Maybe the OP hit a large pothole or kerb and damaged the joint, or another driver of the vehicle, without realising the damage they caused. I've mashed a wheel bearing and CV from pass to fail status in a week after hitting a large hole in the road. All it takes is a bad casting/forming, a crack from the impact and then another sharp shock and youre sat on your sills.
J
Having hired vans and cars on numerous occasions I'm much more suspicious of them than if I was to borrow a car owned by a friend.
While the renting agent goes around the vehicle pointing out any dents, you'll find me under the bonnet checking fluid levels and checking for fault lights on the dash. Then I'll move on to checking that the spare looks good. Underneath needs to not to have too much visible damage too. Only then will I take the vehicle for a drive where I can test the handling and brakes safely. If I'm satifsied I'll sign off on it as "probably safe based on a brief testing".
That little lot has prevented me from taking away two cars with no oil, a transit with a knackered spare, a transit with double tyres at the rear where both inner tyres were damaged and flat, a luton where the luton body was about to fall off and a high renault van with a fuel leak.
Shot brakes should take no more than 100 yards to discover. Drive a strange vehicle more than a mile without finding that out and you haven't been diligent.
Warwick
Ah. The component failed due to damage. Not due to wear.
Steve
Sorry but I don't agree. I've seen it too often.
And is the OP going to remember/admit they may have done this?
And is the OP going to remember/admit they may have done this?
Almost certainly not. Therefore my point stands. It failed from damage, not from wear. The most likely scenarios here are either the joint was U/S at the time of the test, but was passed by the garage that was selling the car, or it failed due to damage or other cause. It did not go from passing a (legit) MOT without even an advise, to wearing out to the point of collapse in 4 weeks. You know it.
Steve
See below.
IIRC that was exactly the point. He bought it with an MOT, and it would not have passed a *legitimate* MOT if it was about to fail due to wear.
I'd still ask VOSA if they want to take a look, although it is a few weeks later now...
You seem to think he's looking to blame a poor innocent legitimate MOT tester, which is not what I'm thinking at all.
I think it could well have been a dubious at-a-glance MOT done for a second hand car dealer by his mate. Are you going to say that never happens?
Or that you wouldn't like to see that sort of thing investighated and stopped?
The OP didn't say that, he just said that it had passed a test four weeks previously. I assumed that as the most likely scenario. And we haven't heard from the OP since, to clarify anything.
Bored now.
Steve
Just to add to this thread, I had an MoT test done a few weeks ago and in doing the rear brakes at the weekend I found that there's about 5mm play in one of the rear wheels when shook side to side and top to bottom - the balljoint in a link arm is totally shagged. This was not mentioned at the MoT.
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.