MOT fail - rear transit suspension

[Brian Kirby]

I wonder if this link will help to explain? It seems clear to me, although it offers no advice on what action should follow an incorrect "fail" notice. http://tinyurl.com/yd7tf6ju

[Brian Kirby]

Question - to which I can't find an answer. A vehicle will fail an MoT test if there is not "enough clearance of the axle or suspension with the bump stop or chassis".

 

So, does anyone know what is "enough clearance of the axle or suspension with the bump stop or chassis"? Where is this defined?

 

Since the consequences of failure on this ground are likely to be expensive for the vehicle owner, and since the tester may therefore be challenged to demonstrate why he considers the clearance insufficient, how, and where, is "enough" defined?

 

It surely can't just be left to how the tester feels on the day, can it?

[Mr Motorhome]

Thanks for the link, Brian. I’d come across that article recently. It’s also a good point you raise re how much clearance is adequate. I haven't seen any reference to this during my research. I may ask DVSA.

 

Regards,

 

[Derek Uzzell]

In this instance the relevant reason for rejection given in the MOT Inspection Manual is " Inadequate clearance of the axle or suspension with the bump stop or chassis”.

 

When a vehicle has ‘genuine’ bump-stops, there should be a significant gap between the axle and the bump-stop and and an MOT-tester should have little difficulty deciding whether or not that gap is adequate when he/she inspects the vehicle being tested. The adequacy of the clearance will be an opinion, but it will be an an expert opinion based on the MOT-tester’s training, experience and skill.

 

Bump-stops are not mandatory components and if the ‘cones’ had been removed from Mr Motorhome’s Hymer just before the test (a task that takes just a few minutes) as long as the rear suspension did not sag dramatically as a result, a test-failure would not have happened. And, after the test, the cones could quickly have been re-installed and could have then continued to perform their design-function. Water under the bridge, though...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[paul2]

Most o f the mot is in the opinion of the tester just think of all the items were you check for excessive play/movement.

 

Paul

[Derek Uzzell]

A typical example of where MOT-testers must rely on their judgement relates to inspecting brake-related components.

 

Under the present MOT-test rules an inspection is made of “the condition and security of brake drums and discs” and a valid reason for rejection is "a brake disc or drum in such a condition that it is seriously weakened or insecure”.

 

An inspection might identify a front brake disc that is in far from perfect condition that warranted an advisory notice "Front brake disc worn, pitted or scored, but not seriously weakened (3.5.1i)”, but it’s down to the tester to decide at what point “weakened” becomes “seriously weakened”.

 

Section 1.1.14 of the draft version of the MOT Inspection Manual that will be in force from 20 May 2018 deals with brake discs and drums. The Section begins by advising the tester that "A brake disc or drum must be obviously significantly worn before rejection is justified. Being worn below the manufacturer’s recommended limits is not reason in itself”. For rejection to occur a brake disc must be "significantly and obviously worn” or "insecure, fractured or otherwise likely to fail”, but it should be plain that there is still reliance on a tester’s expertise. There is no reference to ‘bump stops’ or ‘spring assistors’ in the suspension-related text of the revised Inspection Manual, so the issue that has occasionally been bedevilling Ducatos and Transits should disappear after May 19.

 

In his posting of 22 March 2018 7:36 PM above Mr Motorhome provided a copy of an email response he received from the DVSA saying "We can only suggest that you points out the note in the inspection manual and discusses this with the testing station”.

 

As I said earlier, Mr Motorhome should not delay telling the MOT testing statation/NCC Approved workshop what’s going on, if nothing else to ensure that the original springs removed from the motorhome aren’t scrapped (which, of course, may already have happened...)

