MOT fail - rear transit suspension

[Brian Kirby]

I agree - and I "liked" the second hand bump stops for sale on e-bay - though one would think the seller might have cleaned off what looks like oil contamination before taking his picture! :-D But hey ho!

 

However, what I think Mr Motorhome needs is two things.

 

First, regarding the MoT failure, written confirmation that these Aeon springs are not to be regarded for MoT purposes as bump stops, but as spring assisters. I assume this must have been the subject of communication between Ford and DVSA as soon as the first generation of Transits to use them were 3 years old, and began to be failed for riding on their bump stops. Presumably this then resulted in, or contributed to, DVSA's advice to testers not to confuse the two. I think the most authoritative source for this would be Ford UK.

 

Second, regarding the modified rear suspension, a statement as to whether the modifications to the rear suspension of Mr Motorhome's van have Ford UK's approval. Again, I think the most authoritative source would be Ford UK. This should not ultimately be necessary if the garage accepts that the initial MoT failure was erroneous, but I think would be useful ammunition just in case.

 

I think Mr Motorhome could, as an alternative, contact a Ford main dealer's (preferably one recognised by Ford as a Transit expert, and also carries out MoT tests) workshop - see here: http://tinyurl.com/y8cflgfx and ask them if they will give him an opinion on whether the vehicle should have failed its MoT on the ground cited, and on whether they would consider the rear suspension modifications appropriate. This would to some extent lack the authority of statements from Ford UK, but it is possible they would need the advice of a technical rep from Ford on the latter point and, if this were the case, and the report were produced by or instanced the Ford rep (giving his name and contact details), that loss of authority should be reinstated. (Probably best to drop by in person, with a copy of his initial post and picture, and ask for a few minutes with the workshop manager to discuss how, and to what extent, they can help)

 

In either case (advice direct from Ford UK or from a dealer), I would expect a charge to be made, of which Mr Motorhome should advise the garage he used before agreeing to have the report prepared - in case the garage owner wants to throw in the towel at that point in preference to incurring further costs. If the garage owner persists with his present line of argument, he should then add the cost of the report to the amount he initially agreed to reimburse to Mr Motorhome.

 

I agree that there would have been advantage to taking the van for its MoT to a Ford Transit specialist dealership, in that, as does Derek, I suspect it would have passed without comment. However, that is now water under the bridge, and Mr Motorhome is where he is. The main point of concern for me, apart from the cost, is that the rear suspension now bears no resemblance to the rear suspension as originally intended by Ford and, as such, is an untried and untested chimera, with Mr Motorhome as its test driver.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

If it was the belgian MoT: Any Modifiation done on suspension requires a written letter approval of the final stage builder. Not ford, or Fiat, or AL-KO.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

There is a scala of rear helper springs available for the ford transit, due to clearance issues. Even AL-Ko fits them on their torsion bar axles to cope whit their rear axle loads and bump stop matters.

[Brian Kirby]

monique.hubrechts@gm - 2018-03-30 2:03 PM

 

If it was the belgian MoT: Any Modifiation done on suspension requires a written letter approval of the final stage builder. Not ford, or Fiat, or AL-KO.

But not in UK Monique.

[Brian Kirby]

monique.hubrechts@gm - 2018-03-30 3:05 PM

 

There is a scala of rear helper springs available for the ford transit, due to clearance issues. Even AL-Ko fits them on their torsion bar axles to cope whit their rear axle loads and bump stop matters.

The vehicle does/did not need rear helper springs Monique. It was taken for its annual MoT test (contrôle technique) and failed because the person carrying out the test mistook the polyurethane Aeon springs originally fitted by Ford, for what we in UK usually call bump stops (those resilient pads attached to the chassis to prevent the axle hitting it when the suspension is fully compressed).

 

In UK, the test can be carried out by a licenced tester working in a repair garage. In Mr Motorhome's case that is where he had chosen to take his Ford based Hymer. When his van failed its test, Mr Motorhome was advised by the garage that they could repair it by fitting new rear springs. He agreed to this, but later discovered that the reason the van had failed was that the tester had mistaken the Aeon springs for bump stops. There was, actually, no fault with his van.

