11 replies to this topic

[first_mini_chris]

Looking at  Italian Job 1275cc tomorrow, its currently got no mot, last mot ran out on Feb 2018 and has been sorn'd since.

 

I've investigated a bit of the history using the MOT Checker which brings me up to 2016 when then the car was relocated and plate changed from UK Mainland to Northern Ireland. It then was Mot'd in NI until Feb 18.

 

It apparently had a new front on it a couple of years ago and also the owner has stated that it will need new valve stem oil seals fitted, I presume new valves to be safe to do a proper job too.

 

There's a few things concerning me on the MOT Checker, I think most of the serious ones highlighted in red below regarding past failures, is this just generally par for the course or should be a cause for concern? There's a lot of talk about body mounting and sub frames etc.

 

He's said there's some surface rust and a bit of paint bubbling and he appears to want around 3000 for it.

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

DEC 2014 - FAIL

 

• Offside Headlamp not working on main beam (1.7.5a)
• Nearside Windscreen wiper not operating automatically when switched on (8.2.1b)
• Offside Windscreen wiper not operating automatically when switched on (8.2.1b)
• Front Windscreen washer provides insufficient washer liquid (8.2.3)
• Nearside Front Wheel stud(s) missing (4.2.A.1e)
• Nearside Rear Subframe mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded (2.4.A.3)
• Offside Outer Front constant velocity joint gaiter deteriorated to the extent that it no longer prevents the ingress of dirt etc (2.5.C.1a)
• Nearside Steering rack gaiter split (2.2.D.2d)
• Nearside Upper Suspension arm has excessive play in a ball joint (2.4.G.2)
• Nearside Lower Suspension arm has excessive play in a ball joint (2.4.G.2)
• Offside Lower Suspension arm has excessive play in a ball joint (2.4.G.2)
• Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7)

August 2013 - Pass

 

Reason(s) for failure

• Nearside Front Wheel stud(s) missing (4.2.A.1e)

Advisory notice item(s)

• Nearside Parking brake: parking brake efficiency only just met. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. (3.7.B.7)
• underseal peeling off underbody

 

JULY 2013 - FAIL

 

Reason(s) for failure

• Offside Headlamp aim too high (1.8)
• Nearside Headlamp aim beam image obviously incorrect (1.8.A.1b)
• Windscreen wiper does not clear the windscreen effectively (8.2.2)
• Windscreen washer provides insufficient washer liquid (8.2.3)
• Nearside Front Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (4.1.E.1)
• Exhaust emissions carbon monoxide content after 2nd fast idle excessive (7.3.D.3)
• Exhaust emissions hydrocarbon content after 2nd fast idle excessive (7.3.D.3)
• Exhaust emissions Lambda reading after 2nd fast idle outside specified limits (7.3.D.3)
• Nearside rear brake recording little or no effort (3.7.B.5a)
• Nearside rear parking brake recording little or no effort (3.7.B.6a)
• Brakes imbalanced across an axle (3.7.B.5b)

OCT 2007 - FAIL

 

Reason(s) for failure

• Nearside Inner Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded (2.4.A.3)
• Nearside Inner Front Suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded (2.4.A.3)
• Offside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded (2.4.A.3)
• Nearside Rear Lower Shock absorber insecure (2.7.2b)
• Rear fog lamp not working (1.3.2b)
• Front Exhaust system not adequately supported (7.1.1)
• Offside Headlamp aim too high (1.8)

Advisory notice item(s)

• Windscreen has damage to an area less than a 40mm circle outside zone 'A' (8.3.1d)
• Front Sub-frame attachment rubber mounting deteriorated but not resulting in excessive movement (2.4.G.2)
• Seat belt anchorage prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (5.2.6)
• both front tyre's worn on edge
• both rear tyre's worn on edge
• steel brake pipes rusty

 

SEPT 2006 - FAIL

 

Reason(s) for failure

• Brake pedal anti-slip provision missing (3.3.A.1b)
• Nearside Rear Shock absorber has negligible damping effect (2.7.5)
• Offside Rear Shock absorber has negligible damping effect (2.7.5)
• Offside Front wheel bearing has excessive play (2.5.A.3c)
• Offside Brake linkage has restricted free movement (3.5.1k)
• Nearside Brake linkage has restricted free movement (3.5.1k)
• Nearside rear brake recording little or no effort (3.7.B.5a)
• Nearside Front Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Offside Front Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Rear Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Service brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7) Dangerous
• Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7) Dangerous

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wiggy]

Have a very thorough look underneath and have a good poke with a screwdriver. Lift the carpets. Take the spare wheel out and check the state of the boot. Beware of fresh underseal. Stuck down carpets are an alarm bell. Oversills are very bad news.

