Breezy_Pete

That all looks like a ton of fun.

I guess you could run some logs of the engine ECU's 'view' of the brake pedal switch and see if you get false switch activations corresponding with the cruise oddities? And/or the Central Electrics module view of the brake light switch. (Think I've remembered those right, apologies if not).

Ah, that makes more sense.

Bloody Hell! £11 here when I last bought one, admittedly a few years back. PM me.

If the brake pedal switch is factory original I would expect that's responsible (purely on the basis that they don't seem to quite last the lifetime of these cars, and it is used in that system). Quite cheap to buy genuine replacements here, let me know if they're weirdly expensive in your country and I'll post you a spare one I have.

There are actually relatively few dash warning lights that cause failure of MOT, but I can't summon the energy to look up which ones they are just now.

I think there was a suggestion a while back that it was under consideration for the future, but no more than that. You don't need a spare tyre or repair kit to pass an MOT. If you do have one, it can't make you fail whatever its condition. Obviously it makes little sense to carry a spare that won't be usable when needed, but MOT doesn't care.

Not true.

I was just using the wording from the MOT manual @J.R. 5.2.3.(l) Tyre obviously under-inflated That would be open to interpretation, clearly, and as a Minor category in the MOT isn't even a fail, let alone illegal. I think you can get pulled and fined/pointed for it whilst driving though, like for tread 'issues', but I can't quote a law for you. I believe there are some people on here who will know though. As to run-flats, which I guess may not even appear to be 'obviously under-inflated' (? dunno), yes, should pass. AFAIK there is no pressure measuring. Even when you read about TPMS w.r.t. MOT, you can't fail for low pressure indications, only that the system is faulty, if it is visibly so.

They don't need to see if it's there.

Actually the madness is worse than you thought. Look at the fail reasons for tyre condition. You can present a car for test with an 'obviously under-inflated' tyre and only get a minor for it. Which means you can drive away with an MOT pass without even pumping it up. Police can still do you though, (I hope?) irrespective.

Makes a tiny bit of sense. Think about it this way. You carry a legal spare, you get a puncture meaning you have to fit that spare. Now your spare is illegal to fit as a road wheel (insufficient pressure). Is your car now illegal to drive?

Not true. As it says in there; the tester should inform the presenter of the car if a problem with a spare tyre 'is noticed', but it isn't something you can fail the test on.

^ Agreed. Relevant section of test manual here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/5-axles-wheels-tyres-and-suspension

That's probably true, but it doesn't mean that you can just bung another instrument cluster in and it'll sort itself out and display that. @hutchysrs50; please could you let us know how easy/difficult it is to replace clusters and sort out odo and immo aspects, I seem to remember you being pretty clued up?

Loads, but once the bolt starts to bind up in the aluminium you basically have two choices. 1. Give up, do it back up and hope you didn't really need to do the job you were setting about doing. 2. Keep trying to get it out even if you have to snap it to do so. Reason being that it goes through the subframe as well as wishbone on its way into the big long threaded hole through the console. So you have to get the bolt out in order to get these other bits off the car. Right side viewed from above:

Thanks for sharing. What's it like to remove/refit?

Clocks.

You (and the rest of us) know your (and Moley's) apparent popularity is mostly down to you reliably liking each other's relentless, very purposeful replies to the First Word thread. No real popularity. Glad you're helping to save the planet with a car more suited to you though.

I did it without either, but it isn't easy; lots of grief would be a better description, and takes quite a while too. In fact just recently I discovered that I'd cocked it up a bit, in that the clutch that I'd fitted a couple of years before the swap got some damage during the swap and needed replacing again.. Not a job to take lightly.

Sorry, no, I did the swap myself.

I'd agree, and did the same on our Mk1 18 months ago. Ours lasted about 160k, found one with 100k less for £165 delivered. Felt like a slight gamble but paid off.

If the listings say BZG (engine code) then they should be compatible. They'll either be the same gearbox code as yours, or an earlier or later one. Ratios will be very close if not the same. Get one that's as young as possible and with lowest mileage. Edit: How many miles has your car done? What problem is your box having?

Actually, I'm not sure those pictured part numbers are necessarily helpful, as they seem to be just casting part numbers for that half of the gearbox case, rather than part number of the whole complete gearbox. So there may be overlap between casting numbers and different gearbox codes. Better to go by code.

This listing shows a cross-reference between the part number in your listing and gearbox code GRZ, which is used on 1.4-engined cars rather than 1.2. So it'll physically fit, I think, but the ratios may be non-ideal. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VW-POLO-GEARBOX-5-SPEED-MANUAL-1-4-PETROL-CODE-GRZ/333150379704?hash=item4d914f5eb8:g:R2sAAOSw3gJZHuvQ