Ducato X250 failed rear leaf springs

[Mike88]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-04-25 9:30 AM

 

Mike88 - 2011-04-25 8:31 AM

 

This is a minor point but one thing I've noticed since fitting Airrides is that the oil lights lose some accuracy and now measure only 4 bars instead of 5 due to the increased ride height at the rear. Also when you park on level ground the rear is raised so I find I need to use levelling blocks more frequently.

 

I'm asking myself why you are running your Airride units at a pressure that causes your Mondial to sit significantly tail-high. If the back end is now so high in the air that the vehicle's oil-level warning lights are affected, then, logically, the vehicle's stance is not what Fiat intended.

 

That isn't a criticism - you may well have found by experimentation that using a particular air-bellows pressure provides optimum on-road driving characteristics for you and that a tail-high stance is the unavoidable result. But, if that's not so, then I do wonder why you'd want to operate a Mondial with a seriously elevated derriere. It's the sort of thing I'd envisage an owner of a motorhome with a lot of rear overhang (that's the motorhome not the owner!) doing, but not where a compact panel-van conversion is involved.

 

Previously I drove a Ford Transit. When I drove my brand new Fiat onto my drive for the first time the tail pipe and step grounded to such an extent that I had to saw off the tail pipe in order to get the vehicle free. My Transit had a high clearance but the Fiat is incredibly low. I do not think that I'm the first to experience this problem.

 

The only solution I could come up with (having first spoken to the Council about modifying the footpath crossing and to a contractor about re-profiling my drive with excessive cost implications) was to fit Airrides. The Airride people promised my money back if it failed to resolve the problem. The Airrides lifted the rear by about 3 inches and the centre by about 1.5 inches - just sufficient to eliminate the grounding problem. The Airride people didn't think it was a problem to run the vehicle tail high and told me to experiment with the pressures which I did.

 

I found that 40lbs gave the best ride quality but its down to personal choice. The standard springs are very soft and I must admit I prefer the harder ride. I could run the vehicle at a lower pressure to reduce the tail up effect as long as I remember to raise the pressure before I pull onto my drive. However, given the better qualities of the harder ride I prefer to leave the pressure at 40lbs.

 

Many vehicles run tail high - tipper trucks for example so I don't forsee any particular problem but I do agree that Airrides are predominently for those with long vehicle overhang; it just so happened that I found an alternative use with a money back guarantee. For me it was a win win situation.

 

 

[Shaun]

That's a very useful thread, Derek. I took particular interest in the following reply by VOSA to Brian:

 

"Thank you for your e-mail enquiry dated 5th May 2010, concerning Ford Transit Suspension.

 

Some vehicles such as Citroen Relay and Peugeot Boxer, have extended rear 'bump stops' which may have little or no clearance between itself and the spring leaf. These 'stops' are designed as spring assisters (the lower section is compressible) and should not be considered as a failure under 2.4A1 just because there is little or no clearance."

 

That thread was a year ago. The question now is whether the same issue which reared its ugly head with Transits, will become more widespread, now that X250s are regularly presented for MOTs.

 

However, in my case, if this is a complete red herring and my Fiat dealer tells me the failure was a direct spring-related matter, and nothing to do with the inherrent design of the X250, then I'll be quick to point this out.

 

Shaun

 

[paul2]

 

It would appear from Brian Kirby's comments in that thread that MOT-testers have been instructed about the need to be aware of the lack of bump-stop clearance in the design of rear-suspension systems of certain vehicles.

 

 

I was on a MOT testers course two weeks ago nothing mentioned about rear bump stops had i read this before i would have asked about it. Just looked at my mondail (year old / 5000mls) no clearance!

 

Paul

[pepe63xnotuse]

If we are now thinking that these springs *may not* have needed replacing,then I suppose the tricky bit for Shaun now,is to get the MOT tester to say whether or not it was failed due to this "lack of clearance" and not just to have him turn around and say that in *his opinion* the springs were just tired or damaged..

 

Unless it's actually stated in any documentation issued when it failed(..which I thought it should've been),then I can't imagine the tester being to keen on admitting a mistake,especially if he is part of the garage that just charged £1400 for fitting the new springs!...

 

Goodluck with this Shaun...

[Derek Uzzell]

paul2 - 2011-04-25 8:22 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2011-04-25 9:25 AM

It would appear from Brian Kirby's comments in that thread that MOT-testers have been instructed about the need to be aware of the lack of bump-stop clearance in the design of rear-suspension systems of certain vehicles.

 

I was on a MOT testers course two weeks ago nothing mentioned about rear bump stops had i read this before i would have asked about it. Just looked at my mondail (year old / 5000mls) no clearance!

 

Paul

 

This is a link to the relevant part of an on-line version of the MOT-tester's manual

 

http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_240.htm

 

As mentioned by Shaun, Section 2.4A1 is what leads to problems regarding 'bump stops' and some vehicles.

