Ducato X250 rear leaf springs: MOT issues

[Shaun]

I've started a new thread as the last one sidetracked into uprated suspensions, when the main issue was the MOT failure of my Adria Twin, due to insufficient clearance between axle and bump stops. My concern was whether the Fiat dealer was right to fail the MOT due to the rigid adherence to test rules, then benefit from replacing the allegedly failed springs, to the tune of £1,100.

 

I've spent an anxious fortnight waiting for the dealer to respond. There was no answer to my email which outlined my grievance as to the MOT failure, plus the tester's assertion that the original springs should never been fitted by Adria (as they couldn't properly bear the motorhome load), and I should take the matter up with Adria, as to the premature failure of the springs, after just 14,000 miles.

 

Fiat had taken the same stance by making no effort to defend its own suspension design which, like the Ford Transit, has caused confusion among MOT testers, due to the extended bump stops being too close to the rear axle. Fiat also suggested I take up the matter with Adria.

 

Finally, today, the service manager of the dealership rang me. I was expecting a whole host of arguments as to why they were right to do what they did, and I'd rehearsed each and every counter argument many times. This has been stressful, mainly due to the cost and also because even fitting new springs didn't achieve any clearance between springs and bump stops. How can that situation be an MOT failure one minute, then a pass with new springs which didn't achieve the desired clearance? Is this situation going to arise every year at MOT time?

 

The service manager made things very easy and it all turned out right in the end. He appreciated just how much time I'd spent on this, but he also had spent ages investigating, much of which entailed talks with various VOSA departments. The first one he contacted (the local one) said the MOT tester was correct, and the lack of clearance meant MOT failure. The service manager said that this issue was caused by Fiat's Ducato design and that VOSA had on occasion been called upon to clarify matters, and had done so by stating that these designs should not lead to MOT failure.

 

Local VOSA new nothing of this, so next stop for the Fiat service manager was further up the VOSA ladder. Same answer. MOT failure was appropriate if there's no clearance. The service manager then went to the top, which was the VOSA Contact Centre in Swansea. He was armed with the pair of quotes I'd provided from both Fiat and VOSA's own answer to a query (both which I'd nicked from earlier threads on a similar issue), which stated that the extended bump stops on some newly designed suspensions should NOT in themselves lead to MOT failure. This time VOSA agreed - but, wouldn't put it in writing to the dealer.

 

At this point, my Fiat dealership was prepared to say 'hands up, we got it wrong', but that in mitigation VOSA aren't helping matters at all.

 

The service manager explained to me that instructions as to new MOT rules were forwarded to dealerships quite regularly and all revisions are computerised and accessible by MOT testers. There was nothing documented about this issue, and the MOT tester concerned had never been told about how to treat extended bump stops which caused the insufficient clearance and MOT failure.

 

I therefore asked the service manager how the van had passed its MOT last year at the same place. In response, that was likely to have been due to a different tester having been aware of this particular suspension design, with the latest tester having not. However, as VOSA have issued no general guidance which can be picked up by all testers, we now have the 'some will pass it; some will fail it' situation.

 

I then asked the service manager why the MOT tester made the assertion that Adria had fitted the incorrect springs at conversion, and that they weren't able to support the motorhome load. I said that's quite a far-reaching statement for a humble MOT tester to make. The answer to that one was that the MOT tester had no right (nor suitable experience) to say that, and he would be told that in no uncertain terms.

 

Regrettably, from the wider motorhome owner perspective, it seems there's no easy solution to this situation. It seems very odd that VOSA will not issue direct instructions to MOT testing stations that they shouldn't fail these suspension setups. However, VOSA will be prepared to say over the phone on a case-by-case basis (to MOT testers at the point of inspection if necessary) that these suspension types are not MOT failures. However, to further muddy the issue, VOSA suggests the MOT tester should pass the vehicle, but may wish to issue a warning.

 

If I'm hearing all of this correctly, it seems the MOT test rules simply haven't caught up with the newer extended bump stop rear suspension setups, so MOT testers are entitled to stick to the standard rules about necessary clearance between axle and bump stops. The Fiat service manager agreed that motorhome owners could face the same issue year after year until VOSA bring the rules up to date and issue absolute clarification to MOT test stations.

