'Engineer' reports for modifications

Currently reading:
'Engineer' reports for modifications

Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
305
Points
55
Location
Somerset
Is it normal for a insurance company to request an 'engineer's report' on any major work done to a vehicle? I bought some suspension bits expecting to be able to fit them myself but have found that I need to get a garage to do it to i) ensure the workmanship is up to scratch ii) ensure the modification itself is suitable for the car.

Also, Quinn, for some reason, now refuse to tell me how much lowering my car will cost without the engineers report from having done it. Yet they were happy to quote precisely £97.53 two weeks ago :confused:

No doubt a fair few on here have fitted suspension mods - have you been able to do them yourself or did your insurance company make you to pay a garage?

One garage is quoting 1-1.5hrs labour, while another is quoting 3hrs+
How long should it take for a garage to change a cento's 4 springs and 2 front struts?
 
yup only quinn that do that! never heard/seen it done before. maybe they want to clarify 1. the drop in mm 2. its all safely fitted.

i've heard insurance companies ask you to get prof's to fit new discs and then they just fax a confirmation to the insurer but thats about it.

they want alot thou, mine was about 40quid iirc and im fully comp.
 
Ah okay, just another of Quinn's ridiculous company policies. I suppose it makes up for letting me put on 14s for 'free'

Why they call it an engineers report I don't know. I'm hoping that my local tyre place (know the owner well) will be sufficient for Quinn to be happy.

Cheers Custard
 
when i enquired with quinn on lowering my car they said to me as well i needed a mechanics report.
But when renewal time came, i had it done by my mate whos a mechanic at his house and i told quinn it had been done but they never said it needed to be checked then.
 
Well now, I have no experience of modifications in this way, but an Engineer's Report may not always be a bad thing.

When I dented a car very badly about 10 years ago, I thought it was a goner. V Surprised when the garage / insurer (Direct Line) said it could be repaired since the main A and B pillars were bent as well as the underbody. Repair went ahead and I refused to take the car back afterwards as it was visibly not right - the side of the body (undersill) was clearly all croked, only hidden by new doors put over, and the B pillar still had a whopping great big dent in it.

Direct Line, in fairness, were great after my compliants and arranged an Engineer's Report who advised the car was poorly repaired and had originally been so damaged that repair should never have been attempted the vehicle was good only for the crusher.

So, however much of a pain, all these things are there for our ultimate benefit.
 
Well now, I have no experience of modifications in this way, but an Engineer's Report may not always be a bad thing.

When I dented a car very badly about 10 years ago, I thought it was a goner. V Surprised when the garage / insurer (Direct Line) said it could be repaired since the main A and B pillars were bent as well as the underbody. Repair went ahead and I refused to take the car back afterwards as it was visibly not right - the side of the body (undersill) was clearly all croked, only hidden by new doors put over, and the B pillar still had a whopping great big dent in it.

Direct Line, in fairness, were great after my compliants and arranged an Engineer's Report who advised the car was poorly repaired and had originally been so damaged that repair should never have been attempted the vehicle was good only for the crusher.

So, however much of a pain, all these things are there for our ultimate benefit.

Thats an accident damage engineers report though, not mod report.
 
Thats an accident damage engineers report though, not mod report.

Absolutley it was. But the point I was trying to make is that even though a report for mods is a pain, it is really there for our own purpose and to ensure we can still get insured if certain mods have been done.

Who wants to lower the suspension and then find after an accident that the mod is used as an excuse for not paying out - even if it was a totally safe mod. So, the engineer's report protects the insurer and us in this case - and ensures we do not end up at the wrong end of some idiot who has done dodgy mods and therefore driving about in an unsafe car.
 
In view of the 2 reports below, I can see the case for the insurance companies asking for a report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7001520.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7990177.stm

Both reports are for the same accident and present a powerful argument for an engineer's report when suspension / steering work is carried.

I know you buys are more interested in lowering than lifting, are highly unlikely to carry out any amendments like that but the insurance companies will claim the same principles apply.


Trev (off for a lie down after such a serious post)
 
I agree... these reports make absolute sense. We need to know that the people we're sharing the roads with have safely modified cars with all the bolts torqued up properly.

It'd be interesting to know how many on this forum who've done major works on their cars actually bothered to use torque wrenches...

That said, it's annoying to have to cough up for something you're perfectly capable of doing yourself.

In my case, it worked out quite well and I actually did the rear springs myself and just got the garage to do the fronts and just check the torques on the rear strut bolts.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top