Hi Forum Experts
I bought a Mitsubishi Colt CZ3 2006 in June this year. I was told they were a good car and that the RAC had said they rarely had a problem.
I replaced the rear shocks within 2 weeks of purchase. Was told by the garage at the time that the bolts to the axle needed replacement sooner rather than later - but when the engineer looked up the part replacement discovered the whole axle had to be replaced costing over £600 +. I didn't have the money. And, he said based on my driving profile - I'd be okay for 6 months.
It's now six months and because of work - my driving is about to increase plus with Christmas I'll be travelling much more taking family passengers that I don't want to harm because my car isn't up to speck.
Do I really have to replace the whole of the rear axle when it's just the bolts that are worn away? The mechanic said that it was likely the previous owner either lived up a country lane or just went over speed bumps regularly at speed!
Does anyone know the answer:
This is the website I found about parts and the part I have to replace is 41693B and the part they are saying I have to replace which includes 41693B is 41701A.
http://autopartmaster.com/en/?action...2&id_pic=56908
I don't totally understand this but from what I can see - the parts are independent of 41701A. But I could be so wrong and there could be a good reason why a mechanic would say replace it all rather than just the 41693B parts?
It's interesting that one of the reason I bought this car was because the owner said he had been told by a guy he knew in the RAC that these cars rarely break-down and rarely have issues and their engines go for over 150,000 miles with just regular servicing.
Interestingly, the brake pads and discs at the front now need replacing - when they were replaced by the previous owner only a year ago - so there seems to be something odd there - what could that be?
Thank you to anyone who takes the time to reply.
I bought a Mitsubishi Colt CZ3 2006 in June this year. I was told they were a good car and that the RAC had said they rarely had a problem.
I replaced the rear shocks within 2 weeks of purchase. Was told by the garage at the time that the bolts to the axle needed replacement sooner rather than later - but when the engineer looked up the part replacement discovered the whole axle had to be replaced costing over £600 +. I didn't have the money. And, he said based on my driving profile - I'd be okay for 6 months.
It's now six months and because of work - my driving is about to increase plus with Christmas I'll be travelling much more taking family passengers that I don't want to harm because my car isn't up to speck.
Do I really have to replace the whole of the rear axle when it's just the bolts that are worn away? The mechanic said that it was likely the previous owner either lived up a country lane or just went over speed bumps regularly at speed!
Does anyone know the answer:
This is the website I found about parts and the part I have to replace is 41693B and the part they are saying I have to replace which includes 41693B is 41701A.
http://autopartmaster.com/en/?action...2&id_pic=56908
I don't totally understand this but from what I can see - the parts are independent of 41701A. But I could be so wrong and there could be a good reason why a mechanic would say replace it all rather than just the 41693B parts?
It's interesting that one of the reason I bought this car was because the owner said he had been told by a guy he knew in the RAC that these cars rarely break-down and rarely have issues and their engines go for over 150,000 miles with just regular servicing.
Interestingly, the brake pads and discs at the front now need replacing - when they were replaced by the previous owner only a year ago - so there seems to be something odd there - what could that be?
Thank you to anyone who takes the time to reply.