 

I've saved the best bit until last. As the Fiat dealership accepted that my van should not have failed the MOT and that the original springs were not knackered, I had asked for those springs to be put back on my van and a full £1,100 refund given. The service manager did better than that. I took back the old springs, he left the new uprated ones on the van, then refunded me in full.

 

So after taking far too long to respond to my concerns, I have to say all credit to this particular dealership (Fiat, Epsom) for making no attempt to cover up their own shortcomings (of all people, a Fiat dealership should know about these suspension setups, including their MOT testers). Also credit to them for recognising how much time and effort this has taken me to get resolved. Finally, when they could have simply put the old springs back on, they left the brand new, uprated springs in place, and refunded the cost.

 

Andy Stothert might not like me to mention this, as he keeps his head down these days. However, I think it's pertinent to mention that Andy got in touch with me to say he believed the dealership had got it wrong, as all of these vans have flat springs and his was the same from new, with bump stops on top of the springs. Andy suggested I should badger the dealership until they caved, so thanks to Andy for making me determined to see things through. As it happened, the dealership gave in very gracefully and did the right thing.

 

Shaun

 

 

 

 

[hallii]

Super post Shaun, very useful to those of use so affected, mine is a Transit and the springs whilst not on the " auxilary suspension units" prompted a comment from my MOT man that things were "a bit close".

 

I asked him to ring my local Ford Van Centre, he declined and issued a pass.

 

So I will see how it goes next year, hopefully VOSA will have updated their MOT guidlines, but don't hold your breath!

 

H

[onecal]

Hi Shaun,

Good post glad all work out well and the post may be helpful to others,

Regards,

Brendan

[Guest JudgeMental]

Excellent work Shaun...and good news!lol

 

So in 3 years time when first MOT due, best to take mine to Fiat Epsom! (not far from me) :D

[Shaun]

Valid point, Judge. This particular service manager says there'll be no problem at MOT time with them next year, but who knows if I take the van elsewhere...

 

I forgot to mention that they also refunded the MOT cost, which they really didn't have to do. And I swear I didn't mention this forum to them.

 

My wife just came home from work. I showed her the receipt from a couple of weeks ago, including the MOT, which came to £1,167.63. The pain of that day was etched on her face (and has been on mine this past fortnight!). I then showed her an almost identical receipt from today, but this time with the word REFUND, beneath which lay the magical number of £1,167.63.

 

When I added that they also gifted the new springs to us, her face lit up.

 

Sometimes life sucks. Sometimes it doesn't.

 

Shaun

 

 

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

Well done Shaun..

 

..see..it pays to be a pain in the ar*e sometimes ;-)

 

 

[dwaviation]

Excellent news Shaun... I hope you both enjoy the moment. :-D :-D :-D

[Harvey]

Yes, excellent news and thank you for the update.

 

Harvey

[George Collings]

Congrats Shaun.

 

 

Shaun's Quote

 

"Andy Stothert might not like me to mention this, as he keeps his head down these days. However, I think it's pertinent to mention that Andy got in touch with me to say he believed the dealership had got it wrong, as all of these vans have flat springs and his was the same from new, with bump stops on top of the springs. Andy suggested I should badger the dealership until they caved, so thanks to Andy for making me determined to see things through. As it happened, the dealership gave in very gracefully and did the right thing."

 

 

Remember my pic of the single leaf spring strange to relate it was Andys hence the reference to cigarette ash outside.

 

As its a new thread here it is again.

 

As VOSA appear reluctant to publicly advise MOT Testers regarding this issue despite the fact that unwarranted failures will continue to occurr perhaps it is time to raise this matter with your MP.

[rolandrat]

Brilliant post Shaun it just highlights the injustices that we can be subjected to on lifes highway and the stress that it causes, I'm pleased that it had a happy ending for you and your family.

[Shaun]

Well, the Chinese takeaway tonight consisted of more king prawns than usual!

 

Andy did tell me that George's pic above was of his van, which made me realise how ridiculous this whole situation is. There's Andy's Ducato from 2006, then we saw Eddie's pic of a brand new van five years later. Identical suspension setup. I then get these whizzbang uprated springs and, guess what.... no difference.