The fails are pretty standard, but it's the quality of the remedial work which counts.

[Cooperman]

You need to carry out a comprehensive rust examination, preferably with the assistance of someone who knows exactly where to look.

If you would be able to do any body repairs needed to eliminate the rust yourself, it is not such an issue. But if you will need to pay someone to do this work, which will certainly be needed, with only the extent of the work to be confirmed, then it can be very expensive.

Surface rust and bubbling paint just indicate the need for welding and probably some new panels. Rust around the rear sub-frame mounting indicates that the rear sub-frame will need to be taken out to fix it. When there is rust in that area it normally means that the rear sill sections inside the rear glove boxes also need substantial repairs.

It is so easy to buy a 'rust bucket' if you don't know exactly where to look and check. realise also that if extensive body panel repairs are needed a re-paint will also be on the cards for which around £1200 to £1500 should be allowed.

 

With regard to valve stem oil seals, that is a very easy job and just requires removal of the head. However, it might be worn bores causing, presumably, smoking and a higher oil consumption. You can check this by getting the engine up to operating temperature, removing the oil filler cap and noting whether it is 'puffing' smoke out of the oil filler. If it is, then it is not a valve stem issue, it is bore wear probably requiring a re-bore and new pistons.

 

You might find someone on here to go along and take a close look before you commit to buying it.

[first_mini_chris]

One thing I've just noticed,

 

20 September 2006 - FAILED

 

Reason(s) for failure

• Brake pedal anti-slip provision missing (3.3.A.1b)
• Nearside Rear Shock absorber has negligible damping effect (2.7.5)
• Offside Rear Shock absorber has negligible damping effect (2.7.5)
• Offside Front wheel bearing has excessive play (2.5.A.3c)
• Offside Brake linkage has restricted free movement (3.5.1k)
• Nearside Brake linkage has restricted free movement (3.5.1k)
• Nearside rear brake recording little or no effort (3.7.B.5a)
• Nearside Front Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Offside Front Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Rear Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Service brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7) Dangerous
• Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7) Dangerous

 

22 September 2006 - PASSED - No advisories or anything.

 

Does this not sound proper fishy?

[Minigman]

Unless you can do the body work yourself the repair cost can mount up very quickly. If you can, spend the money on a more solid car to start with. You never get back what you spend on repairs unless it’s a rarer mk1.

Edited by Minigman, 02 November 2018 - 07:39 PM.

[Cooperman]

One thing I've just noticed,

 

20 September 2006 - FAILED

 

Reason(s) for failure

• Brake pedal anti-slip provision missing (3.3.A.1b)
• Nearside Rear Shock absorber has negligible damping effect (2.7.5)
• Offside Rear Shock absorber has negligible damping effect (2.7.5)
• Offside Front wheel bearing has excessive play (2.5.A.3c)
• Offside Brake linkage has restricted free movement (3.5.1k)
• Nearside Brake linkage has restricted free movement (3.5.1k)
• Nearside rear brake recording little or no effort (3.7.B.5a)
• Nearside Front Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Offside Front Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Rear Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Service brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7) Dangerous
• Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7) Dangerous

 

22 September 2006 - PASSED - No advisories or anything.

 

Does this not sound proper fishy?

 

That lot was not repaired properly in 2 days. It would take more like 2 months to do all that bodywork/welding.

If it passed so quickly it was either bodged up or the MoT was 'fiddled' by the test station.

 

It might be best to find a more genuine car.

