Thread: Advice - Pre-purchase inspection opinions - 1996 110

Originally Posted by rangieman

You honestly have no idea
The OP stated several oil leaks that is a safety hazard to all on the roads and im a m/bike rider i know how dangerous that can be
Tie rod ends if they let go look out , Front drive shaft how would you like that letting go and taking someone out a stranger or a loved one.
Really if someone with no idea bought that and kept driving it under the impression all was good and then one of these items let go and a poor innocent was injured what then
All these can cause serious injuries if not fatal to someone

You are imagining oil spills on the ground, tre's hanging on by a thread and unis set to explode. If that's the case of course, complain as that is clear negligence. If its sweat and near enough undetectable play, look to service those items - no need to kick up a fuss with the tester/authorities.

All you lot might like to get a rwc on your car/bike every year. It would put my mind at ease.... that said from what I see on here, most of the defender owners give it a 'service' every other weekend so not worried about them.

Thanks all for your advice and opinions very helpful.


My plan of attack is to work with the seller to see if we can come to a logical agreement around cost of repairing the must have / safety related items and I can manage the others as part of my own general maint.


As far as reporting the original mechanic who did the safety inspection that could be seen as questionable, I'll hold of on that at this stage, until they have had a chance to reply to the pre-purchase report. Interestingly they are a large national franchise mechanical / parts group.

Originally Posted by manic

You are imagining oil spills on the ground, tre's hanging on by a thread and unis set to explode. If that's the case of course, complain as that is clear negligence. If its sweat and near enough undetectable play, look to service those items - no need to kick up a fuss with the tester/authorities.

All you lot might like to get a rwc on your car/bike every year. It would put my mind at ease.... that said from what I see on here, most of the defender owners give it a 'service' every other weekend so not worried about them.

No I was not talking about a tie rod breaking off I was talking about someone loosing control due to the play that should not be there. Loose wheel bearings, loose tie rods, bald tires might seem minor, but any one of these in the right conditions, maybe a wet road on a bend with leave you in deep poo, maybe car on roof and possibly loss of live to occupants or even other road users.
Leaking oil is cumulative if we all had leaky cars the roads would be in a mess one reason it is part of the RWC. If someone parks on a road our side their house in the same spot each day and their car has an oil leak, then it rains, oil spreads out and biker looses control and ends up dead it happens. Leaking oil also can contaminate break pads too so so many reasons it is not good.
Chris

Originally Posted by cafe latte

The list the OP gave was far from minor issues, not big issues to fix, but big re RWC. Oil leaks can seem minor, but can be deadly to other road users, tie rod ends failing can be fatal too. I could not sell a car with a dodgy RWC I could not live with myself if something went wrong. Over zealous testers might moan about a chip in a headlight lens or something, real problems though need to be picked up or people die, and I would rather testes are over zealous than miss important stuff.
We dont have yearly inspections here in QLD and my cars are always maintained to be safe. I have always been happy about the fact we dont need to do yearly inspections, but after attending 6 road crashes so far this year with some of what I have seen I am not so sure anymore.. That bit of play in the tie rod end or that slightly bald tyre when it goes pear shaped wont help you.
My 2c
Chris

How many of the 6 accidents were caused by faulty vehicles rather than faulty humans? Asking out of interest only.

Originally Posted by Walshy25

Thanks all for your advice and opinions very helpful.


My plan of attack is to work with the seller to see if we can come to a logical agreement around cost of repairing the must have / safety related items and I can manage the others as part of my own general maint.


As far as reporting the original mechanic who did the safety inspection that could be seen as questionable, I'll hold of on that at this stage, until they have had a chance to reply to the pre-purchase report. Interestingly they are a large national franchise mechanical / parts group.

Hope it goes well for you Walshy

Originally Posted by cafe latte

due to the play that should not be there

We are talking about an old defender here . If the OP finds none of that in this 199x edition he should put it on a plynth and defender tragics from around the world will arrive on a pilgrimage to witness this miracle.

Let me just say that I agree with you on your safety views and if you read all my comments I tried not to trigger a debate on road safety whilst still being allowed to suggest that a bad inspection might involve not flagging safety issues or flagging issues that are not issues. This could stem from a testers negligence, intent to profit/deceive, a lack of confidence in evaluation and a fear of prosecution leading to issue of fails from simply being unsure, not being familiar with the make/model, etc.

My point was dragged away from this: don't be hasty and kick the tester in the balls with threats for free work when they may have made an honest assessment. The oil may have been hosed off by owner for inspection and they may question your other guys assessment. See what they have to say.

Originally Posted by steane

How many of the 6 accidents were caused by faulty vehicles rather than faulty humans? Asking out of interest only.

One was not caused by a faulty vehicle, but the occupant would have come out of it a lot better if his floor and firewall was not rusted out. Another was caused by oil on a corner and probably someone going a bit too fast. The cars tyres where not that flash hot either so who can say if he had good tyres maybe he could have kept it on the road. The same car did not look well maintained but I did not check the vehicle we left and went back to the station and left the Police to do the investigating. The others were newer cars so probably not caused by car issues.
Chris

Originally Posted by manic

We are talking about an old defender here . If the OP finds none of that in this 199x edition he should put it on a plynth and defender tragics from around the world will arrive on a pilgrimage to witness this miracle.

Let me just say that I agree with you on your safety views and if you read all my comments I tried not to trigger a debate on road safety whilst still being allowed to suggest that a bad inspection might involve not flagging safety issues or flagging issues that are not issues. This could stem from a testers negligence, intent to profit/deceive, a lack of confidence in evaluation and a fear of prosecution leading to issue of fails from simply being unsure, not being familiar with the make/model, etc.

My point was dragged away from this: don't be hasty and kick the tester in the balls with threats for free work when they may have made an honest assessment. The oil may have been hosed off by owner for inspection and they may question your other guys assessment. See what they have to say.

All I was getting at is split boots and even if the owner hoses oil off in 2km it will show leaks so these and the other issues should not have been missed by any tester even if he is not used to the type of car. In Aus there are still a lot of dodgy RWC issued and the car I looked at the other day for my friend was a good example. Another friend bought a car with a RWC and a tyre blew out on the way home and a second was splitting. On inspection the tyres were 15 years old so well out of date for a RWC. He had a tie rod so loose it was virtually falling off, testers passing cars like this really annoys me as faults like these are potentially fatal. If the second test found all the problems then the first tester should at least have found most of them and as they didnt they have either turned a blind eye for a friend or they are are not able to do their job so should not be doing it.
I am not attacking you at all this is a friendly discussion , but I dont like "Blind eye" RWC.
Chris