 

It would be naive to expect the DVSA to automatically side with a vehicle owner who is maintaining that an MOT-tester overlooked/ignored a warning in the Inspection Manual and this resulted in an expensive and unnecessary ‘repair’ being carried out. The DVSA has told Mr Motorhome what he should do and will expect him to do this. I can’t see there being any profit in interrogating the DVSA about fine technical detail (eg. how “inadequate clearance” is defined) as they won’t get involved unless the MOT testing station asks them to.

 

As with so many forum inquiries the background may be important. In his original posting of 15 March Mr Motorhome said that his Hymer had “recently failed its MOT”, but how recent is “recently”? Was the spring replacement work and re-test carried out this month or some while ago? What caused Mr Motorhome to believe, after the spring replacement had been done, that the work had been unnecessary? Was it just coming across mentions of this Transit issue on on-line forums or something else? When the motorhome failed its MOT-test, what dialogue was there between the NCC Approved workshop and Mr Motorhome?

 

I’m not seeking a blow-by-blow account of what led up to Mr Motorhome’s 15 March inquiry: I’m merely saying that the longer the delay getting the NCC Approved workshop involved, the more likely that the outcome will be unsatisfactory.

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2018-03-25 9:02 AM...................................As with so many forum inquiries the background may be important. In his original posting of 15 March Mr Motorhome said that his Hymer had “recently failed its MOT”, but how recent is “recently”? Was the spring replacement work and re-test carried out this month or some while ago? What caused Mr Motorhome to believe, after the spring replacement had been done, that the work had been unnecessary? Was it just coming across mentions of this Transit issue on on-line forums or something else? When the motorhome failed its MOT-test, what dialogue was there between the NCC Approved workshop and Mr Motorhome?

 

I’m not seeking a blow-by-blow account of what led up to Mr Motorhome’s 15 March inquiry: I’m merely saying that the longer the delay getting the NCC Approved workshop involved, the more likely that the outcome will be unsatisfactory.

Absolutely agree with the last point. Time is of the essence.

 

On the first point, what I have drawn from this so far is that Mr Motorhome placed his trust in the garage he turned to for his MoT test and, if he will forgive me saying so, is not a person who habitually studies the "oily bits" of vehicles. So having had an MoT failure, his instinct was to trust the judgement of the tester, and subsequently of the garage carrying out the remedial work. I suspect that the work will have taken some time to complete, as parts were identified, sourced, fitted, and then queried and further modified.

 

In the end, a bill will have been presented, at which point Mr Motorhome will presumably have begun to wonder why all that work was necessary, possibly being prompted to look under his van to see the "bump stop" still touching, or very close to, the axle - which would cause anyone to ponder further. A little internet search using the terms for failing the test yields numerous references, dating back to 2007 and before, of this incorrect diagnosis on both Fiat, Peugeot, and Ford, based motorhomes. So suspicions now fully aroused, and having found this forum, he made the OP.

 

There is an element of "Catch 22" in the DVSA response that you have 14 days from the date of the test within which to lodge an appeal. In the ordinary course of events, most of those 14 days of grace would have elapsed before the work was completed and its full extent appreciated, and the amber lights came on. Under the circumstances, I think a little more constructive support from DVSA would be appropriate. They set the parameters under which the tester was accepted as adequately trained to take up his position, so that can't reasonably walk away saying, in effect, "you had 14 days to appeal, and you're out of time, tough".

 

Of course the garage has a case to answer, in that if they knew the tester was relatively inexperienced, being almost be definition more experienced and skilled that their customer, they should have acted more professionally and queried his judgement before embarking on such extensive work for no justifiable (so far as we presently know), reason.

 

But, for me, the fundamental source of Mr Motorhome's troubles lie in the tester's flawed judgement in failing his van. Bearing in mind that his manual specifically cautions against confusing bump stops with spring assisters, and that a high proportion of his work at an NCC approved workshop will be with motorhomes, that oversight (always read the f'ing manual!) is inexcusable.

