[wiper adapter (STC987) removal]

I managed to successfully drill mine off too without damaging the wheel box (didn't need any Plusgas or WD40 - just lucky I guess). But what I would say is the grub screws that came with the new adapters were useless! The thread disintegrated on both when I tried to tighten it against the spindle so I ended up replacing both with a decent screws/nuts from my box of goodies

[Dodgy?]

And it says 1 previous owner, yet he states he is the only owner from new! Something is definitely not right here!

[MOT Failure? URGENT REPLY NEEDED!]

Dirty Harry,

i suggest you move quickly because ther is time limits on sorting it out, i speak from experience on this, couple of years ago i bought a volvo v70 and within two days it was knackered, Phoned VOSA and they re-inspected the vehicle but due to them taking there time garage that MOT'd the car got away with a warning as we were 1 yes ONE !!! day out, to say i was unhappy was a understatement !!! and dont even get me going about trading standards or the credit card company !! Section 75 of consumer credit act is great but banks have all the get outs !!!!

Paul

Paul

Appreciate the tip. Fully aware of the timescales and I'm ok as the MOT was done on 19 Jan and there is a 3 month deadline to report corrosion problems on an MOT. Supposedly if I ring VOSA tomorrow, they will offer an inspection FOC within 5 working days! We'll see

[MOT Failure? URGENT REPLY NEEDED!]

So you bought the vehicle with an MOT already issued which had been arranged with a MOT tester buy the dealer (2 businesses aren't related by any chance...).

There was a list of faults picked up by the MOT but they had clearly not been fixed and more faults which should have been seen were not.

The additional faults I will let otheres argue over whether they reasonable should have been seen, but the faults that where seen should have been fixed before the MOT was issued, a retest should have been carried out.

I suspect (though can't prove) that the tester and the dealer know each other and an MOT was issued on the trust that the faults had been fixed which was not actually the case. If this is the case the tester is not going to be best pleased with the dealer and hopefully the two will get together and sort everything out for you.

I get my MOT's done by a personal friend he has in the past issued a certificate when the only fault was a none working light and trusted me to fix it (which I did), but last year I had a fail on a track rod end which although he is a friend he still required me to fix and bring the vehicle back as he considered this to be safety critical and he need to cover himself for me having and accident on the way home with a MOT which still had damp ink on it, I have absolutely no problem with this and additionally during the test I ask him to let me know if he spots anything which although not a failure is not right or starting to wear.

If you realy want to push it it is possible to get trading standards involved as the product (vehicle) "is not fit for purpose" i.e. driving on the road legally. He would then need to prove that he had made reasonable efforts to ensure it was, having know faults point out by and MOT and not fixing them would indicate this was not the case.

P.S. I would be very carefull of naming the MOT station or dealer in public until a resolution has been reach as this is likely to cause more bad feeling and ends any chance of a amicable settlement.

I don't believe the two businesses are related, the dealer said he uses this MOT station along with two others depeneding on how busy they are. The dealer seems genuine enough and it may well be that he asked the MOT station to fix the faults and issue the certificate, but somewhere along the line communication was lost and in fact no-one at the MOT station actually fixed them. I have asked the dealer to look into this as I, and I am sure he too, are interested to know what happened.

I note your comments re naming the parties involved and I have deliberately not named anyone I genuinely hope the dealer sees sense and offers to pay for the repairs because I am very happy with the rest of the vehicle and, apart from the chassis problems, for what I paid I don't think I'd get another one with the spec I have and the mileage (86k on a 1986).

So there is always the possibility that if he doesn't offer anything then I shall have no option but to go down the VOSA/Local Trading Standard route and maybe seek a full refund.

Tomorrow should be an interesting day!

[MOT Failure? URGENT REPLY NEEDED!]

You would save yourself about £200 if you could

Les.

I know, and the frustrating thing is, I've bought a MIG welding kit but have never got round to trying it out. Not sure fitting a new rear crossmember is the best way to start practising

[MOT Failure? URGENT REPLY NEEDED!]

Both of those pics are definitely an MOT fail (chassis and corrosion within 30cm of the suspension). New rear crossmember time by the looks of it. You may have a hole there, but the crossmember in general will be badly corroded internally and considerably weakened.

Les.

Thanks Les. Appreciate your comments and agree about the crossmember. Am aware of a company in Warwick who will fit a new one for c.£370 which seems reasonable to me. Wish I had the skill to do it myself!

Greg

[MOT Failure? URGENT REPLY NEEDED!]

Crikey! All I wanted to know was whether the corrosion on the xmember was an MOT failure! Didn't realise it would generate this amount of interest.

Briefly, I live in Leicestershire and bought the 90 from a dealer in Huddersfield "over the phone", so I fully accepted that there may be some of the usual Defender glitches. Never had a problem with that and as this is my 3rd Landy I was prepared to do all the little jobs that are always needed. So I had not viewed the vehicle beforehand, a risk I was happy to take. However, the dealer told me that the only failure on the MOT was " no fluid in the washer bottle" and a "leaking power steering". I therefore assumed both had been fixed so as to get it through the MOT, although there was an advisory on a front wheel bearing. There was no mention on the MOT advisory about corrosion anywhere on the vehicle.

