 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / October 2006MOT test and Hand Break
How is the hand break tested in other Countries. Here in Ireland, the last time I went, they drove the Range Rover and pulled it on. If the contraption they had installed on the floor registered the correct reading all was ok. If not it failed. No mention of the transmission and damage it might have caused. I have to go for another test in the near future and I am seriously hoping they have changed the test methods. Hugh > How is the hand break tested in other Countries. Here in Ireland, the > last time I went, they drove the Range Rover and pulled it on. If the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I have to go for another test in the near future and I am seriously > hoping they have changed the test methods. The last fuckwit vehicle tester who applied a cardan shaft handbrake like that on one of my vehicles was unemployed shortly thereafter. It is NOT an acceptable practice - I've seen the backing plate torn off the back of the gearbox after somebody tried this. The only safe methods of testing this type of handbrake are either statically by checking it will hold the vehicle on a slope of the required grade, or loading the brake by engaging first gear and GENTLY releasing the clutch to ensure that the vehicle does not move.  SignatureEMB >> How is the hand break tested in other Countries. Here in Ireland, the >> last time I went, they drove the Range Rover and pulled it on. If the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > loading the brake by engaging first gear and GENTLY releasing the clutch > to ensure that the vehicle does not move. You could start by nicely explaining the hazards with reference to the owner's manual (I think that there's something there). There is this document on the website of the Irish Department of Transport (effectively the testers' manual)- no guarantee that this is the appropriate document but it looks right: http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=6480&lang=ENG&loc=1865 You should look at Item 23 on page 32. It doesn't make very comforting reading as they mention only a roller test (apply the parking brake slowly...) or if a roller test cannot be used a decelerometer test. Transmission brakes are acknowledged but if the roller test cannot be used there is no official 'get out' to save your driveline. > >> How is the hand break tested in other Countries. Here in Ireland, the > >> last time I went, they drove the Range Rover and pulled it on. If the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > the roller test cannot be used there is no official 'get out' to save > your driveline. Bottom line for a landrover in the UK (Areas covered by VOSA rules):- You basically have 2 choices; 1. Roller brake test if vehicle is of a design that allows, i.e. not viscous centre coupling; 2..Decelerometer test. The ONLY (legal) way your vehicle will legally pass an MOT is if the handbrake is tested in accordance with the MOT rules, nothing else. On series and pre-viscous centre diff motors, I tend to try the rollers but if any snatching occurs I stop. I always work out the brake force required for a "pass" regardless (16% for dual-circuit brake system types) and stop when (if!) I reach that figure. If a decelerometer test is required, again the handbrake is applied very slowly and only until the required force is indicated, no further. Personally, I strongly disagree with having to test landrover transmission handbrakes in this fashion, however, the handbrake has passed type-approval for the vehicle which means that it must be suitable/safe to be applied in an emergency if a total brake failure occurs, and there is no other procedure open to the tester within the limits of the tester's manual. Another point I would add - as long as there is no excessive free-play in drive members, diff, prop u/j's and splines, and the handbrake is operating correctly, then they don't snatch and judder and are therefore safe to test by either of the 2 above methods. From experience, there are only problems if there is a fault or wear somewhere. I still don't agree with it however, but there is no other way of (legally) getting an MOT pass. Before I was an MOT tester myself, my "local" tester would try to gently pull away with the parking brake applied, if it didn't move it passed. However, this isn't "legal" for VOSA, and if the vehicle subsequently has an issue requiring VOSA's involvement (post-R.T.A. investigation, appeal, etc etc) and they test it "correctly" and it fails, it's the tester that gets it in the neck big-style! (Unless he/she can prove that they tested it correctly and it was ok at the time of testing) I've been a witness at a VOSA investigation, and believe me when I say I wouldn't want to be the one getting investigated!! Badger. >>>> How is the hand break tested in other Countries. Here in Ireland, the >>>> last time I went, they drove the Range Rover and pulled it on. If the [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > getting investigated!! > Badger. They still use Tapley meters on a 4wd in this day & age??? SignatureKaren If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.' Catherine Aird > They still use Tapley meters on a 4wd in this day & age??? Indeed they do, Karen. As the vehicles have become more and more sophisticated with all their ABS, Active differentials, Traction Control, Electronic Brake Distribution etc etc, there are now a lot of vehicles that "chuck the teddy" if placed on rollers that do anything other than turn all 4 wheels at the same speed! Some will light up their dashboards like Blackpool Illuminations, some will attempt to "leave" the rollers. For this reason, we still use Tapley and Bowmonk type decelerometer testers. In all honesty, they are good, reliable and accurate devices. They also give the tester the oppertunity to assess the brakes whilst actually driving, possibly allowing a sensible tester a bit of leeway in deciding that something is actually ok??? Badger. >> They still use Tapley meters on a 4wd in this day & age??? