MOT nonsense?

[Justme]

What does the other side look like?

Has the other side been repaired or is it original?

Can you get photos of an un repaired one to show him that that is how it was made originally.

Also show him your photos of how you fixed it. I have often taken in pics of the repair especially for complex multi layer areas so they can see that its been done correctly & not just plated over in 0.6mm.

 

[steveo3002]

id have tickled the plug welds down smooth then plenty of seam sealer and stonechip so you cant tell its been done

 

[Wozzaaah]

The bit you need starts at 13.00

They're simply quoting from the manual.
My understanding is that if you let a patch into a sill and part of that patch includes the bottom flange then even though it's a patch repair, that bottom flange can be spot/plug welded.
All other parts of that patch need to be seam welded unless the patch also includes the flange at the top which can also be spot/plug welded.
i.e an "invisible repair".

@Sid, it looks to me like you've copied the original panel, it appears to have been spot welded all the way round.

 

[Bill Edwards]

It appears that you have repaired it to the exact same condition it came to you in.
Not withstanding the possibility that it has been repaired wrong prior to your ownership (unless you know the history of the vehicle well enough) then it is reasonable to think that the repair is correct, so I suggest you simply produce a photograph of the area before you did any work which will prove that you have done 'like for like'.

 

[Sid]

OK so needless to say this was on my mind late last night. I did keep more and higher resolution pictures of the repair process, and I also searched for pictures of other Justy arches. Trouble is it's not a common car. However I think I found (it's not totally clear) another Justy with the oval shape piece in the lower part of the arch. So this may be normal.

I just wish I could actually remember the repair on the RHS better (didn't photo that side). I should say I repaired the car a while ago, but I left the car in the garage as I don't need it. It's not that I have the memory of a fish.

I do see it from the tester's view as well though. The bottom piece in particular. I've loaded my phone with pic's, and I'll pay the garage a visit to make sure I'm clear which parts he's not happy with. I don't want to fill my arch with underseal, so I'm actually considering filling it with welds instead.

Thanks everyone for the comments BTW.

 

[Rocketman]

Subaru should have pictures of all the component that make the area you are looking at up in a assembly and probably a exploded assembly for parts - producing this would end the argument with the MOT station if what you have done matches what was originally there. A Subaru parts department can probably email you the page you are after - I have had many over the years from Peugeot even though I can't get half the stuff anymore

Why are you against covering it up? - any inner wheel arch should have heavy seam sealer and stone chip on. It's not about covering it up. It's about corrosion resistance and sound proofing. The reason some older Japanese cars don't have heavy coverings on is that in their native land they don't use salt. hence when they hit the European roads they rust like made.

 

[MattF]

Why are you against covering it up? - any inner wheel arch should have heavy seam sealer and stone chip on. It's not about covering it up. It's about corrosion resistance and sound proofing. The reason some older Japanese cars don't have heavy coverings on is that in their native land they don't use salt. hence when they hit the European roads they rust like made.

I'm guessing for the simple fact of preferring the job be done correctly, rather than attempting to hide something which is of tenuous quality.

The way I've understood the description given in this thread is simply that repair patches need seam welding, and complete replacement panels need only use the original method of fixing. Sounds like it's one of those cases of either confusion as to how something was originally else a simple misinterpretation of the regs.

 

[steveo3002]

do the job properly , then grind it flush and seam seal /underseal like the rest of the car , a half reasonble job shouldnt give them any clues whats been done or not done

 

[Sid]

Ok so update on what's happening...

Since I don't want to 'hide' my work under a ton of under seal, I went back to the tester to clarify what parts of the welding had failed. I had already conceded in my mind that the oval shape patch in the lower part of the arch didn't really tally with a testers guidelines. (I'm still unclear if the part I removed was an older repair or standard Subaru.) He wanted that seam welded so it was just about the upper repair near the damper mounting.

He initially said he wanted the entire piece seam welded. I pointed out that what I had done was replace a separate panel, as original, but he wasn't really convinced. My argument was that it matched Subaru's construction, and Subaru had spot welded that piece in. He asked if you could buy that panel separately and I laughed saying it would probably cost more that the car, so I'd fabricated it.

What swung him my way was two things.

1) I showed him a photo of a wheel arch from another Justy (thank you internet!)
2) I was able to show him the seam weld on the panel behind the one I'd fabricated to sit on top.

Once he understood the car's construction in the arch, and that the patch behind was seam welded, and that it was indeed a complete separate panel on top he said it was satisfactory.

So, really glad I took photos! Now just got to correct the lower pieces.