 

Whilst VOSA have had five years to get their act together and put a stop to all this nonsense, you'd have thought Fiat and Ford would be most annoyed at these random MOT failures which are directly attributable to their modern suspension designs. How come they haven't managed to persuade the gatekeepers of vehicle safety that the yes or no to roadworthiness is no longer dependent upon the simple distance between certain suspension components?

 

Whilst taking pictures of my new springs I looked long and hard at what goes on under there, trying to fathom what exactly the safety issue is. If I were to visibly ignore the bump stops (Fiat prefer 'spring assistors'), I see the axle with the single leaf springs affixed on top. Bearing down from above is the underside of the chassis, which is formed so that (depending on which bit I'm looking at) the gap between chassis and axle actually varies between around 100 and 150mm - four to six inches in old money. I'm surprised to see there are brake pipes in the same vicinity, which I feel could be fractured should there be a sudden meeting of axle and chassis.

 

And yet the rubber bits between the two major components - bump stops - aren't even a required fitting, from the MOT perspective. Yet it seems that if bump stops are actually fitted, then present MOT rules state they have to be well away from the axle. Why? Exactly what is the thinking behind all of this, from the vehicle safety perspective?

 

Shaun

 

 

 

 

 

[flicka]

Excellant post Shaun

& well done the Service Manager at Fiat Epsom, for sticking with the problem & a very honourable satisfactory outcome.

 

Unfortunately, it appears VOSA are in the same mould as the HSE (Health & Safety Executive) regarding issuing specific instructions. i.e. saying "you can't do that" but refusal to say how you can do it.

The common term is, HSE's PCB, ("primary cause of being" or more commonally "prevention of come-back ").

[Brian Kirby]

The error being made is reference to these items as bump stops.  They are not.

Fiat call them spring assisters, which is what they are.  The problem is, they look like elongated bump stops.  They are designed to work in conjunction with the leaf spring under load, taking advantage of the differing characteristics of steel under torsion and plastic under compression.

A bump stop is just that.  It is designed to prevent an the axle directly hitting the underside of the chassis, either under overload or on extremely uneven ground.  In normal use there will be a considerable clearance between the axle and the stop.

The fault, if fault is to be identified, lies with those manufacturers (definitely Ford and the SEVEL partners) who have introduced a modified type of suspension without advising VOSA of its design characteristics.

It requires the technical departments of both manufacturing groups to be written to at senior level to encourage them to clarify these suspension designs to VOSA, ideally copied to VOSA at appropriate level to alert them to the problem.

The barmy thing is my van has air assisters at the rear, completely replacing the plastic assisters, running in permanent compression between the axle and the original assister mounting point.  No clearances, no bump stops, and no MoT fail.  So air assister OK, plastic assister not OK.  Work that one out!  :-D

[jhorsf]

Well done Shaun good to see the Fiat dealer recognised he got it wrong and returned your money this was the right thing to do and not try to wriggle out of it

[dawki]

Hi Shaun

 

Fantastic outcome for you well done for sticking with it.

 

Cheers

 

Dawki

[Shaun]

I was frantically scribbling notes as I discussed matters with the service manager, and having just read them, I remember the main thing which is frustrating him, having talked to top level VOSA, is that he can't simply direct his MOT testers to pass these suspension setups, as they have to 'work to book' and the book doesn't recognise them. If he were to issue a 'submit to all' directive, in the absence of something official from VOSA, then he would be removing their independence as MOT testers, which he can't do.

 

He acknowledged that they get many Ducatos into the dealership, but my van was the first anyone had seen which had the spring assisters sitting over the axle. Being a Fiat dealership, I felt it somewhat bizarre that I was explaining how the spring assisters weren't actually bump stops and that motorhomes, being close to maximum load much of the time, were very likely to have the assisters in close proximity to the axle all the time.

 

It seems 'bump stops' has become a generic term, though technically incorrect for the suspension setups under discussion. It's rather like 'shock absorbers' being the incorrect term for 'dampers', but many refer to 'shockers'. From the MOT failure perspective, terminology and methodology hasn't been adapted to reflect these newer suspensions, hence reference on the failure notice to 'Rear axle has insufficient clearance with the bump stop'.

 

The problem will only go away when testers stop viewing the rubber extensions as bump stops, but if Fiat dealers can get it wrong, it could be an uphill battle if Ducato-based motorhomes are taken to MOT stations where testers are even less likely to be acquainted with this type of suspension.

