Rear rear suspension MOT failure (1 Viewer)

[vin0114]

I was told yesterday that my 2012 x250 Fiat Ducato LWB PVC had failed the MOT because there was insufficient clearance between the bump stop and the leaf spring. The garage suggested that either air suspension or a heavier leaf spring would be an option which they are looking into as well as contacting Fiat as its quite a young van for this to occur. On searching the web I found several forums stating that this is not a test failure and the bump stop is in fact a suspension assistor. I have contacted the dealer I bought the van from 12 months ago and they are looking into it.
I would be grateful for any comments or advice especially from anyone who has had a similar experience. I've enclosed a photo below.

Thanks
Vin

 

[SandraL]

http://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk...cato-X250-rear-leaf-springs-MOT-issues/23529/

I think this is the same issue as you have, and the outcome was good!

 

[PhilandMena]

An unusual failure me thinks! I wonder if this garage is hoping for additional paid work from you ? Are they a Fiat garage ? My gut feeling is the vehicle is fine and if confirmed by Fiat, report them for failing a vehicle that is OK. (How many other customers have been done ?).

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[laneside]

Yes you are correct it is not a bump stop it is a suspension assister our 2015 van when unladen sits just as near the spring as in the photo. Go get em.

 

[Lofty1]

The springs fitted to this vehicle are the parabolic type, they do not weaken or bend out of shape they just snap if under excessive strain.
nothing wrong with them but a cheap air suspension kit (£300) would improve height and handling

 

[Lenny HB]

It's not a fail the rear suspension is designed like that, search the forum there are several threads about it. Need to complain or report the garage. The Transit & Ducato have similar setups and have been around with this setup for over 10 years so an MOT station that tests vans should know about it.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[vin0114]

Many thanks and so reassuring. I have just spoken to the garage and he is adamant that it is purely a bump stop that should have a minimum of 1" clearance. He added that when speaking to Autoworld Fiat Chesterfield they had said that this vehicle should have been fitted with double leaf springs! It is clear that the extended bumpstop/assistor is the problem being deeper than the standard bumpstop thus filling the necessary clearance demanded by the MOT test. Timberland have come back to me and advised a retest at the garage they use and it would not be a problem.
I am now contacting Autocruise for their comments.
Just thought, Hacksaw an inch off the extended lump?
Vin

 

[1_man_and_his_dob(lo)]

Just thought, Hacksaw an inch off the extended lump?

My old spring assisters (which look the same as yours) lost the bottom section on both sides - the ride seemed much nicer

This is timely. When I bought my Doblo, I wasn't sure whether it had bumpstops or spring assisters. The Fiat garage said they were assisters, as did the Doblo forums. The independent garage I use referred to them as bumpstops last year when they advised me they were worn.

The replacements I fitted are now pretty much touching the leaf springs, whereas I thought a few years ago there was a small gap. The Doblo forums mention quite often that for heavily-loaded vans and taxi/wheelchair conversions this is to be expected. But I'm a bit worried about the MOT next week and whether I'm going to have to convince the garage that they are not bumpstops. This weekend, I'll be emptying everything out of the van to see if I can lift the rear a bit.

 

[gus-lopez]

[QUOTE="vin0114, post: 2206229, member: 30022"
Just thought, Hacksaw an inch off the extended lump?
Vin[/QUOTE]

That's all I 'd do. then fit another set & swop every mot.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Minxy]

I suggest going back to the original MOT tester and telling him to do his research as this is NOT a MOT failure. If he refuses then him that as he is failing Fiats with these he is in the wrong and therefore issuing false MOT failures and you will therefore be contacting Trading Standards and the body that approves MOT stations as he is obviously not up to speed!

If you go elsewhere for a test you will end up paying again!