 

So, a lot of work was done and paid for that was not necessary, as Mr Motorhome's van should not have failed its test. The fault was the tester's mistake, and not the van's rear suspension. The garage now needs to return Mr Motorhome's van to the condition it was in before it was tested, and refund Mr Motorhome the cost of the unnecessary repairs.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

We have several stations of testing and find out that some are awfull. Nevertheless security comes first. Most people say it is a money machine to get your motorhome tested every year and at resell the same year. What is the lenght Of the Aeon ford spring? A club member of a new ford transit likes proof if this his really genuine ford part. He read whit me Dereks comment that a ford transit chassis is not the same as a fiat ducato and where both smiling.

[Derek Uzzell]

The DVSA’s comment that "Spring assisters are usually either extra leaves (more common to heavy goods vehicles) or rubber/ polyurethane cones – also known as Aeon springs” is potentially misleading.

 

“Aeon” rubber springs are produced only by Timbren Industries

 

http://timbren.com/aeon-springs/

 

As it says on the webpage, “Aeon” springs have been marketed for over 40 years and are generally retro-fitted to upgrade a vehicle’s suspension to cope better with heavy loads. The long flexible ‘cones’ fitted to certain Mk 6 and Mk 7 Transits are not “Aeon” rubber springs - they are Ford components fitted at the Ford factory where the chassis was made and not retrofitted by a motorhome manufacturer. If they were the genuine “Aeon” products, there would be little doubt that they were ’spring helpers’ and not ‘bump stops’.

 

Monique

 

There are photos on Page 1 of this thread that should give you a good idea of how long the Ford ‘cones’ are (though I can’t see why the length should matter to you).

 

The ‘“new Ford Transit” owned by your club member will be a Mk 8 and (if it is a coachbuilt motorhome) built on a Transit camping-car chassis not on the much earlier platform-cab chassis being discussed here. Your club member’s Ford will have bump-stops that are significantly shorter than the Ford ‘cones’ on Mr Motorhome’s Hymer.

 

The SumoSprings Solo was recently introduced for retrofitting to Ford Transit Mk 8s. The left photo on the following link

 

https://www.fordtransitengines.co.uk/blog/airless-airbag-new-application-ford-transit/

 

https://www.supersprings.com/products/sumosprings

 

shows the original short conical bump-stop (with plenty of clearance beneath) with the right photo showing the much longer SumoSprings replacement that has no clearance beneath.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Derek i have some good contact whit some VB air suspension engineers. They can fit everything on a ford transit. As i said times before what means the standard ride height? And at what condition of load or anything of age they are below of it.

[Brian Kirby]

Monique, I still think there is a misunderstanding. Mr Motorhome's van does not, and did not, need any suspension modifications. It was a mistake by the garage, and by the person who carried out his contrôle technique.

[andytw]

Is there any value in trying to, at least, get a part number off the assistors on Mr Motorhomes vehicle ? I think earlier in this thread it is implied that Ford do generically refer to them all as bump stops so the the answer would be 'No'. Just asking.

[Mr Motorhome]

 

 

That’s an interesting idea if there is some sort of identification number/part number stamped on them. Mine are a bit grubby so not sure if I could find it even if there was.

andytw - 2018-04-02 6:14 PM

 

Is there any value in trying to, at least, get a part number off the assistors on Mr Motorhomes vehicle ? I think earlier in this thread it is implied that Ford do generically refer to them all as bump stops so the the answer would be 'No'. Just asking.

[Mr Motorhome]

Hi All

 

I’m currently waiting upon replies from a number of organisations/companies including Ford and Hymer.

 

Today I’ve received a reply from the Vehicle Testing and Roadworthiness department via the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, in response to my request on whether a vehicle fitted with suspension spring assisters should fail an MOT for ‘inadequate clearance with the bump stop rear (rear suspension weak riding on bump stops) 2.4.A.1a’. They have confirmed it shouldn’t. They also included a link which I’ve added below although the article has been provided already by another poster. I may well ask if they could provide this confirmation in writing on DVSA headed paper.

 

‘We also published an article on this matter on our Matters of Testing blog;

https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/the-knowledge-spring-assisters-and-bump-stops/

 

Regards,

 

 

[Keithl]

Mr Motorhome - 2018-04-03 1:00 PM

 

 

 

That’s an interesting idea if there is some sort of identification number/part number stamped on them. Mine are a bit grubby so not sure if I could find it even if there was.

andytw - 2018-04-02 6:14 PM

 

Is there any value in trying to, at least, get a part number off the assistors on Mr Motorhomes vehicle ? I think earlier in this thread it is implied that Ford do generically refer to them all as bump stops so the the answer would be 'No'. Just asking.