Since taking delivery 5 weeks ago, amongst other jobs, I have cleared a blockage in the washers (it had been overpainted), replaced all the wipers, fitted a new bulb to the off-side rear lamp, tried to fix a power steering leak but am yet to fix the fog lamp. It was only when I came to try and fit rear mudflaps that I noticed the corrosion and realised there was no way I could fit them. I then checked the MOT documents as it seemed odd that so much corrosion had gone unmentioned and to my astonishment amongst all the paperwork from the dealer, was the original MOT Failure document listing:-

no fluid in washer bottle

fog lamp not working

offside rear lamp not working

leaking seal on power steering.

But no comments about corrosion.

It then dawned on me that none of the failures had been addressed and yet still a "Pass" certificate was issued on 19 January

I know the guys at my local MOT station and yesterday in a quick 5 minute inspection, he uncovered more corrosion on the chassis, at the rear where the crossmember joins the chassis, and a hole the size of a golf ball near the offside coil spring (see photos below). It does not take a genius to realise these are definite MOT failures and should have been picked up at the time of the MOT and THEIR view is the vehicle is not road-worthy and I should get VOSA to carry out their check and let them decide as to where this goes next. I have, however, allowed the dealer this weekend to respond with an offer to sort it out BEFORE I get VOSA involved. Seemed only fair.

So, to the idiot who reckons I am a "DO-GOODER" by reporting an MOT Testing Station for issuing dodgy certificates are, words fail me.

[MOT Failure? URGENT REPLY NEEDED!]

I'd take it back to the dealer and express your concerns, if they are any good they will attempt to rectify things, if bad they will tell you to fork orf and realistically you don't have much to go on with.

I have since found out that corrosion is covered for 3 months from the date of the MOT and, if proved to be a failure, VOSA will take action against the MOT testing station.

I have done what you said and left it with the dealer to come up with an appropriate solution.

[MOT Failure? URGENT REPLY NEEDED!]

Suggestions in red, just being Devil's acvocate

Sorry, devil's advocate or not, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.

With regards to the windscreen the MOT testing rules clearly state:-

"Includes all items affecting the driver's view of the road: the condition of the windscreen, the wipers and washers".

Furthermore, the bulb hadn't blown in the off-side rear lamp, there was NO bulb in it!!

And the fog lamp bulb is fine, I've tested it, but the lamp still doesn't work, so presumably there is an electrical fault somewhere.

So the MOT tester should have failed the vehicle, no questions!

[MOT Failure? URGENT REPLY NEEDED!]

Thanks for that - you've confirmed exactly what I thought. Would you be surprised then if I told you that an MOT station passed the vehicle last month, which along with the above mentioned corrosion, has the following faults:-

Windscreen washer not functioning (jets blocked)

Wipers not clearing screen on drivers side (wiper arm and spindle worn - both sides in fact)

Power steering leaking from lower seal

Off-side rear stop/tail light not functioning (no bulb!)

Fog Lamp not functioning (not sure why it doesn't work yet)

..........not to mention the corrosion on the crossmember!

Methinks I'll be going back to the dealer that sold me the Defender!!

Anyone that wants an MOT testing station that will give you a dodgy certificate, let me know - I can recommend one. I've recommended them to VOSA already

[MOT Failure? URGENT REPLY NEEDED!]

Could someone confirm ASAP if the attached photos showing corrosion of both ends of the crossmember and the battery tray are an MOT failure? I suspect the crossmember is, but not sure about the battery tray.

I could do with an answer this morning if poss

Thanks guys.

[Bolt size?]

Hiya,

wondered did anyone know the size of the six bolts that go through the chassis to hold the rear gearbox mounting plates for a 1987 Landrover 90?

Cheers

Paul

Hi Paul

I'm learning as I go along but, according to page 393 of the official Land Rover Parts catalogue, it would appear to be this one for an LT77 Gearbox:-

http://www.lrseries.com/shop/product/listing/3345/BH108201L-BOLT-HEX-HEAD-M8-X-100.html?search=bh108201&page=1

But I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong!

Greg

[Rear Door Lock/Handle]

No problem, have a good explore & find your way around, there's a good lot of info in the Tech archive too.

You're not kidding! The wife is ever so pleased I've found this website - especially now I take the laptop to bed and read the techy archives

I've got loads of jobs to do on my recently acquired 90, and I know this website is going to be invaluable.

Cheers

[Rear Door Lock/Handle]

item 5 page 813, part number SE106161L

photo of screw SE106161L here

Hi, thanks for that. I'm a newbie to this forum and didn't realise there was a parts section!

Cheers for the info.

[Rear Door Lock/Handle]

I've had to drill out the two bolts that hold the upper part of the rear door handle in place and now need to replace them as well as the two retainers. The retainers themselves I can trace (female ASR2668 and male ASR2667) but I cannot find the 2 matching bolts that go into the female retainer - i.e. this one:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Land-Rover-door-lock-retainer-female-ASR2668-/360312905401?pt=UK_CarsParts_Vehicles_CarParts_SM&hash=item53e4529eb9

Does anyone know if they are a readily available LR part? Or are they just a standard bolt that I can get from a decent DIY store, albeit with a large Philips No.3 head?!

Thanks