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Badger. I'd rather assumed that they'd gone into museums. I live in a state where annual vehicle testing is not done, only requirement for a roadworthy test is upon sale of the vehicle as a road-going vehicle. So my 38 year old Series never sees the inside of a commercial garage. There are pro's & con's to Queensland's laws, we do have a few 'bombs' around but mostly the police roadside checks pick 'em up before someone gets killed by them. You make a sound argument for their use, I must admit. SignatureKaren Gallagher "Reverse the polarity and invert the particle flux!" "You mean put the batteries in the other way?" "...yes." -Star Trek (any of them) >Another point I would add - as long as there is no excessive free-play in >drive members, diff, prop u/j's and splines, and the handbrake is operating >correctly, then they don't snatch and judder and are therefore safe to test >by either of the 2 above methods. From experience, there are only problems >if there is a fault or wear somewhere. Hmmm. Ought to check the latest disco for driveline play... That exhibits lots of snatch and judder. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in Boswell's "Johnson". <snip> > Bottom line for a landrover in the UK (Areas covered by VOSA rules):- You > basically have 2 choices; [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > handbrake is tested in accordance with the MOT rules, nothing else. On > series and pre-viscous centre diff motors, I tend to try the rollers If the viscous coupling is not seized then I would say it's not going to do any harm because the rollers are only moving slowly and you would get your necessary reading, but if it *is* seized it would only push the motor off the rollers, not do any harm either, and you would know the viscous coupling *is* knackered. but if > any snatching occurs I stop. I always work out the brake force required for > a "pass" regardless (16% for dual-circuit brake system types) and stop when > (if!) I reach that figure. If a decelerometer test is required, again the > handbrake is applied very slowly and only until the required force is > indicated, no further. I don't agree with this at all and wouldn't allow my handbrake to be tested this way, though I've no objection to the rollers which are a controlled speed. > Personally, I strongly disagree with having to test landrover transmission > handbrakes in this fashion, however, the handbrake has passed type-approval > for the vehicle which means that it must be suitable/safe to be applied in > an emergency if a total brake failure occurs, The vehicle should be parked on a steep incline, the handbrake applied whilst stationary, and the vehicle should remain stationary. The handbrake is a *parking* brake and should only be tested as such, the dual line braking system is fitted to deal with as a backup as I see it. Martin and there is no other > procedure open to the tester within the limits of the tester's manual. > Another point I would add - as long as there is no excessive free-play in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if there is a fault or wear somewhere. I still don't agree with it however, > but there is no other way of (legally) getting an MOT pass. > <snip> I'll say again > > The ONLY (legal) way your vehicle will legally pass an MOT is if the > > handbrake is tested in accordance with the MOT rules, nothing else. > If the viscous coupling is not seized then I would say it's not going to do > any harm because the rollers are only moving slowly and you would get your > necessary reading, but if it *is* seized it would only push the motor off > the rollers, not do any harm either, and you would know the viscous coupling > *is* knackered. If the rollers are modern enough to have a dedicated 4wd mode, then this will work for the front and rear axles as it allows the wheels to rotate in opposite directions whilst testing one at a time. However, some vehicle's traction control and abs systems will kick in and make the thing climb out of the rollers regardless. I still don't like applying the handbrake on a viscous motor whilst doing the front brake imbalance test, it's not doing the transmission any favours! Policy in the place I do my MOT's is :- 2wd, rollers. 