911 nightmare!

[Mark-C]

MGB Boy said:

SB - Nigel said:

jith said:

By the way they actually passed it with the engine seized and no emission test results!!

Far too much faith is put into buying cars with long MOTs, even at best they only say the car was passable on that particular day at that particular time

Because of this blind faith in MOTs I've previously offered serious buyers to forget the existing MOT on my car and offer to take it to a garage of their choice to get a fresh 12 month MOT, any faults I'll put them right before final sale - I've never had anyone take me up on this because hopefully they see I'm honest and very confident in my car - or they don't want to lose the outstanding balance of the current MOT

Edited by SB - Nigel on Tuesday 1st June 22:21

If you check your MOT certificate you can't take it to for an MOT until around a month until the current MOT expires.

Yes you can ... you just can't claim the extra month to get 13 months MOT ... I think!

[MGB Boy]

Mark-C said:

MGB Boy said:

SB - Nigel said:

jith said:

By the way they actually passed it with the engine seized and no emission test results!!

Far too much faith is put into buying cars with long MOTs, even at best they only say the car was passable on that particular day at that particular time

Because of this blind faith in MOTs I've previously offered serious buyers to forget the existing MOT on my car and offer to take it to a garage of their choice to get a fresh 12 month MOT, any faults I'll put them right before final sale - I've never had anyone take me up on this because hopefully they see I'm honest and very confident in my car - or they don't want to lose the outstanding balance of the current MOT

Edited by SB - Nigel on Tuesday 1st June 22:21

If you check your MOT certificate you can't take it to for an MOT until around a month until the current MOT expires.

Yes you can ... you just can't claim the extra month to get 13 months MOT ... I think!

God knows mine said some bull crap about honouring the date of the MOT or something or other.

Edited by MGB Boy on Sunday 6th June 18:45

[SB - Nigel]

You see how my offer confuses some

(I thought the "I'd take 12 month MOT" comment would come up first tho')

Since we had computerized certificates it says " To preserve the anniversary of the expiry date the earliest you can present your vehicle for a test is xx/xx/20xx"

MGB Boy I sugest you also very carefully read insurance conditions or you'll be surprised when you get what you think are 'extra' charges or 'lose' refunds

Before this system twice I've took my cars in for a service and told them to MOT them on a certain day so that I got the MOT a month early and 13 month certificate but they took the cars in early so I lost a month

edited becaused I missed an important word out, see we all make mistakes

2nd edit - just seen you're a student MGB Boy so you're not to know what went on in the olden days but as you have an old car you could learn off your elders (if we can remember)

Edited by SB - Nigel on Tuesday 1st June 23:24

[jith]

We have a wee finale to this. The tester has agreed to pay for a substantial portion of the bill; I think he is being philisophical and putting it down to experience.

I have to say that, all things considered, the owner is being very calm and reasonable.

Still, all's well that ends well.

J

[Dr_Rick]

Just a lurker with a question,if the MOT station didn't understand how to read oil levels on the car, didn't think to ask the owner for advice, didn't consult a manual and caused serious issues to someone elses property (fail enoguh, not terminal) and have admitted liability. Why are they only offering to pay 'a substantial portion of the bill'?

Surely they should stump up the full cost. I'm sure the owner sent (in his mind) a perfectly operational vehicle for an MOT, not a service and given that it's a classic he would have checked all the fluids prior to the appointment.

I'd be insisting that they paid the full bill.

Dr Rick.

[Pesty]

As a 964 owner I st myself anytime I have to leave it with MOT people

How much frigging oil did he pour in there.

ps owner is braver than me having different tyres on the rear axle

Edited by Pesty on Thursday 3rd June 21:19

[pistonlager]

Dr_Rick said:

I'd be insisting that they paid the full bill.

Dr Rick.

Me too.

[Stablelad]

James,

You will be getting my Business from now on (964)

Ali

[jith]

Stablelad said:

James,

You will be getting my Business from now on (964)

Ali

Many thanks Ali, I'll look forward to that.

It's quite surprising the amount of response to this post; I'll get around to answering those of you who e mailled me as soon as I get a spare moment that is!!

