I've got to the point where I'm about to put the new floor in the disco having replaced all the rotten metal around it.
The original was spot welded in various places.
Is there any reason why I can't bolt this in? As it was only spot welded it can't have been that structural and if I can bolt it in, it will mean I can do a far better job with rustproofing without worrying out it being affected by the welding.
I plan to drill and tap M6 at many places more than the spot welds of the original) then where I can, put a nut underneath as well.
you would be best to talk to your mot tester for a definative answer
but spot welding can be as strong as any other structually all the high tensile boron steel in the disco 3 and RR sport is spot welded in place and that is supposed to keep its shape in a crash the only seam welds on the car are the chassis pick up points and an inch on the lower rear quarter
i would suggest drilling your 6 mm holes in the rear floor then puddle welding (with a mig or gas ) to replicate the original spot welds add a few more for good measure
this is how it is done on the line when spots have been missed
If you mean the ribbed boot floor, bolting will be perfectly acceptable. There is virtually no strength from the boot floor in the bodyshell, it exists merely to carry the load of whatever you put in the boot. Some discos and most range rovers had an aluminunim floor which was pop riveted in place anyway.
Well the tester failed it today because the floor wasn't seam welded. He considered that it affected the rear seat belt mounting points. I pointed out that many Discos were running around with bolted/riveted floors and passing MoTs, but it had no effect. I said that I would dispute that part of the fail and was told it was my option.
After I'd paid for the test I came out to find him with a tape measure in the rear of the car and stated that even if I won on the rear seat belt mounts on the floor, the one on the wing was with 30cm and he would fail it as being too close to an "improper repair"
Only has to be seam welded if it is a repair to a portion of a panel, not a complete panel. A complete panel may be fitted in a manner similar or stronger than the original, ie plug/spot welds replacing original spot welds, or seam welding instead of spots.
I doubt that very much, however if any of the repair is within 30cm (even through "thin air"!) of a seatbelt mount/suspension/brake/steering mount, then unfortunately the law is clear on this. I have had to fail ford capri's for tiny holed areas of corrosion on the inner wing - just behind the headlight along the upper edge - even though there is no way it is in any way structural, just because it is within 30cm of a turret mounting bolt.
Fair point, but then there are a lot of vehicles out there that shouldn't pass MOT's - just because one does, doesn't mean they all should, if you see what I mean.
Indeed, and if you are convinced then do so, he will get in more trouble with VOSA for failing something that should pass, than passing something that should either fail or be an advisory - trust me! Vosa will screw him for the "seam welding" thing if it is a whole panel replacement, but they may also uphold the fail on the grounds of an unacceptable repair. Be aware also that if they do a proper full retest at a VOSA testing station, they WILL NOT miss anything else that the original tester may have.......
Indeed.
For what it's worth, if it were me testing it I'd be reluctant to pass it if an originally welded panel had been replaced with a bolted version, but only if any part of the repair was within 30cm of a critical component. If there was no 30cm issue, I'd have passed it. Badger.
Only measuring it because he realises he's made a mistake.
If he had any intelligence he would realise he was on a loser:
The rear mounting points in the floor go through the floor onto the chassis, they are not structurally attached to the floor. Therefore the floor cannot be rated as structural, otherwise the mounts would be only fixed to the floor.
If we agree that the rear mounts are bolted through to the chassis, then the floor cannot be considered structural, hence if the floor is not considered structural for the rear mounts, it cannot be considered structural with reference to the wheelarch mounts.
What was also interesting and I'm not sure how widely known this is, but if you have the V5 and your registration number - you can see the history of your cars MoTs on the web!
formatting link
There were a number of fails by the last tester (in December 2009) which were not observed by this guy today. I only found out about this site the night before, so I had no chance to rectify them! The car has been off the road since that last test, so no mileage on it (except on and off a trailer!) Just goes to show how very subjective MoTs are!
Correct, to a point..... Just because the belt isn't attached to it, it doesn't necessarily prove it isn't structural - just not suitable for a seat belt's loadings in an accident.
Wrong. The MOT test does not, unfortunately, allow for the application of common sense! The rules for any structural mounting point and corrosion (this includes repairs and methods, which is where it is relevant in this scenario) are such that any corrosion within a SPHERE of 300mm radius from the mounting point warrants a fail. This is classed as "Prescribed Area". The applied procedure does NOT make allowance for any non-structural part within this "sphere of influence", any item falling within it is classed as Prescribed Area and as such warrants a fail for corrosion or improper repair, structural or not. That, gentlemen, is the letter of the law, like it or not.
Now, that is not to say that there aren't any testers out there who do apply a bit of common sense, but if they were to pass something that ought to have been a fail (rightly or wrongly) and the vehicle owner is unfortunate enough to be in a collision (even if not their fault), VOSA will most likely inspect the vehicle at the request of Traffic Plod (in some areas this is automatic, certainly in Highland). Now, if Vosa finds the "repair" and looks into it purely because they can, the tester runs the risk of losing his ticket. That is why a lot will not pass it using common sense I'm afraid.
In theory, that shouldn't make any difference - the applied standard ought to be equal anywhere in the UK, regardless of tester. There is a book of rules and everyone should be testing within those rules, in theory! Badger.
True, but the law according to VOSA doesn't see it that way, and that is the rules you have to play by unfortunately. Would your car pass an mot with an insecure door? At the end of the day the rules have had to be written to cover every eventuality, not just one specific design of vehicle. If we had different rules for every vehicle type out there, it would probably push the cost of an MOT test up tenfold due to all the extra paperwork and support, not to mention time taken running back and forward to check the regs for a specific type.
They probably wanted the work from you..... oops, I'm being cynical again! Badger.
Interpretation here is different. All MOT stations are state run, not just a misapproved garage. They barely recognise certificates from the rest of the UK. Wouldn't issue a pass certificate running from the end of the GB one that came with my Disco! Has the advantage the inspectors aren't in it for the repair costs. Think I prefer it this way. Got stung to hell and back by garage in Bedford when my son went to college there.
The original query is why the floor cannot be bolted in place. Since you seem to imply that an improper repair is a fail, and pop rivets or bolts are an improper repair (which is why the vehicle failed) then we all have a problem.
The Range Rover as constructed at the factory, and fitted with an ALUMINIUM floor riveted into place will not and can never have passed an MOT test. Unless you have some magic method of welding aluminium and steel together which escaped the attention of the manufacturers.
It's an improper repair because the floor on the Disco was designed to be spot welded - replacing spot welds with bolts isn't acceptable (in the eyes of the MoT man).
The Range Rover was designed with the floor riveted in, so repairing it with rivets would be acceptable to the MoT man.
Indeed, we are comparing apples with apples, not with pears. The whole issue related to a series 1 disco, so there's no point comparing it to anything else. For what it's worth, the seat belt anchorages are tested as part of the type-approval process for any vehicle being put on the UK market when new, and there may be some other load-path on the rangie that isn't on the disco, hence why a riveted floor is acceptable on one but not the other. Badger.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.