Author Topic: MOT outrigger question  (Read 222 times)

Offline yellerbelly

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
  • Nth Lincs
MOT outrigger question
« on: 18 January 2012, 05:03:10 pm »
Hello all, have been worrying/wondering about this for a few days now, and I can take no more, so have decided to ask on here....

My landy is missing the piece of angle bar between the chassis leg and the bulkhead outrigger on the drivers side., I can't see any signs of it being ground off recently, so I think it may not have been there for a year or two at least. Looking at what is there on the passenger side, it appears just to be a bit of 25mm angle iron, I can't imagine it provides much in the way of any support to the outrigger.

Does anyone have any ideas as to whether this would be a fail item at the MOT, which is on friday?

It wasn't there last year and it passed with no advisories, (not saying much as I don't have a whole lot of faith in the MOT from last year....)

My welder is knackered which is why I haven't been able to fit anything to it myself, other than worrying about it!
1982 88" 2.25D

Offline wallis 7090

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 119
Re: MOT outrigger question
« Reply #1 on: 18 January 2012, 06:45:34 pm »
Dont worry about it !! I cant think of any reason why it should fail or any classifaction they could fail under.  :)

Offline 5988

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
Re: MOT outrigger question
« Reply #2 on: 18 January 2012, 08:11:00 pm »
Dont worry about it !! I cant think of any reason why it should fail or any classifaction they could fail under.  :)
Maybe the fact a structural part of the chassis is missing  ???  - pretty good reason to fail in my eyes (and within 30cm of body mounts)

That said, the MOT tester would need to know it should be there to fail it for not being

The S2 never had it - came in later on in 2a production so LR must have had a reason


Offline wallis 7090

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 119
Re: MOT outrigger question
« Reply #3 on: 18 January 2012, 08:15:02 pm »
But the mot inspectors have set guidelines to work to and how many people who replace outriggers actually replace those bits ????? You would be surprised !!!! As long as there is no corrosion i reckon it will pass because how will they no its missing as they do not know every vehicle inside out  :P

Offline yellerbelly

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
  • Nth Lincs
Re: MOT outrigger question
« Reply #4 on: 18 January 2012, 09:25:29 pm »
Screw it. AFter 6 pints I know what needs to be done.....

Stop being tight fisted....

cancel MOT, go  buy new welder at weekend.

weld angled thingy bit bacck in

simples.

Apologies for burdening you with such trivial things.
1982 88" 2.25D

Offline Albert Ross

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2079
  • What?! The curtains?
Re: MOT outrigger question
« Reply #5 on: 18 January 2012, 09:32:53 pm »
Leave it off. Get back to your beer. It wasn't there before 1965 anyway..... It serves no real purpose except to identify a later 2a chassis. Or summat.
And Yes, I am a Class 4 Tester.

Offline rbrtcrowther

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
Re: MOT outrigger question
« Reply #6 on: 19 January 2012, 07:34:41 am »
WHS^^  Except I would go round the other side an chop that one off too,    Keep it symetrical and all that....

Offline mwy1964

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: MOT outrigger question
« Reply #7 on: 19 January 2012, 09:09:46 am »
Leave it off. Get back to your beer. It wasn't there before 1965 anyway..... It serves no real purpose except to identify a later 2a chassis. Or summat.
And Yes, I am a Class 4 Tester.

I took the same approach on my Series 3 chassis... A grinder and a coat of paint work wonders...

What they actually achieve when you have two fucking great bulkhead support brackets etc is beyond me..

Mark

Offline rangerovering

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 186
Re: MOT outrigger question
« Reply #8 on: 19 January 2012, 10:00:38 am »
Agree with the above, they are not really taking any of the weight of the bulkhead and how much extra strength they add in a prang is not going to make a massive difference I wouldn't have thought.

You'd be unlucky to get a fail for them IMO
Clues in the name....."Fraser" the 1980 S3!

Offline yellerbelly

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
  • Nth Lincs
Re: MOT outrigger question
« Reply #9 on: 20 January 2012, 11:47:43 am »
thanks to everyone who offered advice.

I ground off the other stay yesterday evening, which came off with no fight at all due to the bird shit welding it was attached with.

I took it for the MOT this morning to a reputable local garage garage that I trust (have taken all my previous cars there in the past)....

and it passed, with no advisories, and what for me were surprisingly relatively low emissions, 1.7 average, and the comment of "sound old truck that mate"

I'm well chuffed! ;D

I was unofficially advised to stop driving like a old woman and rev it a bit harder though, and the guy advised fitting a new front section of the exhaust as its been pretty well bashed over the years, and it might be causing a bit of a restriction to it :-\ 

have to say, on the way back from the garage it does appear to be running better and cleaner after its been revved hard.
1982 88" 2.25D

Offline NiteMare

  • M.E.
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 799
Re: MOT outrigger question
« Reply #10 on: 20 January 2012, 03:14:26 pm »
in the past i've generally found engines to like a good work out occaisionally

i used to take my bikes for a proper thrash (50-100 miles) making the engine sing and flicking it up and down the box to keep it on the power, ok it'd suck a little more fuel whilst doing this but it transformed the way my bike ran for a few weeks afterwards round town until it started getting dirty again

i'll guess the thrashing would burn off the softer deposits on the pistons/valves etc along with blow out any crud build up in the exhaust, all caused by gentle running/short journeys round town

i've found the same to be true of old 70's cars, a quick thrash really is the best way to prepare for a tune up rather than tune a poorly performing engine full of deposits
it ain't broke

i ain't fixed it enough