Getting my 1995 C180 W202 checked over mechanically

[Jamesie]

Basically I've had a good quote from a bodyshop on a restoration job for the above, which I bought three weeks ago.

The car runs absolutely fine and to my untrained eye everything looks fine, but before spending money on it I want to be sure there isn't something obvious that will give me cost-ineffective grief just around the corner.

Now I know that a good number of faults can't be predicted, but does anyone know of someone in the Edinburgh area who I could take the car to for a once-over to see what's what under the bonnet?

Cheers

Jamesie

 

[Jamesie]

I suppose option 2 would be to have my next service a little earlier and see if anything is spotted at that point...

 

[Jamesie]

Just been on the excellent http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/ website.

Interesting to find that the car failed its 2009 MOT on a bald tyre but nothing else. No advisory notice. However, in 2008 (from a different garage) it had the following advisory notices (no evidence from the service history of this lot being attended to:

Nearside Front Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Offside Front just acceptable Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Front to rear Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Front Sub-frame corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Nearside Front Suspension arm corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Offside Front Suspension arm corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Nearside Rear Tie bar/rod corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Offside Rear Tie bar/rod corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Nearside Front Brake hose slightly deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)
Offside Front Brake hose slightly deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)
Nearside Front suspension has slight play in a lower suspension ball joint (2.5.B.1a)
Offside Front suspension has slight play in a lower suspension ball joint (2.5.B.1a)
Hangers corroded Exhaust has part of the system slightly deteriorated (7.1.1a)
Nearside Front Coil spring corroded (2.4.C.1b)
Offside Front Coil spring corroded (2.4.C.1b)
Nearside Front Shock absorber has slight corrosion to the casing (2.7.2a)
Offside Front Shock absorber has slight corrosion to the casing (2.7.2a)
Front and rear brake hoses metal sections corroded.

Is this excessive for the age and what can you see being problematic here in future? Basically, would you be spending money on getting the body of this car sorted out or would you be happy to get a year out of it on the basis of what I've quoted?

 

[stevesey]

Just been on the excellent http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/ website.

Interesting to find that the car failed its 2009 MOT on a bald tyre but nothing else. No advisory notice. However, in 2008 (from a different garage) it had the following advisory notices (no evidence from the service history of this lot being attended to:

Nearside Front Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Offside Front just acceptable Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Front to rear Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Front Sub-frame corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Nearside Front Suspension arm corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Offside Front Suspension arm corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Nearside Rear Tie bar/rod corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Offside Rear Tie bar/rod corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Nearside Front Brake hose slightly deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)
Offside Front Brake hose slightly deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)
Nearside Front suspension has slight play in a lower suspension ball joint (2.5.B.1a)
Offside Front suspension has slight play in a lower suspension ball joint (2.5.B.1a)
Hangers corroded Exhaust has part of the system slightly deteriorated (7.1.1a)
Nearside Front Coil spring corroded (2.4.C.1b)
Offside Front Coil spring corroded (2.4.C.1b)
Nearside Front Shock absorber has slight corrosion to the casing (2.7.2a)
Offside Front Shock absorber has slight corrosion to the casing (2.7.2a)
Front and rear brake hoses metal sections corroded.

Is this excessive for the age and what can you see being problematic here in future? Basically, would you be spending money on getting the body of this car sorted out or would you be happy to get a year out of it on the basis of what I've quoted?

Do the brake pipes look like they have been replaced?

All that "slight" corrosion is not unexpected on that age of car - wondering if that's an over keen MOT tester trying drum up some work. Sounds like a good clean and coating of Waxoyl could have been all that was needed.

 

[jaymanek]

I wouldnt worry too much about advisories... they are more a way of the garage covering their backsides... they are a waste of time IMO.. either its a fail or it isnt... giving the testers a "im not really sure and dont want to risk my job" button is a complete waste of time.

 

[nick mercedes]

Just been on the excellent http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/ website.