4wd, tapley/bowmonk. > but if > > any snatching occurs I stop. I always work out the brake force required [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > this way, though I've no objection to the rollers which are a controlled > speed. You may not agree, and for the record neither do I, BUT that's the rules and if you don't like it then you don't get your MOT test. By working out the minimum effort required for a pass and not exceeding it, I'm doing you a favour!! Another point to consider, the rollers will allow each wheel's speed to change independantly, giving rise to a lot of backlash induced snatching. The road doesn't - that actually helps to avoid snatch and clunking when applying the parking brake during a decelerometer test, which is also a controlled speed, 20mph and apply smoothly. > The vehicle should be parked on a steep incline, the handbrake applied > whilst stationary, and the vehicle should remain stationary. Not a valid and legal test, m'Lord. Sorry. Even if I agree with you, which I do, we are confined by the rules. > The handbrake > is a *parking* brake and should only be tested as such, the dual line > braking system is fitted to deal with as a backup as I see it. Yes, which is why the efficiency rating for a parking brake is 16% on a dual-circuit vehicle and (I think) 25% on a single-circuit. The theory is that with 2 service brake circuits the handbrake is no longer required to be the secondary brakig device, BUT having said that, it is still homologated as a device that *can* be used as an emergency brake. As an MOT tester and mechanic with a lot of years experience on landy's, I personally STRONGLY disagree with the methods for testing landrover parking (hand) brakes, but these are the rules and they are unlikely to change. There ought to be a "static pull test against the brake" for vehicles with dual-circuit brakes (much the same as the original motorcycle brake testers), BUT single-circuit landys (up to around earlyish SIII?) would still have to be roller or decel. tested, as the handbrake IS the secondary circuit! Now, if the parking/hand brake has been designed to function as the secondary system for emergency use, as it would have been by the manufacturer, and it's design hasn't really altered since (other than cable operation instead of rods), is it not reasonable to assume that it should work correctly either by roller or decelerometer testing? Is that not *why* we are testing the vehicle annualy in the first place, to sort out the badly maintained and unsafe vehicles? Badger. > Not a valid and legal test, m'Lord. Sorry. Even if I agree with you, which I > do, we are confined by the rules. It's valid and legal at this end of the world - on of the few MOT type things they've got right. SignatureEMB > > Not a valid and legal test, m'Lord. Sorry. Even if I agree with you, which I > > do, we are confined by the rules. > > It's valid and legal at this end of the world - on of the few MOT type > things they've got right. Wish VOSA would take heed and ammend things this end, but somehow I doubt it! Badger. > > <snip> > > I'll say again > > > > The ONLY (legal) way your vehicle will legally pass an MOT is if the > > > handbrake is tested in accordance with the MOT rules, nothing else. Yes, I was forgetting about the RULES ;-) <snip> > applying the parking brake during a decelerometer test, which is also a > controlled speed, 20mph and apply smoothly. It's a good job most Landrover handbrakes are full of oil and gunge or your forehead would look like it had mumps. ;-) > > The vehicle should be parked on a steep incline, the handbrake applied > > whilst stationary, and the vehicle should remain stationary. > > Not a valid and legal test, m'Lord. Sorry. Even if I agree with you, which I > do, we are confined by the rules. Yep them goddam rules again. ;-) > Now, if the parking/hand brake has been designed to function as the > secondary system for emergency use, as it would have been by the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > maintained and unsafe vehicles? > Badger. I don't honestly think Landrover gave a s**t about an emergency backup when they designed the handbrake on the old series, or they had a funny sense of humour. Bloody lethal as a secondary brake if they are clean and kept adjusted. Martin >>><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Martin Am I missing something here (apart from the fact that this thread started off from an Eire not NI query) - what's all this about secondary brakes and emergency brakes etc.? Without going to read the actual words in the manual (UK or Eire), the test is a test as a parking brake only and the sole reason I can see for the use of rollers/decelerometers is that the wording/procedure has been chosen to recognise that most test stations do not have a suitable (calibrated!) ramp on which to carry out a static holding test. The use of the word 'efficiency' in relation to a brake performance test is a bit of a misnomer, too, but that's another matter. Parking brake balance is irrelevant with a transmission brake - and that is specifically recognised in the Irish manual. > Am I missing something here (apart from the fact that this thread > started off from an Eire not NI query) - what's all this about secondary [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Parking brake balance is irrelevant with a transmission brake - and that > is specifically recognised in the Irish manual. I read a bit more (should have done it first, sorry) and see that if there is a service brake with a split system the park brake can have a reduced effectiveness. There's also a very interesting little note at the bottom of the "Brake Efficiency Table" stating that "16% parking brake efficiency equates to a vehicle holding on a gradient of 1 in 6.25". Is that an acknowledgement that, at least for the 16% test, it is permissible to conduct a static holding test on a 16% minimum grade? > Am I missing something here (apart from the fact that this thread > started off from an Eire not NI query) - what's all this about > secondary brakes