Someone mentioned different tyres on the rear, and I spotted this when the car came in. Believe it or not, the size, make and model and the speed rating are identical on both those tyres; they are Kumhos. But the tread pattern is different. I can only assume they changed the design for some reason, and they were purchased at different intervals. I gave the car a good seeing to on the second road test to make sure it was ok, and it certainly handled beautifully.

This customer is a real gent actually, and the reason he did not push the issue of full payment is because the act of stripping all the ancillaries and the exhaust and refitting everything, including setting up, has resulted in the car running like a scalded cat, so he's quite chuffed about this and had no objection to part payment. He also had no desire to see the tester lose his job and MOT licence. I can guarantee he won't make the same mistake twice!!

J.

Edited by jith on Wednesday 9th June 10:09

[barchetta_boy]

That's a good attitude. Sometimes life is just too short.

Joel

[traffman]

Interesting story , also the term ken is frequently used in the central belt of Scotland especially in the Falkirk area where i reside.

Use ken in Glasgow and youll have the pish taken out of you.

[MrLou]

traffman said:

Use ken in Glasgow and youll have the pish beaten out of you.

EFA?

[Pesty]

jith said:

Someone mentioned different tyres on the rear, and I spotted this when the car came in. Believe it or not, the size, make and model and the speed rating are identical on both those tyres; they are Kumhos.

how odd,
thanks

[///ajd]

Interesting.

I suppose it is fair to say the 911 oil checking routine is pretty unusual, and the normal wet sump cars (99%+) the tester would see are pretty similar & easy - just fill and check dipstick cold. Until I bought mine I didn't know about checking running/hot only - and on casual inspection a 911 oil filler looks just the same as any other, including the small dipstick (which is also easy to drop in the tank....).

Its interesting that the oil/"hydraulic locking" of the engine didn't wreck it - perhaps only enough oil got in to stop the engine without a critical amount entering (i.e. critical being more than approx 3.6/6 litres of uncompressible liquid in a given cylinder - leading to major damage). I always thought that the forces involved in "true" hydraulic locking would really destroy the engine due to the forces involved.

Glad it worked out OK!

[kaferboy]

scottishninja2 said:

militantmandy said:

scotal said:

jith said:

If your knowledge of motor vehicles is so sparse that you don't know how to check the oil level on a particular vehicle, you either find out, or you simply don't touch them.

Surely they'd phone the owner..... "'ere mate there's no oil in your motor." (Or however you say that in Glaswegian) would have got a response.

"arite pal, ken there's nae oil in yer motor"

No self respecting glaswegian would use the word "ken"

Stephen.

They have self respect in Glasgow now?



IIRC from when I had a 911 you have to check it when running, having said that this was a 73 early one....

[andycskis]

This looks like it could have been very expensive indeed, I suppose minus the oily mess the owner was lucky the engine wasn't kaput.

[larrylamb11]

This reminds me of a similar incident when I worked at an auctioneers. They held a big sale in London with some lovely cars going across the block, one of which was a red '70s 911S (from memory). It had enjoyed a substantially expensive refurb and was 'on the button' - a lovely example. It was bid up well and the hammer fell to a relatively wealthy gentleman with a fairly abrupt manner, nothing wrong with that. The new owner was based up North somewhere, can't recall where, so he sent his 'driver' down to collect the car and drive it back up North. We checked the car over as we normally would in preparation for a lengthy journey, even though it wasn't our remit - we always tried to warn new owners of any potential concerns before they set off into the sunset in their new purchase, but this Porka was a beaut.
Anyway, about an hour after this driver had left in the car, we got an irate call from the wealthy owner complaining that the 911 had expired and was stuck at Heston services with gravy everywhere. Again, not really the auction house's problem but in the interests of good relations we motored out there with recovery and rescued the poor beast. Sure enough, it was horribly dead....
It was taken back to HQ while the wrangling began as the buyer then tried to 'back' the car on the auction house and demand his money back... so we started investigating the failure...
The oil looked like mayonnaise and there was 'fluid' everywhere with not a hope of the engine running... after some time the only conclusion was that the engine had filled with water! Yes, water!
We could not understand how at all and questioning the 'driver' yielded no results as apparently it just stopped when he pulled up. It was only later after the legal threats began to be bandied about that the 'driver' admitted that he had stopped at the services for petrol and thought he ought to check the engine.... he opened the engine bay and saw the oil cap, assumed it was the radiator cap (yes! seriously!) and opened it to find it had no 'water' in it.... so he filled it up - yes he filled the dry sump oil tank with water....to the brim.... and then tried to drive it...
Needless to say, this revelation found the 'driver' joining the dole cue, the wealthy buyer eating humble pie and the 911 in the workshop! It still amazes me now when I think back to it

[Stu - B]

Thanks for the post.