 

Shaun

[Derek Uzzell]

As I said elsewhere, with FWD platform-cab or panel-van Ford Transits, the 'thingy' that sits between the chassis and rear axle is described as a "bump stop" in Ford's parts-list. In fact there are two "bump stops" in the parts-list - a short one plenty-of-clearance for vehicles below 3000kg MAM and a long little-or-no-clearance one for vehicles 3000kg MAM or above. Most, if not all, motorhomes based on the above chassis will have the long 'bump stop' that, in a few cases, seems to have caused problems when the motorhome is MOT-tested.

 

While Fiat may be prepared to refer to these parts as "spring assisters" (and I'd certainly agree that's an accurate description), Ford don't. (I suspect that, if you looked on Fiat's part-list, it's quite likely they are officially called "flexible side blocks", as that's their description on the italiaspeed website.)

 

The dilemma for the MOT-tester faced with a FWD Transit with factory-fitted 'spring assisters' is that the MOT rules clearly state that lack of bump-stop clearance merits test failure. Even if a tester concludes that the 'bump stops' are actually performing 'spring assistance' (and, hence, need to be close to or touching the vehicle's axle), he/she is still bound by the MOT rules. As Ford calls the 'spring assisters' on my Hobby "bump stops" and they are in constant contact with the Hobby's rear axle, then I must accept that the Hobby should fail the UK MOT test as it plainly does not meet the test's bump-stop-clearance requirement. In practice, as few FWD Transits (or Fiat Ducatos) appear to fall foul of the MOT test due to the bump-stop rule, this suggests that testers normally are using their expertise and discretion.

 

It does need emphasising that testers do need to protect their bums from vehicle owners (and vice versa for that matter!) There's a comment on an internet forum from a tester who had sawn off the bottoms of a motorhome's rear bump stops (at the owner's request and under the owner's supervision) to gain sufficient clearance to allow the vehicle to pass the MOT-test. Several months on, the motorhome's owner had lodged an official complaint against the tester relating to the 'shortening' exercise.

 

As this is a very technical issue, I'm doubtful that raising it via one's MP would be effective. However, if everyone owning a motorhome with these units wrote (and I do mean "wrote") to the base-vehicle manufacturer's customer service department, copying the letter to VOSA's Swansea centre, it just might move things along. As long as the MOT-test rules regarding bump-stop clearance contain no caveat about 'spring assisters' that resemble bump stops, then this potential problem will persist indefinitely.

[flicka]

Brian Kirby - 2011-05-04 10:44 PMThe fault, if fault is to be identified, lies with those manufacturers (definitely Ford and the SEVEL partners) who have introduced a modified type of suspension without advising VOSA of its design characteristics.

It requires the technical departments of both manufacturing groups to be written to at senior level to encourage them to clarify these suspension designs to VOSA, ideally copied to VOSA at appropriate level to alert them to the problemstops, and no MoT fail. 

Sorry Brian, I have to disagree with this.IMO it's definately a VOSA communications issue.As Shaun posted, the Fiat dealer's Service Manager had to go through 3 tiers of the VOSA heirachy to get the definative position. So it would appear that Fiat (Sevel) & Ford have already issued notification.Otherwise VOSA top tier would not have instructed the Service Manager that an MOT Pass should be issued.So WHY were the VOSA underlings NOT AWARE (?) (?) VOSA management not communicating within their own organisation & subsequently to ALL MOT testers.

[nowtelse2do]

 

A great outcome Shaun, well done.

 

I would suggest that Shaun's post should be printed and kept in your files for when the MOT time comes around, it just might save you a lot of aggro.

 

And well done Fiat at Epsom, I hope they can be reimbursed by Fiat themselves, but somehow I can't see that happening, can you?

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

flicka - 2011-05-05 8:19 PM

Brian Kirby - 2011-05-04 10:44 PMThe fault, if fault is to be identified, lies with those manufacturers (definitely Ford and the SEVEL partners) who have introduced a modified type of suspension without advising VOSA of its design characteristics.

It requires the technical departments of both manufacturing groups to be written to at senior level to encourage them to clarify these suspension designs to VOSA, ideally copied to VOSA at appropriate level to alert them to the problemstops, and no MoT fail. 

