 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Peugeot Cars / January 2006Door jamming 'deadlocked' on 406
My 2001 406 estate has just developed a fault with the front passenger's door. I normally lock, then deadlock, the vehicle with one push of each of the buttons on my key. When returning I use the same remote to unlock, however the passenger's door remains deadlocked (or perhaps just locked ?). If I don't deadlock remotely, simply lock, then it unlocks again fine. The only way to open the door if stuck 'electronically' deadlocked is to physically insert my key into its lock. I'm guessing I've got a duff solenoid ? Any experience out there on how easy to repair etc ? TIA  SignatureMark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. Same problem on drivers door of Jun 2001 406 Hdi Rapier Estate . Solution WD40 in doorlock. Why not do the lot when can in your hand? Happy 406`ing in 2006 to one and all. Wally. ============================================================= > My 2001 406 estate has just developed a fault with the front > passenger's door. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > TIA Mark I have had the same problem with the two rear doors on my 406. I have had to replace the locks each time as once the problem occurs there is no way of opening the door. I have broken one of the locks to pieces, electrically they contain two electric motors and a set of contacts to determine when the door is closed. The problem is a design fault (The lock is almost entirely made of plastic.) The lock wears and the fault occurs, it mainly affects the deadlock unlock operation. The lock being plastic is glued together and cannot be repaired. My solution is NOT to use the deadlock facility and use a good quality steering lock much cheaper than the £80+ for the lock + fitting. Mike > Same problem on drivers door of Jun 2001 406 Hdi Rapier Estate . > Solution WD40 in doorlock. Why not do the lot when can in your hand? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Mark > > Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. > Mark > I have had the same problem with the two rear doors on my 406. I have had to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > steering lock much cheaper than the £80+ for the lock + fitting. > Mike Thanks Mike and Wally for your responses. I took Wally's advice and squirted WD-40 in the affected lock, and that's restored things, however I take note of Mike's advice and will aim alter my locking habits accordingly. Happy New Year SignatureMark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. Glad to have been of some small assistance. Where possible, I prefer the KISS approach.( Keep It Simple Stupid). I always lock by using the key in the lock and ,unlock, by using the button on the key fob. This ensures that both methods are OK. All the best for 2006 Wally. >> Mark >> I have had the same problem with the two rear doors on my 406. I have [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Happy New Year I am bemused by this thread - my 406 (406SVA98) does not seem to have deadlocking - we have two keys - one with a button (my wife's) one without (guess who). As far as I can tell the effect of locking manually or by the button is exactly the same and has been sufficient to protect this vehicle for the 6 years we have had it. An additional level of protection - deadlocking - seems like overkill. I have another vehicle - a Ford - much more recent - and there were problems with something called the 'body control module' which gave me a very bad time (immobilising the vehicle unpredictably) until the module was replaced. Noone ever managed to diagnose the problem and the cure was, as I say, quite drastic. The KISS principle is one we should always bear in mind when considering electronic anti-theft devices. My Ford experience convinced me that the people who service these vehicles have little more understanding of these systems that the owner. >I am bemused by this thread - my 406 (406SVA98) does not seem to have >deadlocking - we have two keys - one with a button (my wife's) one >without (guess who). As far as I can tell the effect of locking >manually or by the button is exactly the same and has been sufficient >to protect this vehicle for the 6 years we have had it. Have you tried pressing the button twice when locking the car? >An additional level of protection - deadlocking - seems like overkill. It depends upon the type of area you live in. If cars are regularly broken into, at least it means that the thief has to get everything out through a window rather than being able to open the door. >I have another vehicle - a Ford - much more recent - and there were >problems with something called the 'body control module' which gave me >a very bad time (immobilising the vehicle unpredictably) until the >module was replaced. Noone ever managed to diagnose the problem and the >cure was, as I say, quite drastic. The increasing use of electronics is definitely making cars less reliable than they used to be. >The KISS principle is one we should always bear in mind when >considering electronic anti-theft devices. My Ford experience convinced >me that the people who service these vehicles have little more >understanding of these systems that the owner. That definitely appears to be the case. The "master tech" at my local Pug dealer admitted to me that he ended up getting another 807 alongside mine to do fault finding - comparing what they both did and assuming mine was the broken one (as that is a pretty good assumption on my heap of junk). Matt http://www.807faults.co.uk Nevertheless I would stick with that dealer - the 807 guinea pig was probably either his or his boss's. Your 'master tech' demonstrates how to survive in the digital age. |
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.