 

Having re-read the earlier forum thread, it seems that VOSA was well aware that compressible 'spring assisters' were being factory-fitted by some manufacturers as an integral part of vehicle suspension systems. Also that VOSA accepted that lack of clearance between such an assister and the rear axle/spring should not result in an MOT-test failure. However, 12 months on, there's apparently still nothing in the MOT-tester's manual about this, nor (seemingly) nothing about its relevance to Boxers/Ducatos/Relays or FWD Transits via the VSI (Vehicle Specific Information) system. The VOSA spokesman said that there was "a note in the database", but I've no idea whether or not checking that database requires the tester to be proactive.

 

Although I would maintain that it's should be fairly obvious whether or not a vehicle has a compressible 'spring assister' or a 'bump stop', it's difficult to criticise an MOT-tester who rigidly applies the Section 2.4A1 rule, particularly when (in Ford's case) the vehicle manufacturer actually calls the spring assister a "bump stop" in their parts list.

 

(Paul, it would be interesting to know how you would assess your own near-new Mondial if it were presented to you for an MOT test. Would you fail it for no 'bump stop' clearance, would you pass it because you recognise it has 'spring assisters', or would you seek advice from the VOSA Contact Centre?)

 

GOOGLE-searching on "MOT bump stop motorhome" will retrieve a good deal of stuff, including this one:

 

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopic-67294-days0-orderasc-0.html

 

 

[rolyk]

Here's a couple of photos of the rear spring on my X250 van conversion. Although the vehicle is two years old I know that the height at the rear of the vehicle is exactly the same as when new, because when I reverse it up to my garage the gutter bracket almost touches the roof with a gap of a couple of mm. You'll see from the photo that the spring assister is in contact with the plate on the top of the spring and it must have been like this from new.

 

The top leaf spring is virtually flat and I'm sure that it was designed this way and no sag has occurred.

[Shaun]

In my case, the MOT failure has been recorded on the MOT failure certificate, VT30, as: Rear Axle has inadequate clearance with the bump stop [2.4.A.1].

 

Just to reiterate, the original springs which were removed, and which I now have, aren't damaged in any way, and still have curvature to them. However, under load I have no idea how they would perform, unless they were put back on.

 

In case the Fiat dealership concerned (which hasn't replied yet to my email) is looking again at legitimate failure reasons, I would ask whether an MOT tester who is seeking a stock failure code for knackered springs, which in his opinion have led to a below-standard, saggy-arsed suspension, will simply plump for the aforementioned failure terminology relating to insufficient clearance, because there just isn't anything else more suitable.

 

So, looking at this from a different angle, let's just suppose the tester wasn't actually bothered by the lack of clearance between bump stops and axle, and was in fact raising eyebrows at leaf springs which clearly had lost all, er, springiness. If this were the case, then surely the dampers and bump stops (spring assisters in Fiat-speak) would have been bearing most of the load of the van's back end. Yet they weren't replaced; indeed they weren't even mentioned by the MOT tester nor the dealership with the resultant work to do.

 

Even if I were to give the benefit of the doubt as to the failed springs, and I also ignored the fact that neither the dampers nor bumps stops (which clearly have borne a most unreasonable load due to the failure of the springs) weren't replaced, nor mentioned as part of the knackered suspension, isn't there a more suitable MOT failure code and description than the irrelevant lack of clearance between bump stops and axle?

 

Shaun

[Guest JudgeMental]

here is a picture of my 2 week old Adria which is empty apart from 2 refillable gas bottles. sorry not very good photo, but I can see no space at all between bump thingy...... *-)

[paul2]

Hi Derek

I'm lucky in that were are one of the very few mot test station that only test thier own fleet vehicles so seeing them from new helps so no clearance when new and still looking the right height at test i would pass. I'm unlucky in that we can't test my own car or camper! (firm not vosa) So lets hope in 2 years time the message has got round.

Paul

[pepe63xnotuse]

JudgeMental - 2011-04-26 7:09 PM

 

here is a picture of my 2 week old Adria which is empty apart from 2 refillable gas bottles. sorry not very good photo, but I can see no space at all between bump thingy...... *-)

 

Judge,I fitted a pair of the Grayston coil spring assistors to our previous X250 Pug,coachbuilt(3t gross/3mtr wheel base) and they raised it a good 30mm at the wheel arch and eased the "jarring" that we experienced on rough/pot holed surfaces(..I think we ended up with about a 15mm gap on the rubbers).

Although I never got around to weighing that van :$ ,it did have 1.9mtr overhang(max for it's wheelbase)and it the gas locker and battery box,were at the absolute rear of the body.

I think the assistors cost about £210, 2-3 years back and they were really easy to fit...

(Once jacked up, one end of the damper needs releasing,so that the leaf could be jacked away from the chassis,enabling the spring assistor to be slipped on over the "bump stop").