 

[Rocketman]

I still don't understand why you don't just didn't/don't give a ring your local Subaru dealer and the parts department will be able to send you a picture of all the parts in the assembly - yes I realise many won't be available anymore but they will have pictures on the data base of it.

 

[MattF]

Glad to hear you got it sorted. Thought it sounded like a simple misinterpretation or misunderstanding. It's no bad thing. At least you know that tester is on the ball and won't pass any old tat. I use a tester who is like that simply for the fact that I know anything done to mine is safe, within the scope of the regs. Better them like that than passing possibly crap work as sound.

Even then though, you tend to find the whole MOT scene is strewn with examples where a bit of liberal interpretation can be used.

 

[Sid]

I still don't understand why you don't just didn't/don't give a ring your local Subaru dealer and the parts department will be able to send you a picture of all the parts in the assembly - yes I realise many won't be available anymore but they will have pictures on the data base of it.

I may still do this. The tested also suggested proving the part was separate that way. (I didn't see your other post).

 

[Sid]

Glad to hear you got it sorted. Thought it sounded like a simple misinterpretation or misunderstanding. It's no bad thing. At least you know that tester is on the ball and won't pass any old tat. I use a tester who is like that simply for the fact that I know anything done to mine is safe, within the scope of the regs. Better them like that than passing possibly crap work as sound.

Even then though, you tend to find the whole MOT scene is strewn with examples where a bit of liberal interpretation can be used.

My frustration when he failed it was largely because he passed the same repair once already. So my reaction was one of disbelief. The second side repaired later on was much less extensive.

 

[MattF]

They can vary occasionally. If there's been some reason for the inspectors to call round or such, or if someone has been pulled and something noted by the police within a short while of the MOT being done, sometimes they tighten up even more to err on the side of caution. This is why I always get advice from the tester before doing certain things. I know then exactly what his particular interpretation is and exactly what the regs specify. The MOT is always a bit of a juggling act with certain things, and things like a different tester can throw things off occasionally. The MOT manual has quite a few grey areas.

As always though, the old fallback rule is to hide it if you don't want to have to argue the toss over it with them. Personally, I prefer using the approach you've done, unless it's something mind numbingly inconsequential to either safety, soundness, roadworthiness or reliability.

 

[Rocketman]

The 'A' team never seemed to have a problem back in the eighties - not sure any of their work was inspected though.

 

[the snooper]

The 'A' team never seemed to have a problem back in the eighties - not sure any of their work was inspected though.

It was already mot'd they just converted things

 

[mechman]

Yes like gas welding with a cutting torch etc

 

[Wendelspanswick]

Ok so update on what's happening...

Since I don't want to 'hide' my work under a ton of under seal, I went back to the tester to clarify what parts of the welding had failed. I had already conceded in my mind that the oval shape patch in the lower part of the arch didn't really tally with a testers guidelines. (I'm still unclear if the part I removed was an older repair or standard Subaru.) He wanted that seam welded so it was just about the upper repair near the damper mounting.

He initially said he wanted the entire piece seam welded. I pointed out that what I had done was replace a separate panel, as original, but he wasn't really convinced. My argument was that it matched Subaru's construction, and Subaru had spot welded that piece in. He asked if you could buy that panel separately and I laughed saying it would probably cost more that the car, so I'd fabricated it.

What swung him my way was two things.

1) I showed him a photo of a wheel arch from another Justy (thank you internet!)
2) I was able to show him the seam weld on the panel behind the one I'd fabricated to sit on top.

Once he understood the car's construction in the arch, and that the patch behind was seam welded, and that it was indeed a complete separate panel on top he said it was satisfactory.

So, really glad I took photos! Now just got to correct the lower pieces.

As an aside is it the 4wd Justy?

 

[Sid]

As an aside is it the 4wd Justy?

Yes

It's why I want to keep it running. Not a lot of ground clearance, but the AWD definitely works, and it's kinda fun to drive in a very low rent kind of way.

 

[Sid]

Thought I'd post an update!

Welding was done fairly quickly, but failed to get the car back for it's free re-test due to changing a drive shaft gaiter, and having a few 'issues'. (Kept receiving the wrong parts).

Anyway the car did also fail on emissions, and it was only in the last couple of weeks I attacked that (I know, it's been months!)

I cleaned out the cam cover ventilation valve, but the car still idled badly, then I cleaned the fuel injectors (as shown on youtube with brake cleaner). Car suddenly ran and idled a lot better.

So had a retest and it passed, with no advisories!

Now all I want is a really bad winter with loads of snow!