and emergency brakes etc.? By definition, if a vehicle has only one primary braking circuit then the "handbrake" is classed as a secondary system working on 2 wheels only, and must meet a higher brake force (as a percentage of the vehicle's mass) than if the vehicle had a dual-circuit braking system. > Without going to read the actual words in the manual (UK or Eire), the > test is a test as a parking brake only and the sole reason I can see > for the use of rollers/decelerometers is that the wording/procedure > has been chosen to recognise that most test stations do not have a > suitable (calibrated!) ramp on which to carry out a static holding test. Quite. Someone, somewhere, decided that the "handbrake" should be tested in a similar fashion to the main braking system(s). That's the test that is stipulated by VOSA in the UK, so that's the test that we, as testers, have to conduct. Anything else and we leave ourselves wide open to penalisation (and possible loss of testing authorisation) by VOSA. To be honest, I have no issue with that on a vehicle where the "handbrake" is the secondary system, i.e. single-circuit service brakes. As I already said, it ought to work correctly or there is some sort of fault. Soft engine and gearbox mountings are a favourite. > The use of the word 'efficiency' in relation to a brake performance > test is a bit of a misnomer, too, but that's another matter. Sorry, don't get you there. The efficiency, as I understand it, is the brake force applied relative to the vehicle's weight. I tested my own 110 yesterday, it has a brake test weight of (I think, from memory) 2210kg and it produced over 1900kg brake force on the rollers, which I feel is quite good for the type. Interesting point, the rear drums produced slightly higher braking force than the front 4-pot vented disc setup!! Now that surprised me, I must admit. > Parking brake balance is irrelevant with a transmission brake - and > that is specifically recognised in the Irish manual. Parking brake balance is pretty much irrelevant anyway, as long as the required "efficiency" total is met there's no problem. (Unless, of course, one side is down due to an obvious fluid leak onto the brakes) Badger. >Interesting point, the rear drums produced slightly >higher braking force than the front 4-pot vented disc setup!! Now that >surprised me, I must admit. they're bloody good brakes, those drums. mind, have you got EBC pads on the front? they tend to take a bit of heat to work really well, IME, although they work much better when hot, and don't seem to glaze like some pads one could mention. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink; Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by; Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710) > >Interesting point, the rear drums produced slightly > >higher braking force than the front 4-pot vented disc setup!! Now that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to work really well, IME, although they work much better when hot, and don't > seem to glaze like some pads one could mention. No mate, std landrover genuine parts vented discs and pads. Wouldn't touch brakes beginning with "B" if you paid me!! Badger. > No mate, std landrover genuine parts vented discs and pads. Wouldn't touch > brakes beginning with "B" if you paid me!! Assuming that's the same "B" that supply sub-standard brake parts here I'll quite agree with you. SignatureEMB >> >Interesting point, the rear drums produced slightly >> >higher braking force than the front 4-pot vented disc setup!! Now that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >No mate, std landrover genuine parts vented discs and pads. Wouldn't touch >brakes beginning with "B" if you paid me!! EBC doesn't begin with B... and come to that, nor did the pads that got glazed. I think they Delphi ones. My main objection to standard parts is the price of same, and for a lot of things, the price difference is not reflected in the quality. This may not apply to brakes, I don't know. Paddock, for example, had CV joints for 25 quid a bit back. Now, these are undoubtedly not as good as genuine LR ones, but then again, at that price, and bearing in mind they're not hard to fit, you could replace 'em every 2 years. consider, from Beamends's list: FTC1332 Front Driveshaft (Inc CV Joint) - RH 33-Spline 3 options: Britprat at 94 quid, Spicer at 199.63, Genuine at 446.50, all including the chancellor's cut. I daresay Britprat ones aren't as good, but I doubt frankly that the genuine ones are at least 4 times as good, and it's quite possible that the Spicer ones are the same as the genuine ones but without the LR badge on. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Where they make a desert they call it peace" Tacitus (c.55 - c.117) Agricola, 30 > >> >Interesting point, the rear drums produced slightly > >> >higher braking force than the front 4-pot vented disc setup!! Now that [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > quite possible that the Spicer ones are the same as the genuine ones but > without the LR badge on. Austin, I was referring to the pads that "glaze like some I could mention", not the EBC's. Badger. > Austin, I was referring to the pads that "glaze like some I could mention", > not the EBC's. I assume they are the B?????x ones - summat like Bollox SignatureEMB >Austin, I was referring to the pads that "glaze like some I could mention", >not the EBC's. >Badger. I know you were, and personally, I don't buy cheap-brand pads such as first line and the like - however, I've been disappointed with the quality of the supposedly-good lockheed/delphi ones, which used to be OK. I had genuine pads on the 110 ISTR, mainly 'cos no-one seemed to list the ones for those calipers (early 110) at the time I wanted to buy 'em, and they performed well. