A Failed WOF.

[E36 M 9]

Ok, so my sisters car was in need of a warrant. Took it down there and it failed because of the speed rotation on the tyres was different? What does that mean?? I dont understand, you've got your typical run down mitsi's and toyotas worth less then her four sets of tyres and they pass the majority of the time yet hers fail? Just wanting to know why?

[yng_750 247]

Ok, so my sisters car was in need of a warrant. Took it down there and it failed because of the speed rotation on the tyres was different? What does that mean?? I dont understand, you've got your typical run down mitsi's and toyotas worth less then her four sets of tyres and they pass the majority of the time yet hers fail? Just wanting to know why?

not quite sure what you mean

but i presume it either means you have mismatching tyre sizing left to right or one side is worn enough to make a difference in overall circumference

my guess would be the prior

also the argument that it should pass because its better than crappy cars is fairly redundant her car is probably fairly run down compared to a 2010 car but a 2010 can still fail a warrent

[Smac01 12]

They were probably referring to the speed rating of the tyres.

Eg W, U, Z......

http://www.blackcircles.com/general/speedrating

Edit:

Here is a quote from the NZTA website which might be what the inspector was referring to.

"Having tyres of different construction or size fitted to the same axle is dangerous and illegal.

Mixing tyre types affects driving control. At the very least, fit the same type of tyre to the same axle (front or rear)."

Edited May 16, 2011 by brunch

[E36 M 9]

They were probably referring to the speed rating of the tyres.

Eg W, U, Z......

http://www.blackcircles.com/general/speedrating

Edit:

Here is a quote from the NZTA website which might be what the inspector was referring to.

"Having tyres of different construction or size fitted to the same axle is dangerous and illegal.

Mixing tyre types affects driving control. At the very least, fit the same type of tyre to the same axle (front or rear)."

Sorry yeah was speed rating. But they are all the same sizes and brands. Its gotten a warrant before with them but this time failed. Was quite weird.

[cliffdunedin 8]

Possibly speed rating issues!? Maybe different ones on each tyre?

Don't know the exact law on it but this may give some insight.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicle/choosing/basics.html#tyres

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/virm-in-...d-hubs-v4a2.pdf

[E36 M 9]

also the argument that it should pass because its better than crappy cars is fairly redundant her car is probably fairly run down compared to a 2010 car but a 2010 can still fail a warrent

Sorry, i was meaning cars like my mates 92 Mazda thats done 400k+ with rust all over the place and looking like a dog still passes. And im just confused as it's passed before with those tyres and wheels on it.

[cliffdunedin 8]

They were probably referring to the speed rating of the tyres.

Eg W, U, Z......

Bet too the punch

[E36 M 9]

Thanks for the help. Much appreciated. I just can't see why it failed this time and not the other times. Oh well whats done is done, we have to order new tyres for it now.

[Jamez 2147483647]

it's passed before with those tyres and wheels on it.

Thats because a WOF can be fairly subjective and they check different things each time.

[kwhelan 241]

Thats because a WOF can be fairly subjective and they check different things each time.

you cant mix a directional/assymetrical with a standard either on the same axle

cant you just swop one tyre to an equal speed/weight rating ,would cost less

[E36 M 9]

Thats because a WOF can be fairly subjective and they check different things each time.

Yeah true, thats the dumb thing about WOF's, sometimes they dont even check half the stuff they are supposed to, but sometimes they check every little detail, Ah well

[E36 M 9]

Ok, so found out one was a Z and the other was a W, but surely it shouldnt matter as they are the highest speed rating you can get? And 280k is illegal here anyway. Oh well never mind, all solved , borrowed some tyres, got the wof, then put the tyres back on

[bellicose 9]

This will give you an idea of how "subjective" warrant checks are, also who the muppet is testing the car and how his day is going.

My son has an'88 Hilux xtra cab, lowered on 17s with primer all over it.

Last WOF (with previous owner) it got was from AA testing with only 'loose tow ball and 1 bulb' as a fail. That's fair enough, this WOF check i took it to VTNZ (take all my cars there with minimum fuss).

So ute failed on front wheel bearing, tie rod end, no door cards, head lights need adjusting and front wheels rubbing on full lock.

Wasn't happy 'bout those things as i'd gone over the car myself and it was fine (yes i've got the board for HD adjustment) and told the young new guy that did check, a heated arguement ensued and he started crossing things off that he had failed and said "oh ok i'll let that go then but see if you can fix it" WTF!

Anyway i thought 'nah ya fu*king little upstart', left VTNZ and drove straight 'round to AA, showed them the VTNZ sheet and the guys there said "no worries mate, we'll do a new check and you can check it out with us as we do it".