Have passed link on to two 911 driving mates....one of which came back straight away to say a similar scenario happened to him a few years ago. However, he paid a £3K bill to sort his car out as the garage insisted it was a pre-existing ailment even though the car went in for the MOT with no leaks.

[jith]

Stu - B said:

Thanks for the post.

Have passed link on to two 911 driving mates....one of which came back straight away to say a similar scenario happened to him a few years ago. However, he paid a £3K bill to sort his car out as the garage insisted it was a pre-existing ailment even though the car went in for the MOT with no leaks.

I don't know if the MOT regulations applied at the time you speak of Stu, but now VOSA is absolutely strict about what goes on during and after the test.

If you are carrying out an MOT nowadays and the car suffers engine failure during the test whilst in your custody, the bill is down to you; absolutely no question. It does not matter whther the fault was there before the test or not. As a tester you should have the ability to determine if the engine is about to suffer terminal failure and refuse to carry out the test; if you go ahead and chance it, you are responsible for the damage.

Now this might seem unfair but that's the way it is.

[jith]

larrylamb11 said:

This reminds me of a similar incident when I worked at an auctioneers. They held a big sale in London with some lovely cars going across the block, one of which was a red '70s 911S (from memory). It had enjoyed a substantially expensive refurb and was 'on the button' - a lovely example. It was bid up well and the hammer fell to a relatively wealthy gentleman with a fairly abrupt manner, nothing wrong with that. The new owner was based up North somewhere, can't recall where, so he sent his 'driver' down to collect the car and drive it back up North. We checked the car over as we normally would in preparation for a lengthy journey, even though it wasn't our remit - we always tried to warn new owners of any potential concerns before they set off into the sunset in their new purchase, but this Porka was a beaut.
Anyway, about an hour after this driver had left in the car, we got an irate call from the wealthy owner complaining that the 911 had expired and was stuck at Heston services with gravy everywhere. Again, not really the auction house's problem but in the interests of good relations we motored out there with recovery and rescued the poor beast. Sure enough, it was horribly dead....
It was taken back to HQ while the wrangling began as the buyer then tried to 'back' the car on the auction house and demand his money back... so we started investigating the failure...
The oil looked like mayonnaise and there was 'fluid' everywhere with not a hope of the engine running... after some time the only conclusion was that the engine had filled with water! Yes, water!
We could not understand how at all and questioning the 'driver' yielded no results as apparently it just stopped when he pulled up. It was only later after the legal threats began to be bandied about that the 'driver' admitted that he had stopped at the services for petrol and thought he ought to check the engine.... he opened the engine bay and saw the oil cap, assumed it was the radiator cap (yes! seriously!) and opened it to find it had no 'water' in it.... so he filled it up - yes he filled the dry sump oil tank with water....to the brim.... and then tried to drive it...
Needless to say, this revelation found the 'driver' joining the dole cue, the wealthy buyer eating humble pie and the 911 in the workshop! It still amazes me now when I think back to it

This reminds me of my first experience of this kind of thing as a young apprentice draughtsman. I had managed to buy my first Jaguar, a '56 2.4 MK1, and my boss, the chief draughtsman, not wishing to be outdone by his apprentice, bought a brand new Cortina 1600E.

Now I have to confess that in this era the 1600E was a very nice motor and went very well indeed. After about only a week of ownership his wife was permitted to take her friends out to lunch but was warned within an inch of her life to check the oil, water tyres, etc.

Wife duly drives into the petrol station, fills up tank, lifts bonnet, removes oil cap, to her horror finds no liquid and fills it to the brim......with water!

She actually managed to drive about two miles before the engine expired. I think they tried all the usual things after that, advice from well meaning friends, even Marriage Guidance, but things were never the same between them!