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero" (sieze today, and put as little trust as you can in tomorrow) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Odes, I.xi.8 >The use of the word 'efficiency' in relation to a brake performance >test is a bit of a misnomer, too, but that's another matter. it's expressed in terms of braking force as a percentage of vehicle (or axle, actually, I think) weight. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink; Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by; Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710) >The vehicle should be parked on a steep incline, the handbrake applied >whilst stationary, and the vehicle should remain stationary. The handbrake >is a *parking* brake and should only be tested as such, the dual line >braking system is fitted to deal with as a backup as I see it. The law says otherwise, though, I suspect. And there are credible failures of a dual-line system which can disable both lines. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Brevis esse laboro, Obscurus fio" (it is when I struggle to be brief that I become obscure) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Ars Poetica, 25 > >The vehicle should be parked on a steep incline, the handbrake applied > >whilst stationary, and the vehicle should remain stationary. The handbrake [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The law says otherwise, though, I suspect. And there are credible failures > of a dual-line system which can disable both lines. Poor maintenance? Martin >> >The vehicle should be parked on a steep incline, the handbrake applied >> >whilst stationary, and the vehicle should remain stationary. The [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Poor maintenance? well, yeah, that I suppose. I had in mind the brake failure warning thing you tend to get between the 2 lines on some systems... somehow, linking 2 supposedly independant systems doesn't make sense. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink; Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by; Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710) "Austin Shackles" <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote :- > >> The law says otherwise, though, I suspect. And there are credible > >failures [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you tend to get between the 2 lines on some systems... somehow, linking 2 > supposedly independant systems doesn't make sense. Both fluid systems are separate and at the same pressure, being fed from two separate compartments of the master cylinder of the same diameter and if the pressure falls in one system as in a burst pipe, the greater pressure of the other system forces the shuttle valve towards the leaking system in the 'pressure differential valve' and blocks it so there are no further leaks and also lifts a switch connected to a warning lamp and after one more stroke of the master cylinder, restores the pedal position so you can stop, albeit with less braking efficiency. The warning lamp then stays lit until repairs are effected and the shuttle in the valve is returned to the central position (unless of course the bulb is popped or a million other things go wrong that could). Martin >Both fluid systems are separate and at the same pressure, being fed from two >separate compartments of the master cylinder of the same diameter and if the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >position (unless of course the bulb is popped or a million other things go >wrong that could). yes, I know how it works in theory. I've also seen such things as engine oil pressure switches that leak oil out of the top... SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Where they make a desert they call it peace" Tacitus (c.55 - c.117) Agricola, 30 > yes, I know how it works in theory. Doh... I cud 'ave saved me breath. ;-) I've also seen such things as engine > oil pressure switches that leak oil out of the top... Yebbut, them's Fords and OT. ;-) Martin >>>> How is the hand break tested in other Countries. Here in >>>> Ireland, the last time I went, they drove the Range Rover and [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > occurs, and there is no other procedure open to the tester within the > limits of the tester's manual. But after such an 'Emergency' stop the vehicle does not have to be driveable. Slapping an auto into 'P'ark (if it will go) will meet that requirement, but is exceedingly unlikely to perform thereafter! I have asked here in the North how they do it and was told on the rollers, quite simple, one wheel at a time reversing direction of axel pairs. Another point I would add - as long as > there is no excessive free-play in drive members, diff, prop u/j's > and splines, and the handbrake is operating correctly, then they [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > investigated!! > Badger. SignatureDon't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it! If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate The fiend of my fiend is my enema! > > Bottom line for a landrover in the UK (Areas covered by VOSA rules):- > > You basically have 