Long story short, passed at AA with no fails and only one verbal comment, the tester was a bit concerned someone had played with the LSD as it was tight and would sometimes bind up.

Moral of the story, get a human to do a WOF and you will get a different result everyday with the same car.

[kingkarl 136]

The local VTNZ is my favourite. They're muppets but in the way that benefits me.

I had a brake light out and they didn't pick up on it for 3 separate warrant checks over 18 months.

It took them 4 checks to pick up my HUGE exhaust leak also. I wonder how loud they think an 80s corona should be.

My CV joint is knackered but that doesn't seem to be an issue to them either.

And then there's the rear shocks that were so shite I chose to replace on my own accord because I knew they weren't safe. Apparently not an issue for them though.

What I think they should consider is quality of tyres. My old semi-expensive BALD dunlops were much grippier/safer than the BRAND NEW POS chinese death traps I replaced them with (wet and dry I sh*t you not).

Better an old good quality tyre than a brand new sh*t one.

[Shady 0]

When I went to get my Pinky removed (ages ago now) in my E30 my front shocks were soft and sloppy and the front bounced all over the place + front rotors were warped and uneven. The only thing I failed on was a crooked headlight (I didnt put them back in properly). But I still replaced the shocks and rotors with some donors from another E30 I bought cos I didnt like the feel.

[Mike 1]

Brake light is bread and butter, no excuses for missing that. but, from my understanding on Wof rules...

CV is mechanical, not generally a safety issue.

Shocks normally only fail if they're visibly leaking. Otherwise its too subjective as to how worn is too worn. I imagine shock absorbing qualities would have to be worse than boat-like to fail a WoF for that.

Much as same as you're arguement about tyres. you may well be right but to have different wear limits for different models/makes of tyres is just stupid

[Shady 0]

CVs arent WOF issue (cant fail on cracks or knocking CVs) BUT they should write it down and inform the customer to get it fixed. Pretty stupid being a non-WOF matter cos if they implod then sh*t hits the fan and you may have a nasty crash to deal with. A CV imploding would be more dangerous than a tyre different to the one opposite it.

NZTA need to revise the WOF test majorly.

[antil33t 90]

can they check CV's without driving the car?

my wof place doesn't even drive the car faster than 2km/h.

[Yankus 0]

Shocks Only a fail if they have leaked 3/4 of the way down the shaft.

CV will only fail if a split boot is throwing grease onto the brakes.

And yes WOF are very subjective and depends on the person doing the checking.

[Carl 3]

Subjective as they are be glad you live in a country that has warrants

I stopped going to the VTNZ (thorndon) as they were nazi's on my e30 for the stupidest things and go to a mechanic just around the corner - more so I can leave my car there for the day and not have to queue up. The first time I was there the found small problems and after talking to me were happy to wof it as I fixed them in the following weeks.

[my_e36 43]

I had a split CV boot and the place passed me ok but with a note on the check sheet. That said, it wasn't throwing anything into the brakes but a bit went on the wheel and suspension parts.

I too tried not to go to VTNZ, they are sometimes too picky on small things. Sometimes I wonder they are related to all the people that place ads around the place. Recently they started selling retail items like a mini-Repco with 15% mark-up over Repco's retail price.

[dubman 39]

VTNZ offered me 16 dollar per litre of Total engine oil recently, saying my engine was low on oil, when the dip stick was well above the half mark

and for CV boots, dad's Toyota failed twice for split boots, and this was at a $25 dollar WoF place, at 2 separate locations

[hotwire 352]

CVs arent WOF issue (cant fail on cracks or knocking CVs) BUT they should write it down and inform the customer to get it fixed. Pretty stupid being a non-WOF matter cos if they implod then sh*t hits the fan and you may have a nasty crash to deal with. A CV imploding would be more dangerous than a tyre different to the one opposite it.

NZTA need to revise the WOF test majorly.

I concur on the CV subject. I understand that if not already, WOF failure of split boots is in the pipeline. Glenn or someone in the know, if they see may confirm:-

And so it should be. I remember a few years back, a mate of mine's Legacy had a CV joint implode while he was driving - gave him a hell of a fright - almost threw him of the road, which when I drove the car - I could imagine. Phoned me thinking his car had fallen apart, I went & rescued him & car - to find the drivers front CV had imploded. This was at that stage a well maintained car albeit with a split boot.

[hybrid 1043]

Think im going to create a separate forum for these threads .. is user demand really that high ?

[polley 916]

I've heard of people passing warrants at VTNZ that have had engine swaps.