[Homersimpson]

 

One thing I've just noticed,

 

20 September 2006 - FAILED

 

Reason(s) for failure

• Brake pedal anti-slip provision missing (3.3.A.1b)
• Nearside Rear Shock absorber has negligible damping effect (2.7.5)
• Offside Rear Shock absorber has negligible damping effect (2.7.5)
• Offside Front wheel bearing has excessive play (2.5.A.3c)
• Offside Brake linkage has restricted free movement (3.5.1k)
• Nearside Brake linkage has restricted free movement (3.5.1k)
• Nearside rear brake recording little or no effort (3.7.B.5a)
• Nearside Front Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Offside Front Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Rear Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Service brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7) Dangerous
• Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7) Dangerous

 

22 September 2006 - PASSED - No advisories or anything.

 

Does this not sound proper fishy?

 

That lot was not repaired properly in 2 days. It would take more like 2 months to do all that bodywork/welding.

If it passed so quickly it was either bodged up or the MoT was 'fiddled' by the test station.

 

It might be best to find a more genuine car.

 

I disagree, it depends on what the corrosion was but 2 days is loads of time to fix all the mechanical items and then weld up a few rusty areas to a good solid MOT standard.  My MOT station would put that fail down for needing a pair of sills and if the rest of the car is good that would take less than a day to do the welding.

 

The OP needs to go and look at the car to make a judgement.

[harrythehat]

 

 

One thing I've just noticed,

 

20 September 2006 - FAILED

 

Reason(s) for failure

• Brake pedal anti-slip provision missing (3.3.A.1b)
• Nearside Rear Shock absorber has negligible damping effect (2.7.5)
• Offside Rear Shock absorber has negligible damping effect (2.7.5)
• Offside Front wheel bearing has excessive play (2.5.A.3c)
• Offside Brake linkage has restricted free movement (3.5.1k)
• Nearside Brake linkage has restricted free movement (3.5.1k)
• Nearside rear brake recording little or no effort (3.7.B.5a)
• Nearside Front Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Offside Front Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Rear Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Vehicle structure has excessive corrosion, seriously affecting its strength within 30cm of the body mountings (6.1.B.2)
• Service brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7) Dangerous
• Parking brake: efficiency below requirements (3.7.B.7) Dangerous

 

22 September 2006 - PASSED - No advisories or anything.

 

Does this not sound proper fishy?

 

That lot was not repaired properly in 2 days. It would take more like 2 months to do all that bodywork/welding.

If it passed so quickly it was either bodged up or the MoT was 'fiddled' by the test station.

 

It might be best to find a more genuine car.

 

I disagree, it depends on what the corrosion was but 2 days is loads of time to fix all the mechanical items and then weld up a few rusty areas to a good solid MOT standard.  My MOT station would put that fail down for needing a pair of sills and if the rest of the car is good that would take less than a day to do the welding.

 

The OP needs to go and look at the car to make a judgement.

 

Whats being looked at is 12 years old if it wasn't done properly then its more likely to look a lot worse now (bodily wise). mechanicals have bound to have been fixed unless its been sorn.

 

Is it a proper Italian job (rarer mini) worth doing, if not probably not worth doing as yet.

[SuperDeLuxeNick]

Stay away IMO

 

Unless it can be had super cheap.

[SuperDeLuxeNick]

Plenty of good ones out there, just gotta be patient

[first_mini_chris]

Yeah cheers guy, I've decided to skip this one.

[Cooperman]

It is good advice not to let the dream of owning a classic car get in the way of the realities.

Unlike a modern car, a classic car will require attention in no small measure. Even expensive fully restored cars have a requirement for on-going maintenance and repairs, especially if the mileage is higher than normal for a classic.

Most classic cars are driven around 1000 to 1500 miles per annum.

It is a labour of love and a good tool kit is needed together with the knowledge to do the work yourself. If you need to pay someone else then it gets really expensive.

Once you have decided to buy a classic car, any classic car really, do a lot of research to see what the usual problems are. In a Mini it is usually rust, then more rust. Engines and mechanicals are easy (in relative terms) to rebuild & restore and mechanical parts are quite cheap and easy to find.

Remember, old cars are just that, old cars. They don't drive like modern cars, but they are FUN!