[Brian Kirby]

Sorry, had to leave the above before I had re-read it! :-)

 

My comments re DVSA and the tester's abilities, were not intended to detract from the importance of Mr Motorhome taking up his grievance with the garage that did the test and the subsequent work as soon as he possibly can. I wholly agree with Derek on this.

 

If there is the slightest hint of defensiveness or prevarication on the part of the garage, I think Mr Motorhome should also consult, as I previous suggested, either Trading Standards, Citizen's Advice or, if he has the cover, his legal advisory insurance, because if he wants to get his van put back into the condition it was in before the test (which is what I think he is legally entitled to demand), he may need to resort to the small claims track, and for that he will need all his ducks in a row - and that will mean in writing, properly phrased on legal advise,

 

The comments re DVSA are a different matter which, in the light of the MoT changes coming in next month are now rather an irrelevance to this case. However, they may have relevance for other motorhome owners whose vans were tested, and failed, at the same establishment as Mr Motorhome used.

[Mr Motorhome]

Hi Derek

 

The MH was presented/failed its MOT on the 9th March and the work carried out, and a pass MOT certificate issued, by the 14th March.

 

I had initially held off contacting the workshop because I didn’t want to raise an issue until I was sure there was actually something wrong with regards to the bump stop/assister etc. The whole bump stop/assister debate only came to my attention whilst browsing the forum. Actually, Brian’s reply has summed it up nicely.

 

Regards,

[Mr Motorhome]

 

Hi Brian

 

I think your summary below is spot on. Thanks.

 

Regards,

 

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-25 10:59 AM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2018-03-25 9:02 AM...................................As with so many forum inquiries the background may be important. In his original posting of 15 March Mr Motorhome said that his Hymer had “recently failed its MOT”, but how recent is “recently”? Was the spring replacement work and re-test carried out this month or some while ago? What caused Mr Motorhome to believe, after the spring replacement had been done, that the work had been unnecessary? Was it just coming across mentions of this Transit issue on on-line forums or something else? When the motorhome failed its MOT-test, what dialogue was there between the NCC Approved workshop and Mr Motorhome?

 

I’m not seeking a blow-by-blow account of what led up to Mr Motorhome’s 15 March inquiry: I’m merely saying that the longer the delay getting the NCC Approved workshop involved, the more likely that the outcome will be unsatisfactory.

Absolutely agree with the last point. Time is of the essence.

 

On the first point, what I have drawn from this so far is that Mr Motorhome placed his trust in the garage he turned to for his MoT test and, if he will forgive me saying so, is not a person who habitually studies the "oily bits" of vehicles. So having had an MoT failure, his instinct was to trust the judgement of the tester, and subsequently of the garage carrying out the remedial work. I suspect that the work will have taken some time to complete, as parts were identified, sourced, fitted, and then queried and further modified.

 

In the end, a bill will have been presented, at which point Mr Motorhome will presumably have begun to wonder why all that work was necessary, possibly being prompted to look under his van to see the "bump stop" still touching, or very close to, the axle - which would cause anyone to ponder further. A little internet search using the terms for failing the test yields numerous references, dating back to 2007 and before, of this incorrect diagnosis on both Fiat, Peugeot, and Ford, based motorhomes. So suspicions now fully aroused, and having found this forum, he made the OP.

 

There is an element of "Catch 22" in the DVSA response that you have 14 days from the date of the test within which to lodge an appeal. In the ordinary course of events, most of those 14 days of grace would have elapsed before the work was completed and its full extent appreciated, and the amber lights came on. Under the circumstances, I think a little more constructive support from DVSA would be appropriate. They set the parameters under which the tester was accepted as adequately trained to take up his position, so that can't reasonably walk away saying, in effect, "you had 14 days to appeal, and you're out of time, tough".

 

Of course the garage has a case to answer, in that if they knew the tester was relatively inexperienced, being almost be definition more experienced and skilled that their customer, they should have acted more professionally and queried his judgement before embarking on such extensive work for no justifiable (so far as we presently know), reason.

