Mot advice

[Bobby32]

Im looking at buying a 2005 c220 coupe, checking the history the last 3 mots all failed with the same thing, obviously it was fixed but reoccurred each year, just wondering on potential cost of repair if it does fail the same again.

• Nearside Front Track rod end ball joint has excessive play (2.2.B.1f)
• Offside Front Track rod end ball joint has excessive play (2.2.B.1f)

Any advice would be great thanks.

 

[LostKiwi]

Sounds to me like it was never fixed. MBs don't wear out suspension parts that quickly!
Probably cost £200 to fix (inc labour) and a retrack on top.

 

[flowrider]

Im looking at buying a 2005 c220 coupe, checking the history the last 3 mots all failed with the same thing, obviously it was fixed but reoccurred each year, just wondering on potential cost of repair if it does fail the same again.

• Nearside Front Track rod end ball joint has excessive play (2.2.B.1f)
• Offside Front Track rod end ball joint has excessive play (2.2.B.1f)

Any advice would be great thanks.

That doesn't bode well for the standard of maintenance, what else has the owner not bothered to fix!

 

[LostKiwi]

That doesn't bode well for the standard of maintenance, what else has the owner not bothered to fix!

I'd say its more likely a dodgy MOT tester drumming up work!

 

[Bobby32]

I'd say its more likely a dodgy MOT tester drumming up work!

This was my thought, its not been properly fixed/replaced.

If it was to be properly fixed/replaced, what would be the likely cost?

 

[LostKiwi]

This was my thought, its not been properly fixed/replaced.

If it was to be properly fixed/replaced, what would be the likely cost?

As in my first reply...

My gut reaction would be to ignore that MOT history on that point as it may well be a bogus fail/fix.
Have the car properly checked.

 

[umblecumbuz]

I agree completely with LK.
I have been looking for a convertible as a long term buy, and of course i do as you have done - I check back through the Mot history.
I have found many instances where a fault is listed, then the vehicle is passed as fit, then the same fault shows up several years running. Mostly these faults relate to suspension or brakes.
My conclusion is that somehow the owner has either got round the Mot tester or he's fudged a temporary repair to get the car passed.

Stay away, is my conclusion. What else has been fudged? There are plenty of good cars out there.

 

[M80]

It's a shame we can no longer see the area of MOT, it can give indication of use. Some years ago a researched a car in rural Wales it had historic repeated failures on steering components, that indicated to me it had some off road dirt track style use. That can also mean adverse climate meaning later rust. I didn't bother.

How would you fudge a track road end repair? Assuming it went back to the same station for retest there would be no advantage to the tester first failing to get some work and later letting it go through without the work having been done.
Maybe cheap components were used, but still unlikely to fail a year later unless there has been high mileage or adverse usage.

 

[LostKiwi]

My conclusion is that somehow the owner has either got round the Mot tester or he's fudged a temporary repair to get the car passed.

I think it more likely the Tester has said "You had worn track rod ends but we've replaced them" when in actual fact they did no such thing.

OP - are you sure they were fails and not advisories?
Post up the Reg number and we can take a look.

 

[Bobby32]

I think it more likely the Tester has said "You had worn track rod ends but we've replaced them" when in actual fact they did no such thing.

OP - are you sure they were fails and not advisories?
Post up the Reg number and we can take a look.

Yes i checked the history and 3 years running it was fails then the next day pass with no advisories. Just seems weird. I think theres no other explanation that the tester is at fault and likely didnt do the repair at all or botched it. Unless the owner did like out in the sticks and was driving on potholes every day which seems unlikely for a car like that. I just cant decide if its too big of a risk or not. Only other advisories on any of the tests were tyres and brake pipes corroded which is common with older vehicles.

 

[LostKiwi]

Yes i checked the history and 3 years running it was fails then the next day pass with no advisories. Just seems weird. I think theres no other explanation that the tester is at fault and likely didnt do the repair at all or botched it. Unless the owner did like out in the sticks and was driving on potholes every day which seems unlikely for a car like that. I just cant decide if its too big of a risk or not. Only other advisories on any of the tests were tyres and brake pipes corroded which is common with older vehicles.

Have the car checked over by a Mercedes specialist. They'll be bale to tell you if its a good one or not.
If you put your rough location we can recommend one if you like.

 

[umblecumbuz]

I think it more likely the Tester has said "You had worn track rod ends but we've replaced them" when in actual fact they did no such thing.

Had that been the case, this fault would not have shown up as a fail - unless the tester was just dishonestly drumming up work.

 

[LostKiwi]

Had that been the case, this fault would not have shown up as a fail - unless the tester was just dishonestly drumming up work.

Thats what I'm thinking.

 

[L John]

Ask to see receipts for the work that had supposedly been done (or at least proof of parts used) 3 times over.
They might not have all receipts but none would be very suss.

 

[John Laidlaw]

Sounds to me like it was never fixed. MBs don't wear out suspension parts that quickly!
Probably cost £200 to fix (inc labour) and a retrack on top.

So glad you said this, I thought ‘ no can’t be possible’ but the more I thought the more sure I was that no car can be that unlucky !