Cab steps for MOT

[fullsunian]

while we are on the subject of mot fail


what do you recon of fuel filler neck hole rusted through? pass or fail?

I reckon that's a pass and advise, just looked on computer and no mention of filler neck it's self only the seal and cap...

[..lee..]

7.2.2.2
Fuel pipe excessively damaged. Even by corrosion. I'd fail but I'm not testing everyday now so I am a bit rusty myself. Lol.

[billy739]

i mean the arch around the filler neck mounting

they always rust!

[RedGus]

That's an interesting question, billy739. Mine is like that too, as I suspect most unrestored examples now are, because of the well-known mud trap behind it. When I took my van for the first MOT (the one that I started this thread with) that tester mentioned the area with relation to it being within 300mm of the front seatbelt mount. I could see that, if you measured through the wing structure, then that would be the case (and hence a potential fail) but the question I asked myself was: how much, if at all, does the outer wing - and specifically this area around the great big filler hole - actually contribute to the strength of the seatbelt mount?

I'd be interested to hear what people, especially the MOT testers among you, think.

Cheers,

James

[Plasticman]

well a tester can give you an opinion but they are not really able to give a better idea of its contribution to strength,
if you were to remove the arch all the way round and this includes the step. by remove i mean up to the point that the cab door seals against then i would say i may contribute to the structural strength of the mounting , wether the lack of this area is sufficient to render the belt anchorage un fit is another matter and not one the tester is qualified to give with certainty , opinion yes but factual certainty no.
you could also look at it from the point that there is a hole cut in the filler side which itself is a break in the conformity of the panal, so is the non filler side stronger ?
from my own experience i would say that it is unlikely to make any difference in the real world and many vans that i restore ,i can often grab the belt anchorage and move it and often re---move it it is after all a fairly insipid design
mm

[RedGus]

Exactly, mm. That was my thinking, too, regarding the weakening effect of the 6" hole for the filler on one side relative to the other. If it did have a weakening effect then the logical conclusion would be that the driver's seatbelt offered less security than the passenger's, which doesn't seem right at all.

The whole debate is interesting, though, as a demonstration of how open to interpretation the MOT tester's manual really is, and how much it relies on the tester having a fairly good understanding of how structures actually work. Unfortunately, in a real life test situation it often seems to come down to a "hunch" on the part of a tester.

James

[California Dreamin]

Over the 6 or so years that I MOT tested I was 'observed' by the inspectorate about once a year for correct procedure.
During the 'Feedback' sessions you would be questioned on the reasons for failure. The one obiding rule was 'If in doubt' PASS but report, and not fail.
As an MOT tester, protect yourself from possible accusation by reporting EVERYTHING.

Unfortunately it seems that there are alot of MOT testers take the oposite view... to fail if in doubt.

Martin

[Starky]

My van failed recently with a corroded cab step although it must be said the rust holes and surface crud continued up in to the cab floor and along the seem where the inner arch and cab floor join (which is within 300mm of the seat runner).

Also failed due to a rust hole next to the fuel filler as it is within 300mm of the lower seat belt mounting.

It does seem a little harsh, as many have said, but then in my case the tester actually did me a favour. I was going to just treat with some rust converter, paint over and put on a new step cover. Turns out the rot was right across the cab floor up to the accelerator pedal. Best sorted out now before I paint the van then have to do it in 6-12 months time when I eventually put my foot through the floor.

I stated a case for the fuel filler hole not been structural but the tester politely pointed out that it was a mood point considering the other 17 points of failure

Worth pointing out that the other step was also rotting away towards the front end, this was not classed as a failure due to being outside of the prescribed area.

[tforturton]

JUst to go back a bit.....why would it be different for a Syncro?

[max and caddy]

JUst to go back a bit.....why would it be different for a Syncro?

Maybe.... Coz the subframe bolts up very close to the step area and ita suspension component...but...the step is not a prescribed area so I'm 99.9% sure it's not a testable area..

[nostalgic]

Ill be seing my mot guy monday for some work if i can remeber ill ask him he never lies and wont invent work that dont need doing. Advice from the 80 90 guys is smack on and they wont stear you wrong. Maybe do the job now to save money running around and then ask around find out where other owners take their vans and change mot staions for a good one.ill post my mot guys number on here asap so you can get it from the horses mouth but as i said if the guys on here say its so then id say it is.
Ive just phoned my guy he said measure them as proof. As long as they are 30cm away ur fine although they all seem to have a different idea on it.

[Ian Hulley]

Get the steps fixed anyway ... our MOT tester gave me an advisory 3 years ago on one step, I had it done there and then ... he WOULD have failed it if it went back to him unfixed the following year. He is your god for a couple of days every year I suggest you either do as he instructs OR go elsewhere.

Ian