vw brake pipes

You can buy them, though it's true garages usually make them to length. Having said that, motor factors will often make them to length as well-n at least one around here does. It's easier and neater IME to use copper pipe- raedy made steel pipes are folded for transportation and tricky to straighten out properly when you fit them, but if you buy them made to lentgh from a factors that might not be a problem.

I've replaced them on a scirocco, and used copper pipe and a flaring tool, making the pipes to length. It's not difficult, but like so many car jobs it would be a lot easier with garage equipment.

Take a look at

for starters, but you can get stuff cheaper, particularly the tools. You might want to look at and to see if they do pipe sets too.

If the pipes are only 'showing signs' of corrosion, you can wire-wool them clean, and waxoyl/underseal them, but you need to be sure the corrosion hasn't weakened them for obvious reasons. Since it's only an advisory, they are probably OK- if it was serious it would have failed.

I am led to believe that the MOT inspectorate are looking to a situation where older cars are given advisories .... this is not a fail its an admission that: A: the car is 10 years old and B: that the MOT place is checking the car properly. Lets face it any 10 year old car is not going to be perfect, but an advisory only says it could be done not that it needs doing . The VOSA will be suspicious of garages who pass ten year old cars and never give any advisories .......and yes garages do make up brake pipes. Making them is easy , fitting and bleding them is a bastard. Al

Bullshit. I have a 20 year old car that's maintained on a money no=20 object basis and has got f*ck all wrong with it. There are plenty of=20 people running classics with the same attitude as me.=20

--=20 Conor

I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.

Earn commission on online purchases, =A32.50 just for signing up:

First, I wouldn't rush to to replace them. It might well just be a fishing expedition for extra work from the MOT place. Leave it until next year - and it's quite possible there will be no such advisory.

A decent motor factor should have the correct ones in stock or make them up for you. Or you can make them yourself with an inexpensive tool. It makes some sense for a garage to make them as it saves having to order them or keep big stocks of individual ones.

Al Gorithm ( snipped-for-privacy@onetel.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Don't care. A 10yo car should still be able to meet the same standards as any other vehicle on the road. The MOT is hardly an overly difficult standard to reach - in fact, it's piss easy.

My own 10yo car went in for the MOT last week - and passed with no preparation, advisories or comments other than "There's absolutely nothing to worry about on it" - and that's only as EVERY vehicle on the road should be.

I've taken 40yo vehicles in for MOT and had similar results.

I agree with the principle of what you are saying, but bear in mind that the required standard is lower for older vehicles in some respects.

Chris

No that is not what I am saying what I am saying is this, which I read in the trade press. I'm sure that if any vehicle tester spent the best part of an hour checking a ten year old car and can find absolutely nothing wrong with it then either: Its maintained like Connors Capri at any expense and is absolutely as good as a brand new car. Or The MOT station arent checking cars over properly.

The gist of the article was that VOSA can now trace what cars fail on and at what age and build up a profile of car reliablity. Also looking down the other end of the telescope they can check up on what testing stations are failing the cars they test on, what percentage of failures etc. If a garage passes 100% of 1986 Escorts with no advisories , you'd think it a little odd wouldnt you?.

Consequentially if a garage passes lots of old cars and never issue any advisories then they would come under suspicion that they are not following procedures properly and might get more checkups from VOSA. Therefore on an older car one might expect to get the odd advisory on a small unimportant matter , just to keep VOSA happy.

The rest of the article went on to say how negative client feedback meant that VOSA were considering reintroducing partial re-tests and this has been introduced. I have no reason to doubt the arguments raised in the article. Al

Chris Whelan ( snipped-for-privacy@prejudicentlworld.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

In some absolute quantifiable standards, such as emissions - yes. That's primarily because no carb'd points-ignited car could possibly be expected to meet figures that are far stricter than those in force at the time they were built.

OTOH, I'd be very disappointed in any of my 2cvs that didn't come fairly damn close to figures that would scrape through a cat test.

(And, fwiw, the 10yo, 130k mile XM managed 0.01% CO at idle, 0.04% CO and

16ppm HC at fast idle, against pass limits of 0.5%, 0.3% and 200ppm)

In judgements on vehicle judgement, no. The exact same conditions apply.

However in terms of rust & play in bushes they're unlikely to be similar. & if your 2CVs are close to the CAT limits they're running lean.

Duncan Wood ( snipped-for-privacy@dmx512.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Not at all. Look at the MOT tester's manual for those - and most other items - nothing in terms of age in there. They apply equally to all vehicles.

They're running fine. Set up properly, they easily put out very low CO and HC, way before you could deem them to be lean.

Well yes, but older cars have lower MOT standards for things like brake performance also.

In a perfect world perhaps. However, I'm sure a tester would view minor points more leniently on an obviously well-cared for 40 year old car than he would on something newer but neglected.

Chris

Chris Whelan ( snipped-for-privacy@prejudicentlworld.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

No, they don't.

only date in there is vehicles designed prior to 1/1/1905 - which don't require a parking brake. Everything else has to meet the same brake standards.

IIRC, later cars with dual circuit brakes get away with a poorer handbrake than earlier ones.

parking brake - single line system 25% parking brake - split ( dual) line system 16%

Chris

Chris Whelan ( snipped-for-privacy@prejudicentlworld.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

I sit corrected. Every day's a schoolday.

;-)

Chris

Oh, and I missed:

and:

and:

and:

and:

and:

Chris

Chris Whelan ( snipped-for-privacy@prejudicentlworld.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

None of which are condition related - all of them are down to new compulsory-fitment legislation not being retrospectively applied.

OK, so pre-33 cars get away with 1mm instead of 1.6mm of tread... Again, that's largely down to older tyre designs not having anywhere near as much rubber TO cut for tread - and, being much narrower, far less prone to aquaplaning anyway.