 

Okay,obviously not "adjustable" (or "flash" ;-) )like an air system..but on a vehicle with minimal tail overhang like a pvc,then may be worth thinking about....

Chris

[grahamw]

JudgeMental - 2011-04-26 7:09 PM

 

here is a picture of my 2 week old Adria which is empty apart from 2 refillable gas bottles. sorry not very good photo, but I can see no space at all between bump thingy...... *-)

 

Here's a picture of my two month old Vantage with twin leaf springs. Looks identical to yours Judge with no clearance visible between the two components. I can only conclude that's how it should be.

 

Graham

[Harvey]

Shaun,

 

I think that you should contact VOSA if not already done. It would appear that there is a good possibility that your 'van was failed it's MOT in error. There are official avenues to complain about MOT's but it may be too late to do that.

 

I did contact VOSA by 'phone after being charged the incorrect amount for an MOT by an obnoxious 'knowitall' garage manager: a VOSA rep visited the garage within a week, put them right, and I had a refund for the overcharge.

 

Even if involving VOSA doesn't get you any financial recompense it may ensure that the MOT tester in question is 'educated' about 'bump stop' clearances if he was in fact in error.

 

Harvey

 

ps. This 'bump stop clearance' question / dispute was apparent on the previous model of Ducato / Boxer long before the X250 was introduced.

[Shaun]

Harvey, I'm more bothered about the unnecessary work than the MOT itself. Whilst I would have been annoyed had I left the garage with an MOT failure certificate and then had the van pass the MOT elsewhere, then I daresay I would have complained to VOSA. However, the knock-on effect of the £1,100 bill is where my focus lies at present.

 

I've been onto the garage this morning, as they didn't respond to my email. The service manager is now on holiday until next week, so everything goes on hold. Fortunately, the customers service chap I dealt with from the beginning is polite and understanding. I've stated that if the MOT failure was simply based on the lack of gap between axle and 'spring assisters' then the tester has got it wrong - especially as my photo of the replacement springs (like all the others people are posting here) also shows the stops resting on the springs.

 

If the error is acknowledged, I would like the garage to put my old springs back on and refund all costs associated with the replacements. However, they do have the opportunity to convince me the springs needed replacing, so I shall await their contact.

 

Shaun

[Guest JudgeMental]

stick with it Shaun....will be interesting to see how this plays out. I do wonder why you did not get a second opinion at another garage before spending so much money though....

[Shaun]

As mentioned at the start, Judge, the van was needed pronto. It was my fault in that the MOT fell due so near to the event (a wedding actually, where various people needed the van to get changed in), and with hindsight I should have arranged the MOT earlier. It had only done a couple of thousand miles since the previous year and had also had a service at the same garage last summer. I was overconfident in that there were would be no problems. Actually, the MOT also needed the headlights adjusting again (same last year), but that was easily done.

 

Before giving the dealer the go ahead, I checked online for springs and although a quick search showed them as half the price, what concerned me was that the only ones I could see in stock were uprated twin leaf springs for Ducatos generally. I had no idea that they would be right for my van, and I also wasn't prepared to risk that I wouldn't be able to get them delivered and fitted on time. Good Friday was only two days away, with the wedding the following day.

 

To give Fiat their due, they did pull out all the stops to have the springs delivered and fitted just before close of business on the Thursday, although they didn't quite manage to roll out the red carpet as I left the building, £1,100 worse off!

 

Actually, pending the response from the service manager next week, I'd like to be forewarned if I can, as to what other MOT failure description/code there could be where the rear suspension is, shall we say, tired. This is just in case the garage admits to using the wrong failure code/description, but maintains that the springs were clearly shot, and would have meant a failure regardless of axle clearance.

 

Over the years, I've had failures due to broken or rusted coil springs, and also leaking dampers, but this is new territory. So, if a pair of leaf springs lose their ability to hold up the back end, and it starts to sag, how is this quantified and how would it be relayed on the MOT failure?

 

Shaun

[Harvey]

Shaun - 2011-04-27 11:43 AM

 

Harvey, I'm more bothered about the unnecessary work than the MOT itself. Whilst I would have been annoyed had I left the garage with an MOT failure certificate and then had the van pass the MOT elsewhere, then I daresay I would have complained to VOSA. However, the knock-on effect of the £1,100 bill is where my focus lies at present.

 

 

Sorry Shaun,

 

I didn't quite write what I meant to :-S

 

I meant that contacting VOSA may help you to get re-imbursed for the work if it was unnecessary but even if it didn't then at lest the 'education' would occur.

 

I am sure; well I assume, that VOSA would be interested in the case anyway.

 

I hope you get a satisfactory outcome buy whichever means

 

Harvey

[Meadows Engine]

Hi Judge

Here a set of Dunlops fitted to my 3L Murvi in Jan this year

http://i1234.photobucket.com/albums/ff402/Friskyman/Completedinstallation_1.jpg

 

hope this works I'm not too good at this

 

john