MGB inner track rod end joints - MOT failure.

My '73 MGB failed its MOT today.

Tester said that there is play in the inner track rod end joints. This steering rack has done less that a couple of thousand miles, the rubbers etc. are all in as new condition.

Looking in the HBOL, it seems that the inner joints are spring loaded somehow? It says to tighten them up, then measure how much force it takes to move them with a spring balance. If this is the case, then surely they will -always- have play, depending upon how hard the tester tries to tug on them?

Any advice please?

He also failed it on a piece of repair welding, says it is only tacked in place. (It's just a covering piece near the end of the sill, inside the rear wheel arch.) The car has passed six or seven MOT's with it like this. When I challenged him and said it wasn't structural, he said well why wasn't the other side like that?

Now I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. Pay another 50 quid to have it tested elewhere (he doesn't offer free re-tests), or let him do the 'repairs' when he won't charge me for a re-test.

Again, all advice welcome.

TIA

Reply to
Simon Wilson
Loading thread data ...

Play must not be regarded as excessive unless it is clear that replacement, repair or adjustment of the component is necessary. Relative movement due to excessive wear MUST be distinguished from relative movement due to built-in clearance or spring loading of a joint.excessive play at pivot points Note: Play must not be regarded as excessive unless it is clear that replacement, repair or adjustment of the component is necessary

to be honest, normaly when im testing something like this i take the age into consideration as you cannot compare it with modern steering systems.

its hard to give an opinion on the welded plate without seeing it, a picture would help, but most plates that are welded have to be a continous seam weld, unless the original was spotted welded in the first place. we have guidance notes from the ministry on what is and what isnt acceptable.

Reply to
reg

Have you got a local council MOT depot? They get consistently good reviews, and they have no vested interest in failing the car to get the work. You will have to pay but if they pass it you may have a case for claiming the cost back off the first one - sounds like there might be a bit of room for 'subjective opinion' in the test standards, though.

Reply to
PC Paul

A reconditioned unit? Not unusual - many try to get away with these being slightly worn as replacements aren't cheap. For example, Rimmer have bought up a load of new ex India parts for the SD1 Rover and are selling them at knock down prices. This includes track rod/inner ball joint assemblies and they're charging 32 quid for each one. So double that wouldn't be unreasonable. 130 quid on the price of your exchange unit? It might well be they're no longer available new too.

There should be no play in effect. Not that you can feel by hand, anyway.

It's always safest to seam weld any chassis repair. No argument then.

Depend on what he charges for the repairs - and what sort of a job he makes of them.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

The "track rod" tierod end are spring loaded so they should not have play. So the adjustment in these are by tightening the ball housing until the tie-rod is held firm and without free play. There is a housing nut and a lock nut.

pull back the cover undo the lock nut then tighten the ball housing nut so there is no free play - then its about 1 flat more should suffice. then holding the ball housing nut tighten up the lock nut. BTW the lock nut tags into a grove in the rack.

Another thing you may find is that the diamond cover (with the two 1/4" bolts) over the yoke has shims under it for adjustment which as you turn the wheel pushes the rack off the pinion. Try taking some shims out.

Reply to
sam

This differs from any inner ball joint I've seen - the housing is usually shimmed to set the initial clearance. But adjusting a used one is pointless as the wear on the joint isn't uniform so it will grab when off centre, and produce very nasty steering feel. Of course if it is unworn and the clearance was wrongly set from new it *might* adjust out. But I'd say regardless of the initial adjustment design if there's wear it won't adjust satisfactorily for the reason I've given above.

It's the same with wear on the actual rack - again this is at the maximum at the straight ahead position, and altering an initially correct one simply results in binding on lock.

Some reconditioners employ tricks to compensate for wear, but these are rarely 100% successful.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Sounds like he's trying to get some business. You're talking about the end piece of the sill that caps it off? I've never had anyone ever question things like that.

Can't remember about the MGB but I've had BMWs fail due to play in the ball joints then I have to explain that the ball joints are rubber mounted.

Reply to
adder1969

The inner ball joints on the R&P? I think not. Some BMWs have fluid filled ball joints on the suspension which are difficult to tell if the play on an MOT check is normal, though.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

No, on the control arms. The point I'm trying to make is that not every MoT garage knows the quirks of every motor car.

Reply to
adder1969

Thanks for this (and the diagram). I talked today to the guy that fitted this rack for me some time ago (he has a good reputation). He did confirm that the rack was a re-con one, but that he had never had any problems with the others. From googling it would seem that the rack is good for 00,000's of miles so I'm hoping that tightening it up will do the trick. I only do a few 000 miles in the car a year at most, so hopefully it should outlast me.

Reply to
Simon Wilson

Thanks for this (and the diagram). I talked today to the guy that fitted this rack for me some time ago (he has a good reputation). He did confirm that the rack was a re-con one, but that he had never had any problems with the others. From googling it would seem that the rack is good for 00,000's of miles so I'm hoping that tightening it up will do the trick. I only do a few 000 miles in the car a year at most, so hopefully it should outlast me.

Reply to
Simon Wilson

Standard response from any garage. But even if true, there's always a first time. How much did the rack cost?

A new one might well be - although you obviously needed a replacement. The question is was your rack reconditioned to as new spec? Looking at the price most people charge for re-cons I'd say no - it's simply not economically possible. Many of the parts - even ones which wear - will be re-used if within tolerance, or bodged in some way to take up wear. The bodge may be initially successful, but won't have anything like the life of a new item.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I don't know what the reco cost was when it was replaced, but the rods and ball joint assy in the Moss cattle dog are $75 USD each - my copy of that is about 6 years old.

My MGB is 1962 model and has 200+ miles and the original rack is still in place, just adjusted to take the slack out in the rack and pinion, ends,new bushes and boots.

Reply to
Rob

Any inner track rod ball joint I've looked at which has developed play has worn unevenly - as to be honest, you'd expect. So removing play results in binding if the joint is moved much outside the 'static' position. Same with most racks.

I'd not be surprised at a well maintained manaul rack going on for ever, though. The problems come when they loose their lubricant and or dirt gets in.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.