 

[vin0114]

Thanks again for more supporting comments, I will await Swift/Autocruise comments as the main dealer Autoways Fiat Chesterfield don't have a clue - double leaf spring on a panel van conversion?

hacksaw ready!
Vin

 

[Geo]

Sorry to disappoint you
For the purpose of an MoT test It is a bump stop, period
from the pic it is clear you have insufficient clearance period
It is an MoT fail folks and no amount of arguments will change that
Either shorten them or remove them totaly missing bump stops are NOT a reason for rejection
Geo

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[vin0114]

Sorry to disappoint you
For the purpose of an MoT test It is a bump stop, period
from the pic it is clear you have insufficient clearance period
It is an MoT fail folks and no amount of arguments will change that
Either shorten them or remove them totaly missing bump stops are NOT a reason for rejection
Geo

I do not accept your comments but it is refreshing to actual receive a written comment regarding this issue from an MOT VOSA testing station. I will await Swift's comments and hope you are mistaken as every other comment I have read on this forum and several others are totally the opposite to yours. Even Autoways Epsom gave a pass and full reimbursement after giving such a failure. Or maybe you think everyone on this forum are just making things up?
Vin

 

[Geo]

We have a 54 plate Ducato in at the mo and as testers this is what we would expect to see
If your defense is its empty (Its Not) then that also might suggest the OP's Van may be overloaded
Unsuprisingly as ever the blame fell fully on the Tester

 

[Geo]

I do not accept your comments but it is refreshing to actual receive a written comment regarding this issue from an MOT VOSA testing station. I will await Swift's comments and hope you are mistaken as every other comment I have read on this forum and several others are totally the opposite to yours. Even Autoways Epsom gave a pass and full reimbursement after giving such a failure. Or maybe you think everyone on this forum are just making things up?
Vin

If you came here for a test you would have too im afraid
Im old enough and long enough in the tooth NOT to rely on memory or opinion I read the Manual before replying as I always do Fiat would need to convince DVSA as were now called it was a design feature and a special notice would then be issued, one has not been issued to date I check those as well
Geo

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Lofty1]

Shorten the stops, Geo is right it is a failure, I have a spare set of stops if you need to replace them after shortening They just screw out after a sharp tap with an old chisel or screwdriver

 

[Mikeco]

As above these are spring assisters and the MOT station is wrong. There is an advisory note available to MOT garages advising this. However as the suspension is under almost maximum load fitting air suspension would be beneficial.

 

[telsdog]

The MOT testing manual section 2.4 has information that a bump stop must not be confused with rubber/synthetic suspension spring assistors. Difficult for a tester to know the difference but if you could show something from fiat that says they are assistors the garage should pass it.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MC 55 FUN]

As a casual observer I find this thread both intriguing & very disconcerting, either it's a pass or a fail - surely it can't be a pass or a fail depending on which M.O.T. station tests it ?

I look forward to the eventual outcome.

 

[Geo]

As above these are spring assisters and the MOT station is wrong. There is an advisory note available to MOT garages advising this. However as the suspension is under almost maximum load fitting air suspension would be beneficial.

Show me and I will pass the next one it will have at the Top special Notice N0 ? issued ??/??/20??
If it hasn't then its NOT an Official Notice and I can not act on it even if its fronm the CEO of Fiat
If it is then I will implement it simples

The MOT testing manual section 2.4 has information that a bump stop must not be confused with rubber/synthetic suspension spring assistors. Difficult for a tester to know the difference but if you could show something from fiat that says they are assistors the garage should pass it.

Classic error me thinks
You have taken, and quoted from suspension "General" front and rear, and are applying it to suspension leaf springs specificly
the bit you quote has been there since the 80s i think, and was put there to combat an incorrect failure that was happening then,go to e bay and search Spring assisters and you will see what is meant
perhaps a better way would be to say "Coil spring assisters should not be confused with bump stops"
these are meant to be coil bound and were being failed for being so
I think your quoted phrase has/is being manipulated to suit this leaf spring scenario.
and is in my opinion being incorrectly used to describe rear bump stops. on a leaf spring
Just finished another Vosa data base search back to 2010 and nothing is showing up so far.
there appears to be tons of reported documents to support these bump stops as being spring assisters but none is being offered as proof as yet even if it appears untill DVSA acept and adopt that therory then it remains a fail here that I can hopefully back up with a testing Manual should I ever be challenged
Geo

 

[vin0114]

If you came here for a test you would have too im afraid
Im old enough and long enough in the tooth NOT to rely on memory or opinion I read the Manual before replying as I always do Fiat would need to convince DVSA as were now called it was a design feature and a special notice would then be issued, one has not been issued to date I check those as well
Geo

Quote from
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
2.4 Suspension - General ..quotes
A suspension bump stop must not be confused with rubber/synthetic suspension spring assistors.

so a bit conspicuous as it doesn't say why, except for the fact that synthetic suspension spring assistors leave no gap between the axle and chassis?
Vin

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[telsdog]

As an MOT tester I am of the opinion that if Fiat call it a spring assistor and not a bump stop then it should pass. I would be inclined to add an advisory to the fact it was considered as an assistor and there was little or no clearance.

