Bongo Fury

teenmal wrote:http://www.motuk.co.uk/mcmanual_710.htm

And

scanner wrote:

teenmal wrote:http://www.motuk.co.uk/mcmanual_710.htm

And

It's got me confused as well

francophile1947 wrote:

scanner wrote:

teenmal wrote:http://www.motuk.co.uk/mcmanual_710.htm

And

It's got me confused as well

It would probably confuse vanvliet (and his MOT'er) even more.

Hippotastic quoted:

You can see it needs more support just from looking at it. There are two holes in the subframe, almost there for a purpose other than drainage. It will not hurt to add it, and might save breakages later.

Teenmal linked to the mot testers requirements, i reckon highlighting this bit...

c. An exhaust system mounting missing or one which is in such a condition that it does not fully support the exhaust system.

That's how i read it.

Aha - thanks BDC
My first thought was about the missing bits and I couldn't see how a replacement straight pipe was missing anything

I think that's what teenmal was suggesting john, i'm sure he'll confirm/deny it when he clocks this thread...

My take is that if you remove the back box you might fail the MOT as a bit is missing. I have added extra support to the pipe so that it cannot sag in the middle from weight. I am going to try it on with Kwik-fit, then buy the back box at £45 if no joy. Then the coathanger wire will ensure it does not break again.

"A durable repair to an exhaust system which effectively prevents leaks is acceptable providing the system is structurally sound." I guess if I got spot checked it would fail the MOT as it stands.

You definitely will not fail an MOT without a back box, as long as the replacement pipe is long enough to go beyond the rear of the van, so that there is no chance of exhaust fumes entering the vehicle.

francophile1947 wrote:You definitely will not fail an MOT without a back box, as long as the replacement pipe is long enough to go beyond the rear of the van, so that there is no chance of exhaust fumes entering the vehicle.

One certainly, maybe two, member(s) on here have "straight through pipe" replacements for the back box that have passed an MOT - the definite one is a length of stainless steel flexi-pipe, so it doesn't even need to be rigid piping either.

bigdaddycain wrote:Hippotastic quoted:

You can see it needs more support just from looking at it. There are two holes in the subframe, almost there for a purpose other than drainage. It will not hurt to add it, and might save breakages later.

Teenmal linked to the mot testers requirements, i reckon highlighting this bit...

c. An exhaust system mounting missing or one which is in such a condition that it does not fully support the exhaust system.

That's how i read it.

So what are you saying?

The standard Bongo system is an MOT fail as soon as it leaves the factory?

Because it looks as if what is clearly a very necessary mounting point has be left off?

Passed two MOT's with no back box

scanner wrote:

bigdaddycain wrote:Hippotastic quoted:

You can see it needs more support just from looking at it. There are two holes in the subframe, almost there for a purpose other than drainage. It will not hurt to add it, and might save breakages later.

Teenmal linked to the mot testers requirements, i reckon highlighting this bit...

c. An exhaust system mounting missing or one which is in such a condition that it does not fully support the exhaust system.

That's how i read it.

So what are you saying?

The standard Bongo system is an MOT fail as soon as it leaves the factory?

Because it looks as if what is clearly a very necessary mounting point has be left off?

I'm not saying anything, i was merely pointing out the link posted by teenmal may be suggesting the importance of all required mounting points,as there seemed to be an element of confusion as to the point of the posted link.

I have no take on the subject, as i couldn't say whether the original exhaust system is adequately mounted or not> Hippotastic (if i read it correctly) suggested that the kwik fit system seemed to be inadequately mounted, or they had removed an anchor point themselves...

Interesting topic - from a number of viewpoints!

How much louder is the exhaust noise without the rear box? If not significant, then I'd be tempted to do without it too.

However, back to Hippotastic's situation. I'm astonished to hear that Kwik-Fit have that clause in their warranty terms, as it's patently unreasonable. The Sale of Goods Act would soon give it short shrift. In fact, even a 1-year guarantee is relatively meaningless under this act, as goods MUST perform to a level and life-expectancy that is 'reasonable'.

(It is reasonable to expect a fridge, oven, etc. etc. to last at least - ooh - 3 years or more?, and if it doesn't, you can sue the manufacturer for repairs during that 'reasonable' time.)

How long should an exhaust system last? Ok, it does partly come down to the price paid (ie, its quality), but surely NO new exhaust system should fail in less than, say, 2-3 years? Also, it is unreasonable for that warranty not to be transferable - what if you fit a new exhaust and sell the car the following week! Is that system not covered by the statutory rights of the new owner?!! Of course it is.

Hippotastic, are you sure the warranty terms you are reading aren't to do with the additional 'life-long' warranty, where they will replace the system as long as the original customer keeps the car? Ie, this is over and above the 'standard' year-long warranty?

(Check your household and car insurances - do you have 'Legal Protection Cover'? Ok, some of these will only act to cover you if involved in an accident, but my household LPC covers 'contractual' disputes and they would love to take on a nice, tasty and obvious case like this!!!)

I've always considered the non transferable warranty to be a "get out of our responsibility" clause. No matter which company employ it.

Decent exhaust manufacturer's have a transferable warranty. The warranty i inherited with a scorpion stainless exhaust was validated by a simple registration call with the company.

Trouble at t'Mill wrote: How much louder is the exhaust noise without the rear box? If not significant, then I'd be tempted to do without it too.

However, back to Hippotastic's situation. I'm astonished to hear that Kwik-Fit have that clause in their warranty terms, as it's patently unreasonable. The Sale of Goods Act would soon give it short shrift. In fact, even a 1-year guarantee is relatively meaningless under this act, as goods MUST perform to a level and life-expectancy that is 'reasonable'.

The exhaust is very marginally louder without the backbox.

Doesn't the Sale of Goods Act only apply between the seller and the original purchaser?