2 choices; [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Slapping an auto into 'P'ark (if it will go) will meet that requirement, but is > exceedingly unlikely to perform thereafter! The "Park" facility on an auto IS NOT an emergency brake however, it is a safety device to prevent the vehicle moving and crushing a mechanic/owner/ innocent bystander should an internal hydraulic fault cause a gear to be engaged whilst the vehicle is being worked on with the engine running. Applying it whilst in motion is a sure-fire way to shear the operating pawl within the 'box, making it a one-shot system! > I have asked here in the North how they do it and was told on the rollers, quite > simple, one wheel at a time reversing direction of axel pairs. Doesn't work on a landrover though, the brake drum is at the output of the gearbox, on the rear propshaft. If the wheels are allowed to turn in opposite directions then the wheels will continue to rotate with NO brake force being registered as the parking brake is applied. A basic function of how a differential operates Something else to consider, roughly on-topic, how many MOT testers bother to put the transfer box in neutral and autobox in Drive when doing the emissions testing? It's a well-known and well documented failure mode for the ZF4 autobox, revving the engine in P or N can cause premature wear of the input shaft oil sealing rings - closely followed by "A" clutch failure and loss of all drive! Badger. >The "Park" facility on an auto IS NOT an emergency brake however, it is a >safety device to prevent the vehicle moving and crushing a mechanic/owner/ >innocent bystander should an internal hydraulic fault cause a gear to be >engaged whilst the vehicle is being worked on with the engine running. >Applying it whilst in motion is a sure-fire way to shear the operating pawl >within the 'box, making it a one-shot system! I recall hearing a possibly-apocryphal tale about testing the strength of the parking pawl in the Borg-Warner factory and inadvertently finding a very fast way of removing the engine and gearbox from a Ford. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Brevis esse laboro, Obscurus fio" (it is when I struggle to be brief that I become obscure) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Ars Poetica, 25 Does anybody remember when the MOT first started, and the tester used a full house brick standing on end. If it fell over when handbrake applied it passed. >> The "Park" facility on an auto IS NOT an emergency brake however, it is a >> safety device to prevent the vehicle moving and crushing a mechanic/owner/ [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the parking pawl in the Borg-Warner factory and inadvertently finding a very > fast way of removing the engine and gearbox from a Ford. Sounds like an urban myth to me - despite my best efforts (deliberately with old wrecks just to see what would happen) I've never managed to have a catastrophic failure by engaging park at speed. Engaging reverse whilst traveling forwards at speed does however cause a whole range of interesting effects and could well tear an engine and gearbox off it's mounts (and is quite a good way to spit bits of driveshaft all over the road). SignatureEMB >> I recall hearing a possibly-apocryphal tale about testing the strength of >> the parking pawl in the Borg-Warner factory and inadvertently finding a very [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >it's mounts (and is quite a good way to spit bits of driveshaft all over >the road). Way I was told it, they were testing the box to make sure that it didn't break when idiots did things like engaging park on the move. It's possible that it was shifting to reverse that removed the engine, mind. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Where they make a desert they call it peace" Tacitus (c.55 - c.117) Agricola, 30 >> > Bottom line for a landrover in the UK (Areas covered by VOSA rules):- >> > You basically have 2 choices; [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >Badger. That's an interesting one. Don't think they've ever done that on my defender auto - or any of my other autos. Does it apply to all auto boxes or just this particular one? Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting > >Something else to consider, roughly on-topic, how many MOT testers bother to > >put the transfer box in neutral and autobox in Drive when doing the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does it apply to all auto boxes or just this particular one? Just the ZF4 series, as far as I am aware. Used in various BMW's, Jaguars, Volvo's and Landrover products. Very well documented in the USofA, lots of issues with BMW's having 'box failures after smog-testing, just do a google and you'll find some more info on that. I've had the fault on one of my own boxes, and sure enough when I stripped it the steel piston-ring type seals had eaten 2 grooves into the stator shaft (support shaft for the stator part of the torque convertor) and the main "A" clutch had considerable wear, caused by the resulting pressure leak past the seals. Quick test, get the box and oil hot, place in neutral on flat surface, hand (sorry, parking!) brake off, rev to 3000 and if it tries to creep forwards then the seals are worn and "A" clutch failure is probably imminent. Don't hold at 3000 waiting for something to happen, just get there then straight back down. Badger. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.