass but said it would fail again this year. Also I should have stated, due to the 'heavy corrosion ' the car will fail this MOT.