Sorry Brian, I have to disagree with this.IMO it's definately a VOSA communications issue.As Shaun posted, the Fiat dealer's Service Manager had to go through 3 tiers of the VOSA heirachy to get the definative position. So it would appear that Fiat (Sevel) & Ford have already issued notification.Otherwise VOSA top tier would not have instructed the Service Manager that an MOT Pass should be issued.So WHY were the VOSA underlings NOT AWARE (?) (?) VOSA management not communicating within their own organisation & subsequently to ALL MOT testers.

As factory-fitting of 'long bump-stops' as original equipment plainly causes occasional problems during the UK's MOT test, and it's clear that those problems result from the wording of the MOT''s basic regulations regarding bump-stops, then - to avoid similar problems in future - the wording of the basic regulations will need amendment and/or there will need to be an easily-accessible and clear instruction available to testers about how to assess this type of suspension component.I'm not sure how you've arrived at the conclusion "that Fiat (Sevel) & Ford have already issued notification" and I very much doubt that's the case. As Brian and I have both suggested, the best way forward would be for concerned owners of SEVEL and Ford-manufactured vehicles with long bump-stops to contact the vehicle manufacturer and make those concerns known, copying thir letters to VOSA. It's evident that not many SEVEL/Ford vehicles fail our MOT-test because of these long bump-stops, so it won't bother SEVEL/Ford greatly if vehicle-owners don't complain. And - like it or lump it - it's unrealistic to expect VOSA to be proactive about a minor non-safety-related regulatory problem if vehicle manufacturers and/or owners have not forcefully drawn VOSA's attention to it.Even if VOSA did issue a directive to MOT-testers about this type of 'spring assister' and cited specific vehicle models, this wouldn't necessarily be a Get-out-of-Gaol card. There are photos of X250 Ducato rear bump-stops on this earlier threadhttp://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=23404&start=31These show the bump-stops in contact with the rear springs but not significantly compressed, while the springs themselves still appear to have a natural concave 'smiley' curvature. It would seem reasonable for the photographed motorhomes to pass our MOT-test if the tester had been advised officially that chassis-to-spring bump-stops were acceptable for these vehicle models. Conversely, the photo provided by George Collings earlier in this thread shows a fair amount of 'squash' on the bump-stop and the rear spring seems to have little or no concave curve. It's possible that Andy's motorhome's suspension was photographed with the vehicl heavily loaded, but that's academic as far as the MOT-test is concerned. If I were an MOT-tester and had been made aware of VOSA advice about this type of suspension design, if I were presented with Andy's motorhome with its rear suspension looking like it is in the photo I'd still be minded to fail it. Even though it might be a false impression, the spring/bump-stop combination in the photo has a 'weakened' look to it that suggests that it's not safely up to the job.

[dwaviation]

As someone who has gone from a flat spring on the stop to a spring with a 'bend' in it and plenty of clearance, I found the ride difference comparable to chalk and cheese, much, much better...

[flicka]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-05-07 9:20 AM

flicka - 2011-05-05 8:19 PM

Brian Kirby - 2011-05-04 10:44 PMThe fault, if fault is to be identified, lies with those manufacturers (definitely Ford and the SEVEL partners) who have introduced a modified type of suspension without advising VOSA of its design characteristics.

It requires the technical departments of both manufacturing groups to be written to at senior level to encourage them to clarify these suspension designs to VOSA, ideally copied to VOSA at appropriate level to alert them to the problemstops, and no MoT fail. 

Sorry Brian, I have to disagree with this.IMO it's definately a VOSA communications issue.As Shaun posted, the Fiat dealer's Service Manager had to go through 3 tiers of the VOSA heirachy to get the definative position. So it would appear that Fiat (Sevel) & Ford have already issued notification.Otherwise VOSA top tier would not have instructed the Service Manager that an MOT Pass should be issued.So WHY were the VOSA underlings NOT AWARE (?) (?) VOSA management not communicating within their own organisation & subsequently to ALL MOT testers.

I'm not sure how you've arrived at the conclusion "that Fiat (Sevel) & Ford have already issued notification" and I very much doubt that's the case.