 

[gus-lopez]

It just seems ludicrous in this day that both customer & tester should be put in this position.

 

[laneside]

Interesting now I would set my stall by Geo as being one to know and trust but I have just taken these pictures under our 2015 Fial PV conversion that has not yet covered 8000 miles. I have only just recently put it over the weigh bridge so know it has only 1700Kg on the rear axle but the spring assiters are clearly up to the leaf spring.
The Fiat handbook clearly says that they are not bump stops but suspension assistors

Definitely not argueing with Geo but if this is the case I will definitely be looking at air suspension when back in England

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Geo]

As a casual observer I find this thread both intriguing & very disconcerting, either it's a pass or a fail - surely it can't be a pass or a fail depending on which M.O.T. station tests it ?

I look forward to the eventual outcome.

Im saddened to say yes you are correct
And the reasons are many
1.Insecurity in ones own knowledge base
2. Lack of confidence
3. Revenue driven Testing by Multi Nationals 8 sets of shocks a day or your sacked
4. Inability to interpret manuals logically
5. Station Management overruling
6. Get rich quick establishments doing 12 tests per tester per 8 Hr day
7. And so on
More than time permits to describe all that is wrong with the system
Number 4 crops up regular, this post I fear is a prime example I might be wrong I might win the lottery to night and I wont care either way

 

[Geo]

View attachment 144466 View attachment 144465 Interesting now I would set my stall by Geo as being one to know and trust but I have just taken these pictures under our 2015 Fial PV conversion that has not yet covered 8000 miles. I have only just recently put it over the weigh bridge so know it has only 1700Kg on the rear axle but the spring assiters are clearly up to the leaf spring.
The Fiat handbook clearly says that they are not bump stops but suspension assistors

Definitely not argueing with Geo but if this is the case I will definitely be looking at air suspension when back in England

You wont get an argument from me on testing matters of any sort ever you will get an educated opinion and what folk do with wont cause me to loose sleep
I cant say I enjoy being wrong but it makes me better armed for round two
I read and interpret the manual based on passed experience my personal knowledge and an in depth view of how VOSA/DVSA thinks and many many training Hrs as an Authorised Examiner and MoT Tester
he's the one responsible for all the testers
The object of every test here is to give you a pass wherever i can give one
Failing vehicles gives us no pleasure, keeping you and yours safe keeps us in business
and out of trouble

 

[Mikeco]

Show me and I will pass the next one it will have at the Top special Notice N0 ? issued ??/??/20??
If it hasn't then its NOT an Official Notice and I can not act on it even if its fronm the CEO of Fiat
If it

My van went for its first MOT in October 2014 before I fitted the air suspension, the tester was concerned that the "bump stops" were touching at the bottom, he however passed it but I went into research mode. I then found and read an advisory note issued to MOT testing stations that said that vehicles of this type were wrongly being failed

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[vin0114]

We have a 54 plate Ducato in at the mo and as testers this is what we would expect to see
If your defense is its empty (Its Not) then that also might suggest the OP's Van may be overloaded
Unsuprisingly as ever the blame fell fully on the Tester


View attachment 144459 View attachment 144460

Not a fair comparison at all. Surely you've tested a similar vehicle to mine? did you fail it? whose blaming the tester for what? he's done his job applying the rules he's been given as you would. I have no problem with that but I dispute the failure and maintain that the stops fitted are suspension assistors. I await replies.
Vin

 

[telsdog]

Classic error me thinks Geo is that you are reading the testing manual and putting you own interpretation to it. The section 2.4 is for general suspension front and rear and not just coil springs. In my opinion a bump stop is normally a lump of hardish rubber that STOPS the suspension going further than intended. If the parts fitted to the Ducato are designed to bring the suspension to a less sudden halt and Fiat call it an assistors I will pass it. If you see it different then OK but to say that for mot purposes its a bump stop period is a bit misleading and just your opinion

 

[MC 55 FUN]

http://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk...cato-X250-rear-leaf-springs-MOT-issues/23529/

I think this is the same issue as you have, and the outcome was good!

The info in this outandaboutlive link dates back to 2011 . . . surely someone, somewhere has the facts of the matter by now ?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}