 

But, for me, the fundamental source of Mr Motorhome's troubles lie in the tester's flawed judgement in failing his van. Bearing in mind that his manual specifically cautions against confusing bump stops with spring assisters, and that a high proportion of his work at an NCC approved workshop will be with motorhomes, that oversight (always read the f'ing manual!) is inexcusable.

[Mr Motorhome]

Hi All

 

A further update.

 

Well, the last 48 hours have been interesting to say the least.

 

On Monday, I telephoned the owner of the workshop and discussed the issues with regard to the MOT fail and subsequent works carried out. Almost immediately I was offered a full refund, the refitting of my original leaf springs and a date for this to be carried out.

 

Today, Tuesday, I received a telephone call from the owner who informed me that he was currently working on a Ford based Hobby MH and that it’s ‘bump stops’ were situated well above the axle and had an extra leaf fitted below the single leaf which, he believes, is what an actual spring assister should be.

 

He has also contacted a friend who works at/for DVSA who advised him to speak to Ford technical team which he has done, and provided my vehicle chassis number to Ford who have told him that bump stops are fitted to my MH and not suspension spring assisters. Ford are, apparently, putting this in writing.

 

The workshop owner has stated that this will prove unequivocally that my MH is fitted with bump stops. I therefore assume that this will mean a refund etc will now not be offered.

 

The saga continues!

 

Regards,

[colin]

That is complete bull.

[Derek Uzzell]

Mr Motorhome - 2018-03-27 7:50 PM

 

...Today, Tuesday, I received a telephone call from the owner who informed me that he was currently working on a Ford based Hobby MH and that it’s ‘bump stops’ were situated well above the axle and had an extra leaf fitted below the single leaf which, he believes, is what an actual spring assister should be.

 

He has also contacted a friend who works at/for DVSA who advised him to speak to Ford technical team which he has done, and provided my vehicle chassis number to Ford who have told him that bump stops are fitted to my MH and not suspension spring assisters. Ford are, apparently, putting this in writing...

 

 

In 2004 Hobby began building motorhomes based on the Transit Mk 6, moving to the Transit Mk 7 in 2006 and ceasing production of Ford-based models in 2012. Most of these vehicles were front-wheel drive, with some of them having twin-leaf rear springs and others having single-leaf rear springs, presumably depending which type of spring Ford was fitting as standard to the FWD platform-cab chassis at the time, or on which springs Hobby specified when ordering the chassis from Ford.

 

My 2005 Hobby TC-600FC was FWD, Transit Mk 6-based with twin-leaf rear springs and - between the chassis and rear axle - long plastic ‘cones’ that (as far as I was concerned) were clearly ‘spring assistors’ as defined in the DVSA literature. Later FWD Hobby models based on the Transiit Mk 7 had single-leaf rear springs (or all the ones I’ve seen had) and the same long plastic ‘cones’. The Mk 7 set-up is shown in the photo in Brian Kirby’s posting of 19 March 2018 12:12 PM.

 

Not all Transit-based Hobby motorhomes were front-wheel-drive. Some were rear-wheel-drive and built on a 3850kg chassis-cab ‘ladder;’ chassis with a dual-wheel rear axle and 2.4litre motor (example in 1st attached photo). The FWD chassis used on the Hobby motorhomes owned by Brian, Robinhood and me, and on Mr Motorhome’s Hymer, is completely different to the chassis used on RWD Hobby models. The 2nd attached photo is of the rear axle/suspension of a 2015 RWD Transit with dual-wheel rear axle and it will be seen that it has hefty rear springs (with a supplementary 3rd ‘helper’ spring that only comes into play when the vehicle is heavily loaded) and a different ‘bump stop’ that, in the photo, is not touching the rear axle. I can’t swear that Hobby motorhomes with dual rear wheels had exactly the same rear suspension, but I believe it would have been similar. So, if the NCC Approved workshop is comparing a RWD Hobby with a FWD Hymer, the comparison is not valid.