Derek - So how were VOSA aware, if not informed by the manufacturers' (?) (?) Shaun Posted: 4 May 2011 3:55 PMSubject: Ducato X250 rear leaf springs: MOT issues“The service manager made things very easy and it all turned out right in the end. He appreciated just how much time I'd spent on this, but he also had spent ages investigating, much of which entailed talks with various VOSA departments. The first one he contacted (the local one) said the MOT tester was correct, and the lack of clearance meant MOT failure. The service manager said that this issue was caused by Fiat's Ducato design and that VOSA had on occasion been called upon to clarify matters, and had done so by stating that these designs should not lead to MOT failure. Local VOSA new nothing of this, so next stop for the Fiat service manager was further up the VOSA ladder. Same answer. MOT failure was appropriate if there's no clearance. The service manager then went to the top, which was the VOSA Contact Centre in Swansea. He was armed with the pair of quotes I'd provided from both Fiat and VOSA's own answer to a query (both which I'd nicked from earlier threads on a similar issue), which stated that the extended bump stops on some newly designed suspensions should NOT in themselves lead to MOT failure. This time VOSA agreed - but, wouldn't put it in writing to the dealer.”I posted in reply to Brian.“As Shaun posted, the Fiat dealer's Service Manager had to go through 3 tiers of the VOSA heirachy to get the definative position. So it would appear that Fiat (Sevel) & Ford have already issued notification.”A reasonable assumption, I think, given that the VOSA Contact Centre in Swansea are aware of the situation with SEVEL vehicles, whilst declining to put this in writing. !!!!!!!!!Although I agree with your advise regarding writing to the manufacturers & VOSA, I still maintain it is a VOSA shortcoming & think we should be able to expect a Regulatory Body to issue updates as they occur & not giving a verbal notification without written backup.

[Shaun]

Whilst VOSA really do need to get their act together, It's also worth considering the relationship between Fiat UK and one of its main dealers. The latter were unaware of the close interaction of assisters and springs on this particular suspension design, not having encountered it before. I'd have thought that if a fully laden Ducato was presented for MOT it would look as mine did, but presumably not.

 

So why aren't Fiat arming their dealerships with the necessary information, or at least explaining its design if a dealer queries it? In my case Fiat just took the word of the MOT tester and washed their hands of what was being portrayed as a knackered suspension. If Fiat had responded to the effect that the spring assisters in some cases would sit very close to the axle, then the dealership would have had the opportunity to investigate further.

 

Worse still was Fiat ringing me to say they wouldn't contribute anything towards the cost of replacement springs due to the premature failure of the originals (which later transpired to be fine). Fiat would only accept the word of an uninformed MOT tester that the fault lay with Adria, who had fitted the wrong springs for a motorhome. When I attempted to argue the technicalities behind this erroneous statement, the Fiat guy said he wan't technically trained, so couldn't comment. Well why on earth was he responding to a technical matter?

 

So, we should be aware that Fiat seems unwilling to defend its questionable suspension design (from the MOT sense) - or at least a non-technical customer service agent will shift the blame elsewhere. Fiat will also stand behind the dealership without any investigation as to whether the dealer may have made a mistake. Isn't this the tail wagging the dog?

 

Depending on who really is running the show, will Fiat reimburse the dealer for fitting the new pair of springs now sitting on my van? There's a certain irony here in that Fiat sided with the dealer to wriggle out of contributing towards those new springs, but after this almighty cock-up, Fiat may now be faced with a much bigger bill.

 

Shaun

[Derek Uzzell]

flicka - 2011-05-07 8:27 PM

Derek Uzzell - 2011-05-07 9:20 AM

flicka - 2011-05-05 8:19 PM

Brian Kirby - 2011-05-04 10:44 PMThe fault, if fault is to be identified, lies with those manufacturers (definitely Ford and the SEVEL partners) who have introduced a modified type of suspension without advising VOSA of its design characteristics.

It requires the technical departments of both manufacturing groups to be written to at senior level to encourage them to clarify these suspension designs to VOSA, ideally copied to VOSA at appropriate level to alert them to the problemstops, and no MoT fail. 

Sorry Brian, I have to disagree with this.IMO it's definately a VOSA communications issue.As Shaun posted, the Fiat dealer's Service Manager had to go through 3 tiers of the VOSA heirachy to get the definative position. So it would appear that Fiat (Sevel) & Ford have already issued notification.Otherwise VOSA top tier would not have instructed the Service Manager that an MOT Pass should be issued.So WHY were the VOSA underlings NOT AWARE (?) (?) VOSA management not communicating within their own organisation & subsequently to ALL MOT testers.