 

Mr Motorhome,

 

Another way of approaching this may be to go to a Ford dealer and order a new 'Bump Stop' against your VIN and see what turns up.

If it is identical to what is currently fitted then that goes a long way to proving your suspension was original Ford fitment and not adapted by Hymer or others.

I would still be pushing the garage who 'modified' your suspension to revert it back to original.

 

PS Are you a member of AA, RAC, C&MC or C&CC? If so they all offer free legal advice and may be able to advise you how to deal with the garage. I have found in the past that as soon as you mention you have sought legal advice that the situation changes in your favour very quickly.

 

Keith.

[Mr Motorhome]

Thanks for your feedback, Keith.

 

Yes, I’m in the RAC and CCC so that’s something I can look into.

 

I’m currently waiting for the workshop to get back to me once they have received a written response from Ford. In the meantime I’m carrying out my own research.

 

Regards,

[andytw]

Mr Motorhome - 2018-04-03 1:00 PM

 

 

 

That’s an interesting idea if there is some sort of identification number/part number stamped on them. Mine are a bit grubby so not sure if I could find it even if there was.

andytw - 2018-04-02 6:14 PM

 

Is there any value in trying to, at least, get a part number off the assistors on Mr Motorhomes vehicle ? I think earlier in this thread it is implied that Ford do generically refer to them all as bump stops so the the answer would be 'No'. Just asking.

 

In Brian's post near the beginning, the 13th post in fact, his image shows numbers cast into the rubber. Probably worth getting it up on ramps and some soapy water on there and see what gives.

[Mr Motorhome]

Ah, yeah. Just took another look at the photo and it’s clearly marked.

[andytw]

Mr Motorhome - 2018-04-03 3:21 PM

 

Ah, yeah. Just took another look at the photo and it’s clearly marked.

 

BUT you might get a number off yours like 123454321 and look it up somewhere only to find it generically called a Bump stop. Worth a look though as it is your vehicle the is getting all the attention.

[Brian Kirby]

Keithl - 2018-04-03 1:34 PM....................If it is identical to what is currently fitted then that goes a long way to proving your suspension was original Ford fitment and not adapted by Hymer or others.

I would still be pushing the garage who 'modified' your suspension to revert it back to original.

Keith.

Personally, I strongly doubt that Hymer made any intervention on the suspension. If you look back to the picture I posted showing similar spring assisters on our FWD Transit based van, also a 2007 model, you will see that they appear identical to those on Mr Motorhome's van - and ours was a Hobby, which is not (yet! :-)) part of the Erwin Hymer Group. I'm reasonably certain this is a standard Ford part, albeit it may not have been fitted to all Transit variants.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Is your shock absorber in his working angle? Is Your Hotchkiss leaf spring single than at present the bumpstop is 5 inches as i seen On The MK 8 From turkey. The short one. I try to figure out the ride height on the transit F/R at max axle loads and tyre size. But a owner should be aware of this during time of use.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Yes Brian i saw some different part numbers. Not saying anything. I think chausson owners have more experencience for 30 years on the ford transit on motor homes. Their chassis is not regarded as a real motorhome chassis.

[Brian Kirby]

Mr Motorhome - 2018-04-03 3:21 PM

 

Ah, yeah. Just took another look at the photo and it’s clearly marked.

If it helps, I've had a look at the original, and as far as I can see the number is:

15

D788H

It is of course possible that it is not a Ford identifier, but one used by a manufacturer who supplies these supplementary springs to Ford.

 

I know I've already said this, but I don't think too much significance should be attached to what Ford call these items on their parts list. What you really need to know, direct from Ford, is what they are there for.

 

I think we all know that it is not a bump stop in the normal sense, but is a spring assister, or secondary spring, that is an integral part of the suspension, designed to work in conjunction with the single leaf semi-elliptic steel rear spring. Were that not the case, all vans so equipped would have failed their MoT tests (which, bearing in mind they are also fitted to the SEVEL vans - ours has them as well - would by now be a huge number of vans) plus, there would be no guidance on how to deal with them in the MoT testers' manual.

