Well, well. Renault bonnets.

Steve, just out of interest give us your idea of maintenance.

It was you that stated that the issue was whether an item was tested in an MoT. Now you are changing it to safety related.

And now you change is again to "sealed device"

If you could patent perpatetic goalposts you would have invented a new mode of transport.

Testing is not maintenance.

Testing is testing. HTH.

"Mike G" wrote

Why is this greasing not mentioned in the service schedule then?

why should it have to be mentioned in the service schedule to get done ? i run a smear of copper grease around the hub mounting part of the wheel to stop them seizing to the hub & thats not part of the service schedule, its called doing that little bit extra, it dosn't cost any more to do it & its good customer relations.

"reg" wrote

Because a service schedule is a list of works deemed by the manufacturer to be necessary when the vehicle is serviced.

If even cars which have been serviced by Renault for all their lives are suffering bonnet catch failure, then there is an engineering design problem with the catch, and with the secondary catch.

or a problem with the service manual and maintenance schedule.

Either way, it's Renault's issue.

ive mot'd plenty of Renault clios & not once when ive checked the bonnet for security have they popped up, *but* on closing the bonnet ive found the catch to be stiff and not allowing the bonnet to fully secure in the shut position & I might add other the years, ive had this on other manufactures vehicles as well , which comes down to lack of maintenance !

"reg" wrote

What other makes of cars suffer from problems with their bonnets opening at speed then?

publicised by the media ive no idea, personal experience over the years coming through the body shop, a fair few, escorts, vauxhalls & im sure a few more makes if my memory was any better, from memory these have all been seized catches.

If that were so, how come VOSA think otherwise, or do you think they have a vested interest in supporting Renaults POV? Mike.

"Mike G" wrote

Impossible though it may sound Mike, a Government agency is *wrong*.

AIUI, all VOSA has decided, is that there is nothing wrong with the design from a safety POV. A view that is held by others in this n/g. I'm not the only one who believes that.

Then there are those who believe that Renault are totally to blame for the problem that some owners have had with bonnets flying open at speed. I assume you share that view as well.

I don't think the problem is as clearcut as that. I don't believe all the blame can be laid at Renaults door. The responsibility must be shared by those who maintain the cars. Whether it's the owners or the garages they use.

After all, a secondary bonnet catch that is sticky enough to for it to fail to return after being released is fairly obvious, and signs of that it is getting to that point is usually there long before it actually sticks in the open position, and from what others have said, it is not a problem particular to Clios.

Renaults fault IMO was in not issuing a warning as soon as they were aware that the problem appeared to be affecting their cars more than they might have expected.

Not necessarily a recall. Just a note to their garages to check something that any decent garage should check anyway, along with a public notice for owners of affected cars to either check and lubricate the catch themselves, or take it to a garage and have it done for them.

The idea that the design itself is faulty and needs redesigning is something that appears to have been promoted by 'Watchdog'. Often the case when you get non-engineers attempting to diagnose mechanical problems.

What I found particularly amusing, was the 'cure' carried out by an 'engineer' on Watchdogs behalf. He was obviously as clueless as the presenters of the programme, but I expect he got well paid for his crudely welded, and unsightly attempt to give them something to parade as a possible modification to the original design for the catch. Mike.

Because it is.

Because they are. So then, what sevicing can you do to a windscreen, numberplate or headlamp lense, both which are MOT failures if they're broken?

The mechanisms should be lightly oiled from time to time otherwise they tend to jam after prolonged periods of no use.

Checked for cracks and broken coils. Make sure spring seats are secure and in the case of leaf springs, that shackles, bolts, spring eye bushes and pins aren't worn.

Check for leaks and that the bushes aren't worn.

Metal: Check for corrosion, cracks, signs of rubbing. Flexi: Check for cracking in the rubber as well as cuts.

And yes, checks are classed as maintenance.

Cambelt changes aren't mandatory during routine servicing yet you don't see a mass outcry about that. Same for brake fluid and coolant changes.

Or service schedule. You know, the same as many manufacturers who reduced cambelt change intervals after failures?

All they have to do is add "check and lubricate bonnet catch" to a 12 monthly service.

Volvo FH and FM commonly suffer from steering column UJ failures because of a design fault. They can seize almost instantly. Where's the outcry about that?

What other makes of car have suffered from premature cambelt failure because the service schedule is wrong which is what the real problem is here?

However they are in the service schedule.