 

Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, Ford’s parts-list categorises as ‘bump stops’ all of the flexible plastic components connected to a Transit’s chassis directly above the rear axle, irrespective of the component’s length or the type of chassis. Consequently, when Ford was given the VIN-number of Mr Motorhome’s Hymer motorhome and looked at the specification of that vehicle’s chassis, that specification would show that rear ‘bump stops’ were fitted to it just as every other Transit-based motorhome has rear ‘bump stops’ of varying length and function.

 

The May 2011 issue of the “Matter of Testing MOT” DVSA documents says:

 

"SPRING ASSISTERS AND BUMP STOPS

 

Quite a few van manufacturers use ‘spring assisters’ to support the base spring, especially on models which have low load heights or are usually run full or part loaded. Typical examples include motor homes, which use the basic chassis/cab with quite a heavy body, and vehicles such as the ‘tool van’, which always have a fair amount of heavy stock on board.

 

Spring assisters are usually either extra leaves (more common to heavy goods vehicles) or rubber/ polyurethane cones – also known as Aeon springs (more common on the types of vans we see for MOT testing). Both types act by stiffening the suspension once deflection of the base spring reaches a certain point, affording maximum comfort whether the vehicle is empty or loaded.

 

On vans, the preferred method is to use a rubber cone, which keeps unladen weight down and allows a low load height. These cones look like oversized rubber bump stops but work in a different way. The centre of the cone is hollow (see Fig. 1) and when the suspension oscillates, the rubber compresses – effectively dampening the spring oscillation. The compression rate is progressive until eventually – at full load – the cone is fully compressed and then acts as a bump stop. When the suspension rebounds, the cone decompresses and re-forms to its natural shape.

 

Because of their size and design characteristics, these cones may sit very close to or even on the base spring (see Fig. 2), yet the suspension appears to be in its normal running position. This is, in fact, a design feature – but some testers interpret it as a failure under IM 2.4A1: ‘inadequate clearance between bump stop and chassis or a suspension unit so weak that the body or other part of the vehicle fouls a road wheel or would do so if the vehicle was laden’. Before failing a vehicle under this RfR, testers should first determine if a spring assister is fitted, and whether the suspension really is

so weak that the body would foul a road wheel."

 

(See Figs 1 & 2 in 3rd attached photo)

 

There really should be no argument that - whatever the identier used on the Ford parts-list - on the Transit Mk 6 and Mk 7 FWD platform-chassis that was used for motorhome conversion the long flexible plastic ‘cones’ are there to provide spring-assistance exactly as defined in the DVSA document and, consequently, an MOT-tester should treat the ‘cones’ as ’spring assistors’ not ‘bump stops’.

 

[Derek Uzzell]

A follow-up...

 

Although, before seeing Mr Motorhome’s Hymer, the NCC Approved workshop and their MOT-tester might not have encountered a motorhome based on a Transit FWD chassis fitted with the long ‘cones’ as part of its rear suspension, it’s probable that they will have encountered Fiat/Peugeot X250 panel-van-conversion motorhomes with a similar component bridging the gap between chassis and spring.

 

The attached photo relates to a 2-year old Auto-Sleepers Peugeot Boxer X250-based PVC with a single leaf-spring + secondary ‘helper’ spring, and it’s very plain that there’s no gap between the orange ‘concertina’ component and the spring. Would a tester/workshop consider the X250’s orange component a spring-assister or a bump-stop and, if the latter, what would be done to address the nil-clearance when (presumably) the vehicle would fail the MOT-test?