 

It should be fairly straightforward. If Ford confirm the part is a spring assister, as described in the DVSA article you referred to, then the MoT tester got it wrong, the fail notice was erroneous, and the modifications were not necessary. I think that is all you need to know.

 

The only reason I suggested that you also get an opinion from Ford on whether they would consider the present, modified, set up acceptable, is because the owner of the workshop may - when he is confronted with the evidence that his tester improperly issued a fail notice, and that his subsequent workshop modifications were therefore unwarranted - simply offer to refund the cost in preference to also reinstating the rear suspension as designed and installed by Ford. Then, if you have a statement from Ford that they do not consider the modified suspension satisfactory, you would have good reason to insist that the modifications are removed, and the original parts re-fitted. If, on the other hand, Ford say there is nothing wrong with the new set-up, and you receive an offer to refund the money but leave the suspension as is, at least you'd know there is no additional risk in accepting.

 

However, I have to say, were I a Ford technical engineer, I think I'd first insist on viewing the rear suspension at first hand, and not rely on a photograph for evidence of what, actually, has been done, how, and whose parts were used.

[andytw]

I think the number D788H may be a red herring. These are marked D788H and are clearly different and the text is for a Ford Sierra. Maybe it is the code for the compound.

 

http://ldsound.ru/novye-zadnie-otbojniki-na-ford-sierra-sedan/

[Mr Motorhome]

 

 

Your suggestions below are what I’m working on, Brian along with getting confirmation from DVSA that it shouldn’t fail on the inadequate clearance point. I also need, as you point out, to have the current suspension set-up inspected to make sure it’s safe........or not! Currently I’m a little hesitant to use the MH so it’s something I want resolving sooner rather than later.

 

Thanks again everyone for your advice.

 

Regards,

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-03 6:08 PM

 

Mr Motorhome - 2018-04-03 3:21 PM

 

Ah, yeah. Just took another look at the photo and it’s clearly marked.

If it helps, I've had a look at the original, and as far as I can see the number is:

15

D788H

It is of course possible that it is not a Ford identifier, but one used by a manufacturer who supplies these supplementary springs to Ford.

 

I know I've already said this, but I don't think too much significance should be attached to what Ford call these items on their parts list. What you really need to know, direct from Ford, is what they are there for.

 

I think we all know that it is not a bump stop in the normal sense, but is a spring assister, or secondary spring, that is an integral part of the suspension, designed to work in conjunction with the single leaf semi-elliptic steel rear spring. Were that not the case, all vans so equipped would have failed their MoT tests (which, bearing in mind they are also fitted to the SEVEL vans - ours has them as well - would by now be a huge number of vans) plus, there would be no guidance on how to deal with them in the MoT testers' manual.

 

It should be fairly straightforward. If Ford confirm the part is a spring assister, as described in the DVSA article you referred to, then the MoT tester got it wrong, the fail notice was erroneous, and the modifications were not necessary. I think that is all you need to know.

 

The only reason I suggested that you also get an opinion from Ford on whether they would consider the present, modified, set up acceptable, is because the owner of the workshop may - when he is confronted with the evidence that his tester improperly issued a fail notice, and that his subsequent workshop modifications were therefore unwarranted - simply offer to refund the cost in preference to also reinstating the rear suspension as designed and installed by Ford. Then, if you have a statement from Ford that they do not consider the modified suspension satisfactory, you would have good reason to insist that the modifications are removed, and the original parts re-fitted. If, on the other hand, Ford say there is nothing wrong with the new set-up, and you receive an offer to refund the money but leave the suspension as is, at least you'd know there is no additional risk in accepting.

 

However, I have to say, were I a Ford technical engineer, I think I'd first insist on viewing the rear suspension at first hand, and not rely on a photograph for evidence of what, actually, has been done, how, and whose parts were used.

[Brian Kirby]

A question? Way back, on 19 March, you said " I also know they have failed other MH’s for the same reason." May I ask how you came to know that?

[Brian Kirby]

andytw - 2018-04-03 9:17 PM

 

I think the number D788H may be a red herring. These are marked D788H and are clearly different and the text is for a Ford Sierra. Maybe it is the code for the compound.

 

http://ldsound.ru/novye-zadnie-otbojniki-na-ford-sierra-sedan/

Good find! I had reservations about those numbers giving positive identification for a specific Ford Transit van assister spring.