Interesting to find that the car failed its 2009 MOT on a bald tyre but nothing else. No advisory notice. However, in 2008 (from a different garage) it had the following advisory notices (no evidence from the service history of this lot being attended to:

Nearside Front Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Offside Front just acceptable Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Front to rear Brake pipe slightly corroded (3.6.B.2c)
Front Sub-frame corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Nearside Front Suspension arm corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Offside Front Suspension arm corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Nearside Rear Tie bar/rod corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Offside Rear Tie bar/rod corroded but not seriously weakened (2.4.G.1)
Nearside Front Brake hose slightly deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)
Offside Front Brake hose slightly deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)
Nearside Front suspension has slight play in a lower suspension ball joint (2.5.B.1a)
Offside Front suspension has slight play in a lower suspension ball joint (2.5.B.1a)
Hangers corroded Exhaust has part of the system slightly deteriorated (7.1.1a)
Nearside Front Coil spring corroded (2.4.C.1b)
Offside Front Coil spring corroded (2.4.C.1b)
Nearside Front Shock absorber has slight corrosion to the casing (2.7.2a)
Offside Front Shock absorber has slight corrosion to the casing (2.7.2a)
Front and rear brake hoses metal sections corroded.

Is this excessive for the age and what can you see being problematic here in future? Basically, would you be spending money on getting the body of this car sorted out or would you be happy to get a year out of it on the basis of what I've quoted?

None of it is worth worrying about.

 

[Jamesie]

Thanks guys. Would something more serious likely have been picked up by the MOT testers? Presumably so. The more I think about this the keener I am to get the bodywork fixed! Not had a chance to check out the brakepipes yet to see if they've been replaced but will do so. They seem quite cheap to replace anyway even if they haven't.

 

[Smiley]

If I got a list of stupid advisories like that from an MOT tester I would politely suggest that he got himself another job that he felt competent to do without humming and erring his way through life. What a wazzock.

 

[Dieselman]

If I got a list of stupid advisories like that from an MOT tester I would politely suggest that he got himself another job that he felt competent to do without humming and erring his way through life. What a wazzock.

Oddly enough, I'd think just the opposite.
It sounds like he's done an excellent job of highlighting areas that are on the way to causing problems but not severe enough to fail the car on.

This gives the owner chance to rectify the issues before the car becomes dangerous or fails an MOT test.

Isn't that what advisories are for...to advise. Ah, but then we couldn't call him childish names, could we.

 

[Stratman]

Lower ball joints (as in the advisory) and steering damper fluid loss are very popular faults on W202s

 

[IanA2]

I had a 95 202...excellent car....sold mine locally and still see it.

 

[Jamesie]

Lower ball joints (as in the advisory) and steering damper fluid loss are very popular faults on W202s

Are the ball joints easy/cheap enough to fix? The parts seem modestly priced anyway.

 

[Jamesie]

I had a 95 202...excellent car....sold mine locally and still see it.

This is my first Merc, only had for three weeks so far but very much impressed!

 

[Smiley]

Oddly enough, I'd think just the opposite.
It sounds like he's done an excellent job of highlighting areas that are on the way to causing problems but not severe enough to fail the car on.

This gives the owner chance to rectify the issues before the car becomes dangerous or fails an MOT test.

Isn't that what advisories are for...to advise. Ah, but then we couldn't call him childish names, could we.

Quite we couldn't.
The way I read through it it sounded over zealous to the point where it was taking away the helpful aspects of advisory notes. A couple of yrs ago I had an advisory on brake pipes starting to crack - very useful and got them changed before they got so bad to fail - so I agree the system is useful - but applied sensibly.

 

[grober]

You have to expect a bit of underbody corrosion on a 14 year old car. Think carefully before spending a lot of money on the bodywork. Will you recoup the cost in the cars enhanced appearance in the long term.

 

[normanr]

If it is any help I had a 1999 202 and I had an advisory when it went in for a service saying rear brake hoses needed replacing before the next MOT. due to cracking I had a look at them and they did not look bad to me, after that the car had 2 MOT's done and they said nothing about brake hoses.

Norman

 

[Jamesie]

Got some great advice on this thread, but still looking for a Merc-friendly mechanic in Edinburgh to have a look over...any recommendations?