 

There’s also the question of exactly who advised the workshop that it would be acceptable to replace the Hymer’s original single-leaf rear springs with a twin-leaf + ‘uprate’ spring arrangement, and what authority/competence the advisor had to recommend that approach. As I said earlier, changing to a twin-leaf + ‘uprate’ spring arrangement would be a very odd thing to do where the Transit FWD platform-cab chassis is involved.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

I do not understand in real terms of rear axle suspension what you are talking about. There must be a bump stop in any case in the front and rear axles according the wheel arches spacing. That is defined in the type approval. I have all read this but i am not longer interested. This is special and not of a concern to a van or motorhome owner. That is the never seen underbody work. Leave this to your trusted dealer. And do not tackle this problem on your site as from 2010. We are not competent about this to talk consitently in circles.

[Brian Kirby]

Mr Motorhome - 2018-03-27 7:50 PM

 

Hi All

 

A further update.

 

Well, the last 48 hours have been interesting to say the least.

 

On Monday, I telephoned the owner of the workshop and discussed the issues with regard to the MOT fail and subsequent works carried out. Almost immediately I was offered a full refund, the refitting of my original leaf springs and a date for this to be carried out.

 

Today, Tuesday, I received a telephone call from the owner who informed me that he was currently working on a Ford based Hobby MH and that it’s ‘bump stops’ were situated well above the axle and had an extra leaf fitted below the single leaf which, he believes, is what an actual spring assister should be.

 

He has also contacted a friend who works at/for DVSA who advised him to speak to Ford technical team which he has done, and provided my vehicle chassis number to Ford who have told him that bump stops are fitted to my MH and not suspension spring assisters. Ford are, apparently, putting this in writing.

 

The workshop owner has stated that this will prove unequivocally that my MH is fitted with bump stops. I therefore assume that this will mean a refund etc will now not be offered.

 

The saga continues!

 

Regards,

Time to go back to basics, I think!

 

This is apparently the telephone number for the Ford Customer Relations Centre: 020 3564 4444. If it were me, I think I'd first call them, explain what has happened, and see if you can get through to one of their Technical Information Centres. What I think you need is the contact details for one of their technical support engineers, preferably an e-mail address.

 

They were based in Walsall, but that was 2007, so may have moved. I have a Walsall number, but it was then charged at £1 per minute! It is 0906 5533447. Might be worth a try.

 

The e-mail address for Ford Customer services is UKCRC1@ford.com, but this is plainly a general contact e-mail address, and I'd guess it may take longer to locate the person you need to speak to.

 

You need to know the functional purpose of these polyurethane suspension components, particularly whether they are as described in the piece Derek quotes above: spring assisters that contribute to the performance of the rear suspension in normal use, but function also as bump stops when fully compressed. Personally, I'm certain they are, but I think you need to hear that from the horse's mouth. What they are called on the Ford parts list is irrelevant, it is their functional adequacy that the MoT is supposed to confirm, not whether they and called Jim or Doris! :-D

 

If you e-mail pretty much what your first post above says, complete with the photograph and the VIN of your van, that should be sufficient to get an answer. It would be wise at the same time to seek guidance on what has been done to the rear suspension, and whether Ford would condone this set up. When you get to the right guy (or gal: :-)), I think it would then be wise to get his/her postal address and write to him/her to obtain a formal reply on Ford headed paper (ideally by e-mail attachment to save time).

 

Otherwise, I think you just risk going in circles with Fred, Harry and Jim, and friends of their friends, all spinning confusion by talking about different things. Ford designed and made your van, so are the only source of authoritative advice on what you have and what you should have.

[laimeduck]

If you want something done go straight to the top. I have a useful resource which gives me the email addresses of the Chief Honcho's of most large companies in the UK and abroad.

When faced with a situation like yours I always write to the CEO or equivalent and ask nicely but firmly for their help - as Brian says your original posting, plus a brief summary of what you want him to do. I amost always get the help I want!

The Managing Director of Ford UK is Mr Andy Barratt and his e-mail address is abarratt@ford.com.

Probably based at Eagle Way, Great Warley, Warley, Brentwood CM13 3BW

Good luck!