I'm not sure how you've arrived at the conclusion "that Fiat (Sevel) & Ford have already issued notification" and I very much doubt that's the case.

Derek - So how were VOSA aware, if not informed by the manufacturers' (?) (?) Shaun Posted: 4 May 2011 3:55 PMSubject: Ducato X250 rear leaf springs: MOT issues“The service manager made things very easy and it all turned out right in the end. He appreciated just how much time I'd spent on this, but he also had spent ages investigating, much of which entailed talks with various VOSA departments. The first one he contacted (the local one) said the MOT tester was correct, and the lack of clearance meant MOT failure. The service manager said that this issue was caused by Fiat's Ducato design and that VOSA had on occasion been called upon to clarify matters, and had done so by stating that these designs should not lead to MOT failure. Local VOSA new nothing of this, so next stop for the Fiat service manager was further up the VOSA ladder. Same answer. MOT failure was appropriate if there's no clearance. The service manager then went to the top, which was the VOSA Contact Centre in Swansea. He was armed with the pair of quotes I'd provided from both Fiat and VOSA's own answer to a query (both which I'd nicked from earlier threads on a similar issue), which stated that the extended bump stops on some newly designed suspensions should NOT in themselves lead to MOT failure. This time VOSA agreed - but, wouldn't put it in writing to the dealer.”I posted in reply to Brian.“As Shaun posted, the Fiat dealer's Service Manager had to go through 3 tiers of the VOSA heirachy to get the definative position. So it would appear that Fiat (Sevel) & Ford have already issued notification.”A reasonable assumption, I think, given that the VOSA Contact Centre in Swansea are aware of the situation with SEVEL vehicles, whilst declining to put this in writing. !!!!!!!!!Although I agree with your advise regarding writing to the manufacturers & VOSA, I still maintain it is a VOSA shortcoming & think we should be able to expect a Regulatory Body to issue updates as they occur & not giving a verbal notification without written backup.

I refer you to Brian Kirby's 2nd 7 May 2010 posting on this earlier thread:HTTP://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=19542&start=1Brian quotes information provided to him by VOSA Contact Centre. This reveals that VOSA are aware of extended rear 'bump stops' performing 'spring assistance'. The Citroen Relay and Peugeot Boxer are specifically mentioned and Fiat referred to in passing. However, there is nothing to indicate that Citroen or Peugeot (or Fiat) contributed to VOSA's awareness. 'Old stagers' - like Brian, George Collings and me - will be well aware that this type of spring assister has been in use since the Year Dot. There's nothing novel or revolutionary about it and I'd expect older VOSA speciaiists to be familiar with it. However, that doesn't mean that Citroen/Fiat/Peugeot or Ford have deliberately chosen to warn VOSA that there are 'spring assisters' fitted to certain of their vehicles and that this might cause MOT-test problems.VOSA's reply to Brian also includes the statement "...there is a note in the database..." This is interesting as, if there is "a note in the database" somewhere, it appears that MOT-testers don't know about it.As the VOSA Contact Centre said to Brian originally "many motorhome builders fit them as an after market conversion and use several types. This makes it extremely difficult to cite particular mfrs/models in VSI". For example, motorhomes based on 3500kg MAM Mk 6 and Mk 7 FWD Transit panel-van or platform-cab chassis have the long bump-stops that may cause problems at MOT time, but the latest Mk 7 FWD 3500kg MAM 'camping-car' chassis-cab chassis has short bump stops and plenty of clearance between chassis and rear axle.A year ago VOSA Contact Centre said "...we haven't had that many calls on this but we are looking at an article for Matters of Testing". Evidently that article hasn't been published and, in my opinion, it won't be published until the owners of vehicles with this type of rear suspension get off their backsides and bombard the vehicle manufacturers and VOSA with letters expressing their concern about the MOT-test implications. And pigs might fly...

[Guest Peter James]

Interesting Thread, Many Thanks.

 

(We tend to look at the springs on flat ground, not uneven ground where there will be large clearance under some of the spring assisters)