hmmm "mot monkey" you say ! whats your car/s registration number/s, i just want to send it to all my other mot monkey testing mates next time i log onto the mot computer, your bound to vist one of them at some point ;o)
IIRC, the battery must be secure. Can't be if the tray is badly corroded.
I'm amazed a Ka could fail an MOT through structural corrosion. How long is the warranty for this? Many are 10 years.
The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:
I thought that but couldn't find a referrence in the online wossname.
The message from Guy King contains these words:
And I can't spell reference, either!
YDRC
HTH
John
Hi Reg, want some help with that hook?
I was just re-using a phrase from earlier in the thread... maybe I should have put quotes round it.
Anyway I'm a glorified 'code monkey' and proud of it!! BTW my reg no. is 911 HUL....
FFS, yes it will. If you know about Escorts you'll know that the battery tray is part of the structure of the inner wing and suspension mounting. If it's corroded (they all are to some extent) then it's a structural issue.
Knowing the problem areas for particular models is surely part of the experience an MOT tester gets over time - and like I said on a Scrote it's always going to be *thoroughly* checked.
I agree on some cars it may be less relevant, although there is still the issue of safely mounting the battery to consider...
lol no worries, btw not a Porsche 911 is it ?
You guessed it ;-)
Actually that number is from the Porsche press demonstrator fleet - might be interesting to get it blacklisted...
Ah but surely the warranty will lapse if the service stamps haven't been kept up? How many 10-year old Kas will have FSH? certainly not that one (it is a 96 anyway). Anyway I understand they are well-known for sill corrosion, and I suspect the spot that hers went at, the chassis rail next to the exhaust, just forward of the rear wheels, will be a common rot point.
PC Paul ( snipped-for-privacy@home.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
I was going to say... Sounds familiar...
Anti-corrosion warranties rely on owners taking them for vastly overpriced 'corrosion inspections' at main dealers. In addition, they also exclude corrosion that starts on the outside of the car.... which means that untreated stone chips are a get-out clause for the manufacturer.
Well I wasn't going to give out my *real* number straight away...
Hang on a sec while I pop two doors down the road and get 'my' number ;-)
Then the regs have changed as I once had an MOT failure due to the retaining bracket being missing.
Dave Plowman (News) ( snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
It certainly doesn't seem to be included in the online version of the tester's manual, but - let's be honest - it wouldn't be the first time a tester had failed a car on something that wasn't testable, would it?
Should be less prevalent now. If the tester can't find it on the computer he can't fail it.
John
The batteries secure attachment is a key part of the MOT test, a corroded battery holder will fail it. However it is usually attached to the inner wing near the strut mount so it could be either in this case. A photo would help.
J
So long as the battery is secure and doesnt move about, and cant slide forward under a large impact, it will pass in the boot yes. Its a common modification to my model of car where a larger, straight intake tract is fitted and the battery gets in the way.
J
Battery security WAS a failure years ago, not now though, it went the way of the "high beam indicator light must work"
mrcheerful
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.