[Robinhood]

...as already posted, my last 'van was based on the Mk7 FWD Cab Van Floor (Ford speak for Platform Cab).

 

I am entirely certain it had spring assisters, not bump stops.

 

I am reasonably convinced that the OP's 'van is the same (as sure as I can be without physically seeing the 'van - the length of the cones is a giveaway).

 

My assisters had little or no clearance when not fully loaded.

 

I've checked the Mk7 Transit BEMM (Body and Equipment Mounting Manual) which is the converters bible for building on the chassis/platform cab, but it throws no light on the presence of assisters.

 

The attached snip, (part of the advice to converters) however, outlines why I would want to follow up the work that has been carried out, and (if possible) get it reversed.

 

The snip also carries a very useful eMail address that might be worth trying for specific advice on the OP's vehicle.

 

Since the Cab Van Floor was generally only made available for motorhome conversion, the Ford Vehicle Convertor Advisory Service (VCAS@Ford.com) should be reasonably knowledgable about it, and I'd be inclined to drop them an email.

[Derek Uzzell]

The owner of the NCC Approved workshop has chosen to compare the rear suspension of Mr Motorhome’s 2007 Hymer 682 CL and that of a Ford-based Hobby (Which Hobby model and what year was it built?). But a correct comparison would be between Mr Motorhome’s vehicle and another 2007 Hymer 682 CL, or with similar-model Hymers builit on the Transit Mk 7 platform-cab chassis at roughly the same time.

 

This link is to a hire firm in Hexham Northumberland that (apparently) has a Hymer 682 CL

 

https://www.motorholme.co.uk/motorhomes/7ne2_model.htm

 

and it might be possible to obtain from them a photo of the rear suspension.

 

This link is to a (similar to the 682 model) 2008 Hymer 642 CL in Leicester

 

https://www.vansforsaleltd.co.uk/used-vans/hymer-c-class-642-cl-6-berth-motorhome-thurnby-201708148331374

 

It would also be worth contacting Travelworld Motorhomes

 

https://www.motorhomes.co.uk/contact/

 

as it’s plain from on-line entries that they have had quite a few Ford Transit-based Hymers (Exsis, Vans and ‘Tramps’) pass through their hands, and all of those vehicles will have been built on the Transit platform-cab chassis and should have the long yellow ‘cones’ as part of their rear suspension. (Examples of Travelworld adverts here).

 

https://www.motorhomes.co.uk/motorhomes-for-sale/hymer/c-class-cl/c-622-cl/2049/

 

https://www.motorhomes.co.uk/motorhomes-for-sale/hymer/tramp/cl-672/1617/pdf/

 

With any luck someone knowledgeable and credible at Travelworld will be able to confirm that all of these Ford-based Hymers have a similar suspension design and that the ‘cones’ are spring-assistors and intended to be close to, or in contact with, the motorhome’s rear axle.

 

 

[Mr Motorhome]

Hi All

 

Thank you everyone who has posted links, contact details, photos and advice. That will be very helpful indeed. Much appreciated.

 

I’m gong to use the above contact details/links to make further enquiries over the next couple of days and I’ll update further with my findings.

 

Once again, thank you everyone for taking the time to offer advice.

 

Regards,

[Mr Motorhome]

Ok, not a great start from the M.D. of Ford. Short and to the point!

 

‘I think these questions really need to be posed to Hymer as they converted the vehicle to their own specification’

 

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Agree the ball lies whit hymer if they actually fit them in final stage. In that case their must some approval from ford. but not sure about that if they flex 50 percent and than act like a bump stop. somehing similar as an alko air top

[Brian Kirby]

Mr Motorhome - 2018-03-29 2:14 PM

 

Ok, not a great start from the M.D. of Ford. Short and to the point!

 

‘I think these questions really need to be posed to Hymer as they converted the vehicle to their own specification’

The guy is probably an accountant and knows sweet FA about vans or motorhomes, and even less about their suspension systems!

 

The problem is not for Ford or Hymer, neither of them caused it, and neither yet knows what has been done to it, so neither can yet advise.

 

However, if you get onto Ford's technical department as suggested above and copy them your summary of what has been done, plus your picture, they should be able to tell you with authority what is the proper suspension set up for the rear axle of your vehicle (as identified by its VIN), confirm whether those polyurethane "cones" are spring assisters (i.e. Aeon springs) or pure bump stops (i.e. devices to prevent the axle hitting the chassis on full bump), and tell you whether the present modified set up meets with their approval.

[Mr Motorhome]

Already onto it, Brian

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-29 7:17 PM

 

Mr Motorhome - 2018-03-29 2:14 PM

 

Ok, not a great start from the M.D. of Ford. Short and to the point!

 

‘I think these questions really need to be posed to Hymer as they converted the vehicle to their own specification’

The guy is probably an accountant and knows sweet FA about vans or motorhomes, and even less about their suspension systems!

 

The problem is not for Ford or Hymer, neither of them caused it, and neither yet knows what has been done to it, so neither can yet advise.

 

However, if you get onto Ford's technical department as suggested above and copy them your summary of what has been done, plus your picture, they should be able to tell you with authority what is the proper suspension set up for the rear axle of your vehicle (as identified by its VIN), confirm whether those polyurethane "cones" are spring assisters (i.e. Aeon springs) or pure bump stops (i.e. devices to prevent the axle hitting the chassis on full bump), and tell you whether the present modified set up meets with their approval.

;-) ;-)

[Derek Uzzell]

The potential stumbling-block with approaching anyone in Ford(UK) is that the Transit FWD platform-cab chassis built on by Hymer, Hobby,Chausson, etc. for coachbuilt motorhomes was never used by UK motorhome manufacturers. Presumably the chassis was an initiative by Ford(Europe) to expand Ford’s share of the European motorhome market and there’s no reason to think that the exact specification of the chassis would have involved Ford(UK).

 

As far as I’m aware this Transit Mk 6/Mk 7 platform-cab chassis was used uniquely for coachbuilt motorhomes. (I can’t find a picture of it, but I’ve attached a photo of a Ducato equivalent) As I’ve said before, the Ford chassis is basically a Transit panel-van with its cab-roof cut away and no metal bodywork to the rear of the cab section. Heavier Transit Mk 6/Mk 7 FWD panel-vans have the same rear suspension with the same long flexible ‘cones’ (example in this ebay advert)

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ford-Transit-MK7-2-2-TDCI-FWD-T350-rear-suspension-bump-stop-/272684233208

 

It’s not a special component fitted by the motorhome converter - it’s a standard Ford component and just one of several different length/design ‘bump stops’ in the Ford parts-bin.

 

Mr Motorhome said earlier “I have telephoned....my local Ford commercial/Transit vehicle dealership who carry out their own MOT’s. A Ford workshop manager confirmed they are suspension spring assisters and that they wouldn’t have failed it because of inadequate clearance”.

 

If his Hymer had been MOT-ed by a testing station familiar with Transit vans, it is highly unlikely that the tester would have failed it due to inadequate bump-stop clearance because he/she would have encountered previous examples of ‘long cones’ panel-vans before. And the decision of any MOT tester to reject a Transit van fitted with these long ‘cones’ for inadequate clearance could be taken up directly with Ford(UK). But the fact that Mr Motorhome’s vehicle is a Ford/Hymer hybrid complicates things.

 

I can’t see the Hymer factory concerning itself with a 2007 motorhome that is coming up against a regulatory problem unique to the UK’s MOT test and depending on the opinion of the individual performing the test. The factory might be able to confirm that the Ford chassis on which all 682 CL models were built in 2007 had single-leaf rear springs and these long ‘cones’, but I’m not sure that would help much.